Are Laws, Cameras, and Privacy Rights Out of Control?
by Carol Allen Anfinsen(12)AnfinsenArt
Remember as a kid when you taped “keep out” on your bedroom door? You expected and demanded that your request was respected. The only one with authority to override that order was your parents.
Today, keeping people off your property, out of your home and out of your business has become more complicated. Laws currently on the books are being outpaced by the changing times and the new technology. Cameras are everywhere! Enforcement is lax and sometimes non-existent.
For example, we all know that stalking someone is against the law. Even so, stalkers have managed to invade their victim’s homes and take lewd photos of them showering or attending to other intimate bathroom and bedroom activities. Public bathrooms and changing rooms are often wired by those with a perverted sense of morality to provide titillation.
Camera phones have added a whole new dimension to law enforcement and a new wrinkle in the right to privacy arguments. Pictures taken out of context are flashed online and seen by people all over the world. Conclusions are often wrongfully drawn, and innocent people are being hurt. People’s privacy is being invaded at every level.
In many states, cameras are now being used at intersections with high levels of traffic violations or accidents. Many people object to these cameras, especially when they’re caught and ticketed by mail. If you run a red light, aren’t you breaking the law? Yes, there may be extenuating circumstances, but usually these are just excuses. If you get caught breaking the law, does that mean you shoot the messenger?
Security cameras can trap unsuspecting criminals and lead to their arrest:
• Cameras outside a convenience store were responsible for the apprehension of a child molester and murderer in Florida.
• Footage taken at a train station in London was used to capture the alleged Algerian train bomber.
• Security camera footage in a Lima, Peru hotel led to the arrest of the Dutchman Joran Van der Sloot for the murder of Stephany Flores, a young student.
All of these cameras provided evidence after the fact. They did not invade anyone’s privacy nor did they keep anyone safe.
We all want to feel safe and protected in our homes, but desperate times demand desperate measures. A homeowner who had her home burglarized four times finally put security cameras all around her house and yard. The next time she was robbed, she called police and showed them film of the burglary. The Police refused to use the pictures, and she wanted to know why? She called a local TV station and explained her frustration. After her story and the footage were aired, the police became surprisingly cooperative.
None of us want “Big Brother” watching over our every move. Privacy within the walls of our own homes is still protected. But what happens when you turn your sanctuary into a “grow house” filled with marijuana? What happens when a husband abuses his wife or children?
Two stories come to mind: A man had abused his oldest daughter for years, even fathering her first child. As with most victims, the daughter became financially and emotionally dependent on her father and feared leaving him. One day in a rage, he not only beat her into a critical state, but he killed their three month old child. How much are we willing to ignore in order to respect one man’s privacy? When is enough enough?
In another case, authorities had been notified of a terrible stench coming from a neighbor’s home. There were reports of two old sisters living together, neither one well, and of a house overrun with pets. Several complaints were made. It took a year and a half of patient pleadings from the neighbors before authorities were willing to violate those “privacy rights” and investigate that home.
Inside, they found a mentally ill woman who had kept her dead sister inside the home for a year and a half so she could continue collecting her social security checks. The home was inundated with cats, feces, and trash piled to the rafters.
It seems to me that when our right to privacy begins to injure or harm others who live in that home or neighborhood, it becomes our right to protect ourselves. As kids, we were taught: “Your privacy ends where my nose begins.” We were taught to respect other people’s personal space and their property unless those rights infringed on our own.
Years ago, neighborhood watch groups were formed with this principle in mind. “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.” You look after my stuff, my property, my children, and I’ll help look after yours. An alliance built on trust that has reduced crime and made many neighborhoods safer for us and for our children.
When law enforcement and government leaders refuse to protect us for fear of infringing on the rights of law breakers, we have a problem. In those instances, citizens are forced to take the law into their own hands or at the very least, to become proactive.
Case in point: Arizona’s law to protect its citizens states that if you are breaking the law, the authorities have a right to stop you, ask you questions, and ask to see your ID. This is not racial profiling. It is law enforcement. We all receive equal treatment when we speed, commit a crime, drive suspiciously, or are in the wrong place at the wrong time. The citizens of Arizona have been victims for far too long. Why? Because the federal government refuses to do what they were elected to do: enforce Constitutional law and protect our borders.
“Minute Men” were organized for this reason. Under the Constitution, the Government has the responsibility to protect and preserve the rights of its citizens. Elected officials have not only ignored this responsibility, they have refused to fund and provide the necessary resources to do so. The Minute Men simply formed a grass roots effort in order to fill in the gaps.
We cannot depend on either the courts or our government to protect us if they choose to disregard our Constitutional rights. These man-made institutions are made up of men and women burdened by human weaknesses and flaws. Their decisions are often based on their own personal experience, political bias or preference.
God on the other hand is omnipotent (all seeing). He is perfect and looks upon us with compassion, grace, and love. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. (John 3:16-17)
It is God not the government who has given us our rights. The Constitution was created to enforce these inalienable rights that include the right to privacy. The Supreme Court in Roe Vs Wade used this “right to privacy” provision to allow a woman the right to have an abortion. Is it really a privacy issue between a woman and her doctor when her decision effects and disannuls the right to life of an unborn child; a budding human being?
The Constitution also states that every person is allowed the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” So if we label the unborn person a “fetus” and, on that basis, deny them their constitutional right to life does that make it true? The right to privacy is critical and must be respected, discussed and measured carefully.
Laws are important in a civilized society. But the rights of the few should not override those of law-abiding citizens who pay their taxes, live under the protections of the Constitution, and still hold a majority of public opinion. We must not allow the lawless and immoral to corrupt diminish and destroy our country, our neighborhoods, our property, our schools, and our children.
Article submitted Tuesday, June 29, 2010 & read 358 times.
Leave Your Comments:
» left by Mark Parsec(350)(70 days 20 hours ago.)
Hi Carol,Thank you for this article. We are sooo much on the same page.God bless you,MarkRespond to this comment
» left by Carol Allen Anfinsen from Fort Myers, FL (70 days 19 hours ago.)
Honored by your comments, Mark. Thank you so much!
Respond to this comment
» left by Maxi Malone(1) (69 days 23 hours ago.)
We have a president who feels that our Constitution is flawed, that amnesty should be settled before our borders are protected, and women should be given freedom of choice but not the children they carry.Yes, Carol you're right. When elected officials refuse to do their job, than citizens must ban together and protect one another.God bless - MaxiRespond to this comment
» left by Linda DeWitt (69 days 13 hours ago.)
Great article Carole. Did you see the Senator from Cal mocking the minute men and then he went on to state that the Dems wanted to give the illegal alien amnesty so they could vote. The unions are also making their workers do picket lines in Arizona against the bill they are trying to pass, and the union leaders openly state the purpose is to get the illegal aliens amnesty so they can be sure Obama will be voted in for a second term. Many of the union workers are very unhappy about this and also how the union leaders are spending their union money. Hopefully the more people learn of these shenanigans the more it will insure that the November vote will take the control away from the Democrats and make Obama a lame duck.Respond to this comment
» left by Carol Allen Anfinsen from Fort Myers, FL (69 days 12 hours ago.)
I believe that is Senator Stark. Yes I saw and heard his remarks. Amen to what you said. Thanks to both you and Maxi for your wonderful comments. Appreciate you reading the article!
Respond to this comment