Not that I can add much useful info, but "Privacy", though not explicitly stated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, is an Implied Right. I did a quick Google search for "federalist papers privacy" (without the quotation marks). This is one link I found:
And here is a lengthy quotation from that article:
Sir William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, on the right of an Englishman to be secure in his home (1763)
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail -- its roof may shake -- the wind may blow through it -- the storm may enter -- the rain may enter -- but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of that ruined tenement.
Pitt's famous comment sums up what until recently many people saw as the heart of privacy, the right to be let alone within one's home, safe from the powers of the government. In America, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution establishes this notion that the people have a right to be safe in their own homes, and it is a notion reinforced by the Third Amendment's command that soldiers shall not be quartered in private residences. The notion of privacy as security from prying, from having one's personal behavior or business displayed in public for all to see and comment on, is the invention of the industrial age. In ancient times, and indeed up to the 18th century, privacy in the sense of solitude, isolation, of space for one's self, was unknown except for the rich or the nobility. Most people lived in small, bare housing, the entire family often sleeping together in one room. Indeed, as a legal concept, "privacy" originally referred to a form of defamation, the appropriation of one's name or picture without that individual's permission.
But as Western society grew wealthier, as a middle class grew with the means to afford larger houses where members of a family could have separate spaces of their own, the meaning of privacy also changed. Now it became a matter of individuality, of people assuming that what they did beyond the arena of public life was no one's business except their own. Neither the government, the media, nor in fact anyone else had any business knowing about their private life.
Privacy, in its modern meaning, is very much related to individuality, and is a right of the person, not of the group or the society. "Without privacy," the political scientist Rhoda Howard has written, "one cannot develop a sense of the human individual as an intrinsically valuable being, abstracted from his or her social role." The opposite is also true: Without a sense of individuality, there can be no perception of a need for privacy. (and further)
The idea of privacy could be found in the political philosophy of John Locke, as well as that of Thomas Jefferson and others of the Founding Fathers. Federalist Papers 10 and 51 laud the idea of privacy, and the liberty embedded in the Constitution was that of liberty from the government. Whatever else it may mean, the Fourth Amendment clearly protects the privacy of the individual in his or her home against unwarranted governmental intrusion. As for the failure to mention privacy by name, it was not the only right that is implicitly rather than explicitly protected, and to make sure that people did not misunderstand, Madison in the Ninth Amendment pointed out that the listing of certain rights did not in any way mean that the people had given up other rights not mentioned. None of which makes any statement "about doing something wrong".
Sadly, kids need skills with Windows, specifically its office applicatons for jobs and the real world(tm) in general. I can't get hired by some places because I've refused to learn how to learn some MS products.
The entire Slashdot article is pretty upsetting, especially the _long_ comment towards the top of the article. But the comment above is the type of comment that is particularly upsetting. "Sadly, kids need..."? If computers are needed in school, then they need to learn about computers and what they can do, in all capacities. They need to learn a little bit about programming, if only to learn the easy and hard parts about it. They need to learn about different kinds of applications: word processors, spreadsheets, editors, formatters....
When I was in school WE DIDN'T HAVE COMPUTERS. We learned how to use typewriters, adding machines, slide rules (heck, I taught my fifth-grade class how to use a sliderule after I had taugh myself!)... And by the time I got out of high school and into college computers were just becoming... interesting. Slide rules are now, for the most part, obsolete. But the people who learned how to use them also learned the concepts _behind_ them. So if you learned to type, you can "keyboard". If you knew different ways to do math, you can use spreadsheets. If you learned how to write well then you can use a word processor. By the time these kids progress two to three grades, the versions of Windows and other operating systems will have changed as many times. By the time they graduate... who knows where computers will be!
God, I make my living using computers and "making them go", but I am so glad that I learned how to learn, and I'm glad I learned how to teach myself what I needed to know!
Slashdot Mirror
Rights of the People: Individual Freedom and the Bill of Rights
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/pr
And here is a lengthy quotation from that article: Sir William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, on the right of an Englishman to be secure in his home (1763)
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail -- its roof may shake -- the wind may blow through it -- the storm may enter -- the rain may enter -- but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of that ruined tenement.
Pitt's famous comment sums up what until recently many people saw as the heart of privacy, the right to be let alone within one's home, safe from the powers of the government. In America, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution establishes this notion that the people have a right to be safe in their own homes, and it is a notion reinforced by the Third Amendment's command that soldiers shall not be quartered in private residences. The notion of privacy as security from prying, from having one's personal behavior or business displayed in public for all to see and comment on, is the invention of the industrial age. In ancient times, and indeed up to the 18th century, privacy in the sense of solitude, isolation, of space for one's self, was unknown except for the rich or the nobility. Most people lived in small, bare housing, the entire family often sleeping together in one room. Indeed, as a legal concept, "privacy" originally referred to a form of defamation, the appropriation of one's name or picture without that individual's permission.
But as Western society grew wealthier, as a middle class grew with the means to afford larger houses where members of a family could have separate spaces of their own, the meaning of privacy also changed. Now it became a matter of individuality, of people assuming that what they did beyond the arena of public life was no one's business except their own. Neither the government, the media, nor in fact anyone else had any business knowing about their private life.
Privacy, in its modern meaning, is very much related to individuality, and is a right of the person, not of the group or the society. "Without privacy," the political scientist Rhoda Howard has written, "one cannot develop a sense of the human individual as an intrinsically valuable being, abstracted from his or her social role." The opposite is also true: Without a sense of individuality, there can be no perception of a need for privacy. (and further) The idea of privacy could be found in the political philosophy of John Locke, as well as that of Thomas Jefferson and others of the Founding Fathers. Federalist Papers 10 and 51 laud the idea of privacy, and the liberty embedded in the Constitution was that of liberty from the government. Whatever else it may mean, the Fourth Amendment clearly protects the privacy of the individual in his or her home against unwarranted governmental intrusion. As for the failure to mention privacy by name, it was not the only right that is implicitly rather than explicitly protected, and to make sure that people did not misunderstand, Madison in the Ninth Amendment pointed out that the listing of certain rights did not in any way mean that the people had given up other rights not mentioned. None of which makes any statement "about doing something wrong".
The entire Slashdot article is pretty upsetting, especially the _long_ comment towards the top of the article. But the comment above is the type of comment that is particularly upsetting. "Sadly, kids need..."? If computers are needed in school, then they need to learn about computers and what they can do, in all capacities. They need to learn a little bit about programming, if only to learn the easy and hard parts about it. They need to learn about different kinds of applications: word processors, spreadsheets, editors, formatters....
When I was in school WE DIDN'T HAVE COMPUTERS. We learned how to use typewriters, adding machines, slide rules (heck, I taught my fifth-grade class how to use a sliderule after I had taugh myself!)... And by the time I got out of high school and into college computers were just becoming... interesting. Slide rules are now, for the most part, obsolete. But the people who learned how to use them also learned the concepts _behind_ them. So if you learned to type, you can "keyboard". If you knew different ways to do math, you can use spreadsheets. If you learned how to write well then you can use a word processor. By the time these kids progress two to three grades, the versions of Windows and other operating systems will have changed as many times. By the time they graduate... who knows where computers will be!
God, I make my living using computers and "making them go", but I am so glad that I learned how to learn, and I'm glad I learned how to teach myself what I needed to know!