Right to privacy
Amendment 4
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.
Does the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures = the right to privacy?
There are more reasons that people want privacy than could possibly been enumerated but I can think of two basic categories: Legal (but embarrassing) and Illegal. Under the illegal category there are two subcategories: Misdemeanors (traffic violation) and Felonies (murder).
I think everyone would agree that the legal but embarrassing moments of everyone should remain private and be protected 100%.
I do not think anyone has a right to privacy to commit murder, terrorism or any other heinous crimes against society.
How do you protect the first group of people’s privacy while at the same time protecting their lives from terrorist that use privacy as a weapon to kill?
We have long ago given up our right not to be searched without a warrant when we board an airplane. Police all over the country are allowed to stop cars without probable cause and force people to take a breathalyzer test. The government has cameras at traffic intersections with stop lights to take pictures of license plates of cars running red lights. We give the IRS enormous amounts of private financial information about ourselves every year when we file our taxes.
I think it is clear we have to define what we mean when we say “protect our right to privacy” If we mean to prevent the government or anyone from knowing private information about us I believe we have lost that years before 9-11. I think we need to protect law abiding citizens from having the information the government has on us from being misused for personal or political gain.
Perspective: The ability to perceive things in their actual interrelations or comparative importance.
Compare the out rage from some in the MSM to president Bush taping foreign calls coming into the U.S. verses the lack of concern over the domestic taping of a cell phone call the speaker of the House Newt Gingrich had with a republican congressman by a private citizen that he then sold the tape to a news organization for personal financial gain which the news organization then printed for their own political gain. I believe that President Bush taped the calls to prevent a terrorist from killing thousands of Americans and not for his personal or political gain.
I do not have a problem with the government collecting information with the intent of using it to find terrorist or other felons that mean to do serious harm to our country as long as they have a system in place to prevent the information from being misused for some one’s personal or political gain.
The system should be able to grant a president like George Washington or Abraham Lincoln the power needed to protect America from terrorist attack and also have checks built in that would prevent presidents like Bill Clinton or Richard Nixon from abusing their power for personal political gain.
The debate should be about how, not if, to building this system to protect us from both terrorist and government officials. For the government not to collect information thru E-Mails or phone calls is not a realistic option. Only a system that protects the information from being misused is a reasonable compromise.
We now live in the information age like it or not. The proper use of information can make us all safer and our quality of life better and the misuse or lack of information could be deadly.
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.
Does the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures = the right to privacy?
There are more reasons that people want privacy than could possibly been enumerated but I can think of two basic categories: Legal (but embarrassing) and Illegal. Under the illegal category there are two subcategories: Misdemeanors (traffic violation) and Felonies (murder).
I think everyone would agree that the legal but embarrassing moments of everyone should remain private and be protected 100%.
I do not think anyone has a right to privacy to commit murder, terrorism or any other heinous crimes against society.
How do you protect the first group of people’s privacy while at the same time protecting their lives from terrorist that use privacy as a weapon to kill?
We have long ago given up our right not to be searched without a warrant when we board an airplane. Police all over the country are allowed to stop cars without probable cause and force people to take a breathalyzer test. The government has cameras at traffic intersections with stop lights to take pictures of license plates of cars running red lights. We give the IRS enormous amounts of private financial information about ourselves every year when we file our taxes.
I think it is clear we have to define what we mean when we say “protect our right to privacy” If we mean to prevent the government or anyone from knowing private information about us I believe we have lost that years before 9-11. I think we need to protect law abiding citizens from having the information the government has on us from being misused for personal or political gain.
Perspective: The ability to perceive things in their actual interrelations or comparative importance.
Compare the out rage from some in the MSM to president Bush taping foreign calls coming into the U.S. verses the lack of concern over the domestic taping of a cell phone call the speaker of the House Newt Gingrich had with a republican congressman by a private citizen that he then sold the tape to a news organization for personal financial gain which the news organization then printed for their own political gain. I believe that President Bush taped the calls to prevent a terrorist from killing thousands of Americans and not for his personal or political gain.
I do not have a problem with the government collecting information with the intent of using it to find terrorist or other felons that mean to do serious harm to our country as long as they have a system in place to prevent the information from being misused for some one’s personal or political gain.
The system should be able to grant a president like George Washington or Abraham Lincoln the power needed to protect America from terrorist attack and also have checks built in that would prevent presidents like Bill Clinton or Richard Nixon from abusing their power for personal political gain.
The debate should be about how, not if, to building this system to protect us from both terrorist and government officials. For the government not to collect information thru E-Mails or phone calls is not a realistic option. Only a system that protects the information from being misused is a reasonable compromise.
We now live in the information age like it or not. The proper use of information can make us all safer and our quality of life better and the misuse or lack of information could be deadly.
posted by Tom49 at 9:49 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home