Do Americans have a right to privacy?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by MacTheKnife, Jun 18, 2019.

  1. MacTheKnife
    Offline

    MacTheKnife Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2018
    Messages:
    3,600
    Thanks Received:
    518
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +2,237
    The right to privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has said that several of the amendments create this right. One of the amendments is the Fourth Amendment, which stops the police and other government agents from searching us or our property without "probable cause" to believe that we have committed a crime.

    Is There A Right to Privacy?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. NewsVine_Mariyam
    Offline

    NewsVine_Mariyam Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,880
    Thanks Received:
    698
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
    Ratings:
    +2,888
    That is not what the fourth amendment says and we have statutory laws which prohibit unlawful violations of privacy that are not based on the 4th amendment.

    By the way, the Bill of Rights which are the the first ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution are a enumeration of rights that the people of the United States possess that the government is prohibited from violating.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2019
  3. MacTheKnife
    Offline

    MacTheKnife Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2018
    Messages:
    3,600
    Thanks Received:
    518
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +2,237
    The 4th amendment: 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized'


    Introduced in 1789, what became the Fourth Amendment struck at the heart of a matter central to the early American experience: the principle that, within reason, “Every man’s house is his castle,” and that any citizen may fall into the category of the criminally accused and ought to be provided protections accordingly. In U.S. constitutional law, the Fourth Amendment is the foundation of criminal law jurisprudence, articulating both the rights of persons and the responsibilities of law-enforcement officials. The balance between these two forces has undergone considerable public, political, and judicial debate. Are the amendment’s two clauses meant to be applied independently or taken as a whole? Is the expectation of privacy diminished depending on where and what is suspected, sought, and seized? What constitutes an “unreasonable” search and seizure?


    The protections contained in the amendment have been determined less on the basis of what the Constitution says than according to what it has been interpreted to mean, and, as such, its constitutional meaning has inherently been fluid. The protections granted by the U.S. Supreme Court have expanded during periods when the court was dominated by liberals (e.g., during the tenure of Chief Justice Earl Warren [1953–69]), beginning particularly with Mapp v. Ohio (1961), in which the court extended the exclusionary rule to all criminal proceedings; by contrast, during the tenure of the conservative William Rehnquist (1986–2005) as chief justice, the court contracted the rights afforded to the criminally accused, allowing law-enforcement officials latitude to search in instances when they reasonably believed that the property in question harboured presumably dangerous persons.

    Fourth Amendment | United States Constitution

    The state of privacy in America
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2019
  4. NewsVine_Mariyam
    Offline

    NewsVine_Mariyam Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,880
    Thanks Received:
    698
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
    Ratings:
    +2,888
    The prohibition is against "unreasonable search and seizure". The" probable cause" mentioned in the fourth refers to the issuance of warrants ("no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized)

    Privacy violations don't per se have anything to do with the 4th Amendment, it's a tort (a legal wrong or harm)

    Invasion of privacy
    is the intrusion upon, or revelation of, something private. One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his/her private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of privacy[ii].

    The law of privacy consists of four distinct kinds of invasion. The right of privacy is invaded when there is[iii]:
    • unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another,
    • appropriation of the other’s name or likeness,
    • unreasonable publicity given to the other’s private life, and
    • publicity which unreasonably places the other in a false light before the public.
    An invasion of the right of privacy by anyone of the above four courses of conduct may give rise to a cause of action and, on occasion, there may be an overlapping or concurrent invasion by any or all of the above means working toward the injury of the plaintiff.

    Liability for a claim of invasion of privacy by intrusion must be based upon an intentional interference with the plaintiff’s interest in solitude or seclusion, either as to his/her person or as to his/her private affairs or concerns[iv].
    What Constitutes a Violation – Privacy
     
  5. Care4all
    Offline

    Care4all Warrior Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    49,384
    Thanks Received:
    10,528
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +25,717
    good article, it's many pages, you have to keep hitting next...

    this was interesting


    Critical to the Court's decision in this case was its conclusion that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not just places; the amendment's intent was not just to protect our homes and property from government's unreasonable encroachment, but also people and the privacy that they have come to expect in certain places and situations. More precisely, the Court held that when and where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, that privacy must be respected. It cannot be violated unreasonably; authorities may encroach upon it only with a warrant or by meeting one of the exceptions that authorize a warrantless search.
     
  6. NewsVine_Mariyam
    Offline

    NewsVine_Mariyam Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,880
    Thanks Received:
    698
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
    Ratings:
    +2,888
    I wonder what exception the NSA believes give them authority for their mass warrantless surveillance of U.S. persons and their internet communications? I've read plenty of case law and the one thing that stands true is that when the government wants an exception, they find, manufacture or legislate a new one if necessary.
     
  7. NewsVine_Mariyam
    Offline

    NewsVine_Mariyam Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,880
    Thanks Received:
    698
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
    Ratings:
    +2,888
    But you're still arguing this from the standpoint of privacy violations by government actors who are not the only parties who can unlawfully intrude upon your solitutde/private life.This makes your title or the title of the article misleading in my opinion because we do have a right to privacy from both government & non-government actors.
     
  8. Jitss617
    Online

    Jitss617 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2019
    Messages:
    12,508
    Thanks Received:
    1,103
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +7,993
    Democrats don’t think republicans deserve any freedom
     
  9. MacTheKnife
    Offline

    MacTheKnife Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2018
    Messages:
    3,600
    Thanks Received:
    518
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +2,237
    The concept of privacy is undergoing a radical transformation, thanks to our continuing willingness to provide companies like Facebook and Google our data for free. If, before, we largely lived our lives in private, we now live our lives in public. In many cases, we no longer even know what is public and what is private, who has our information, and what they are doing with it. It is increasingly the case that whatever we do online is now part of the public domain – even our so-called "private" lives on Facebook are now being opened up to public scrutiny on demand by employers and others. We are told, of course, that all of this tracking and monitoring by companies like Google and Facebook is helping to “personalize” the Web, to help us "filter" the right information and data, and to make our lives easier. However, is it the case that we no longer have a presumed right to privacy?

    Brad Rosen, a professor of law and computer science at Yale, recently gave a talk at a TEDx Yaleevent in which he characterized this as a transformation from privacy as a "right" to privacy as a "norm." Or, as he put it, we've reached a new era of privacy best characterized as "it ain't cool, bro." In other words, we may intuitively know what should be private, but usually can not point to a legal precedent to support our viewpoint. When someone takes the information that should be private and opens it up to the public domain, it ain't cool, bro. Say you write a relationship status update on Facebook intended only for specific friends, and one of your friends takes that information and willfully shares it on someone else's Facebook Timeline without your knowledge. Well, that ain't cool. Employers asking for public access to your Facebook profile? That ain't cool, either. The problem is that there is not actually a law that protects that right to privacy, it is simply a "norm."

    You No Longer Have a Right to Privacy
     
  10. Care4all
    Offline

    Care4all Warrior Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    49,384
    Thanks Received:
    10,528
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +25,717
    they probably just say to themselves, no one in their right mine should think what they say/post on the internet or phone texts has any kind of reasonable expectation of privacy?? :dunno:

    the only sense of privacy we may actually have is they are collecting so much information off of every person on earth that they simply have no time to read any of it.
     

Share This Page