Topic: the erosion of the expectation of privacy over 100 years (Read 15 times)

after coming across a community of activists whom call themselves "1st,2nd,4th amendment auditors" / "public service conduct auditors" and similar groups, i found it interesting how the public perception of privacy differs to that of how these auditors are showing how much freedom they have to do things without permission/consent of others

this lead me down a rabbit hole of research, looking into american law and how court precedence have changed the perception of privacy

TL:DR;
the constitutions 4th amendment "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." is not as strong as it used to be

it seems americans dont de-facto have the right to privacy anywhere/everywhere they go, as much as they think they do

did you know hundreds of years ago just owning unmarked land allowed you to chase a stranger and defend your land even to the death of the stranger whom went onto your land.. however laws changed where it then required marked borders such as bushes or fencing to mark the borders to then define your property which can then be defended, where you were required to first give the stranger a chance to peacefully leave the land.
this later changed whereby if the general public such as postmen, fastfood delivery, neighbours, friends were allowed to enter your land unscheduled/uninvited to knock on your door, then opened up your land to public access with the 'implied right of access', which then meant unsolicited strangers/authorities were also allowed to step onto your land and approach your front door without being de-facto trespassers

then with new laws of "plain view doctrine" anything that can be seen is then searchable, such as a open window or a low build boundary, whereby if a suspicious activity is seen it then gave implied right of access to then invade your property for search and seizure. such as if you left the blinds up or curtains open the authorities can walk upto your house and look into your window and look for evidence. where by if they find evidence of a crime and found a door or window unlocked, they had implied right of access to enter your house and take custody of that evidence (exigent circumstances)

this has also lead to societal changes whereby it used to be the case that if a creep was standing on the public sidewalk recording you through the window, that creep if caught was immediately charged with a crime, however these days due to the onus of you now being required to create your own privacy, unless you have a 6foot privacy fence, and have blinds/curtains,privacy glass in use, the creep now has the freedom to perve into your windows legally

this is because with the invention of security systems/alarms/locks, binds/curtains/privacy fence/windows. it raised the bar of what is considered asserting your right to privacy, meaning by not having the latest security systems/visual deterrents, it allows strangers/authorities access(within reason) without it being considered trespass/intrusion/perversion.
this has even lead to cases where if someone entered your home through a unlocked door, you cant just harm them defending your home. you have to give them the opportunity to exit untouched and ensure that if they dont exit, they need to show intentions to threaten you first before you can defend your property
eg if an intruder was seen in your property and you stabbed them in the back as they were fleeing, you would get charged with murder NOT defending your private property

changes due to technology also apply to other privacy matters
century ago public telegraphy and phone booths had an expectation of privacy whereby it required permission from both caller and recipient to allow a call/telegram to be shared/recorded by third parties/authorities/service provider. however this got eroded too. and in todays technology with the expectation that people need to use vpn's/proxy/tor to create their own privacy, which has raised the bar of expectation of privacy on telephone cables/signals. where by clearnet and unencrypted messaging and calls these days can be intercepted lawfully and legally meaning you have no expectation of privacy on the public internet/telephone systems(your ISP, services your a customer of can gather all data)

with things like the google maps car, teslas, smartphones, selfies, etc. where by camera's in public is becoming normalised.. also with mainstream fearmongering of stranger danger and 'see it report it' people now no longer fight against authorities putting up cameras in public and instead want the security of more public cameras, whereby there is no longer an expectation of privacy in public

with things like AI/face recognition, more privacy is eroded whilst driving, the authorities previously needed to have witnessed a primary crime that can endanger others before they can then stop a car and investigate and find further secondary civil penalties.. however by changing laws, such as where tinted windows became a "security risk" the authorities can now use the plain view doctrine to look inside a cars window even with a camera at the roadside and enforce civil penalties on drivers for use of phones or not wearing a seatbelt while driving, without needing to have first found a primary crime to stop and detain a person to then ask a driver to lower their side window to then investigate other civil secondary penalties.

also there were laws whereby people needed to only show their ID only after the authorities had articulated a reasonable suspicion using facts that a crime was about to, in progress of, or had been committed.. however even these rights of privacy of not requiring to reveal ID have been eroded.
authorities can now use 'wellbeing checks' to evade the need of a warrant to perform searches, of someones property and personal identity
EG just mentioning they feel that the person is not acting right gives authorities the exigent circumstance to gather personal details or perform unwarranted searches/access of someones private life

i do adore these constitutional auditors mission to hold government accountable, however peeling away that mission, to then listen to their spiel/terms  they normalise 'no expectation of privacy in public' and 'onus is on you to create your own privacy' it becomes interesting as to how society has changed over the last couple centuries since the constitution was first wrote. these constitution auditors do at many times use their mission to ensure authorities do not abuse their power, but many times it reveals how authorities powers have escalated and grew over time, even where it was considered unconstitutional compared to centuries ago