It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The "Right" of privacy versus "public safety"

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Living 100 yards from the Canadian border in Washington State and being a trucker that has/does run from Alaska to Florida for around 35 years, I came across an interesting difference between Canadian requirements and U.S. regulations for drug tests.

In the U.S. they are mandatory, both when a company first hires you and on a random basis during your employment. This is for the benefit of highway safety.

In Canada, the drivers are NOT required to do drug tests as this is considered an invasion of privacy....unless the Canadian drivers enter the U,S. then the U.S. regulations apply to them as well.

Most U.S. drivers understand, accept and generally approve of this regulation, after all, their safety is involved as well. Personally, I don't want some company forcing "Black Beauties" on me just to make some obscene schedule, as was the case in the "old days".

Public safety trumps in the U.S.. Privacy in Canada.

An interesting gray area. One that expands to NSA, traffic cameras which can be and are used to track, identify, via facial recognition programs, whether we like it or not. Even the E.P.A. has a Spy Satellite tasked to observe U.S. Businesses for pollution. Supposedly, an illegal act.

The same argument for each side as the drug test issue. Public safety versus Privacy.

Which should trump? When? Can either go too far in gov't's natural need to expand?

It's a coin flip in my mind and if it's fifty-fifty, then I don't have anything to hide and lean to "go for it" and suspect the loud noise against is from those "more likely" to have something to hide than not.

My understanding is prior to the Patriot Act, it was illegal to spy on U.S. citizens by gov't agencies. The way around that was Canada, Great Britain, Australia and the U.S. would spy on each others citizens and provide that data to the governments as requested by the "home nation". At least with the Patriot Act, there was a lip-service oversight which didn't exist previously.

The extreme in the other direction, off the top, was the gay community's withholding HIV info from public records and allowing a promiscuous portion to spread the virus without consequence-on occasion, deliberately- which cost many lives and billions in health costs.

I lean towards public safety, myself, but am unsure where the line should be drawn, if at all.

Thoughts?




posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Safety is an illusion.

These days privacy is also becoming one.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   

corvuscorrax
Safety is an illusion.

These days privacy is also becoming one.


my thoughts exactly. life on planet earth can never be made safe, no matter how many laws you make to the contrary. privacy trumps safety because safety is an illusion.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 

As with anything, capability always exceeds reasonable application. Your boss or the local sheriff could always follow you home and look into your window at night.

The fact that the government or businesses can invade your privacy does not mean that they should or that evidence acquired through criminal invasion of privacy are to be considered legitimate evidence for legal action.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle
 


OK, if safety is an illusion, should we let everyone drive drunk? Stoned? Let road rage sort out traffic disagreements?

No laws? No enforcement?

There is such a thing as increments. A little bit safer...less safe.

Privacy? It's a pretty crowded planet for "complete" privacy....unless your stinking rich...



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


Good point. I guess that's where the supposed legal system steps in.

Probable cause, search warrants. It seems to me there was a balance, of sorts, or at least, the illusion of one in earlier days.

How much does the breakdown of our legal system has allowed the imbalances to get worse in both directions?
edit on 27-9-2013 by nwtrucker because: grammar error



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   

nwtrucker
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle
 


OK, if safety is an illusion, should we let everyone drive drunk? Stoned? Let road rage sort out traffic disagreements?

No laws? No enforcement?

There is such a thing as increments. A little bit safer...less safe.

Privacy? It's a pretty crowded planet for "complete" privacy....unless your stinking rich...


Increments, yes. Canada seems to be on the right side of the privacy increment and USA is looking for any way that it can eradicate it.

Here in America the drug test policy is guilty until proven innocent.

In my opinion no one should have to submit to a drug test unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the person is doing things that they shouldn't while intoxicated.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   

nwtrucker
reply to post by greencmp
 


Good point. I guess that's where the supposed legal system steps in.

Probable cause, search warrants. It seems to me there was a balance, of sorts, or at least, the illusion of one in earlier days.

How much does the breakdown of our legal system has allowed the imbalances to get worse in both directions?
edit on 27-9-2013 by nwtrucker because: grammar error

I think the lawyers remember this all very well and in many cases so do the judges. The problem is that the DOJ is obfuscating the origins of illegally acquired evidence that they delegate out to a variety of prosecutors lest their cases be summarily dismissed having no just cause. Big brother is happening but, technically, still not legally.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


Yep, that makes sense.

It's like a "judicial", pardon the pun. application of the laws. Read that political. Certain laws ignored in certain cases and then applied, often wrongly, in others.

We prosecute a whistle-blower for showing illegal activity by the NSA while at the same time multiple leaks from the White house and others are ignored. "It's only secret/private when we say so" mentality.

"Private"..."Safe"... are these nothing but pedantic concepts that have nothing to do with the real world?

Right up there with "fair"?

Yet, Privacy sets a line in the sand to restrict the enforcers.

All are abused.

Ah, the penny drops!! That's the way it is, always has been.....the solution??...go fishing!



posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Safety is the illusion They use to leverage away personal liberties and free will. The kicker is no one cares enough to putt a stop to it. It would get in the way of their idle distractions.



posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   

nwtrucker
reply to post by greencmp
 


Yep, that makes sense.

It's like a "judicial", pardon the pun. application of the laws. Read that political. Certain laws ignored in certain cases and then applied, often wrongly, in others.

We prosecute a whistle-blower for showing illegal activity by the NSA while at the same time multiple leaks from the White house and others are ignored. "It's only secret/private when we say so" mentality.

"Private"..."Safe"... are these nothing but pedantic concepts that have nothing to do with the real world?

Right up there with "fair"?

Yet, Privacy sets a line in the sand to restrict the enforcers.

All are abused.

Ah, the penny drops!! That's the way it is, always has been.....the solution??...go fishing!


Re-quoting you because you are dead on correct. Judicial officers seem to more frequently be determining when to apply case law to any given set of facts, ignoring cases which would go against the decisions they wish to make. This I believe is rampant. There is an effort amongst law professionals to stop this sort of thing but they cannot do so, as many of these people in positions of judges have already been corrupted. To speak out might destroy their careers and their families livelihood.
edit on 28-9-2013 by ExPostFacto because: spelling



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join