America Says: RETHINK PRIVACY

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence.

SAY WHAT?

"I think all of us have to really take stock of what we already are willing to give up, in terms of anonymity, but [also] what safeguards we want in place to be sure that giving that doesn't empty our bank account or do something equally bad elsewhere."

The quickening has begun.

Intelligence deputy to America: Rethink privacy (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/11/terrorist.surveillance.ap/index.html)

[Zep]

Have you got: A drivers license? Social security number? Passport? Banking accounts of any sort? Bank or credit loans? A military number? Doctor's or dental records? A criminal record? Submitted any tax returns? Registered to vote?

You're on file, baby! ;)

The only way to get out of the system, Jerome, is to give all these up, change you name, go live in a shack in the woods in Montana, live off what you hunt and reap yourself, and write a manifesto. Or emigrate to a country without all these facilities. So shall we be waving you goodbye at the train-station soon?

[ZenFountain]

Here's how privacy reads in the constitution:

Fourth 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.

Ninth Amendment:

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


Due process clause (Fourteenth Amendment):

No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ....

Griswold v. Connecticut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut)

You'll find no explicit right to privacy in the constitution, let alone a right to anonymity. Furthermore, from the article posted, and what this is really about:

Millions of people in this country -- particularly young people -- already have surrendered anonymity to social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook, and to Internet commerce. These sites reveal to the public, government and corporations what was once closely guarded information, like personal statistics and credit card numbers.

"Those two generations younger than we are have a very different idea of what is essential privacy, what they would wish to protect about their lives and affairs. And so, it's not for us to inflict one size fits all," said Kerr, 68. "Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that."

All he's asking is what reasonable level of anonymity can we expect in todays world where everything is interconnected and we leave footprints of where we have been and what we have done. I believe the main question at hand here is whether it should be legal for the government to use information from private data mining firms that compile everything they can on you, using information you have voluntarily given up.

[dahduh]

Responsibility is inseperable from accountability, which in turn demands the acting agent's identity. Many of the freedoms we enjoy in society are commensurate with the degree to which we are responsible; for example, you are allowed to drive on public roads, but only if you have a license that certifies you as a capable and responsible driver.

However, where actions conform to the no-harm rule, then there is no legitimate reason for demanding the identity of persons engaged in such actions; and this is usually recognized as part of a "right to privacy".

So when Donald Kerr says "Privacy can no longer mean anonymity", he is talking total crap. What he is really saying is that modern technology has given the state the ability to tap in on private communications, and that he would like to use it as a convenient tool to snoop in on people's lives on the off chance they say something naughty or suggestive; even though merely saying something naughty in private causes no harm.

If you disagree, and think the state has the right to monitor private conversations en masse, then what about monitoring peoples locations (you carry a cell phone, don't you?); or purchasing patterns (you have a credit card, don't you)? And how about merely thinking something naughty; technology will catch up with that too eventually, and then are we all going to have to walk around with thought monitors?

All of these activities are no-harm activities, and should be protected under an inviolable right to privacy rule. If you don't adhere to such a principle, there's nothing to stop you heading down the slippery slope to join Big Brother.

[KoihimeNakamura]

That's a really long slippery slope argument, you know.

In any case, what they're saying is this: while you can't be anonymous much anymore, that does not mean they should have your purchasing data.. it's finding a balance.

[billydkid]

Here's how privacy reads in the constitution:

Fourth Amendment:



Ninth Amendment:



Due process clause (Fourteenth Amendment):



Griswold v. Connecticut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut)

You'll find no explicit right to privacy in the constitution, let alone a right to anonymity. Furthermore, from the article posted, and what this is really about:



All he's asking is what reasonable level of anonymity can we expect in todays world where everything is interconnected and we leave footprints of where we have been and what we have done. I believe the main question at hand here is whether it should be legal for the government to use information from private data mining firms that compile everything they can on you, using information you have voluntarily given up.The purpose of the Constitution is not to enumerate our rights. It's to limit the power of the government. Can you even imagine what it would be like if the ONLY rights we had were those enumerated in the Constitution? Certain rights which the founders knew any government might be inclined to deprive people of and which considered to be especially significant were enumerated in the Bill of Rights, but they hardly were intended to be a comprehensive list of our rights.

[CplFerro]

You'll find no explicit right to privacy in the constitution, let alone a right to anonymity. Furthermore, from the article posted, and what this is really about:

The Constitution doesn't give you the explicit right to take a crap, either.

Cpl Ferro

[quixotecoyote]

In that sense the Bill of Rights was slightly counterproductive. If there had been a larger emphasis on "If you wish to restrict behavior, your justification MUST be found in the constitution" then people would have been less likely to buy into the prevalent notion that the government allows us rights rather than us allowing the government powers.

[PAC]

It is not likely that our rights will be lost by some large event or process.
It is more likely these will be eroded in small steps. Unfortunately the Bush
administration has taken several of these small steps.

Is the current era of fanatic anti-American, anti-West activity really a threat to us? Some groups can do us harm but can they really take us down? Will we do more harm to ourselves because we now determine our lives and future
based on fear?

Stand up! Tell our government that we will not accept this!

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Does the constitution GIVE the power of observation of citizens to the governmnet?

[TuftedPuffin]

Does it give the power of establishing a military? Then yes, it does.

[slingblade]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.




Stop it. Please. Stop shouting at me in giant, bolded fonts. Your argument is no stronger for all the special effects, okay? And you aren't even making an argument here--you're just quoting a document. This is wasted on me, and I doubt I'm alone.

I want to hear what you think, your reasons, and I want to be able to read them without feeling like you're standing nose-to-nose with me, shouting and getting spittle on my cheeks.

Please chill with the huge fonts, odd spacing, and other visual tricks and present me a cogent argument with which I can agree or argue.

Respect me that much, please?

[JoeEllison]

Is the current era of fanatic anti-American, anti-West activity really a threat to us?

Only in that it emboldens right-wing authoritarians to take away our freedoms in the name of keeping is safe from those fanatics, who have no actual capacity to harm our way of life.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Stop it. Please.

O.K., sorry.:(

Please chill with the huge fonts, odd spacing, and other visual tricks and present me a cogent argument with which I can agree or argue.

Are italics a visual trick?;)




The constitution being a limiting documnet and the supreme law of the land; any power that the government has that is not explicitly stated is unconstitutional.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Only in that it emboldens right-wing authoritarians to take away our freedoms in the name of keeping is safe from those fanatics, who have no actual capacity to harm our way of life.

Was not the Soviet threat greater?

We did not need to remove personal freedoms to the current extent to counter the Soviets and their real ability to destroy our society.

[lordofwaffles]

The Soviet threat was one based on conventional military danger, and nuclear warfare. What infiltration based threat they actually posed was in the realm of espionage (which kills a very small number of people in peacetime), or special forces missions in support of the possible outbreak of world war three (in which case, I doubt anyone would be alive long enough to be too worried about much of anything).

The Soviets never snuck into our country, mounted attacks, and killed 3,000 of our citizens. Further, the Soviets could be deterred, and generally where quite open to sitting down and talking things out after posturing was made and face saved. The terrorists we're facing have little interest in deterrence (at that, how do you threaten the infrastructure of small groups and individual actors), and their version of diplomacy leaves much to be desired.

In short, your connection of the terrorist threat and the cold war is less than solid. Privacy has changed, government control or not. If you don't like it, there's plenty of space in Montana you can go hide in. Property is cheap, and your neighbors are pretty far away.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The terrorists we're facing have little interest in deterrence (at that, how do you threaten the infrastructure of small groups and individual actors), and their version of diplomacy leaves much to be desired.

The terrorists funded by the Saudis?

Do we not talk to Saudi Arabia?

[ImaginalDisc]

In short, your connection of the terrorist threat and the cold war is less than solid. Privacy has changed, government control or not. If you don't like it, there's plenty of space in Montana you can go hide in. Property is cheap, and your neighbors are pretty far away.

There are fundamental rights and civil liberties which make this country a fine place to live. It is not appropriate to give them up on account of fear.

[UserGoogol]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Privacy is not a power, so that's irrelevant. The ninth amendment is more appropriate, but the problem is with that is that even though something not being in the constitution doesn't make it not a right, it also doesn't make it a right either. It's just something that needs to be decided later on.

[slingblade]

O.K., sorry.:(



Are italics a visual trick?;)




The constitution being a limiting documnet and the supreme law of the land; any power that the government has that is not explicitly stated is unconstitutional.

Aw, gimmie a hug! :D (And go ahead and use italics and bold, you silly person; just please don't make them 9 feet high and screaming.)

Now then, I really don't know that much about Consitutional law. But I don't think the limitation you describe is accurate. The Constitution is a living document, for one thing; it can, has, and does change.

Can you provide me some evidence that your position is correct? Some place whre the law actually says this, or a USSC decision deliniating this? It just doesn't sound correct to me, but as I said, I don't know much about it.

[Morrigan]

All he's asking is what reasonable level of anonymity can we expect in todays world where everything is interconnected and we leave footprints of where we have been and what we have done. I believe the main question at hand here is whether it should be legal for the government to use information from private data mining firms that compile everything they can on you, using information you have voluntarily given up.

This does not follow. Sure, I might have voluntarily given my information to amazon.com but that doesn't mean I intended this information for anyone else than amazon.com and the parties involved in their privacy policies.
I am extremely wary of anything called a "data mining firm" (that reeks of spammers to me) and is there really a way to account for all their data to have been obtained legitimately? Doubtful.

[Fnord]

The only way to get out of the system, Jerome, is to give all these up, change you name, go live in a shack in the woods in Montana, live off what you hunt and reap yourself, and write a manifesto.


Heck yeah! It worked for Ted Kaczinski, it'll work for you too!

(... he said sarcastically.)

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Privacy is not a power, so that's irrelevant. The ninth amendment is more appropriate, but the problem is with that is that even though something not being in the constitution doesn't make it not a right, it also doesn't make it a right either. It's just something that needs to be decided later on.

Do you really think that information is not power?

If not; would you be willing to post your last three tax returns on this forum?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

There are fundamental rights and civil liberties which make this country a fine place to live. It is not appropriate to give them up on account of fear.

It is not appropriate to give them up for any reason in my opinion. At times in history they have been taken without option for recourse; but to give them away???

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Aw, gimmie a hug! :D

A,S,L ? ;)

Now then, I really don't know that much about Consitutional law. But I don't think the limitation you describe is accurate. The Constitution is a living document, for one thing; it can, has, and does change.

The constitution prescribes the method of change.

The term "living document" is relatively new, 1937. Why would anyone sign a contract that could be "re-defined" at the whim of one party of said contract? Would you sign such a contract?

Can you provide me some evidence that your position is correct? Some place whre the law actually says this, or a USSC decision deliniating this? It just doesn't sound correct to me, but as I said, I don't know much about it.


The constitution is the overriding law. There are zero laws outside of a constitutional amendment that supersede the constitution.

The constitution states that the government can only do what the constitution explicitly states it can do.

You do understand that the States are sovereign and the constitution is a contract between these sovereign States?

[UserGoogol]

Do you really think that information is not power?

If not; would you be willing to post your last three tax returns on this forum?

Of course information is power, but it's not a power. A power is the ability to do some sort of specific task, like the power to coin money or establish post offices. Information, to contrast, is merely power in the sense that it facilitates any task a person might want to do. The ability to acquire such information is, of course, a power, but it is one that is rather easy to read into the enumerated powers. Because information is such a source of power, and because the Federal Government having access to information does not deprive the states and the people from having those powers, it seems rather clearly neccesary and proper as long as it does not break any right to privacy.

It is my opinion that various parts of the Constitution (in particular the fourth amendment and some "umbrella right" finagling) imply a right to privacy. But I just don't see how you can read it out of that part of the constitution.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Of course information is power, but it's not a power. A power is the ability to do some sort of specific task, like the power to coin money or establish post offices. Information, to contrast, is merely power in the sense that it facilitates any task a person might want to do. The ability to acquire such information is, of course, a power, but it is one that is rather easy to read into the enumerated powers. Because information is such a source of power, and because the Federal Government having access to information does not deprive the states and the people from having those powers, it seems rather clearly neccesary and proper as long as it does not break any right to privacy.

It is my opinion that various parts of the Constitution (in particular the fourth amendment and some "umbrella right" finagling) imply a right to privacy. But I just don't see how you can read it out of that part of the constitution.


The constitution is not a delineation of citizen rights.

It is a delineation of Federal powers.

Where did you receive your thinking about what the constitution is? I mean no offense by this question, I am very curious.

[UserGoogol]

The constitution is not a delineation of citizen rights.

It is a delineation of Federal powers.

Yes, yes it is. (Well, it's not just that, since citizens rights are clearly being defined, and the fourteenth amendment states that these rights are more than merely restrictions on the actions of the Federal government. But the delineation of Federal powers is an important part of it, certainly. And furthermore, it is also very clear in the constitution that the only powers the federal government has are those given to it in the constitution, but that this is not the case of rights, and that people may have any number of "unenumerated rights.") But the ability to acquire information is clearly necessary to regulate commerce successfully, to provide for the common defense and general welfare, to punish counterfeiters, and to punish crimes on the high seas. The only question, therefore, is whether it is "proper" for the federal government to peek into people's lives. That is, whether people have a specific right to privacy.

(Of course, the argument could be made that it's not really necessary to intrude into people's private lives, and I would be sympathetic with that argument, but the problem is that necessary is relative. It's not "really necessary" for Congress to have its own building, they could just meet out in the woods or whatever. Since I'm not a lawyer (let alone a constitutional lawyer), I don't really know "how necessary" something needs to be to be constitutionally necessary as in the phrase necessary and proper. But sounds plausible enough.)

Where did you receive your thinking about what the constitution is? I mean no offense by this question, I am very curious.

I dunno, a variety of sources. Public education, (which for the record, actually did specifically note that something is a power of the constitution only if granted specifically by Article I Section 8 or one of the amendments) looking at the constitution myself (usually on usconstitution.org (http://www.usconstitution.net)), online references including but not limited to Wikipedia, discussions online like this, and so forth.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Yes, yes it is. (Well, it's not just that, since citizens rights are clearly being defined, and the fourteenth amendment states that these rights are more than merely restrictions on the actions of the Federal government. But the delineation of Federal powers is an important part of it, certainly. And furthermore, it is also very clear in the constitution that the only powers the federal government has are those given to it in the constitution, but that this is not the case of rights, and that people may have any number of "unenumerated rights.")

No argument here. Well said.


But the ability to acquire information is clearly necessary to regulate commerce successfully, to provide for the common defense and general welfare, to punish counterfeiters, and to punish crimes on the high seas. The only question, therefore, is whether it is "proper" for the federal government to peek into people's lives. That is, whether people have a specific right to privacy.

The Federal governmnet is to regulate commerce between States, not commerce in general.




I dunno, a variety of sources. Public education, (which for the record, actually did specifically note that something is a power of the constitution only if granted specifically by Article I Section 8 or one of the amendments) looking at the constitution myself (usually on usconstitution.org (http://www.usconstitution.net)), online references including but not limited to Wikipedia, discussions online like this, and so forth.

Thank you for answering. :)