Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frederick Langford who wrote (66798)	2/8/2001 9:48:45 AM
From: Pete Mason	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 122087

Many thanks for posting that, it's always nice to see... At the risk of getting completely off topic, I'd just add two comments: 1) The Fourth Amendment being used as a "right to privacy" as that phrase is understood in the computer age, is a bit of a stretch, IMO. In the first place, it seems by context to be only about the government doing searches--how about private industry?--; in the second place, it says nothing at all about the kind of giant record-keeping which we complain about as invasions of privacy today. I personally think privacy needs to be addressed more exactly, and am unconvinced that what is on the books today is sufficient. As to whether we really have "rights to privacy" as I understand the term, I have to think that we don't, or at least, we have very little. What we should do as a people is decide what we want, and make it a right by writing it into law. What's there in the 4th Amendment doesn't cut it. 2) I love the 9th Amendment. Too bad everyone pretends it doesn't exist. Ditto for the 10th; in fact, even more so! If the founding fathers looked at the US today, they would assume those two amendments had been stricken from the constitution at some point. Just my two cents, -- Pete