Do YOU have the Constitutional right to record anything your eyes can legally see?

MayCaesar

Suppose you are eating at a restaurant. It is time to pay, and you put your credit card on the table. I, a customer sitting at the next table, pull out my phone, walk up to your table and take a picture of the credit card, with its number, name on it and security code. Do you think that I have committed a transgression?

What is often left out of these discussions is the context. The privacy laws exist for a reason, and there are cases in which privacy is to be respected, and cases in which it is not: the spirit of the law is such that privacy is to be respected when it comes to personal matters, but to not be respected when it comes to matters affecting others - and, as such, each individual case should be treated with what impact privacy considerations have on others in mind.

Me demanding that you do not take a close shot of my credit card does not infringe on any particular personal freedom you have: it is not any more unreasonable than me demanding that you do not stick your nose in my face. There is no reason for you to take a picture of my credit card other than to use it for your purposes and without my permission, hence it is reasonable for the government to prosecute you for doing so if I object and you still do it.
On the other hand, me demanding that you do not take a picture of the metro car in which I happen to sit is unreasonable: there are gazillions of reasons you might have to take that picture that have nothing to do with me or my interest, and my desire to not be on your picture is not enforceable. When riding a metro I should expect that some people might want to take pictures of the car and that I may happen to appear on those pictures. We are talking about purely a public space here; privacy is irrelevant.

This is as far as public spaces go, or private spaces with no explicit rules. The owner of private land should be free to impose any restrictions they want on what others can do on that land. I can request that no one brings any recording equipment into my home, and anyone who is unhappy with that request is free to not enter my home. Me not letting some people in my home because I do not like something about their behavior is completely within my rights and does not infringe on anyone's constitutional freedoms.

jack

MayCaesar said:

Suppose you are eating at a restaurant. It is time to pay, and you put your credit card on the table. I, a customer sitting at the next table, pull out my phone, walk up to your table and take a picture of the credit card, with its number, name on it and security code. Do you think that I have committed a transgression?

Hello May:

A transgression???  Yes..  A violation of law??  No.. This is simple..  You have no expectation of privacy while in public..  If somebody got your data because you didn't guard it, shame on you.  If the institutions you do business with don't guard your privacy, shame on you again for doing business with them..

excon

MayCaesar

@jack

And what aspect of the philosophy of law and the spirit of the Constitution are you basing this assertion on? You certainly have some expectation of privacy within your small personal space, regardless of where you find yourself. If I shove my camera in your face and start taking pictures, it will be considered a legal offense in every legal system in the world. If I start digging in your private documents that happened to lay on the table you are dining at in a restaurant, it will be considered a punishable intrusion. 

You may find, among others, this record to be of interest: https://cyber.harvard.edu/privacy/Privacy_R2d_Torts_Sections.htm

§ 652B Intrusion Upon Seclusion
One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
Comments:
a.  The form of invasion of privacy covered by this Section does not depend upon any publicity given to the person whose interest is invaded or to his affairs. It consists solely of an intentional interference with his interest in solitude or seclusion, either as to his person or as to his private affairs or concerns, of a kind that would be highly offensive to a reasonable man.
b.  The invasion may be by physical intrusion into a place in which the plaintiff has secluded himself, as when the defendant forces his way into the plaintiff's room in a hotel or insists over the plaintiff's objection in entering his home. It may also be by the use of the defendant's senses, with or without mechanical aids, to oversee or overhear the plaintiff's private affairs, as by looking into his upstairs windows with binoculars or tapping his telephone wires. It may be by some other form of investigation or examination into his private concerns, as by opening his private and personal mail, searching his safe or his wallet, examining his private bank account, or compelling him by a forged court order to permit an inspection of his personal documents. The intrusion itself makes the defendant subject to liability, even though there is no publication or other use of any kind of the photograph or information outlined.

Notice the sentence "reasonable person". That is how the Common Law works: rather than having mathematically precise formulations, the reasoning behind the law is explained, and it is up to the court to determine whether the particular circumstances align with that reasoning or not. Someone taking pictures of your credit card without your permission is not doing it just to test his camera: he has (or, at least, is reasonably expected to have) a very particular purpose in mind, a purpose that is in conflict with your property rights.

John_C_87

@MayCaesar

So, this law has been copied written since 1977 § 652B Intrusion Upon Seclusion and not one state has been reprimanded for violations of privacy created by pregnancy abortion legislation in America because it was left up to the interpretation of the court? Even after the Supreme court found that abortion in legislation was found to be Unconstitutionally an invasion of privacy. the reasoning behind the law is explained, and it is up to the court to determine whether the particular circumstances align with that reasoning or not, or a self-incrimination is made by legislators of law. Some FYI what I notice first about the sentence of "reasonable person" is it states "his" as a point of sexism which was unconstitutional when copy written into law. The reason for addressing this issue directly is women have moved for "Equal Rights" between themselves and men and the end result is all that has been achieved is equal wrong. The reason behind American United States Constitution is so law may be written to maintain a speed to trial as an improvement to established justice not as you claim broaden the interpretation of the courts to use law creativity as a 2nd amendment arm brought two bear on the people. This is a person’s effort only to increase the said value of higher education, the higher you are educated the more you can interpret the law on behalf of yourself and others. To summarize, law increases speed to trail and Constitutional right increases quality of truth in laws written to speed the legal process. The major concern is that the quality of the more perfect constitutional right has been abandoned. This is a dereliction of duty. The issue is not if in this time we now have a camera the condition is that editing software has made it easier to change the conditions of truth in recordings made on devices which have existed for without a way to corrupt then readily available.

Do we have a United States Constitutional right to recored anything our eye's can see and ears can hear? Jack I had told you many times it all depends on the way we hold a state of the union with the American Constitutional Preamble. What is clear is the 1st Amendment does not have a introduction of facts as united state in state of the union which makes it possible.

The issue is not if in this time we now have a camera o record information the condition is that editing software has made it easier to change the conditions of truth held on recordings made by devices which have existed without a many ways to corrupt data readily available.

John_C_87

@jack
Before I can aswer in truth I would need to know...... What are the United States we are to preserve in American Constitution?

jack

MayCaesar said:

Notice the sentence "reasonable person". That is how the Common Law works.

Hello again, May:

Nahhh...  Not when interpreting the Constitution..  For example, is it "reasonable" to allow someone to stand on the sidewalk in front of a police station and carry a huge sign that says, F**CK THE COPS??  No, that's not reasonable at all, yet here we are...

Freedom is scary... Deal with it..  When people are free, they might do things you don't like.. They might lop off their private parts; they might get abortions; they might smoke dope; they might take to the streets to demonstrate their unhappiness.. 

Yeah, freedom is scary.. 

excon

PS:  I made the assumption above, that you, like me, BELIEVE people have the right to publicly disparage the police on the street..  You may NOT believe that.   I dunno..

John_C_87

@jack
Not when interpreting the Constitution

A lawyer pays for a license and malpractice insurance along with special instruction by way of law degree to interpret law on behalf of a person, in some limited was a group of people, the American Constitution is looking the more perfection state of the union in the larges of United States, these democracies created by the very connections of law between the people, on behalf of “We the People of United States.” They the council or legal teams are self-alienated and because of their choice also proceed with a high risk of legal malpractice, as their own actions often requires, they break written United States of truth held by those who bind united states constitutional right.

Summarizing, we are arguing the understandings made between Articles of, Sections of, and Amendments to Constitution. They are not all the same thing Jack the focus of grievance is the legal malpractice occurring as ratified Constitutional Amendments are set by the innuendo and assumption of law which is phrased in similar ways as “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” Create an illegal and false fact of interpretation of law rising to the occasion of American Constitutional Right and can push by the lie of congress shall somehow magically have powers to enforce legal malpractice, clearly not an appropriate legislation technique.

The idea that the educational system has a value that supports protection against legal malpractice of law is wrong. It is the type of insurance the lawyers, law firms, and Institutions alike all hold together against their own malpractice which binds the system in check with balances. This is the balanced and honest disclosure and transparency on national debt promised to be made public. 

John_C_87

The idea that the educational system has a value that supports protection against legal malpractice of law is wrong. It is the type of insurance the lawyers, law firms, and Institutions alike all hold together against their own malpractice which binds the system in check with balances. This is the balanced and honest disclosure and transparency on national debt promised to be made public.

That is how the Common Law works: rather than having mathematically precise formulations. 

A lie, is a lie, is a lie.The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but truth being precise formula, that is how the Common law is said to work in its state of unseen, unwitnessed perfection.

Freedom has no cost......There is very little ever scary about fact and truth displayed as no cost a united state of constitutional right. Why else would people walk all over, and ignore truths like a woman as Presadera, there is no cost to women the cost to men negated when they are bound as a democracy together by any equality of such high standard. Only right. Discrimination as the more perfect union has created nothing more a long list of women who now are no better ut equal to the groups of men who had sought financial gain over the protection, preservation, and defense of United States American Constitutional right. In the first place. One hell of the world’s more perfect unions to established justice.

MayCaesar

jack said:

Hello again, May:

Nahhh...  Not when interpreting the Constitution..  For example, is it "reasonable" to allow someone to stand on the sidewalk in front of a police station and carry a huge sign that says, F**CK THE COPS??  No, that's not reasonable at all, yet here we are...

Freedom is scary... Deal with it..  When people are free, they might do things you don't like.. They might lop off their private parts; they might get abortions; they might smoke dope; they might take to the streets to demonstrate their unhappiness.. 

Yeah, freedom is scary.. 

excon

PS:  I made the assumption above, that you, like me, BELIEVE people have the right to publicly disparage the police on the street..  You may NOT believe that.   I dunno..

Why is it not reasonable? Please explain. I also cited an actual legal document, while you just expressed your personal opinion. Which do you think is going to be preferred by the court?

I am not scared of freedom. How I personally wish the legal system worked has nothing to do with how it actually works. If your freedom manifests in denying reality and pretending that the system works differently from how it does, then your freedom is that of a schizophrenic, not a strong independent individual. You are all emotions, like a child who thinks that screaming at his mother is going to cause the ice-cream to magically teleport into his bowl.

jack

MayCaesar said:

Why is it not reasonable? Please explain. I also cited an actual legal document, while you just expressed your personal opinion. Which do you think is going to be preferred by the court?

Hello again, May:

The law is a hierarchy wherein the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.   That's where I get my law.   As an originalist, I believe the WORDS in the Constitution mean exactly what you think they mean..  You, on the other hand, cite something about "seclusion of intrusion". 

You have YOUR beliefs about how society is organized, and I have MINE..  Never the twain shall meet.  Let's just leave it at that.   Seems as though when you're LOSING an argument, you resort to name calling..   I don't respond well to ad hominem attacks.

Have a nice day. 

excon

John_C_87

MayCaesar

Which do you think is going to be preferred by the court. What council preferred does not matter the courts are to addressing a quality towards a state of perfection of a united state of the American constitutional union, and must be able to preserve the truth, the whole truth, nothing but truth so help the GOD which is not religion but fact a tangible property to be guidance, in the legislation of law. Or, must report the law as unfit for legislation or enforcement by Congress or police. MayCaesar. As the court had done in Roe vs Wade in 1973. Please keep in mind it is by legal malpractice congress has addressed itself as an enforcer of law, and it is the legal malpractice that is now in question. It is also a legal malpractice of law which is then described in several constitutional Amendments. Jacks’ frustrations are to be understood for there a clear justified motivation behind them.

19th "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."  18th "The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." 16th "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." 15th "The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." 14th "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." 13th " Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." Six times in six Amendments with six ratifications by the states of American Constitution has the identical thing been documented as a United States Constitutional Right. Is there a point made by human intelligence that can possibly justify the necessity to repeat something six times that should be addressed only once in appropriate legislation? Yes the legilstion was not appropriate is the state of the union address.

How I personally wish the legal system worked has nothing to do with how it actually works. The Constitutional right has everything to do with exactly how the courts do or do not work. Period! Law addresses specifically the speed courts bring matters to trial. We are at the point of looking, Identifying, and correcting errors which have created the noted decline in both the quality and speed the courts work.

John_C_87

@jack
MayCaesar said: Why is it not reasonable? Please explain

 F**CK THE COPS??  A threat of sexual asualt for pleasure is not a American Constitutional right it is a American United State Constitutional Wrong. "We the people in order to form the more perfect union," means we the people are at liberty to perform a task that is specific in its complete nature as a statement added as fact and truth,  A Preamble.

MayCaesar

@jack

Beliefs are tested by reality. Your abstract arguments will not fly in the real American court, while I can cite the exact legal document that the court will accept. If you want to test your belief, then go ahead and spend a day shoving your phone in people's faces and taking pictures - see how far your constitutional arguments take you once you are apprehended.

If you want to "just leave it at that", you should not have created this thread on a debate website. If to you it is just a matter of different beliefs, then there has never been anything to talk about, since nothing I can say and nothing you can say is going to change the status-quo.

jack

MayCaesar said:

@jack

If you want to "just leave it at that", you should not have created this thread on a debate website.

Hello again, M

Nahh..  You're simply a distasteful creature with whom I choose NOT to interact with.  Go pedal your nonsense somewhere else.

excon

John_C_87

How as people we do so regress...........

MayCaesar

jack said:

Hello again, M

Nahh..  You're simply a distasteful creature with whom I choose NOT to interact with.  Go pedal your nonsense somewhere else.

excon

You will have to explain your strategy of following this choice that involves informing me of it, which constitutes interaction with me.

You also are forgetting yourself, boy: this is not your website. I am going to pedal "my nonsense" here relentlessly. What was that saying you were so fond of... "freedom is scary"? Be scared, jack. I am a scary creature indeed!

jack

MayCaesar said:

 Be scared, jack. I am a scary creature indeed!

Hello again, boy:

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha.....  Scary????    You think I should be worried because you're scary??  Du*de!!  The only thing scary about you is your breath... Bwa ha ha ha ha ha....

excon

piloteer

@jack

Other than capturing images of naked children playing at the beach, or something illegal like that, we should have the right to record anything we see legally. 

jack

piloteer said:

@jack

we should have the right to record anything we see legally. 

Hello p:

We HAVE that right. 

excon

John_C_87

The principal situation is what can be now called legally EOD meaning Executive Order Dumb, which for lack of better orders was at one time describing an act of inappropriate legislation of law as FUBAR F#cked-up beyond all recognition being why which is almost the same as or just like SNAFU situation normal all F#ck-up. All this attention because no one has any idea how so much horse manure can become legislation of law with no connection to established justice to be said.

My quote to remember here is "You don't know how civil lawsuits work." At this point what is becoming quickly self-evident is they work with legal prejudice...

Funny thing about Sh!T it never just happens and sometimes it can act just like glue.Wash your hands.......

Barnardot

@jack I reckon you have to think about hear no evil see no evil and if we stick to that that speaks heeps. If you analize why some people go round recording things its for evil reasons or to discredit some one and make money out of it which is wrong. Sure its grate to see videos on you tube of guys getting hit in the nuts by a base ball but even then people just want to watch things that make them feel better at the expense of some body elses bad karma.

John_C_87

@jack

No, we do not have that right to record anything we legally see you are taking that liberty...we can only presume the things we see are legal in the first place until proven guilty in a court of law. As self-evident truth this means then the odds of you being introduced to a court of law increase proportionally to the number of events you recorded. All presumption under the conditions of court availability and public access.

John_C_87

There is a First Amendment made on United States Constitutional right. The 1st Amendment by Article is described as a Bill of Rights and as fact has not been introduced as a American United States Constitutional Right. The change has been ratified and added to the American United States Constitution. Jack the grioevance open for debate by the first Amendment is the introduced fact that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". How is this Statment written fact, truth, whole truth, nothing but truth so help them GOD? It is truth, whole truth, and nothing but truth so help them GOD by United States Constitutional Right as Legilsation is to be ratification by Articles, Sections, and Amenxments into the American Constitution itself. By the process of state Ratification : to approve and sanction formally : CONFIRM

Ratify Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
The States must ratify the law and thus is part by Vote of the process right, wrong, criminal, non-criminal, truth, whole truth, and nothing but truth said in the presence of a principle of GOD which is by fact decriable as not religous. There is no United State law held between GOD and religion there is religous beliefs.