Comments on: Intelligence Official: Time To Redefine Privacy

By: Akston

Akston — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:48:04 +0000

“If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”

– George Orwell

By: TanGeng

TanGeng — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:36:05 +0000

Ahhh,

Redefine “reasonable” just like they want to redefine “torture,” redefine “constitutional,” or redefine “checks and balances.” The problem with all these “do-gooders” is that the original definition Constitution is too inflexible for them to bend it to its will.

When the government fully abides by the unyielding letter and spirit of the Constitution, I’ll consider it less of a threat.

By: trumpetbob15

trumpetbob15 — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:50:12 +0000

Doug, that is awesome. I fully agree.

By: Doug Mataconis

Doug Mataconis — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:24:32 +0000

Trumpetbob,

Here’s my thought…..if the government is really nice to me, maybe I’ll let it become a Facebook friend.

Otherwise, leave me alone

By: trumpetbob15

trumpetbob15 — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:07:18 +0000

I think I have a solution for Kerr’s problem. As soon as he lets me stop paying taxes and voluntarily stop giving them information, I will gladly allow them to act like a corporation with the info I do provide. As part of this, I should also add as soon as the government is held to the same standard as corporations, including mandatory financial and control audits, the right of consumers to choose another company, and the right for consumers to sue the corporation, I will gladly see the government as a corporation and consider allowing them to have my info as on Facebook and MySpace. I have a feeling I shouldn’t hold my breath on this one though.

By: KipEsquire

KipEsquire — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:48:57 +0000

The interesting thing about this story is that the Fourth Amendment (we’ll leave aside the Ninth and Fourteenth for now) is the only place in the Bill of Rights that expressly defines (limits?) a personal right to objective rather than absolute standards — no UNREASONABLE searches or seizures. (Compare to the First Amendment: “no law” — period!)

Now, in the rest of the law (e.g., the law of negligence), “reasonable” and “unreasonable” are determined by a hypothetical “typical” or “median” layperson, not by politicians, bureaucrats or even judges. Therefore, the statement by this official (i.e., we need to redefine “reasonable”) is, on its face, hardly absurd.

The problem is that this administration has itself acted so unreasonably in this area of law that we simply cannot trust it to define, or even to abide by others’ definitions, of “the new reasonableness.”