EU steps into digital rights debate

TalkBack 20 of 69:: Next »; « Previous

Thread View
Flat View

Maybe I'm simple minded, but...: ...the word "unreasonable" just leaps out at me. Do you believe that having to show a simple form of ID, especially for some form of protection (perceived or real) to the person asking, is unreasonable? I believe that more people can agree that this is NOT an unreasonable request, than can agree on who should be president.

...secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...

Now, I take it that you (or the rich loon) think that this should extend to "papers" that one would carry to be able , in a manner, to prove their identity. I think this is a misunderstanding of what it actually refers to. Remember that when the bill of rights was written, people certainly didn't carry a DL, or usually carry "papers", that would identify them, as we do today.

What it DOES refer to are one's person, as in the authorities can't just start rifling thru your pockets or body cavities without a damned good reason (probable cause). Personal possesions, maybe a diary, or a novel in progress, IP, or any other documents that you may possess can't be seized or searched through, again without probable cause. Your home and property and "effects", the same applies.

I don't see, even if I strain, any possible way that the intent of the bill of rights was to allow anonimity in any situation other than in ones own private spaces. In public, interacting with others, hanging out in a neighborhood or park or even entrance into a public building (ie court) or private club, you do not have, nor should one expect the right to privacy, but only expect not to have your person violated "unreasonably".

Traditionally, this has meant that an authority figure can not ask for your ID or search your car or your person without "probable cause".

When you say "traditionally", I presume you mean as the law has been applied in the past. I like the way you tossed in "ask for your ID" into a sentence that I would otherwise completely agree with. There are few, if any, previous cases in this country of this type to really judge the ID request. But, even so, you still have the "probable cause" part, which can be a multitude of reasons, usually having to do with public or personal safety (again, whether it's real or perceived), among other reasons. From what I know, judges have "traditionally" sided with the authorities on the issue of a request to produce documents, or ID, or almost ANY "reasonable" request.

Where does it stop becoming trivial and start becoming a police state?

Now you're starting to sound like some of my liberal friends, by leaping from the "reasonable" request of producing ID aaaaaaaaallllll the way to a "police state". I thought you said you were NOT an alarmist or conspiracy theorist?

Having said that though, I am very keen on, and wary of, more and more government interference into our lives. That is why I am a staunch defender of the 2nd ammendment, and it definitely applies to individuals, not the government only. Because if that one goes then the others will fall alot easier.

So with all of that being said, I can NOT agree with what this bozo (rich or not) is trying to do in court. And, give me a break here; The Constitution is trivial? I believe that I have shown that it is this person that is trivial, NOT the constitution as it in no way has anything to do with ID in public.; Posted by: Spoon Jabber Posted on: 02/10/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use