Privacy invaded? U.S. Supreme Court won't help

  • Article by: EDITORIAL , Los Angeles Times
  • Updated: February 27, 2013 - 8:38 PM

When Congress and the executive branch collude to keep Americans in the dark about whether their privacy is being invaded, the Supreme Court should be willing to lift the veil of secrecy — at least to the extent of forcing the government to explain how often it is monitoring the confidential conversations of Americans.

  • 7
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 7 of 7
jd55604Feb. 27, 13 8:47 PM

I suppose big brother fears that if the veil of secrecy is lifted we the people wouldn't like what we saw.

6
0
davehougFeb. 28, 13 6:47 AM

The court discovered a right to privacy in the Constitution so strong to allow abortion, but that right isn't strong enough to even object to being snooped on......you gotta laugh to keep from crying.

5
3
gandalf48Feb. 28, 13 8:31 AM

The word privacy is never mentioned once in the US Constitution. We don't have have privacy rights, if you're in a public area you can be photographed and someone else has the right to offend you with their words. What we have are property rights, rights to keep your property and person safe from other people. You do have a right to privacy inferred from your property, no one can search your person without due reason, no one can search or invade your vehicle and no one can trespass on your property without your permission (or with a warrant). The idea of universal privacy rights all the time no matter where you are is a completely invented right. It is so bad that police officers have said their "privacy rights" are violated by people who video them while on the job, on public streets (to prevent those videos from being used against them in criminal cases).

2
5
hughakstonFeb. 28, 1311:46 AM

gandalf48 Feb. 28, 13 8:31 AM - The Fourth Amendment includes the words "...secure in ones persons, papers and effects...". I think when you look at that amendment, the Federalist papers, plus the comments of those who drafted the Consitution, you find that privacy is very much implied. Without respect to privacy we are all no better than savages living in jungle villages.

2
1
gandalf48Feb. 28, 13 1:02 PM

hughakston - [gandalf48 Feb. 28, 13 8:31 AM - The Fourth Amendment includes the words "...secure in ones persons, papers and effects...". I think when you look at that amendment, the Federalist papers, plus the comments of those who drafted the Consitution, you find that privacy is very much implied. Without respect to privacy we are all no better than savages living in jungle villages.] *** I would argue that "ones persons, papers and effects" are property, therefore it derives from property rights. You have privacy when it comes to your property (your person, papers and effects) but it does not extend beyond that. When you are in a public place you only have a right to privacy in the sense that you should not be searched (without cause), have property stolen or your body physically attacked or violated...those are all property rights. Which is why same phrases quoted by justices from the US Constitution to invent privacy rights always contain either the word property or some form of property (i.e. "ones persons, papers and effects").

0
1
hawkeye56379Feb. 28, 13 4:01 PM

"The word privacy is never mentioned once in the US Constitution. We don't have have privacy rights"------------ It's true that the word is not there, but it doesn't logically follow that we don't have privacy rights. The Ninth Amendment specifically says that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The US Supreme Court has ruled that an unenumerated constitutional right to privacy does exist. You can disagree with our having this as a constitutional right all you want, but legally we do have it. I, for one, am happy that we have such a right to protect us from potential actions by an intrusive government.

1
0
pumiceMar. 1, 13 2:39 PM

Re: "I would argue that 'one's person, [house,] papers and effects' are property ..." Really, gandalf48... you would argue that one's person is property? In the same way that one's house, papers and effects are property?

1
0
  • 1 - 7 of 7

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT