We often hear politicians and civil rights champions such as the ACLU, citing "The individual's right to privacy." This is somehow supposed to be a trump card in the twisted game of bridge called "law." Oh my God... weak-kneed conservatives begin to crumble under the mere suggestion that they might be undermining some God-ordained "Individual right to privacy." But just what the hell is this?
There is really no unconditional right to privacy, just as there are very few other unconditional "rights" expressed in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. These are interpretations invented in the modern era by secular-progressive lawyers arguing for an "anything goes" society.
If you don't believe me, men, next time you are standing at a urinal doing your business, and another guy walks in the bathroom, tell him he is intruding upon your right to privacy and is not allowed to be within viewing distance of your, well, privates. That expression you see come over his face should tell you he agrees with me.
When you go to your doctor's office you'll notice all kinds of aides running around you while you are being examined. Your blood tests and other tests and their results are routinely handled by half a dozen people before they are put in your file. You mean to tell me you expect that no one will look at your test results and whisper "Oh my God, he's got THAT!?" There is no privacy here either. Have you ever been in a hospital? Talk about invading an "individual's right to privacy!" I'm sure there's a bevy of ACLU lawyers trying to make a case for suing all the people who touched you while you were in the emergency room. Privacy? Everyone who touches you and has a license to practice anything, whether or not you needed it, gets to submit a bill for it.
Am I Constitutionally guaranteed a private room in a hospital? Or a private seat on a plane or train or bus? How about a restaurant? Or is the right to privacy conditional upon whether or not I can pay for it?
When you do some banking and the teller has to look up your account on his or her little screen, don't you know that your entire banking records are displayable right then and there? What if the teller looks at your current balance and can't help laughing out loud? Maybe the teller asks the supervisor a question and the supe has to also look at the screen... then looks you up and down and tries not to burst out laughing. Or what if you sold your house and are depositing an eight hundred thousand dollar check? Do you expect the teller to not look up and see who you are? Maybe he or she will look over at the next teller and make a sign with his or her eyes. A sign that, without uttering a word, says "Hey Darlene, check out this dude, man, he's rich." Darlene, who never even paid you any attention, suddenly smiles and in her beady little eyes, you have become a god. Do you expect there will be a pulse of energy at the end of your transaction, whereby, just like in Men In Black, the teller and the supe's memories will be erased? Or your real estate agent's? Or your insurance agent's?
What about when you shop at a supermarket (or most other larger stores now)? They're not just using the scanners to add up product prices. They digitally store your buying patterns which are then correlated to your credit card so somebody up there knows what you like to eat and how much you are willing to spend doing it. What in hell do you think all those "cookies" on the internet are doing with your "private" information?
What about all that nasty info on your license, ladies? Your age. Your weight. Who knows what else is in that code?
No, there is no real right to privacy. You simply expect that your doctor's staff and your bankers and your business partners are descreet professionals who will not burst out laughing or e-mail your info to Matt Drudge. But there is no legal "right" to descreet representatives at your bank or elsewhere. It's less a "right" and more a reasonable "expectation." Just one of the niceties of our decent culture. Descretion.
Likewise, when the President meets with his advisors and Cabinet. Or when any high level meeting occurs. The person who called the meeting expects the participants to adopt the same sense of descretion. But most of the time there is a leak. Oh it doesn't have to be by the participants per se. It could be a low-ranking aide who was enlisted to transcribe or otherwise document the meeting. Has this individual abrogated anyone's right to privacy? Yes, of course. It's illegal to leak confidential information. But it happens every day. Otherwise, the newspapers and internet "news" sites would be devoid of anything to publish.
So, I ask, why is it any different with intercepting international phone conversations between Al Qaida in Pakistan and someone in a mosque in Detroit? Or for that matter between any two people, anywhere? Isn't there an implicit understanding that as long as any conversation monitored is mundane that it will merely be relegated to the dustbin of cyberspace?
Personally, if anyone wants to listen in on my conversations - I've elevated mundane to an art form so I suggest they get themselves a good supply of No-Doze if they do - I say have at it! But then again, I am not so self-important that I feel even my snooze-making conversations are sacrosanct.
I suggest everyone get off their Constitutional high horses and let the NSA do its job. Only witches think there is a witch hunt going on, and no one cares about your insipid cell phone conversations, not even the dope you are calling.
If an intercept can thwart another 9-11 in America, maybe even in the very building you are making your vapid phonecalls from, then I say "Go get 'em Carnivore and The Beast!" Let's let 'em loose and let 'em chew the fat.
