The debate we should be having is one of how to have a covert intelligence gathering that can be protected from abuse.
But that’s actually important so let’s go back to ‘Oh they’re listening to my phone calls’ which of course no they are not.
But that headline is for the simpletons so attracts viewers.
The Constitution begins ‘We The People’.
I’ve looked and no where does it state I’ as an individual’.
When our Republic was formed, it was for our protection and growth.
So yes I have the ‘expectation’ of the ‘right of privacy’ but not at the expense of the greater good.
We are a Republic.
Not a Democracy where we all vote on every issue.
Nor are we a isolated island of individual all living ‘free’.
I love Cornell Law as it always does a great job of getting me to question……
‘Right of privacy: an overview’
‘Distinct from the right of publicity protected by state common or statutory law, a broader right of privacy has been inferred in the Constitution. Although not explicity stated in the text of the Constitution, in 1890 then to be Justice Louis Brandeis extolled ‘a right to be left alone.’ This right has developed into a liberty of personal autonomy protected by the 14th amendment. The 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments also provide some protection of privacy, although in all cases the right is narrowly defined. The Constitutional right of privacy has developed alongside a statutory right of privacy which limits access to personal information. The Federal Trade Commission overwhelmingly enforces this statutory right of privacy, and the rise of privacy policies and privacy statements are evidence of its work. In all of its forms, however, the right of privacy must be balanced against the state’s compelling interests. Such compelling interests include the promotion of public morality, protection of the individual’s psychological health, and improving the quality of life’.
@ : http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Privacy
‘Rright of privacy: access to personal information’
‘The right of privacy has evolved to protect the ability of individuals to determine what sort of information about themselves is collected, and how that information is used. Most commercial websites utilize “cookies,” as well as forms, to collect information from visitors such as name, address, email, demographic info, social security number, IP address, and financial information. In many cases, this information is then provided to third parties for marketing purposes. Other entities, such as the federal government and financial institutions, also collect personal information. The threats of fraud and identity theft created by this flow of personal information have been an impetus for right of privacy legislation requiring disclosure of information collection practices, opt-out opportunities, as well as internal protections of collected information. However, such requirements have yet to reach all segments of the marketplace’.
’15 U.S.C. § 45 charges the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) with preventing “unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” In matters of privacy, the FTC’s role is one of enforcing privacy promises made in the marketplace. Several additional laws form the foundation on which the FTC carries out this charge: the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a), the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 6801-6809), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.), and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 6501-6506)’.
‘The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a) protects personal information held by the federal government by preventing unauthorized disclosures of such information. Individuals also have the right to review such information, request corrections, and be informed of any disclosures. The Freedom of Information Act facilitates these processes’.
‘The Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.) protects personal financial information collected by consumer reporting agencies. The Act limits those who can access such infomation, and subsequent amendments have simplified the process by which consumers can obtain and correct the information collected about themselves. The FTC also actively enforces prohibitions on fraudulently obtaining personal financial information, a crime known as “pretexting.”
‘The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 6501-6506) allows parents to control what information is collected about their child (younger than 13 years old) online. Operators of websites that either target children or knowingly collect personal information from children are required to post privacy policies, obtain parental consent before collecting information from children, allow parents to determine how such information is used, and provide the option to parents to opt-out of future collection from their child’.
‘However, despite the rights described above, other participants in the marketplace are not bound by law to develop similar protections and disclosure practices. Rather, in the remainder of the marketplace, the FTC encourages a voluntary regime of protecting consumer privacy. In two reports to Congress (1998, 2000) though, the FTC found that most sites falling outside of the jurisdiction of the established right of privacy laws do not adequately inform consumers about collection practices, nor do the majority of sites adequately protect the privacy of visitors’ personal information. It appears that the voluntary regime is insufficient, and the prospect of further right of privacy legislation in the area of access to personal information is very real’.
@ : http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/personal_Information
‘Right of privacy: personal autonomy’
‘The right of privacy has evolved to protect the freedom of individuals to choose whether or not to perform certain acts or subject themselves to certain experiences. This personal autonomy has grown into a ‘liberty’ protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. However, this liberty is narrowly defined and generally only protects privacy of family, marriage, motherhood, procreation, and child rearing. There have been attempts to further extend the right of privacy under the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; however, a general right to personal autonomy has yet to take hold beyond limited circumstances’.
‘The personal autonomy dimension of the right of privacy has been overwhelmingly developed in cases dealing with reproductive rights. The Supreme Court first recognized an independent right of privacy within the ‘penumbra’ (fringe area) of the Bill of Rights in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). In this case, a right of marital privacy was invoked to void a law prohibiting contraception. Later cases expanded upon this fundamental right, and in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the right of privacy was firmly established under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The court classified this right as fundamental, thus requiring any governmental infringement to be justified by a compelling state interest. Roe held that the state’s compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting the life of the mother outweighs a mother’s personal autonomy only after viability. Before viability, it was held, the mother’s liberty of personal privacy limits state interference due to the lack of a compelling state interest’.
‘The personal autonomy aspect of the right of privacy has limits. In 1986, a law criminilizing same sex sodomy was upheld in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986). The Court held that not all private consensual sexual activity is insulated from the state. At the time, the same sex activities in question were not granted inclusion in the due process protected categories of relationships. However, Bowers was overturned in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), holding that the Bowers court viewed liberty too narrowly and grounding the right with a notion of how personal and intimate nature of the conduct’.
‘As activities become further removed from reproduction and intimacy, the right of privacy weakens and becomes less fundamental. Pornography is an area where the court has been reluctant to completely grant the liberty of personal autonomy, although some privacy has been allowed: see Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969) and Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (1973)’.
‘The 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been utilized to varying degrees of success to protect privacy in these gray areas of activity. The court’s preference for a case-by-case approach to the right of privacy in as much as it protects personal autonomy, combined with ever-changing public opinion on the status of various relationships and activities, makes a succinct statement about the boundaries of the right of privacy nearly impossible’.
@ : http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Personal_Autonomy