Perhaps better questions are: Should it exist? When did it cease to exist? Why can't it exist? How could we ever be sure that it has ever existed, or would be maintained, even if required, and at all times? Link: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...james-comey-no-absolute-privacy-a7619621.html
Absolute privacy cannot exist, unless you completely cut off all electricity to your house, all running water to your house, stop using any kind of credit card or debit card, get rid of your bank account, etc. It has never existed. We have a census, you are required to fill out that census. That said, we should expect a decent amount of privacy in that any information collected should be used in a lawful manner in accordance with the 4th Amendment.
You left out the part where he explained that no one is free from judicial reach. That's kinda his central point in all that. [youtube]rofrzWVzJrA[/youtube] That's not a big brother/boogeyman statement. I want to know what exactly prompted him to do this bit of explaining. Is he paving the way for something? Or is he just trying to scare everyone with his Deep Statism?
The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. Anybody wanna guess in which case that holding can be found?
Did we have I in the cold war? Is it something that has been intermittent as tech advanced and intelligence adapted?
Thanks. I don't do legalese very well, but does this bottom line it? Just making sure I understand. If so, what is your view on Comey's statement? If you'd rather not say, I understand. I just respect your view on these matters.
It is my view that the Court manufactured a right to privacy in Roe specifically so that it could do this: We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation. However, when the Supreme Court manufactures a right, it becomes a right until the Supreme Court changes it. Comey, on the other hand, has no ability to determine where rights begin or end. He's executive branch enforcement, not law creating legislature or law interpreting judiciary (despite what I just cited in Roe.) So he doesn't get to determine whether "reasonable" or "absolute" privacy is a right or whether it has been illegally infringed. So I think he's wrong, but more importantly, I don't think what he thinks is any more important than what I think. We both are supposed to have to live within the law, not decide what it is.
Got it. So, if and I mean IF a court makes the determination for Comey or anyone else, that's kosher?
People who don't understand how technology works, and how encryption protects everyone on the internet, need to go jump off the deep end of the pool with cement shoes. If the government takes encryption away, you might as well shut down the internet, phones, and the IoT. I would cease to use any of t he previously mentioned tech, if this happened.