|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jens 'n' Frens
Idle thoughts of a relatively libertarian Republican in Cambridge, MA, and whomever he invites. Mostly political.
"A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures."
-- Daniel Webster
|
|
|
|
|
|
Friday, March 05, 2004 :::
Dahlia Lithwick writes about a privacy case. The case centers around a Nevada law:Nevada law NRS 171.123 provides that the police "may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime." And that "[a]ny person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer." The defendant claims that "reasonable suspicion" is an unconstitutionally low standard, and that probable cause should be required. Lithwick goes into the case law a bit, and if you're interested in the legal aspects, go read her piece.
I just want to comment on this:
It would be easier to credit the Cato and ACLU arguments [for the defendent] if we didn't already have to hand over our ID to borrow a library book, obtain a credit card, drive a car, rent videos, obtain medical treatment, or get onto a plane. So the stark question then becomes this: Why are you willing to tell everyone but the state who you are? It's a curious sort of privacy that must be protected from nobody except the government. Two important distinctions:- I don't have to rent videos, and I don't have to provide ID to the video store unless I deem it worth giving up my privacy. Alternatively, I could choose to go to a different video store, to which I'm more willing to provide my information. This argument only applies to some of her examples -- in much of the country, the choice not to drive a car is not a practical choice, and forgoing medical treatment is also, often, an undue burden. However,
- To quote Homer Simpson, "you have no idea how big this government is. It goes all the way up to the president!" The government must be allowed enough power to preserve the rule of law. But because it has to be so powerful -- and universally powerful -- it's important that this power be limited where it can be. The more that power gets concentrated, the more likely it is to be used in horribly unpleasant ways.
As it happens, I'm not going to be terribly upset if the courts find (as they have so far) that "reasonable suspicion" is an acceptable standard for a very cursory probe. But in a more abstract sense, it's absolutely the case that some practices are more troubling in the hands of the government.
::: posted by Steven at 8:14 PM
|
|
|
|
