What's the Big Deal with Privacy?

Great Debates
1

Two unrelated things happened to me in the last 24 hours:

[ul]
[li]A co-worker stuck his head into my office and asked me what I think about “The Patriot Law” (I think that’s what he called it) which - if I remember - proposes to allow the FBI (again, I think) to gain legal access to my records at the Public Library, bookstores, cable company, etc, to track which members of the public have been reading or watching material which can be contrued as subversive or threatening to national security.[/li][li]I was in my car this morning and heard the tail-end of a report on NPR about a court case in Oklahoma that has something to do with drug testing among high school students that participate in competitive extra-curricular activities.[/li][/ul]

These things got me thinkin’…

In America today, everyone - or almost everyone - cries foul when someone tries to impinge on the privacy of others. I remember back when EZ-Pass was first announced in New York, talk-show Conservatives went crazy about how unconstitutional it would be for the police to have access to EZ-Pass records to help determine where particular people were at particular times.

In this Oklahoma case, the issue seems to be that the school wants to drug-test all students that participate in competitive extra-curricular activites on behalf of the school.

In both cases, opponents are upset about the breach of individuals’ rights to privacy.

My question is, what’s the big deal about privacy?

Consider the following syllogism:
[list=1]
[li]In the US, the use of certain drugs are illegal.[/li][li]Citizens of the US who knowingly commit illegal activities deserve to be punished.[/li][li]Citizens of the US who knowingly use illegal drugs deserve to be punished.[/li][/list=1]

If that’s true, then why not drug-test students? Why not drug test everyone? Why not make people take a drug test before getting on an airplane, entering the movies or buying groceries?

Similarly, why not let the police have access to EZ-Pass records when trying to solve crimes? Presumably, the officers of the law would use this data only when neccesary to capture individuals who have done something wrong. No?

In general, my question is: Why is privacy such a big deal? If I’ve done nothing wrong, I have nothing to hide. Right?

2

Oddly enough, in this country, it is necessary for law enforcement officials and others to acquire this nifty little thing called a “search warrant” in order to search ones property or being. In order to obtain a “search warrant” it is first necessary to have probable cause that a crime has taken place. This policy was put into affect in order to protect people from unduly invasive and completely unnecesary searches and seizures.

Unless there is probable cause to search a student’s (or other citizen’s) locker, urine, bedroom, speedpass record, phone record, blood, basement, closet, ears, bed sheets, or rectum, then there is no reason to do so and any information obtained in doing so was unconstitutionally gathered.

Therefore, it is necessary to be careful when violating ones privacy for two very important reasons:

  1. People in this country have a constitutional and other legal right to such privacy.
  2. Any evidence obtained while violating that right cannot be used in a court of law and is therfore useless.

You might consider that one of the reasons people so dislike being intrusively examined is that it is not ONLY their potentially illegal activities that are uncovered. For example, a person who’s on anti-depressant medication may be loathe to give a urine sample to an employer, even if they’ve never smoked a joint in their life.

L

3

Well, that’s certainly a straightforward constitutional response, SW, but I don’t think that’s going to the point of the OP.

I may be wrong (and correct me if I am) but I think sdimbert is questioning the vale of privacy. And it’s something I’ve wondered about myself.

Where does the perceived need for privacy come from? Is it inherent or is it learned? Does it come from a sense of shame or some other stimulus?

Really, what does privacy gain an individual or a group? The ability to hide something they don’t wish others to know? Or just the need to feel (whether true or not) that one’s life is on display?

I’m not sure I can come up with a comprehensive list of reasons to keep something private but here’s a stab at it:

[list=1]
[li]A need to avoid embarassment[/li][li]A need to avoid censure[/li][li]A perception that one’s peers will react negatively to one’s actions[/li][/list=1]

I’m sure there are others. But I just want to point out that the simplest means to avoid all of these things is to not perform the act or whatever that would lead to any of these actions.

Conversely, if one is not afraid of any of these things then there should be no need to protect oneself by keeping those items private.

Feh. Way too idealistic for this close to lunch. But it’s a topic I’m thinking about.

4

This statement always gets me going. Have you read every statute on the books from the federal level all the way through your state and local level? Chances are that you have something to hide. There are statutes against everything from oral sex to how much alcohol you may keep. So if you like sex in any form other than missionary and if you like good wine and have many bottles of it, you are a criminal and have something to hide. Luckily, you can keep and do these things in the privacy of your home and generally not fear the police will come and drag you naked from from your bed and arrest you.

I had this debate several times with an uncle of mine. He always said the same thing, “if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.” Yeah well, how are you gonna feel when they come for your Bible?

5

How does one avoid getting treatment for a mental disorder? If I am depressed, have an anxiety disorder, etc. and want to be treated, why should everyone know? I’m not doing anything wrong by taking meds, but many people perceive mental illness as a “character defect” and many employers discriminate. If it’s my kids that are on meds instead, many neighbors may wrongly assume my kids are freaks and not let their kids play with mine. So should I, or my kids, avoid taking medication so that we have nothing to hide?

What if 5 years back, my ex-spouse left me with a mound of debt and no way to pay it off? Should my financial mess be available reading to anyone who wants to see it?

What if I have a chronic, non-life threatening illness, but one that the general public would use as a basis to judge my character, like herpes? Could I have avoided contracting herpes from my cheating husband?

What if I lost a breast to cancer? Had a sex change? Got implants? Had a nose job? Need viagra? Take birth control pills? etc. etc. etc. Does my employer/neighbor/local police chief/government representative have the right to know these things?

We must safeguard our right to privacy. It isn’t just about who uses illegal drugs/commits crimes. So your presumption that embarrasment/censure/negative perceptions can be avoided is incorrect.

And as SW pointed out, it’s a constitutional issue.

6

Who has nothing to hide? everyone is guilty of something. Why should the governement arbitrarily decide that it can tell me what to do with my body? If i want to engange in oral sex, how does that hurt the ol’ USA? or anyone? Laws are imperfect, created by men, none of whom are perfect, either. I’m not going to live my life by the law, but by my own moral code. But i’m not going to live in fear that i have something to hide because i like oral sex, i’m gonna fight. Other people have their own campains, from firearms control to relgion to drug legalization, and while i may agree or disagree with their positions, i admire those who fight for what they think is right. I may have stuff i should “hide,” but i’m not going to, i refuse to live in fear, and i’ll handle the reprocussions, if any, when they come.

7

Value of privacy…
Aside from the philosophical debate, in our democracy/republic/whatever, the Government works for the People. Citizens are not pawns of the government’s every whim. ‘Probable cause’ keeps the government in-line.

sdimbert - Slippery slope…
Taking your questions to a further extreme, what if the government started door-to-door searches for drugs without warrants? Maybe a few strip searches to make sure they got everything. Maybe while they’re there, they’ll also take a look through your finances to make sure you’re not cheating on taxes. This obviously opens a door for corruption too.

8

Handling the repercussions is the problem. Lets say you were running for public office. Other unscrupulous candidates find out that you are doing something in violation of some old statute that seems silly in this day. Without protection of the fourth, your privacy is invaded by a search of some sort that reveals your flaw. Now the repercussions have affected you in way that can’t be easily dealt with. You are now a convicted criminal. Your crime could be as simple as your grandpas rifle that has been in the attic gathering dust for twenty years. And while we are at it, if we are going to continue allowing urine test to become more and more common place, when do you think stool and tissue samples will become commonplace in your schools and places of employment. If they can search your urine what exactly is there to stop them from searching your solid waste to determine if you have unhealthy eating habits - or to determine if you ate fresh oysters out of season … you aren’t leaving here until you tell us where you got the oysters sir.

9

Thank you for putting more succinctly what I tried to cover.

I think what’s important to keep in mind is that when laws were drawn up regarding searches and seizures, these things were considered. Lawmakers were somewhat in touch with a person’s right to be free from embarrassment, a feeling of invasion or violation, and the risk of losing benefits (such as one’s job) because of unrelated information (such as one’s illnesses).

As I also pointed out, there’s another side to the issue. Giving someone the right to illegal searches and seizures does not ensure that the target of the invasion will be punished. So you let a high school principal go through everyone’s locker. The drugs he finds will not be admissible evidence in the punishment/rehabilitation of that student. So how you gather this information IS important and we DO have procedures in place to follow in the case where there is a REASON to do a search. I believe those procedures were created with a certain amount of sensitivity to the issues we face when we lose our privacy.

L

10

Unless someone has probable cause enough to convince a judge that I could very well have done something wrong, why do they want to be able to poke around in my life?

If you don’t think I’ve done anything illegal, why do you want to know?

11

I’m don’t exactly disagree with the posters up to this point, but most of their examples involve being embarrassed when people find out details of my life. It is important to be protected from such embarrassment, but that not likely to happen if we’re talking specifically about law-enforcement people who are investigating a specific violation.

In the OP’s example of drug-testing, I do not understand the privacy problem. Even if the police have no reason at all to suspect me of using illegal drugs, I do not feel that privacy is a valid argument against stopping random people on the street and testing them for illegal drugs. From a privacy perspective, it is the police’s job to insure compliance with the law, and this is part of that.

HOWEVER, there are reasons other than privacy to be against it. The main one I can think of is abuse of the system. Once the test can be done, the door has been opened to fudging the test results. A government which is set to “get” someone can give him a drug test and arrange for him to fail it. That is dangerous, and that is why the Bill Of Rights curtails many of the government’s powers, by (for example) requiring a warrant before a search can be done. This insures that the police have probable cause for suspicion even prior to the search, and balances the scales somewhat.

12

“If you don’t have anything to hide, then what are you worried about?”

Are the people who argue along these lines prepared to justify every single act they’ve ever commited to every other individual in the world?

Every sexual act you’ve ever performed or submitted to. Every web site you’ve ever visited. Everything you’ve ever said or written to every one of your lovers. Everything you’ve ever eaten. The exact state of your house or apartment at all stages of life. Every book or magazine you’ve ever read. Every sexual or romantic fantasy you’ve ever had about another person, whether acted upon or not.

Explain all these things to your next-door neighbor. To people you’ve never met and don’t know. To your third-grade English teacher. To your pastor. To somebody else’s pastor. To your mother. To your grandmother. To your Great-Aunt Sally.

No human being is that free of “hypocrisy”. At any rate, those of you who have achieved Buddha-nature or whatever it is are perfectly free, in our culture, to write tell-all books or keep public journals on the World Wide Web and set up web-cams in every room of your houses or go on the Jerry Springer show. But please don’t force the rest of us who aren’t as perfect as you are to give up our right to privacy.

This is not to say there aren’t legitimate arguments about where the lines of the right to privacy should be drawn. No one’s privacy protects a right to murder someone and hide the body. Personally, I object to a number of current criminal laws which seem to have a disproportionate impact on the privacy rights of ordinary citizens–no one has to pee in a cup to prove they haven’t committed armed robbery in order to get a job, and I’ve never heard of police setting up random roadblocks to catch counterfeiters. Some states in the U.S. still have sex crimes laws on the books which are utterly barbaric.

But the idea that there isn’t some inherent right to go about one’s lawful business and not have other people intrude into your personal life strikes me as terrifying and disgusting.

13

We are promised the right to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’

How can we be free if we cannot control who has access to our most intimate moments and decisions? One of the more punative aspects of imprisonment is the total lack of privacy, they can be (and are) watched as they sleep, urinate, shower, their mail is read, their property and being are searched at any point w/o a reason given.

I may not be embarassed of all aspects of my life, but I certainly wish to control who has access to the details. I can choose who knows about that time in Kalamazoo, etc.

(additionally, it is not practical to use these types of searches on everyone at all times - otherwise, there’d be airport level searches on all public buildings, and traffic lights would be traffic stops with urine testing mandatory).

14

“First they came for the Jews. I was silent. I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists. I was silent. I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me. There was no one left to speak for me.”

– MARTIN NIEMOLLER, 1892 - 1984
Source: http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/text/x00/xm0076.html

Of course, you have nothing to hide. You have done nothing wrong. But that still may not stop the government from arresting you, detaining you, charging you, convicting you, and sending you away, or worse. At least Six Million had done nothing wrong and had nothing to hide, either.

Privacy is not only a Constitutional right, it is a human right. Government is subservient to the people, and not the other way around.

Remember that evil flourishes while good people do nothing.

15

Pee in a cup to prove that you don’t do drugs.

Sounds a lot to me like ‘We assume you to be a drug using criminal until you prove to us that you are not’, which is more or less ‘You’re guilty of a crime until you prove you’re innocent’.

As a citizen of the US, isn’t my right to be presumed innocent barring evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that I’m guilty?

So why do I have to pee in the cup and prove that I’m innocent?

16

IANAL, but my understanding is that your constitutional privacy protections do not apply to student lockers or speedpass records. Essentially, your presumption of privacy stops “when you cross the threshold leaving your house”.

Random drug testing is one thing. Drug testing for participation in optional extracurricular activities is a whole other matter. While I dislike the idea in either case, only one is afforded constitutional protection.

So back to the OP, I’m not sure that there are constitutional protections to prevent either one. I’m not familiar with the “Patriot Law”, but properly crafted, it may be able to withstand constitutional scrutiny. If it intrudes on your privacy rights within your house (as cable movie rental records would), it may not stand. But if it is collecting information about books you rented from the library, I’m not so sure.

17

I agree with your argument 100% Phobos. As government creeps more and more into our lives, we tend to think of it as a force that we must conform to and build or lives around. This is not what the U.S. government is set up to do at all. The U.S. government, should, in theory, justify its every action and even the very existence of large parts of itself on a continual basis.

18

This is a very interesting question, but before I answer I would like to get some idea to whom I am speaking. Please post links to:
[ul][li]Your current bank statements and most recent transacrions.[/li][li]A website which provides access to all data an the hard drive(s) of your PC.[/li][li]A scan of your drivers license.[/li][li]A list of all books, CDs and periodicals in your house.[/li][li]A list of all credit cards in your name along with all purchases made on each for the last 36 months.[/li][li]A complete transcript of any diaries, journals, or schedule planners which you have used.[/li][li]A complete list of your sexual partners, cross referenced with sexual acts performed.[/li][li]Comprehensive medical and dental records.[/li][li]Employment history and reasons for leaving/termination for all jobs in the last decade.[/li][li]List of all members of your household and detailed descriptions of all recreational activities in which you engage (including schedules for regular activities).[/li][li]A list of all movies, plays, or other entertainments which you have attended or viewed from home in the last 3 years.[/li][li]Your complete voting history.[/li][li]A list of all professional, social, or political organizations to which your have belonged or whose organized events you have attended.[/li][li]Church/religious affiliations for all members of your household.[/li][li]A list of all charitable organizationds to which you have made contrivutions in the last 36 months.[/li][li]Your social security number.[/li][li]A list of any pension, retirement, or investment accounts under your name.[/li][li]Tax records for the last 3 years.[/li][li]Nude photographs of yourself displaying all primary and secondary sexual characteristics.[/li][li]A complete breakdown of all Internet sites which you have visited over teh last 36 months along with the date & time of your visit and how much time you spent at the site.[/li][li]Copies of all correspondence, electronic or print, which you have sent or received in the last 36 months.[/li][/ul]
Well, that isn’t everything, but it should be enough to get us started. After you supply teh above records I will be most happy to discuss the importance of privacy to an individual in a free society.

19

I must confess that these sorts of questions tend to give me the chills. My fondest hope is that the OP is overstating the case in order to spark a lively debate. Further, I must state that I am gratified by the thoughtful and informative replies up to now outlining exactly why privacy is valuable.

I guess that I would add the following: In my life, I have done many things that the government views as “wrong”. God willing, I will do many more. There are so many laws for which I am in complete disagreement with the government.

To look at this a different way, invasion of privacy is cheating. If I can smoke pot, and the only way to catch me is examining my body fluids; I win!

The government is not some impartial referee, concerned with making sure that the majority of the citizens are healthy and happy. It is a group of self-interested humans, with a strong motivation towards power. The real problem, I guess, is that when you erode privacy rights you are eroding people’s rights of self-determination.

20

The OP is not overstating the case. Take the time to read the Patriot Act HR3162. Then see what you think.

To read The Patriot Act

An analysis of the Act

One Congressman’s response