3 ms·

(I am not from US, if that matter) I wonder why every news on privacy issue in the United States try to make connection with abortion. Won't this make the pri

(I am not from US, if that matter) I wonder why every news on privacy issue in the United States try to make connection with abortion. Won't this make the privacy argument more fragmented?

LatteLazy 4y ago
I am not a lawyer but... Abortion rights in the US were originally based on privacy (the government's right to tell a woman what she could or could not do with her body). Overturning that widened government authority not just over abortion, but 1001 other issues linked to the same core finding. Laws banning sodomy were struck down on the same basis: what two consenting adults do behind closed doors that doesn't affect third parties are a violation of the "right to privacy". The same for interracial marriage. The same ruling has implications here because the data in question "belongs" to the phone company. But government buying it might violate individuals' right to privacy. Only individuals' right to privacy is now very curtailed. People think Roe vs Wade was an abortion ruling, but it was really a privacy one, and by overturning it SCOTUS has opened a very large number of social issues to be re-litigated. I agree it's a stretch to tie it to abortion (and maybe an appeal to emotion/politics?). But there is a link. I wish more people thought about all these issues (plus NSA spying and social media and 101 other things) in terms of one overall right to privacy. It's sort of the issue of our times (which I think West Wing predicted 20+ years ago)
probably_wrong 4y ago
I think abortion is a particularly interesting case. Up until now, it was very difficult to show how bad tracking is - common arguments are "I have nothing to hide", "No one can show me a concrete example of something bad happening", or even "I like ads that are relevant to me". But now that the publicly available data of women seeking abortions can be used to send them to jail, arguments 1 and 2 are easier to disprove. I'm not aware of any previous pro-privacy argument with such clear connection between cause and consequence.
rayiner 4y ago
xyzzyz 4y ago
For the same reason you hear so much talk about "diversity" in the US: it's because of arcane legal arguments in Supreme Court. It's really long and boring, to be honest, but if you are interested, I recommend reading about original reasoning in Roe v. Wade to learn how right to abortion got connected to privacy, and Grutter v. Bollinger about how racial preferences in education and hiring can be washed through the language of "diversity". If the arguments pushed there don't make sense to you (e.g. why does constitutional right to privacy gives you right to abortion until 20+ week, but doesn't give you right to privately use drugs, or e.g. why you're not allowed to discriminate anyone on the basis of race, and in particular you're not allowed to create quotas for racial groups in education admissions, but as soon as you call these quotas "diversity targets", you're allowed to make decisions to reject and admit candidates based on race in order to meet them), that's expected: Roe v. Wade has recently been overruled, and Grutter v. Bollinger will probably be overruled soon.

(I am not from US, if that matter) I wonder why every news on privacy issue in the United States try to make connection with abortion. Won't this make the privacy argument more fragmented?

LatteLazy 4y ago

I am not a lawyer but... Abortion rights in the US were originally based on privacy (the government's right to tell a woman what she could or could not do with her body). Overturning that widened government authority not just over abortion, but 1001 other issues linked to the same core finding. Laws banning sodomy were struck down on the same basis: what two consenting adults do behind closed doors that doesn't affect third parties are a violation of the "right to privacy". The same for interracial marriage. The same ruling has implications here because the data in question "belongs" to the phone company. But government buying it might violate individuals' right to privacy. Only individuals' right to privacy is now very curtailed. People think Roe vs Wade was an abortion ruling, but it was really a privacy one, and by overturning it SCOTUS has opened a very large number of social issues to be re-litigated. I agree it's a stretch to tie it to abortion (and maybe an appeal to emotion/politics?). But there is a link. I wish more people thought about all these issues (plus NSA spying and social media and 101 other things) in terms of one overall right to privacy. It's sort of the issue of our times (which I think West Wing predicted 20+ years ago)

probably_wrong 4y ago

I think abortion is a particularly interesting case. Up until now, it was very difficult to show how bad tracking is - common arguments are "I have nothing to hide", "No one can show me a concrete example of something bad happening", or even "I like ads that are relevant to me". But now that the publicly available data of women seeking abortions can be used to send them to jail, arguments 1 and 2 are easier to disprove. I'm not aware of any previous pro-privacy argument with such clear connection between cause and consequence.

rayiner 4y ago

xyzzyz 4y ago

For the same reason you hear so much talk about "diversity" in the US: it's because of arcane legal arguments in Supreme Court. It's really long and boring, to be honest, but if you are interested, I recommend reading about original reasoning in Roe v. Wade to learn how right to abortion got connected to privacy, and Grutter v. Bollinger about how racial preferences in education and hiring can be washed through the language of "diversity". If the arguments pushed there don't make sense to you (e.g. why does constitutional right to privacy gives you right to abortion until 20+ week, but doesn't give you right to privately use drugs, or e.g. why you're not allowed to discriminate anyone on the basis of race, and in particular you're not allowed to create quotas for racial groups in education admissions, but as soon as you call these quotas "diversity targets", you're allowed to make decisions to reject and admit candidates based on race in order to meet them), that's expected: Roe v. Wade has recently been overruled, and Grutter v. Bollinger will probably be overruled soon.