Political privacy

People may wish to keep their political viewpoints secret for a variety of reasons - political groupings may be able to commit violence either when successful (using the powers of the state) or when defeated (using their own militias for example). This may be used to punish those who disagree with them. Many people have been tortured or killed for their political views by, for example, dictators, terrorist groups, and often forces linked to democratically elected politicians.

The secret ballot, which is common in democratic elections worldwide, is designed to maintain political privacy to limit any discrimination against people voting according to their political views. Such discrimination does not always target minorities and losers of the election: in many cases, influential minorities (e.g. a group of businessmen) might possibly force the majority (the employees) to vote according to their needs, if the vote were open.

Outing of individuals can be done for several political reasons; either as a negative campaigning tactic designed to lower the outed person's reputation, or by others of a similar sexual orientation who seek openness over privacy.

Privacy is an issue of autonomy, at the Constitutional level in the United States. States are constrained in matters pertaining to privacy by the U.S. Constitution, as well as their own. In 1969 the Supreme Court made the right to privacy explicit in Griswold v Connecticut. The Court found the right to privacy implied in the Constitution in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Constitutional right to privacy continues to be recognized by the courts in accordance with that decision, but only with respect to certain classes of information.

The First Amendment states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The First Amendment's implications for privacy are that people under surveillance are not likely to express views, or go to assemblies or religious meetings of which the agencies of surveillance are likely to disapprove. The Court has ruled that the right to privacy covers the right to read --- unobserved --- material that the federal government finds objectionable. Specifically, in Lamont v Postmaster General the Court stated that "any addressee is likely to feel some inhibition in sending for literature which Federal officials have condemned." The freedom to read is actually the freedom to read without fear of surveillance Cohen, 96. The Court has also found a right to privacy in association and political activities. In addition, the right to privacy covers memberships and personal associations NAACP v Alabama, 1964, confirming the "right of members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others."

The Third Amendment states:

"No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

The Fourth Amendment states:

"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 seized."

Together the Third and Fourth Amendments create a region of privacy -- the home -- a space inviolable by the government except in constrained circumstances. These amendments suggest that what one does in one's own home is not the business of the government. Note that members in the case cited above of the NAACP were found to have not only the First Amendment right to associate, but also the right to "pursue private interest privately," as one might in one's own home.

The Fifth Amendment states:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Just as the government cannot imprison citizens without charge, government cannot require that citizens speak. The implication is that the government has no right to hear all that a person could know and might say, thereby intruding into personal thoughts. As the Fourth Amendment limits the government's right to search papers, the Fifth Amendment denies it the right to search thoughts .

The Ninth Amendment states:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Without the Ninth Amendment, the right to privacy could not be found in the Constitution. Since the Constitution nowhere specifically identifies the right to privacy explicitly. If the Ninth Amendment's did not specify the disposition rights other than those it explicitly mentions, the right to privacy as implied by the other Amendments could not exist.

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

According to Section 1of the Fourteenth Amendment of the rights set forth in the Constitution can be abridged by the States. If the federal government has no right to your home, speech, or papers, neither do the state governments. The rights that together provide privacy from the federal government provide privacy from state and local governments as well. (Sections 2-5 of the Fourteenth Amendment address apportionment of representatives, Civil War disqualification and Civil War debt, and thus are not of interest here.)

The Constitutional right to privacy differs from state civil laws in that it is focused on individual autonomy rather than the communications of others. The right to privacy allows individuals to take certain actions without fear of retribution, rather than prevent the publication of certain types of information as state laws governing privacy do. In fact, privacy rights prohibiting intrusion into seclusion and publication of private information have been limited at the federal level precisely because of the First Amendment's protection of speech rights.

The Supreme Court has determined that there is no constitutional right to privacy or expectation of privacy in financial matters in US v Miller which is NOT the same as there being no statutory right to privacy. Consumer's voluntarily supply financial information to financial institutions, the information is owned by those institutions, and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for such information because by its nature it must be shared in the course of business. Some advocates of privacy rights propose a property law, whereby individuals would be construed to own information about themselves. Thus far property laws have been used primarily to limit privacy by declaring information about one person to be the property of another and not properly subject to the oversight of the subject.

Constitutional protections of privacy have been applied inconsistently. Often a delay extends between the introduction of new technologies and the extension of privacy rights to the users of those technologies. Consider the case of telephony. In 1928 the Supreme Court determined that no person has a right to privacy in telephone conversations (Olmstead v United States, 1928) ruling that recording telephone conversations was not a search under the Fourth Amendment because the conversation left the defendant's home on lines that could not be secured. The Court stated that since the technology was inherently without security, people knowingly sacrificed privacy when they communicated using the telephone. The Court reasoned that telephone correspondents knew that the signals went outside their homes and only the most naive would expect privacy. Olmstead reads: "There was no searching. There was no seizure. The evidence was secured by the use of the sense of hearing and that only. There was no entry of the houses or offices of the defendants. . . . The language of the amendment cannot be extended and expanded to include telephone wires, reaching to the whole world from the defendant's home or office. The intervening wires are not part of his house or office, any more than are the highways along which they are stretched." Brandeis' incomparable dissent rings true today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy