6 ms·

In what way is this a violation of those rights? The right to face your accusers arises from the sixth amendment and applies to criminal cases being prosecuted

In what way is this a violation of those rights? The right to face your accusers arises from the sixth amendment and applies to criminal cases being prosecuted by the government. Due process comes from the fifth amendment and, again, only applies to actions by the government. You can be upset that this is happening, and that it is legal, but there are no constitutional rights in play here.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
sclarisse 3y ago
Yeah; there’s a case for the ninth and tenth, but that’s about it. And those never really work.
- MereInterest 3y ago
  Arguably, the fourth amendment, though this would be a rather large departure from its current interpretation. The fourth amendment states that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” It does not state from whom these violations may not occur, so this clause would not be limited to violations being performed by the government. Therefore, this could be interpreted just as a limitation of the government against violating this right, but also the allowance of the government to prevent other violations.
ofslidingfeet 3y ago
Yeah so the government has implemented payola schemes to subvert those items. Again, I'm glad that this isn't quite so mysterious and difficult to comprehend for policymakers in the EU.
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  I’m not sure what you’re talking about with payola schemes. This is a comment on an article about how an international company violated EU law. The US government (the only organization bound by constitutional law) was never involved in any way.
  - hnfong 3y ago
    The idea that only the government has the power to abuse political power and ruin your life is quite out dated. These days large, monopolistic corporations have similar powers, and you don't get any recourse. Imagine getting banned from Google and Facebook/Meta services because they used some some wacky reputation scoring -- you could still live a normal life of a 1780s homesteader, but you're probably not going to live a functioning modern life. It's a bit disingenuous to argue that the constitution only limits government powers -- which might be true, but that's exactly the problem: the US government has been allowing private companies to become so powerful and ubiquitous that they are exerting undue influence on people's lives even more-so than proper government institutions. The only thing that apparently seems to prevent this from devolving into a dystopian scenario is personal moral backbone of some founders of these tech companies. It's not hard for me to imagine a much more corrupt world where politicians in Washington routinely emails CEOs of $BigTech and make some backroom deals that only benefits the parties involved. (pretty sure it happens, but it could happen much more often) Given how cozy CEOs of "private companies" and politicians are together, it's really disingenuous to claim that we shouldn't be alarmed when unregulated monopolistic companies are free to do whatever they want because "they aren't the government". I was going to say that people in 1700s didn't envision "private" companies from being as powerful as governments, but then I remembered the East India Companies of the era. What's the difference of "companies" and "governments" when the functions they perform become indistinguishable?
abtinf 3y ago
“Arises” and “comes from” betray a crucial error. Our rights do not come from the constitution; the constitution merely recognizes our rights.
- majormajor 3y ago
  What is the value in claiming inherent rights - and many across the world will quibble on just what items would be in that set - when there is no natural mechanism to defend those rights anyway? An appeal to authority will only get you so far in an ungoverned state of nature. And when it comes to non-governmental data collection businesses in the US, we are in just that state. There's no constitution saying we should have any rights to privacy against them. I think we should have that right; but it would take a law to actually make them respect that.
  - gbear605 3y ago
    The GDPR is doing a good job at it, even across an ocean. Thank goodness for the EU.
    - majormajor 3y ago
      But the GDPR, like the Constitution, is a written artifact; pre-GDPR "recognition" of any of those rights, any "inherent" nature of them was not doing anything.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    no natural mechanism to defend those rights What do you think political organizing and direct action are? There's more to politics than legislation and litigation.
    - majormajor 3y ago
      Those are human things, and they organize and act away from the direction of the rights claimed by the Constitution as much as towards them.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

sclarisse 3y ago

Yeah; there’s a case for the ninth and tenth, but that’s about it. And those never really work.

MereInterest 3y ago
Arguably, the fourth amendment, though this would be a rather large departure from its current interpretation. The fourth amendment states that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” It does not state from whom these violations may not occur, so this clause would not be limited to violations being performed by the government. Therefore, this could be interpreted just as a limitation of the government against violating this right, but also the allowance of the government to prevent other violations.

ofslidingfeet 3y ago

Yeah so the government has implemented payola schemes to subvert those items. Again, I'm glad that this isn't quite so mysterious and difficult to comprehend for policymakers in the EU.

dghlsakjg 3y ago
I’m not sure what you’re talking about with payola schemes. This is a comment on an article about how an international company violated EU law. The US government (the only organization bound by constitutional law) was never involved in any way.
- hnfong 3y ago
  The idea that only the government has the power to abuse political power and ruin your life is quite out dated. These days large, monopolistic corporations have similar powers, and you don't get any recourse. Imagine getting banned from Google and Facebook/Meta services because they used some some wacky reputation scoring -- you could still live a normal life of a 1780s homesteader, but you're probably not going to live a functioning modern life. It's a bit disingenuous to argue that the constitution only limits government powers -- which might be true, but that's exactly the problem: the US government has been allowing private companies to become so powerful and ubiquitous that they are exerting undue influence on people's lives even more-so than proper government institutions. The only thing that apparently seems to prevent this from devolving into a dystopian scenario is personal moral backbone of some founders of these tech companies. It's not hard for me to imagine a much more corrupt world where politicians in Washington routinely emails CEOs of $BigTech and make some backroom deals that only benefits the parties involved. (pretty sure it happens, but it could happen much more often) Given how cozy CEOs of "private companies" and politicians are together, it's really disingenuous to claim that we shouldn't be alarmed when unregulated monopolistic companies are free to do whatever they want because "they aren't the government". I was going to say that people in 1700s didn't envision "private" companies from being as powerful as governments, but then I remembered the East India Companies of the era. What's the difference of "companies" and "governments" when the functions they perform become indistinguishable?

abtinf 3y ago

“Arises” and “comes from” betray a crucial error. Our rights do not come from the constitution; the constitution merely recognizes our rights.

majormajor 3y ago
What is the value in claiming inherent rights - and many across the world will quibble on just what items would be in that set - when there is no natural mechanism to defend those rights anyway? An appeal to authority will only get you so far in an ungoverned state of nature. And when it comes to non-governmental data collection businesses in the US, we are in just that state. There's no constitution saying we should have any rights to privacy against them. I think we should have that right; but it would take a law to actually make them respect that.
- gbear605 3y ago
  The GDPR is doing a good job at it, even across an ocean. Thank goodness for the EU.
  - majormajor 3y ago
    But the GDPR, like the Constitution, is a written artifact; pre-GDPR "recognition" of any of those rights, any "inherent" nature of them was not doing anything.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  no natural mechanism to defend those rights What do you think political organizing and direct action are? There's more to politics than legislation and litigation.
  - majormajor 3y ago
    Those are human things, and they organize and act away from the direction of the rights claimed by the Constitution as much as towards them.