Yes, and without qualification.
Yes, but limited (please elaborate on limits).
No, we really don't need it.
If, when defending your support for Donald Trump, and your response is,
"But but but... HILLARY!!!", then you lost the argument before you even began.
It shouldn't matter if no government action was taken, it still doesn't change the fact they were watching your ass.If some sicko was watching your wife or kids would you be relieved if that sicko didn't beat off while watching them or would still be pissed and want the sicko locked up so that he can't watch anyone again?
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
Yes I would and see that as a great need. Wording? I'm not a legal scholar.
Excellent question. I don't have a minute right know to write the language I'd like to see but something that:
1. Covered private organizations maintaining files on people without their expressed and deliberate permission requiring a signature with an explanation of their agreement to forfeit their right to privacy in BOLD PRINT as opposed to fine print or burried in pages of legalese mumbo junbo that nobody ever reads. The forfeiture of the right to privacy (likely out of ignorance IMHO) expires annually so if a person is duped into handing over their right to privacy to use something like a rewards card or whatever, they must get the person to re-up their permission to have the organization to maintain profiles on them each year expressly saying I want XYZ, inc. to violate my privacy.
2. Medical records, already statutorily private (supposedly) but since we're addressing privacy, make it constitutional.
3. If the government spies on someone, they should have a good reason to; get court permission and once the person is deemed not to be a threat, privately NOTIFY HIM of the investigation and why disclosing all information gathered explaining most concerns are thankfully false alarms but all potential threats must be thoroughly investigated and then DESTROY THE DATA COLLECTED.
4. Any invasion of an American's privacy using offshore shelters to avoid US Constitutional law makes any American involved in such schemes subject to criminal and civil liabilities, foreign nationals additionally subject to deportation and/or are banned from travel to the US.
5. I know its a big reversal in our current criminal justice culture but I think people who are suspects of crimes should be afforded privacy protection until such time as they are convicted provided they cooperate with officials and don't go into hiding where publicity is needed to apprehend them. Perpwalks and mugshots on the news injure innocent people's reputations under a system where we are supposedly innocent until proven guilty. I have a relative who could not get a job or rent an apartment because he was arrested but later the charges were dropped because potential employers and landlords have access to the arrest records and treat him like a convicted felon despite his status as innocent.
6. The sexual offender database needs to be used to protect the innocent, not shame people who pose no to threat to anyone and is used as a form of punishment. Only forcible rapists and pedophiles should be listed; not boyfriend turns 18 and girlfriend is still 17, guys can't hold it any longer and takes a leak behind a tree, college girl has too much to drink at Marti Gras and flashes the twins at the crowd, consensual acts in the back of a car at night, etc. Not that I think any of those things are okay but they aren't endangering the public there therefore should not be listed on a registry that is intended to warn the public of a real threat to our safety.
7. Identity of sexual assault victims unless efforts to locate missing people requires disclosure of the dangers they are in, etc. For the most part its already practiced but only as a courtesy and at the discretion of the media. They sometimes make exceptions.
Last edited by Smeagol; 06-19-13 at 03:46 PM.
Having opinions all over the map is a good sign of a person capable of autonomous thinking. Felix -2011
because under the founding principles of America with our DOI, which is u.s. code and organic law for the u.s. rights are not created by government or the people., but from the creator.
if rights can be created through the amendment process, then rights could be created for one group of people and not others......something which is outside, our nations foundation
once something is in the constitution it constitutionality cannot be questioned.
a new right to privacy, .......would come from the 9th amendment.
Anti-Democracy advocate, Mixed government is the only good government
THE second point to be examined is, whether the [constitutional ]convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.
“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.”
The five great lies of the
We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.
If in public, it's difficult to enforce or expect that. In private or an assumed private conversation, they should require a warrant, and there should be more oversight on whether the warrant should have been given. I do think an amendment along those lines would strengthen the fulfillment of respect and common decency that free people are entitled to.
Yes. I would support it since it appears necessary for some asinine reason, but on the condition that the word body is defined in such a way to bar taking DNA and fingerprints on arrest. I don't care how that is done, but it needs done.
Or perhaps it would be better to make it clear that being arrested is NOT the same thing as a warrant, since apparently the supreme court believes a warrant and an arrest are one in the same.
I would like it codified that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in all of their communications and activities. It should require an express waver in almost every situation to forfeit that expectation. Obviously, the direct recipient of a communication or action constitutes such a waver, but ONLY THEM. If you're talking on a cell phone in a public place, you should legally be able to expect that people aren't going to eavesdrop on you. It's rude, and you reasonably expect privacy from it. So the government shouldn't be doing it either. They shouldn't be reading your e-mails, or basically sticking their nose anywhere it's not wanted... unless they get a warrant. And judges should actually be expected to deny warrants without really good reasons for them. The whole legal methodology for privacy is about finding various reasons to deny people their privacy. The whole mindset of privacy law is a horrible starting place. Start with a really strong right to privacy, and only infringe on it when absolutely necessary.
Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.