3 ms·

> That the surveillance apparatus might know you visited a doctor, and what you discussed, does not grant the government the ability to prosecute you based on t

by adolph 4y ago

> That the surveillance apparatus might know you visited a doctor, and what you discussed, does not grant the government the ability to prosecute you based on that information - because it is considered to be a matter of the private activities of a citizen. I'd be swayed by this except that post-Snowden we know that the surveillance apparatus can be used for "parallel construction" where the evidence to charge/try/convict a person may be based on evidence that hides the fact of illegal surveillance. The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant's Constitutional right to a fair trial. https://web.archive.org/web/20151204025156/http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805 https://web.archive.org/web/20151204025156/http://www.reuter... See also: 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process When Everything is a Crime https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2203713 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2203713

XorNot 4y ago
You've managed to completely miss the point: the issue is not whether someone knows about it. The issue is that it is your personal private business - the government can be aware of it all it wants, but the "right to privacy" is the right not to be interfered with. This would include surveillance, but also includes legislation and prosecution on matters which do not involve anyone but the parties they pertain too. "parallel construction" has no bearing here, because again, this is not about whether what you're doing can be known or even is known (this is also not at all how it works, but its beside the point so I'm not going further into it).
- adolph 4y ago
  > your personal private business - the government can be aware of it all it wants, but > the "right to privacy" is the right not to be interfered with Ok, yes, I'm confused. In what way are the above two statements not completely opposite world-states? Is "information collection" (by government or others) not antithetical to the "right to privacy?" Again I will refer to 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy [0]: The first general category is information collection, which involves the ways that data is gathered about people. The subcategories, surveillance and interrogation, represent the two primary problematic ways of gathering information. A privacy problem occurs when an activity by a person, business, or government entity creates harm by disrupting valuable activities of others. These harms need not be physical or emotional; they can occur by chilling socially beneficial behavior (for example, free speech and association) or by leading to power imbalances that adversely affect social structure (for example, excessive executive power). 0. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565

by adolph 4y ago

XorNot 4y ago

You've managed to completely miss the point: the issue is not whether someone knows about it. The issue is that it is your personal private business - the government can be aware of it all it wants, but the "right to privacy" is the right not to be interfered with. This would include surveillance, but also includes legislation and prosecution on matters which do not involve anyone but the parties they pertain too. "parallel construction" has no bearing here, because again, this is not about whether what you're doing can be known or even is known (this is also not at all how it works, but its beside the point so I'm not going further into it).

adolph 4y ago
> your personal private business - the government can be aware of it all it wants, but > the "right to privacy" is the right not to be interfered with Ok, yes, I'm confused. In what way are the above two statements not completely opposite world-states? Is "information collection" (by government or others) not antithetical to the "right to privacy?" Again I will refer to 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy [0]: The first general category is information collection, which involves the ways that data is gathered about people. The subcategories, surveillance and interrogation, represent the two primary problematic ways of gathering information. A privacy problem occurs when an activity by a person, business, or government entity creates harm by disrupting valuable activities of others. These harms need not be physical or emotional; they can occur by chilling socially beneficial behavior (for example, free speech and association) or by leading to power imbalances that adversely affect social structure (for example, excessive executive power). 0. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565