3 ms·

IANAL, and I'm sure that I'm in the minority with this view. But I understand the 4th Amendment to engender a freedom from scrutiny. If they don't have any rea

IANAL, and I'm sure that I'm in the minority with this view. But I understand the 4th Amendment to engender a freedom from scrutiny. If they don't have any reason to thing we're doing evil, they should mind their own business, regardless of the degree of physical intrusiveness involved. Just having the government, or its computers, paying attention to us all the time violates this principle.

baddox 14y ago
As I just commented [0], I believe the same thing. I would point out that "freedom from scrutiny" shouldn't necessarily apply to relationships between private citizens. I think "reasonable expectation of privacy" applies between private citizens (so it's not wrong for a neighbor to observe my house), but when it comes to government resources (i.e. taxpayer money) the standard should be much stricter. [0] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4191486 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4191486
- CWuestefeld 14y ago
  That it's government being restricted by the right to privacy goes without saying. As part of the Bill of Rights, it restricts only the government[1]. The intent of the BoR is just to keep the government from meddling, not to prevent the people, as those directly creating the culture and society, to react as they see fit. The government isn't permitted to stop us from saying bad things [2], but you're perfectly free to respond to the offensive comments of your neighbor. A court mind find someone innocent of a crime as a result of "technicalities" from the the 4th Amendment, but you're still free to shun a person that you believe to be evil. [1] And, without explicit incorporation by the Court under the 14th Amendment, it applies only to the federal government and not the states. That seems pedantic, but it was only very recently that this was recognized for the 2nd Amendment, for example. [2] Which doesn't stop them from doing so anyway; see recent legislation about cyber-bullying, for example.

baddox 14y ago

As I just commented [0], I believe the same thing. I would point out that "freedom from scrutiny" shouldn't necessarily apply to relationships between private citizens. I think "reasonable expectation of privacy" applies between private citizens (so it's not wrong for a neighbor to observe my house), but when it comes to government resources (i.e. taxpayer money) the standard should be much stricter. [0] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4191486 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4191486

CWuestefeld 14y ago
That it's government being restricted by the right to privacy goes without saying. As part of the Bill of Rights, it restricts only the government[1]. The intent of the BoR is just to keep the government from meddling, not to prevent the people, as those directly creating the culture and society, to react as they see fit. The government isn't permitted to stop us from saying bad things [2], but you're perfectly free to respond to the offensive comments of your neighbor. A court mind find someone innocent of a crime as a result of "technicalities" from the the 4th Amendment, but you're still free to shun a person that you believe to be evil. [1] And, without explicit incorporation by the Court under the 14th Amendment, it applies only to the federal government and not the states. That seems pedantic, but it was only very recently that this was recognized for the 2nd Amendment, for example. [2] Which doesn't stop them from doing so anyway; see recent legislation about cyber-bullying, for example.