There is no such right.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

The cameras are designed to catch criminals. I'm not a criminal. Anyone can stare at me till they go blind. What is it going to do - make my teeth fall out? Give me cancer? Make me bankrupt?

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

This appears to be an all-encompassing statement. Are you suggesting that stakeouts are never justified.

Ah, the "I have nothing to hide" defense. Great. We'll just put cameras inside everybody's house, so we can catch any conceivable illegal behavior and nip it in the bud. That'll be a good way to enforce restrictions on sexual behavior, too. The biggest problem with those laws has always been the difficulty in enforcing them.

Besides making a mockery of the Bill of Rights -- why should we have any restrictions on searches and such if we've got nothing to hide? -- you ignore the most basic tenet of conservatism, which is that in a limited government, most things are simply none of the government's business. By volunteering to bend over and let them videotape every waking and sleeping moment of your life, you give the government carte blanche to become interested in every little thing you do.

What about all those little things that aren't illegal but are still private and embarassing? Maybe you're having an affair; maybe you pick your nose. Maybe you drink too much. Maybe you like lounging around in your backyard in the nude. All those things become available to the government in this surveillance society you're so okay with.

But of course we know the government would never stoop to using such information for mundane political purposes, right?

Read a history of government abuse of surveillance data to understand why a surveillance society is simply undesirable, philosophical and Constitutional considerations aside. You can start here:
http://midtopia.blogspot.com/2006/05...its-stage.html

Read down to get the examples of both past and current misuse of "security threat" designations and gathered information.

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

Ummmm, Griswold v. Connecticut would like to have a word with you, as would the Universal Declaration of Human rights.

__________________
DILIGITE JUSTITIAM QUI JUDICATIS TERRAM

In fact there is no 'Right to Privacy' there is the rulings by various courts that various parts of the Constitution imply a right to Privacy agianst certain government actions.


A legal case only sets a preciedent it does not make the precedent set at the time a Right.
It is also notably subject to change.


The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 is U.N. You may see yourself as a citizen of the world but most of us are citizens of our respective nations.
Its an ideal signed by numerous nation states which will act as they see fit anyway. Its not even "universally agreed on....its an advisory declaration...

__________________
"We make war that we may live in peace"
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever."
"War critics can no longer credibly argue that we are losing in Iraq, so now they argue the war costs too much."
"Oderint dum metuant"
http://members.cox.net/neddy/bobhope_kerfuffles.wmv
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RnfflRNpwKA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j-QYIP7o2-A

Some people, unfortunately, don't believe in the authority or validity of international criminal law or such treatises as the Universal Declaration. Especially if they were conceived of outside the jurisdiction of the US - meaning that acknowledging them (however reluctantly) the US would have to *gasp* adhere to international standards other than self-imposed ones (not that there are many of those, these days).

__________________
We've got rules and maps and guns in our backs, but we still can't just behave ourselves. Even if to save our own lives, we are a brutal kind. The Shins

I doubt many Australians believe they are subjects of "the world."

If "international law" says 'x' and Australian law says 'y' which do you follow?
It IS as simple as that.

Sure your nation approves of the concept of certain standards when dealing with human beings but approving a delcaration of those principles does not bound your naiton and govenrmetn to upholding them in spite of its own interests.

What applies to you and me is our respective nations Constitutions and our nations laws..those apply first 'international' second..and if those internaitonal laws are contrary to yor own..your will be appied and the hell with the international one..you know that as well as I do.




There is a world of difference between pushing an ideal and believing an ideal IS in fact.

__________________
"We make war that we may live in peace"
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever."
"War critics can no longer credibly argue that we are losing in Iraq, so now they argue the war costs too much."
"Oderint dum metuant"
http://members.cox.net/neddy/bobhope_kerfuffles.wmv
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RnfflRNpwKA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j-QYIP7o2-A

If you can convince a judge, on the basis of probable cause, to give you a warrant, then I think it's reasonable to give you the power to spy on people to some degree or other. But that's not what we're talking about, here. We're talking about letting private companies spy on private citizens and then turn those records over to the government with no judicial oversight. You can't possibly think that's a good idea.

Huh? What on earth ever gave you that idea? We certainly don't believe we exist over and above the world. There is only one nation so narcissistic. And it's not Australia. Of course we are world subjects. We all live on the same planet, don't we?

Yes it is. The laws of civilised, decent nations should be in sync with international law. They should not be mutually exclusive. After all - these ideals are for the good of everyone. Not just one country who thinks they are the centre of the universe and that they stand above all others.

And therein lies the rub. Being decent world citizens clearly is `in spite of the interests' of the US. Global hegemony and subscription to decent human ideals and standards cannot come hand in hand. The US is only interested in the former, whilst proclaiming to subscribe to the latter (oh, and condemning and/or invading nations who also subscribe to the former, but just without the facade of `democracy' to hide under). Which is the only reason you have an issue with international law. You don't want it to apply to you because you want to be allowed free reign to do whatever you want to rule the world. If you kept within your own borders, ever, I doubt we'd be having this conversation. The US has historically been as reluctant to subscribe to international law and treatises as nations like Iran and China. And yet they are the enemy? Well, I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

In any case, Australia has no history of such reticence to subscribe to internationally binding treatises. We have no hidden agenda (or not so hidden). We're quite happy with where we are in the world.

And just to save you from your next comment, yes, yes - if it weren't for you we'd all be speaking Japanese now. Not that such a comment would be relevant, but it's the usual tired argument people spew when justifying the US' quest for global dominance.

__________________
We've got rules and maps and guns in our backs, but we still can't just behave ourselves. Even if to save our own lives, we are a brutal kind. The Shins