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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gnuman who wrote (72771)	2/3/1999 11:20:00 AM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: "Paul Engel, The Constitution clearly does protect the right to privacy. Re: <<Bill of rights Article the sixth [Amendment IV] (of the Constitution) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. >> There are numerous court cases in which the Constitutional right to privacy have been cited. Of interest here may be the case of the State of California vs. The FCC regarding caller-ID issues." Protection against Government intrusion, not intrusion by the private sector. Much like Freedom of Speech, you can be silenced, it's just that the Government can't be the one doing it. EP

To: gnuman who wrote (72771)	2/3/1999 12:25:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Parrott - Re: " The Constitution clearly does protect the right to privacy. <<Bill of rights Article the sixth [Amendment IV] (of the Constitution) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. >>" {==============================} You just proved that the Constitution DOES NOT GUARANTEE any right to privacy - the word PRIVACY IS NOT EVEN MENTIONED. Thanks for confirming this - even though you are confused about the issue. Paul

To: gnuman who wrote (72771)	2/3/1999 2:12:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

<There are numerous court cases in which the Constitutional right to privacy have been cited.> While you may be right, Gene, it is my own humble opinion that the courts have taken such a "constitutional right to privacy" to an extreme. For example, I don't know how the Fourth Amendment can be stretched to protect abortion, but I guess the courts see things in ways that I never imagined. (On a related note, it now seems that the First Amendment doesn't apply to Web sites who publish the names of abortion doctors. Truly these courts have dizzying intellects.) I thought the Fourth Amendment only guards against unwarranted search and seizures. A camera watching a public place is OK, as well as a webmaster collecting e-mail addresses (or processor serial numbers) of those who visit the web site. This is because the web site should be considered a public place. If some program (like an ActiveX control or whatever) surreptitiously collects information on your computer, like the PSN or the system configuration, that's an invasion of privacy because the computer is part of your private domain. If that happens, though, who's fault will it be? The web site who collects the information? Or Intel? Blaming Intel for this thing is like blaming Nike for murder because some teenager killed another in order to steal his Air Jordans. But like I said before, what do I know? The courts may see things very differently ... Tenchusatsu

To: gnuman who wrote (72771)	2/7/1999 7:50:00 AM
From: nihil	Respond to of 186894

The Constitutional protection against unjust entry applies only to the Federal authorities. It doesn't even keep the local sheriff out. That requires extension of the Bill of Rights to the states by Supreme Court action (which is largely done). State legislation and constitutions do provide protection against private violation (under the judicially created "police power" to protect the heath and saftety of the community) and have been held not to vilate the U.S. Constitution.