- Joined:
- Jun 19, 2011
- Posts:
- 32,905
- Liked Posts:
- 26,050
A Constitutional Amendment would only limit the government from surveillance, and there is already one there, but isn't followed. Privacy regulations(which wouldn't be part of the Constitution) have been drawn up, and security experts in the security field(most privacy activists) pretty much destroy the idea and how it would work and/or be enforced(mainly because in order to enforce it, everyone would need to give up their privacy, thus why it's not a well thought out idea). Pie in the sky. Although I know many who are against privacy for their reasons are actually in favor of such laws, and there may be a push for it because of them.
Unfortunately like most policies today. We'll see some kind of divide between people who just want to see laws written and those who don't. And instead of focusing on real solutions, we'll get sucked into rooting for shitty solutions. ie: Net Neutrality, the Net Act.
There is not a constitutional amendment directly dealing with privacy, much less digital data regulation. Further, constitutional amendments absolutely would apply to the private sector as well.
In terms of pie in the sky, the people have forced constitutional amendments in the recent past. There absolutely is precedent. The last amendment was ratified in 1992. 1971 before that and 1967 before that.
As far as how it would be enforced, it would be like any other law. The legal language would be leveraged in civil and criminal suits. Why would anyone have to give up all their privacy? It would be like any other legal shift where a few landmark cases would establish the new climate. See Brown v. Board of Education. Also see article 5 of the US constitution.
Seems like you are reaching hard to take a contrarian position here.
If you have an alternative "real solution" I would love to hear it.
Last edited: