I'm sick and tired of good intentions being used to defend bad plans. People have gotten away with taking our guns (protected by the Third Amendment) and our freedom of speech to talk about drugs (protected by the First Amendment). We can't let take them our right to privacy too.
Another constitutional problem. Okay, here we go...
First of all, the amendment related to guns is the second. Next, that amendment does not give you as an individual the right to own or carry a gun. It gives the states power to arm their militia. By law, this means the national guard. No section of the constitution or the US code allows you to form your own militia and claim the right to carry a gun. This view has been consistantly upheld by the Supreme Court, most directly in US v. Miller, 307 US 174. For a more in-depth analysis, see The Politics of Gun Control, Robert J. Spitzer.
The free speech issue is trickier, and I tend to agree with you that it's an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech. The SC has held that unconstitutional for most of the century, and the current court is on a defend-free-speech-and-reduce-the-power-of-Congres s roll, and would likely strike that law down if a challenge reaches them. I'm sure the ACLU is pursuing this.
Now, the much quoted "right" to privacy is a tough one. First, there is no right, as there is a right to free speech. Privacy is not in the bill of rights, nor protected elsewhere. However, in deciding Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113, the Court said there was a "zone of privacy" created by the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. This right extends only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 , 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy (quoted from the Roe v. Wade decision). This means your surfing with the illusion of anonymity is not protected, and launching a DDoS attack most certainly is not.
The constitution is the highest law of the land. Try and understand it before you spout off about it./rant
> According to the WIPO treaty, yes. Which is why the WIPO treaty is unconstitutional.
Actually, no. Check out the constitution again. Article VI states "This Constitution...and all Treaties made...under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land (capitals in original)." Note that it specifically provides for treaties ti supercede US law. It goes on to reaffirm the supremecy of federal over state law, so this person has no recourse under state law. He might have a shot with federal law, but the contradiction of the treaty with US law does not in any way make the enforcement unconstitutional.
Even the proposed standards for the US offer little protection. The "compromise" that big business got with Congress is called opt-out. If you don't want them to use your private data, it's your responsibilty to let them know. They can make it as difficult as they like to do so. One company made you call a long ditsance number (no 800), anothermade you send them snail mail.
The alternative is opt-in, where you have to explicitly give them permission to use your private data. At least this offers the defense that you should have known what you were giving up. It may not be much, but it's a step.
In a world where so much is dependent on information, having the right to review someone's file on you is critical. Remember the story last week about the mistaken identity? This stuff happens. I'd rather that my insurance company triple my rates because someone with the same name has a history of liver disease. Or whatever. Let me choose.
Europe's standards are pretty decent. The ones in the US suck.
Slashdot Mirror
Another constitutional problem. Okay, here we go...
First of all, the amendment related to guns is the second. Next, that amendment does not give you as an individual the right to own or carry a gun. It gives the states power to arm their militia. By law, this means the national guard. No section of the constitution or the US code allows you to form your own militia and claim the right to carry a gun. This view has been consistantly upheld by the Supreme Court, most directly in US v. Miller, 307 US 174. For a more in-depth analysis, see The Politics of Gun Control, Robert J. Spitzer.
The free speech issue is trickier, and I tend to agree with you that it's an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech. The SC has held that unconstitutional for most of the century, and the current court is on a defend-free-speech-and-reduce-the-power-of-Congres s roll, and would likely strike that law down if a challenge reaches them. I'm sure the ACLU is pursuing this.
Now, the much quoted "right" to privacy is a tough one. First, there is no right, as there is a right to free speech. Privacy is not in the bill of rights, nor protected elsewhere. However, in deciding Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113, the Court said there was a "zone of privacy" created by the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. This right extends only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 , 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy (quoted from the Roe v. Wade decision). This means your surfing with the illusion of anonymity is not protected, and launching a DDoS attack most certainly is not.
The constitution is the highest law of the land. Try and understand it before you spout off about it. /rant
> According to the WIPO treaty, yes. Which is why the WIPO treaty is unconstitutional.
Actually, no. Check out the constitution again. Article VI states "This Constitution...and all Treaties made...under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land (capitals in original)." Note that it specifically provides for treaties ti supercede US law. It goes on to reaffirm the supremecy of federal over state law, so this person has no recourse under state law. He might have a shot with federal law, but the contradiction of the treaty with US law does not in any way make the enforcement unconstitutional.
The alternative is opt-in, where you have to explicitly give them permission to use your private data. At least this offers the defense that you should have known what you were giving up. It may not be much, but it's a step.
In a world where so much is dependent on information, having the right to review someone's file on you is critical. Remember the story last week about the mistaken identity? This stuff happens. I'd rather that my insurance company triple my rates because someone with the same name has a history of liver disease. Or whatever. Let me choose.
Europe's standards are pretty decent. The ones in the US suck.