Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - American Politics Thread: The Hunt for Blue November

Lanny_McDonald · 07-10-2020, 11:18 AM

Narrowly, privacy rights in relation to video surveillance and the claim to privacy in public settings.

Suggesting the Griswold is easy to read is a bit of an overstatement. The argument is marital privacy, not even individual privacy, and the judgement seems to rely heavily on property rights and the protections of the 14th amendment as the basis, which makes it clear as mud. Now I do find this very interesting, and I hope you'll educate me here so I can have the appropriate conversation.

This is all very grey. Even your own statement, "The contours of that right, like the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution from which the Court found such a right, can be a bit hazy. The interplay between the right to privacy and criminal procedure, for example, where there is overlap but (as I recall) no explicit statement of such," admits there is no clear statement of such a right and that it is an interpretation applied broadly. An interpretation of the interplay between married partners and not a clear statement of privacy for the individual I might add. It seems this judgment is focused on what happens in the bedroom stays in the bedroom, even though the same judgement states "in no way interferes with a State's proper regulation of sexual promiscuity or misconduct." So you have the right to "privacy" in your own own "home" so long as the state can still regulate your behavior? Doesn't seem like a clear statement of "privacy" or an explicit statement that the constitution promotes or protects that right. Seems it is an interpretation of law based more on previous judgements than it does on a clear interpretation of the protections afforded by the constitution, as the judgement clearly states.

"The Court talks about a constitutional 'right of privacy' as though there is some constitutional provision or provisions forbidding any law ever to be passed which might abridge the 'privacy' of individuals. But there is not. There are, of course, guarantees in certain specific constitutional provisions which are designed in part to protect privacy at certain times and places with respect to certain activities."

So the claim of "privacy" seems to be heavily conditional, meaning there is no simple claim or protection of privacy to an individual. The conditions seem to be extremely important and dependent on the protections of unnecessary search and seizure. Yes?

So if an individual is driving their car through an intersection and has their image captured by a traffic camera, what right to privacy do they have? If they are in a park with clear direction of no weapons, and observed to have a gun in their pack, what right to privacy to they have? If they send a dick pick to someone on their phone and it is viewed in a public space, what right to privacy do they have?

Thanks for the discussion on this issue. Very informative and shows just how complex the law is.

07-10-2020, 11:18 AM	#983
Lanny_McDonald Franchise Player Join Date: Mar 2013 Exp:	Narrowly, privacy rights in relation to video surveillance and the claim to privacy in public settings. Suggesting the Griswold is easy to read is a bit of an overstatement. The argument is marital privacy, not even individual privacy, and the judgement seems to rely heavily on property rights and the protections of the 14th amendment as the basis, which makes it clear as mud. Now I do find this very interesting, and I hope you'll educate me here so I can have the appropriate conversation. This is all very grey. Even your own statement, "The contours of that right, like the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution from which the Court found such a right, can be a bit hazy. The interplay between the right to privacy and criminal procedure, for example, where there is overlap but (as I recall) no explicit statement of such," admits there is no clear statement of such a right and that it is an interpretation applied broadly. An interpretation of the interplay between married partners and not a clear statement of privacy for the individual I might add. It seems this judgment is focused on what happens in the bedroom stays in the bedroom, even though the same judgement states "in no way interferes with a State's proper regulation of sexual promiscuity or misconduct." So you have the right to "privacy" in your own own "home" so long as the state can still regulate your behavior? Doesn't seem like a clear statement of "privacy" or an explicit statement that the constitution promotes or protects that right. Seems it is an interpretation of law based more on previous judgements than it does on a clear interpretation of the protections afforded by the constitution, as the judgement clearly states. "The Court talks about a constitutional 'right of privacy' as though there is some constitutional provision or provisions forbidding any law ever to be passed which might abridge the 'privacy' of individuals. But there is not. There are, of course, guarantees in certain specific constitutional provisions which are designed in part to protect privacy at certain times and places with respect to certain activities." So the claim of "privacy" seems to be heavily conditional, meaning there is no simple claim or protection of privacy to an individual. The conditions seem to be extremely important and dependent on the protections of unnecessary search and seizure. Yes? So if an individual is driving their car through an intersection and has their image captured by a traffic camera, what right to privacy do they have? If they are in a park with clear direction of no weapons, and observed to have a gun in their pack, what right to privacy to they have? If they send a dick pick to someone on their phone and it is viewed in a public space, what right to privacy do they have? Thanks for the discussion on this issue. Very informative and shows just how complex the law is.