Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do you dare to search for pressure cooker now?
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 241 of 272 (706336)
09-09-2013 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Rahvin
09-09-2013 5:58 PM


Re: Rights versus privilege.
So far my best guess is that you consider a "right" to be a guarantee that is always present, barring specific limitations, while a "privilege" is itself limited grant of a specific guarantee, while that guarantee is not generally available. A right is a rule with possible negative exceptions, and a privilege is a positive exception to a negative general rule, to put it more simply.
Very close. I would not choose the terms positive or negative though. I prefer general, prohibited and privileged.
I do not think there is any general right to privacy except where privileged.
I think we have a general right to free speech except where prohibited.
And it seems that is the general view taken by the law in the US; in the case of privacy we have laws that grant, privilege, conversations while in the case of free speech we have laws that prohibit certain speech.
But the whole issue is still irrelevant to the topic or the example in the OP.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Rahvin, posted 09-09-2013 5:58 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 242 of 272 (706338)
09-09-2013 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Theodoric
09-09-2013 6:03 PM


Re: Right vs Privilege
Again, where is there any reasonable expectation of privacy from being overheard while in a phone booth?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Theodoric, posted 09-09-2013 6:03 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Theodoric, posted 09-09-2013 6:20 PM jar has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 243 of 272 (706339)
09-09-2013 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by jar
09-09-2013 6:15 PM


Re: Right vs Privilege
Again, where is there any reasonable expectation of privacy from being overheard while in a phone booth?
The Supreme Court thought there was.
Katz v. United States - Wikipedia

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by jar, posted 09-09-2013 6:15 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by jar, posted 09-09-2013 6:28 PM Theodoric has replied
 Message 245 by Rahvin, posted 09-09-2013 6:34 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 244 of 272 (706340)
09-09-2013 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Theodoric
09-09-2013 6:20 PM


Re: Right vs Privilege
How is that related to what I posted?
The government is not just another individual.
But it still supports my position. There is no general right to privacy and what we see are laws privileging certain instances.
And again, what the hell does it have to do with the topic or the example in the OP?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Theodoric, posted 09-09-2013 6:20 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Theodoric, posted 09-09-2013 6:44 PM jar has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 245 of 272 (706342)
09-09-2013 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Theodoric
09-09-2013 6:20 PM


Re: Right vs Privilege
"The Government's activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner's words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a 'search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment." — Justice Stewart[1]
Regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if it is made with a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Wiretapping counts as a search (physical intrusion is not necessary).
And indeed the specific wording of the ruling is what is supposed to protect all other electronic communication. Email is "conversation." The government may not search such a conversation without a warrant, regardless of physical intrusion.
But there's a difference between an email or a google search query being intercepted and read by the government, and your employer intercepting your activity on employer-owned equipment, and then reporting what it sees to the government.
You have a reasonable expectation to privacy when you send me a letter, in that you can reasonably expect that I and only I will legally be able to open the letter; the government might legally be able to tell that you sent me a letter, but they cannot look at its contents without a warrant.
However, you have no reasonable expectation (with specific exceptions, such as if I were your lawyer or your priest) that I cannot, after reading your letter, just tell anyone else what you said, including the government.
If I were to try to more accurately describe the right to privacy, it would be that you have the right to privacy for specific point-to-point communication, where others cannot overhear simply by their mere legal presence.
You have no reasonable expectation of control over the communicated information (with very few specific exceptions) once it's in the hands of the person you gave it to.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995...
"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf, J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord Of the Rings
Nihil supernum

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Theodoric, posted 09-09-2013 6:20 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by jar, posted 09-09-2013 6:44 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 246 of 272 (706343)
09-09-2013 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by jar
09-09-2013 6:28 PM


Re: Right vs Privilege
The government is not just another individual.
Does not matter there is still an expectation of privacy. The government could not use any information obtained by an individual this way. An individual disseminating info gained this way would be open to various lawsuits
There is no general right to privacy
The courts have deemed there are rights to privacy.
And again, what the hell does it have to do with the topic or the example in the OP?
You are the one making outlandish statements. That you have been shown are false.
You have never had a right in the US to have a private conversation.
If it is off topic you led the way.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by jar, posted 09-09-2013 6:28 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by jar, posted 09-09-2013 6:47 PM Theodoric has not replied
 Message 250 by NoNukes, posted 09-09-2013 7:29 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 247 of 272 (706344)
09-09-2013 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Rahvin
09-09-2013 6:34 PM


Re: Right vs Privilege
Even there the right to privacy is restricted. For example the government may put an undercover informant in your house and what that person overhears is not privileged.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Rahvin, posted 09-09-2013 6:34 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Rahvin, posted 09-09-2013 7:00 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 248 of 272 (706345)
09-09-2013 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Theodoric
09-09-2013 6:44 PM


Re: Right vs Privilege
Actually no, I don't think you are correct.
The government can put an undercover agent in your house, your business, your private club and use whatever that person overhears.
There is no general right to privacy as I have shown. What we do have are a few limited privileged instances whre privacy can be expected.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Theodoric, posted 09-09-2013 6:44 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 249 of 272 (706346)
09-09-2013 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by jar
09-09-2013 6:44 PM


Re: Right vs Privilege
Even there the right to privacy is restricted. For example the government may put an undercover informant in your house and what that person overhears is not privileged.
If you voluntarily communicate with another person, that communication may be protected by privacy...but if the recipient is secretly James Bond, he's under no legal obligation to keep the content of that communication secret.
As I said, you have no control over the information after the point of communication. And if it's just overheard...well, as long as the person who overheard the communication was in that space legally (ie, a cop cannot sneak into your house to listen to your private conversations without a warrant, but he can listen if you speak while he's legally present), they can repeat that information with whoever they want.
Privacy is only point-to-point. If I tell X to Bob and Tom, quietly in my home with nobody else legally present, that specific communication is private - nobody is legally allowed to eavesdrop.
But only he specific singular communication is private. The information conveyed, X, has no protection, and Bob and Tom can repeat it to whomsoever they wish, so long as they aren't my lawyers or priests. So if Tom was an undercover agent, or if Bob decided I was doing something wrong, either one could go and report X to the government.
I can send you a letter, and the government cannot look inside the letter. You can call the cops after you read it, or post the entire contents of the letter on a billboard. "Privacy" is granted only in the specific one-time communication between the speaker (or writer) and whoever could hear (or read) the communication without interference - overhearing due to proximity is fine, being the intended recipient is fine, opening the letter when you are not the intended recipient or trespassing without a warrant specifically to overhear what cannot be heard from a public location are all not fine.
Is that all making sense?

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995...
"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf, J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord Of the Rings
Nihil supernum

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by jar, posted 09-09-2013 6:44 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by jar, posted 09-09-2013 7:37 PM Rahvin has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 250 of 272 (706348)
09-09-2013 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Theodoric
09-09-2013 6:44 PM


Re: Right vs Privilege
Does not matter there is still an expectation of privacy. The government could not use any information obtained by an individual this way. An individual disseminating info gained this way would be open to various lawsuits
In a criminal case, you might not appreciate the result. The rights in the fourth amendment apply only to the government. As long as the police don't solicit infringement, the courts won't apply the exclusionary rule to keep information obtained by non state actors out of your trial. In some cases you can sue, but you probably could not sue someone who overheard you without using some kind of artificial assistance.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Theodoric, posted 09-09-2013 6:44 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 251 of 272 (706349)
09-09-2013 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Rahvin
09-09-2013 7:00 PM


Re: Right vs Privilege
As I said, you have no control over the information after the point of communication. And if it's just overheard...well, as long as the person who overheard the communication was in that space legally (ie, a cop cannot sneak into your house to listen to your private conversations without a warrant, but he can listen if you speak while he's legally present), they can repeat that information with whoever they want.
Is a warrant needed to place an informant or policeman inside an organization? Is an undercover agent sneaking into your house?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Rahvin, posted 09-09-2013 7:00 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Rahvin, posted 09-09-2013 7:47 PM jar has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 252 of 272 (706351)
09-09-2013 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by jar
09-09-2013 7:37 PM


Re: Right vs Privilege
Is a warrant needed to place an informant or policeman inside an organization?
No.
Is an undercover agent sneaking into your house?
If he was invited in, even under false pretenses, he is not "sneaking in." Trespassing has nothing to do with falsification or identity - if I tell lies to get you to let me in your house, you still let me in your house. If I invite Tom into my house and he's an undercover cop, he's not breaking any laws by not telling me he's a cop, and anything I say to him can be repeated.
Trespassing or other unlawful entry requires entry without consent. If a cop enters my home through the back door without my consent so that he can listen to my private conversation with another person without my knowledge, he's making a "search" and his actions would require a warrant. Without a warrant what he overhears as a result of his illegal search would be inadmissible.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995...
"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf, J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord Of the Rings
Nihil supernum

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by jar, posted 09-09-2013 7:37 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by jar, posted 09-09-2013 8:04 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 254 by NoNukes, posted 09-09-2013 8:07 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 253 of 272 (706352)
09-09-2013 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Rahvin
09-09-2013 7:47 PM


Re: Right vs Privilege
Great, that is what I thought and maybe we can finally tie this discussion back to the topic and the example in the OP.
So in the OP invited the police into his house, there was no illegal search and the homeowner had no expectation of privacy.
Is that correct?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Rahvin, posted 09-09-2013 7:47 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 254 of 272 (706353)
09-09-2013 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Rahvin
09-09-2013 7:47 PM


Re: Right vs Privilege
Trespassing has nothing to do with falsification or identity - if I tell lies to get you to let me in your house, you still let me in your house.
You are wrong about the issue of fraud, and there are plenty of examples of prosecution for entering a property under false pretenses. One famous example is Food Lion vs ABC. Food Lion successfully sued ABC for trespassing when reporters lied to get jobs so they could report on company practices from the inside.
A policeman undercover is actually a special circumstance; it is accepted practice for police to lie if it is in the furthering of their duties.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Rahvin, posted 09-09-2013 7:47 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 255 of 272 (706410)
09-11-2013 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by NoNukes
09-09-2013 10:45 AM


Re: guilty for being able
There were no use restrictions at all. Just export restrictions. Attempts to legislate the use of encryption with backdoors have never been successful in this country.
I just mean that if you want to use 128 bit encryption software to communicate with me in another country then I must also have the software. If the software is of US origin and you send it to me then that is illegal is it not?
My main point was that those who support this kind of restriction are taking the fact that you wish to keep something private as evidence that you are committing a crime. The belief is so strong that they push to make the very keeping of secrets a crime. I think that the fact people resist the idea is good evidence that a free and reasonable person naturally claims the right of privacy.
The principal that you have the right to privacy is really at the heart of a free society. The default position is that people are free and not that they are criminals. It is the freedom that should be assumed and only restricted where positively indicated. It is the free and unrestricted flow of ideas that makes the free world as free as it is and allows us to achieve what we can. To carry on as if everyone is a criminal is to be led by your fears.
Again at the back of my thinking is the idea that society evolves and that these are small changes that cumulatively lead to some dark future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by NoNukes, posted 09-09-2013 10:45 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024