ADF Posted November 15, 2009 Posted November 15, 2009 The 4th Amendment of the US Constitution reads, in part, as follows: [italics]The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.[/italics] The 4th Amendment acts specifically to limit government power. However, its main idea--that having one's privacy violated is an insult to human dignity--is more broadly applicable. Once, this was well understood and respected. But not now. As I read through these threads, I am amazed at how many people--especially young people--have lost all respect for privacy. Theirs or anyone else's. They thinking nothing of snooping through other people's computers, searching their cell phones, reading their journals and diaries, recording their phone calls, or just plain following them around and spying on them. Their attitude is, "if you've got nothing to hide, it shouldn't be a problem." Stalin couldn't have said it better! I think a lot of the blame for this disrespectful attitude comes from the so-called War on Drugs. We've raised a whole generation of young adults on random drug tests, random locker searches, and guilty-until-proven-innocent zero-tolerance polices. Needless to say, these have done nothing to reduce drug use. All they've done is create a generation more socialized to be prisoners (or prison guards) than citizens. How sad.
mark982 Posted November 15, 2009 Posted November 15, 2009 it's starting to get to the point were i'm extremely carefull what i say to even my best friends. christ now you hace people using cell phones to report any little thing they thinks wrong. now i can see it coming. people are gonna flame us saying it's to protect society. give me a f-ing break. but you have to admit gov did a hell of a job brain washing people.
mybrowneyedgirl Posted November 15, 2009 Posted November 15, 2009 while i understand your point, i think the reason that the betrayed spouses on this board do this is to try and give themselves a piece of mind. theyre not stupid, they know if the spouse really wants to cheat and cover themselves they'll find a way to do it. but if checking up on a husband/wife who has strayed gives them some sort of comfort and some sort of peace, then i say let them do it.
JaneInVegas Posted November 15, 2009 Posted November 15, 2009 I've always trusted the man in my life until given a reason not to. After getting burned numerous times, I've become leery of men who say to me, "You're the love of my life, and I want to spend the rest of my life with you!" while at the same time tightly clutching another woman's cell phone number in their hand behind their back. I'm sick of it. Privacy certainly is a sacred thing, and I respect it a lot. However, I respect my right to have a faithful man even more. If he can't hold up his end of it, he deserves to be snooped on. And I have never snooped on a man "just because", I always had probable cause. Maybe that doesn't matter in your opinion. But I don't think anyone should have to go through numerous relationships with a bad, deep gut feeling that something is awry in their relationship. No one is forthcoming about infidelities, so you have 3 choices: live with a bad gut feeling that makes you miserable, or, leave the person (and if you have bad luck with men like I've had, this could happen numerous times in a short period of time) or, snoop and put your mind to ease (or be forced to bail, again ... )
norajane Posted November 15, 2009 Posted November 15, 2009 I think a lot of the blame for this disrespectful attitude comes from the so-called War on Drugs. We've raised a whole generation of young adults on random drug tests, random locker searches, and guilty-until-proven-innocent zero-tolerance polices. Needless to say, these have done nothing to reduce drug use. All they've done is create a generation more socialized to be prisoners (or prison guards) than citizens. How sad.I'd say it likely has far more to do with whether their parents taught them to respect other people's privacy. And it has to do with how commonplace cheating has become. Most people who aren't afraid they are being cheated on, don't think of snooping. They dig for information when something's not feeling right and they know a cheater is likely to lie, lie, lie. However, no one likely taught them that if you have to snoop to get to the truth, then you should forget the snooping and get out of the relationship.
Spark1111 Posted November 15, 2009 Posted November 15, 2009 The Fourth Ammendment was designed to protect the people from government snooping into their private lives! It was designed, like all rights, to prevent the abuse of governmental power. So, I had nothing BUT respect for his privacy, until he abused it. And then I did snoop, without guilt. Similiar to getting a federal judge's permission to wiretap when there has become a preponderance of evidence to support a series of illegal activities that undermine the law. We are innocent until proven guilty.....then we lose these rights, at least during incarceration.
LucreziaBorgia Posted November 15, 2009 Posted November 15, 2009 Privacy and secrecy are two entirely different things. If someone is being secretive (ie: acting significantly different, going out of their way to erase internet history, locking phones when they didn't do it before, leaving the room to take a phone call when they didn't do it before, password protecting their laptop when they didn't do it before, lying about their whereabouts, etc.), then IMO they give up their right to privacy. When they violate trust like that, then their right to privacy comes second to their SO's need to figure out why they are being an asshat all of a sudden and sneaking around and locking everyone out of what they are doing. Now, if someone is snooping with absolutely no reason to and sneaking into their SO's business unprovoked then that is a violation of privacy.
Spark1111 Posted November 15, 2009 Posted November 15, 2009 Privacy and secrecy are two entirely different things. If someone is being secretive (ie: acting significantly different, going out of their way to erase internet history, locking phones when they didn't do it before, leaving the room to take a phone call when they didn't do it before, password protecting their laptop when they didn't do it before, lying about their whereabouts, etc.), then IMO they give up their right to privacy. When they violate trust like that, then their right to privacy comes second to their SO's need to figure out why they are being an asshat all of a sudden and sneaking around and locking everyone out of what they are doing. Now, if someone is snooping with absolutely no reason to and sneaking into their SO's business unprovoked then that is a violation of privacy. Yes, Lucrezia that's exactly what I mean by a preponderance of evidence!!!
bentnotbroken Posted November 15, 2009 Posted November 15, 2009 Since this was posted in the infidelity forum, I would assume the OP is talking about BS doing what it takes to find out the truth. While I understand the rights of the individual against governmental intrusion...what the sam hell does that have to do with a spouse lying to their partner and the partner trying to get the truth? So the vows of marriage are superseded by the law. That law wasn't designed to cover an azz in the event they decided to stick their wick in the wrong well. Or to lie to a spouse when asked directly what is going on? Sheesh, talking about justifications.
imagine Posted November 15, 2009 Posted November 15, 2009 In marriage, two become one. I am saddened that worldwide, each partner does not share more. Think about it: If two businesses were to merge, These companies would share there good and bad points. In life partnerships, the same should happen. There should never be a distinction between two married people unless they are legally obliged to keep info confidential. Then there's your constitution. You read it like a Bible. We have a constitution here in SA that is so good - we get commercial trade because of it. The problem is - it doesn't work. A foreigner described it as a Rolls Royce constitution with a Volkswagen economy. I think he is right. Test my advice: Constitution vs Bible - stay with the Bible.
Author ADF Posted November 16, 2009 Author Posted November 16, 2009 Nonsense. Look, people who snoop always have an excuse for doing so. They always claim they are justified, that they have a good reason. And what's a good reason? What they say a good reason is! You do not forfeit your right to privacy by behaving in a way someone else doesn't like. They have a right to confront you about that behavior, to question you about it. But they cannot go through your private things. But don't take my word for it: ask a lawyer. They'll tell you the same thing.
bentnotbroken Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 Nonsense. Look, people who snoop always have an excuse for doing so. They always claim they are justified, that they have a good reason. And what's a good reason? What they say a good reason is! You do not forfeit your right to privacy by behaving in a way someone else doesn't like. They have a right to confront you about that behavior, to question you about it. But they cannot go through your private things. But don't take my word for it: ask a lawyer. They'll tell you the same thing. Not only did I consult a lawyer, the info I had was used to get what I wanted in the settlement. I don't have problem with a person I married to going through anything I have. Since again, there is a difference in privacy and deceitful behavior. That's like saying a person with kiddie porn shouldn't have their private stash discovered because it's private.
Spark1111 Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 Also, ADF, I think the old adage is true: People with nothing to hide...hide nothing!
Space Ritual Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 The 4th Amendment is only applicable in criminal cases. There are exclusions in any civil matter thus it is non applicable. The 4th amendment deals with illegal searches and seizures by GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES. and not between private citizens.
RedDevil66 Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 I heard that the man who wrote the The 4th Amendment of the US Constitution was cheating........ ;-)
bentnotbroken Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 I heard that the man who wrote the The 4th Amendment of the US Constitution was cheating........ ;-) Now that's funny.:lmao::lmao::lmao:
Owl Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 The solution to this dilemma is simple, ADF. Don't do anything to violate the trust of someone you want to keep in your life if you want to keep your "right to privacy". Or...if you do opt to violate their trust, be prepared to end the relationship or never regain that trust from them again. Its up to you...what's more important...your right to "privacy", or keeping that person in your life and rebuilding their trust in you, after you took steps to destroy it and warrant their need to "snoop"?
2sure Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 The use of discretion is not a constitutional issue. It goes right along with commom sense.
seibert253 Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 Being in LE, I'm well versed on the meaning of Probable Cause, (PC). This is the test used in securing all search and seizure warrants. In my case, when in my mind I established enough PC that something was going on, that's when I served my own "search warrant" on my W.
eddie_d_2000 Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 while i understand your point, i think the reason that the betrayed spouses on this board do this is to try and give themselves a piece of mind. theyre not stupid, they know if the spouse really wants to cheat and cover themselves they'll find a way to do it. but if checking up on a husband/wife who has strayed gives them some sort of comfort and some sort of peace, then i say let them do it. Well, I am a betrayed spouse, and after 3 1/2 months of spying and checking up I can say that it didn't offer me any peace of mind, it made it worse. I decided last Friday that I am done checking up on her, that if something is going to happen again she will find a way to do it and it will rear its ugly head in time. Right now things are great and I am going to go with that, I know I wouldn't like feeling like I am being wiretapped and tracked so I am backing off. I think its impossible to hide an affair and I can read her emotions pretty good now that we are closer, I think that will tell everything if she starts back in again.
mem11363 Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 You should marry someone who feels the same way. I am happily married and trust my wife. And she trusts me. If something weird came up and she wanted to look in my computer - no problem. Same goes the other way. If you need the 4th amendment to protect you from your spouse you either married the wrong person or you are a serious cheater. Nonsense. Look, people who snoop always have an excuse for doing so. They always claim they are justified, that they have a good reason. And what's a good reason? What they say a good reason is! You do not forfeit your right to privacy by behaving in a way someone else doesn't like. They have a right to confront you about that behavior, to question you about it. But they cannot go through your private things. But don't take my word for it: ask a lawyer. They'll tell you the same thing.
Author ADF Posted November 16, 2009 Author Posted November 16, 2009 Not only did I consult a lawyer, the info I had was used to get what I wanted in the settlement. I don't have problem with a person I married to going through anything I have. Since again, there is a difference in privacy and deceitful behavior. That's like saying a person with kiddie porn shouldn't have their private stash discovered because it's private. Marital immunity is a different case, especially if you live in a community property state. And possession of kiddie porn is a crime in itself, therefor privacy laws do not apply. Neither of these examples have anything to do with what I was talking about.
BUENG1 Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 (edited) The 4th Amendment of the US Constitution reads, in part, as follows: [italics]The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.[/italics] The 4th Amendment acts specifically to limit government power. However, its main idea--that having one's privacy violated is an insult to human dignity--is more broadly applicable. Once, this was well understood and respected. But not now. As I read through these threads, I am amazed at how many people--especially young people--have lost all respect for privacy. Theirs or anyone else's. They thinking nothing of snooping through other people's computers, searching their cell phones, reading their journals and diaries, recording their phone calls, or just plain following them around and spying on them. Their attitude is, "if you've got nothing to hide, it shouldn't be a problem." Stalin couldn't have said it better! I think a lot of the blame for this disrespectful attitude comes from the so-called War on Drugs. We've raised a whole generation of young adults on random drug tests, random locker searches, and guilty-until-proven-innocent zero-tolerance polices. Needless to say, these have done nothing to reduce drug use. All they've done is create a generation more socialized to be prisoners (or prison guards) than citizens. How sad. The 4th ammendment doesn't have anything to do with an invasion of privacy being an affront to human dignity. When you go to an airport, you are searched, when you go to a nightclub you are patted down. When you are at work your communication is monitored. You pretty much are required(practically not technically) to give all sorts of information to landlord to secure an apartment. An invasion of privacy isn't some huge violation of human dignity. It's pretty much exactly what the law says it is, a minor criminal offense. None the less your analogy to the 4th amendment is ironically appropriate. For instance if you get a DUI in some states, you will be forced to buy a device that will monitor you sobriety while in your vehicle at all times, and will disable the vehicle if you fail the test. There are many other invasions of privacy that people who commit crimes must tolerate. Edited November 16, 2009 by BUENG1
samspade Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 In a marriage, privacy extends as far as clothing the bathroom door when you take a s h ! tt.
Author ADF Posted November 17, 2009 Author Posted November 17, 2009 Also, ADF, I think the old adage is true: People with nothing to hide...hide nothing! That's how Josef Stalin looked at it. I guess some people just don't understand that taking it upon yourself to violate another's privacy is no better than slapping them in the face. Even if they do no major harm, they are affronts to dignity.
Recommended Posts