Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Right to "Informational Privacy"

  1. #1
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Virginiaplanter posted a link to this SCOTUSBlog entry for the first case listed, but about 3/4 of the page down they cover another case the court took yesterday about "Informational Privacy."

    I wonder if this might have any affect on Stop and Identify laws, or sterile open carry?

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/co...neral-pickets/

    The text of the blog for this case:

    In another case bearing on claims of privacy, the Court Monday added to its decision docket a case involving the broad issue of whether the Constitution protects a “right of informational privacy” — that is, a form of Fifth Amendment protection against government demands for personal information. The Supreme Court mentioned such a right in a 1977 decision, and has seldom mentioned it since. A group of workers employed by California Institute of Technology, and working under contract at Caltech’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory outside of Pasadena, won a court order against some of the government demands for information about their private lives — part of background checks similar to the security reviews that regular federal employees often undergo.

    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration took the issue to the Supreme Court in NASA v. Nelson, et al. (09-530). The petition argued that the lower court ruling not only jeopardizes the government’s authority to get information about contract employees, but also about its capacity even to demand information from its own agencies’ employees. “The ramifications of the decision below are potentially dramatic,” the petition contended.
    TFred

    ETA: More information can be found on this case (prior decisions and briefs) from this page: http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/pe...nce-of-3-5-10/

    Scroll down to National Aeronautics and Space Administration v. Nelson

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    SNIP I wonder if this might have any affect on Stop and Identify laws, or sterile open carry?
    I haven't read the info posted at the links you provided. But, I don't think it will affect things much. The US Supreme Court already approved S & I (stop-and-identify) statutes that meet the criteria the court wanted.

    See Hiibel vs 6th Judicial Court. The court lays out its rationale and so forth forS & Istatutes. Since it basically relates to criminal matters, I kinda doubt the court is going to reverse or modify. Especially since the criteria for S & I statutes are carefully woven into 4A doctrine about reasonable suspicion.

    Hiibel: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZO.html

    See also the cases cited within Hiibel--Kolender v Lawson, and Brown v Texas.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    I took a more careful look, you are probably right... I probably posted too quickly. :?

    The case seems based around questions asked of contractor employees about counseling for drug use.

    It will be interesting to follow in any case.

    TFred


  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Occupied Territory , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    82

    Post imported post

    I quickly skimmed through the petition and I honestly can't see the point. If you want to work for somebody (gov or private), I think that they should be able to do a background check. They weren't even being subjected to an invasive background investigation, it was based on SF-85.

    I've never needed to do an 85, but I've gone through a few SF-86 investigations and those can be a pain in the ass because you generally need to account for 7 years... If you move around a lot you need to keep good records of addresses and "people who knew you".

    I think that there would be a case if the gov was misusing SF-86 for non-sensitive positions, but I just don't see the big deal here.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •