What's the Big Deal with Privacy?

[Weirddave]

Alright, I’ll give you an example of why privacy is important. Two for the price of one, even.

Example number one. I received an e-mail a while back. There was an attachment on it that was a jpeg. I open the mail to see what it was, and the jpeg was displayed on my computer screen automatically, as Hotmail is wont to do ( note: I did not download anything, although after scanning the file and making sure it was just a jpeg I might have, if it hadn’t been displayed, was it from someone I know). It was kiddy porn. Disgusting. I immediately deleted the email.

Example number two. I was having a conversation with a friend last week. He is much more knowledgeable about guns than I am. I happened to mention that i had seen a video clip of someone shooting a pistol that had been converted to fire fully automatic. I said something along the lines of "I wonder how they did that? ( modified the gun ) He immediately changed the subject, informing me that such modifications are illeagal ( which I knew ) but also that it was illeagal to discuss them.

Now, I think any reasonable assessment of either situation would find me to be innocent of any wrongdoing in either case, but suppose I was under surveilence? An ( admittedly extreme and weak ) case could be made in either situation to prosecute me. “He’s looking at kiddy porn” or “He’s trying to find out how to modify a weapon illeagaly”. If the right to privacy is not cherished and held dear, laws could be written even more draconian than those that exist now. You may think I am being extreme, but I am not, what I’m saying is the inevitable end result of a country where " Why is privacy such a big deal? If I’ve done nothing wrong, I have nothing to hide. Right? " is accepted as a maxim of law.

[Hardwood_Paneling]

Privacy is overrated, which is why I never, ever wear pants.

[Shayna]

Heh, heh, heh. Spiritus, my fiancé and I just provided the INS with about half the items on your list. (you been lookin’ over my shoulder or somethin’? ;)) Let’s see…
[ul][li]Your current bank statements and most recent transactions. - Check[/li][li]A scan of your [Passport, Birth Certificate, Police Records & Military Records]. - Check[/li][li]Comprehensive medical records [for Thomas]. - Check[/li][li]Employment history for all jobs in the last decade. - Check[/li][li]List of all members of your household. - Check[/li][li]Your social security number. - Check[/li][li]A list of any pension, retirement, or investment accounts under your name. - Check[/li][li]Tax records for the last 3 years. - Check[/li][li]photographs of yourself, [3/4 frontal view] displaying [your right ear]. - Check[/li][/ul]
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg!

Not that this was the point you were making at all, but for purposes of the general discussion, there are legal reasons that the government could demand very personal (and otherwise private) information from you without requiring a search warrant or violating your 4th amendment rights in any way – and without you ever having done anything wrong.

Just try to get a visa some day without giving all that information up.

How does that relate to student athletes being required to undergo urine testing for drugs? Well, if one wants a visa to enter the country, one must be able to prove that they have no criminal record and a valid means of support before they’re allowed to enter. When one applies for a visa, they don’t necessarily “volunteer” the information required - it’s incumbent upon them to provide it, or no visa.

Now, if one wants to participate in athletics at a school that’s being paid for by tax dollars and a student wishes to participate in extra-curricular activities, it’s incumbent upon them to provide evidence that they aren’t in violation of any laws (such as illegal drug use), or no football/basketball, etc.

If kids know going in that these are the requirements and the scrutiny under which they’ll be judged eligible to play, I see no violation of their right to privacy. No more so than my rights to privacy have been violated because I want something (in this case a visa) and the rules of getting it say I have to relinquish personal information.

[Weirddave]

Shayna,

This case is not about athletes. The Supremes upheld drug testing for athletes seven years ago on the grounds that drug use could be dangerous for athletes and their oponents. This case is about drug testing for all extra curicular activities, such as chess club or book club or band, where such grounds do not exist. It’s seeking to widen school’s authority to test students at anytime. This is, IMHO, a dangerous precident to set.

[Shayna]

*Originally posted by Weirddave *
**Shayna,

This case is not about athletes. The Supremes upheld drug testing for athletes seven years ago on the grounds that drug use could be dangerous for athletes and their oponents. This case is about drug testing for all extra curicular activities, such as chess club or book club or band, where such grounds do not exist. It’s seeking to widen school’s authority to test students at anytime. This is, IMHO, a dangerous precident to set. **

Forgive me. I read the OP, which stated, “drug testing among high school students that participate in competitive extra-curricular activities,” and inferred that to mean sports.

I can’t get the above links to open and none of the other articles regarding the Patriot Act that I’ve been able to find say anything about chess club students being required to undergo drug testing.

Regardless, my point was that the “right to privacy” isn’t applicable across the board. I wouldn’t want you to know my income, past employment history, deposit records, criminal records and medical history, but when the INS asks for it, I hand it over. If you’re not willing to share your private, personal information with the INS, then don’t try to emigrate to the U.S. And if the government says that they can drug test students who participate in extra-curricular activities, well, hand over your pee or don’t play, is pretty much how I feel.

On the other hand, if the government is secretly tracking people’s income/criminal records/student records/internet surfing, etc., well, then we’re talking about a whole 'nother ball of wax. The way I read the information I’ve been able to find on the Patriot Act, the secret gathering and sharing with various law enforcement agencies of otherwise private information is what makes it scary.

Apparently, though I couldn’t find anything about drug testing students, The Patriot Act does allow government agencies to access previously protected student records…

http://www.aclu.org/congress/l110101a.html

<snip>

But law enforcement agencies wanted even easier access to a broad range of student information and the USA Patriot Act gave it to them by allowing them to receive the student data collected for the purpose of statistical research under the National Education Statistics Act. The statistics act requires the government to collect a vast amount of identifiable student information and - until now - has required it to be held in the strictest confidence without exception.

The USA Patriot Act, however, eliminates that protection and - while it requires a court order - allows law enforcement agencies to get access to private student information based on a mere certification that the records are relevant to an investigation. This certification, which a judge cannot challenge, is insufficient to protect the privacy of sensitive information contained in student records.

I think that’s a Very Bad Thing.

[Race_Bannon]

Does anybody remember Winston Smith?

I think he had a little privacy problem in 1984.

[Sweet_Willy]

it’s incumbent upon them to provide evidence that they aren’t in violation of any laws

This is not really how it works. The burden of proof rest with the prosecution usually. Can’t go around making people prove thier innocence of things. That would get prohibitively expense and time consuming.

[AZCowboy]

Weirddave said:
The Supremes upheld drug testing for athletes seven years ago on the grounds that drug use could be dangerous for athletes and their oponents.

Cite? I don’t doubt that they upheld drug testing, but I don’t recall it was explicitly due to health reasons. If you can call up the case, I would be interested in reviewing the decision.

If you are talking about Vernonia School District 47J v Acton No.94-590 in 1995, I believe you are incorrect (IANAL).

The opinion specifically held that medical conditions were to remain confidential, and that the only purpose was for drug screening, with no relation to “dangerous for athletes and their opponents.” See the decision here.

The Oklahoma case goes to the Supreme Court next week. Here is some background on that case.

Please note this comment from Justice Scalia in the Vernonia case:

We caution against the assumption that suspicionless drug testing will readily pass constitutional muster in other contexts.

It should be interesting.

[Shayna]

*Originally posted by Sweet Willy *
**

This is not really how it works. The burden of proof rest with the prosecution usually. Can’t go around making people prove thier innocence of things. That would get prohibitively expense and time consuming. **

Sweet Willy, in context, that statement went with the theory that the school had the right to drug test students who want to participate in school activities. If you know the rules going in – in this hypothetical case, if you want to play chess and you know you have to pee in a cup to do so – then in order to participate it is incumbent upon you to prove that you are eligible.

That is completely unrelated to the bigger question of whether or not the government has a right to require drug testing for chess-playing students. At the moment, apparently they don’t. Being drug free is not a requirement of playing chess on school campuses, so proof of anything is moot.

[Weirddave]

*Originally posted by AZCowboy *
**
Cite? I don’t doubt that they upheld drug testing, but I don’t recall it was explicitly due to health reasons. If you can call up the case, I would be interested in reviewing the decision.

**

Crappy cite, but it came directly from NBC Nightly News at 6:30 EST tonight. I had just seen the story before I responded. A quick search of MSNBC failed to turn up the story however. The story was on the arguements presented before the Supremes today.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

Only one third, Shayna? What are you trying to hide?

As you yourself noted, of course, the government has a compelling interest to gather some information prior to granting a visa request. Such an interest does not exist in gathering teh same data from populations as a whole (or from individuals at random).

I think it is important to realize that the Supreme Court cases being mentioned so far deal explicitely with the rights of minors. We deny many rights to minors which are extended to adult citizens.

[Tenebras]

First of all, the obligatory disclaimer:

I am not a lawyer.

Thank you. Ok, not let us continue. The first thing that I would like to point out is that there really isn’t much of a constitutional right to privacy. Privacy issues fall under something called tort law. Tort law is a section of civil law that protects you from other people, usually by fining them for wronging you.

TORT - A negligent or intentional civil wrong not arising out of a contract or statute. These include “intentional torts” such as battery or defamation, and torts for negligence.

from Legal Definition of Tort: Everything You Need to Know

Trespassing falls under this heading. So does privacy. The Constitution protects you from the government, the fourth amendment barring search and seizure without probable cause. The right not to have somebody spy on you by looking through the windows of your house with a telescope is not constitutional, it’s tort. (I just think that’s a funny word. )

Ok, slight hijack over.

Now, on to the statement “I have nothing to hide.”

It’s not a question of having something to hide. It’s a matter of being in control of your own information. Regardless of whether you are guilty of something or not. Many people have made arguments that boil down to basically “everybody has done something wrong, and we should hide these things.” This doesn’t address the question, what if you have nothing to hide? Fabulous, you have nothing to hide, but you still have the right to control information about yourself. There is a tradition, upheld by the laws in this country and also the common law of England, that a private individual should control the information relating to that individual. Essentially this means that I get to decide what I tell you about me. This is a nice common sense principle, and I like it.

Now, to extend the syllogism in the OP,

1. It is illegal to transport drugs into the United States in my colon.

2. People who transport drugs into the United States in their colons should be stopped.

3. Full body cavity searches should be performed before entering the United States.

Does something seem fishy here? My colon is mine, and you can’t touch it, Mr. Customs man. That’s what the fourth amendment says:

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.

(again, note that this is just against the gov’t, it doesn’t say that your next door neighbor can’t watch you and the missus going at it like bunnies.)

Drug testing the entire population presupposes that everyone is guilty of taking drugs, which kind of flies in the face of innocent until proven guilty.

I’m sorry if this post was a little rambling, it’s quite late here.

Tenebras

[GreyMatters]

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.

READ THIS. READ IT OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER. Read it until it sinks in that it is there for a reason. Understand that it was written by people much smarter than you. People that understood that a GOVERNMENT is something that can take on a life of its own. It was written by people that knew that if the People didn’t rule the Governement then it would rule the People.

Also know that it has been stated many many times by terrorists, including Bin Laden, that one of their goals is to reduce and/or eliminate the Freedoms contained within the Constitution. By shaving off even a tiny amount of any right, of which some of you pansies can so easily dismiss because of Yellow Propaganda about supposed Drug epidemics and shadows of Terrorists in your backyard, then they are getting closer to their goals while we move further away from ours and our founders’.

Get off your pathetic asses and learn to protect yourself.

Understand that to truly be an American we need to be free.

[ResIpsaLoquitor]

Tenebras pretty much has it down about how privacy is a tort issue. I would add, however, that police can’t enter your property illegally or spy on you either absent some exigent circumstances necessitating it. It’s actually a Fourth Amendment issue as well, but tends to apply a tort standard. Fun, eh?

Dunno why I brought that up…haven’t had a chance to show off my legal knowledge lately.

In relation to governmental interference…“privacy” these days really translates as “autonomy” in legal terms. The best example I can think of is the abortion issue: in Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court generally spoke of “privacy” as relating to a woman’s right to do something without scrutiny. By Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Court wrote of “privacy” strictly as the right to do something without interference. Same word, big difference.

The point: as best as I can tell, the Casey view indicates the modern philosophical trend on “privacy” and why it’s so important to people.

[Mac_Guffin]

Ya know what? Let’s just take this to the next logical step.
Hey! If you aren’t doing anything wrong, it should just be fine and dandy for the police to put in cameras in your home, to “Protect you” from burglars! Don’t worry! There will be someone monitoring all the cameras all the time! You will be perfectly safe! If a burgler breaks in, the cops will see it and get over there immediatly! Doesn’t that sound grand!
Yep, if anyone in your home breaks a law, The cops will rush right in! Won’t life be terriffic with all that security?
What’s that? They will see you naked? They will see you having sex with the wife in the non-government approved manner? Hey, as long as you follow ALL the laws, you will be FINE!
shudder

No thanks.

[Ms2001]

I’m getting the impression from this thread that the main purpose of privacy is to be able to do things that are technically illegal. Sure, in some cases they’re just embarrassing, not illegal. But the real threat from a camera in every room in my perception, and that I see expressed in many comments here, is not that Officer Barbrady might see me waxing the weasel, but he might see me smoking a joint or claiming my dog as a dependent.

Now, I’m fine with that; in fact, I’m opposed to anything that makes bad laws more enforceable. If, say, the government wants to outlaw oral sex and alcohol, I feel almost obligated to call its bluff by having as much drunken oral sex as possible without being caught. A world where every law can be instantly enforced is not one where I want to live.

But is that really a good reason to maintain the right to privacy? Given that these activities are illegal, where do we draw the line between “I want to have sex with my wife in a non-government-approved manner” and “I want to smoke this non-government-approved substance”, or “I want to do some non-government-approved wife beating”?

[MEBuckner]

As has already been pointed out, privacy is not just about doing things which are illegal or technically but not enforceably illegal. It’s also about doing things which are legal but embarrasing, or doing things which are legal but which some might consider immoral, or doing things which are merely personal and are none of anybody else’s business. It’s about controlling your own life, and choosing who gets to know information about the most intimate and personal details of that life. Go look at my first post to this thread again, or Calliope’s, or wring’s, or Spiritus Mundi’s, or the various posts discussing the presumption of innoncence and the need to put limits on the power of the state.

[Justhink]

My personal opinions…
Everyone dies.
Kids grow up scarcely knowing language, scarcely eating and dying of malnutrition at very young ages.
People who know things get tortured, killed and silenced.
People who don’t know things get tortured killed and silenced.
People get ruined.
People live lives without having the time to even formulate a dream to achieve.
People have lives where not only have they formulated a dream, but they have lived it to the fullest.

My point…
Transparency helps the human race as a whole evolve.
Maybe those in power will kill me or you if everything becomes transparent right now; but at least everyone will know who they are and what they represent. Transparency is the only aspect of social structure which gives people a sense of trust in a process or a motive. Free access to all sensory media in all conceivable forms, for all people will allow humans as a whole to understand their relationship with life, with mind and with each-other. Transparency regulates itself through the faith that if we truly see all of our cards; what we have is something special. What it means to exist, is something great inherently.

That to me is much more important than being able to not be persecuted for an idea which I hold in my head. If I am wrong, let the transparency of time decide that… let the record decide that. If there is no record, those who abused their right to access mine without being accountable will never go discovered.

We must all have equal right to search and seizure. In an age where we can virtualize and simulate states in a recorded manner; looking into so-and-so’s life would not necessitate in any means… a taking of their actual time to engage in the ‘search’.
This will become more relevant and more articulative an issue as time moves forward. I am for total transparency, I am for people who hide in the shadows of the mind to be seen… and for minds to articulate their needs in that fashion. I want to know what humans are all about, what life is all about, whether my ideas are right or wrong and I would hope you feel the same. I do not see meaning in killing Afgans for an oil pipeline when we have such severely more critical issues of life to address. Is your life even important enough to warrant killing people for the profits of 40 years worth of oil? You know what… I want to talk about that; I’m sorry if it makes you uncomfortable… looks like you’ll have to kill me.

-Justhink

[Tenebras]

Forgive me if this is out of line, but what the hell are you talking about?

I’ve read your post about 5 times now, and I still can’t figure out what it’s supposed to mean. And speaking of meaning, did you really mean this?

That to me is much more important than being able to not be persecuted for an idea which I hold in my head.

Because, really, if we’re going to start talking about thought crimes, well, that’s a totally different discussion. And it looks like you’re advocating them? I think that I’m being whooshed, here. Or anyway, I hope so.

Tenebras

[jkusters]

Why is privacy important? Well, for me it comes down to one basic axiom:

If you don’t have a compelling reason to know, what I do on my own time with my own resources is none of your damned business.

Compelling reasons include probable harm to other people or their property, and outright treason. There might be other reasons, but not many. And if someone has a reason, they damned well better be ready to show probable cause.

It’s not because I have something to hide; I just don’t like people poking their noses into my business.

JOhn.