What right to privacy. Episode number a Billion.

[SavannahMann]

I stumbled across this video on youtube.

Now, what happened in short. The maker of the video makes a lot of videos on Diesel Truck engines and power and all that sort of thing. Well he saw an add for a cheap silencer you could order online. He looked at a couple videos, and checked out a couple webpages, and decided it was a scam. Junk. And it is actually illegal. So he forgot about it. These silencers are based on a oil filter pipe. So long story short, he knew it was bullshit when he ordered fuel and oil filters for his two Diesel powered trucks. Imagine his surprise when there is a County Sheriff and a Special Agent from the Department of Homeland Security who show up on his door wanting to know why he is buying illegal silencers over the internet.

He bought filters. The Agent shows him the order, the agent had a copy of the order. And shows him the large number of filters he had ordered. The man walks them to his shop and shows his two diesel powered trucks and his workshop. They depart, possibly satisfied, probably to up his watchlist position.

So how could this happen? Well those computes that are supposedly needed and used only with a warrant, you know those computer records that the NSA and Homeland Security swear are never abused? That's right, those computer records that are never examined without a warrant from a court. Well that computer apparently tracked him through the videos and webpages about these bullshit silencers. Then it watched his orders, and when he ordered filters, flagged his file to a human. One and One makes two.

Now, what reason for a warrant could they have for a guy living in rural Michigan? They didn't. What this guy is learning is that ex military are on a watch list all their own. We are watched because the Government knows what we have been trained to do. They trained us. And you don't turn a weapon loose without some sort of safeguard that it won't be turned against you.

To this fellow I say welcome to the world we have known about for some time. For the rest of you who think that all this crap, the Homeland Security nonsense is to protect us from Terrorists, wake up.

 

[Marion Morrison]

That's pretty crazy. Is DHS really necessary? I mean seriously..all the other alphabet agencies failed to protect us from 9/11, so another one is really really going to work this time by spying on all the citizens?

The perpetrators of 9/11 were not citizens.

 

[Oddball]

 

[SavannahMann]

That's pretty crazy. Is DHS really necessary? I mean seriously..all the other alphabet agencies failed to protect us from 9/11, so another one is really really going to work this time by spying on all the citizens?

The perpetrators of 9/11 were not citizens.

The theory behind DHS was sort of like the CIA. A place where the overview of all information could be managed.

Some off topic history. The State Department would give FDR a political view. The Navy would give the Naval View. The Army of course focused on enemy or potential enemy Armies. FDR wanted a complete picture. So Donovan was charged with the COI which became the OSS.

The idea behind the DHS was that Customs would have some info. The FBI would have some. Perhaps DEA and ATF would have some. And the CIA and NSA would have some. The DHS could pull the information from these various sources into a more complete picture.

In reality the DHS became a competing agency. Battling for funds and credit. The FBI will share. Reluctantly. The rest of the alphabet soup agencies would share. Reluctantly. DHS doesn’t really share with them.

Think about it. If it was a weapons violation the ATF should have been in. Instead DHS’s own went. DHS developed the information and set out to investigate on their own. Fuck the ATF. They didn’t have this info.

The only credit I can give the cops on this is they did not raid at Three in the morning with a SWAT team guns blazing.

 

[evenflow1969]

That's pretty crazy. Is DHS really necessary? I mean seriously..all the other alphabet agencies failed to protect us from 9/11, so another one is really really going to work this time by spying on all the citizens?

The perpetrators of 9/11 were not citizens.

just another way to spend our tax money on bullshit and make this country harder to live in.

 

[harmonica]

you are out of your cotton pickin' mind
...

 

[SavannahMann]

you are out of your cotton pickin' mind
...

Ok. Why do you say that?

 

[harmonica]

you are out of your cotton pickin' mind
...

Ok. Why do you say that?

1. your post doesn't make sense
2. humans and computers make mistakes
3. from this '''incident'' you get the HS is not doing it's job???!!

 

[SavannahMann]

you are out of your cotton pickin' mind
...

Ok. Why do you say that?

1. your post doesn't make sense
2. humans and computers make mistakes
3. from this '''incident'' you get the HS is not doing it's job???!!

The computer flagged him for a) Watching videos. It isn't supposed to be watching what videos he is watching. Or b) Reading webpages. It isn't supposed to be watching what web pages he is reading. Then it scanned his purchase history. That is banking records, and the sales receipt from the seller. It isn't supposed to be doing that either. So it has done two things, it isn't supposed to be doing. Then a Homeland Security Agent was dispatched with the local cops to "investigate". Based upon what? Two pieces of information they were not supposed to have in the first place.

Now, the division of responsibilities has put the investigation of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives in the hands of the appropriately named ATF. They are after all the experts in that particular field. The ATF was not dispatched. The DHS was. So why would that be the case? DHS not have any Terrorists to hunt down?

They are doing what they are not supposed to be doing, and that should give you pause as well. Because if Biden wins in November, that intrusive Government will be doing it to you. I on the other hand, don't want them doing it to anyone.

 

[harmonica]

you are out of your cotton pickin' mind
...

Ok. Why do you say that?

1. your post doesn't make sense
2. humans and computers make mistakes
3. from this '''incident'' you get the HS is not doing it's job???!!

The computer flagged him for a) Watching videos. It isn't supposed to be watching what videos he is watching. Or b) Reading webpages. It isn't supposed to be watching what web pages he is reading. Then it scanned his purchase history. That is banking records, and the sales receipt from the seller. It isn't supposed to be doing that either. So it has done two things, it isn't supposed to be doing. Then a Homeland Security Agent was dispatched with the local cops to "investigate". Based upon what? Two pieces of information they were not supposed to have in the first place.

Now, the division of responsibilities has put the investigation of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives in the hands of the appropriately named ATF. They are after all the experts in that particular field. The ATF was not dispatched. The DHS was. So why would that be the case? DHS not have any Terrorists to hunt down?

They are doing what they are not supposed to be doing, and that should give you pause as well. Because if Biden wins in November, that intrusive Government will be doing it to you. I on the other hand, don't want them doing it to anyone.

..isn't HS supposed to be watching out for terrorists/etc --AND what videos they are watching??

 

[SavannahMann]

you are out of your cotton pickin' mind
...

Ok. Why do you say that?

1. your post doesn't make sense
2. humans and computers make mistakes
3. from this '''incident'' you get the HS is not doing it's job???!!

The computer flagged him for a) Watching videos. It isn't supposed to be watching what videos he is watching. Or b) Reading webpages. It isn't supposed to be watching what web pages he is reading. Then it scanned his purchase history. That is banking records, and the sales receipt from the seller. It isn't supposed to be doing that either. So it has done two things, it isn't supposed to be doing. Then a Homeland Security Agent was dispatched with the local cops to "investigate". Based upon what? Two pieces of information they were not supposed to have in the first place.

Now, the division of responsibilities has put the investigation of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives in the hands of the appropriately named ATF. They are after all the experts in that particular field. The ATF was not dispatched. The DHS was. So why would that be the case? DHS not have any Terrorists to hunt down?

They are doing what they are not supposed to be doing, and that should give you pause as well. Because if Biden wins in November, that intrusive Government will be doing it to you. I on the other hand, don't want them doing it to anyone.

..isn't HS supposed to be watching out for terrorists/etc --AND what videos they are watching??

I actually like this. It is great. Because you don’t like me you are willing to throw one of the patriotic Americans to the wolves. And all of the other patriotic Americans.

So to oppose me you will side with the Statists also know as the Socialists. Awesome. Hey if I come out opposed to BLM will you take their side too?

 

[harmonica]

you are out of your cotton pickin' mind
...

Ok. Why do you say that?

1. your post doesn't make sense
2. humans and computers make mistakes
3. from this '''incident'' you get the HS is not doing it's job???!!

The computer flagged him for a) Watching videos. It isn't supposed to be watching what videos he is watching. Or b) Reading webpages. It isn't supposed to be watching what web pages he is reading. Then it scanned his purchase history. That is banking records, and the sales receipt from the seller. It isn't supposed to be doing that either. So it has done two things, it isn't supposed to be doing. Then a Homeland Security Agent was dispatched with the local cops to "investigate". Based upon what? Two pieces of information they were not supposed to have in the first place.

Now, the division of responsibilities has put the investigation of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives in the hands of the appropriately named ATF. They are after all the experts in that particular field. The ATF was not dispatched. The DHS was. So why would that be the case? DHS not have any Terrorists to hunt down?

They are doing what they are not supposed to be doing, and that should give you pause as well. Because if Biden wins in November, that intrusive Government will be doing it to you. I on the other hand, don't want them doing it to anyone.

..isn't HS supposed to be watching out for terrorists/etc --AND what videos they are watching??

I actually like this. It is great. Because you don’t like me you are willing to throw one of the patriotic Americans to the wolves. And all of the other patriotic Americans.

So to oppose me you will side with the Statists also know as the Socialists. Awesome. Hey if I come out opposed to BLM will you take their side too?

WTF!!!!!???? I'm throwing him to the wolves??????? !!! because I don't like you!!!!???
wwoooooooooohoooooooooooo
.....I want the HS to be on the lookout for jackasses......he was looking for silencers or not????

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I stumbled across this video on youtube.

Now, what happened in short. The maker of the video makes a lot of videos on Diesel Truck engines and power and all that sort of thing. Well he saw an add for a cheap silencer you could order online. He looked at a couple videos, and checked out a couple webpages, and decided it was a scam. Junk. And it is actually illegal. So he forgot about it. These silencers are based on a oil filter pipe. So long story short, he knew it was bullshit when he ordered fuel and oil filters for his two Diesel powered trucks. Imagine his surprise when there is a County Sheriff and a Special Agent from the Department of Homeland Security who show up on his door wanting to know why he is buying illegal silencers over the internet.

He bought filters. The Agent shows him the order, the agent had a copy of the order. And shows him the large number of filters he had ordered. The man walks them to his shop and shows his two diesel powered trucks and his workshop. They depart, possibly satisfied, probably to up his watchlist position.

So how could this happen? Well those computes that are supposedly needed and used only with a warrant, you know those computer records that the NSA and Homeland Security swear are never abused? That's right, those computer records that are never examined without a warrant from a court. Well that computer apparently tracked him through the videos and webpages about these bullshit silencers. Then it watched his orders, and when he ordered filters, flagged his file to a human. One and One makes two.

Now, what reason for a warrant could they have for a guy living in rural Michigan? They didn't. What this guy is learning is that ex military are on a watch list all their own. We are watched because the Government knows what we have been trained to do. They trained us. And you don't turn a weapon loose without some sort of safeguard that it won't be turned against you.

To this fellow I say welcome to the world we have known about for some time. For the rest of you who think that all this crap, the Homeland Security nonsense is to protect us from Terrorists, wake up.

The right to privacy enshrined in the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and 14th Amendments concerns solely the government seeking to take one’s liberty, property, or life through criminal or civil action.

Before government may take one’s property or liberty, a citizen must be afforded full and comprehensive due process where evidence in support of criminal or civil action must be obtained lawfully and in accordance with the Constitution.

If the government doesn’t initiate that process – starting usually with arrest or indictment – then the doctrine of the right to privacy doesn’t apply.

In the context of the law, therefore, the right to privacy doesn’t prohibit government from investigating, questioning, or surveilling citizens’ actions or activities – it only prohibits government from acting in an official, prosecutorial capacity absent lawfully obtained evidence.

In the context of public policy, conversely, citizens are at liberty to oppose government investigating, questioning, or surveilling citizens’ actions or activities, and to seek relief through the political – not legal – process by working to remove from office elected officials who have authorized government surveillance, having nothing whatsoever to do with the right to privacy as a matter of the law.

Consequently, because the individual in the OP video hasn’t been subject to arrest and prosecution with evidence unlawfully obtained by the government, no privacy rights have been violated.

And if the individual in the OP video had been subject to arrest and prosecution with computer evidence obtained without a warrant, then a judge would exclude that evidence and the arrest and prosecution rendered unlawful and invalid.

Indeed, the government wouldn’t have bothered to arrest and prosecute with illegally obtained evidence to begin with.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That's pretty crazy. Is DHS really necessary? I mean seriously..all the other alphabet agencies failed to protect us from 9/11, so another one is really really going to work this time by spying on all the citizens?

The perpetrators of 9/11 were not citizens.

The theory behind DHS was sort of like the CIA. A place where the overview of all information could be managed.

Some off topic history. The State Department would give FDR a political view. The Navy would give the Naval View. The Army of course focused on enemy or potential enemy Armies. FDR wanted a complete picture. So Donovan was charged with the COI which became the OSS.

The idea behind the DHS was that Customs would have some info. The FBI would have some. Perhaps DEA and ATF would have some. And the CIA and NSA would have some. The DHS could pull the information from these various sources into a more complete picture.

In reality the DHS became a competing agency. Battling for funds and credit. The FBI will share. Reluctantly. The rest of the alphabet soup agencies would share. Reluctantly. DHS doesn’t really share with them.

Think about it. If it was a weapons violation the ATF should have been in. Instead DHS’s own went. DHS developed the information and set out to investigate on their own. Fuck the ATF. They didn’t have this info.

The only credit I can give the cops on this is they did not raid at Three in the morning with a SWAT team guns blazing.

And the remedy to this is to compel elected officials to rein-in the investigation activities of such Federal agencies – or eliminate them altogether.

But no civil liberties or Constitutional rights have been violated by those investigations until a court rules otherwise.

 

[SavannahMann]

I stumbled across this video on youtube.

Now, what happened in short. The maker of the video makes a lot of videos on Diesel Truck engines and power and all that sort of thing. Well he saw an add for a cheap silencer you could order online. He looked at a couple videos, and checked out a couple webpages, and decided it was a scam. Junk. And it is actually illegal. So he forgot about it. These silencers are based on a oil filter pipe. So long story short, he knew it was bullshit when he ordered fuel and oil filters for his two Diesel powered trucks. Imagine his surprise when there is a County Sheriff and a Special Agent from the Department of Homeland Security who show up on his door wanting to know why he is buying illegal silencers over the internet.

He bought filters. The Agent shows him the order, the agent had a copy of the order. And shows him the large number of filters he had ordered. The man walks them to his shop and shows his two diesel powered trucks and his workshop. They depart, possibly satisfied, probably to up his watchlist position.

So how could this happen? Well those computes that are supposedly needed and used only with a warrant, you know those computer records that the NSA and Homeland Security swear are never abused? That's right, those computer records that are never examined without a warrant from a court. Well that computer apparently tracked him through the videos and webpages about these bullshit silencers. Then it watched his orders, and when he ordered filters, flagged his file to a human. One and One makes two.

Now, what reason for a warrant could they have for a guy living in rural Michigan? They didn't. What this guy is learning is that ex military are on a watch list all their own. We are watched because the Government knows what we have been trained to do. They trained us. And you don't turn a weapon loose without some sort of safeguard that it won't be turned against you.

To this fellow I say welcome to the world we have known about for some time. For the rest of you who think that all this crap, the Homeland Security nonsense is to protect us from Terrorists, wake up.

The right to privacy enshrined in the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and 14th Amendments concerns solely the government seeking to take one’s liberty, property, or life through criminal or civil action.

Before government may take one’s property or liberty, a citizen must be afforded full and comprehensive due process where evidence in support of criminal or civil action must be obtained lawfully and in accordance with the Constitution.

If the government doesn’t initiate that process – starting usually with arrest or indictment – then the doctrine of the right to privacy doesn’t apply.

In the context of the law, therefore, the right to privacy doesn’t prohibit government from investigating, questioning, or surveilling citizens’ actions or activities – it only prohibits government from acting in an official, prosecutorial capacity absent lawfully obtained evidence.

In the context of public policy, conversely, citizens are at liberty to oppose government investigating, questioning, or surveilling citizens’ actions or activities, and to seek relief through the political – not legal – process by working to remove from office elected officials who have authorized government surveillance, having nothing whatsoever to do with the right to privacy as a matter of the law.

Consequently, because the individual in the OP video hasn’t been subject to arrest and prosecution with evidence unlawfully obtained by the government, no privacy rights have been violated.

And if the individual in the OP video had been subject to arrest and prosecution with computer evidence obtained without a warrant, then a judge would exclude that evidence and the arrest and prosecution rendered unlawful and invalid.

Indeed, the government wouldn’t have bothered to arrest and prosecute with illegally obtained evidence to begin with.

Well they do all the time. But let's discuss the Constitution.

The Fourth Amendment. Let's start there. 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.

It does not say. "The Courts shall rule as invalid evidence collected." It does not say. "The Courts upon review shall determine what the reasonable expectation of privacy shall be given a case with the benefit of the doubt given to the Government."

It says Thou Shall Not. The Religious backgrounds of the Founders is obvious. All the Amendments are written like the Ten Commandments. Thou Shall Not. Thou Shall not look inside the persons house. Thou Shall not read his papers. Thou Shall not deprive him of Liberty, or Property except in Due Process of Law. Thou Shall Not!

The First Amendment is not written as a legal document. A Legal Document of the era just as today defined every term used. It gave specifics. Look at the Contracts to build Naval vessels of the era. Descriptions of the type of wood, the length, weight, armament. Everything was spelled out.

The First Amendment does not say. "The Supreme Court, or other subsidiary courts, shall rule as invalid, any law passed by Congress, and either signed by the President, or overriding his veto by a 2/3rd Majority, any law which abridges freedom of speech. This freedom of speech shall not extend to things obscene or call upon others to commit criminal actions. It shall not endanger the public."

The First Amendment would go on for a hundred pages as it described what would not be considered Freedom of Speech, Assembly, Religion, Press, and what format your letters had to be in to redress Government. It says Congress shall pass no law.

It is the Ten Commandments for our Nation. Thou Shall Not.

The Fourth Amendment violation does not happen when the Government tries to use the evidence against you in court. It happens when they look. The Fifth Amendment violation does not happen when they present a coerced confession to the court. It happens when they coerce the confession.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I stumbled across this video on youtube.

Now, what happened in short. The maker of the video makes a lot of videos on Diesel Truck engines and power and all that sort of thing. Well he saw an add for a cheap silencer you could order online. He looked at a couple videos, and checked out a couple webpages, and decided it was a scam. Junk. And it is actually illegal. So he forgot about it. These silencers are based on a oil filter pipe. So long story short, he knew it was bullshit when he ordered fuel and oil filters for his two Diesel powered trucks. Imagine his surprise when there is a County Sheriff and a Special Agent from the Department of Homeland Security who show up on his door wanting to know why he is buying illegal silencers over the internet.

He bought filters. The Agent shows him the order, the agent had a copy of the order. And shows him the large number of filters he had ordered. The man walks them to his shop and shows his two diesel powered trucks and his workshop. They depart, possibly satisfied, probably to up his watchlist position.

So how could this happen? Well those computes that are supposedly needed and used only with a warrant, you know those computer records that the NSA and Homeland Security swear are never abused? That's right, those computer records that are never examined without a warrant from a court. Well that computer apparently tracked him through the videos and webpages about these bullshit silencers. Then it watched his orders, and when he ordered filters, flagged his file to a human. One and One makes two.

Now, what reason for a warrant could they have for a guy living in rural Michigan? They didn't. What this guy is learning is that ex military are on a watch list all their own. We are watched because the Government knows what we have been trained to do. They trained us. And you don't turn a weapon loose without some sort of safeguard that it won't be turned against you.

To this fellow I say welcome to the world we have known about for some time. For the rest of you who think that all this crap, the Homeland Security nonsense is to protect us from Terrorists, wake up.

The right to privacy enshrined in the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and 14th Amendments concerns solely the government seeking to take one’s liberty, property, or life through criminal or civil action.

Before government may take one’s property or liberty, a citizen must be afforded full and comprehensive due process where evidence in support of criminal or civil action must be obtained lawfully and in accordance with the Constitution.

If the government doesn’t initiate that process – starting usually with arrest or indictment – then the doctrine of the right to privacy doesn’t apply.

In the context of the law, therefore, the right to privacy doesn’t prohibit government from investigating, questioning, or surveilling citizens’ actions or activities – it only prohibits government from acting in an official, prosecutorial capacity absent lawfully obtained evidence.

In the context of public policy, conversely, citizens are at liberty to oppose government investigating, questioning, or surveilling citizens’ actions or activities, and to seek relief through the political – not legal – process by working to remove from office elected officials who have authorized government surveillance, having nothing whatsoever to do with the right to privacy as a matter of the law.

Consequently, because the individual in the OP video hasn’t been subject to arrest and prosecution with evidence unlawfully obtained by the government, no privacy rights have been violated.

And if the individual in the OP video had been subject to arrest and prosecution with computer evidence obtained without a warrant, then a judge would exclude that evidence and the arrest and prosecution rendered unlawful and invalid.

Indeed, the government wouldn’t have bothered to arrest and prosecute with illegally obtained evidence to begin with.

Well they do all the time. But let's discuss the Constitution.

The Fourth Amendment. Let's start there. 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.

It does not say. "The Courts shall rule as invalid evidence collected." It does not say. "The Courts upon review shall determine what the reasonable expectation of privacy shall be given a case with the benefit of the doubt given to the Government."

It says Thou Shall Not. The Religious backgrounds of the Founders is obvious. All the Amendments are written like the Ten Commandments. Thou Shall Not. Thou Shall not look inside the persons house. Thou Shall not read his papers. Thou Shall not deprive him of Liberty, or Property except in Due Process of Law. Thou Shall Not!

The First Amendment is not written as a legal document. A Legal Document of the era just as today defined every term used. It gave specifics. Look at the Contracts to build Naval vessels of the era. Descriptions of the type of wood, the length, weight, armament. Everything was spelled out.

The First Amendment does not say. "The Supreme Court, or other subsidiary courts, shall rule as invalid, any law passed by Congress, and either signed by the President, or overriding his veto by a 2/3rd Majority, any law which abridges freedom of speech. This freedom of speech shall not extend to things obscene or call upon others to commit criminal actions. It shall not endanger the public."

The First Amendment would go on for a hundred pages as it described what would not be considered Freedom of Speech, Assembly, Religion, Press, and what format your letters had to be in to redress Government. It says Congress shall pass no law.

It is the Ten Commandments for our Nation. Thou Shall Not.

The Fourth Amendment violation does not happen when the Government tries to use the evidence against you in court. It happens when they look. The Fifth Amendment violation does not happen when they present a coerced confession to the court. It happens when they coerce the confession.

Actually, this is not correct.

All government actions are presumed to be Constitutional in deference to the will of the people, as government reflects the will of the people and the people’s will is paramount.

It’s known as the doctrine of presumed Constitutionality (see, e.g., US v. Morrison (2000).

When citizens believe government has acted beyond the scope of its Constitutional authority, the people are at liberty to seek relief in the courts.

All government actions are presumed to be Constitutional until the courts rule otherwise – ultimately the Supreme Court.

Now, that doesn’t mean the people are helpless to oppose lawful government activity – when government acts in accordance with the Constitution, or is not otherwise in violation of the Constitution, but contrary to the will of the people, the people may seek relief through the political process, such as petitioning government to amend or repeal offensive laws, or compel elected officials to stop unwanted government activity, or vote out of office elected officials who fail to accommodate the will of the people.

It’s important to understand the difference between the judicial process and the political process – where the former concerns the law, the Constitution, and in this case the right to privacy, and the latter does not; the political process is the sole purview of the people, independent of the courts.

In Constitutional law this is known as the political question doctrine, prohibiting the courts from interfering in questions, issues, and conflicts that the people alone must address.

An example of the political question doctrine can be found in Clapper v. Amnesty International (2013).

In Clapper the Supreme Court held that although AI believed that the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 had the potential of violating citizens’ rights, that belief alone was not sufficient to render the Act un-Constitutional.

Speculation as to what might occur – and may never occur – is not grounds to prohibit government surveillance no matter how onerous that surveillance might be.

As a fact of law, government surveillance pursuant to the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 does not violate the right to privacy.

If the people oppose the intent of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, then they need to work through the political process to have the Act repealed because this is a political – not legal – issue.

And this brings us back to the thread premise and the individual in the OP subject to alleged surveillance and questioning by authorities – that he might think, feel, or believe that his right to privacy was violated does not make it so, as government has taken no action to deprive this individual of his liberty or property; this is solely a political matter, not a matter of law, the Constitution, or the right to privacy.