I the United States, there are certain laws that allow institutions to monitor people (Police, FBI… etc) in certain situations. Also, I believe people can be monitored with out their consent if they are believed to be psychologically unstable also (correct me if I’m wrong)
These situations are obviously special situations, but do you trust these institutions and the people who work for them?
What is your idea of invasion of privacy? Have you ever caught somebody watching you who should not have?
A few weeks ago, I caught a man I consider a first class troll listening in on my phone conversation with my mother… obviously a personal, private conversation. I did not tell my mother, because I did not want to alarm her (the conversation did not really get in to anything personal, thank God)
This situation has left a bit of an aftershock in my personal life, making me double check everything I do, just to make sure I’m in private when I want to be and should be.
And no, I don’t own and never will own an X10 internet camera… damn pop up adds!!!
I would consider a hidden camera in a place where any reasonable person would expect privacy (rest room for example) to be an extreme case of privacy invasion.
If you are a patient/inmate in a psychiatric facility, you have very few rights to privacy, and those you have on paper may not exist for you in actual practice. On the outside, though, you are generally free of major intrusions. I guess it depends on what you regard as “monitoring”. Many states have the abomination known as Outpatient Commitment. This gives them the right to check up on you and do blood tests on you and perhaps bring you your medication and haul your ass back into the bin if you decline to take it. As far as I know, there have been no cases where they installed observation cameras or bugged patients’ telephones.
Nor, as far as I know, does any official of any sort have any additional right to abridge your privacy on the basis of supposed psychological instability if you have not been committed. (That doesn’t mean it isn’t being done nevertheless, but I’m skeptical)
I consider any employer that tests their employees for tobacco or alcohol use to be invading privacy. Of course, if they suspect the employee is drunk at work, fair enough.
When the police in (Ohio?) got the ability to run plates on their vehicle computers (wireless), and not only one started stalking this attractive woman, another set his ex’s new friend up for multiple tickets.
Tobacco use. Most police precincts monitor their officers for tobacco use, which is fair enough given the likely impact of a pair of smokers’ lungs on an otherwise even footrace… but (some) private employers also do it.
We aren’t allowed to test for abject stupidity (which I believe to be the biggest problem in the workplace) before we hire someone, so why should we be allowed to test for drugs, alcohol or tobacco. If/when a problem is manifested or suspected, then test (at least we can test for substance use, stupidity just has to be self-evident).
Telemarketers, any sort of workplace drug test, dressing room cameras… these are clear invasions of privacy. Coming within twelve feet of me without begging permission is not yet considered an invasion of privacy but may get you placed on the watch list.
