Law and Order

Put simply, I enjoy what privacy I have left. However, we enjoy much less privacy in today's society than that of just a couple decades ago. In some sense, that is the price we are paying for convenience. Many of the electronics we use today can be utilized by a third party to track our location and sometimes even provide our personal information. A vast number of people even exploit their own privacy via social networking sites and the like. The cycle never ends.

I oppose anything that takes further steps towards the infringement of our privacy (what's left of it). Sure, this new device or that one may only require or request just a bit of information, but it's all those little bits that add up to reveal much more information than we'd normally like to give up at any given time.

Red-light and speed cameras and license plate scanners/cameras fall into this category nicely, in my opinion. Besides the fact that they are all about revenue, speed limits are generally set artificially low (as in, not in line with the 85th percentile) and yellow lights are shortened. Is any of this done in the name of safety? Absolutely not. Is it an infringement upon our privacy? Absolutely. What right does our government, whom we elected, have that entitles this type of enforcement? Instead of handing out speeding tickets, I believe more emphasis should be placed on how the person is actually driving. Are they using turn signals and making safe lane changes, giving other drivers the courtesy they deserve, et cetera.

I make every attempt to conceal my identity. It is not because I am doing anything illegal or embarrassing, but because it is my right. As I said, I'll oppose anything that infringes upon that right.

I hear what you’re saying but I don’t believe it’s a given that we necessarily have to take it as a zero-sum game where we suffer the loss of personal privacy in order to enjoy the advantageous advances of technology. Although I suspect that the pendulum will swing towards that direction unless we are safeguarded by privacy laws as well as other means.

• Four Billion Little Brothers? Privacy, mobile phones, and ubiquitous data collection http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1597790
• Privacy in the Age of Persistence http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/02/privacy_in_the...
• New technologies are radically advancing our freedoms, but they are also enabling unparalleled invasions of privacy. http://www.eff.org/issues/privacy

If Britain is any bellwether of this type of society, we can already see the defects in their approach:

• 1,000 cameras 'solve one crime' http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8219022.st...
• Individualism and Identity: Resistance to Speed Cameras in the UK http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/ojs/index.php/journa...

I also need not hear from the folks who exclaim, “If you have nothing to hide, then there’s nothing to fear.”

'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565)

i like schneier's quote....

"We're not going to stop the march of technology, just as we cannot un-invent the automobile or the coal furnace. We spent the industrial age relying on fossil fuels that polluted our air and transformed our climate. Now we are working to address the consequences. (While still using said fossil fuels, of course.) This time around, maybe we can be a little more proactive.

Just as we look back at the beginning of the previous century and shake our heads at how people could ignore the pollution they caused, future generations will look back at us – living in the early decades of the information age – and judge our solutions to the proliferation of data."

well said!

Can we say "Big Brother is watching you"?

I've read "1984," "We," and "Brave New World." The increase in these cameras scares me. What scares me even more is the public acceptance of them.

I think that there is a big difference between a camera that takes a still picture of somebody in the act of committing a violation (ie running a redlight), and the the always on video surveillance cameras used in public place when it comes to privacy.

This world is a jungle. Privacy is less and less relevant. Politicians want to be on the edge with privacy and revenue. Now a days money is the driving force to implement many controversial applications like red cams surveillance cams and the worst is they award contracts where the companies gain more than the city.
The more relevant cases they put drivers and pedestrians at risk when they decrease the time the yellow light stays on.
When they open a Pandora`s box for cams in public places only a miracle can put the genie back in the box.

Some people say that there is no inherent right to privacy in a public space but in my basic understanding the general intent of the Bill of Rights revolves around the idea that we can live our lives relatively free from government interference.

Since I am not an expert, my understanding might be flawed but didn’t SCOTUS uphold a woman’s right to abortion, a right predicated on the idea where the justices looked at the general spirit of the constitutional amendments rather than the specific letter of these laws, that the individual’s right to privacy free from government interference is a penumbra right inferred from the other enumerated rights?

Isn’t there some disconnect here when the legality of performing an elective abortion is upheld under the pretext of privacy rights but when it comes to essentially what amounts to government surveillance under the guise of public safety the justices turn a blind eye?

intersting piece. never looked at it that way.

Hey we've been losing our privacy since before the cold war. Or so I've heard before my time. But now with the patriot act LE doesn't have to have hard evidence to tap your phones and other things. Red light and ATM camera, just add to your losing identity. Not to mention Social Security numbers, Credit Cards, Bank Accounts, Cell phones, PDA's, computers (through IPs, DHCP will only hide you for a little while) and even GPS's.

Why are so many people posting their personal details and information on sites such as Facebook and sending running messages about themselves over Twitter? Why do so many people voluntarily give up their right to privacy by allowing friends and anyone with a computer to track them through their cell phone as they travel about? Why do so many people that give up their rights complain so loudly about their picture being taken in a public place where the courts - those same judges they elected to office - have held there is no right to privacy under the constitution?

Narcissism, ignorance and greed?

There is a difference between what the private sector does and what the public sector is allowed to do, just as there’s a major difference between voluntary consent and forced compliance. Government bodies can and should place limits and conditions on data collection and storage by private entities. Isn’t it our duty to voice our opinions so that protections are put into place? Granted in relative comparison it often happens at a glacial pace whereby technological advances occur at near light speed.

The liberties outlined in the Bill of Rights are inalienable rights not granted by government but arising inherently as the natural state of a free people. The document does not give us rights nor do the judges. That said, it is a living document in that the interpretation may somewhat vary depending on the social milieu.

BTW, the people do not elect the U. S. Supreme Court justices. Candidates are selected by the Executive Branch and confirmed by the Legislative Branch.

When was the last time a private citizen who had not served as an elected judge was appointed to a higher position on the judiciary bench?

Actually none of the present members of the Supreme Court have ever held any elected office. Sandra Day O'Conner was the last Justice to have held elected office. In 1975, she was elected judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court (Arizona) and served until 1979. During her time in the Arizona state government, she served in all three of its branches.

We don't directly elect the president neither. The electoral college does. The only part we get to elect is the legislative branch aka Congress aka the House of Representatives and the Senate.

We do have an indirect say in the other branches. We get a say in our elected representative who then get picked for the electoral college who gets a say in who gets elected president. And Congress gets a say in electing justices.