Do Americans have a right to privacy?

[MacTheKnife]

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?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

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.

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.

 

[MacTheKnife]

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

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

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'

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​

 

[Care4all]

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.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

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.

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.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

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

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.

 

[Jitss617]

Democrats don’t think republicans deserve any freedom

 

[MacTheKnife]

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

 

[Care4all]

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.

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.

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??

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.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

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.

Well, no.

The right to privacy enshrined in the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and 14th Amendments safeguards citizens from government seeking to take one’s life, liberty, or property absent procedural due process, and prohibits government from compelling citizens to pursue certain conduct with regard to their personal lives (substantive due process.)

As a matter of law government is at liberty to collect whatever information or evidence it so desires; it can’t use that evidence against a citizen in a criminal prosecution if it was obtained illegally, however.

Citizens who object to government collecting personal information must seek relief through the political process, not the legal.

Of course, intelligence gathering agencies such as the NSA have no interest in using the information about individuals they acquire to pursue criminal prosecution because that would jeopardize their intelligence programs.

 

[PatriotChamp]

"Sure you have a right for privacy, lemme just set this camera up real fast."
- Government

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

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.

The right to privacy as a matter of Constitutional law concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed – not between or among private persons and organizations.

Governments may address the issue of private entities violating the privacy of individuals through statutory measures, but such measures are not predicated on a ‘right’ or ‘protected liberty.’

 

[emilynghiem]

Not literally MacTheKnife
but it's generally interpreted from the principles of
"due process" and protection against "unreasonable searches."

See similar thread under Judicial Interpretation forum:

======================================================
Does a Right to Privacy Exist in the US Constitution?

1. Free exercise religion includes not being required to prove or justify your beliefs
in order to have them. So your faith in Jesus, God, LGBT, or marriage is your own business.

Govt cannot regulate that, or impose "due process" making you defend your beliefs
unless you have committed some crime or abuse/violation of civil/criminal law where Govt steps in.

Such as if you commit murder, then try to blame it on religion, the act of murder is already
against the law, and legal process is applied. You don't have a "right to private free exercise of religion"
in cases where your actions violate the law or rights of others.
This is where the Catholic church/priests did NOT have private rights to exercise their religious beliefs or policies
AFTER child abuse had been reported and/or occurred which requires govt intervention and process.

2. By the Fourth Amendment you have the right to be secure in your persons houses and effects AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES OR SEIZURES (which require a warrant).

3. By the Fifth Amendment you cannot be compelled to incriminate yourself
or be deprived of liberty without due process of law.

4. By the 10th Amendment rights and duties not delegated to Federal Govt
by the 18 Enumerated powers in the Constitution or by Constitutional Amendment
are RESERVED to people or states.

NOTE: where "right to privacy" had evolved from Roe V Wade
the real issue was Substantive Due Process that would be violated
by government trying to enforce bans on abortion and investigate.
the process of defense, such as determining and arguing if there
were "mitigating circumstances" would ALREADY impose too much
and deprive someone's rights or what was referred to as "privacy."

The issue is REALLY "due process."

Such as if gun regulations require mental health screening of
ALL citizens to be fair, but this process in itself would INTRUDE
on law abiding citizens not shown to pose threat or have committed any crime.
So this is argued as already infringing on someone's rights.

That infringement is where people are calling it "right to privacy."

In constitutional terms, it can be called
* rights reserved to people or states (which govt has no business interfering in)
* right to due process or not to be deprived of liberty or rights without due process
* right to security in our persons houses and effects from
UNREASONABLE SEARCHES or seizures

So "right to privacy" is not DIRECTLY or LITERALLY in the constitution
but the equivalent concepts can be derived from other principles therein.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Law Regarding Video Recordings
Federal and state courts have ruled that the installation of surveillance cameras is not illegal as long as the intent passes muster. For example, employers cannot install cameras in restrooms or locker rooms where people change their clothes. Some states go a step further and disallow cameras in lounge areas. Installing cameras in these areas could leave the business owner open to being sued under tort laws.

Although it may be legal to make video recording, such is not the case with sound recordings. Recording sound, or eavesdropping, is illegal in most states. In order to record sound, the party or parties being recorded, must give their consent.

Employees have the right to sue if they feel like their privacy has been wrongfully invaded in any way by surveillance cameras.

Privacy in the Workplace: Overview - FindLaw

 

[emilynghiem]

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

Dear MacTheKnife
If you compare posting things on Facebook and social media
like posting pictures and personal information publicly on the board of
a local store or mall, ANYONE can see and copy your information.

If you only store pictures on a computer at home that isn't
connected to any internet and can't get hacked remotely,
you might be able to keep that private.

This is up to you, how public or private you make it.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

As a matter of law government is at liberty to collect whatever information or evidence it so desires; it can’t use that evidence against a citizen in a criminal prosecution if it was obtained illegally, however.

What's the difference between an investigation and intelligence gathering?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Although it may be legal to make video recording, such is not the case with sound recordings. Recording sound, or eavesdropping, is illegal in most states. In order to record sound, the party or parties being recorded, must give their consent.

But recording sound does not necessarily constitute eavesdropping. Eavesdropping is listening in and/or recording a conversation in which one is not a participant however there are several exceptions to the laws that make recording a conversation of your own (in which you're a participant) a crime, if the recording device is in plain view for example.

In WA State, the determination is based upon a "reasonable" expectation of privacy and our Supreme Court, just as an example, has ruled that all interactions with law enforcement are public, therefore there is no expectation of privacy when dealing with the police. In several states, law enforcement was tyring to use the eavesdropping laws to prosecute citizens who were using their cell phones to record police interacts on the street, during traffic stops, etc. I can't recall the case and was in fact looking for it recently for a citation but if I run aross it, I'll post.

 

[Kilroy2]

I going to go with the right to privacy is not mention per say. The constitution confers certain rights in the bill of rights and the possible enumeration of additional rights. Yet we consent to be governed. Thus giving up certain right in the believe that the government is just. In that sense the state defines rights and they can infringe upon these rights if those in power want to . IE the abortion issue. The only way to correct it would be to vote them out of power and correct any perceived injustices.

The Constitution is flawed as it was done 200 years ago and they really wanted to break away from England and they wrote it down in such a way that they could do it. Its vague and people can disagree with what is meant by its grandiose meaning.

As such there is a certain right that man and woman can determine their destiny. Which would be all peachy if people could all agree on something. The problem lies when we disagree. So we have to compromise. Right to privacy sounds nice but obviously people give that privacy up in various ways. It can range from volunteering information or you commit a crime and the states invades your privacy. Bad guys will hack the shit out of your privacy. People you confined in will repeat your privacy. Police will pull you over for not wearing seat belts and if they find something else well there was just cause. etc etc etc.

So privacy is an illusion and if you trust the government to provide for your privacy then good luck with that. Privacy starts with the individual and it is their responsibility to ensure that it meets whatever requirements they deem necessary. Still if it isn't in line with others, they can infringe upon your privacy in the name of (fill in the blank)

 

[Tehon]

As a matter of law government is at liberty to collect whatever information or evidence it so desires

What law supplants my Constitutionally granted right protecting me from unreasonable searches and seizure?