A snag in the "be let alone" doctrine is citizens of a country have a duty to interact with the government that doesn't allow a person to just be let alone when he wants. When necessity demands that a person divulge personal information, does all privacy then disappear? I think it should not. Privacy can't be viewed as a binary option. It also has to be seen not only as a limit on what can or cannot be seen, but an obligation on the part of the receiver of information not to abuse the privilege they have been granted.
But traditional law hasn't led to this conclusion. It sees privacy as an effect of location. Can a thing be seen, heard, or touched directly at the time and place that it exists? I think this is an outdated concept that is difficult to apply to an age of widespread communication and long-term information storage. I think privacy should be seen as an inherent property of a thing that doesn't change as it changes hands. My personal information is still my personal information no matter who knows it. The difference between what is private and what is public is the expectation I have when I share it with someone else.
So if I volunteer information unasked, there should be little expectation of privacy for what I say. However if I am compelled to give my name and address in order to receive a service, the default assumption should be that I want that service alone and no one not required to know it for that purpose should be privy to the knowledge.
It becomes more critical when dealing with legal obligations. The right against self-incrimination applies so if I am required to give personal information by some law, it should not then be used as evidence in a criminal investigation. But that's what happens in the current environment where information you're required to give the government gets entered in the public record with no expectation of privacy and is subject to be queried by law enforcement at any time. It forces a situation where in order to fully exercise your right to remain silent against self-incrimination, you have to live as a hermit avoiding all contact with the government.
Actually, I think there is a bit of common law that applies: the idea of trespass. An unlocked door is not an invitation to entry. Why should an unencrypted message be treated as an invitation to read? Yes, I realize that would reverse the geek-friendly precedent that anything broadcast on radio waves is free to listen to. But that's the libertarian's dilemma: an enforcement of one person's freedom may infringe upon another person's freedom.
I think the benefits of increased security for communications can outweigh the restrictions on radio scanners. We're already partly limited anyway because of copyright and electronic eavesdropping laws. Though I'd feel less trepidatious if our government didn't have a habit of outlawing tools that could be used to commit a crime as an alternative to actually enforcing the crime.
But traditional law hasn't led to this conclusion. It sees privacy as an effect of location. Can a thing be seen, heard, or touched directly at the time and place that it exists? I think this is an outdated concept that is difficult to apply to an age of widespread communication and long-term information storage. I think privacy should be seen as an inherent property of a thing that doesn't change as it changes hands. My personal information is still my personal information no matter who knows it. The difference between what is private and what is public is the expectation I have when I share it with someone else.
So if I volunteer information unasked, there should be little expectation of privacy for what I say. However if I am compelled to give my name and address in order to receive a service, the default assumption should be that I want that service alone and no one not required to know it for that purpose should be privy to the knowledge.
It becomes more critical when dealing with legal obligations. The right against self-incrimination applies so if I am required to give personal information by some law, it should not then be used as evidence in a criminal investigation. But that's what happens in the current environment where information you're required to give the government gets entered in the public record with no expectation of privacy and is subject to be queried by law enforcement at any time. It forces a situation where in order to fully exercise your right to remain silent against self-incrimination, you have to live as a hermit avoiding all contact with the government.
Actually, I think there is a bit of common law that applies: the idea of trespass. An unlocked door is not an invitation to entry. Why should an unencrypted message be treated as an invitation to read? Yes, I realize that would reverse the geek-friendly precedent that anything broadcast on radio waves is free to listen to. But that's the libertarian's dilemma: an enforcement of one person's freedom may infringe upon another person's freedom.
I think the benefits of increased security for communications can outweigh the restrictions on radio scanners. We're already partly limited anyway because of copyright and electronic eavesdropping laws. Though I'd feel less trepidatious if our government didn't have a habit of outlawing tools that could be used to commit a crime as an alternative to actually enforcing the crime.