🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov12.205330.23223@cactus.org> ritter@cactus.org (Terry Ritter) writes:
> But does society have the right, *after* due process, to see behind
> any secrecy veil a private citizen may erect?  While a citizen may
> not be compelled to testify against himself, his or her "houses,
> papers, and effects" are only protected from *unreasonable* "search
> and seizure" (that is, without a warrant issued for probable cause).
	What is this "society" you speak so blythely of?  From whence do
	its rights issue?  IMHO only individuals have rights.  When one uses
	the word "society" it is usually a cover for "government authority"
	which is often a cover for whichever group of elites has managed
	to wrest control of the coercive powers of the state.
	"Society" is just a smoke screen here.  Society never arrests people.
	Agents of the government do.  Society never exercises constitional
	rights, individuals do.  


> Since society *did* have an existing right to penetrate secrecy
> (*after* due process) under The Constitution, we would have to
> argue that there is no social need for such access under new
> security technology.
	The constitution gives no rights to society.  It spells out 
	what a group of individuals called the the government can and 
	can't do.  It also tells what rights other individuals (not 
	necessarily part of the government) have when they come in 
	contact with the coercive power of the state.  The raison 
	d'etre of the constitution  (and particularly the bill of rights) is 
	that the government is made up of individuals that have a perfectly
	human tendency to abuse the rights of other individuals.  
	Fuzzy thinking about "society" misses this point and tends to
	minimize the importance of individual rights.
	

>Can anyone believe that no cases will exist under which society will 
>require such access? 
	Society??  More fuzzy thinking.


 
>Thus, is punishment for failure to allow access (*after* due process) 
>somehow not a legitimate law?
	Yes.

> I think it would be easier to argue for legislation setting higher
> standards for warrants than it would be to argue that all personal
> information is ultimately private under all circumstances.
	Recent history has shown that government can and will abuse
	its limits.  It has become way too powerful already and you
	want to give it more power.  Hasn't its power corrupted it enough
	already?  Do you think it needs to be further corrupted?


						smg