top of page

Privacy Debate

First of all, the best and most potent argument for right to privacy is this: It is my right!!! That's it. That is what a right is. It is unalienable, set in stone, and above all else NOT open to any form of argument or debate. To even argue or debate a right means you have already lost the argument or debate. To debate a right, or your right to it, is akin to arguing as to whether water is wet, the sky is blue, or that we breathe air. Please be careful and mindful of how you allow people to frame the issues. If you want to argue the issue, be careful to argue that the issue is the degree of privacy we are afforded! To argue the right to privacy is the argument to whether a thing exists. We have a right to privacy, as sure as the sky is blue. It is the degree of privacy, so never allow anyone to frame your debate in the terms of do you have the "right!"

The second best argument, is then simply that they "the government or Data Brokers" do not have a right to the information. It's not a question of do you have a right to privacy. The issue is that they don't have a right to take the information, listen in, read your e-mails, or monitor your communication. The Constitution is clear on this, and we have a government of limited and enumerated powers. This means that if a power is not expressly given, then the government may not take it.

Therefore, if a limit is expressly stated in the Constitution such as; “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," then the government may not spy or listen in as this is a search. They are searching for information, and they have not the right to do so.

When it comes to "e-mail" and your on-line activity, whether you call that "papers" or "effects," again the government is with-out that right to search for it or seize it. If the government disrupts the flow of electronic communication long enough to pull that information up on any computer screen other than that of the intend receiver, then they have completed an unlawful search and seized the data, papers, or effects. It is unlawful as government may not act, do a thing, or take a power for itself which is not expressly given. The government may definitely not disobey the Constitution, and if it does it is acting illegally or it is then not an action taken by the lawfully constituted government of the United States of America and therefore all actors to the action are doing so without the protection, authority, or right of the United States Government and may legally be treated accordingly!

The term “Effects,” found in the fourth Amendment, literally means all things that are owned or created by a citizen, but not mentioned specifically. It was the Founding Fathers stating that “We know there may be objects or forms of communication we don't yet know about in the future, but when they come to be or are invented the government may not search or seize those "effects" either!” The “papers’ certainly meant books, letters, articles, bills, and anything then contained on paper.

Understand that The Constitution was drafted to contain a beast! That beast is an over-zealous and intrusive government, and you should never debate the right to privacy. The question is by what right, do “they” claim to intrude upon your privacy and seclusion. Think of privacy and seclusion as land. You own that land. Now, from that stand point argue, and what you then get is “What the fuck right does the government have to be on your land, or worse yet try to take that land from you!” The answer is none, without a warrant taken out as described in the Constitution, and therefore government and everyone else needs to get the fuck off your land!

Third, that being said that evil wolf in sheep clothing Senator Feinstein, CA, head of the Intelligence Committee, is currently trying to pass legislation to allow the government to peer into the world of gamers. The argument is that terrorists are using the X-box to communicate! To which the argument is this: Yes, our freedoms and liberties may and most likely will be used against us, but that is the risk and burden a truly free society and people agree to undertake! That's why we are the land of the free, and home of the brave! The reason is you must be brave, in order to remain free. However, I would rather die by a misused liberty, than live under a repressive and intrusive government that controls everything. If the government locks you up in a box, keeping you away from anything or anyone that may possibly harm you ever, would you call that being free? No, you'd call it a prison! Think about it, and if you want to know more please visit the Association for Consumer Effectiveness at

bottom of page