In the age-of-tech the underlying argument is based on “capacity”; the premise that technology has expanded to the point that now any and all information is now “open-source.” That the growth in technological (drones, electronic surveillance, etc.) has become so expansive (as to capacity) it is unconscionable to think that it can be contained. That it is now immune or otherwise beyond the 4th Amendment stated prohibitions or more simply stated; technology has opened a capacity for data-capture that was never foreseen by the makers of the 4th Amendment and thus its incalculable capabilities are therefore not subject to or constrained by the presumptions of privacy.
This notion is of course a complete distortion of the prohibitions expressed by the U.S. Constitution, more specifically, the Bill of Rights. The right of/to privacy, it’s domain and what constitutes the same is not granted by the Bill of Rights but expressly, and (by the way) not to the exclusion of any others not so specifically stated, protected against intrusion and specifically states “shall not be violated.”
If the only protection one has against any type of intrusion or imposition is simply based on the “capacity available at the time” (of writing) than any agreement made or prohibition established is at risk for having a life span of a mere instant beyond its making. Particularly when the construct for what constitutes agreement/prohibition is ever-subject to changing conditions, interpretations and impulse. If we are to have a presumption of innocence then it logically follows that the burden of proving ones guilt must also contain the privilege of avoiding self-incrimination.
Perpetual degradation of the Bill of Rights, by the every-thallic and mindless notions of purveyors of temporal convenience who hold to “because I can I may” theologies, is nothing more than a self-destruct mechanism enforced by the impulse-driven will of one against the many. A base filter for articulating and understanding the importance of the native forces in-play here is to grasp the importance of and mechanisms associated with the Ideals of Freedom and Liberty; although you may be Free To Do, you are Not at Liberty to do so in the case where your actions suspend the very same rights of another. Where do you stand?
The following are a select group of responses to questions/comments received after the original article was published. We believe you will find them of interest.
#1: Comment to MP’s post of the Jeff Daniels Monologue from Newsroom
For me what the monologue speaks to is, perhaps, best thought of as or as a part of what I’ll refer to as the convenience-of-apathy (COA) and the silence-of-prohibition (SOP) both of which, if left unchecked, become coconspirators. COA is exactly what the words imply; people find it easier to suspend personal effort and responsibility particularly if they are given-over to the illusion that they have a “right to” some “thing” with no effort or consequence to themselves or others in the process. SOP is the occurrence of or where an outcome or consequence is redefined and thus becomes the accepted norm simply to suite a convenient narrative at the time.
All of this falls under what I think of as the False Premise Simulating Reality; we accept circumstance, whether apathetically or through our silence, ignoring the truth or accepting that consequence is benign or levied on someone else unknown or inconsequential to our individual person. What, for me, this monologue illustrates is the true consequence of the False Premise Simulating Reality having run its course. As Pat has heard me state before remains so; what makes the Declaration of Independence (and the U.S. Constitution that followed) so remarkable is that the kinetic forces of grace that existed then were not impulse-driven or temporal, they are as important today as they were then and will be equally so for our future; though these individuals were of different minds, backgrounds and economic status they still managed to suffer thru and ultimately express a Common Ideal.
Yes, it is easy to call-out the so-called “Rich” or diminutive and incompetent politician of either side of the isle but the fact remains there is nothing wrong with the systems design and the Common Ideal that is its mortar, but more so that our system’s present order is itself a consequence. The outcome of being filtered thru and distorted by the COA and the SOP and I’m certain it is we who are responsible for it all occurring. These are my thoughts.
Curtis C. Greco, Founder