The way libertarians need to talk about privacy

Jacob Sullum says:

We would not trust prosecutors to say what due process is, and we should not trust spies to define the limits of our privacy.

This is the end of a longer article, so we can presume he didn't mean it as a soundbite.  And libertarians are more averse to soundbites than the average bear.  But this is exactly the way we need to frame the debate about the War on Privacy.

Man, Reason is on fire today. 

Share this

Beware, most privacy

Beware, most privacy advocate are often advocating fake rights. Even libertarians, when privacy is concerned often shed their belief. Recent exemples:

- A law passed in California now prevents employer to require that their employee have a RFID surgically implanted.

- There's a fuss about a man being arrested at circuit city for not agreeing to present his receipt and open his bag on exit.

Frequent discussions also center around include keeping information on people, recording them on video in the streets, etc. All of these are actually not agressions and should not be opposed by force.

The only case when privacy is relevant is when coercion is involved, like mandatory wiretapping for phone companies, mandatory ids, etc, but most of the privacy talk is not centered around this.

bogus rights

Have any employers actually wanted to require their employees to have RFIDs implanted, or is this a law designed to avert something that has never happened?
On the Circuit City case, I side with the man--he had no agreement with Circuit City that required him to be subjected to a search of his belongings upon exiting the store. Their options were to make a citizen's arrest for shoplifting (which they had no evidence had occurred and which had not in fact occurred), detain him until police arrived, or let him go. They chose the second option, and then he ended up being charged with an unrelated offense when he refused to provide his driver's license to the arresting officer (which he was also not legally required to do in his state, according to some accounts I've read). What's the bogus right you think is being claimed here? A right not to be searched by the store upon leaving? I'd say that he does, in fact, have such a liberty right in virtue of the fact that the store has no right to search him without consent, at least in the absence of evidence of shoplifting. (IANAL)

I think there's an implicit

I think there's an implicit contract here. When you enter the store you understand that they can ask you to open your bag and present your receipt. If you don't like that you're free to discuss it with management before you enter the store.

I think the guy was trying to make a point about positive law. The law probably prevents the store for asking people to waive their right not to be searched, it doesn't mean they can't. The right not to be searched while leaving a store is bogus because it assumes the "law" stepped in to invalidate the implicit contract happening when you enter the store.

there's no implicit contract

"I think there's an implicit contract here. When you enter the store you
understand that they can ask you to open your bag and present your
receipt. If you don't like that you're free to discuss it with
management before you enter the store."

I disagree, I have no such understanding or agreement with any store unless I make one explicitly. When I purchase something from the store, it becomes my property, not theirs, and I make no agreement to allow the store to search my property. If the store doesn't like that, they are free to require me to sign a membership agreement before I'm permitted to shop there--like the one I have with Costco--which gives them that right.

You've got it backwards here.

I don't know if you are

I don't know if you are arguing against the existent of an implicit contract in this specific case (which is something a tribunal would typically try to discover) or against the existent of implicit contracts in general. When you order food in a restaurant, you implicitely agree to pay for the food, and the restaurant implicitely guarantees that the food is no rotten. This contract exists because "restaurant" is displayed on the outside, and this is what restaurants do. You don't have to physically "sign" a contract for it to be valid. Notice that when signing a contract there is also inevitably and implicit agreement that the meaning of the words in the contract is the usual meaning.

I consider putting a guard outside of a store indication enough that searches are conducted and that I should leave immediately if I don't want to be subject to searches. Other people may feel differently, a simple written warning at the door should do but I suspect that'd be illegal.

Implicit concent?

I think we should be careful before we rely on implicit consent. I'm not saying its not the appropriate concept to apply in some situations, but it can easily be abused.
Specifically in this case I don't think there is any such consent, except perhaps if there was a sign saying that people are subject to search (and if there is than you could question whether or not its implicit or explicit)
I wonder exactly how the law deals with resisting citizens arrest, both when the person is actually guilty of a crime and when he isn't. If there is no reason to think the person is guilty than the citizen's arrest is bogus and is effectively abduction, but what about when the person is innocent (or can't be proved guilty) but "a reasonable person" would think they are guilty. If the guard tries to "arrest" this person, and is knocked out in the attempt are they going to charge the alleged perp with assault even if he is innocent of shoplifting or any other crime? I'm not talking about the guard saying "come with me please" and than immediately being pummeled. That's obviously at least an escalation of if not an initiation of force. But what if the guard uses force first, or is preparing to do so, when the person he wants to detain attacks?

BTW - My reply was meant to be a reply to this comment not a reply to the post