So about that "right to privacy" thing

[Cyrano]

There's virtually no place you can go in an urban or suburban location where you're not on camera, or can't be located by a GPS device.

Traffic cameras, ATM cameras, parking lot cameras, store cameras, anybody with a cell phone that takes pictures, -- well, you get the idea.

I'm well aware that the purpose of most of these cameras is to help catch criminals -- or, at a minimum, those who run red lights.

But at what point does all of this photographing of us become intrusive and an invasion of our privacy? (And you can add our cell phone and car GPS systems into the mix.) The reason given for all of them is to "ensure our personal safety."

This is something that I've given a lot of thought to lately, but I haven't come up with an answer. After all, our privacy is one of our rights as Americans. If government agencies can know where we are every single moment of the day or night, is that an invasion of privacy? Are we sacrificing our right to be anonymous for our so-called personal security?

I worry a lot about it, but I really don't know. What do you think?

[Warpy]

1. When you're out in public, it's a given that you will be looked at

and that some people might even remember you, especially if you're scratching your ass or picking your nose. The camera just has a better memory.

Invasion of privacy occurs if we are watched in our homes, if our communication is subject to spying without a warrant, or if our personal behavior including medical decisions is up for government review.

I honestly don't mind them out in public. It's better than relying on eyewitnesses with faulty memories should crime occur. I do find myself waiting to scratch my ass or pick my nose until I'm safely back in my car, though.

[Cyrano]

4. In-car cameras are coming. Be afraid. Be very afraid before you scratch your ass.

[Control-Z]

7. I can safely assume

your windows are tinted?

Driving down the road, I've witnessed more nose picking than when my kids were toddlers. :rofl:

[Warpy]

17. I tend to duck down and do the deed

before I turn the key in the ignition.

[Cyrano]

19. I always try to pretend I'm sneezing while I'm actually picking my nose.

But there's another issue here. Exactly who is it that declared picking your nose to be a disgusting, anti-social act?

I really have no idea, but if I were forced to guess, my pick (no pun intended) would be Caligula. He seems to me like the kind of guy who would have no problem watching people being fed to lions, but was really psychotic about nose pickers.

[Control-Z]

2. I can't add anything

to your OP. I feel the same. I don't know that there is a way to put the bullet back in the gun at this point. New technology arrives each day, and, I believe, has superseded the consideration of ethics.

[TheWraith]

3. About GPS systems... how do you imagine that works?

Putting aside the more complicated question of cell phones, do you imagine there's a transmitter in your car's GPS device that automatically tells the government where you are?

[Cyrano]

6. Yes. Many newer cars have GPS systems installed in them.

And their are people who buy them for that very reason.

The supposed purpose regards stolen cars, carjackings, people who are lost in the middle of nowhere, and a variety of other rationales.

[TheWraith]

20. GPS systems don't have a transmission capability.

Only a handful of specifically designed systems like OnStar have ANY ability to do anything remotely. Regular GPS systems don't.

[ferrous wheel]

8. jeez, don't give 'em ideas.

;-)
:silly:

[baldguy]

5. Having a GPS on the car is a good idea.

I'd just like to be able to turn it off when I want to.

[Romulox]

9. Though the phrase is batted around a lot, there is no general "right to privacy"

The phrase "right to privacy" is frequently invoked in relation to the abortion debate--but it's clear that the "right to privacy" posited by abortion advocates ("the right of a woman to do with her body what she chooses") does not extend any further than abortion. For example, there is no right to ingest marijuana, despite the fact that doing so would seem to fall under the rubric of "doing with ones body what one chooses."

In other words, there is a right to an abortion that has been identified by the SCOTUS--but this is not a generalized "right of privacy". The same sort of analysis applies in the contraception cases.

[Cyrano]

14. Tell that to most Americans

The wingnut SCOTUS that has existed for many years (and appointed George W. as president) doesn't like that privacy thing and can't seem to find it anywhere in the constitution.

But my belief is that the majority of people in this country really believe that they are entitled to their own personal privacy whether or not the SCOTUS sanctions it.

The "right to privacy" is not explicitly stated in the constitution. But it is most certainly implied by those who choose to see it.

The antediluvian justices who currently comprise a majority of the SCOTUS may someday be looked back upon as rouges, and perhaps even criminals.

No right to privacy??? How about their right to appoint W. president in 2000? I can't seem to find that anywhere in the constitution.

[Romulox]

15. No Court has found a generalized "Right to Privacy" in the Constitution

Almost all the cases invoking the phrase center on sexuality.

"The "right to privacy" is not explicitly stated in the constitution. But it is most certainly implied by those who choose to see it."

Cite? How do you square the "right to privacy" with the War on Drugs, for example? (By the way, please don't shoot the messenger.)

[Uncle Joe]

22. The War on Drugs is unConstitutional

whether the Supreme Court currently wishes to view it that way or not.

The "War on Drugs" directly violate Article IV, Article V, Article VIII and Article X of the Bill of Rights.

The right to privacy is stated and or implied by Article III, Article IV, Article V and Article IX.

[Romulox]

36. The Constitution means whatever the Court says it means

It's always been that way.

"The "War on Drugs" directly violate Article IV, Article V, Article VIII and Article X of the Bill of Rights."

If I sat on the court, I would tend to agree. However, a violation of the Constitution occurs when 5 members of the Court say it does, and not before.

[hootinholler]

23. The 5th clearly established an implied right to privacy. n/t

[Romulox]

35. Court decisions have not supported this interpretation. nt

[Winterblues]

16. Actually in Alaska the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that a person's right to privacy

overruled the Government's right in the case of marijuana and that the State government could not aquire a search warrant for the purpose of marijuana. They ruled that the dangers of marijuana did not warrant government intrusion. The Feds still prosecute marijuana in the state though.

[Romulox]

21. The rulings of the Alaskan Supreme Court are not controlling

as to the SCOTUS' interpretation of the US Constitution.

[Winterblues]

28. No they ruled on the Alaska Constitution which is very close to US constitution.

I suppose if one wanted to pursue it precident could be found in their ruling and used in Federal Court. This case was contested several years after the ruling and was upheld in another seperate ruling.

[Romulox]

29. Precedent ("stare decisis") doesn't work that way. nt

[Winterblues]

31. I believe if pursued by someone the same Logic/rationale that was used

to establish a "right to privacy" in this Alaska Supreme court ruling could be tried in a Federal Court. It might not be considered as precedent but it withstood a serious challenge by all the main Powers in the state. Governor Murkowski applied a lot of pressure to get this ruling overruled. It was upheld against an onslaught of Federal and State "Experts" on the subject. I am not a Constitutional Expert but I have been told the Alaska State Constitution is very close to the Federal Constitution.

[Romulox]

33. It would be "persuasive" only. There would be no legally controlly effect of the ruling in AK. nt

[ThomWV]

26. I think a good "intention" argument can be made for a right to privacy

And other unspecified rights as well. I believe the intent of the author(s) is important Here is how I would make the argument. To find intent you have to know the author and you can know the author by his other writings and those of his admitted influences. In this case an argument for the the right to privacy and other rights as well can be established from Locke to Jefferson as original author of the Constitution. The pathway is in each man's definition of liberty.

Oh, and there can be no argument that the Bill of rights is all inclusive of our rights, just read the 9th:

"Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

[Romulox]

30. I might agree with you, however, the law is whatever the SCOTUS proclaims it to be

And they have never identified a generalized "right to privacy".

"Oh, and there can be no argument that the Bill of rights is all inclusive of our rights, just read the 9th:

'Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.'"

The 9th is effectively meaningless in modern America. The people "retain" (are granted) little or no power under the modern interpretation of the Constitution (yes, I agree this is in direct contradiction of both the text and spirit of the document, but it is how it is.)

[arcadian]

37. Nice, Federalist Society talking points.

:eyes:

[angrycarpenter]

10. There is no right to be anonymous.

It would be great if there was but all countries reserve the right to know the business of it's citizens. nearly every country has laws that one must have identification and produce it upon demand. These omnipresent cameras are an extension of that. Your privacy rights end at the front door after that always act as if big brother is watching you, because he is.

[LanternWaste]

11. I'm more worried about private businesses and individuals...

To be honest, I'm more worried about private businesses and individuals taking snaps of people going about their daily, innocuous lives than I am of traffic cameras.

Not too often that someone's car winds up on You-Tube from a traffic camera. But some random yahoo on the street with a vid-phone taking pictures of my girlfriend sunning at the pool has a bizarre way of turning up on the internet.

[cobalt1999]

12. There is no "right to privacy" when you are out in Public.

That's what being out in public means.

[The2ndWheel]

13. It's been slowly happening for thousands of years

It's not called the Information Age because we all get to play around on the internet.

[Cyrano]

18. Yep, I've got to agree. I guess the real question is whether this makes

the world a better or worse place.

My guess is that we're going to find out in the not-too-distant future.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

24. And every time you make an electronic purchase or sale over the Internet, it is supposed to be

Immediately reported to the Feds. This was a provision put in the banking bill by our "very own" Chris Dodd.... Big B is alive and well.....

[Still Sensible]

25. I don't have a problem with it if it is confined to public

places. If lines are crossed, however, that would expand the surveillance into non-public venues, I would have a major issue.

[4lbs]

27. You can be located to be within a given area by using your cell phone.

It doesn't even require anything special in the phone itself like GPS, nor do they have to actually listen to the call.

Cell phones have to "ping", or transmit, to cell phone towers. These towers are statically located and their locations are well known to the cell phone companies and government.

So, when you place or receive a call, the transmission pings off one of these towers. They just easily locate which tower you are transmitting to, and can then reasonably assume you are within a 2000-foot radius of it.

About 9 years ago, I was in my car and hit from behind while in rush hour traffic by a car that didn't slow down and stop quickly enough.

I called 911 and reported that I had been in an accident. The operator on the line knew that I was calling from a cell phone (!) and which tower it was pinging. She was able to easily determine the freeway I was on. She needed just some minor more exact detail to narrow it down further (which exit are you closer to right now?) and the highway patrol showed up in about 5 minutes.

That was 9 years ago. I'm sure the ability to pinpoint the location of a person based on "easy" methods has gotten much better.

[Ms. Toad]

34. That's why the 3 times I have called 911

in the last two years my call is answered by emergency crew in the wrong jurisdiction, they have no clue where I am, and tell me to go find a phone book rather than try to transfer me.

[EnviroBat]

32. It would be really cool if for one day we all dressed exactly alike

and covered our faces. As a huge protest movement, we could all wear jeans and a black t-shirt (with no marking or logo's on it). Conceal your identity with a ski-mask or some other such face covering device.

The powers that be would go absolutely ape-shit!