NationStates Jolt Archive

Simple question: do we really have a right to privacy? Recently I heard the old argument for reading people's mail, tapping their phones, etc., which is, "If you're not doing anything bad, why worry?" Unsurprisingly, spying on citizens without a warrant still seems wrong, but for some reason I thought about it: "why should I worry? What can I do that is 'good' that I don't want other people to know about?" I'd appreciate someone smarter than me to steer me back on the right to privacy idea, which intuitively still seems true.

Simple question: do we really have a right to privacy? Recently I heard the old argument for reading people's mail, tapping their phones, etc., which is, "If you're not doing anything bad, why worry?" Unsurprisingly, spying on citizens without a warrant still seems wrong, but for some reason I thought about it: "why should I worry? What can I do that is 'good' that I don't want other people to know about?" I'd appreciate someone smarter than me to steer me back on the right to privacy idea, which intuitively still seems true.

Simply because you aren't doing anything bad doesn't mean you want people observing you.

Taking a shit is nothing to be ashamed of, but would you really want people observing you by CCTV?

OMGGEORGEORWELL!

So I can type my previous comment in all-caps.

Simply because you aren't doing anything bad doesn't mean you want people observing you.

Taking a shit is nothing to be ashamed of, but would you really want people observing you by CCTV?

That's usually my line of reasoning, but then a new thought occurred to me: why wouldn't I want people observing me? How do I know I'm not just being prudish?

Because thats the Stalin arguement. If you are innocent what have you to fear? How about the fact that its simply intrusive and there are times when you should be able to expect privacy.

That's usually my line of reasoning, but then a new thought occurred to me: why wouldn't I want people observing me? How do I know I'm not just being prudish?

What is wrong with being prudish? It's your right as an American citizen. (if you aren't an American citizen, you don't have rights anyway)

if you really trust the state enough and are in complete agreement and compliance with all of its laws i suppose its fine... but are most people really that well disposed to their own government? are they sure there is nothing in their lives that if the state was aware of it they won't be adversely affected?

What is wrong with being prudish? It's your right as an American citizen. (if you aren't an American citizen, you don't have rights anyway)

I think that's replacing E.B. White.

Here's why you worry.

Right now we mostly have reasonable governments, mostly looking to protect us...mostly.

However, tabulating all this information, creating these huge databases of information on each citizen makes it very easy for extreme governments to single out and target specific groups. Something that is innocent now could be deemed an offense later.

We should retain our right to privacy because privacy protects us.

There's always a balance but recording my calls, my emails, all my contacts is potentially damaging to both me and those contacts I communicate with.

Now this may look unlikely in the near future but by giving up my rights now, I also give them up for future generations.

A quote from Thomas MacCaulay

"...that the business of the magistrate [read: government] is not merely to see that the persons and property of the people are secure from attack, but that he ought to be a jack-of-all-trades--architect, engineer, school-master, merchant, theologian, a Lady Bountiful in every parish, a Paul Pry in every house, spying, eavesdropping, relieving, admonishing, spending our money for us, and choosing our opinions for us. His principle is, if we understand it rightly, that no man can do anything as well for himself as his rulers, be they who they may, can do it for him, and that a government approaches nearer and nearer to perfection in proportion as it interferes more and more with the habits and notions of individuals."

I think that's replacing E.B. White.

My uncultured self is not really understanding the reference.

Edit: But my observant self realized you sigged me. So by using deductive reasoning, I assume you replaced an E.B. White quote with some blabber that shot out of my brain, into my fingertips and then onto the forum. I am honoured.

That's usually my line of reasoning, but then a new thought occurred to me: why wouldn't I want people observing me? How do I know I'm not just being prudish?
Look at it this way, you might not be doing something wrong, but the information disclosed could be used against you.

Using your taking a dump example, let us say that currently you're suffering from a minor health problem that the medication for teating such turns your stool bright pink (Yes, I am making this up as I go along).

Let us say that after being observed with your pink stool, you suddenly find yourself fired from your job due to health reasons. It wasn't your job's buisness what color your shit was, but because it was observed and recorded, they were able to use it to leverage you out of a job. What's more, because your pink crap is now a matter of public record, it will trail you wherever you so choose.

There's nothing wrong with you going pink, but what buisness is it for everyone else to know about it?

Because thats the Stalin arguement. If you are innocent what have you to fear? How about the fact that its simply intrusive and there are times when you should be able to expect privacy.

*applauds*

Well said. Give this man a cookie.

That's usually my line of reasoning, but then a new thought occurred to me: why wouldn't I want people observing me? How do I know I'm not just being prudish?
Look at it this way, you might not be doing something wrong, but the information disclosed could be used against you.

Using your taking a dump example, let us say that currently you're suffering from a minor health problem that the medication for teating such turns your stool bright pink (Yes, I am making this up as I go along).

Let us say that after being observed with your pink stool, you suddenly find yourself fired from your job due to health reasons. It wasn't your job's buisness what color your shit was, but because it was observed and recorded, they were able to use it to leverage you out of a job. What's more, because your pink crap is now a matter of public record, it will trail you wherever you so choose.

There's nothing wrong with you going pink, but what buisness is it for everyone else to know about it?

That's usually my line of reasoning, but then a new thought occurred to me: why wouldn't I want people observing me?

because observation is a power relation. both in general and especially when combined with already existent large disparities in power. to be the watched is to be subordinate to the watcher.

Try the converse: if you have nothing to hide, why does the gov't want to know? The scariest words known to mankind just might be "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

Eventually you WILL break one of the thousands upon thousands of statutes that have been made over the decades. Even if you endanger no one, you would be punished for a statutory violation you probably wouldn't even have known to exist. they say ignorance is no excuse, but most lawyers with doctorates only know a fraction of the laws related to the bit they specialize in.

Here in the states, such surveillance would violate both the letter and spirit of our 4th amendment - "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."

OK, some comments and just some lawyery nit-picking.

In the U.S., the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. The common law origin of this prohibition was tied to property rights. According to Findlaw (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/01.html#t29), Lord Camden said in Entick v. Carrington, 19 Howell's State Trials 1029, 1035, 95 Eng. Reg. 807, 817- 18 (1765). :

The great end for which men entered in society was to secure their property. That right is preserved sacred and incommunicable in all instances where it has not been taken away or abridged by some public law for the good of the whole. . . . By the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass. No man can set foot upon my ground without my license but he is liable to an action though the damage be nothing . . . .

The Supreme Court has since explained, however, that the Fourth Amendment "protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public." Katz v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/389/347.html), 389 U.S. 347 (1967). Katz sets forth a two-pronged test as to whether government conduct constitutes a search. First, the government conduct must trangress a citizen's subjective manifestation of a privacy interest. Second, the privacy interest invaded must be one that society is prepared to accept as "reasonable" or legitimate.

There are at least two legitimate interests which can be impaired by a government search, even if a citizen is doing nothing illegal and thus has "nothing to hide." First, there is an interest in being free from physical disruption and inconvenience. Thus, an innocent person who is subject to a body search suffers a Fourth Amendment intrusion regardless of whether he or she had anything to hide. Second, certain information, even though not indicative of criminal activity, may be personal or embarassing. Innocent citizens have a legitimate interest in keeping such information private.

Also, permitting a government intrusion on the ground that the citizen is engaged in illegal activity is question-begging, because the police ordinarily have to make the intrusion in order to determine whether the citizen's activity is illegal.

(Seizures are different from searches and involve an obvious citizen interest in retaining possession of property in addition to privacy concerns. Texas v. Brown (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?friend=nytimes&navby=case&court=us&vol=460&invol=730), 460 U.S. 730, 747-48 (1983) (Justice Stevens, concurring)).

Now, along with the Fourth Amendment, the Constitution protects a general right to privacy. Griswold v. Connecticut (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=381&invol=479), 381 U.S. 479 (1965). In Griswold, the Court held that a Connecticut law that made it a crime for any person to use any drug or article to prevent conception was unconsitutional. The Court explained:

[S]pecific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 516 -522 (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were described in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630, as protection against all governmental invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life." We recently referred in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 656, to the Fourth Amendment as creating a "right to privacy, no less important than any other right carefully and particularly reserved to the people." See Beaney, The Constitutional Right to Privacy, 1962 Sup. Ct. Rev. 212; Griswold, The Right to be Let Alone, 55 Nw. U. L. Rev. 216 (1960).

We have had many controversies over these penumbral rights of "privacy and repose." See, e. g., Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622, 626, 644; Public Utilities Comm'n v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451; Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167; Lanza v. New York, 370 U.S. 139; Frank v. Maryland, 359 U.S. 360; Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541. These cases bear witness that the right of privacy which presses for recognition here is a legitimate one.

The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a "governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms." NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U.S. 288, 307. Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.

We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.

Note: Some of the above analysis relies on Stephen A. Saltzberg & Daniel J. Capra, American Criminal Procedure: Cases and Commentary 37-43 (5th Ed. 1996).

Simple question: do we really have a right to privacy? Recently I heard the old argument for reading people's mail, tapping their phones, etc., which is, "If you're not doing anything bad, why worry?" Unsurprisingly, spying on citizens without a warrant still seems wrong, but for some reason I thought about it: "why should I worry? What can I do that is 'good' that I don't want other people to know about?" I'd appreciate someone smarter than me to steer me back on the right to privacy idea, which intuitively still seems true.
Well, there's the fact that you deserve privacy, since it'd be nice to be able to do stuff without people being aware of it.

But really, there's one gigantically important reason to preserve the right to privacy: information overload. We're seeing a huge problem from this just with the observation already being put into place; with even more observation, so much information would be gathered that it either wouldn't all be storable or it wouldn't be easily searchable, rendering it useless.

*wiretaps thread*


*fires up black helicopter*

One day, a letter arrives from the goverment: Could you stop wanking so much, we have to watch this shit, and frankly it's embarrassing.

It's about power balance. As long as the information is not abused it's okay but the question is if well thought out rules is enough to make sure the information is never abused. How do you know that information about you really will not be abused?

Would you be comfortable in the lack of privacy in these 3 hypothetical situations?

Let's say you use a service that stores everything you would normally store in your own computer online so you can use it from any computer anywhere. When you have a disagreement with the service provider they threaten to look through all your emails, chat logs, photos, documents and other files and start a smear campaign against you. Is there nothing there that could be spun and exaggerated to be embarrassing?

Alternatively let's say you pay for everything with a credit card, the system sends detailed receipts from the store to the card company and your card company starts a smear campaign by looking through every single item and service you bought in the last 10 years.

Or the cellphone provider leaves the microphone active all the time without you knowing and uses speech to text companied with keyword searches to find anything to spin and exaggerate among everything you have said in the last decade.

Simply because you aren't doing anything bad doesn't mean you want people observing you.

Taking a shit is nothing to be ashamed of, but would you really want people observing you by CCTV?

Whatever floats their boat. I have zero secrets.

That said, if you allow this sort of thing, and the government suddenly takes a turn for the worse, say, becoming excessively Communist or Fascist, you won't be able to resist the government at all.

In such a society, whoever gets elected could well keep themselves in power forever.

So if you're doing nothing wrong, then it doesn't matter if you're being watched? So then the child molester down the street should be allowed to peep through your windows at your family? After all, you're doing nothing wrong.

So if you're doing nothing wrong, then it doesn't matter if you're being watched? So then the child molester down the street should be allowed to peep through your windows at your family? After all, you're doing nothing wrong.

If he doesn't mind if I exercise my 2nd Amendment rights when I notice what he's doing, it doesn't matter to me.

Simple.
Because I don't want some security guy wanking off to my daily mastrubation session. Or other stuff should I find a partner.

Simple.
Because I don't want some security guy wanking off to my daily mastrubation session. Or other stuff should I find a partner.

What if he just wants to laugh, instead of wank?

One day, a letter arrives from the goverment: Could you stop wanking so much, we have to watch this shit, and frankly it's embarrassing.They're already watching? Damn. If they'd send me a pretty man who cooks and keeps house I'd have something better to do.

What if he just wants to laugh, instead of wank?By now I'm pretty good at it.:p

Simple question: do we really have a right to privacy? Recently I heard the old argument for reading people's mail, tapping their phones, etc., which is, "If you're not doing anything bad, why worry?"

If I'm not doing anything bad, why the hell is the gov't spying on me?? If they have that so much time on their hands that they can bother innocent people, I'll make sure their replacements will make better use of their time.

Paranoia argument; same as the reasoning that everyone should own guns. "If the government takes a dislike to you, it can use otherwise innocent things you say, do, see, or hear, and use them to make you 'disappear' in the middle of the night!" or alternately "The government can kidnap you for secret experiments in the middle of the desert and replace you with a robot clone who acts exactly the same way so that nobody becomes suspicious!"

Basically: the only problem with "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear," is who defines "wrong"? And quis custodet ipsos custodes?

By now I'm pretty good at it.:p

Even if you're hot looking, and an excellent masturbator, it can all become quite comic when you scrunch up your face like that when you get an orgasm...

Even if you're hot looking, and an excellent masturbator, it can all become quite comic when you scrunch up your face like that when you get an orgasm...Only men. Saw something on it a while ago. Something along the lines of "When women orgasm, it's beautiful, but men? They look like they've been drinking vinegar. Through their eyes."

Simple question: do we really have a right to privacy? Recently I heard the old argument for reading people's mail, tapping their phones, etc., which is, "If you're not doing anything bad, why worry?" Unsurprisingly, spying on citizens without a warrant still seems wrong, but for some reason I thought about it: "why should I worry? What can I do that is 'good' that I don't want other people to know about?" I'd appreciate someone smarter than me to steer me back on the right to privacy idea, which intuitively still seems true.

Because what some people feel is wrong may be perfectly acceptable to you? Because adults are just as petty and stupid as children, and you may still be mocked for something perfectly innocent?

Plus it's just creepy....hell, I can't even stand my DOG watching me have sex, much less other people.

Because what some people feel is wrong may be perfectly acceptable to you? Because adults are just as petty and stupid as children, and you may still be mocked for something perfectly innocent?

Plus it's just creepy....hell, I can't even stand my DOG watching me have sex, much less other people.

Move the mirror then :)

Someone probably already mentioned this but...The reason I don't want people spying on me is simply I don't trust other people, especially ones that I don't know. Would you trust some low level clerk knowing everything about you, including everything that's needed to ruin your life such as your SSN, pin numbers for your cards etc.?

Edit for spelling

Would you trust some low level cleric knowing everything about you, including everything that's needed to ruin your life such as your SSN, pin numbers for your cards etc.?

Hell no. Unless they knew Resurrection or at least Raise Dead, I want nothing to do with them.

Hell no. Unless they knew Resurrection or at least Raise Dead, I want nothing to do with them.

Thanks for that, got a good laugh. And if we're going by D&D don't they have to be at least mid level to start bringing people back. Geese it takes forever just to learn cure disease. :)

I do not believe in a free-floating rights of any kind, only in property rights; for instance, if one's curtains are wide open there is no 'right' to prevent someone from looking in. However, there is a right to prevent someone from breaking into your house to look through your stuff. Likewise, there is a right to give access to one's phonelines if one so wishes, and likewise to deny it, which would make a wiretap against the will of an innocent a crime.

I do not believe in a free-floating rights of any kind, only in property rights

slavery, yay or nay?

I do not believe in a free-floating rights of any kind, only in property rights; for instance, if one's curtains are wide open there is no 'right' to prevent someone from looking in. However, there is a right to prevent someone from breaking into your house to look through your stuff. Likewise, there is a right to give access to one's phonelines if one so wishes, and likewise to deny it, which would make a wiretap against the will of an innocent a crime.


So anything at all, if you don't own it, is fair game? Hypothetically since you say...shop, view web sites, or do anything but sit in your house it's completely ok to spy on you? Every cable company that I've used for instance technically owns the lines that your internet goes through, and the cable box that converts the signals into the shows that you're watching. How about every store that you go into, since you're on their property they can record anything that they want that you do there? Maybe you believe its ok to have the government know where you are and what you're doing at all times when you're outside or anywhere "public". I can keep going on. Do you Really want to have to worry about anything you do when you're not in your house and your curtains closed?

the only right more fundimental then survival itself is freedom of thought.

whether or not we have a right to never be eavesdroped upon, it seems to me, not unreasonable to request the politeness of not being told we are living in a fishbowl.

it isn't who knows what that bothers me, its what they do with what they learn, or think they learn, from the slice of observation they base it on.

of course i'd just as soon g-men didn't watch me masterbate in private through the walls of my house with infrared scanners or what have you either.

=^^=
.../\...

Simple question: do we really have a right to privacy? Recently I heard the old argument for reading people's mail, tapping their phones, etc., which is, "If you're not doing anything bad, why worry?" Unsurprisingly, spying on citizens without a warrant still seems wrong, but for some reason I thought about it: "why should I worry? What can I do that is 'good' that I don't want other people to know about?" I'd appreciate someone smarter than me to steer me back on the right to privacy idea, which intuitively still seems true.

Because you do do something wrong. Whether you do something wrong morally, legally, ethically, whatever, there is some part of your daily life that someone else could potentially find objection to. It may not be something wrong to the general public, but without exception each and every one of us is doing something that someone else would stop if they could.

So, then the issue becomes, who is deciding what is right and wrong, and what if the people deciding decide you are doing something wrong. "Wrong" is subject to change.

And even if you aren't doing something legally wrong, you might still be doing something embarassing. You might be doing something that would cause people to look down on you. It might cost you your job or your wife or your friends. Now, the issue becomes who is controlling all this information about what you do every minute, and how do they intend to use it.

To believe that that information can never and will never be abused would be rather naive.

Either we have the right to privacy, or I'm going to masturbate in the streets. You choose.

for instance, if one's curtains are wide open there is no 'right' to prevent someone from looking in. However, there is a right to prevent someone from breaking into your house to look through your stuff.Why? Just as long as they don't damage the property it should be ok, shouldn't it? What's the difference?

slavery, yay or nay?

No, because one's body, mind, and will are inalienable. If someone says "I transfer my will to you," and one second later says "This sucks, I don't want to be your slave," then it is obvious that said transfer has never taken place at all seeing as how he is exercising exclusive control over his body, not you. Ergo, one cannot make an enforceable contract to become a slave, because it is not within one's power to transfer one's will and would be on the same level as making a contract to give someone a square circle.

So anything at all, if you don't own it, is fair game? Hypothetically since you say...shop, view web sites, or do anything but sit in your house it's completely ok to spy on you? Every cable company that I've used for instance technically owns the lines that your internet goes through, and the cable box that converts the signals into the shows that you're watching. How about every store that you go into, since you're on their property they can record anything that they want that you do there? Maybe you believe its ok to have the government know where you are and what you're doing at all times when you're outside or anywhere "public". I can keep going on. Do you Really want to have to worry about anything you do when you're not in your house and your curtains closed?

I think this can be dealt with through contractual obligations; for instance, in order to avoid scandal and reassure customers a mall or commercial district lessor could limit what kind of surveillance goes on in their stores. One could also put in clauses with the telephone company that they cannot just go around and blab your information. Communities may want to lease property to residents and maintain restrictive covenants and exclusion from their property to keep away peeping toms or paparazzi if their residents want this. There could be non-disclosure agreements in contracts. I do not think the government has a right to keep tabs on you, but that's because I'm not a government fan.

There are a variety of steps that could be taken to assuage the wants of consumers, but these rules need to be based upon a clear definition of who can do what with what and not arbitrary free-floating concepts which can result in trespass.

Why? Just as long as they don't damage the property it should be ok, shouldn't it? What's the difference?

If I can get inside your house without damaging it, that doesn't mean I can walk on in. Same thing with the phoneline; you cannot touch it without my permission.

I'd be fine with a mass surveilance system, so long as it was practised upon everyone.

*snip*
Right. I understand that legally we have a right to privacy in the way you described. I was thinking more generally though; why do we have these laws in the first place? What is their purpose?

Simple question: do we really have a right to privacy? Recently I heard the old argument for reading people's mail, tapping their phones, etc., which is, "If you're not doing anything bad, why worry?" Unsurprisingly, spying on citizens without a warrant still seems wrong, but for some reason I thought about it: "why should I worry? What can I do that is 'good' that I don't want other people to know about?" I'd appreciate someone smarter than me to steer me back on the right to privacy idea, which intuitively still seems true.

Just because you think something is acceptable, doesn't mean the government would. And even if they do, then that doesn't prevent some future government from abusing their spying ability.

No, because one's body, mind, and will are inalienable. If someone says "I transfer my will to you," and one second later says "This sucks, I don't want to be your slave," then it is obvious that said transfer has never taken place at all seeing as how he is exercising exclusive control over his body, not you. Ergo, one cannot make an enforceable contract to become a slave, because it is not within one's power to transfer one's will and would be on the same level as making a contract to give someone a square circle.

so your argument is that slavery is impossible? really?

Either we have the right to privacy, or I'm going to masturbate in the streets. You choose.

:eek:
In that case I'll go with right to privacy...

Simple question: do we really have a right to privacy? Recently I heard the old argument for reading people's mail, tapping their phones, etc., which is, "If you're not doing anything bad, why worry?" Unsurprisingly, spying on citizens without a warrant still seems wrong, but for some reason I thought about it: "why should I worry? What can I do that is 'good' that I don't want other people to know about?" I'd appreciate someone smarter than me to steer me back on the right to privacy idea, which intuitively still seems true.

Here's my take on it, if that helps. The main reason to oppose such things is very simple. I have nothing to hide, I do nothing wrong in the eyes of the law. However, that is no guarantee that my actions will remain such. My political leanings might be decided upon as criminal, my conversations might have me flagged up for 'questioning', etc. This is, in itself, enough of a reason.

Just to show I have nothing to hide, I generally offer people a full copy of my emails at this point. I'm perfectly willing to freely give out such information, but will oppose completely any forcible attempt to make me give it up, especially to the state. No-one has a right to compulse me to disclose any information, the only person who may make a decision on that is me, unpressured.

Seem sensible?

so your argument is that slavery is impossible? really?

In the sense of actually owning another person, yes. A person's will is theirs alone and cannot be transferred, as would be demonstrated by their objection to their condition. Hence why a slavery contract is unenforceable, as the will is not capable of being alienated.

However, in the sense of threatening or applying physical aggression in order to coerce someone into doing what one wants, if you want to call that slavery, it does exist.

Right. I understand that legally we have a right to privacy in the way you described. I was thinking more generally though; why do we have these laws in the first place? What is their purpose?

I was under the impression that, in addition to discussing what the law was, I discussed the legitimate interests that are imparied by a government intrusion. I'm pretty sure I did. ;) Sorry if I buried it in legalese. :p

No, because one's body, mind, and will are inalienable. If someone says "I transfer my will to you," and one second later says "This sucks, I don't want to be your slave," then it is obvious that said transfer has never taken place at all seeing as how he is exercising exclusive control over his body, not you.

You're equivocating on "control", and in a way that's wonderful for a critique of capitalist property in general.

Imagine the workers at a given workplace decide to say, "This sucks, we don't want to be your workers." Who actually exercises direct control over that workplace? They do, of course.

It's only when you bring in armed force (private or state) that things change. Same with slavery.

However, in the sense of threatening or applying physical aggression in order to coerce someone into doing what one wants, if you want to call that slavery, it does exist.

so if slavery is possible and you only recognize property rights, then yay slavery, right?

Right. I understand that legally we have a right to privacy in the way you described. I was thinking more generally though; why do we have these laws in the first place? What is their purpose?

they are to keep unethical public officials from spying on their enemies and using what they find to persecute them.

I'd be fine with a mass surveilance system, so long as it was practised upon everyone.Who watches the watchers?

so if slavery is possible and you only recognize property rights, then yay slavery, right?

But you can't transfer the property right in one's body; it is inalienable. The only way that slavery can exist is if someone is committing an aggression against another's property rights in one's body, which would go against the point of property rights.

You're equivocating on "control", and in a way that's wonderful for a critique of capitalist property in general.

Imagine the workers at a given workplace decide to say, "This sucks, we don't want to be your workers." Who actually exercises direct control over that workplace? They do, of course.

It's only when you bring in armed force (private or state) that things change. Same with slavery.

If they say "This sucks, we don't want to be your workers," they do not have to keep working at that place. The factory owner has no right to physically compel them to continue to work. However, there is a difference between "This sucks, we don't want to be your workers," and "This sucks, we are going to steal all of your stuff," seeing as how first occupancy is the only proper method of deciding what is each's due, the same with one's body as with alienable resources; anything else simply opens up dispute due to its arbitrariness and defeats the entire purpose of a system of rights, which is to determine the due of each.

Simple question: do we really have a right to privacy? Recently I heard the old argument for reading people's mail, tapping their phones, etc., which is, "If you're not doing anything bad, why worry?" Unsurprisingly, spying on citizens without a warrant still seems wrong, but for some reason I thought about it: "why should I worry? What can I do that is 'good' that I don't want other people to know about?" I'd appreciate someone smarter than me to steer me back on the right to privacy idea, which intuitively still seems true.

Because governments laws != "Right" if they did there would be a lot less to care about in that case

Example if the government re-enacted sodomy laws ... which DID exist on the books and still do in many states. Personally I do not feel it is wrong for my gf or wife to give me a BJ
But it still was against the law
It still would have been an actionable offense

People are fallible and people who make laws are as well

Who watches the watchers?

The watcher watchers...

I was under the impression that, in addition to discussing what the law was, I discussed the legitimate interests that are imparied by a government intrusion. I'm pretty sure I did. ;) Sorry if I buried it in legalese. :p
Looking back I see you did. Sorry, I usually read up to the first court case mentioned and then just stop; it's a bad habit. :)

However, there is a difference between "This sucks, we don't want to be your workers," and "This sucks, we are going to steal all of your stuff," seeing as how first occupancy is the only proper method of deciding what is each's due, the same with one's body as with alienable resources;

Now you're making an argument from right.

By right, if I transfer my legitimately-owned property title to someone else, why can't she coerce me into not stealing her "stuff"--namely, me?

anything else simply opens up dispute due to its arbitrariness

Everything always opens up dispute. The best in political theory attempts to deal with it justly rather than escape from it... and ultimately open the way to ultimate injustice.

Do people make a right to their individual personal possessions which have only effect to that person in particular? Yes but what personal possession do you know which doesn't effect anyone else in society? If you have a gun in your house, go outside and kill someone, if they suspect it was you don't the police have a right to search your house (personal privacy)? I mean the greatest 'freedom' and 'right' is the right to live, all people have a right to live.

Tell me one personal possession which cannot have an adverse effect of the freedom of someone else....

Freedom may exist if every person lived alone on a desert island, but as long as we live in a community it's going to be limited for good reasons.

The watcher watchers...

Or you could have it as a general populace thing (either as extreme scrutiny on the watching group or having everyone being part of the watching program).

I would be in more favour of a greater scrutiny of those in power, with a relaxing of some laws and promoting tolerance and acceptance amongst the population.

Greater interest in the political world would be nice as well.

Now you're making an argument from right.

By right, if I transfer my legitimately-owned property title to someone else, why can't she coerce me into not stealing her "stuff"--namely, me?

That assumes that all property titles are transferrable. Certain titles are inalienable, due to the fact that you cannot transfer any control over it, as evidenced by the fact that you can still give a logical proposition against one's slavery. Whereas, other objects are visibly alienable and one can give certain degrees of control to other people, whether fully (a complete sale) or part of the possession (leasing, renting, letting another person use the item.)

Everything always opens up dispute. The best in political theory attempts to deal with it justly rather than escape from it... and ultimately open the way to ultimate injustice.

Not necessarily. If the rights are allocated on the basis of titles acquired by first occupancy, then there is no need to worry about legislation or arbitrary rules like squatter's rights. Such a system encourages economic activities (homesteading, production, contracting) and discourages political activities (expropriation), thus increasing economic capacity through incentives.

as evidenced by the fact that you can still give a logical proposition against one's slavery.

What do you mean?

Not necessarily. If the rights are allocated on the basis of titles acquired by first occupancy, then there is no need to worry about legislation or arbitrary rules like squatter's rights.

Look, if you want to implement puristic free-market capitalism, you're going to be doing it by force, and you're going to be doing it against the will of lots of people, almost certainly the majority.

If you're okay with that, fine. But all it really means is that you're not really escaping disputes: you're resolving them by force in favor of your particular ideology.

What do you mean?

If I say that I have just transferred control over my person to another person, they order me to do something, and I refuse, it means that I haven't actually transferred control seeing as how I can refuse his commands. Declaring that you are transferring control over your body is the equivalent of declaring that you are transferring control over a square-circle; while you could say it, the logical absurdity of such statements means no actual transfer occurs. (Whereas, title can be transferred for alienable objects because one can visibly control them oneself in varying ways.)

Look, if you want to implement puristic free-market capitalism, you're going to be doing it by force, and you're going to be doing it against the will of lots of people, almost certainly the majority.

If you're okay with that, fine. But all it really means is that you're not really escaping disputes: you're resolving them by force in favor of your particular ideology.

The only reason there would be implementation by force would be in self-defense if the majority attempts to subjugate us and maintain our subservience to their monopoly on jurisdiction, which is perfectly justifiable on our part. The only real source of dispute is the fact that they are distributing rights on the basis of decree, which brings uncertainty into maintaining one's title into the future and creates conflict between people on the basis of differing wants and the use of force in expropriation.

Whereas, the first occupancy approach means that there is no right for second-comers to expropriate on any basis, unlike in decree-based rights systems, and thus no one has a right to dispute the first occupant's title. Any disputes that would arise in the case of a secession is due solely to the majority's faulty system of justice, a system of dispute and chaos which will be perpetuated by their arbitrary rule but ended if their system is abandoned.

If I say that I have just transferred control over my person to another person, they order me to do something, and I refuse, it means that I haven't actually transferred control seeing as how I can refuse his commands.

No, it doesn't. "Control" here isn't a causal relationship, it's a legal one.

(Whereas, title can be transferred for alienable objects because one can visibly control them oneself in varying ways.)

How does the capitalist "visibly control" his workplace? Especially if he doesn't even live nearby?

The only reason there would be implementation by force would be in self-defense if the majority attempts to subjugate us and maintain our subservience to their monopoly on jurisdiction, which is perfectly justifiable on our part.

But that's precisely the point. You think you're justifiable. They think they're justifiable. Dispute. Your resolution? Force.

The only real source of dispute is the fact that they are distributing rights on the basis of decree, which brings uncertainty into maintaining one's title into the future and creates conflict between people on the basis of differing wants and the use of force in expropriation.

There's not really much "uncertainty"... radical changes in property relations are very rare, and taxation and the like is perfectly predictable. As for "conflict", there is conflict as long as there is scarcity. The only thing you provide is constancy (in property rights), but the material effect of such constancy is the negation of freedom: we have one system, we can't change it, it's maintained by force.

Any disputes that would arise in the case of a secession is due solely to the majority's faulty system of justice, a system of dispute and chaos which will be perpetuated by their arbitrary rule but ended if their system is abandoned.

The question isn't whether your system can give an answer to every dispute. I'm sure it can, at least with enough creativity. The question is whether it's justified for some people to impose, by force, the system on everyone else: to assert their absolute right to property and defend it against the will of the public, against the people who may live or work on that property.

No, it doesn't. "Control" here isn't a causal relationship, it's a legal one.

Legal and causal are the same because ownership is a right of control. One cannot transfer ownership title to the control of one's body because one cannot be controlled by another person, only oneself. It has nothing to do with whether it is 'moral' or aesthetically pleasing to be under the control of another person, simply that it is an impossibility.

How does the capitalist "visibly control" his workplace? Especially if he doesn't even live nearby?

He controls it by giving out part of the control to other people through contracting. One can transfer part of control to other people to an alienable resource, like factory machinery, because one can alienate resources; for instance, as a first occupant of, say, a TV I could transfer part of the right to control to my friend that he can watch the TV on Thursdays because he is capable of controlling my TV on Thursdays, whereas he cannot have the right to control my body on Thursdays because he is incapable of doing so ever. One can therefore also alienate degrees of control and reserve other parts. Likewise, the capitalist can transfer the right to operate the machinery to his workers, because they are also capable of controlling the machinery in such a way, but can retain the right to control it in the way of transporting, upgrading or transferring it to another person because one is capable of control in such a way.

But that's precisely the point. You think you're justifiable. They think they're justifiable. Dispute. Your resolution? Force.

But this is really no different from any other relationship with the majority; at any given moment they can change the rules however they wish without my consent, thus creating dispute. Whereas, under the system of first occupancy there is no more 'right' to expropriate control on decree, leading to a clear delineation of rights and what is one's due, and thus peace, which is an impossibility in their regime. Any dispute that is caused by a secession is their fault alone as an aggressor, as they claim the right to change the rules and therefore claim the right to cause disputes to their own benefit.

There's not really much "uncertainty"... radical changes in property relations are very rare, and taxation and the like is perfectly predictable. As for "conflict", there is conflict as long as there is scarcity. The only thing you provide is constancy (in property rights), but the material effect of such constancy is the negation of freedom: we have one system, we can't change it, it's maintained by force.

Do you really think that someone who, say, built a house in 1855 in South Carolina could have really predicted that Sherman and his goons would burn it down in their march to the sea years later? Or predicted the deluge of regulation and legislation from the Progressive Era to the end of World War I? What about Supreme Court rulings like that of Kelo v. New London, or the federal government declaring mutually consentual contracts to be null and void because of pressure from one person who manipulated them so he could cheat? Legislation is necessarily arbitrary and necessarily creates dispute because one party can unilaterally change the rules whenever they want to whenever it suits them, which means no one is truly free but rather subject to arbitrary power. Whereas in a system of first occupancy there is no room for unilateral changes, which means there is certainty and no room for dispute, and thus their due is rendered with clear definitions of rights.

The question isn't whether your system can give an answer to every dispute. I'm sure it can, at least with enough creativity. The question is whether it's justified for some people to impose, by force, the system on everyone else: to assert their absolute right to property and defend it against the will of the public, against the people who may live or work on that property.

Yes, it is alright to protect one's right to their property through force if necessary; it is self-defense against the aggressing public. Rights exist to delineate what each's moral claim to scarce resources are to avoid dispute, but a system of justice based upon arbitrary decree necessarily fails in this regard as it can never truly establish what each's due is since there is the constant uncertainty due to the power of legislation to change what one's rights are. The will of the public is irrelevant, as they have no right to their monopoly on jurisdiction, since it is the right to violate rights. As for the people who live or work on that property, since they have been transferred some or all degrees of control on their property, their position is strengthened because their rights are clearly delineated and not subject to arbitrary change.

*snip*

Aside from what the over-hyped piece of paper says what are your personal views on the matter?

Legal and causal are the same because ownership is a right of control. One cannot transfer ownership title to the control of one's body because one cannot be controlled by another person, only oneself. It has nothing to do with whether it is 'moral' or aesthetically pleasing to be under the control of another person, simply that it is an impossibility.Muscle relaxant + strings = meat puppet.
Never mind the possibilities with robotics.

Aside from what the over-hyped piece of paper says what are your personal views on the matter?

In other words, "tl;dr with a generic and substanceless swipe at the Constitution added."

If you had actually read my remarks, you would see I gave several reasons why the Fourth Amendment protects legitimate interests of citizens and is a good thing. Although they were quoted, I also gave a justification for the general right of privacy protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

If you wish to actually comment on or criticize those remarks, please feel free to do so.

FWIW, I believe firmly in the Constitution, but also in a right to privacy in and of itself. Security of a person's privacy from unwarranted intrusion by the state is a basic freedom implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.

EDIT: Let me further note some purposes of, and justifications for, the Fourth Amendment's protection of privacy through the requirement that searches and seizures must be authorized by a warrant. Searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by a judge or magistrate are per se unreasonable -- and thus disallowed -- under the Fourth Amendment, although there are a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions. Katz, 389 U.S. at 357.

To quote Professor Amsterdam:

Indiscriminate searches or seizures might be thought to be bad for either or both of two reasons. The first is that they expose people and their possession to interferences by government when there is no good reason to do so. The concern here is against unjustified searches and seizures: it rests upon the principle that every citizen is entitled to security of his person and property unless and until an adequate justification for disturbing that security is shown. The second is that indiscriminate searches and seizures are conducted at the discretion of executive officials, who may act despotically and capriciously in the exercise of the power to search and seize. This latter concern runds against arbitrary searches and seizures: it condemns the petty tyranny of unregulated rummagers.

Perspectives on the Fourth Amendment, 58 Minn.L.Rev. 329, 411 (1974).

By placing a magistrate between the citizen and the police, the Fourth Amendment establishes that a neutral observer is to decide whether the probable cause and specificity requirements for a justified search have been satisfied. "When the right to privacy must reasonably yield to the right to search is, as a rule, to be decided by a judicial officer, not by a policeman or government agent." Johnson v. United States (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=333&invol=10), 333 U.S. 10, 14 (1948). The idea is that a magistrate will make fewer errors in allowing searches than "the officer engaged in the often competive enterprise of ferreting out crime." Id.

Another important function of the warrant requirement was identified in Illinois v. Gates (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=462&invol=213), 462 U.S. 213 (1983): "the possession of a warrant by officers conducting an arrest or search greatly reduces the perception of unlawful or intrusive police conduct, by assuring the individual whose property is searched or seixed of the lawful authority of the executing officer, his need to search, and the limits of his power to search."

Now, granted, these justifications are a bit naive seeming, because they ignore the degree to which judges are largely rubber stamps for law enforcement when it comes to issuing warrants. Nonetheless, the ideals are what I believe we are discussing.

BTW, I apologize that my thoughts on this matter of law are a bit formal and legalistic. What can I say, law school made an impression. ;)

Muscle relaxant + strings = meat puppet.
Never mind the possibilities with robotics.

That does not mean I am controlling your volitional actions; in fact, far from it. If I bump into you and move you forward, I am not controlling your volitional acts but merely eliciting a physical response. The right to human action cannot be transferred because it is inalienable due to the fact that one's will is one's alone. Ergo, one can never truly own another person because the title to volitional action is impossible to transfer.

That does not mean I am controlling your volitional actions; in fact, far from it.Oh, sorry; I didn't read it was about controlling volition actions; I must admit I didn't really read things all too well. I just figured you can control someone's body, with a bit of effort.

If I bump into you and move you forward, I am not controlling your volitional acts but merely eliciting a physical response. The right to human action cannot be transferred because it is inalienable due to the fact that one's will is one's alone. Ergo, one can never truly own another person because the title to volitional action is impossible to transfer.And one can never truly own an animal for the same reason..

Actually, pharmaceuticals might give you some control over someone's mind as well; and you never know what neuroscience will come up with; and there's old fashioned brainwashing/conditioning and other psychological tricks.

Oh, sorry; I didn't read it was about controlling volition actions; I must admit I didn't really read things all too well. I just figured you can control someone's body, with a bit of effort.

It's alright.

And one can never truly own an animal for the same reason..

I suppose so; one can never truly own the animal's soul, and thus can never fully control them. But since the question of what is valid or moral never arises from animals, seeing as how animals are incapable of argumentation, there is no way to say that they have moral claims to keep you from, say, keeping them in your house.

Actually, pharmaceuticals might give you some control over someone's mind as well; and you never know what neuroscience will come up with; and there's old fashioned brainwashing/conditioning and other psychological tricks.

They might give you some control, but you are simply suppressing their will, not transferring it. Same thing with a corpse; you have not taken their will, which no longer exerts control over that body, but one may have a moral claim to a body (such as for burying it.)

Knowledge is power. I reject authority over me therefore I reject knowledge over me, therefore I demand my right to privacy because of my anti-authority nature.

But since the question of what is valid or moral never arises from animals, seeing as how animals are incapable of argumentation, there is no way to say that they have moral claims to keep you from, say, keeping them in your house.Err, that can't quite be the right criterium, because making people incapable of argumentation is quite simple (ripping out their tongue and cutting off their writing hand gets you a long way). You could argue "but under normal circumstances ..", but I don't think rights shouldn't depend on an entities ability to claim them; either it has them, or it hasn't. And as far as self-ownership goes, if the criterium is volitional control of the body, then (other) animals should have that right to the same extent as us (or at least to the extent they have a will; which might be more a matter of grays than black and white).
And of course, there are plenty of people these days to advocate on animals behalf.

They might give you some control, but you are simply suppressing their will, not transferring it. Well, if you can control their will, you can control them.
Although... I suppose then it's your will, not theirs. But then again, that's the point of transferring ownership titles, what was theirs becomes yours.

Simple question: do we really have a right to privacy? Recently I heard the old argument for reading people's mail, tapping their phones, etc., which is, "If you're not doing anything bad, why worry?" Unsurprisingly, spying on citizens without a warrant still seems wrong, but for some reason I thought about it: "why should I worry? What can I do that is 'good' that I don't want other people to know about?" I'd appreciate someone smarter than me to steer me back on the right to privacy idea, which intuitively still seems true.

The problem comes when you and the eavesdropper don't see eye to eye on what constitutes 'wrong.' We assume that it's about finding terrorists and that they won't listen once it becomes clear that we're not terrorists. But the last president that claimed the power to wire tap without a warrant then went and used that fictitious authority to eavesdrop on his political rivals.

We have the right to privacy because our society is one that provides it. To invade that privacy is a violation whatever your intentions. That's why it's illegal to break into someones house without taking or breaking anything. Or even to lurk outside while peeking in the windows.

Do people make a right to their individual personal possessions which have only effect to that person in particular? Yes but what personal possession do you know which doesn't effect anyone else in society? If you have a gun in your house, go outside and kill someone, if they suspect it was you don't the police have a right to search your house (personal privacy)? I mean the greatest 'freedom' and 'right' is the right to live, all people have a right to live.

Tell me one personal possession which cannot have an adverse effect of the freedom of someone else....

Freedom may exist if every person lived alone on a desert island, but as long as we live in a community it's going to be limited for good reasons.

They do not have the right to simply push their way into your house simply because they suspect you're a killer. They need a warrant. They have to see you shoot passersby before they can push in without a warrant.

Err, that can't quite be the right criterium, because making people incapable of argumentation is quite simple (ripping out their tongue and cutting off their writing hand gets you a long way). You could argue "but under normal circumstances ..", but I don't think rights shouldn't depend on an entities ability to claim them; either it has them, or it hasn't. And as far as self-ownership goes, if the criterium is volitional control of the body, then (other) animals should have that right to the same extent as us (or at least to the extent they have a will; which might be more a matter of grays than black and white).
And of course, there are plenty of people these days to advocate on animals behalf.

Rights are assigned because we can come into conflict with each other, but use persuasive power through argumentation rather than physical force to avoid it. However, being that we do not have that option with animals to make logical propositions with them, they do not have rights like we do. Someone who is incapable of argumentation at a particular moment- say, a sleeping man- still has rights because we implicitly want to avoid a dispute over ownership; hence why it is wrong to murder him while he is dreaming (The only valid norm for avoiding dispute is a rule of ownership by first occupancy, and the dreaming man is the first occupant of his body.) While there may be people who will advocate on the part of animals, we still only recognize the advocate's rights by presupposing that a human has a right to control one's body, such as for argumentation, whereas nothing is presupposed about the animal.

Edit: I think we can reasonably extend this to give self-ownership to children, as well; one would be disputing another adult's right to their body if they took a time machine and killed them in the past, for instance.

Well, if you can control their will, you can control them.
Although... I suppose then it's your will, not theirs. But then again, that's the point of transferring ownership titles, what was theirs becomes yours.

Being that one cannot control another's volitional actions or aggress against their person without their consent, it still stands that their will is theirs alone and that at any time before you drug them up or hypnotize them they may refuse, seeing as how their will is theirs. When one has drugged them, they are not acting volitionally so much as they are, say, removing their hands from a hot pot.