[late]

I recently watched a Serpentza video about how there is little privacy in China. That's not all bad, there is little rape in a place without much in the way of privacy. That's one of the unspoken reasons why villages and small towns form tight knit communities. Pretty much everybody knows everybody, and what they've been doing.

Privacy is a product of the Modern world. Servants used to sleep on the floor in the same room as the king... People had to huddle together just to stay alive.

I was reading a post a minute ago about how China didn't have much in the way of privacy. It's not just that, there is no expectation of privacy.

I am not building an argument here, one of America's greatest legal scholars (Tribe) once said that without privacy, of what use are the other rights?

As with most things, it's about striking an intelligent balance between this and that.

With all this new tech running around, it seems that it's a discussion we ought to be having.

[Pants-of-dog]

Robert J, Sawyer, in his The Neanderthal Parallax trilogy, describes a system where everyone always wears a computer that (among other things) constantly records a 3D movie of everything you do and transmits it to a remote location.

So, they have this building where it is all stored, and the cops need a warrant to look at a recording.

Anyway, it is analogous to our modern society in that most of us carry a small computer that endlessly records and sends data to some remote server. The main difference is that we have no control over this data.

I think at this point, very few of us have any real privacy left.

[Rancid]

We probably have to accept that we can no longer be private.

I think it's time all of come out and say what kind of porn we like best.

[Deutschmania]

The right to privacy is a enshrined in article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), article 17 in the legally binding International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and in article 16 of the Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC). Many national constitutions and human rights documents mention the right to privacy. In the US Constitution, it isn’t explicitly stated, but experts infer it from several amendments, including the Fourth Amendment. It outlines that people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” In many cases, the US Supreme Court has upheld the right to privacy. There are also many privacy laws designed to protect personal data from the government and corporations. The rise of the internet has complicated privacy laws and many believe that the law has fallen behind. In the United States, there is no central federal privacy law. The right to privacy also intersects with many other human rights such as freedom of expression, the right to seek, receive and impart information and freedom of association and assembly.

Why do privacy rights matter so much? Here are 10 reasons why:

#1. Privacy rights prevent the government from spying on people (without cause)
The government has a responsibility to protect its citizens, but it often crosses the line when it comes to surveillance. In 2013, Edward Snowden blew the whistle on the NSA’s spying program, bringing the issue of privacy into the spotlight. The balancing act between national security, freedom of expression, surveillance and privacy rights is tricky. It’s generally agreed upon that if the government doesn’t have a reason to spy on someone, it shouldn’t. No one wants to live in a Big Brother state.2. Privacy rights keep groups from using personal data for their own goals
When in the wrong hands, personal information can be wielded as a powerful tool. The Cambridge Analytica scandal is a perfect example of this. This organization used data taken from Facebook (without user consent) to influence voters with political ads. Privacy rights mean that groups can’t take your data without your knowledge/consent and use it for their own goals. In a time where technology companies like Facebook, Amazon, Google, and others collect and store personal information, privacy rights preventing them from using the data how they please are very important.

#3. Privacy rights help ensure those who steal or misuse data are held accountable
When privacy is recognized as a basic human right, there are consequences for those who disrespect it. While there are many “soft” examples of personal data use, like targeted ads, established privacy rights draw a line in the sand. Without these restrictions, corporations and governments are more likely to steal and misuse data without consequence. Privacy laws are necessary for the protection of privacy rights.

#4. Privacy rights help maintain social boundaries
Everyone has things they don’t want certain people to know. Having the right to establish boundaries is important for healthy relationships and careers. In the past, putting up boundaries simply meant choosing to not talk about specific topics. Today, the amount of personal information kept online makes the process more complicated. Social media can reveal a lot of information we don’t want certain people (or strangers) to know. Media platforms are obligated to offer security features. Having control over who knows what gives us peace of mind.

#5. Privacy rights help build trust
In all relationships, trust is essential. When it comes to the personal data given to a doctor or a bank, people need to feel confident that the information is safe. Respecting privacy rights builds up that confidence. Privacy rights also give a person confidence that if the other party breaks that trust, there will be consequences.

#6. Privacy rights ensure we have control over our data
If it’s your data, you should have control over it. Privacy rights dictate that your data can only be used in ways you agree to and that you can access any information about yourself. If you didn’t have this control, you would feel helpless. It would also make you very vulnerable to more powerful forces in society. Privacy rights put you in the driver’s seat of your own life.

#7. Privacy rights protect freedom of speech and thought
If privacy rights weren’t established, everything you do could be monitored. That means certain thoughts and expressions could be given a negative label. You could be tracked based on your personal opinions about anything. If privacy rights didn’t let you keep your work and home life separate, “thought crimes” or what you say off the clock could get you in trouble. Privacy rights protect your ability to think and say what you want without fear of an all-seeing eye.

#8. Privacy rights let you engage freely in politics
There’s a reason that casting your vote is done confidentially. You are also not required to tell anyone who you voted for. Privacy rights let you follow your own opinion on politics without anyone else seeing. This is important in families with differing worldviews. It also protects you from losing your job because of your political leanings. While you can’t control what people think about you because of your views, you do have the right to not share more than you’re comfortable with.

#9. Privacy rights protect reputations
We’ve all posted something online that we regret or done something foolish. It can come back to haunt us and ruin our reputations. Privacy rights help protect us and can give us the power to get certain information removed. The EU specifically addresses this with the “right to be forgotten” law. This lets people remove private information from internet searches under some circumstances by filing a request. Revenge porn, which is a violation of privacy, is a big example of personal data that can destroy a person’s reputation.

#10. Privacy rights protect your finances
Companies that store personal data should protect that information because of privacy rights. When companies fail to make security a priority, it can have devastating consequences. You can have your identity stolen, credit card numbers revealed, and so on. When you give your financial information to a specific entity, you are trusting them to respect your privacy rights. https://www.humanrightscareers.com/issues/reasons-why-privacy-rights-are-important/

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

The question of whether the Constitution protects privacy in ways not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights is controversial. Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists. The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment. Polls show most Americans support this broader reading of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, in two decisions in the 1920s, read the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause to prohibit states from interfering with the private decisions of educators and parents to shape the education of children. In Meyer v Nebraska (1923), the Supreme Court struck down a state law that prohibited the teaching of German and other foreign languages to children until the ninth grade. The state argued that foreign languages could lead to inculcating in students "ideas and sentiments foreign to the best interests of this country." The Court, however, in a 7 to 2 decision written by Justice McReynolds concluded that the state failed to show a compelling need to infringe upon the rights of parents and teachers to decide what course of education is best for young students. Justice McReynolds wrote:

"While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

Two years late, in Pierce v Society of Sisters, the Court applied the principles of Meyer to strike down an Oregon law that compelled all children to attend public schools, a law that would have effectively closed all parochial schools in the state.

The privacy doctrine of the 1920s gained renewed life in the Warren Court of the 1960s when, in Griswold v Connecticut (1965), the Court struck down a state law prohibiting the possession, sale, and distribution of contraceptives to married couples. Different justifications were offered for the conclusion, ranging from Court's opinion by Justice Douglas that saw the "penumbras" and "emanations" of various Bill of Rights guarantees as creating "a zone of privacy," to Justice Goldberg's partial reliance on the Ninth Amendment's reference to "other rights retained by the people," to Justice Harlan's decision arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause forbade the state from engaging in conduct (such as search of marital bedrooms for evidence of illicit contraceptives) that was inconsistent with a government based "on the concept of ordered liberty."

In 1969, the Court unanimously concluded that the right of privacy protected an individual's right to possess and view pornography (including pornography that might be the basis for a criminal prosecution against its manufacturer or distributor) in his own home. Drawing support for the Court's decision from both the First and Fourth Amendments, Justice Marshall wrote in Stanley v Georgia:

"Whatever may be the justifications for other statutes regulating obscenity, we do not think they reach into the privacy of one's own home. If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds."

The Burger Court extended the right of privacy to include a woman's right to have an abortion in Roe v Wade (1972), but thereafter resisted several invitations to expand the right. Kelley v Johnson (1976), in which the Court upheld a grooming regulation for police officers, illustrates the trend toward limiting the scope of the "zone of privacy." (The Court left open, however, the question of whether government could apply a grooming law to members of the general public, who it assumed would have some sort of liberty interest in matters of personal appearance.) Some state courts, however, were not so reluctant about pushing the zone of privacy to new frontiers. The Alaska Supreme Court went as far in the direction of protecting privacy rights as any state. In Ravin v State (1975), drawing on cases such as Stanley and Griswold but also basing its decision on the more generous protection of the Alaska Constitution's privacy protections, the Alaska Supreme Court found constitutional protection for the right of a citizen to possess and use small quantities of marijuana in his own home.

The Supreme Court said in the 1977 case of Moore v. East Cleveland that "the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition." Moore found privacy protection for an extended family's choice of living arrangements, striking down a housing ordinance that prohibited a grandmother from living together with her two grandsons. Writing for the Court, Justice Powell said, "The choice of relatives in this degree of kinship to live together may not lightly be denied by the state."

In more recent decades, the Court recognized in Cruzan v Missouri Department of Health (1990) that individuals have a liberty interest that includes the right to make decisions to terminate life-prolonging medical treatments (although the Court accepted that states can impose certain conditions on the exercise of that right). In 2003, in Lawrence v Texas, the Supreme Court, overruling an earlier decision, found that Texas violated the liberty clause of two gay men when it enforced against them a state law prohibiting homosexual sodomy. Writing for the Court in Lawrence, Justice Kennedy reaffirmed in broad terms the Constitution's protection for privacy:

"These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life....The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. 'It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.'”

One question that the Court has wrestled with through its privacy decisions is how strong of an interest states must demonstrate to overcome claims by individuals that they have invaded a protected liberty interest. Earlier decisions such as Griswold and Roe suggested that states must show a compelling interest and narrowly tailored means when they have burdened fundamental privacy rights, but later cases such as Cruzan and Lawrence have suggested the burden on states is not so high.

The future of privacy protection remains an open question. Justices Scalia and Thomas, for example, are not inclined to protect privacy beyond those cases raising claims based on specific Bill of Rights guarantees. The public, however, wants a Constitution that fills privacy gaps and prevents an overreaching Congress from telling the American people who they must marry, how many children they can have, or when they must go to bed. The best bet is that the Court will continue to recognize protection for a general right of privacy. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html

. So in theory anyway , it can be argued that , as a general rule at least , the right to privacy does exist . But in actual practice just how much personal privacy is there ?

When news hit a few weeks back that the NSA has been essentially trolling our very existence through Verizon and social media (through the hilariously titled PRISM), what did we do? Nothing. Sure, we had a couple of angry Facebook status updates and even more hashtags and Twitter outbursts, but no one really cared. Have we become THAT unfazed, and ultimately, uncaring about our privacy ?Yep, it sure sounds like it. Privacy has been a vital part of the rich (and sometimes not so rich) history of this country. Privacy let us get away with that little thing in 1776. Privacy also helped us deal politics throughout the past two centuries, culminating in our dominance for a great deal of time.

Our lack of privacy has been detrimental, leading to debacles like Pearl Harbor, Bay of Pigs, and to some extent, 9/11. Not to mention it also aided in hiding away all those Communists during McCarthy's wrath, and shocking sex lives of our most famed celebrities (Liberace anyone?). Yet, somewhere in the past few years, we just let the collective curtains drop, leaving our naked and exposed lives to the people of the world.

This isn't even a domestic issue anymore, but a global one. Across the world what is behind closed doors is no more. Your house might as well be made of glass, especially with the information floating around the Internet. Once upon a time, I wanted to be a politician, but now I have no idea if I can even dip my toe in without being torn apart. That goes for everyone. And we let it happen.

Social media platforms have come and left very little to be deciphered, discovered or surprised with. We let the world know that we love Springsteen, have cramps and have a thing for sushi. Everyone shares stupid pictures of their tuna sandwich, and sometimes even small video clips.

Even celebrities, previously hidden behind a parade of publicists and managers have epic, public meltdowns (cue: Amanda Bynes, although it could be the biggest ruse of all time). It isn't Big Brother anymore, but Big Everything. And it is only because we are so willing to give it all away.

When all hell broke loose, just a few weeks back, we found out PRISM has been mining us for a while. That stupid picture you put up of you making out with a midget? Got it. That message you sent your mistress about that weird thing she does with her feet? Known.

Your calendar update involving your AA meeting? Yep. And how did we respond? Nothing. Huh? Sure, Facebook and Twitter (who wasn't part of PRISM; your tweets about your boss are safe) were abuzz about the situation, and the world news took a hold of it for days, but what REALLY was our reaction?

There was a quick Congressional hearing that had us being told 'hey, we invaded your privacy, but no worries, it was for your own good'. My own good? Is the only place I have for myself in the few inches of my mind? (thank your Mr. Orwell) Most likely, it will continue. And even more certain is the fact we won't fight it. As soon as the excuse of 'national security' hit the airwaves, this whole debacle was stamped with approval.

What it really comes down to is our attitude. We aren't protesting. We aren't fighting. We aren't rebelling. We are accepting. And at what point does it stop? Freedom and Patriot Acts came and went. Wars came and went. And now, our privacy left. Will it come back? Don't hold your breath. https://www.elitedaily.com/life/how-much-privacy-do-we-really-have

[Wellsy]

We probably have to accept that we can no longer be private.

I think it's time all of come out and say what kind of porn we like best.

Don’t need to, I’m metadata mining the fuck outta you right now pervert!

[Unthinking Majority]

Governments won't enact privacy laws because they want to be able to have access to the data these companies are collecting.

[late]

The question of whether the Constitution protects privacy in ways not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights is controversial. Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists. The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment.

Originalist ain't originalist most of the time. It's a stance for hypocrites that want to hide their real agenda.

Bork was a tool. Real conservatives didn't want him on the SC bench because he was more interested in power than justice. If the Nixon investigation had had more time, they might well have put his feet to the fire.

A lot of things are not static, they swing back and forth. Look into the Alien and Sedition Act. But if democracy, and politics, are not yet dead, that means we have a fight on our hands to restore privacy.

[Puffer Fish]

I recently watched a Serpentza video about how there is little privacy in China. That's not all bad, there is little rape in a place without much in the way of privacy.

Something tells me that the fact the rape rate is so low has very little to do with the issue of lack of privacy.

Northeast Asian societies tend to be very strict and disciplined, with their members exercising high levels of self-control.

[ccdan]

I recently watched a Serpentza video about how there is little privacy in China. That's not all bad, there is little rape

Something tells me that the fact the rape rate is so low

Rape rate is extremely low everywhere!

In the West feminism managed to a larger degree than in some other parts of the world to influence societies to accept claims of rape as true without any real evidence and to not punish seriously proved false complaints of rape - which is why almost all claims of rape of false and consequently almost all convictions are wrongful. All this injustice and craziness will come to light one day when someone

. So in theory anyway , it can be argued that , as a general rule at least , the right to privacy does exist . But in actual practice just how much personal privacy is there ?

In the US there's almost no right to privacy. In the EU there's a bit more "right to privacy" than in the US, but still very little. Modern states pretty much everywhere are totalitarian in nature and stupid populations tend to support this abusive state of affairs due to paranoia and stupidity.

Privacy is a product of the Modern world.

Totally false, it's the other way around! Just a few decades ago there were no CCTVs(no to speak of face recognition stuff), no GPS, no mobile phones, not even credit card transactions or other totalitarian rules like KYC in the banking system and so on.

The level of surveillance and lack of privacy we are experiencing today is unprecedented in human history! We must do something to reverse the tide and severely punish those who want to instate/reinstate surveillance!

[late]

Totally false, it's the other way around! Just a few decades ago there were no CCTVs(no to speak of face recognition stuff), no GPS, no mobile phones, not even credit card transactions or other totalitarian rules like KYC in the banking system and so on.

The point was people lived together. Even kings had their staff sleeping with them to keep them from freezing to death. They could have moments of privacy, but life was simply more communal.

That privacy is eroding was the idea behind this thread.

[QatzelOk]

One of the perverted things about our age is that, for many people, cars and cellphones and Internet are essential needs, while privacy is "a luxury."

Honestly, if you want to live a good life, you need privacy.

Animals that don't have privacy are called "cattle."