Hacker News Reader

Comment by onion2k | Hacker News Reader

privacy is a fundamental right

The problem here is that there's no such thing as a "fundamental right". All we have is government and our legal framework; nothing about what we can or can't do exists outside of that[1]. Philosophers have looked at this many times[2], and none have managed to come up with a satisfactory definition of 'rights' that works. Consequently all we have to work with when it comes to saying what we can do, what we have the 'right' to do, and perhaps more importantly what the government can do, is the law. Really, the problem is that governments are tasked with limiting their own power over us; surrendering power is something that very few people are good at.

[1] There's morals and ethics, but that's what you should do rather than what you can do.

[2] If you're interested, I highly recommend reading about Jeremy Bentham who wrote about the topic more than 200 years ago: http://www.iep.utm.edu/bentham/#SH5b

View on HN

This runs contrary to how modern governments claim the origin of their power (at least the USA). It's largely based on the work done by John Locke in "Two Treatises of Government", as well as other enlightenment thinkers. The theory is that one man has no absolute domain over another in a state of nature because one can always find a way to kill anyone else, even if we have to wait for them to sleep. A social contract is essentially the pooling of your right of self defence and some property, which allows some in society to focus on defence (government), leaving the rest free to participate in social and economic engagements. However, the government can only claim the rights you've consented to handing over (explicitly or tacitly). In the US, we explicitly consented to representatives through elections who ratified the Constitution with that consent. Therefore, every action the federal government takes MUST have foundation in the Constitution. Anything without that foundation is a violation of your rights (eg, Obama can't order a citizen to shine his shoes, because there is no origin of that power in the Constitution).

Are there holes? Sure. But to say that none have come up with a satisfactory definition is subjective, and many would strongly disagree.

I am not interested in, what philosophers say or what the government says, or even what the law books say.

It is just obvious to me, that living together (and that is basically what laws, governments etc. are all about) is only possible and can last, when some fundamentals are respected. One of them is privacy (this becomes more and more obvious in the digital age).

I absolutely agree with you - that's the same society that I want to live in. The notion of 'rights' won't get us that society though. The only way to get there is to elect governments that understand what we want, respect what we want, pass laws to make what we want happen, and ultimately realise that those laws also apply to what the government itself does.

While people believe that they have privacy by virtue of something outside of the law and government, they're never actually going to have privacy.

I think, we think similar.

The problem is, that from time to time, people have to stand up for their rights -- either by voting or by other means -- to change the behavior of governments.

What did Benjamin Franklin write: "Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

That is not only an inheritance for governments but also for all societies that want to be free. Freedom is not something to be inherited or some "virtue" you have by be born in the right country, but something that must be fought for in daily practice ... by everybody. Else, we will loose it. And we in the western countries are at the verge.

John Locke (who hugely influenced Jeremy Bentham) makes a strong case for the existence of certain universal, inalienable natural rights, entirely independent of any particular legal system, government, or culture.

They're not particularly strong arguments unless you are already convinced of the conclusions. "Natural law" (constraints) can be demonstrated to be necessary for societal functioning, but they don't extend to "natural rights". That is, a societal necessity to prohibit unsanctioned killing of its members does not in any way imply a right to life. And the idea that the natural state of humanity is the lone savage is entirely unfounded (and contrary to all evidence dating back as far as we can manage it); it's merely a convenient way to begin an argument that ends up "proving" its own unfounded premises.

> There's morals and ethics, but that's what you should do rather than what you can do.

Ethics is also in the realm of what one can do. Civil disobedience is critical in rejecting tyranny. First comes mental freedom. Then comes knowledge. Then comes action. This is how systems are destroyed, changed, and built anew. It's detrimental to the human mind to stay mentally incapacitated by a particular system's arbitrary framework of laws at a point in time. The extent of a person's thought need not be limited and shall always supersede everything external (e.g. governments).

Fundamental rights don't exist in a tangible sense. I'd agree. However, they're healthy intellectual notions that exist. They compel people to dismantle or change current societal models in ways that demand going beyond the suppression of a "legal" realm.

The founders of the US believed in "fundamental right" read their writings including the Federalist Papers.

Bentham is still around, but sadly mute on the topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham#Death_and_the_Au...

it is not a fundamental right, it is a constitutional right. You can not collect evidence without probable cause.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com