3 ms·

It’s not the right to due process that stops the FBI from gathering whatever data they want on you (all the right to due process says is that your life, liberty

It’s not the right to due process that stops the FBI from gathering whatever data they want on you (all the right to due process says is that your life, liberty, and property can’t be abridged without due process of law) The right to privacy isn’t exactly even a right in the US constitution, it’s a construction out of a combination of many of the amendments in the bill of rights. And as such anything that doesn’t specifically conflict with a part of the bill of rights is fair game for data collection on citizens. And, because the bill of rights was created such a long time ago, the idea of the government being able to buy such a massive amount of data on you from third parties that it would be a violation of your privacy isn’t exactly written in as a problem. The constitution is getting to the point where it really needs amendments to clarify things for the digital age.

njarboe 4y ago
The US was founded on the principle that the federal government only has the right to do things that are specified in the constitution. The States and the people, by default, retain all other rights. This idea has been greatly eroded in the last century, especially using the Commerce Clause, but could be revived with not too many Supreme Court decisions. Many of the founders were concerned that having a bill of rights would lead to exactly the idea that you are professing. Namely that if a right is not listed in the Constitution then that right does not exist. The tenth amendment specifically states the principle that the Constitution gives a limited set of powers to federal government by the people (and the States) and everything else is to unrestricted at the federal level. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
- NineStarPoint 4y ago
  That’s sort of an orthogonal idea in my mind. Yes, the Federal Government has a list of the types of things it is allowed to pursue. This is a separate idea from the bill of rights, which essentially says “while the federal government is doing the things it is allowed to do, here are things they are not allowed to do in pursuing those actions”. So what you’re talking about it more relevant to the question “should the FBI be allowed to exist at all.” Is a federal bureau of investigation something that the federal government is allowed to make under the constitution, and if so what sorts of situations and crimes are they allowed to investigate? If you don’t believe the FBI should exist at all, then the sort of argument you’re giving makes sense. But what the rules as to the Federal Government’s allowed sphere’s of actions don’t say is how they are to go about pursuing those actions. (“To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;” is a right of the federal government, but no mention is made of how those tribunals should be structured or how they should function.) So we get to the question of “If the FBI is allowed to exist, what sort of methods is it allowed to use to investigate.” And that’s where the bill of rights comes in, excluding certain types of actions. Or the general question could be stated “Is it disallowed for the federal government to purchase data about its citizens from private entities in pursuit of the rights it is granted by the constitution.”

njarboe 4y ago

The US was founded on the principle that the federal government only has the right to do things that are specified in the constitution. The States and the people, by default, retain all other rights. This idea has been greatly eroded in the last century, especially using the Commerce Clause, but could be revived with not too many Supreme Court decisions. Many of the founders were concerned that having a bill of rights would lead to exactly the idea that you are professing. Namely that if a right is not listed in the Constitution then that right does not exist. The tenth amendment specifically states the principle that the Constitution gives a limited set of powers to federal government by the people (and the States) and everything else is to unrestricted at the federal level. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

NineStarPoint 4y ago
That’s sort of an orthogonal idea in my mind. Yes, the Federal Government has a list of the types of things it is allowed to pursue. This is a separate idea from the bill of rights, which essentially says “while the federal government is doing the things it is allowed to do, here are things they are not allowed to do in pursuing those actions”. So what you’re talking about it more relevant to the question “should the FBI be allowed to exist at all.” Is a federal bureau of investigation something that the federal government is allowed to make under the constitution, and if so what sorts of situations and crimes are they allowed to investigate? If you don’t believe the FBI should exist at all, then the sort of argument you’re giving makes sense. But what the rules as to the Federal Government’s allowed sphere’s of actions don’t say is how they are to go about pursuing those actions. (“To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;” is a right of the federal government, but no mention is made of how those tribunals should be structured or how they should function.) So we get to the question of “If the FBI is allowed to exist, what sort of methods is it allowed to use to investigate.” And that’s where the bill of rights comes in, excluding certain types of actions. Or the general question could be stated “Is it disallowed for the federal government to purchase data about its citizens from private entities in pursuit of the rights it is granted by the constitution.”