🚀 go-pugleaf

 In <1992Nov13.011516.27463@news.eng.convex.com>
 gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner) writes:

>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?

 The collected body of people who function under The Constitution.


>From whence do
>    its rights issue?

 From the agreements chartered by The Constitution.
 (At least!  Perhaps also common law and unwritten moral law).


>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.

 "Agents of the government" do arrest people *under the authority*
 granted by *social institutions*.


>> 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.

 Well, I'm not really going to get into the semantics of the
 difference between "society" and "the government".  Does "the
 government" enforce law for itself, or does it in some sense
 "stand for" society at large and draw its authority from that
 body?

 The Constitution certainly *does* recognize things which
 we would call "rights" if the government were an individual.
 If semantically these things are not "rights," feel free to
 change my use of the term to whatever you think it should be.
 Changing the term does not change the point:

 Prior to the advent of personal computers and strong cryptography,
 anything beyond what one could remember was, in the end, open to
 examination by society.  As far as I know, this was a traditional
 and accepted basis for much or most of Western society.  Personal
 computers and cryptography have changed the ability of (the agents
 of) society to perform that function, which might challenge the
 relationship between law enforcement and society at large.


>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.

 Well, there seems to be a lot of "fuzzy thinking" going around.

 Consider the wording of The Fourth Amendment:

      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 searched.

 Clearly this protects a "right of the people."  But it *also*
 implicitly recognizes (in my terms) a "right" of government to
 search and seize, provided only that a specific warrant issues
 based on probable cause.

 ---
 Terry Ritter   ritter@cactus.org