3 ms·

Right for privacy is not a right to obstruct justice.

• jimbob45 5y ago
  That’s some spicy doublespeak you’ve got there.
  • artemonster 5y ago
    No, but really. For instance, in germany there are super strict policies regrding privacy on your workplace - i.e your employer cannot spy/monitor your activities under veil of security or productivity. That said, if you are a systematic slacker the employer may use some of that said spying to prove that you are slacker in exceptional (and well founded) cases and court will accept that evidence. Seems like a working system for me. Employers still are not allowed to spy, slackers still can get punished, no apocalypse, no slippery slopes.
    • andrew_ 5y ago
      We're not talking about Germany. The parent article is clearly speaking about a situation within the United States.
• LeifCarrotson 5y ago
  The fifth amendment reads: > No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself If you could compel someone to testify against themself, that would surely expedite justice. But we've decided that's not actually just.
  • 8note 5y ago
    We're certainly compelled to have evidence collected from our stuff. You aren't compelled to say where to look, but you are compelled to let them look. Unlock this computer vs tell me your password. The password could contain "I did the murder and I buried the body under the bus stop" which is clearly testimony, but unlocking and changing the password to something the government asks you to seems well within range
• andrew_ 5y ago
  A distressing response. The 5th Amendment is pretty clear that the right to not self-incriminate paramount, and does not mention obstruction of justice in any clause. The issue seems to be subjective views on what self-incrimination is and that it's viewed as a grey area, and that makes me uneasy.
• twirlock 5y ago
  That's actually exactly the trade-off. There are limits on what pigs get to do. That's the entire point of civil rights.