Harsh disagree with the comments here, I found this article to be just be dribble honestly. Privacy is not valued as an end itself under the context of the supreme court or the broader legal...
Harsh disagree with the comments here, I found this article to be just be dribble honestly. Privacy is not valued as an end itself under the context of the supreme court or the broader legal system but rather as a way to enforce goals and functions of the state that long predate the recognition of any right to privacy. The right to privacy is enforced when it safeguards who the law wants to safeguard, (the powerful) and it is dismantled when it safeguards who the law doesn't want to safeguard (the unpowerful).
The right to privacy is very much desirable as an end in of itself but we should not conflate the real, actualized goal of privacy with the legal implementation of it in America as it is interpreted by ghoulish conservative judges. They are not the same, the only shared characteristic is the name.
You can't just drop this without explaining why! This is spoken about at length in the article.
Harsh disagree with the comments here, I found this article to be just be dribble honestly.
You can't just drop this without explaining why!
The right to privacy is enforced when it safeguards who the law wants to safeguard, (the powerful) and it is dismantled when it safeguards who the law doesn't want to safeguard (the unpowerful).
yes it's said extensively, but the article devalues the importance of privacy in how exactly it chooses to frame this, which again, I think is a grave mistake and error. A right to privacy is an...
yes it's said extensively, but the article devalues the importance of privacy in how exactly it chooses to frame this, which again, I think is a grave mistake and error. A right to privacy is an inherent good, it is always strictly better to have it than to not have it. My point is that its current legal implementation is not a true, genuine right to privacy. You can't really criticize "right to privacy" as an inherent tool for oppression when it is never consistently applied, and always arbitrarily measured surrounding the context of broader aims.
This is a really fantastic article written by a law professor. When I read it originally it was a "wow I really learned a lot by reading that article" kind of article.
This is a really fantastic article written by a law professor. When I read it originally it was a "wow I really learned a lot by reading that article" kind of article.
I found it kind of a boring read, probably interesting for those interested in the history of the privacy concept in juridical matters. The ending paragraphs do mention something that resembles a...
I found it kind of a boring read, probably interesting for those interested in the history of the privacy concept in juridical matters.
The ending paragraphs do mention something that resembles a position of the author. Namely, privacy is the barrier between state and individual, which more or less protects the autonomy and - in extension of - the freedom of said individual. Which is kind of on point, if we accept the paper reality of the law as an essentialist reality - which it isn’t.
While the article makes sense of the social constructs through which rights are claimed for individuals, in the form of privacy, it seems to omit - or in my boredom I skipped over it - the exceptions of this agreement for those with real power. As opposed to the aforementioned paper reality.
Is it not that if the state always can skip these rights, the second they determined that you are a threat? All this wishy-washy academic term throwing is moot if you consider the patriot act.
Contra: As a law abiding citizen, you should not need to worry about being marked a terrorist etc etc.
Pro: Who decides the marking of potential terrorist activities? The same state that has to protect your privacy.
In an ideal world these are ramblings of a paranoid conspiracy theorist. In the real world you better decide for yourself what privacy really means and how to achieve it, instead of waiting for big brother to construct the NSA-approved variant of privacy for you. With or without theoretical framework regarding the concept.
The New Yorker is generally well regarded, and considered a high quality, high-brow, long-form publication with a pretty solid journalistic reputation. I would hardly call it a "rag" due to one...
The New Yorker is generally well regarded, and considered a high quality, high-brow, long-form publication with a pretty solid journalistic reputation. I would hardly call it a "rag" due to one slightly questionable article.
this is absolutely a stupid nitpick on my part but: the Supreme Court is part of the federal government. It's with help from Congress re: the Patriot Act.
the Supreme court (with quite a bit of help from the federal government in the form of the Patriotic act)
this is absolutely a stupid nitpick on my part but: the Supreme Court is part of the federal government. It's with help from Congress re: the Patriot Act.
Mirror, for those hit by the paywall:
https://archive.ph/R9Jex
Harsh disagree with the comments here, I found this article to be just be dribble honestly. Privacy is not valued as an end itself under the context of the supreme court or the broader legal system but rather as a way to enforce goals and functions of the state that long predate the recognition of any right to privacy. The right to privacy is enforced when it safeguards who the law wants to safeguard, (the powerful) and it is dismantled when it safeguards who the law doesn't want to safeguard (the unpowerful).
The right to privacy is very much desirable as an end in of itself but we should not conflate the real, actualized goal of privacy with the legal implementation of it in America as it is interpreted by ghoulish conservative judges. They are not the same, the only shared characteristic is the name.
You can't just drop this without explaining why!
This is spoken about at length in the article.
yes it's said extensively, but the article devalues the importance of privacy in how exactly it chooses to frame this, which again, I think is a grave mistake and error. A right to privacy is an inherent good, it is always strictly better to have it than to not have it. My point is that its current legal implementation is not a true, genuine right to privacy. You can't really criticize "right to privacy" as an inherent tool for oppression when it is never consistently applied, and always arbitrarily measured surrounding the context of broader aims.
No? of course I can. But I did explain why.
This is a really fantastic article written by a law professor. When I read it originally it was a "wow I really learned a lot by reading that article" kind of article.
I found it kind of a boring read, probably interesting for those interested in the history of the privacy concept in juridical matters.
The ending paragraphs do mention something that resembles a position of the author. Namely, privacy is the barrier between state and individual, which more or less protects the autonomy and - in extension of - the freedom of said individual. Which is kind of on point, if we accept the paper reality of the law as an essentialist reality - which it isn’t.
While the article makes sense of the social constructs through which rights are claimed for individuals, in the form of privacy, it seems to omit - or in my boredom I skipped over it - the exceptions of this agreement for those with real power. As opposed to the aforementioned paper reality.
Is it not that if the state always can skip these rights, the second they determined that you are a threat? All this wishy-washy academic term throwing is moot if you consider the patriot act.
Contra: As a law abiding citizen, you should not need to worry about being marked a terrorist etc etc.
Pro: Who decides the marking of potential terrorist activities? The same state that has to protect your privacy.
In an ideal world these are ramblings of a paranoid conspiracy theorist. In the real world you better decide for yourself what privacy really means and how to achieve it, instead of waiting for big brother to construct the NSA-approved variant of privacy for you. With or without theoretical framework regarding the concept.
Is this the same rag that did a hit-piece on Hasan Minhaj?
The New Yorker is generally well regarded, and considered a high quality, high-brow, long-form publication with a pretty solid journalistic reputation. I would hardly call it a "rag" due to one slightly questionable article.
this is absolutely a stupid nitpick on my part but: the Supreme Court is part of the federal government. It's with help from Congress re: the Patriot Act.