Are We Entitled To Privacy?

When I hear someone state they are entitled to their privacy, I immediately agree that we have a right to privacy.  It is in the United States Constitution under the Fourth Amendment: “The right of the 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.”

There are other general rights to privacy as defined in the Constitution such as the liberty clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. People have the right to be left alone. Unless, of course, they are in violation of the law and engaged in criminal activity.  That protects us from government intrusion into our daily lives.  However, there has been an erosion of privacy rights as technology has grown.

In order to protect the nation from possible terror attacks, the Department of National Intelligence (DNI) has expanded surveillance into spying on this nation’s enemies, and sometimes, this nation’s people.  The NSA collects meta-data on communications between Americans and foreign contacts.  When asked if the NSA collects information on Americans, the director of DNI said before a Congressional hearing, “No.”  When pressed the director changed his answer to, “not intentionally.” So, which is it, we may never know.  There is just too much temptation for abuse by the government and not enough oversight to restrict spy agencies from spying on Americans.

What if you voluntarily give up your privacy?  This is the other side of the technology that is a double edged sword.  When you own a smart phone that has GPS, the government satellites can track your movements.  When you download shopping apps to your smart phone, the apps can tell when you are either near or in their store.  They can sent you advertisements and other notifications.  Social media apps like Facebook can notify you when your friends are nearby.  This is out of convenience for the person, but it also assumes the person has voluntarily given up their privacy for that convenience.  So, who else can see your movements?

Your shopping habits and internet browsing are recorded and shared by other corporations for advertising purposes.  Is that a violation of your privacy, or a the new medium of advertisements?  I remember an elderly gentleman learning how to use a computer asking why do websites have all these messages and popup windows.  He never really understood the difference between advertisements in print media and electronic media.  Print media is not animated and it is not directly targeting your buying habits.  Every time you make an electronic purchase, that marketing information creates a profile which corporations use to sell to you.  What will the future look like?

Everywhere you go, in airports, stores, theaters, elevators, and everywhere your attention can be attracted, an advertisement will popup.  This information that is gathered on your profile is greater than the information the government gathers on you.  The government doesn’t have the information technology to see your habits like commercial corporations can gather.  If the government was as good as commercial corporations are at gathering information, then they could have prevented terror attacks from happening.

For example, the Tsarnaev brothers, also known as the Boston Bombers, were regularly traveling to countries that were training radical islamic terrorists.  The government never established a profile on their activities.  Yet, their travel activities were not a secret.  This is also true with other radical islamic attacks on American soil, and elsewhere in the world.  With all the power behind the NSA meta gathering, there is no profiling to anticipate when the next terror attack will happen.  Therefore, what good is the technology that taxpayers are being asked to pay for if it isn’t doing the job it is intended to do?  What good is a plethora of intelligence agencies if they cannot track down terrorists and people leaking top secret information?  Are they so behind the technology curve they are effectively useless and inept?

In the movie clip I posted, “Minority Report”, the character is a ‘thought’ policeman that uses prediction of a crime that hasn’t been committed yet.  I’m not endorsing arresting people for their thoughts.  I am endorsing better profiling of potential terror activities.  The FBI director said they have investigations in all 50 States.  The President is tasked with the job of protecting the people and the country.  Yet, we have a judiciary that prevents the people charged with protecting us from doing their job out of political correctness.  How many people have to be put at risk, or die, because of political correctness?

In Hawai’i, an ambitious attorney general with political aspirations, sued the President of the United States from carrying out a lawful Executive Order to restrict travel to the United States from several countries where terrorists are known to travel.  This is judicial overreach and a violation of the Constitutional separation of the branches of power.  Activists judges and attorney general are Obama cronies and hard left anti-Americans.  Their reasoning is because what was said during the campaign trail, not what is in the Executive Order.  The Executive Order makes no mention of any religion.  It is malicious judicial overreach and unconstitutional.  Both the attorney general and judge should be admonished and impeached for violation their oath of office.  Non-citizens that are not in this country are not entitled to our Constitutional rights.  If they are in this country, legally, then they are entitled to the same due process afforded to all citizens.

We cannot have tyrants in black robes putting Americans lives at risk just because they disagree with the legal political ideology of the other party.  This has always been the modus operandi of the left when opposing constitutional legislation. They run to leftist liberal courts because they cannot accomplish constitutionally in the legislative and executive branches.  This is the equivalent of modern day thought police.  They will use their office to defend the terrorists privacy, over the rights and privacy of the American citizen.  It is pure leftist fascism.

 

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: