We have HIPPA to protect our medical information privacy, but this is weak. And it does not protect our DNA information from use by our gov't. (Some uses are legitimate.)
I'll assume with your idealistic reasoning that you are a teenager, but that's no excuse; teenagers need privacy to discover their own consciousness.
Library Company of Philadelphia
I am for the second option. As much as I don't want people seeing videos of me peeing on the Internet, it's preferable to death. How can anyone say that we have the right to endanger millions of people simply because the alternative is change? Is the inconvenience of learning to live in a different way that important? Life is all about change. We have to adapt to our new environment; standing firm and demanding that the status quo remain undisturbed is a silly conservative idea that will not, can not, work. We have to evolve beyond our fears of exposing our secrets or quirks, beyond being ashamed of natural functions, beyong being afraid of being judged or criticized. We have to embrace our humanity, the good as well as the bad, and proudly show it to the world. And we have to create a government that will not abuse the data about us. But we have to be watched: for our own safety, for our children's future, for the future of our civilization and race. The stakes are just too high.
Some problem do not have a technological solution, I'm afraid.
I'm waiting for the guy who tries to smuggle a bomb in the lining of his underwear or hides a pipe bomb in a bodily cavity so we all have to get strip searched before we can board the plane.
I dunno, Eugene Stoner came up with some pretty cool technology ...
the shoe bomber failed because some alert passenger noticed what he was up to and stopped him. The security measures Bruce advocates worked in this instance.
Alternatively, Who Will Watch The Watchmen?
I must also point out that adding a constitutional amendment would have no effect. There are in fact provisions in the US Constitution and amendments which restrict the federal government from doing anything not explicitly authorized and there is certainly no authorization for welfare or Social Security or the creation of PBS, or even for the regulation of airwaves or food and drugs. The US Constitution also provides that the " right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" and yet there are many federal laws which do infringe that right. The problem is, of course, that the US no longer has a written constitution any more than do the British. The Courts have taken the position that the written constitution is not in fact the supreme law of the land, as provided for in that very same Constitution, but that the legislature may pass laws which violate the Constitution so long as that legislation meets certain and varying tests.
That is a great article. Thanks Bruce.
Personally, I never would have expected that the US gov't had a right to maintain a database of my private calling activity unless I was suspected of a crime.
Might be worth a visit here to find out:
I want to beileve you, but i dont think you have made your case. The substantive part of the argument is "Since 9/11, approximately three things have potentially improved airline security: reinforcing the cockpit doors, passengers realizing they have to fight back and -- possibly -- sky marshals."