Do you have a right to privacy?

Do you have a right to privacy?

Yes, I do. It is set down in article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

ARTICLE 8
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

---

A small, but valid point: most JU bloggers are Americans. Like most American JU bloggers you tend to forget that there is a minority of 'foreigners' here and address your questions as if only Americans were part of the club. We citizens of the RestOfPlanetEarth are used to this by now, but it can still be annoying. Especially when an article begins "a quick trick question for all."

Still, an interesting article. As an internationalist with a high quotient of intellectual curiosity I shall follow the thread with interest.

The trick of this trick question is on you my friend. You (like many others) are looking at the Costitution backwards. The document does not address itself from the Federal Government to We, the People, but just the opposite. It addresses itself from We, the People TO the Federal government.

Therefore, it doesn't have to say anything about "privacy" for We the People to have that right... What it would have to do for the Federal Government to be able to infringe on the right to privacy that We the People retain for ourselves is enumerate to the Federal Government the circumstances for which We the People allow privacy to be infringed. In that, the Constitution is very clear.

Amendment 3 states that the Federal Government cannot infringe on the security of our persons, houses, papers and effects except for reasonable searches and seizures. Reasonable searches and seizures being those which where a warrant is issued.

So, in answer to your question... Yes, we do have the right to privacy and also, yes, there are circumstances where we have given the Government the authority to infringe upon it.

I agree with you in spirit. As far as scrutiny from our fellow man, broadcasting our conversations across phone lines or the Internet, etc., you're right on the money.

But, like freedom of speech, the Government does have guidelines in the Bill of Rights:

"Amendment IV 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."

People always say that they have the right to say anything they like, and if, say, Brad or an ISP, or whoever deletes their article their rights are infringed upon. That isn't so. The government doesn't have the right to squelch dissent or free expression. If your ISP or a site operator wants to purge you from their network, they have every right to.

My point being, sure, people have unreasonable ideas about 'privacy', even in terms of the government. On the other hand, the government can't really fish at will into the personal lives at will, either. Where people take it too far is when they broadcast their junk out to the world for anyone to see, and then pretend that it is "private", like hosting piracy servers or sending emails they think are sacrosanct.

Reply By: ParaTed2k

Ted gets a cookie for that excellent response!

The problem with Roe v. Wade was that it found the right in the constitution, when in fact there is none there.  We have the right to privacy as long as we do not allow the government to rescind it (via a constitutional amendment).

I think terpfan hit on the gist of it - the Federal Government has only those powers expressly granted to it by the people in the form of the Constitution and its amendments. And that's the way the Framers understood and intended it. The individual states, however, were free to assert powers not specifically granted to the Feds if they so chose. And while I can't cite references to support it, I think they were OK with Pennsylvania choosing to do things one way and Maine another.

The rub comes when states proscribe certain freedoms or exercise powers potentially in conflict with provisions of the Constitution regarding individual freedoms & rights. That rub is a principle reason that the Bill of Rights exists. While the right to privacy isn't explicitly spelled out, it is such an integral aspect of a number of specifically enumerated rights that it is difficult to assert that it doesn't exist.

So, my short answer is, "Yes. I believe the Constitution affirms a right to privacy." It doesn't confer absolute privilege in all private matters, however, and I believe it assumes that by violating the rights of others a perpetrator relinquishes any such claim.

Cheers,
Daiwa

IMO...privacy falls under Locke's philosophy concerning a gov't and its citizens...but thats JMO...

We have the right to privacy as long as we do not allow the government to rescind it (via a constitutional amendment).

--hmmm, agreed...in essence...

I have an expectation to privacy.

Don't you, terpfan? If not, why?

Why would you argue against privacy?

Would you argue for full citizen surveillance? This is the path you've set in framing your argument.

I do not agree that a right to privacy somehow supports abortion 'rights'. Seperate from addressing the abortion issue in that head-on manner, I suggest JU pro-lifers to instead look at property rights and our history of legislature regarding personal consumption of substances and euthanasia.

In considering a woman's 'right to choose', we can compare her body to personal property. We have laws showing that, like that woman, the environment or community is ill-affected by her decision to treat that body or property incorrectly, e.g. - drug use or excessive pollution. Tainting the ground is the same as tainting the body, the quality of the ground is lessened by pollution and an iv drug user's value to the community befalls the same fate. Yes your body is your own, but if you hurt it; because the action can lessen the quality of life for those around you, we pass laws against suicide and harmful drug use..

Please disconnect the right to privacy issue from that of abortion. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I do not agree that a right to privacy somehow supports abortion 'rights'. Seperate from addressing the abortion issue in that head-on manner, I suggest JU pro-lifers to instead look at property rights and our history of legislature regarding personal consumption of substances and euthanasia. In considering a woman's 'right to choose', we can compare her body to personal property. We have laws showing that, like that woman, the environment or community is ill-affected by her decision to treat that body or property incorrectly, e.g. - drug use or excessive pollution. Tainting the ground is the same as tainting the body, the quality of the ground is lessened by pollution and an iv drug user's value to the community befalls the same fate. Yes your body is your own, but if you hurt it; because the action can lessen the quality of life for those around you, we pass laws against suicide and harmful drug use.. Please disconnect the right to privacy issue from that of abortion. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Having read and re-read this "entire" thread, I fail to see where terp made any reference to abortion at all. Me thinks it's just in your mind?

.... The right to privacy has come to the public's attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v. Wade case). ....

Duh...............

The right to privacy has come to the public's attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v. Wade case). .... Duh...............

Thank you. And now......clam up ignutz!

Having read and re-read this "entire" thread, I fail to see where terp made any reference to abortion at all. Me thinks it's just in your mind?

Here are the two passing references terp made to abortion regarding the 'right to privacy' issue.

...and abortion (the well-known Roe v. Wade case)...

(or restrictions on some, such as Abortion on demand)

The reason I focused so heavily on the abortion issue is because the justification of it's legalization was the phantom 'right to privacy'. Abortion and 'right to privacy' are nearly legal synonyms today.

My problem with someone attacking the 'right to privacy' is not because of abortion 'rights' but because someone would use the destruction of 'right to privacy' to further consolidate big brother power in it's cat-out-of-the-bag domestic surveillance efforts.

Sure, but like all rights, this one has limits. My right to life is limited by what I do with it. If I threaten your life, I've passed beyond the limits of my right to life, and if you kill me in self defense few would complain that my rights had been violated.

Personally, I believe that our right to privacy is limited by our impact on the world around us. To the extent that I impact the world around me with my thoughts and actions, to that same extentI give up my right to privacy.

In practical terms, I think our right to privacy is so limited as to be practically nonexistent.

Not all men are created equally, but the founding fathers created a government where the expectation of equal treatment under fair and just law created equality by it's expectation.

Likewise, people have an expectation to privacy. This may be while on the phone, in the bathroom, or even while sitting right next to a stranger in a public area. (hey, man, don't get in my 'personal space')

Our laws reflect this higly valued expectation - everything from the fourth amendment to tort law protecting one from peeping neighbors enforces this strong sense of individual autonomy.

Now we have two paths today, we can continue to go down the road of domestic surveillance and openly embrace big brother or we can turn off the spicot of ever-increasing federalism by knocking down legislation like Patriot Act and do our best to inform those arguing against personal liberties of ours and their future loss.

Patriot Act and do our best to inform those arguing against personal liberties of ours and their future loss.

Sorry but this is one place where I draw the line. My country and the "lives" of my countrymen come first. It's one of the "main" reasons I joined the military in 75! If this is what it takes to help secure that, then so be it.

Sorry but this is one place where I draw the line. My country and the "lives" of my countrymen come first. It's one of the "main" reasons I joined the military in 75! If this is what it takes to help secure that, then so be it.

I don't feel the Patriot Act has done anything to secure liberty. In fact, if anything, I would argue that it has obstructed it by creating more bureaucracy under which terrorist organizations can slip. They're often better versed in the law than we are.

Sorry but this is one place where I draw the line. My country and the "lives" of my countrymen come first. It's one of the "main" reasons I joined the military in 75! If this is what it takes to help secure that, then so be it.

‘‘They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety," observed Benjamin Franklin, "deserve neither liberty nor safety."

There is no freedom without risk.

No government can grant a gurantee of safety to any citizen so let us never tolerate the sacrifice of civil liberties for phantom security.

This last point is so incredibly well-illustrated by hurricane Katrina. Despite the sacrifice of the fourth amendment, despite increased federal powers of observance, despite a restructuring of the government under the Dept. of Homeland Security the federal government is simply powerless against extraordinary events.

Patriot Act and Homeland Security aren't going to protect your buddies from Katrina or 9/11 like events - particularly when their primary purposes are to consolidate power at the federal level (away from local towns and states) and increase domestic, not foreign, surveillance. Weren't we supposed to be protecting ourselves from enemies without - not from within?

I don't feel the Patriot Act has done anything to secure liberty. In fact, if anything, I would argue that it has obstructed it by creating more bureaucracy under which terrorist organizations can slip. They're often better versed in the law than we are.

I completely agree. It's just a knee-jerk interference in US citizens' lives, while accomplishing absolutely nothing to make us safer from anyone, except maybe ourselves. And, that's the gist of this, isn't it. Our right to privacy means just that. No government interference in our lives, our bedrooms, our libraries, our medical records, our choice of life partners.

The Patriot Act is a sick joke perpetrated on gullible Americans by the neocons under the guise of making us safer, which it does not do.

Hell no it is not in the constitution! is should be in the most primevial part of the human brain (If one has one).

Before there was a constitution, there were Inalenable Rights, the first of which is the right to be left alone!

One would have to been blessed with more education than common sense to look for a "right" given by his Creator in a document written by brilliant but mortal men.

Thank God when this great country was formed the brains were loaded on the frontend and then they left the knashing of teeth to be done by those so brilliant they cannot think in the most basic of human terms.

We have the right to privacy and along with that right we have the first ammendment that gives the writer the right to pontificate views that would deprive his fellow human brothers of a right given them by OUR FATHER.

Guess he's a Christian?, Right? or a Christian Rightwinger?

Hell no it is not in the constitution! is should be in the most primevial part of the human brain (If one has one).

Before there was a constitution, there were Inalenable Rights, the first of which is the right to be left alone!

One would have to been blessed with more education than common sense to look for a "right" given by his Creator in a document written by brilliant but mortal men.

Thank God when this great country was formed the brains were loaded on the frontend and then they left the knashing of teeth to be done by those so brilliant they cannot think in the most basic of human terms.

We have the right to privacy and along with that right we have the first ammendment that gives the writer the right to pontificate views that would deprive his fellow human brothers of a right given them by OUR FATHER.

Guess he's a Christian?, Right? or a Christian Rightwinger?

The "right to privacy" is a misstatement of the fourth amendment rights against illegal search and seizure, as well as the fifth amendment rights against self incrimination. The idea is that, if you have a right to be secure in your home against search and seizure, then you have an implied "right to privacy" to keep your home secure. If you have a right against self incrimination, then you have an implied "right to privacy" against authorities using your conversations to gather evidence against you without your knowledge (certain exceptions).

So there is, in fact, a "right to privacy" in a certain manner of speaking. But many individuals misunderstand their rights and how they apply to them.

The idea is that, if you have a right to be secure in your home against search and seizure, then you have an implied "right to privacy" to keep your home secure. If you have a right against self incrimination, then you have an implied "right to privacy" against authorities using your conversations to gather evidence against you without your knowledge (certain exceptions).

exactly. sadly, those certain exceptions are usually far too elastic. as time goes by, they wind up covering more area than is good for any of us.