3 ms·

This is such an odd statement and fundamentally confuses two very different ideas. First of all, there is no express right to privacy in the Constitution. Ther

This is such an odd statement and fundamentally confuses two very different ideas. First of all, there is no express right to privacy in the Constitution. There is however, the Bill of Rights which everybody is familiar with. It does outline protecting specific aspects of privacy which include such things as the First Amendment (freedom of religion) or the 4th Amendment, (privacy of your possessions against unlawful search and seizure). The supreme court refuses to protect privacy beyond those issues which are directly related to the Bill of Rights even though the public believes it is their right to have a blanket type of protection against congressional overreach. To hear Snowden confuse these things by lumping rights protected under the Constitution with a broad reaching idea of the public's right of privacy (which is does not have), and then equating them is puzzling.

TorKlingberg 11y ago
The concepts of freedom of speech and freedom of the press exist outside of US constitution.
mikegioia 11y ago
This makes no sense to me. What is Snowden "confusing" here? Is he confusing privacy rights with free-speech rights because the latter is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution while the former is only indirectly referenced? If that's the case, you do nothing to explain why it's odd, why it's puzzling to you, or what Snowden's confused about. His analogy does not fundamentally confuse anything; he's equating privacy rights to speech rights through a weak notion that having no interest for one equates to no need for the right. Privacy in and of itself might not be a right explicitly granted by the Constitution, but the analogy is clear and an accurate description of how ludicrous it is to give up a right because you see no need for it.
effie 11y ago
Not puzzling at all. He is making a general analogy between man's freedom to exercise speech and freedom to exercise privacy. There is no mention of constitution or bill of rights in that statement. Courts refusing to protect freedoms are not mentioned either.
oneloop 11y ago
He was not saying a "right to privacy" existed, and he certainly not saying that the rights you pointed out imply "right to privacy". He was only pointing out that there might be other reasons to defend a right (or defend that idea that something should in the future become a right) other than me wanting to exercise that right directly. I do care about freedom of speech even though, really, I have not much to say. Freedom of speech affects me in other ways (and arguably more important ways) than me personally being allowed to say certain things. Likewise, I do care about (an hypothetical) "right to privacy" even though I have nothing to hide.
ska 11y ago
I don't think it is puzzling when you recall that these concepts are larger than the US view of them and that particular encoding in the US constitution. Particular implementation details are interesting in their own right, but they are not the conversation.
pessimizer 11y ago
He didn't mention the constitution, you did. These are philosophical ideas, not summaries of the legislation of a particular locality at a particular time. The fact that in the US, freedom of speech is mentioned in the Constitution (though subsequently abridged in any number of ways), the right to privacy came into existence through many court decisions, and freedom of the press doesn't exist at all in US law doesn't make them fundamentally different types of ideas. >The supreme court refuses to protect privacy beyond those issues which are directly related to the Bill of Rights This is simply wrong.
illusion 11y ago
It may not be in the constitution, but it is a human right. As far as I'm concerned, that's even more important than the constitution.
spdustin 11y ago
I expect the fourth amendment to be a growing factor in SCOTUS cases related to privacy - at the time of inception, a person's self, house, papers and effects were tangible things - the idea that the other "digital effects" we all have in our "digital houses" didn't exist. I think the argument that an email would be a "paper" under the fourth amendment is going to be the first test. I know that sort of thing has been challenged (users should've have an expectation of privacy, etc.) but it's my belief that the argument "users have no expectation of privacy when it comes to emails" is a misdirection. Our citizens have rights whether or not they expect those rights to be respected by those in power.
- ams6110 11y ago
  I would read "papers" as different from email. Papers I interpret as personal records: journals, financial records, etc. Email, tweets, Facebook postings, etc. are already by default shared with at least one other person or unknown other persons so there's an implicit reduced notion of privacy. I agree with the larger point that information on digital devices should properly be considered "papers" or "effects" even if stored in something nebulous such as "the cloud." As long as there's no deliberate or implicit sharing of these things, "the cloud" should be considered as private as a desk drawer.
  - kwhitefoot 11y ago
    Financial records are also shared with others. And my correspondence with another person is also private whether achieved via paper and envelope or by email or instant message.
DasIch 11y ago
The US constitution doesn't hold a monopoly on defining human rights. While that may be surprising to some Americans there are indeed other people and countries on this planet, that have their own constitutions that define human rights that the US constitution does not, privacy among them. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as unenforceabl as it unfortunately is, also defines privacy as a human right.

TorKlingberg 11y ago

The concepts of freedom of speech and freedom of the press exist outside of US constitution.

mikegioia 11y ago

This makes no sense to me. What is Snowden "confusing" here? Is he confusing privacy rights with free-speech rights because the latter is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution while the former is only indirectly referenced? If that's the case, you do nothing to explain why it's odd, why it's puzzling to you, or what Snowden's confused about. His analogy does not fundamentally confuse anything; he's equating privacy rights to speech rights through a weak notion that having no interest for one equates to no need for the right. Privacy in and of itself might not be a right explicitly granted by the Constitution, but the analogy is clear and an accurate description of how ludicrous it is to give up a right because you see no need for it.

effie 11y ago

Not puzzling at all. He is making a general analogy between man's freedom to exercise speech and freedom to exercise privacy. There is no mention of constitution or bill of rights in that statement. Courts refusing to protect freedoms are not mentioned either.

oneloop 11y ago

He was not saying a "right to privacy" existed, and he certainly not saying that the rights you pointed out imply "right to privacy". He was only pointing out that there might be other reasons to defend a right (or defend that idea that something should in the future become a right) other than me wanting to exercise that right directly. I do care about freedom of speech even though, really, I have not much to say. Freedom of speech affects me in other ways (and arguably more important ways) than me personally being allowed to say certain things. Likewise, I do care about (an hypothetical) "right to privacy" even though I have nothing to hide.

ska 11y ago

I don't think it is puzzling when you recall that these concepts are larger than the US view of them and that particular encoding in the US constitution. Particular implementation details are interesting in their own right, but they are not the conversation.

pessimizer 11y ago

He didn't mention the constitution, you did. These are philosophical ideas, not summaries of the legislation of a particular locality at a particular time. The fact that in the US, freedom of speech is mentioned in the Constitution (though subsequently abridged in any number of ways), the right to privacy came into existence through many court decisions, and freedom of the press doesn't exist at all in US law doesn't make them fundamentally different types of ideas. >The supreme court refuses to protect privacy beyond those issues which are directly related to the Bill of Rights This is simply wrong.

illusion 11y ago

It may not be in the constitution, but it is a human right. As far as I'm concerned, that's even more important than the constitution.

spdustin 11y ago

I expect the fourth amendment to be a growing factor in SCOTUS cases related to privacy - at the time of inception, a person's self, house, papers and effects were tangible things - the idea that the other "digital effects" we all have in our "digital houses" didn't exist. I think the argument that an email would be a "paper" under the fourth amendment is going to be the first test. I know that sort of thing has been challenged (users should've have an expectation of privacy, etc.) but it's my belief that the argument "users have no expectation of privacy when it comes to emails" is a misdirection. Our citizens have rights whether or not they expect those rights to be respected by those in power.

ams6110 11y ago
I would read "papers" as different from email. Papers I interpret as personal records: journals, financial records, etc. Email, tweets, Facebook postings, etc. are already by default shared with at least one other person or unknown other persons so there's an implicit reduced notion of privacy. I agree with the larger point that information on digital devices should properly be considered "papers" or "effects" even if stored in something nebulous such as "the cloud." As long as there's no deliberate or implicit sharing of these things, "the cloud" should be considered as private as a desk drawer.
- kwhitefoot 11y ago
  Financial records are also shared with others. And my correspondence with another person is also private whether achieved via paper and envelope or by email or instant message.

DasIch 11y ago

The US constitution doesn't hold a monopoly on defining human rights. While that may be surprising to some Americans there are indeed other people and countries on this planet, that have their own constitutions that define human rights that the US constitution does not, privacy among them. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as unenforceabl as it unfortunately is, also defines privacy as a human right.