Jeff’s suggested constitutional amendment regarding privacy

I was bored one night, and decided to outline everything that I feel should be in a privacy amendment to the US Constitution. Something like this would be a much better step forward for civilization instead of the vote-grabbing empty gesture of our current executive leader.

I figure that if James Madison (NOT Jefferson!) was smart enough to pretty much single-handedly pen the US Constitution, why can't I write a privacy amendment? I think we need one and I think this one is relatively succinct and would ‘harden’ privacy into a well-defined right. But I am not a lawyer, just a mere US citizen who thinks about privacy from a technology standpoint. Maybe someone who is more powerful than me will accidentally find this while researching and decide to make it happen. Probably not, but if I don't post it on the web I KNOW that won't happen. I’d love to hear from lawyers, privacy advocates and constitutional scholars about what they think.

______________________________________________________________

I Privacy Definition

A citizen of the United States of America has the rights to privacy of the body, religion, thought, finance and trade, association, personal deed, movement, property, and of communication. Private information shall be considered to be the property of an individual and is possessed by that individual. No citizen shall be denied equal protection under the law due to private information.

II Disclosure

As private information is considered personal property, an individual has the right to disclose private information belonging to that individual. Identifying personal information that is an inherent physical part of an individual belongs to that individual regardless of any previous claim.

III Transactions, Reuse, and Propagation

A citizen has the right to maintenance of privacy.

The federal government shall and the state governments may enact laws which compel parties that participate in transactions involving private information to maintain a reasonable protection of private information, to maintain the scope of a disclosure, and to avoid use of such information beyond the scope of the original disclosure.

IV Government Duties and Enforcement

If the scope of the disclosure is maintained, the federal government as well as the states' and local governments may require individuals to divulge private information under subpoena, under warrant, for taxation purposes, after due process of law, for military purposes from military personnel, and for census purposes.

The government may also collect information, may use information outside of its scope of disclosure or may require parties to divulge private information about other individuals only under subpoena or under warrant.

Federal, State and Local Governments may refuse licensing of privileges if an individual refuses to disclose pertinent private information.

The Federal Government shall protect and shall not infringe upon these rights.

State and local governments may protect and shall not infringe upon these rights.

The Congress shall have the power to enforce protection of privacy by appropriate legislation.

My Analysis (or why I wrote it a certain way):

By putting privacy into the constitution, it may be “softened” in the future by court decisions (as freedom of speech has been softened for libel and slander).

privacy of the body

• could solve abortion problem. (if no one but you and your doctor know)
• solves medical disclosure (DNA sequence is personal property).
• also kinda fixes the racial and gender discrimination problem.
• Dr.-Patient Confidentiality for Physical stuff.

religion

• Duh! I think this is obviously a non-issue.

thought

• What happens when we have the technology to read minds?
• Obviously, this could be softened in the case of medical/legal diagnosis of "crazy".

• Also strengthens Dr.-Patient Confidentiality for Mental stuff.

finance and trade

• This probably is the most dangerous.. it could end income tax... but then
• Again, a flat sales tax would not infringe upon privacy as it would be anonymous.
• I soften this down at the bottom in the Enforcement section.

association

• No more communist hunts. Oh yeah, and you can cohabitate with whoever you want to. No more sexual preference discrimination.

Personal deed

• You can pick your nose in your own home. But you cannot abuse kids.. (that's not a personal deed).

movement

• You don't need a passport to go from Illinois to Missouri. Neither should it be public information the last 7 addresses that you had. Also, this would prevent those pesky public security cams and satellites from specifically targeting an individual while allowing that technology to exist and to be queried under warrant/subpoena.

property

• Again, maybe a sticking point for property tax.
• It should not be public information that I own a HUMMER, nor should it be public information that I have 17 houses and 12 swimming pools. Similarly the absence of property should be protected.

Communication

• The fact that I called 1-900-eat-taco 75 times last month should not be public information. This also would be where anti-spam and DoNotCall lists would fall.
• A "right of no-contact" may be implied by this.

“equal protection”

• This merely fits with the spirit of the constitution. An example is: if you have a debilitating disease, you should still get a fair trial.

The "property clause"

• would allow for prosecution of a second party's disclosure as theft and copyright violation. Also, it would prevent someone from preemptively copyrighting someone else's DNA/face/fingerprint, etc.

Disclosure

• Coupled with the property clause, this would allow a person to sell their private information or to share it as needed. One could “sell” one’s private info to get a loan or make it public if they are a celebrity. It strengthens the "property clause". Also, please note that it does not forbid a party from compelling another party to disclose information for the reasons of commerce.

Transactions, Reuse and Propagation.

• I tried to write this part as "granting power" to the government to restrict private transactions. It forces the government to make laws which restrict private parties from violating these rights. This is the "Time-To-Live" portion. It says that private information may not be mined or harvested (scope). It also says that you cannot broadcast private information about another person. If such information is disclosed it is ALWAYS disclosed in confidence. It also would prevent someone from re-using information from a previous transaction for a future transaction. But as the constitution does not/cannot address individual behavior, this section requires the Congress to address individual behavior.

Enforcement

• Includes some exceptions which are required for the government to continue to work. These would allow for taxes to continue. They would suspend privacy rights for convicted criminals, and military personnel. Please note, I have a great amount of respect for most of the people in our military, (unless they act like a complete dumbass and fail to follow their own code of ethics and do something totally stupid by taking pictures of that act; the U.S. Military should do it better, cleaner and with more honor than any other force on the planet) but as I believe that military action is the suspension of a nation's principles for the purpose of survival; therefore I am not sure that the principle of privacy should extend to the military. As I am not an expert in these matters, and they are “life or death”, I think it should be left as an open question to be answered by the needs of the military. The constitution should not hamstring the military that defends it. Exceptions would let law enforcement to do their jobs and continue to collect information under warrant or subpoena. Also, data-mining could be done under that "shield".
• "Collected information" is private information that is not gained firsthand (through hearsay, wiretaps, data-mining, etc). Note that "collection" must be done under warrant or subpoena.
• Also a reminder that "license" is not a "right" and that personal information may need to be traded to receive license (you must have insurance to drive your car).