That one is a fairly useless statement without an enumeration. You basically have to prove that they would have thought of it as a right at the time of the statement to make it useful.
The problem you encounter here is that the equivalents at the time to the subject of this article would not have been recognized as areas where you have a "right" to privacy.
For example, if someone is in your home and you share a fact with them, they can share it in whatever way they wish. Basically, anything witnessed by another who is not illegally violating the privacy of your home (with a few exceptions such as things disclosed under attorney client privilege) is usable and shareable by those who witnessed it. This has been true since the point at which that statement was made.
Translating to modern terms, as soon as you share a fact with anyone (with few exceptions), that individual has the right to disclose it. When you buy something at a store, the clerk checking you out is observing and recording what you've purchased. He could tell that to anyone he wants. You have no more right to keep him from telling what he has witnessed than you would have had to keep the general store owner 200 years ago from telling other customers what you purchased.
When you purchase something electronically, there is no difference.
Anything that you do outside of the one guaranteed location of privacy (your home) and even anything you do in your home that is witnessed by someone who you've allowed to witness it is free game. Cameras on public property are unquestionably allowed. You have no "right" to privacy there, only in your home.
What the framers didn't know was that we would someday come up with technology so ubiquitous that EVERYTHING we do that isn't specifically protected could be recorded and, eventually, analyzed as a united whole. The power that could be derived is almost unlimited. It will reach the point of being able to predict what your thoughts on any subject are. Thus, the privacy of our beliefs and thoughts is being violated.
Regrettabky, there is no fundamental right to privacy stated in any of the founding documents of the U.S. Furthermore, business's have thrown a lot of money into keeping it that way to defend their interest in invading our privacy in their marketing practices.
Why the surprise? MS injected $250 million into the Perl/TCL area through ActiveState. Why not support PHP too? Perl is actually now a.Net language that fully integrates with the.Net IDE! PHP doesn't have the syntax flexibility to reach that level, but anything that MS can port from the Unix/Linux world is a plus for them. It makes it easier to swallow that world if you can run all of its software.
Slashdot Mirror
That one is a fairly useless statement without an enumeration. You basically have to prove that they would have thought of it as a right at the time of the statement to make it useful. The problem you encounter here is that the equivalents at the time to the subject of this article would not have been recognized as areas where you have a "right" to privacy. For example, if someone is in your home and you share a fact with them, they can share it in whatever way they wish. Basically, anything witnessed by another who is not illegally violating the privacy of your home (with a few exceptions such as things disclosed under attorney client privilege) is usable and shareable by those who witnessed it. This has been true since the point at which that statement was made. Translating to modern terms, as soon as you share a fact with anyone (with few exceptions), that individual has the right to disclose it. When you buy something at a store, the clerk checking you out is observing and recording what you've purchased. He could tell that to anyone he wants. You have no more right to keep him from telling what he has witnessed than you would have had to keep the general store owner 200 years ago from telling other customers what you purchased. When you purchase something electronically, there is no difference. Anything that you do outside of the one guaranteed location of privacy (your home) and even anything you do in your home that is witnessed by someone who you've allowed to witness it is free game. Cameras on public property are unquestionably allowed. You have no "right" to privacy there, only in your home. What the framers didn't know was that we would someday come up with technology so ubiquitous that EVERYTHING we do that isn't specifically protected could be recorded and, eventually, analyzed as a united whole. The power that could be derived is almost unlimited. It will reach the point of being able to predict what your thoughts on any subject are. Thus, the privacy of our beliefs and thoughts is being violated.
Regrettabky, there is no fundamental right to privacy stated in any of the founding documents of the U.S. Furthermore, business's have thrown a lot of money into keeping it that way to defend their interest in invading our privacy in their marketing practices.
Why the surprise? MS injected $250 million into the Perl/TCL area through ActiveState. Why not support PHP too? Perl is actually now a .Net language that fully integrates with the .Net IDE! PHP doesn't have the syntax flexibility to reach that level, but anything that MS can port from the Unix/Linux world is a plus for them. It makes it easier to swallow that world if you can run all of its software.