4th Amendment Privacy Concerns Unanswered...

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by OldManOnFire, Feb 7, 2012.

  1. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Reference; http://www.kqed.org/news/story/2012...racking_device?source=npr&category=technology

    For everyone who has a cell phone with GPS, do you know the government is probably saving every move you make in a data base for future reference?

    Can a spouse, or police, or employer, require access to your GPS data to understand every move you make?

    Every word in your emails, or every Internet search you do, or every conversation on Skype, is being recorded for future reference.

    When policing agencies are using unmanned drones in our local cities, flying 24/7 grid patterns, is it an invasion of one's privacy if that drone has a telephoto lens to see through your uncurtained windows, or to peer into your fenced backyard, or to listen to your conversations, from it's 1000 foot altitude?

    Where is all of this data being stored?

    Who has access to all of this data?

    What is the security of this data?

    How will laws unfold to grant others access to your private information?
     
  2. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Can I assume that no responses to this thread indicates that PF readers have no interest or concerns about mining for personal data, storage of that data, and laws that will determine how others will use that data?

    That none of you are concerned about potential invasion of privacy issues?

    I'm a little surprised that at a minimum one of the conspiracy theorists did not post something here...
     
  3. Nemo

    Nemo New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    Messages:
    524
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No doubt it will be a matter of judicial interpretation. Specifically, there is no express provision of the Constitution for a general right of privacy. Rather it is based on the decisions of the Supreme Court in interpreting the First, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments viewed through the prism of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in such cases as Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, Cruzon v. Missouri Dept. of Health, and more recently, Lawrence v. Texas. These decisions are the product of an expansive reading of the Constitution rather than a literal interpretation of its provisions. I can remember Judge Robert Bork (renowned constitutional scholar and foremost exponent of "Originalism" in the interpretation of the Constitution) stating that there was no right to privacy, which did not go down well in the Senate confirmation hearings for his failed nomination to the Supreme Court; albeit today Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito, as well as Chief Justice Roberts, would be considered to have rather narrow views on the right of privacy; and whether a specific law violates an individual's right to privacy is a matter for independent judicial review. To say that the Constitution means what it says is only to beg the question of its interpretation, and that is a subject upon which, ultimately, the Supreme Court has the final word. In the final analysis, the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says.
     
  4. f_socialism

    f_socialism New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,194
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I keep my gps turned off. However, I operate under the assumption that they are still at least keeping track of my approximate whereabouts by tracking the cell phone towers that my phone is using. Perhaps I'm paranoid, but I know enough about the NSA's capabilities that my assumptions are probably not far from the truth.

    We get stories on a regular basis about legislation that encroaches on our freedoms and have myself attempted to stir up interest on this forum.

    Whether it is the army wanting to essentially fill the skies with drones to perform "undisclosed" operations, indefinite detention with no due process, homeland security gaining regulatory powers over the internet or the state tracking people through their phones, very few people seem to care. After all, it is all to protect us from our enemies, both real and imagined. Just like in Orwell's 1984.
     
  5. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree with your assessment. I also understand that 235 years ago it was impossible to create a charter which can apply without interpretation to today's complexities. Therefore I can accept some level of interpretation, however, if that interpretation widens too much, then I want the process started to amend the document which in effect minimizes further interpretation for another 200 years...or maybe 2 years.

    Regarding personal privacy, in the issue of this thread, I don't personally care that much that the government is collecting data on me. But I do care how that data is stored, who has access, and what the penalty might be for misuse of this data...sort of like nuclear weapons.

    I don't remember if it was Obama or Obamacare but the intent was to place all personal medical information on electronic medium available to medical personnel anywhere in the USA. Sounds like a nice idea on the surface, but what if that personal data shows a person has HIV or a terminal disease or is impotent or had several abortions or a gender change or cosmetic surgery or whatever disease/illness that might prove to be embarrassing or critical if released to the public?
     
  6. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you are a person of interest, then I suspect additional signal triangulation efforts might be used, but I suspect for the rest of us, just because they can and it's relatively cheap when we're in the deficit spending mode, they're just collecting the low-hanging GPS data.

    Wasn't there a case in the last year or so in which a young boy was given a ticket for speeding and he challenged the ticket in court because his GPS data indicated that the car was not speeding? If I remember correctly, the GPS data did show he was not speeding but the court would not throw out the ticket; the fine was greatly reduced.

    No matter real or imagined enemies, at some point in which the Homeland Security spending is even more ridiculous than it currently is, maybe these budget issues will help contain how far they reach...
     

Share This Page