Does the Constitution guarantee Americans a right to privacy?

[Big Bend Texas]

When you say something, presumably you mean contraception devices and chemicals?

Various forms of contraception have been around for thousands of years.

The first prophylactics were made of sheep, goats and pig intestines.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

presumably you mean contraception devices and chemicals

Yes, I mean modern contraceptives or more specifically oral contraceptives which were approved by the FDA in the early 1960s. I'm not sure what "chemicals" refers to.

 

[scruffy]

I just got told by a Republican running for Governor of Nevada that we do not....Tom Heck.

There is no explicit right to privacy.

BECAUSE, that word privacy, has multiple meanings, and all of them are vague.

The law does not like vague definitions. That's why it gives us more explicit ones.

My first answer to your question, would be a question - "what do you mean by privacy?"

Because for instance, the law says it's illegal to wiretap a telephone land line (presumably for reasons of privacy), but it's perfectly okay for anyone to use a sniffer to read the airwaves and decode your cell phone communications.

Land lines are private, but cell phones are not. Why is that?

Anyway, I'm guessing you're asking because of abortion, and in that particular interpretation of privacy, I'm on your side. You own your body. (That's my libertarian side speaking - privacy based in property rights).

 

[Leo123]

No, not really. That has never been the case in the US.

In both cases the pregnant mother has been denied her rights of consent.

Bullshit, if one does not exercise one's right they have no right. A pregnant mother already consented, unless she was raped which is a heinous crime.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

When you say something, presumably you mean contraception devices and chemicals?

I haven't previously read anything about Roe v Wade and I just read the Griswald ruling.

I was very surprised to see that it's based on the right to marital privacy but it does explain a lot that the state of Connecticut was wanting to punish people for using or encouraging others to use birth control.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Bullshit, if one does not exercise one's right they have no right. A pregnant mother already consented, unless she was raped which is a heinous crime.

In cases of rape and incest her ability to consent has been taken from her.

What part of that is so hard to understand?

In both cases the pregnant mother has been denied her rights of consent.

Ring any bells?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

There is no explicit right to privacy.

BECAUSE, that word privacy, has multiple meanings, and all of them are vague.

The law does not like vague definitions. That's why it gives us more explicit ones.

My first answer to your question, would be a question - "what do you mean by privacy?"

Because for instance, the law says it's illegal to wiretap a telephone land line (presumably for reasons of privacy), but it's perfectly okay for anyone to use a sniffer to read the airwaves and decode your cell phone communications.

Land lines are private, but cell phones are not. Why is that?

Anyway, I'm guessing you're asking because of abortion, and in that particular interpretation of privacy, I'm on your side. You own your body. (That's my libertarian side speaking - privacy based in property rights).

Well sure an explicit reference would have been ideal but I think implicit can work as well.

What do you think the 4th amendment is about?

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Well sure an explicit reference would have been ideal but I think implicit can work as well.

What do you think the 4th amendment is about?

The 4th is very specific, if they wanted to protect an overarching blanket right to privacy they would have specified it.

You can infer lots of things, just about anything in fact, that doesn't make the inference valid.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Land lines are private, but cell phones are not. Why is that?

Knowing that anything sent via radio waves can be intercepted by others means by definition we have a lower expectation or privacy than we do with a landline.

 

[Leo123]

In cases of rape and incest her ability to consent has been taken from her.

What part of that is so hard to understand?



Ring any bells?

I never said I misunderstood. I said rape is a heinous crime. Do your have comprehension problems?

 

[Ringtone]

Yes, I mean modern contraceptives or more specifically oral contraceptives which were approved by the FDA in the early 1960s. I'm not sure what "chemicals" refers to.

The pill is an example of chemical contraception. But nonchemical devices include condoms and diaphragms.

Connecticut made a law prohibiting access to contraceptives. The Court declared in Griswald v. Connecticut that the right of privacy in the penumbra of the pertinent Amendments entailed bodily autonomy and, therefore, access to contraceptives. Roe v. Wade extended the right of privacy in the vein of bodily autonomy to include access to abortion. The case you raised pertains to the right of privacy in the acquisition of material wealth/property.

 

[scruffy]

Knowing that anything sent via radio waves can be intercepted by others means by definition we have a lower expectation or privacy than we do with a landline.

Bingo.

"Expectation" of privacy.

You have exactly nailed the issue

The law is about that too. It's a lot about expectation. And in the case of cell phones, as you say, the law is basically telling us, "silly boy, you can't expect privacy when you're broadcasting into the open airwaves".

However - that is a LEGAL viewpoint, and from my standpoint as a citizen, I want my communications to be private "regardless" of the particular medium in use.

And, because the law won't help me in this regard, I have to help myself. So, I look at things like encryption - VPN's, all of the above.

And, my cell phone provider doesn't make it easy. They WANT to snoop on my communications, because they sell my information for advertising and God knows what else. So they don't like external encryption apps - and because people actually use them, the providers have gone so far as provisioning your phone in real time.

And the law says all this is perfectly okay.

I suspect it's because the gubmint wants to snoop on my communications too.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

However - that is a LEGAL viewpoint, and from my standpoint as a citizen, I want my communications to be private "regardless" of the particular medium in use.

That would take an encrypted cell phone and the parties you call having them as well.

They can however still trace the calls your phone makes through the servers and towers. They won't know the content without sending it to Langley but they will know your call history.

Of course we also now have communications companies that will turn over your phone records even without a warrant.

 

[scruffy]

That would take an encrypted cell phone and the parties you call having them as well.

They can however still trace the calls your phone makes through the servers and towers. They won't know the content without sending it to Langley but they will know your call history.

Of course we also now have communications companies that will turn over your phone records even without a warrant.

Well, without going into detail, GPS location is also easily defeated. It's harder than buying an app though, you have to know a little about phones.

It's important to stay two steps ahead of these clowns. They think they have control, but they don't. (Well, they could turn the power off I suppose ... no towers means no phones, and very few people have radios anymore).

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Well, without going into detail, GPS location is also easily defeated. It's harder than buying an app though, you have to know a little about phones.

It's important to stay two steps ahead of these clowns. They think they have control, but they don't. (Well, they could turn the power off I suppose ... no towers means no phones, and very few people have radios anymore).

You can't erase the data showing what towers you were connected to though.

 

[scruffy]

You can't erase the data showing what towers you were connected to though.

But your phone can be in a different place than you are.

 

[sparky]

All governments subscribe to modern surveillance , aerial & facial recognition.

AI algorithms for anything on the internet

the only dif betwixt the USA and China being we have corporatism do the dirty work for us here

~S~

 

[sparky]

But your phone can be in a different place than you are.

Not when i drive my work truck Scruff

My commercial insurance carrier demands it sync with their GPS on board

They track my route daily, even know when i break the speed limits

~S~

 

[Big Bend Texas]

But your phone can be in a different place than you are.

Not at the same time you're making a call or texting from it, not without some pretty heavy tech.

 

[sparky]

Gawd help us if>>>>

https://www.cdc.gov/surveillance/pdfs/Surveillance-Series-Bookleth.pdf

~S~