Someone sent this to me. . . I am not sure if it is true but it did make me think. http://www.break.com/index/are-you-friggin-kiddin-me.html Basically it says the FBI has the ability to activate the microphone on your cellphone even when it is turned off. Allowing them to ease drop on you. What are your expectations of Privacy? As Technology progresses . . .the concept of Privacy seems to dwindle more Between cameras on Cell phones and 'spy' technology being available at all these stores and on the internet Basically you have little to no Privacy . . .. or maybe little to no Expectation of privacy mainly because you never know where these things are Do you feel the Law has kept up with the changing technology? Esp in the realm of Law Enforcement? Rocket River
I don't equate my happiness with anything man-made. Also, I'm the happiest when I'm without expectations. Hence, no expectations! RR
Sort of but more specific is the 4th amendment and the right to be free from unreasonable searches (hence privacy expectations) Also, the 14th amendment extends that right to everyone, hence a universal expectation of privacy.
with modern technology and today's state (from terrorism to marketing/research firms) people should expect less privacy.
No, people should expect their constitutional rights to be guarded. What an absurd attitude, with all due respect. D&D. Here We Are.
oooo...pick me! I know the right answer!!! "If you have nothing to hide, why should you be concerned about privacy???" Only terrorists are afraid of the FBI listening in on them, right?
ok, but its realistic and it isnt going to get any better. I can google earth your house, look up how much your house is worth, find all your past addresses and phone numbers, depending on where you work i can find your pay, depending on where you donate i can look that up,etc etc... all without getting out of this chair. Here we are indeed.
I for one trust King W's competency, especially wrt protecting the Constitutional Rights (along with W's back dated signing letter) of white Christian male American citizens. Good times.
that is about 6 posts too late. this administration is the one which authorized illegal spying and pushed "the patriot act" on american citizens, so to bring up your presidents name seems appropriate.
and your point is? the fact of the matter is that this is the most invasive administration in our nations history, while at the same time being the most secretive. these criminals have proven themselves time and time again to not be trusted and to be more than willing to straight up lie to the american people. bush lied to us all when he said "anytime you talk about wiretaps, a wiretap requires a court order and constitutional guarantees are still in place".
Privacy, while not explicitly a right, is derived from property rights, and restrictions against unreasonable search/seizure. Anybody advocating an expectation of less privacy due to some 9/11-induced hysteria only reveals their own lack of personal integrity and foresight. The recent erosions of privacy under the Bush admin are heinous.
my point is simply. the privacy topic extends beyond this administration, its a shame you cant look past that and actually talk about the issue, not the administration. thread officially dead.
but the privacy issues irt the Patriot Act et al are the only ones happening RIGHT NOW. Once again you use the exact same response....everytime something like this pops up. So, what you are saying is that since other politicians have done things we dont like, its NOT ok to blast the CURRENT perpetrators for what they are doing? not by a long shot amigo not for another two years at least.
what does the privacy act have to do with google earth? the pictures taken from the street? marketing companies that gather and share information? Lexus/Nexus were you can look up someone's market value of their home, past addresses, phone numbers etc. i was just saying the privacy issues, goes well beyond the patriot act.
fair enough. But it is surprising how much information you can get about someone for the right price. If we are talking in terms of law enforcement, i think that there will be (or is) a slow shift towards something more like the british have. Rather than probable cause, i believe they have something like reasonable doubt (i forget the exact term)...basically a slightly less strict guidline for allowing search and surveilence. Personally i feel that sometimes law enforcement is somewhat hindered at times and i am more than willing to help them do their job more effectively, if it indeed will.
