Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Parameters of Right to Privacy

  1. #1

    Default Parameters of Right to Privacy

    I am curious as to the individual thoughts and beliefs as to how far does the inherant right to privacy go.

    This may be more of a theological question as it is political in nature or maybe more political. I'm sure the ideas on it are diverse. Europeans may have a different view than Americans, north, central or south. Eastern countries may have one spin on it as do Australians.

    1) Should freedom be sacrified for security?

    2) Do rights of privacy differ from city and population laden areas from that of
    spread-out populated areas?

    3) Does the right to privacy include noise invasion such as a rampant party
    nearby invading your peace? Ie. sleep.

    4) Where is the line between this right and civil liberty?

    5) How much of this right should be rendered to the government?

    6) How much of this right should be rendered to tolerance?

    7) A tricky one: How do you feel about being videotaped without your
    knowledge? Ie. street cameras, security cameras, or other. Or, being
    listened to on a private phone call?

    8) How much of your information should be publicly available to anyone
    including the general public or agency?

    9) Has the right to privacy changed in the digital age? For better or for worse?

    These are just general topics as the range is undoubtably wide but it is a diverse area of opinion. Even if you are not a long winded poster you have a right to your say. Please do not let a rhetorical view dissuade you.

  2. #2

    Default

    1) Should freedom be sacrified for security?
    To some extent yes. There should be as much freedom as possible but realistically there are threats that I'm willing to give up some things to be protected from

    2) Do rights of privacy differ from city and population laden areas from that of
    spread-out populated areas?

    They really shouldn't but in practice they do. Population centers tend to have cameras everywhere, where the boonies don't. Also there tend to be more police around cities than out in the sticks.

    3) Does the right to privacy include noise invasion such as a rampant party
    nearby invading your peace? Ie. sleep.

    To a certain extent. At least where I live we have noise ordinances that basically say that before 10 if somebody's being loud you have to suck it up and deal with it but after 10 (and before 5 AM) if they're still really loud you can call the cops to have them come knock on the door and tell them to keep it down. But we don't have residential service like that anymore where I live so *shrugs* its really up to us to keep the peace through peer pressure. But I definitely support a reasonable noise ordinance like that. People shouldn't be able to be crazy loud at all hours of the night because then they're infringing on other peoples privacy but I also don't want some nut job complaining about my back yard barbecue at 5pm. it's a balance.

    4) Where is the line between this right and civil liberty?
    I don't really understand the question?

    5) How much of this right should be rendered to the government?
    see above

    6) How much of this right should be rendered to tolerance?
    se above above

    7) A tricky one: How do you feel about being videotaped without your
    knowledge? Ie. street cameras, security cameras, or other. Or, being
    listened to on a private phone call?

    I don't love cameras but I understand why they're there. So in general I support them, but I also think that police should need a warrant to look at them, at least right now I believe that the cops have carte blanche access to look at security tapes.

    Private phone calls? hell no, they're called private for a reason. Unless the cops have enough compelling evidence to be able to get a warrant they should absolutely never be allowed to listen to my conversations, look at my txts or emails or internet browsing.

    8) How much of your information should be publicly available to anyone
    including the general public or agency?

    none of it. I don't want anybody to be able to have any info on me unless I specifically release that info, like listing it in the phone book. This should apply to politicians mailing and calling lists too. In fact I think we should be able to have a "Do not call" list for political campaigns....I freaking hate those messages. We get three sets now. One for me, one for my mom and one for my dad. It's insane

    9) Has the right to privacy changed in the digital age? For better or for worse?
    It has definitely changed for the worse. There's a lot more ways to get and collect personal info now and the laws haven't kept up with the times. Like how google was tracking all of their user's browsing activity and how some jobs are now requiring you to give them your Facebook password in order to get a job. I think that that's incredibly invasive and should be so so so illegal.

  3. #3

    Default

    1) Should freedom be sacrified for security?

    That depends on the freedom in question, how exactly does rescinding a freedom entail security?

    2) Do rights of privacy differ from city and population laden areas from that of
    spread-out populated areas?

    It shouldn't do, but it does, how often do you hear of phone hacking occuring in a village in the UK


    3) Does the right to privacy include noise invasion such as a rampant party
    nearby invading your peace? Ie. sleep.

    Technically, it is not your privacy being invaded, people are not looking into your private life, if I want to sleep at uni halls of residence, that party downstairs isn't an invasion of privacy, its just an annoyance

    4) Where is the line between this right and civil liberty?

    liberty is the idea of being the master of your own destiny, but that doesn't neccessarily guarantee privacy rights

    5) How much of this right should be rendered to the government?

    there have to be state secrets, otherwise an enemy state would exploit weaknesses, however if a government is suppressing what are potentially war crimes ala wikileaks then it has no right to keep that private.

    6) How much of this right should be rendered to tolerance?

    I don't understand, can you clarify?

    7) A tricky one: How do you feel about being videotaped without your
    knowledge? Ie. street cameras, security cameras, or other. Or, being
    listened to on a private phone call?

    very uncomfortable, but living in london almost gaurentees the former

    8) How much of your information should be publicly available to anyone
    including the general public or agency?

    noone whatsoever, allthough that's amost impossible without facebook

    9) Has the right to privacy changed in the digital age? For better or for worse?

    worse, much much worse, as little miss said, companies looking at your facebook page is completely rediculous
    Last edited by OmarLittle; 12-May-2012 at 09:13.

  4. #4

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by SterlingArcher View Post
    1) Should freedom be sacrified for security?

    That depends on the freedom in question, how exactly does rescinding a freedom entail security?
    This may include airport check points where an X-Ray type image of your body and clothing is visible on-screen to security. You are sacrificing a form of privacy in the nature of security.



    Quote Originally Posted by SterlingArcher View Post
    6) How much of this right should be rendered to tolerance?

    I don't understand, can you clarify
    This could include subjecting your self to search without your permission. Ie. Police looking for a fugitive and could demand entrance into your home without a warrant or an Evironmental Agency being able to inspect your property without warrant.




    Quote Originally Posted by SterlingArcher View Post
    8) How much of your information should be publicly available to anyone
    including the general public or agency?

    noone whatsoever, allthough that's amost impossible without facebook
    Lol. True. Although stateside you can pay a fee and look up anyones criminal history along with address, education, age, and sex through online agencies.

    ---------- Post added at 01:17 ---------- Previous post was at 00:44 ----------



    Quote Originally Posted by LittleMiss View Post
    4) Where is the line between this right and civil liberty?
    I don't really understand the question?
    Civil liberties include alienable rights (some countries have very little) that include a level of dignity preserverence through a right to privacy. The reason for the question is to explore the grey areas in between. Perhaps should you be forced by local government to publicly announce that you have commited a violent crime to a new neighborhood you move to even though you have already paid your time a debt to society in punishment? Should your punishment also include a "scarlett letter" such as a proposed law (I think in Ohio) to have to display a pink license plate on your car if you've been convicted of DUI?
    Last edited by ilostthesheriff; 10-May-2012 at 09:04.

  5. #5

    Default

    1) Should freedom be sacrified for security?

    I have seen little to no evidence that the sacrificing of freedoms has increased security at any level. One of the biggest things that few people remember is that the weapons brought on board the flights for 9/11 were not smuggled in by passengers, but by people with access to the aircraft that worked at the airport.

    2) Do rights of privacy differ from city and population laden areas from that of
    spread-out populated areas?

    There should be zero difference between heavily populated and sparsely populated areas for privacy expectations.

    3) Does the right to privacy include noise invasion such as a rampant party
    nearby invading your peace? Ie. sleep.

    The noise invasion is not invading your privacy--it is not making it such that an activity you felt should be private is no longer so. An excellent example of this would be you and your partner engaging in sexual activity in your bedroom with the curtains closed while the party is going on. Your desire for privacy while having sex is not changed by the noise from the party.

    4) Where is the line between this right and civil liberty?

    There is a clear definition what is a 'civil liberty'--quick copy over here--civil liberties are rights or freedoms given to the people by the First Amendment to the Constitution, by common law, or legislation, allowing the individual to be free to speak, think, assemble, organize, worship, or petition without government (or even private) interference or restraints. This does not have any reflection on "privacy". The idea regarding 'registering' as convicted for a given offense also does not reflect on 'privacy'. By committing a criminal act and being lawfully convicted of same, you lose civil liberties and rights.

    5) How much of this right should be rendered to the government?

    None.

    6) How much of this right should be rendered to tolerance?

    That is a personal preference. Personally, I have zero intent on letting the police into my house without a warrant or solid reason for their search. Would I let the police check my person if they could provide me with good reasoning? Maybe, depends on the reasoning and the mood I'm in. Other than that, no government agency has the right to inspect my property without a warrant.

    7) A tricky one: How do you feel about being videotaped without your
    knowledge? Ie. street cameras, security cameras, or other. Or, being
    listened to on a private phone call?

    Much of this has already been debated by our courts many times over. If you stand out on your front lawn and take all of your clothes off and then complain when a picture of you doing same is posted to the internet, you have no grounds on which to fight it. The location you chose gave you no expectation of privacy. Should you do the same in your bathroom and someone surreptitiously photograph you in a similar state of undress, you have solid basis against it, you had every expectation of privacy. As for phone calls, any call I make directly to another person should not be listened to as I have the same expectation of privacy.

    8) How much of your information should be publicly available to anyone
    including the general public or agency?

    Any information I deem to make public can be allowed. The recording of legal items, such as a marriage or purchase of property are recorded. Should the government know what brand of diapers I buy? No.

    9) Has the right to privacy changed in the digital age? For better or for worse?

    The right to privacy has not changed, what has become the problem is that information being freely disseminated on social websites is viewed by those posting as 'private', yet they fail to realize that they have performed the equivalent of printing it in ten foot letters on the front of their house.

  6. #6

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by AnalogRTO View Post
    1) Should freedom be sacrified for security?

    I have seen little to no evidence that the sacrificing of freedoms has increased security at any level.
    I don't think any sane person would cite aircraft security as a good example of sacrificing privacy for security, as it's quite obvious there's almost no security benefit.

    That said, while I agree with you that in practice there are a huge number of examples of powers being abused in the name of "security" for no particular benefit of the society, I do think that there is a valid fundamental question as to what degree we should accept that the public's right to safety takes precedence over our own right to privacy. I don't claim to have an answer to that question, but I do think any sort of generalized answer ("always" or "never") is likely incorrect.

  7. #7

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by LazyAB View Post
    I don't think any sane person would cite aircraft security as a good example of sacrificing privacy for security, as it's quite obvious there's almost no security benefit.

    That said, while I agree with you that in practice there are a huge number of examples of powers being abused in the name of "security" for no particular benefit of the society, I do think that there is a valid fundamental question as to what degree we should accept that the public's right to safety takes precedence over our own right to privacy. I don't claim to have an answer to that question, but I do think any sort of generalized answer ("always" or "never") is likely incorrect.
    I can come up with a very hypothetical situation that has happened before--someone constructing devices with radioactive material in their garden shed. However, in this case, it is still difficult to determine how the public safety took precedence over the right to privacy. After all, in order to enter the property and search the shed, a warrant still had to be issued regarding the property. The interesting thing about warrants are that if they are limited in scope, then other criminal items found during service of the warrant cannot be used in a court of law. If a warrant is issued to search my house for evidence indicating that I murdered another person, then the police may come in and search for that. If, during the course of their search, they find no evidence to support the case of me murdering someone but they do, however, find large amounts of illicit drugs, I should not be convicted for possession. They were not allowed to look for items like that during their search.

    I do agree with you that the public right to safety and an individual right to privacy has no simple answer. After all, if you claim the public right to safety is more important, then you can go down a lot of slippery slopes. Say someone is participating in sexual behaviors that are otherwise legal, but these behaviors are risky in the likelihood in transmission of STD's. Can this be construed as a public safety risk since they have a high likelihood of transferring along those STD's? Or does the individual right to privacy override this?

  8. #8

    Default

    1) Should freedom be sacrified for security?
    Well there are some exceptions, and those exceptions actually providing concrete increase in security, my general attitide is along the lines of "Those that sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither."

    2) Do rights of privacy differ from city and population laden areas from that of
    spread-out populated areas?
    They shouldn't, but they do as in more population concentrated areas there tend to be more cameras and the powers that be seem to think they need to medle in everything and can get away with it more easily.

    3) Does the right to privacy include noise invasion such as a rampant party
    nearby invading your peace? Ie. sleep.
    Noise? no, now if the party caused someone to accidentally burst into your apartment or some such that is another story

    4) Where is the line between this right and civil liberty?
    The line is often along the lines of the right to privacy is not reflected in the constitution where as cifil liberties are.

    5) How much of this right should be rendered to the government?
    None, zero, Zip

    6) How much of this right should be rendered to tolerance?
    As much as possible, I am one that if my privacy is being invaded by some outside person (not family) I want to see official documentation explaining why they are doing such, others might be a bit more willing to cooperate purely on word of mouth.

    7) A tricky one: How do you feel about being videotaped without your
    knowledge? Ie. street cameras, security cameras, or other. Or, being
    listened to on a private phone call?
    Well, it is seldome that I don't know about it or figure such is happening, like security cameras in businesses and stores, but I hate it when neither of the above is true because it just feels like someone is trying to find out anything thye can use against me.

    8) How much of your information should be publicly available to anyone
    including the general public or agency?
    Public records, like marage, birth, place of work, etc should be publically available, addresses and things that can be used to locate people only to the ones that need to know/the person wants to know. Individual choices that have no bearing on the public or involve the agency (like what kind of diapers one buys or what one does in in private time) should never be public information.

    9) Has the right to privacy changed in the digital age? For better or for worse?
    The right has not changed but there are those that fail to take basic precautions and what shoudl be private becomes public.

  9. #9

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by hotstuff View Post
    1) Should freedom be sacrified for security?
    2) Do rights of privacy differ from city and population laden areas from that of spread-out populated areas?
    3) Does the right to privacy include noise invasion such as a rampant party
    nearby invading your peace? Ie. sleep.
    4) Where is the line between this right and civil liberty?
    5) How much of this right should be rendered to the government?
    6) How much of this right should be rendered to tolerance?
    7) A tricky one: How do you feel about being videotaped without your
    knowledge? Ie. street cameras, security cameras, or other. Or, being
    listened to on a private phone call?
    8) How much of your information should be publicly available to anyone
    including the general public or agency?
    9) Has the right to privacy changed in the digital age? For better or for worse?
    1) Depends on how far your going I guess. The ability to walk along a street with a machine gun is obviously a time when freedom should be sacrificed for security. At the same time things like the silly new rules brought by TSA are not only incredibly inconvenient they are also useless.
    2) Nope. Obviously there is a good chance some one may have a good view of your window if you live in a city compared to living in the country.
    3) Depends really, if they are obviously being inconsiderate (ie very loud music at midnight) then it is an issue. However if it isn't (ie loudish music at 9 o'clock) then they have a right to be partying.
    5) The government should be aloud to do things, but they should be liable for there actions. For example if a government installs an illegal wiretap on say a internet cabinet they should be held liable. More importantly they should not have the right to give legal protection to any person or party (as the US government is doing).
    6) Bit confused. Do you mean racism? Racial profiling is wrong in every way imaginable and only heaps up onto the actual problem which causes the terrorism (which is racism).
    7) In the street, in a bus, or someone else's house/business basically anywhere not owned by me I don't care. In fact I think it's probably a good idea in most cases (think of the person who spent half an hour lying in a pool of blood on a busy street before someone helped them). At the same time- my home and my phone/internet is my own business and unless they have a legal warrant given for good reason they should not even be glancing.
    8) I think every person should have a right to administer their own info. Even basic things like floor plans shouldn't just be tossed into the public eye.
    9) It has changed a lot. The digital age has given us ways to communicate globally allowing a better society as scientists, human rights activists, and just regular people can talk to each other as they wish. At the same time the digital age has given the government a heck load of tools to spy on us with- but they can no longer walk in and slaughter a child without it being on a headline somewhere.
    Last edited by HogansHeroes; 12-May-2012 at 08:08. Reason: fixed quote tag

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by ilostthesheriff View Post
    1) Should freedom be sacrified for security?


    Quote Originally Posted by Benjamin Franklin
    Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
    Giving up freedom for security is never an option. The people we trusted for security will become the tyrants.



    Quote Originally Posted by ilostthesheriff View Post
    4) Where is the line between this right and civil liberty?
    Privacy is not an enumerated right. However, the Constitution does not give the government the power to collect all this information about us.

    ---------- Post added at 04:50 ---------- Previous post was at 04:35 ----------



    Quote Originally Posted by ilostthesheriff View Post
    This could include subjecting your self to search without your permission. Ie. Police looking for a fugitive and could demand entrance into your home without a warrant or an Evironmental Agency being able to inspect your property without warrant.
    Generally, the police need a warrant to enter your home. Same with inspections.



    Quote Originally Posted by ilostthesheriff View Post
    Civil liberties include alienable rights (some countries have very little) that include a level of dignity preserverence through a right to privacy.
    You misunderstand what inalienable rights are. Governments do not grant rights because rights come from a higher power. Governments that do not respect natural rights violate the rights of their people. Their people still have those natural rights. If governments grant rights, then they can take rights away.

    ---------- Post added at 05:17 ---------- Previous post was at 04:50 ----------



    Quote Originally Posted by herobrine View Post
    The ability to walk along a street with a machine gun is obviously a time when freedom should be sacrificed for security.
    Some states regulate such behavior. In my state, I could walk down the street with a loaded AR-15 on a sling on my back. I have the proper permits to carry a loaded firearm, either openly or concealed. The permit doesn't specify what firearms I carry. In my state, businesses can ask people with guns to leave, so carrying something more discreet is a better idea. I feel more secure when I have a gun or am around others who have guns. Bad guys won't commit crimes if they think someone may be armed. If people are disarmed, the criminal can commit crimes at will.

    Also, hunters do hunt with AR15s in some places. That may entail walking along highways to get to their hunting spot.

Similar Threads

  1. No Privacy
    By MrAwesome in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 17-Jul-2011, 12:05

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.