[amyjc]

While driving into school this week I was listening to Diane Rehm on Washington’s NPR radio station. The discussion was regarding the effects of the 2010 U.S. Census that is currently being conducted. This made me think of the rights to privacy that Americans are entitled too. Many Americans were voicing concerns about their right to privacy in regards to the 2010 census. They saw the census 2010 forms as an invasion in privacy in some aspects. For example, there was one question that asked what time a person leaves their house in the morning. The question was asked to find out if any changes need to possibly be made within the transportation department. Although, this is being seen as an intrusion because this information allows another person to know when their house will be vacant during the day. One major concern was the question of a person’s ethnic background. Many Arab Americans were uneasy about answering this because of terrorist attacks that have been committed. If there was to be another terrorist attack, Arab Americans were afraid that the communities in which they live in would be a target by answering this. Should Americans have a constitutionally protected right to privacy? Do they really even have this protected right?

The following is some background information which explains the origins of the right to privacy and its effect on Supreme Court decisions. The right of privacy is defined as the right to be free of government interference in those aspects of one’s personal life that do not affect others. The Constitution addresses the right of privacy in the ninth amendment which states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The right of privacy is another civil liberty which guarantees Americans the fundamental freedoms that together preserve the rights of a free people. Although, when the Constitution was drafted it did not include explicit protection for individual civil liberties. Instead, the civil liberties of Americans were explicitly discussed in the Bill of Rights. The Federalists added a Bill of Rights to the Constitution in the form of ten amendments because the ratification was in danger by Anti-Federalists who opposed this ratification. These ten amendments were approved by the first Congress in 1790. These amendments at first applied only to the national government and not the states which led to the thought of both being possible. It was not until after the Civil War that the meaning of the Bill of Rights changed and applied to all Americans including former slaves. The due process clause allowed further specifications of individual rights by stating in the fourteenth amendment that no state shall infringe upon the liberties of Americans.

And should the right to privacy be voted on by majority opinion? As it states here....

The third and fourth amendment’s all address personal privacy. The third amendment prohibits the quartering of soldiers in homes and the fourth amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. It was not until the 1960s and 1970s when the Court began to recognize more of a need to a person’s right to privacy. This recognition began with the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut which declared the law prohibiting the use of contraceptives unconstitutional. Court rulings have been consistent with the measure of public opinion. For example, the case Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986 showed that a majority believed that homosexual relationships should be outlawed which meant that homosexual behavior was not exempt from state regulation in Georgia. However, in 2001 many Americans favored legalizing homosexual behavior. The case of Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 revisited this issue where Justice Kennedy decided in the majority opinion that homosexual behavior will no longer remain binding precedent. Privacy for individuals extended further when the Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that the right of privacy included the right of abortion in 1973. The ruling of this case gave a woman the right to choose but not all abortions are regulated such as cases involving a minor or after the first trimester of pregnancy. The judicial system tends to favor the majority opinion in terms of right to privacy.

And where do we stop regarding our private rights as individuals with the latest technology and newer issues such as being screened even more carefully in the airports..? As it says here about privacy within technology..

The privacy of individuals has been reduced due to newer technology which has led to crimes such as identity theft. Some want the government to protect personal privacy with new legislation but others fear that the government itself will be the biggest intruder into people’s private lives. For example, more than two million video cameras have been installed in public places. With the increased advanced technology, the Supreme Court has not had time to establish rules which clearly interpret the Constitution in cases involving this information age privacy. Although, the case of Kyllo v. United States in 2001 the Court remains concerned with protecting the privacy of individuals. In this case the Court considered whether police departments could make use of thermal imaging equipment to examine a suspect’s home without a search warrant. Kyllo was suspected of illegally growing marijuana in his home and police used the thermal equipment to check for the hot halide lamps necessary to grow plants indoors. Police argued that the fourth amendment was not violated since they did not enter the home but Kyllo argued his home had been unconstitutionally searched without a warrant. The Court agreed with Kyllo in a five to four opinion citing from the original meaning of the fourth amendment.

[tomder55]

The right to privacy is a construct of a progressive court .Specifically it came from Justice William O. Douglas'(a Roosevelt appointee who stayed on the court well past his time)decision in the 1965 'Griswold v. Connecticut' who found that “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.”

All I have to say to that is HUH?? :confused::confused::

By the dictionary a penumbra is an astronomical term describing the partial shadow in an eclipse or the edge of a sunspot — and it is another way to describe something unclear or uncertain. “Emanation” is a scientific term for gas made from radioactive decay — it also means “an emission.”

His long time ally on the court Justice Hugo Black, in dissent, said that Douglas had turned constitutional law into semantics by replacing the language of actual rights with the phrase “right to privacy.”

“The Court talks about a constitutional 'right of privacy' as though there is some constitutional provision or provisions forbidding any law ever to be passed which might abridge the 'privacy' of individuals. But there is not. There are, of course, guarantees in certain specific constitutional provisions which are designed in part to protect privacy at certain times and places with respect to certain activities.”

For privacy to be a right it would have to be inviolatible and of course that is not the case.'Privacy' being a broad, abstract and ambiguous concept in the eye of the beholder is ill suited as a universal right.

Black continued "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."

This was later expanded from an issue of the right to use condoms and contraceptives ;to a fundamental right to kill babies... all under the guise of "privacy".

It continues to be distorted . In the case of the census ,the Constitution mandates that a census be taken .Where is the line drawn in which questions are reasonable for the government to ask and which ones violate and cross the privacy line ?

[twinkiedooter]

I just hope that you (OP) don't get sent the long census form this time. I basically think that the census is a way for the govt to see just how many rooms or bedrooms your home has so that when the US is formally dissolved they can happily park a few dozen illegal aliens in your home as (gee) after all you don't need 4 bedrooms if it's just you and your spouse and why not take in a few dozen illegals to keep you company?

Remember, the govt is hiring a whole posse of census takers who just may show up at your door regardless if you sent back your completed form or not. And just why would the govt hire a bunch of people to sit around and do nothing (other than the folks in Congress, that is)? My educated guess is to "verify" that your census form was filled out "correctly". Be sure to put down that you have 1 bedroom and live in an area so small that a normal person would get claustrophobia if they visited your home, let alone have a few illegals get "parked" on you by the govt. Trust me, it's going to come down to that.

Just fill it out and send it back and hope that none of those census workers come out and visit you as they will come out and visit you if you do not return their happy form.

As far as privacy is concerned, haven't you figured out that the privacy of the "little" people in America has ceased to exist? Bammy signed in an extension of the Patriot Act. He can dodge any and all inquiries about him and his comings and goings and who he invites to the White House, but heaven forbid you should not answer your census form.

[tomder55]

We took the 'American Community Survey' 4 times over the phone . It was annoying and intrusive . But the Constitution mandates a census so I don't know where the line is drawn over the "privacy" issues. None of the questions asked for account numbers etc so although they got more information than I think is necessary for your typical body count ;I have no issues with the government asking or mandating responses .

My only question is now that I have participated in the ACS will I also have to fill out the 2010 census ? It seems redundant at this point.

[twinkiedooter]

Tom - Unfortunately I don't think those folks reciprocate with any information already gleaned from you. Not that easy to dodge them when you think about it.

[cdad]

Tom - Unfortunately I don't think those folks reciprocate with any information already gleaned from you. Not that easy to dodge them when you think about it.

Its very easy to dodge them if you want. One way is to say you just moved in and then they have to discount you. Another way is to just pay the fine for not answering. That amounts to around $125. I haven't seen mine yet but I did get a letter in the mail saying I should see it soon. I know what's going to happen when I get it.

[paraclete]

So it seems paranoia is alive and well and living in America

[cdad]

So it seems paranoia is alive and well and living in America

Not really because the information gathered can make its way into the public sector and be sold. So its more of a matter of deciding where the line is. All they really need to know is how many live there and how many are minors. That's really all they need to know for planning purposes.

[excon]

Not really because the information gathered can make its way into the public sector and be sold.

Hello dad:

You DO know that Google keeps records of ALL your searches. I don't know about you, but they can tell a LOT about ME by the way I search - certainly a lot more than they can from the census. Google says they won't sell the data. There's no law that tells them they can't. And, no, I didn't read all the teeny weeny small print when I signed up. Did you? Do you trust 'em?

At least there's a law telling the government that they can't disclose your private census data.

excon

[Catsmine]

At least there's a law telling the government that they can't disclose your private census data.

excon

There's a lot of laws telling the Feds what they cannot do. There's even an Amendment to the Constitution (the 10th) telling them they can't do anything they're not specifically authorized to do. Doesn't seem to have slowed them down much.

[cdad]

Hello dad:

You DO know that google keeps records of ALL your searches. I dunno about you, but they can tell a LOT about ME by the way I search - certainly a lot more than they can from the census. Google says they won't sell the data. There's no law that tells them they can't. And, no, I didn't read all the teeny weeny small print when I signed up. Did you? Do you trust 'em?

At least there's a law telling the government that they can't disclose your private census data.

excon

Actually that is only true for some things but not for others. They can release data and they do it all the time. Maybe not all of it but enough to make it a pain if someone wants. As far as Google recording your searches that only goes so far. They can only tell what you have been searching but not who is doing it. Nor do they have your home address etc. Its all IP based.