thedrifter
03-28-05, 05:14 AM
The Right to Privacy Isn't a Right to Kill
March 28, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Eva Ellsworth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some proponents of forcing Terri Schindler Schiavo to endure a slow, agonizing death by starvation and dehydration frame her case as privacy issue. Nancy Pelosi referred to it as an “intensely personal family matter”. In light of liberals’ sudden interest in privacy, it is time to discuss what privacy rights are and are not.
The idea of a right to privacy is derived from the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The amendment states “The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” I am neither a lawyer nor a Constitutional scholar, but my layman’s interpretation is that the government may not search one’s body, home, records or belongings without probable cause.
The right to privacy is probably the one most frequently violated by the government and corporations. The Patriot act allows searches of citizens’ personal records, homes and businesses without warrants or probable cause. The government’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health proposes mandatory mental health screening for all children and could force parents to medicate their children with psychotropic drugs such as Ritalin on the basis of subjective diagnoses by screeners. Genesee County, Michigan is considering using Pictometry Visual Intelligence, a detailed aerial photography system, to survey residents’ homes and yards as a means of establishing whether or not proper permits were filed for home improvement projects. A public school district in Sutter, CA tried to make all students wear identification badges containing RFID chips and antennas so students could be under surveillance throughout the school day. The US Supreme Court ruled in Illinois v. Caballes, that it is not a privacy violation when police use drug sniffing dogs to search vehicles that were pulled over - even when there is no reason to suspect drug use or possession by the vehicle’s occupants. Rather than interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court is rewriting it.
One’s privacy is even less safe with corporations. Data mining companies collect and sell peoples’ intimate personal records such as social security numbers, credit histories, motor vehicle registrations, professional licenses, medical histories, job applications, lawsuits and criminal records. Often, these companies neither perform background checks of purchasers of such data nor do they establish that the purchaser has a legitimate reason for acquiring the data. To add insult to injury, personal information collected by data mining companies, without the consent of the individuals those records pertain to, is considered to be the property of the data mining company. Personal communications aren’t safe either. According to the terms of service, those who download AOL’s AIM software give AOL the right to “reproduce, display, perform, distribute, adapt, and promote” all content distributed on that network by users. One’s body is not exempt from corporate snooping either: Proposed Maryland House Bill 502 will allow employers to randomly breathalyze employees. Employees will be “officially considered positive for alcohol abuse” at a level of 0.02. That is point zero two – one quarter of the legal limit for operating a vehicle in Maryland! The legislation defines “job related” as “for a legitimate business purpose”, but the bill fails to define “legitimate business purpose”.
All of the above examples involve abuses of Fourth Amendment rights. I have no patience for people who say “if you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about”. If there is no reason to believe someone is doing anything illegal, there is no reason why his person, data or property should be monitored, tested, photographed, etc. We should not live in a “guilty until proven innocent” type of society. That is exactly what we will have if the government and or private entities can search peoples’ records, property and even their bodies in the absence of reasonable grounds for suspicion.
The right to privacy is not absolute. It can be legally abridged in cases where there is probable cause to believe illegal activity is occurring. Family matters also cease to remain private in cases of child abuse, child neglect or spouse abuse. The right to privacy does not supercede the rights of others. That is the point at which the Schiavo case ceased to be a “private, family matter”. Harming others is not a “right” protected by the Fourth Amendment. Michael Schiavo wanted to end his wife’s life. Her family disputed his account of Terri’s “wishes” and made it a public matter in an attempt to save Terri’s life. It was their right to do so. The right to privacy does not include a right to commit murder. That is why, despite Roe v. Wade, abortion is not really a privacy issue. Killing should not be private and isn’t a “right”.
Eva Ellsworth
Ellie
March 28, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Eva Ellsworth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some proponents of forcing Terri Schindler Schiavo to endure a slow, agonizing death by starvation and dehydration frame her case as privacy issue. Nancy Pelosi referred to it as an “intensely personal family matter”. In light of liberals’ sudden interest in privacy, it is time to discuss what privacy rights are and are not.
The idea of a right to privacy is derived from the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The amendment states “The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” I am neither a lawyer nor a Constitutional scholar, but my layman’s interpretation is that the government may not search one’s body, home, records or belongings without probable cause.
The right to privacy is probably the one most frequently violated by the government and corporations. The Patriot act allows searches of citizens’ personal records, homes and businesses without warrants or probable cause. The government’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health proposes mandatory mental health screening for all children and could force parents to medicate their children with psychotropic drugs such as Ritalin on the basis of subjective diagnoses by screeners. Genesee County, Michigan is considering using Pictometry Visual Intelligence, a detailed aerial photography system, to survey residents’ homes and yards as a means of establishing whether or not proper permits were filed for home improvement projects. A public school district in Sutter, CA tried to make all students wear identification badges containing RFID chips and antennas so students could be under surveillance throughout the school day. The US Supreme Court ruled in Illinois v. Caballes, that it is not a privacy violation when police use drug sniffing dogs to search vehicles that were pulled over - even when there is no reason to suspect drug use or possession by the vehicle’s occupants. Rather than interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court is rewriting it.
One’s privacy is even less safe with corporations. Data mining companies collect and sell peoples’ intimate personal records such as social security numbers, credit histories, motor vehicle registrations, professional licenses, medical histories, job applications, lawsuits and criminal records. Often, these companies neither perform background checks of purchasers of such data nor do they establish that the purchaser has a legitimate reason for acquiring the data. To add insult to injury, personal information collected by data mining companies, without the consent of the individuals those records pertain to, is considered to be the property of the data mining company. Personal communications aren’t safe either. According to the terms of service, those who download AOL’s AIM software give AOL the right to “reproduce, display, perform, distribute, adapt, and promote” all content distributed on that network by users. One’s body is not exempt from corporate snooping either: Proposed Maryland House Bill 502 will allow employers to randomly breathalyze employees. Employees will be “officially considered positive for alcohol abuse” at a level of 0.02. That is point zero two – one quarter of the legal limit for operating a vehicle in Maryland! The legislation defines “job related” as “for a legitimate business purpose”, but the bill fails to define “legitimate business purpose”.
All of the above examples involve abuses of Fourth Amendment rights. I have no patience for people who say “if you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about”. If there is no reason to believe someone is doing anything illegal, there is no reason why his person, data or property should be monitored, tested, photographed, etc. We should not live in a “guilty until proven innocent” type of society. That is exactly what we will have if the government and or private entities can search peoples’ records, property and even their bodies in the absence of reasonable grounds for suspicion.
The right to privacy is not absolute. It can be legally abridged in cases where there is probable cause to believe illegal activity is occurring. Family matters also cease to remain private in cases of child abuse, child neglect or spouse abuse. The right to privacy does not supercede the rights of others. That is the point at which the Schiavo case ceased to be a “private, family matter”. Harming others is not a “right” protected by the Fourth Amendment. Michael Schiavo wanted to end his wife’s life. Her family disputed his account of Terri’s “wishes” and made it a public matter in an attempt to save Terri’s life. It was their right to do so. The right to privacy does not include a right to commit murder. That is why, despite Roe v. Wade, abortion is not really a privacy issue. Killing should not be private and isn’t a “right”.
Eva Ellsworth
Ellie