The Paranoid style in American Liberalism

They just don’t know when to quit.

weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/534yxceu.asp

[quote=Sirach14]They just don’t know when to quit.

weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/534yxceu.asp
[/quote]

Quote from the article:
“Was the president to ignore the obvious incapacity of any court, operating under any intelligible legal standard, to judge surveillance decisions involving the sweeping of massive numbers of cell phones and emails by high–speed computers in order even to know where to focus resources?”

This is a clear admission of the illegality of Bush’s actions. To justify the illegal actions, one must argue that the courts with their legal standards are incapable–inadequate. There is, I think, good reason to be a little paranoid about all this. One must assume that one’s emails and cell phone calls are no longer private. Whether you agree with the president or not, you ought to consider your emails and cell phone calls as public property that is open to outside scrutiny.

Maybe the idea is “the reasonable expectation privacy.” Emails and cells phone communications are not private; theynever have been, and most likely, they never will be. Anyone using email and or a cell phone should already be aware of this.

Cell phone transmissions are just below the 900MHz range, they can be picked up very easily by anyone. They are simple transitions that are not even encrypted. You should simply assume that everything you say on a cell phone is being heard by many other parties, and some of those parties are recording it.

Email transitions are harder to intercept, but they reside physically in several places where they can be retrieved from. That’s how they catch all those perv’s making dates with 12 years olds on line.

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when using cell phones or email. If you have that expectation it is an unreasonable one.

I know that what you say is true. I would simply point out that as true as it is, it is also blatantly unconstitutional. The right to privacy supposes that privacy is a reasonable state of affairs. If the majority of citizens has, de facto, given up their right to privacy, then the Constitution no longer protects them. If it no longer protects them, then they have no recourse to the law of the land. This sound good to anyone?

[quote=st.jerome]I know that what you say is true. I would simply point out that as true as it is, it is also blatantly unconstitutional. The right to privacy supposes that privacy is a reasonable state of affairs. If the majority of citizens has, de facto, given up their right to privacy, then the Constitution no longer protects them. If it no longer protects them, then they have no recourse to the law of the land. This sound good to anyone?
[/quote]

Yes it sounds good! But let’s look at it. People know (or should know) these means of communications are not private. That doesn’t negate the Constitution, it supports it. Where these is no expectation of privacy then there is no complaint that one’s privacy has been intruded upon. It’s like talking in a restaurant about personal maters and then getting bent out of shape when someone sitting next to you put his 2 cents in. Well, if you didn’t want people to know don’t discuss it in the open. If you use a cell phone, be aware that your conversations are not private, even if you want them to be.

I personally think these and all other forms of communication should hold a reasonable expectation of privacy, but I don’t get to make the rules, unfortunately.

[quote=b_justb] Yes it sounds good! But let’s look at it. People know (or should know) these means of communications are not private. That doesn’t negate the Constitution, it supports it. Where these is no expectation of privacy then there is no complaint that one’s privacy has been intruded upon. It’s like talking in a restaurant about personal maters and then getting bent out of shape when someone sitting next to you put his 2 cents in. Well, if you didn’t want people to know don’t discuss it in the open. If you use a cell phone, be aware that your conversations are not private, even if you want them to be.

I personally think these and all other forms of communication should hold a reasonable expectation of privacy, but I don’t get to make the rules, unfortunately.
[/quote]

But the thing is if someone near you overhears your cell phone conversation, that’s your problem. But if someone is using equipment to scan the frequency, I believe that your conversation and privacy is still protected.

[quote=wabrams]But the thing is if someone near you overhears your cell phone conversation, that’s your problem. But if someone is using equipment to scan the frequency, I believe that your conversation and privacy is still protected.
[/quote]

I think that “protection” is precisely the important word. We all know that we receive privacy agreements from our ISP, sometimes from our bank, etc. Its among those things that most of us don’t take the time to read. But here’s the issue: either the government upholds our right to have our privacy protected or it doesn’t. And so I modify my initial point: does or does not the government uphold the Constitution and protect my right to privacy? The article admits that the administration is not safe-guarding this right.

article

some snippets:

Is there a right to privacy in the Constitution?

Well, I searched my copy of the Constitution of the United States and I couldn’t find the word privacy anywhere in the document. Does this mean the Senator is right?

I also searched the Constitution and I couldn’t find the word marriage either. Does that mean I don’t have a right to be married — that a so-called “right to marriage” was invented by some bleeding-heart liberal judge somewhere?

The Constitution also doesn’t include the right to buy products from foreigners, or to have children, or to read a book, or even to eat food to survive.

How could the Constitution have overlooked such basic human rights?

Because the Constitution isn’t about what people can do; it’s about what government can do.

(Disclaimer: By posting this article I do not intend to state that I adhere to the authors ideas. Thank you)

[quote=b_justb]article

some snippets:

[/quote]

Worth reading. Here’s a quote: “the one element that set America apart from the rest of the world — was freedom from government.”

A pretty clear commentary regarding the infringement of a citizen’s privacy.

One other note, its best to remember that the Bill of Rights and the other Amendments are the Constitution seeing as how they are specific additions to said document (and not to any other document).

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.