Right to Privicy

Sween · 08-19-2002, 12:42 PM

As we all know we have a right to a certain level of privecy from the police for example. But after the tragic case of jessica and holly should this be upheld. If they could of just gone and searched houses they may still be alive today.

Discuss.

Artanis · 08-19-2002, 01:49 PM

I think the police should be allowed to intrude our privacy in cases like the murders of J and H, if it is beneficial for the investigation. But this right should be restricted to the most serious cases.

In Norway the police is allowed to search houses in certain circumstances. I'm not sure which criteria is used to get a search warrant, but I guess it is used in serious cases like drug dealing, kidnapping, homicides. I think this is all right. A little less privacy is OK if the result is a safer community.

I also think the use of videocams in the streets, shops, taxis etc is OK as long as it is clear to everyone that they're present. And there must be a law regarding storage, use and destruction of the videotapes.

Diaxion · 08-19-2002, 02:04 PM

Well the police have to protect the peace. Although they should only go into people private lives because there is probably cause. IF they go into someones life akcidentily then there should be a penalty.

Rána Eressëa · 08-19-2002, 05:37 PM

Too tough a subject. No one will like my answer.

Comic Book Guy · 08-19-2002, 06:43 PM

Why did you post in this thread when you didn't have anything to contribute Rána Eressëa?

emplynx · 08-19-2002, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Comic Book Guy
Why did you post in this thread when you didn't have anything to contribute Rána Eressëa?

I hate to be rude to authority, but Why did you post in this thread when you didn't have anything to contribute Comic Book Guy? Entmoot has Private Messaging.

BeardofPants · 08-19-2002, 06:59 PM

And to continue: Why did Emp not use the private messaging system to complain to CBG?

I understand that we need a system to protect us, but as it stands, the policing system is far too corrupt.

Last year, our chief commisioner got off on speeding: it broke out in the news and there was an uproar. What happened to him? He got a slap on the hand, and a pay rise.

Also: too many man hours are spent tracking down dope, when it should be re-routed to more serious crimes, like rape, etc.

Sween · 08-19-2002, 07:05 PM

Right we seem to of gone off topic here. jessica and hollys case for those that dont know was 2 young girls were kidnapped some 2 weeks ago and they were pretty sure it was someone local. Any way they had a meeting and said we are going to search all the houses, very soon after 2 bodys turned up dumped in a feild near by and they had not been there long.

What i popouse in a case like this the police should be allowed to do on the spot check on any house they feel like with no prior warning or without any reasonable cause.

Would this be an acceptable price to pay for possiably saving peoples lives and catching there kidnappers.

BeardofPants · 08-19-2002, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sween
Would this be an acceptable price to pay for possiably saving peoples lives and catching there kidnappers.

I'm sure they'd start out with good intentions, but something like this has far too many proponents for abuse of the system.

samwiselvr2008 · 08-19-2002, 07:36 PM

you shouldn't have anything in your house that you would get in trouble for! but anyways, if the polise fill a need to search, i don't know if it is allowed, but they should search, becouse they probally have a resone to!

Comic Book Guy · 08-19-2002, 08:02 PM

The Law for the Protection of People and the State brought in by Germany's President in 1933 that was exploited by Hitler comes to mind.

Rána Eressëa · 08-19-2002, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Comic Book Guy
Why did you post in this thread when you didn't have anything to contribute Rána Eressëa?

To see if anyone was interested in knowing my answer, of course, because I wasn't sure at first whether or not to administrate it.

Personally, I don't agree with law - but, I think privacy laws should remain somehow - at least in mind, if you follow me. People shouldn't be allowed on your property/area of living without you being able to put up a fight and send them away WITHOUT it being a "crime" or unless they have your direct permission. That's just how I feel.

I'm an extremely extremely old-fashioned rules person.

emplynx · 08-19-2002, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rána Eressëa
I'm an extremely extremely old-fashioned rules person.

Just not old fashioned moral rules?

Wayfarer · 08-19-2002, 09:52 PM

Actually, that's not old fasioned at all. Once upon a time, in most places it was considered decent to let people onto your land as long as they behaved themselves.

In fact, I think the protection of privacy idea is a fairly new invention, even in the US. It's more a product of liberalism than any traditional rules.

Rána Eressëa · 08-19-2002, 09:55 PM

Old-fashioned this-is-my-space-and-this-is-my-life-so-stay-the-hello-out-of-it-or-we'll-fight type rules.

Like I've said before, I don't see how a human death is any more important than the death of a cat or mouse or butterfly or elephant, etc. Everyone mourns - humans aren't the only ones. But we uphold our emotions above everthing else, and that really screws things up. It's because of emotions we have laws, and I don't think privacy for one should be treated any different than the way other animals handle it. Either we're all peaceful and live together, or we have our boundaries that no one but friends are allowed to cross. Police and such interrupt those boundaries of privacy, space, and way of living. I simply think that's wrong.

jerseydevil · 08-20-2002, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sween

Would this be an acceptable price to pay for possiably saving peoples lives and catching there kidnappers.

It would go against our Constitution.

Quote:

US Constitution
Amendment 4 -
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.

Allowing the police to just search liked that opens up too many cases of abuse. I would not support it.

Sween · 08-20-2002, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jerseydevil

Allowing the police to just search liked that opens up too many cases of abuse. I would not support it.

Doesnt your constitution also say guns are ok. Maybe you should consider altering a few things.

jerseydevil · 08-20-2002, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sween

Doesnt your constitution also say guns are ok. Maybe you should consider altering a few things.

It doesn't say they're okay. However, we do have a Constitutional right to bear arms, commonly referred to as the Second Amendment. First of all the Constitution isn't that easy to be changed, second I would NOT change it. We only have 26 amendments. 10 of those (the Bill of Rights) were mandated by the states in order for them to be willing to sign the Consitution. Only one cancels out prior amendment (the ending of prohibition), Prohibition was Amendendment 18 and was repealed through Amendment 21.

You eliminate the right to bear arms and the only ones left that carry guns are the criminals. I personally don't have a gun nor would I ever have a gun, I have however shot one.

Sween · 08-21-2002, 05:13 AM

you have to adimit that something that was written over 200 years ago isnt allways valid.

The way i see the right to privacy is like a school trip. On a school trip the teachers allways say you can stay up if you all behave. Unforntally someone allways misbehaves and spoils it for the rest of us. This is like life in many ways. If we could all behave we could all have the right to privacy but some people just wont and spoil it for the rest of us.

I dont think this would be abused how often is there a situation so sever it would require a whole town to be searched?

BeardofPants · 08-21-2002, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sween
I dont think this would be abused how often is there a situation so sever it would require a whole town to be searched?

You want a big brother situation? Sure, the legislation for serving warrants for mass house searches would start out small enough, and then it would escalate. I'm sorry, but I don't think that we should live in a police state. There are just far too many loopholes to wrangle with, and I just don't trust the police that much to give them complete power like that. And this may sound harsh, but instances like this are good population checks. Hominids really are no better than their so-called "lesser" counterparts.

08-19-2002, 12:42 PM	#1
Sween im quite stupid Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Cockermouth Posts: 2,058	Right to Privicy As we all know we have a right to a certain level of privecy from the police for example. But after the tragic case of jessica and holly should this be upheld. If they could of just gone and searched houses they may still be alive today. Discuss. __________________ Yeah god hes ok but i would rather be judged by a sheep than that idiot

08-19-2002, 01:49 PM	#2
Artanis Greatest Elven woman of Aman Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Having way too much fun with Fëanor's 7 Posts: 4,285	I think the police should be allowed to intrude our privacy in cases like the murders of J and H, if it is beneficial for the investigation. But this right should be restricted to the most serious cases. In Norway the police is allowed to search houses in certain circumstances. I'm not sure which criteria is used to get a search warrant, but I guess it is used in serious cases like drug dealing, kidnapping, homicides. I think this is all right. A little less privacy is OK if the result is a safer community. I also think the use of videocams in the streets, shops, taxis etc is OK as long as it is clear to everyone that they're present. And there must be a law regarding storage, use and destruction of the videotapes. __________________ --Life is hard, and then we die.

08-19-2002, 02:04 PM	#3
Diaxion Elven Warrior Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 112	Well the police have to protect the peace. Although they should only go into people private lives because there is probably cause. IF they go into someones life akcidentily then there should be a penalty. __________________ good day

08-19-2002, 06:59 PM	#7
BeardofPants the Shrike Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA <3 Posts: 10,647	And to continue: Why did Emp not use the private messaging system to complain to CBG? I understand that we need a system to protect us, but as it stands, the policing system is far too corrupt. Last year, our chief commisioner got off on speeding: it broke out in the news and there was an uproar. What happened to him? He got a slap on the hand, and a pay rise. Also: too many man hours are spent tracking down dope, when it should be re-routed to more serious crimes, like rape, etc. __________________ "Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords

08-19-2002, 07:05 PM	#8
Sween im quite stupid Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Cockermouth Posts: 2,058	Right we seem to of gone off topic here. jessica and hollys case for those that dont know was 2 young girls were kidnapped some 2 weeks ago and they were pretty sure it was someone local. Any way they had a meeting and said we are going to search all the houses, very soon after 2 bodys turned up dumped in a feild near by and they had not been there long. What i popouse in a case like this the police should be allowed to do on the spot check on any house they feel like with no prior warning or without any reasonable cause. Would this be an acceptable price to pay for possiably saving peoples lives and catching there kidnappers. __________________ Yeah god hes ok but i would rather be judged by a sheep than that idiot

08-19-2002, 05:37 PM	#4
Rána Eressëa The Rogue Elf Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 1,722	Too tough a subject. No one will like my answer.

08-19-2002, 06:43 PM	#5
Comic Book Guy Best Ex-Administrator ever Join Date: May 2001 Location: Ireland Posts: 60,547	Why did you post in this thread when you didn't have anything to contribute Rána Eressëa?

08-19-2002, 07:36 PM	#10
samwiselvr2008 Elf Lord Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Hobbiton Posts: 739	you shouldn't have anything in your house that you would get in trouble for! but anyways, if the polise fill a need to search, i don't know if it is allowed, but they should search, becouse they probally have a resone to! __________________ Jesus loves you! Movie vewing count from the theater: Return of the King:9 Two Towers: 11 Fellowship: 13 FRODO LIVES!

08-19-2002, 08:02 PM	#11
Comic Book Guy Best Ex-Administrator ever Join Date: May 2001 Location: Ireland Posts: 60,547	The Law for the Protection of People and the State brought in by Germany's President in 1933 that was exploited by Hitler comes to mind.

08-19-2002, 09:52 PM	#14
Wayfarer The Insufferable Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 3,333	Actually, that's not old fasioned at all. Once upon a time, in most places it was considered decent to let people onto your land as long as they behaved themselves. In fact, I think the protection of privacy idea is a fairly new invention, even in the US. It's more a product of liberalism than any traditional rules. __________________ Disgraced he may be, yet is not dethroned, and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned

08-19-2002, 09:55 PM	#15
Rána Eressëa The Rogue Elf Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 1,722	Old-fashioned this-is-my-space-and-this-is-my-life-so-stay-the-hello-out-of-it-or-we'll-fight type rules. Like I've said before, I don't see how a human death is any more important than the death of a cat or mouse or butterfly or elephant, etc. Everyone mourns - humans aren't the only ones. But we uphold our emotions above everthing else, and that really screws things up. It's because of emotions we have laws, and I don't think privacy for one should be treated any different than the way other animals handle it. Either we're all peaceful and live together, or we have our boundaries that no one but friends are allowed to cross. Police and such interrupt those boundaries of privacy, space, and way of living. I simply think that's wrong. Last edited by Rána Eressëa : 08-19-2002 at 09:56 PM.

08-21-2002, 05:13 AM	#19
Sween im quite stupid Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Cockermouth Posts: 2,058	you have to adimit that something that was written over 200 years ago isnt allways valid. The way i see the right to privacy is like a school trip. On a school trip the teachers allways say you can stay up if you all behave. Unforntally someone allways misbehaves and spoils it for the rest of us. This is like life in many ways. If we could all behave we could all have the right to privacy but some people just wont and spoil it for the rest of us. I dont think this would be abused how often is there a situation so sever it would require a whole town to be searched? __________________ Yeah god hes ok but i would rather be judged by a sheep than that idiot