That's a safe and wise assumption, but it's also a retreat from an earlier, less intrusive time.
I'm old enough to remember when you could be fairly confident that your mail wasn't being read, and your phone calls were not being tapped by the government. In fact, back in the 70s, the NSA was raked over the coals by Congress and the FISA law was passed to prohibit arbitrary wiretapping without a warrant.
Your statement is a reminder that those days have passed, and we are now in era where children will grow up believing they have essentially no right to privacy.
I don't see any such right enshrined in the constitution, although the 4th ammendment does cover some, but not all, of what is generally talked about with regards to the 'right to privacy'. Strangely enough, though, my impression is more that the sense of a right to privacy has increased in recent years, not decreased, and that I'm one of the holdouts in my generation that tends to be more dismissive of the 'right to privacy'.
---------- Post added at 10:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:09 PM ----------
Oft-times it seems they have no desire for privacy either. Not sure which is worse. EDIT: If you believe you have no right to privacy, would you desire it anyway?
Yes, but there are places where I expect some degree of privacy, both morally and constitutionally (such as my own home), and places where I don't (such as a mall or public park, a phone line, or the internet).
I suppose you could say that I believe in a right to privacy, but one more limited in what falls under it and where it applies than seems to be popular nowadays.
---------- Post added at 11:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 PM ----------
I'm willing to give up my freedom, as long as it stops
the terrorists.
As long as they aren't searching something I actually own without a warrant, I don't see any 4th ammendment violation (my house, car, computer, flash drives, personal notebooks and papers count. A fiber optic line or internet server doesn't, unless I own the controlling telecom or ISP, and disapprove of the search).
And as long as what they prosecute me for is an actual crime, as opposed to a behavior protected under the constitution (like freedom of religion or speech), my constitutionally guaranteed freedoms haven't been "given up."
For example:
If the government catches me having a phone conversation with Osama bin Laden, and arrests me for it, they have violated my right to freedom of peaceable assembly.
If they catch me having a conversation with Osama, and I offer to help sneak a nuke into LA, and they arrest me, they have not violated any of my rights, since I was giving aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States, which is constitutionally defined as treason (Plus, I cannot say that my conversation with bin Laden was 'peaceable' assembly, since I was plotting to blow something up).
If they catch me offering to sneak a nuke into LA by breaking into my house without a warrant and bugging my phone, they have violated my 4th ammendment rights. They do not violate any of my rights by arresting me for making that offer.
If they have somehow figured out what number Osama is using, and they track all calls coming into the US from that number, or going out of the US to that number, and they catch me offering to sneak a nuke into LA, they have every right to arrest me.
Tracking calls going in and out from my number through the telecoms without breaking into my house is a bit of a grey area. If the telecoms agree to allow them to do it, it's probably constitutional.
