Cash Value 1/10 of a Cent

goombah99 writes "It happens all-too-often that the govenment and companies negligently reveal citizen's private information on their websites. When collection of this information is something required by law there is an obligation to protect it. But is privacy a 'property' and does its loss require compensation? Wired news reports 'The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday over whether the federal government should reimburse individuals whose sensitive data was disclosed illegally, even if no harm can be proven. At issue before the court, according to privacy advocates, is how valuable privacy really is.'"

Comments

The Issue

[Oculus Habent]

Privacy isn't a property - it is a privilege. This is evidenced by taking away certain levels of privacy from criminals... You can find out information about the location of a federal prisoner through the Freedom of Information Act; neighbors must be notified when some sex offenders move into an area - thus limiting their privacy...

I think the wording is odd in that statement. It isn't privacy that is a property, it's the information that is a property. Privacy is a means to protect that information, and failing to protect personal "property" that someone is required to provide is my issue here. Just as if the government required a key to your house and then made then available for duplication.

Re:The Issue

[Planesdragon]

Privacy isn't a property - it is a privilege. This is evidenced by taking away certain levels of privacy from criminals...

You're so right, and then so wrong.

Privacy isn't a right per-se, but it certainly is more than a mere priviledge. Privacy is a presumption that is often necessary for a citizen to enjoy their most important right--that of quiet and safe enjoyment of their own life.

And criminals are a horrible example of "it's not like property." We violate oodes of a prisoner's rights--that's how we penalize folk who break the law.

It isn't privacy that is a property, it's the information that is a property.

False, I believe. Mere information should be public domain--if I want to find out, oh, what your telephone number is, there shouldn't be any penalty whatsoever if someone tells it to me.

Re:The Issue

[larry bagina]

Privacy isn't a property - it is a privilege.

It's not a privilege, it's an inalienable right. It's granted to you by your existance. It can only be taken away by due process or your own abdication of it.

Privilege implies you have to be a good little boy before it applies to you, and that it can be taken away at any time for any reason.

Re:The Issue

[SeXy_Red]

I believe that privacy is neither property or a privilege, but a right. Like many rights, it does have its limits. In the US, you have the right to free speech, but, if your free speech infringes on someone elses same right, then your right is then taken away.

And criminals are a horrible example of "it's not like property." We violate oodes of a prisoner's rights--that's how we penalize folk who break the law.

So true, the criminals gave up there privacy rights when they commited a crime. A sexual malester lost his rights the minute he commited a perverted act, because his right to privacy would infringe on others rights to safety.

Re:The Issue

[Oculus Habent]

Hrm...

I see your point, but I want to add some additional definition to muddy the waters...

Privacy isn't a natural right. I do consider it stronger than a generic privilege, so I would like to call it a governed right. That is, privacy may not be inherent to existence, but it should be to our government. Privacy is something I would rather not lose.

I concede on the criminals point. We do take away rights - governed or natural.

I still think that privacy is a method rather than an object. Some information should be free - indeed I can go to SuperPages and look up a phone number or a name from a number. I can go to Google, type in a phone number, and bring up a name and driving directions.

With the phone number as an example, I have the option to request a level of privacy - an unlisted number. Privacy becomes the mechanism by which you cannot find my phone number without having been granted certain privilege. The privilege to find an unlisted number comes with additional responsibility and, most importantly, accountability. This is where the government comes in.

The government knows your phone number. They know your social security number (hopefully), bank account numbers, your credit card numbers - all the pieces of information that you may wish to be private. If, then, we assume that privacy is a right - govered or natural - then the government must take steps to secure our information if we wish it so, and if privacy is a right, the presumption must be that we do wish it.

Re:The Issue

[Master Bait]

Copyright your personal information.

Re:The Issue

[Lifewish]

And yet different ownership of critical information is, to use a very cliched example, what makes systems like RSA work. You don't want the world and his wife able to get at your bank account. Only in a perfect communist state could information be free - and then only because it's valueless. There would be nothing to protect.

I like the point on rights as priveleges by the way. Only addition I'd like to make is that this only works because power is outsourced to the government. Personally, I find the most appropriate model for this sort of issue is to consider the government as a very large company. Then we can see that "rights" just represent power that hasn't left the hands of the individual yet.

Now there's a depresing thought...

Re:The Issue

[sfjoe]

Privacy isn't a right per-se...

It most certainly IS a right. It is not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights but it is one of the most primary of the unenumerated rights as specified in the 9th Amendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Re:The Issue

[blibbleblobble]

"neighbors must be notified when some sex offenders move into an area"

Weird... politicians always seem to notify their neighbours when they move into an area too...

Re:The Issue

[cypherwise]

Privacy isn't a property - it is a privilege.
Maybe not so much of a privilege, but a right. If an organization (especially a gov't org) has information about you that could be harmful towards you if it fell into the wrong hands then it is that organization's duty to protect that information.

I think the wording is odd in that statement. It isn't privacy that is a property, it's the information that is a property. Privacy is a means to protect that information, and failing to protect personal "property" that someone is required to provide is my issue here.
Absolutely.

Re:The Issue

[Planesdragon]

. You don't want the world and his wife able to get at your bank account.

I don't want, and I shold be able to prevent, anyone from _effecting_ my bank account.

If everyone and their brother knows exactly how much is in my bank account, but cannot do anything more then send me an offer for a short-term loan or a "special cash rate" for a purchase, then all of my rights remain intact.

Re:The Issue

[Oculus Habent]

Copyright doesn't guarantee you privacy, just another avenue of recourse should your information be taken.

Re:The Issue

[Lifewish]

I was thinking more of things like account passwords. It's an extreme example, but I don't know of anyone who advocates making these public domain.

Re:The Issue

[BlowChunx]

"Mere information should be public domain--if I want to find out, oh, what your telephone number is, there shouldn't be any penalty whatsoever if someone tells it to me."

My phone number is just information, but calling me every 10 minutes would be an invasion of my privacy. My home address and work address are just information, but stalking me (because you know how to find me...) is and invasion of my privacy.

We all have personal information, but it's the abuse of that information that is the issue here. And if the government makes it easier to collect that information, and it leads to abuse of that information, then the government is liable.

Re:The Issue

[Myopic]

The Supreme Court has consistently held that privacy is a right of Americans, guaranteed implicitly by the Constitution.

I agree with the Supreme Court.

Re:The Issue

[Facekhan]

Privacy is a right. The fourth ammendment is often interpreted as including the right to privacy in regards to government intrusion. In addition you have a common law right to privacy, thats why you can sue for invasion of privacy. Although that is generally limited to photographing and recording your image or voice for commercial use without permission. Still federal law requires the government to not disclose certain information it collects about you and when the government violates its own laws you should be able to recover damages and be compensated otherwise the government will continue to make sweetheart deals with marketers who want to buy your information from government databases.

Re:The Issue

[Myopic]

Point of order: a sexual molester (you misspelled that word) loses his rights when he is *convicted* of committing a perverted act.

Re:The Issue

[RealProgrammer]

Privacy isn't a property - it is a privilege.

The Fourth Amendment would tend to disagree:

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.

Privacy is a Right, like the Rights to Believe, to Communicate, to Move, to stay and Fight, and to Own Property. These are enumerated specifically, and it was the belief of the Framers that they are inherent in being a human. They set forth cases in which those rights could be limited, such as for convicts, slaves, and in time of war.

The issue is not whether you have a right to privacy. The issue is whether the government, having already collected the otherwise private information, is free to pass that information on to others.

Re:The Issue

[davidstrauss]

A sexual malester lost his rights the minute he commited a perverted act, because his right to privacy would infringe on others rights to safety.

First, like another reply, the guarantee of rights is lost on conviction, not commission. That standard allows us to prevent convictions of murders in self-defense and other murky offenses. Second, the nature of something being a "perverted act" (by anyone's definition) is not a constitutionally-sound basis for a law (see Lawrence v. Texas). The basis for molestation laws is the harm to the molested person, not the act of molestation itself. Thus, what would otherwise be molestation in a consentual situation where both people are after the age of consent is just normal sexual contact. (Disclaimer: IANAL.)

Re:The Issue

[Gramie2]

It's not a privilege, it's an inalienable right. It's granted to you by your existance. It can only be taken away by due process or your own abdication of it.

Makes it a rather alienable right, rather than an unalienable one. An inalienable right is one that cannot be taken away.

Re:The Issue

[Tokerat]

If everyone and their brother knows exactly how much is in my bank account, but cannot do anything more then send me an offer for a short-term loan or a "special cash rate" for a purchase, then all of my rights remain intact.

I dunno if I'm being funny or serious, but I'd rather keep my information private and make life harder for spammers. Yea, that sounds much better than everyone knowing my business and being flooded with junk mail...

Re:The Issue

[Planesdragon]

It's not a privilege, it's an inalienable right.

Bullocks.

If you tell me your phone number, and I tell someone else, I have invaded your privacy, but I certainly haven't infringed upon your rights--and there should be no consequnece to me.

The government, of course, is a special case--but so are spouses, doctors, lawyers, and priests--who DO have legal authority to mainatin your privacy.

Re:The Issue

[MoneyT]

Note the wording of the amendment however, secure in their persons (you're body), houses (your home), papers (your files), and effects (your property like a car)

It says nothing about information about you which other people posess and how that may be used

Re:The Issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Privacy isn't a natural right.

Come to that there are no rights inherent to existence... or inveresly all rights are inherent to existence. It ultimately depends on what you mean by existance.. wheter existence itself predicates the necestity of "a way things should be" rather than "the way things are." The latter we can genreal reach via the short cut of emperism, the former requires an alternate method.. and I doubt we'll even come close to a subtial answer through discourse in a dialouge set aside for that purpose alone, much less a tangent thread on slashdot (my thread, not yours).

Regardles as to what levels of privacy we can "rightously" say we are entitled to under natural law we can still say privacy is a right due to people under a goverment.
The goverment has never, and never will, be able to decide on what are natural rights. They can only balence the will of the people, the stablity of the goverment, and the stablity of the society. But within these constraints the goverment is able to allow for the creation of thin natural rights (that is to say they are thin because they are dependant upon the goverment's interprertation). These thin rights can be, and are, superceeded when they could potentaily cause too much distruption to the will of the people, the stablity of the goverment or the stablity of the society.
For example, under our law, we belive in the right to life. That is to say a human's life is considered important and one should not be able to take that away from them. HOwever this law is superceded in cases of self defense, war, or captial punishment. Like wise we have the "thin right" of freedom of speech, but this again is curtialed when we might speak out in hate, or try to give out business secerts that we learned improperly.
These thin rights come from the will of the people. And I would say it is defintily the will of the people to have a level of privacy (a resonable expectation that one's life is free from observation). But this thin right is balanced by the people's will (how much the general population thinks that an indivdual should expect to have privacy) the stablity of goverment (how effective will the goverment be if it can't observe a person's life to a degree), etc.

I'm really just using these as an excercise to try and get some thoughts out. I'm not nesecarly saying I think all this is right or true... esp. the idea that natrual rights don't exist. I believe they do... I just don't believe what the goverment might claim as natural rights, are...allthough I think they might start out that way within the will of the people. I'm also considering govemrent itself as an entity rather than the people therein.. that is to say no one person or group of persons is the goverment.. rather it is the laws, traditions, power, etc that defines it.

Blah, I'm too far off tanget.

later

Re:The Issue

[jnana]

so what you're saying is that there is no such thing as an inalienable right, since there clearly is no 'right' that has has never been nor could be taken away.

Re:The Issue

[jnana]

'Papers' sure sounds like information to me.

Re:The Issue

[RealProgrammer]

That list is clearly meant to shine a light with a broad spectrum on privacy. Government is not supposed to be in our private lives.

But certainly, if the government is not supposed to compel us to divulge information to them, it shouldn't spread that information to others simply because it already has it. The damage isn't over when just one person learns the secret, but worsens as the information spreads.

Re:The Issue

[Bugmaster]

I don't really understand the concept of "natural right". The only truly natural things are the things you can measure -- weight, length, static charge, etc. Rights are just conventions of behavior that we choose to enforce in our society. Fortunately, our society has more rights than some others -- however, that doesn't make it somehow more "natural". For example, an extremist Islamic society, such as Iran, would consider it perfectly natural that women should always be covered in cloth from head to toe; they see our Western dress codes as highly unnatural. You can find similar examples for pretty much any other right, such as free speech (USSR), right to bear arms (lots of countries), property (USSR again), and even right to life (primitive societies for sure, USA depending on whom you ask). The bottom line is, I just don't see anything inherently natural -- i.e., mandated by the laws of nature -- about our rights.

Re:The Issue

[shaitand]

"where both people are after the age of consent"

This is something desperately needs fixed. What if both people are BEFORE the age of consent? I'm not even sure if that's technically illegal or not. In many states the age of consent was lowered for one gender by a year, making it illegal for someone who is the same age to have sex with another of that age. I generally think there should be something to the tune of a 5yr grace period. If two consenting partners are within 5yrs of eachother's age it should be legal, regardless of what those ages are.

Re:The Issue

[ender's_shadow]

Information is not property (see the idea/expression distinction in IP law). Misappropriation doctrine comes closest to viewing info as property, but that doctrine is circumscribed by strong limits that intend to focus the doctrine on incentives to gather information. The "right to exclude" disappears as soon as the article isn't "hot news," meaning it's probably not really a right to exclude.

Re:The Issue

[ender's_shadow]

just because a right is violated does not mean it has been alienated. come on - that's so simple!

Re:The Issue

[Richard_at_work]

Leave the government and artificial laws out for a second, and tell me this:

If it were just you and me in a room, what rights do you have that I cannot take away from you there and then?

Re:The Issue

[Oculus Habent]

The issue there is when does the availability of that information start interfering with your life?

If everyone has access to your medical records, even if they can't change them, we could start getting to a Gattaca style world; where people are discriminated against based upon their genetic profile.

We could make laws that say having access to certain information can't affect your decisions, but that is easily circumvented by finding or creating other "reasons" to select a differen, "better" individual.

Total access to purchasing history could make companies vulnerable to attack. If someone knows you recently purchased a certain router or operating system, they could use known exploits against you immediately. They still can now, but the limitation of that information makes that action more difficult.

Privacy secures certain other freedoms. A total lack of privacy could cause substantial issues.

Re:The Issue

[kramer]

Privacy isn't a property - it is a privilege. This is evidenced by taking away certain levels of privacy from criminals...

By that logic --

Freedom is a privledge. This is evidenced by taking away freedom from convicted criminals.

Voting is a privledge. This is evidenced by taking away voting rights from convicted criminals.

Living is a privledge. This is evidenced by taking away life from convicted murderers.

Just because it can be taken away doesn't mean it's a privledge. The constitution guarantees not to take life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The argument here is that privacy is property, and illegally releasing it amounts to a taking of said property.

Re:The Issue

[t0ny]

Hmm, this is a weird case. In a way, they are trying to mandate the extent of what should be punitive damages (a penalty above and beyond what the 'actual' damamges were).

Re:The Issue

[Radical Rad]

You are right that privacy is a right but why do you say it is not enumerated in the Bill of Rights? The fourth amendment specifically states that your right to keep your self, house, papers (18th century equivalent of data), and effects secure shall not be violated. How could the Right of Privacy have been defined any clearer?

Unfortunately only the government itself and those acting "under color of law" are restrained by the amendment, unless a law is in effect in your jurisdiction providing relief from violations of your privacy by other individuals. However the Privacy Act was supposed to provide something like that. By releasing private information such as the coal miners' social security numbers, the government becomes an "enabler" of 4th amendment right violations by others which it is precluded from doing.

When the Supreme Court failed to uphold the spirit of the 14th amendment in Plessey-Ferguson 1896 the consequences were unforeseen and far reaching. That case was given little attention at the time but was used for the next 60 years to bless segregation and Jim Crow and was only overturned through a dubious reinterpretation of the Interstate Commerce clause. If the Supreme Court fails to uphold the spirit of the 4th amendment now then the consequences will likely be just as dire.

Re:The Issue

[u-235-sentinel]

Start passing out private information and quickly learn just how valuable privacy really is.

It's not a privilege it's a right. Otherwise why bother with the Bill of Rights?

Re:The Issue

[MoneyT]

Nope. Pappers as in the files you keep. THe stuff on your computer and the reciepts that you keep etc. If someone else has the information already however, that's not your papers anymore.

Re:The Issue

[Clever Pun]

From what I know of the topic (disclaimer: not a whole lot), the general rules are as follows:

IT'S OKAY IF...
-Both people are under 18 and there's less than a two-year difference between them (i.e. 16yr old and 14yr old is okay; 16yr old and 13yr old is not)
-Both people are over 18

otherwise it's bad. My girlfriend is 3 days younger than me. Had we been going out two years ago, I would not have been legally allowed to have sexual contact with her during those three days after my birthday but before hers. I strongly disagree with this, but understand why it's there.

Re:The Issue

[grolaw]

FOIA simply does not apply to this argument. FOIA is at root, nothing more than a law that permits a demand be made that the US Federal Government provide certain classes of information to the people whose taxes paid to amass that information.

Many types of personal information collected by the Federal Govt. are not available under the FOIA, i.e.: income tax returns, data and arguments presented to a grand jury where no indictment is returned, medical records of government employees, service records of retired / discharged military, voting records of citizens (e.g. the specific vote cast), and so on.

Privacy, or the right to be left alone, is the single most important right of a citizen. It is not a construct of the modern world. Try looking up "Writ of Assistance" in Great Britain. It was illegal in Britain 300 years ago and it was the doctrinal basis for the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments to the US Constitution.

Privacy is a right. It has never been up for grabs till GWB / Ashcroft & a very foolish legislative branch allowed the issue to come into contention. We did not respond to the bombing of Pearl Harbor (an act that killed far more than 9/11) with this kind of inchoate fear and foolish legislation.

Re:The Issue

[voidptr]

It depends on the state. If you really need to find out, use AgeOfConsent.com for your particular situation.

Re:The Issue

[benna]

Not even that as facts can not be copyrighted.

Re:The Issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does this country believe that prisions are an effective form of punishment? Prisions are simply a way to get criminals off the streets to make it safer for everyone else. If you start to believe they are something more you'll be sorely disappionted.

Therefore you place a violent criminal in prison and let him go after it is decided that he is no longer a threat to society. No need to further violate his rights. If he is still a threat, don't release him. If he isn't a threat why open him up to public harassment?

Sure it would be nice to know that someone who committed a crime against you has been punished. However it is far more important to see that it doesn't happen again.

Think about it and you'll see why our criminal justice system doesn't work.

Re:The Issue

[Planesdragon]

If everyone has access to your medical records, even if they can't change them, we could start getting to a Gattaca style world; where people are discriminated against based upon their genetic profle.

Not likely. We'd either find enough real-world data to know how many people don't go with their genetic indicators, or we'd find out that the "discrimination" actually just makes sense.

We could make laws that say having access to certain information can't affect your decisions, but that is easily circumvented by finding or creating other "reasons" to select a differen, "better" individual.

That'd be foolish. A better answer to too-much-information is too-much-information; if the company can know about me, then I can know about the company. If they discriminate against folk with long hair, or asthma, or bad genes, I can "vote with my dollars" and not go there--even if they would favor me.

Re:The Issue

[Planesdragon]

Yea, that sounds much better than everyone knowing my business and being flooded with junk mail...

What if you knew exactly who sent you the junk mail?

"Just bought a coffee pot" could be coupled with "refuses to buy from companies that junk mail you." Statistics be damned; when the comapny knows that about you, and continues to junk mail you, you should be able to bill them for wasting your time.

Re:The Issue

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US, you have the right to free speech, but, if your free speech infringes on someone elses same right, then your right is then taken away.

A problem with the legal system in the US is this mindset that exercising your rights can't infringe on someone else's rights. How's that? So if you have the right to peace and quiet and I have the right to chainsaw firewood in my back yard, whos rights win out? The one with the most legal clout? Yes, exactly. In other words, the one with the most money.
That's the hard part about living in harmony. You have to give a little to get a little in return. If nobody budges then... well! You have what we have today in the USA. Too many people pissed off at each other, no community, nobody talks, hair trigger road rage, what a messed up state of society.
I think we need to change our thinking on what freedoms people have and don't have. Some freedoms are mutually exclusive and that's life.

Re:The Issue

[isaac]

so what you're saying is that there is no such thing as an inalienable right, since there clearly is no 'right' that has has never been nor could be taken away.

No. An example of an inalienable right is freedom from bondage. You can't (legally) be enslaved, nor voluntarily submit to slavery, nor sell yourself into chattel slavery.

An example of an alienable right is your right to free speech. You can enter a contract where you agree to be restricted as to what you may speak about - e.g. a nondisclosure agreement.

-Isaac

Re:The Issue

[Bugmaster]

This is the common trap of assuming that everything that is natural in the universe is observable under the emperical method, that is to say "things one can measure."

As I said in my original comment, you're free to believe in some sort of dualism -- but unfortunately, in this case you'll never be able to persuade a skeptic, because dualism of any kind requires a certain measure of faith. There's nothing wrong with that, of course.

Science makes no claims to the valdity of claims of spirtuality, beauty, or morality.

Isn't this pretty much what I said ? Our moral values are not "natural", they are just conventions that we live by. We can use statistics and the empirical method to find out if certain values are creating the society we "ought" to have (as you put it), but ultimately, "ought" is subjective. It sounds like we're in agreement: "natural" rights aren't really natural, unaliable, immutable, etc. -- they're what we make them out to be.

Re:The Issue

[Bugmaster]

One, that somthing which is natural is not required to be within the bounds of the empirical method.

Fair enough, but, in this case, can you clarify what you mean by "natural" ?

or the idea that somthing with a high probablity rate is more true than somthing with a low probablity rate

Your other examples are very good, but this one is just wrong. A lightning strike (lower probability) is just as "true" as rain (higher probability). I am guessing that what you mean is "the choice to use Occam's Razor is subjective"; I am not sure whether it's true or not, but I am willing to concede the point for now.

I'm saying natural rights can't be found through the scientific method and that the scientific method may not be able to uncover all the "unaliable", "immutable", "natural" aspects of reality in the totality of existance.

Then, it sounds like you advocate dualism: i.e., the idea that there are some non-physical "things" out there, such as minds, souls, unaliable rights, perfect forms, etc. (not neccessarily all at once, mind you), which cannot be detected by any device that measures purely physical effects. As I said before, there's nothing wrong terribly with this worldview; unfortunately, the choice between naturalism and dualism is also purely subjective (i.e., requiring of faith), and thus we'd simply have to agree to disagree.

Re:The Issue

[pentalive]

" False, I believe. Mere information should be public domain--if I want to find out, oh, what your telephone number is, there shouldn't be any penalty whatsoever if someone tells it to me. "

Planesdragons phone number is (924)555-3265

If that were your real phone number, how would you feel right now?

Now suppose "Plaindraggin" never pays his bills
and has lots of collection agents hunting him. As a result of your phone number *being made* pupblic domain you start getting calls at all hours.

Re:The Issue

[allism]

Depending on the state, that would be correct. Most states define an actual age, though - so who would you prosecute in the example you mentioned?

Re:The Issue

[allism]

Yeah, we see how well the 'vote with your dollars' strategy works. Think Cracker Barrel. Think Abercrombie and Fitch.

Or for that matter, think of the RIAA and the MPAA - how many of us actually don't purchase their products based on their practices? How much of a dent has it really made? Obviously not enough to make a difference in how they act - and they've probably pissed off way more people through their actions than would be pissed off at some racial/sexual/genetic slighting.

I'm all for spending money to support - or not support - companies who hold positions I agree or disagree with, but the damage that can be done through discrimination based on genetics may not be undone through just purchasing power.

Re:The Issue

[jnana]

There is great precedent for taking literal things like 'papers' -- which was synonymous with (sometimes personal or private) information in that day -- and interpreting them in light of the different context in which we live today. Hence, 'papers' is interpreted to mean more today than it did 200 years ago, just like 'speech' in the first amendment means more than it did 200 years ago. Fortunately, interpreters of the constitution are generally not as literal minded as you!

Re:The Issue

[raistlinjones]

Are you implying that you think the 8 year old should be prosecuted?

Tree falls in the forest

[Nadsat]

"If someone rummages through all your stuff, nothing's taken, but they find out information about you, (yet) you can't show actual damages.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a noise? Did some one ever come up with an answer to that age old parabole? If not, I don't think the Supreme Court any time soon will wrap its hands around an ancient Zen koan.

Re:Tree falls in the forest

[TwistedSquare]

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a noise? My 2 penneth-worth: Yes, because the tree can't tell whether anyone's listening :)

Re:Tree falls in the forest

[Lifewish]

And in this case the echo could start an avalanche. It's like giving out duplicates of someone's house key and claiming you haven't done anything wrong cos no-one's broken in yet. Especially now that this problem is in the public eye, there's a real risk of identity theft for these people.

Re:Tree falls in the forest

[Fancia]

Unless I'm mistaken, a sound is just a vibration until there's a listener to interpret it. Ergo, no; the tree falling makes vibrations unless someone is around to hear it. ^.~

Re:Tree falls in the forest

[Guppy06]

"If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a noise?"

My tape recorder says it does.

Re:Tree falls in the forest

[AhtirTano]

Unless I'm mistaken, a sound is just a vibration until there's a listener to interpret it. Ergo, no; the tree falling makes vibrations unless someone is around to hear it.

Following this logic, vibrations that are too low or high to trigger response by the human ear are not sounds. That means dog whistles are indeed silent. Surely, that can't be right, because dogs seem to hear them.

Obviously, there are easy ways to fix this problem. However, I think these kinds of answers just miss the point. Is the vibration exactly the same whether or not something senses it? If it is, then calling it a "sound" is simply due to the way we choose to talk about it, not due to its reality. Do we really want to answer this question with a language game? (Maybe we do -- I'm playing Devil's Advocate here.)

Another aspect of the koan can be brought out by asking: If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody is around to sense it, does it cause a vibration? (How do you know? Why do you think you are right?)

Re:Tree falls in the forest

[Fancia]

Following this logic, vibrations that are too low or high to trigger response by the human ear are not sounds. That means dog whistles are indeed silent. Surely, that can't be right, because dogs seem to hear them.

I didn't specifically define a *human* listener. A dog is fully capable of listening, and thus is also a listener. And, yes, I'm entirely aware that this is a pedantic answer that doesn't go with the spirit of the koan; I wasn't particularly trying to be serious. ^.~

Re:Tree falls in the forest

[Txiasaeia]

If I download an MP3, but it's from Britney Spears and I promise that I deleted it after I heard the opening few seconds, will I still be persecuted for my error?

Re:Tree falls in the forest

[BugZRevengE]

It is a very smart tape recorder to be telling you what it heard... where do i buy one of those
oh you mean you heard it recorded on tape?

Re:Tree falls in the forest

[Guppy06]

"oh you mean you heard it recorded on tape?"

No, my hypothetical tape recorder has no speaker. Instead, a green light that says "It made a sound" lights up when the mechanism detects sound above a certain decibel threshold in the recording.

Re:Tree falls in the forest

[BugZRevengE]

are you sure it was the tree that made the sound?
i think you would need a tape recorder that can tell you what the sound was it heard?

Re:Tree falls in the forest

[Burb]

There was a young man who said "God
Must think it exceedinly odd
If he finds that the tree
Continues to be
When there's no one around in the quad"

"Dear Sir, Your astonishment's odd
I AM always around in the quad
And that's why the tree
Will Continue to be
Since observed by,
yours faithfully,
God."

Whats good for the goose

[ignipotentis]

Is good for the Gander... If companies can make money by selling private information, then they can lose it by releasing it publicy if they are not authorized.

Gamming the system

[Anonymous Coward]

Suppose I
1. copyright all my personal data
2. put it in a database
3. ad a PGP signature to bring in the DMCA
4. Sue everybody and his dog who sells or distibutes said information
5. Profit?

Re:Gamming the system

[penguinoid]

But would the copyright still apply? Or is it impossible to copyright personal data? This would couse problems, as someone might sue the government for knowing their name.

I think so

[IANAL(BIAILS)]

It shouldn't really matter if no damage can be proven to the people... I would think the Court should award punative damages to punish for the illegal disclosure, and hopefully 'encourage' them not to do such a thing again.

Another good article

[exhilaration]

Check out This excellent article on Slate.com about Supreme Court arguments regarding a family's right to privacy after an individual's death.

It's also really funny.

Good for security

[rastakid]

I think this is a wise move, since the companies and governments will probably take a more pro-active stance for security. If security was already an issue in the past at a given company/government, they will probably do even more work to secure it even better. And those who didn't care about security, really need to start looking for some security administrators. Remember: money makes the world go 'round.

Before they answer that...

[PSaltyDS]

"At issue before the court, according to privacy advocates, is how valuable privacy really is."

...make it clear to the Judges, Lawyers, and Representatives involved that their decision WILL apply to THEIR personal data! I really believe they forget that sometimes. There was a /. article, which I'm too lazy to look up now, about a District Atourney who ruled getting personal data from someone's trash was not actionable. His attitude changed when a group of activists raided HIS trash and published what they found.

Any technology distinguishable from magic is insuficiently advanced.

Re:Before they answer that...

[exhilaration]

This might be article you're talking about: Portland's top brass said it was OK to swipe your garbage--so we grabbed theirs.

The DA thought it was funny, the mayor and chief of police didn't.

Re:Before they answer that...

[PSaltyDS]

Found the article, and gracefully ignored my spelling of "Attorney". Thanks for the backup!
:-)

Any technology distinguishable from magic is insuficiently advanced.

Oh come on

[SeXy_Red]

My personal information is worth atleast 2/10 of a cent :P

Re:Oh come on

[Fancia]

But your personal information is preowned! Surely you don't expect me to pay full retail price.

this is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

what the hell? so, what it sounds like is that unless your a paris hilton or michael jackson, they don't really give a shit about you because you're not worth enough to sue anyone.

privacy is privacy and it should apply to all equally. who determines what the cost was? for famous person it's pretty easy to prove lose, but for the average joe, we're just fucked. fuck that noise

disclaimer: I did not RTFA

1/10th of a cent?

[Junior J. Junior III]

Finally... micropayments!

Re:1/10th of a cent?

[npistentis]

1/10 of a cent... I can recoup my losses from ID theft by cashing in the 300,000 [cash value:1/20 cent] coupons I've been hoarding for all these years!

The value of privacy.

[FreeLinux]

It should be fairly easy to place a dollar value on privacy. First we can geta value by looking at what marketers (or marketeers) are charging companies for your information. A list of 10,000 names and phone numbers can cost a mortgage company's telemarketing department tens of thousands of dollars. So, it's rather simple to place a dollar amount on the value on an individuals information. Compound that value with the multiple of times that the information was disclosed and throw in a percentage for damages and you find that privacy has a rather high cost.

And yes, they should reimburse people for breaches. Stupidity should definitely be painful.

Re:The value of privacy.

[Lord Bitman]

But a slashdot account is not exactly "_all_ about your life".. why the AC? :)

Re:The value of privacy.

[God! Awful 2]

A list of 10,000 names and phone numbers can cost a mortgage company's telemarketing department tens of thousands of dollars. So, it's rather simple to place a dollar amount on the value on an individuals information.

Did you consider that if you open sourced your information, they could no longer make any money off it?

-a

Re:The value of privacy.

[Rob Riggs]

Did you consider that if you open sourced your information, they could no longer make any money off it?

Care to open source your SSN and prove that point?

Buck Doe?

[Colymbosathon ecplec]

Ok, I know this is a serious matter, but did he have to pick "Buck Doe"? Sounds like a porn star for bestiality movies!

Having handled government Data before

[pbug]

I have came across people's Social Security many times. By putting a value to people's information you will hopefully decrease the leaking of this data to the world. Now the only question is what is the number we need to put on it.

If semantics say

[way2trivial]

because it can be taken away.. it's a privilege.
then why is it the death penalty flies in the face of our constitutional rights?

(your rights can be taken away too ya know)

It Has To Be Made A Property, For Sure

[tds67]

But is privacy a 'property' and does its loss require compensation?

Absolutely, unequivocally "YES" on both counts.

We live in an increasingly Corporate culture, where it's always "the economy stupid." We have become global Corporate citizens instead of citizens of any one particular country. Privacy is not respected by the machinery of business, and those of you out there who have ever worked with or in a Marketing department know what I'm talking about.

It took a law to put the brakes on telemarketers, and God knows what it will take to stop spam, if that's even possible. But by making privacy a "property" that has monetary value, we can finally put it on the radar screens of Big Business.

Privacy Act only applies to use by the Government!

[anti-tech]

The lawsuit concerns disclosure of a person's SSN. However, in a written response from my US Senator, I was informed that any company, anywhere can DEMAND your SSN as a condition for services, e.g. I go the the doctor's office and the doctor can require my SSN before seeing me, I apply for a lease on an apartment, the lease company can require my SSN as a condition on the application. There are absolutely no restrictions for companies requiring/requesting this information, and there are no regulations on how they must then safeguard it! I was told that if the kid cutting my grass wants my SSN as a condition, he can require it (of course this is a silly example, but is perfectly legal, according to current US laws. Either that or my Senator and the government websites I was directed to are seriously flawed.) Now, I routinely refuse to provide the info and challenge them to deny me service (with a crowded waiting room, etc), but it isn't a good way work with some businesses. (normally they just want the number because it makes it easy for assigning a unique number for their databases)

The privacy act applies to government use of our information, not private corporations. And the SSA told me while Congress passed laws governing the use of SSN, Congress never bothered passing legislation authorizing the SSA to enforce the laws.

If I can locate the document, I will try to provide the rest of the info, but I have to go take my blood pressure medicine.

Harm

[MonkeyINAbaG]

even if no harm can be proven.
How can you disprove harm in this case?
A social security number is an American's entire life and worth, as far as law and government are concerned.
Without it, you arent even a vote.

Privacy is a Constitutional Right

[PingXao]

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

That's article IX or the U.S. COnstitution. The fact that trroubling issues of privacy and technology didn't arise until 220 years later doesn't mean jack shit to me. Article IX makes it quite clear that the notion of a "Right to Privacy" must certainly exist. How dare anyone disparage my beleif that it is my right? The time is drawing near when politicians who ignore the Constitution and the judges who are bought right along with them, will have to account for their actions. And I'm not talking about violence here. I'm talking about a second Constitutional Convention. Something that strikes fear into the heart of every politician and every greed head in the land.

A Second Constitutional Convention would do us a world of good. And possibly a world of hurt as well, but the medicine must be strong for what we've allowed this nation to mutate into. All it would take is a two-thirds vote of the states. The day is coming. It might not be right around the corner, but it is coming.

Re:Privacy is a Constitutional Right

[superman53142]

A Second Constitutional Convention would do us a world of good.

Oh, please. The irony kills me; you cite how the current Constitution supports what you're trying to say, and how the current powers-that-be ignore it, and then urge people to support a new Constitution which would be written by those in power. A rewrite at this point would simply give those in power the ability to make their failure to follow the Law compliance with a new Law.

For the record, your quote is from the 9th Amendment to the Constitution, not the Constitution proper. It is essentially the equivilent of the legislative elastic clause found in Article I of the Constitituion, except it applies to the people. The 4th Amendment to the Constitution also plays into this debate, as it deals with the "security" of the people. Finding the text of cited passages is left as an exercise to the reader.

Re:Privacy is a Constitutional Right

[ChristTrekker]

A 2nd CC worries me. There is no guarantee that the rights protected by the first 10 amendments to the current Constitution would be similarly protected by a new one. The men 225 years ago had some principles, but I don't trust the people in power now to come up with a suitable replacement document. If they just followed the existing one we'd be much better off, and the only way to do that is to hold them accountable to We the People - vote the bums out! And don't vote another bum in in the process. IMO most Democrats and Republicans are bums.

But who owns the info

[panxerox]

since databases are now copyrighted, if a company collects the info don't they now own it?

Constitutional Right?

[gradji]

The amazing thing about this whole debate is that there is no clear constitutional right for privacy (at least in the U.S.).

Consequently, it is not clear what the basis will be for any Supreme Court judgement in this case. Usually the Supreme Court rules when two or more Constitutional rights are at odds with each other (e.g. 10th vs. 16th ... usually State's Rights (10th) is involved) ... or when a particular phrasing in the Constitution is deemed "ambiguous" (1st Amendment ... what is "speech") ... but neither is the case for privacy.

So a key question is whether the Supreme Court, through its judgement(s), can establish such an expliit right ... or do we require Congressional action?

Personally, I think we need more federal legislation and/or Constitional Amendments safe-guarding our privacy rights. In recent years, we've seen a piece-meal movement toward achieving such a goal (most notably, rights protecting student/criminal records) but it should be a concerted agenda. This will become a much more pressing need as the availability of sophisticated, cost-effective information technology increases. Can you imagine *physical* stores creating databases based on security camera recordings? It's not far-fetched (Vegas casinos already do it)

Re:Constitutional Right?

[Trillian_1138]

I agree that something specific needs to be done to protect the right to privacy. When the Constitution was created "privacy" almost always meant physical protection of your privacy by preventing entry to your home or workplace. And there's an Ammendment which covers that issue. The idea of an exposure of information being a violation of privacy probably would have seemed rather odd, so it's not surprising it wasn't covered.

But I think the Supreme Court could rule on privacy because the Constitution (I _believe_ in the 9th Ammendment) says that the Constitution/Bill of Rights doesn't specify ALL of the rights people have, and that just because something isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean it's not a right.

That said, I think that's a pretty weak defense for a right to privacy, and I believe the possibility of privacy being infringed upon is more and more important as information systems become more and more connected. I don't want my privacy protected by the defense, "Well, the Constitution doesn't say I DON'T have a right to privacy...." So I wholeheartedly agree that there should be something more specific guaranteeing my right to privacy.

Maybe even (although I doubt it would ever get passed) an additional Ammendment. I can't think of a simple way to word what "Right to Privacy" is, but I think something could be found to cover this concern.

-Trillian

privacy is a right?

[gyratedotorg]

not trying to sound like a troll, but to all the people saying that privacy is a right, i ask you this: a right granted by whom?

fyi, the united states bill of rights says absolutely nothing about privacy. neither does the constitution. a bit scary, but its true. look it up.

the 4th amendment to the bill of rights sorta hints at privacy, but its obvious that our forefathers could not even begin forsee the type of privacy issues we deal with today.

Re:privacy is a right?

[RealProgrammer]

granted by whom?

It's an inherent right, subject to the same limitations of other inherent rights. You can

• own a gun if you can afford one and agree to use it properly
• speak, but don't be a public nuisance
• believe what you wish, but don't do human sacrifices
• have privacy, but a secret shared is no secret.

The issue is whether the government must protect your privacy after you'vre shared your secrets with them, since the government requires you to do so.

Re:privacy is a right?

[buxton2k]

There is a Constitutionally-supported right to privacy. (Note: IANAL, so please correct me if I am mistaken in my facts.)

not trying to sound like a troll, but to all the people saying that privacy is a right, i ask you this: a right granted by whom?

By the Supreme Court, which traditionally has the power to interpret the Constitution and identify/interpret rights that may not be explicitly enumerated.

fyi, the united states bill of rights says absolutely nothing about privacy. neither does the constitution. a bit scary, but its true. look it up. the 4th amendment to the bill of rights sorta hints at privacy, but its obvious that our forefathers could not even begin forsee the type of privacy issues we deal with today.

The Constitution is a living document, and its meaning is interpreted by those reading it at any given moment. In 1965, in the case Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court recognized a right to privacy - essentially, they said that if you look at the rights that are spelled out in the Constitution, many of them hint at and rely upon another right that is not specifically stated - and that right is privacy. In Griswold, Connecticut had outlawed the sale and use of condoms and other contraceptive devices, even for married couples, because they were judged immoral; the Court said that without a compelling interest (i.e. someone is being hurt), the state has no power to control what two consenting adults use in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

The reasoning behind recognition of privacy as a right is that the right against unreasonable search and seizure, the right against self-incrimination, the right to free speech, freedom of religion and free assembly and other enumerated rights all rely upon an unstated right - privacy. They all assume that you have, or ought to have, a certain zone around your mind, body and possessions that is free from intrusion by others, especially the government. (i.e. you can't effectively practice free assembly unless you believe you can get together privately without government monitoring, etc.) The recognition of the right to privacy was upheld and built upon in successive cases, most notably Roe v. Wade, where the Court said that the right to privacy meant that the government could not outlaw a medical procedure that was no one's business but that of the woman involved and her doctor.

In other words, the Court did not create a right to privacy - they ruled that a right to privacy had always existed in the Constitution, as a necessary precursor to the existence of other, enumerated rights, and was evident when you looked at those rights collectively and noticed the common underlying logic - the government should leave you alone unless there is a compelling reason. (The language the Court used was that privacy was evident in the "penumbra" created by the enumerated rights.)

Burden of proof and cost of recovery

[goombah99]

When the maximum an individual can recover is $1000, the value of trying to prove one was injured only makes sense in a class action.

But if each individual has to prove harm this becomes prohibitive. Say if my SS is left exposed for a few months on a web site, and later my identity is stolen. Can I prove that one caused the other? Not likely.

It seems like certain information shoul dbe designated as must-be-kept-secure and its very exposure shifts the burden of proof that no harm was done to the government.

Of course as a practical matter this could get sticky if one day say a server containing all of the SSN numbers were hacked or a disgruntled employee posted them.

Mod Parent Up!

[dave1g]

I dont have any mod points :(

Certainly he has just proven that the free market has already put a price on private information. And for things that arent legally traded such as SSN the government could put an arbitrary high value but not an extreme one, and of course the value of such data could be changed from tiem to time through acts of congress or executive order...

The Real Question of Questions

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying with the tree metaphor is that if a crime has been committed, and no one is affected by it, why is it a crime in the first place?

If private information is released, and no one is affected by it, then why is it a problem to release private information in the first place?

This creates its own self-serving logic... which logically (and it doe smake sense) gives right to let the supreme court release what they want.

However, if it is a problem to release private inforamtion... then let's step back: why should government have this private information to begin with? Do they actually *need* these certain things? Control for the sake of control? Is technology and thirst for statistics driving the need for more and more details... which inherently run into the problems or corruption and misuse that we seeing arise in such cases as this article?

Irony

[CrackedButter]

Americans discussing rights!

Damages?

[erroneus]

What damages are shown in cases of rape? What if, for example, I raped someone but was careful not to do any physical damage? I know that doesn't seem possible but just indulge me for a moment. Let's just assume such a thing was accomplished.

Now then, if no "damage" was done, was there a crime? You're damned right!! Something was done against an unwilling individual that made them feel quite uncomfortable and would rather you hadn't done it. It was without consent, immoral and while no "damage" was done, it was still a violation of that other person's will. In fact, asside from degrees of severity, I see no difference between the crime of rape and the crime of stealing, selling or otherwise abusing my personal information. When there is so much about a person that defines a personality, I have realized that anything as simple as a [portable cell] phone number is actually a part of a person's identity... as much as a person's address, place of work, the car he drives or the people he knows. It's a part of the definition of a person. Using and abusing that person constitutes an abuse of that person.

Is this an extreme opinion? Maybe... I don't know... it's a question of where you want to draw the line. But consider how uncomfortable you might feel about life if you knew something about yourself was out there somewhere being abused.

Re:Damages?

[oGMo]

This is a pretty good point. And somewhat of a sad one, too. Consider the average jail time for rape is something like 3 years (and in the majority of cases none), it just goes to show the real concern of the system, and this society in general. If there isn't a large amount of money involved, your ruined life don't really matter.

Sickening.

Re:Damages?

[MoneyT]

The right to be secure in one's person (as enumerated by the 4th amendment) has been violated.

Re:Privacy Act only applies to use by the Governme

[ChrisKnight]

Two weeks ago a position opened at AT&T in my area, with a set of skill requirements that was rather hard to find in my area. Consequently I received calls from thirteen different recruiters over a three day span. I was flattered.

Each and every one of them told me that AT&T required my SSN along with my resume in order to apply for the job. I told every one of them that it wasn't going to happen. (I only had to hang up on one for not being willing to at least accept my choice.)

A company can, and will, demand anything they can get away with. It is up to us to take a stand and tell them that we have a right to refuse to do business with them as well.

-Chris

Compensation culture

[zaphod_es]

It is about time that we all started to think about the question of compensation/damages. Far too many people seem to think it is a bit like winning the Lotto. That guy bumped me so I claim whiplash and a $1m settlement.

People should receive fair damages or reimbursement of losses sustained through the negligence or incompetence of others. It is not right that they culprit is "fined" and the proceeds passed to the victim.

If a Government causes damage by revealing private information it should compensate the victim even if it is only a token amount for embarrassment. If the misbehavior is so bad that it deserves a punitive settlement I see no reason for that to be paid to the victim. There are many better ways of distributing these windfalls.

If a department loses a chunk of its budget through malicious or arrogant disclosure of personal information it might start asking who was responsible and trying to prevent future abuses. There is no need to turn it into a get rich scheme and a honeypot for ambulance chasing lawyers.

ZB

contracts

[Doc Ruby]

The value of the lost privacy is the damages, hard to quantify in terms of its replacement value, or even market demand. Of course, the actual acts that destroy the privacy have their own legal consequences. And of course there's the breach of contract when the keeper of your info unilaterally changes the rules, especially when that's secret. If the court represents the people, it will come down hard on these acts, but the Rehnquist court has quite the tight relationship with corporations, especially "direct mail" moguls like Bush politcal director Karl Rove.

Oh boy! What a payday!

[Sonny Yatsen]

After companies sell my private information 50 times, I can manage to buy some nickel candy! Sounds like a sweet deal to me!

If it can be sold, it has value: "free" offers

[Lord Bitman]

If my personal information can be sold, it has value and I should always be paid for its use- the price is up to me, not the company doing the selling. (Imagine if you gave your car to a dealer to have it serviced, and when you got it back, they had installed a tracking device which delivered targetted advertising to you 24/7. Don't you need to agree to things like that before-hand? They can't just say "We've decided that the irritation you may feel is worth ten dollars, so here")

If my information has value, no offer should be allowed to use the term "free!" if your personal information will be sold by the company. If they sell it, it has cash value to them, and so the deal is not "free".

In Italy privacy is guararteed by law

[pioppo]

We have a law since 1996, it's number 675.

In Italy people can't collect, use, process, sell and give away your personal information without your explicit written consent collected in advance.

For some data, the state is exempt by default (those strictly needed for tax and justice work).

Sensitive information (sexual, religious, about health and politics, and so on) is protected by special regulation.

Violating this law could result in penalties or prison, depending on gravity of violation.

This is very useful for spam too: many italian spammers have been already fined 250EUR for each spam email they sent (this money has been given to spammed people) plus legal costs.

Re:In Italy privacy is guararteed by law

[MS]

A few months ago (I think it was September) a new law was passed, and it got even better (or worse, from a spammers point of view):

Spammer now will be fined up to 90000 Euros and 3 years of jail

It's a pity, 95% of spammers are located in USA, so I living in Europe can neither collect, nor sue. It would be a nice income, as I get about 200 spam-mails a day!

:-(

Re:The 9th amendment bone head.

[superman53142]

One must remember that Constitution also contains an elastic clause for Congress, stating that they have the right to pass the laws necessary for executing their enumerated powers (See Article I, Section 8). In many cases, information about an individual is absolutely necessary for government to function.

It is for this reason that the case is a constitutional question; the Supreme Court needs to clarify the line between the privacy of a citizen and the usage of information about a person in functional government.

Privacy vs . Intellectual Property

[NoSuchGuy]

because it is so hard to put a price on an abstract concept such as privacy or to prove damages in absence of others' misuse of that data.

What about Intellectual Property and Copyright?

The RIAA bills you $150.000 a song by distribution via Kazza

SCO belives that they have such an abstract thing as Intellectual Property of the Linux kernel because they granted some companies (IBM) access to source code...

As mentioned above about my private data: If it can be sold, it has value!

NoSuchGuy

Re:Constitutional Right? --- thank you!

[nudicle]

this post should be +5 Informative.

For all the ranting about /. readers "rights to privacy," which are clearly deeply felt, it's not clear where in the Constitution such a right comes from.

Go and read Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) to see just what hoops the SCOTUS had to jump through in order to find a "privacy" right sufficient to protect married couples using contraception.

Read the whole thing and in Justice Black's dissent you'll find the following language: One of the most effective ways of diluting or expanding a constitutionally guaranteed right is to substitute for the crucial word or words of a constitutional guarantee another word or words, more or less flexible and more or less restricted in meaning. This fact is well illustrated by the use of the term "right of privacy" as a comprehensive substitute for the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against "unreasonable searches and seizures." "Privacy" is a broad, abstract and ambiguous concept which can easily be shrunken in meaning but which can also, on the other hand, easily be interpreted as a constitutional ban against many things other than searches and seizures. I have expressed the view many times that First Amendment freedoms, for example, have suffered from a failure of the courts to stick to the simple language of the First Amendment in construing it, instead of invoking multitudes of words substituted for those the Framers used. See, e.g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 , 293 (concurring opinion); cases collected in City of El Paso v. Simmons, 379 U.S. 497, 517, n. 1 (dissenting opinion); Black, The Bill of Rights, 35 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 865. For these reasons, I get nowhere in this case by talk about a constitutional "right of privacy" as an emanation from [p*510] one or more constitutional provisions. [n1] I like my privacy as well as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right to. invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision. For these reasons, I cannot agree with the Court's judgment and the reasons it gives for holding this Connecticut law unconstitutional.

Justice Black lost that argument, of course, but the decision was narrow in scope and the "right to privacy" is STILL hotly contested. See Lawrence v. Texas from earlier this year, among a crapload of other cases implicating it.

If you read the majority opinion carefully you'll see that the right is derived from "penumbras" and "emanations" in our Constitution. That is, shall we say, not the most concrete ground for privacy rights to rest.

I realize that the idea that there is not a fundamental, clear, and general right to privacy in our constitution many of you guys think is a severe affront. And I'm with you. But making conclusory "there IS a right to privacy because it's important to me and ... umm .. stuff about searches and seizures and other unspecified rights that can't be taken away which must include privacy as i'm defining it because i say so and .. oh yeah .. it's really important to me" statements isn't helpful. It's understandable, mind you, but the Supreme Court is going to have more sophisticated stuff on its collective mind.

(which is not to say that making the argument, if you could show it, that the framers would clearly have supported such a privacy right and indeed it was intended to be understood as part of the guarantees in the Constitution would be a bad argument just because it's not "sophisticated" ... it's just that's not nearly the whole story about what's going to go on in real life.

Re:Constitutional Right? --- thank you!

[nudicle]

um, when I wrote "this post should be +5 Informative." at the top of the above post I was refering to the parent and wasn't planning on writing the long post that appears below .... the first line of my post was not intended to announce to the /. world that my thoughts self-evidently deserve +5 moderation. :)

fast forward

[Lord_Dweomer]

Ok, lets take a hypothetical situation here. Lets say 5 years from now this sort of thing is actually in place, where we get compensated when our privacy is abused. Big companies will obviously be hurt the most because they will be most visible. But what happens when they end up making a deal with some "third party affiliate" who has no such restrictions, or who accidentally leaks your information overseas, where there is no such compensation? And what happens if those overseas people sell the information back to the big corporations? I mean, they can claim they got the information from someone who claims you opted in, yet they're overseas so there's nothing that can be done about it.

Privacy - what I think the real problem is...

[jrpascucci]

The fact that someone has some bit of information about you isn't usually a problem.

The problem is that that bit of information which is uniquely identifiable to you, is being moved around without your knowledge, to third parties.

Take a (fake) example: I own a pair of black size 13 Bruno Magli shoes with RFID#112512214412211 in them. Anyone who can look at me can know I own a pair of this kind of shoes. Anyone who can get a few feet from me can tell that I have that one specific pair of shoes. But you have to hook that piece of information (these shoes were at this place at this time) to another piece of information (the mapping of the RFID# -> the store where I bought them->my Visa Card#) in order to violate my privacy. And once you bring those two things together, violate it you do.

Another way to think about is that people are really talking about you behind your back, and nobody likes that. Nothing good comes from gossip.

The only real way to fix this is with a constitutional amendment - freedom of speech and the press trumps it.

Re:The 9th amendment bone head.

[volkris]

Proper application of such thoughts would rule that privacy is NOT a right, as privacy rules by nature infringe upon others' abilities to use their private property as they wish.

This is a much more direct potential infringement, and therefore is the one which would be granted by such argument.

Re:Copyright

[Darth_brooks]

If this is true (and legal) I would think this would definately apply to your SSN. Especially since it's unique, you could easily register it as original. This would make it easy to collect damages and assign a value to it as your SSN should only be used by the people you give it to.


You cannot file a copyright or trade mark on a number, per se.

Lets look a Nascar Legend and merchandising powerhouse Dale Earnhardt. He (well, his company, DEI) does not hold a copyright on the number 3. instead they happen to hold a copyright on a number 3 that is in that particular style.

Otherwise, what's keeping me from filing a copyright on all integers and decimals and suing the entire western world?

Michael Jackson's Privacy

[tekrat]

So, lemme get this straight.... If someone publishes personal information illegally, the most a person can sue for is $1000, *and* they have to prove damages?

Well, so that means that if someone were to publish Michael Jackson's personal info, or Carmen Electra's home telephone number, or President Bush's cell phone, the most that any of those celebrities could get is $1000?

I think not.

So, *why* is Michael Jackson's right to privacy more valuable than mine? Or is this yet another issue where the rich are protected by law, but the common citizens are not protected by law?

I think there's a huge double standard going on here, particulary if the RIAA can claim millions of dollars of damages per song, but I can't claim millions of dollars of damages when TRW sells my credit history to a telemarketer.

I think there's a huge double standard going on here, if celebrities can sue for privacy, but the average joe cannot.

U.S. employers require your SSN for tax purposes

[tepples]

If you refuse to give your SSN to employers, no employer in the United States will hire you. The IRS uses your SSN as a taxpayer ID, and employers need this in order to file tax paperwork.

The Supreme Court has read a right to privacy ...

[triclipse]

... into the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Modernly, it was recognized by a right to possess pornography within one's home, to use contraceptives, and more sharply, the right to engage in homosexual activity, state statutes to the contrary notwithstanding. These decisions were all based on an implicit recognition of a right to privacy.

It may not say the word "privacy" in the Constitution, but if the Supreme Court finds a right there anyway, it might as well say it...

Privacy as intellectual property

[Jerf]

I believe privacy-sensitive information should be treated as a form of intellectual property; it's the only thing that makes sense.

(Sure, I could copy and paste it, but Slashdot would probably get annoyed at the length.)

Re:U.S. employers require your SSN for tax purpose

[FredGray]

If you refuse to give your SSN to employers, no employer in the United States will hire you. The IRS uses your SSN as a taxpayer ID, and employers need this in order to file tax paperwork.

Sure, but that's after they've agreed to hire you, not before. It sounds like AT&T wanted this person's SSN as a part of the job application process, which does seem kind of odd to me.

Re:Privacy Act only applies to use by the Governme

[anethema]

Correct me if im wrong, but its not illegal or anything to not even get a SSN ? What happens in this case? I didnt get mine untill i was like 18. Since its legal to not own it, shouldnt it be not legal for people to force you to give it ?

I really am asking here,not offering a point..i want input :)

Re:U.S. employers require your SSN for tax purpose

[ChrisKnight]

I refuse to give my SSN in order to get an interview. I will gladly fill out a W-4 form, including SSN, once they have agreed to hire me.

-Chris

Re:Social Security numbers are not private

[CaptainTux]

Actually, a lot of states are passing laws that say a company cannot force you to use your SSN as an indentifying number due to the increasing cases of identity theft here in the United States. While this hasn't happened on a national scale yet, I do believe that we will see a time when SSN's *are* protected by privacy laws.

Re:The 9th amendment bone head.

[volkris]

Don't base argument on existing law. You'll be just as incorrect as the law itself.

You SHOULD be able to build a slaughterhouse next to my beach resort, so long as you don't actually degrade my beaches.