Podcasts about right to privacy

The Catechism sets up a pair of definitions for us that, at first glance, appear circular, but upon close examination, reveal profound interdependence: “The good of each individual is necessarily related to the common good, which in turn can be defined only in reference to the human person.” Fr. Mike uses a fascinating thought experiment to illustrate where the common good originates: you. Today's readings are Catechism paragraphs 1905-1912. This episode has been found to be in conformity with the Catechism by the Institute on the Catechism, under the Subcommittee on the Catechism, USCCB. For the complete reading plan, visit ascensionpress.com/ciy Please note: The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains adult themes that may not be suitable for children - parental discretion is advised.

9 - 5-24 DO KIDS HAVE A RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND WHAT ARE THE LIMITS by Maine's Coast 93.1

Crefovi's live webinar took place on Friday 30 August 2024 at 14:00pm London time (UK), and will provide a detailed analysis of the legal saga Naomi Campbell v MGN Ltd, which contributed to the recognition to the right of privacy in the UK. You haven't yet secured your free place for our upcoming webinar on privacy law & the entertainment industry? Here is your chance to join Annabelle Gauberti on Friday 30 August 2024, 14:00pm London time (UK) as she explores the impact from the legal saga Naomi Campbell v MGN Ltd on the right of privacy, and the freedom of expression, in the UK. In this webinar, our expert speaker will discuss: 1. The facts 2. The legal proceedings 3. Naomi Campbell v MGN Ltd: strengthening the right to privacy in the UK, to the detriment of unbridled freedom of expression by the media Check the written version of our thought leadership content on https://crefovi.com/articles/naomi-campbell-v-mgn-ltd/ and https://crefovi.fr/articles/naomi-campbell-contre-mgn-ltd/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares, "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation." It's a right with profound implications for our lives in the 21st century, from digital surveillance to sexuality and autonomy. How can we protect ourselves?

 Today, Hunter is joined by University of Utah law Professor, Matthew Tokson, to discuss his most recent law review article The Reality of the Good Faith Exception. For those unfamiliar with it, the good faith exception is a way that the courts have side stepped unconstitutional actions by police and prosecutors. Specifically, if a cop executes a search, but it later turns out that it was based on an illegal warrant, that will not matter so long as the officer acted in good faith. How can we so easily excuse violations of the Constitution and what does it mean for our right to privacy? The answers to those questions and more are found on this episode!   Guests: Matthew Tokson, Professor of Law, University of Utah   Resources: US v Leon https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/468/897/ The Reality of the Good Faith Exception Article https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4414248   Contact Hunter Parnell:                                 Publicdefenseless@gmail.com  Instagram @PublicDefenselessPodcast Twitter                                                                 @PDefenselessPod www.publicdefenseless.com  Subscribe to the Patron www.patreon.com/PublicDefenselessPodcast  Donate on PayPal https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=5KW7WMJWEXTAJ Donate on Stripe https://donate.stripe.com/7sI01tb2v3dwaM8cMN  

This episode explores the landmark Dobbs decision on its two-year anniversary, overturning Roe v. Wade. Hosts John Gerardi and Jonathan Keller dive into the history of abortion law in America, from pre-Roe state regulations to the reasoning behind Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood. They break down the legal arguments in the Dobbs decision and discuss its impact on the current political landscape surrounding abortion rights. The hosts also touch on the challenges facing the pro-life movement post-Dobbs and the shifting stance of some political figures on the issue. Show Notes: Introduction to Roe v. Wade and its impact (2:45) Discussion of feminist philosophy behind abortion rights (7:30) Explanation of the "penumbra" concept in constitutional law (14:20) Breakdown of Roe v. Wade's trimester framework (22:15) Analysis of Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision (31:40) Detailed look at the Dobbs decision and its reasoning (38:50) Current political landscape post-Dobbs (48:30) Challenges facing the pro-life movement (54:20)

In response to the San Bernardino shooting in 2015, the FBI demanded that Apple, Inc. create a "back door" to bypass the shooter's iPhone security, a back door that could also compromise any iPhone, anytime. Thankfully, Apple CEO Tim Cook wasn't playing. But this isn't the first time government and law enforcement has tried to stick their noses into our business without permission, and probably won't be the last. In this episode we also talk about government efforts to compromise consumer security, like the NSA's Clipper Chip of 1993, and why these efforts have always failed.Resources:Order Compelling Apple, Inc. to Assist Agents in SearchThe FBI Wanted a Back Door to the iPhone. Tim Cook Said NoA Message to our Customers (Apple CEO Tim Cook's response to FBI request)Apple Just Killed The 'GrayKey' iPhone Passcode HackElectronic Privacy Information Center: The Clipper ChipSupport the Show.Visit us on Patreon for bonus content and special offers! But only if you hate scams too.

During the 1960s the Supreme Court held that searches conducted without warrants are inherently unreasonable. By the 1970s the Court had recognized a number of exceptions to the warrant requirement. We cover a few examples of those exceptions in today's podcast. Center for Civic Education

The Fourth Amendment protects people and their personal effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also requires applications for warrants to be supported by probable cause and requires a judge to decide whether probable cause exists. How do officials obtain warrants? We'll explain in today's episode. Center for Civic Education

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, but it seeks to strike a balance between the need for order and each individual's rights. Center for Civic Education

There have been vast technological changes since the ratification of the Fourth Amendment in 1791, and the courts have been asked to interpret the significance of ever-changing technology and surveillance techniques. Center for Civic Education

The Fourth Amendment grew directly out of the American colonial experience. It protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by government officials. Center for Civic Education

The protection against unreasonable search and seizure was in part a reaction against the general warrants issued by the British that so enraged American colonists in the prelude to the Revolution. The Fourth Amendment and state constitutions protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. Center for Civic Education

John Adams claimed that James Otis's speech against general warrants was the first act of colonial resistance to British policies. Despite his fame, Otis's career would be ended by a violent attack by a British customs official. Center for Civic Education

General warrants were unpopular in the American colonies, where they were used to search for evidence of smuggling. In a five-hour speech in February 1761, James Otis spoke out against them, saying that they would andquot;totally annihilateandquot; the British common-law tradition that andquot;A man's house is his castle.andquot; Center for Civic Education

General warrants allowed British officials to search people, businesses, homes, and property indiscriminately. British officials in the American colonies used such warrants to collect taxes, to recover stolen goods including -- enslaved people -- and to prosecute smugglers. Center for Civic Education

Americans inherited from British history the principle that andquot;a man's home is his castle.andquot; This idea can be traced to the opinion of Sir Edward Coke in Semayne's Case in 1604. Center for Civic Education

Carissa Véliz, Associate Professor at the Institute for AI at the University of Oxford, discusses how our personal data is the currency of power for tech giants, and ways the balance can be tipped back in favor of individual rights. We also address the privacy implications of large language models, and consider whether OpenAI and tools like ChatGPT are complying with the GDPR. Key Takeaways:  How the erosion of privacy poses a real threat to our fundamental values of democracy Why she advocates an end to the data economy, some alternative, and the companies leading the way in privacy-first business models The analog world and its role in safeguarding our privacy, along with different ways to design AI that would require less of our personal data The temptation to abuse power, and how we may navigate the intersection of technology, privacy, and ethics moving forward Guest Bio:  Carissa Véliz is an Associate Professor in Philosophy at the Institute for Ethics in AI at the University of Oxford. She is the recipient of the 2021 Herbert A. Simon Award for Outstanding Research in Computing and Philosophy. She is the author of the highly-acclaimed Privacy Is Power (an Economist book of the year, 2020), and the editor of the Oxford Handbook of Digital Ethics. She is a member of UNESCO's Women 4 Ethical AI, and she advises companies and policymakers around the world on privacy and the ethics of AI. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- About this Show: The Brave Technologist is here to shed light on the opportunities and challenges of emerging tech. To make it digestible, less scary, and more approachable for all! Join us as we embark on a mission to demystify artificial intelligence, challenge the status quo, and empower everyday people to embrace the digital revolution. Whether you're a tech enthusiast, a curious mind, or an industry professional, this podcast invites you to join the conversation and explore the future of AI together. The Brave Technologist Podcast is hosted by Luke Mulks, VP Business Operations at Brave Software—makers of the privacy-respecting Brave browser and Search engine, and now powering AI everywhere with the Brave Search API. Music by: Ari Dvorin Produced by: Sam Laliberte  

Alex and Shane chat about their upcoming family vacation to St. Martin, the pronunciation of the island's name, and discuss the things that make travel with kids a little less hectic. Listener questions are answered in the mailbag segment, hitting topics like Princess Catherine's right to privacy, nut-free schools, how to explain sex to kids, and so much more! 

It's March 21st. This day in 1972, a group of 100 regular citizens are meeting to re-write Montana's constitution. Among other provisions, the new document enshrines a “right of privacy.” Jody, Niki, and Kellie discuss why this right worked its way into the new document — and why the constitutional convention should take place in more states more often. Find out more at thisdaypod.com This Day In Esoteric Political History is a proud member of Radiotopia from PRX. Your support helps foster independent, artist-owned podcasts and award-winning stories. If you want to support the show directly, you can do so on our website: ThisDayPod.com Get in touch if you have any ideas for future topics, or just want to say hello. Follow us on social @thisdaypod Our team: Jacob Feldman, Researcher/Producer; Brittani Brown, Producer; Khawla Nakua, Transcripts; music by Teen Daze and Blue Dot Sessions; Audrey Mardavich is our Executive Producer at Radiotopia

Mel K and Jeff Dornik return for their biweekly episode of The Unfiltered Truth to discuss how the Globalist Elite have violated our constitutional privacy laws. They want to implement Big Brother as laid out in 1984. Not only is all of our online data being harvested and funneled into the CCP and our own Government, but Elon Musk recently launched low-orbiting satellites armed with surveillance technology. You don't want to miss this shocking conversation! Subscribe to Freedom First Network on Rumble to watch all of our shows LIVE: https://rumble.com/c/freedomfirstnetwork Elevate your meals with Freedom First Beef… even if you find yourself in the middle of the apocalypse! Use code TRUTH15 for 15% off and enjoy high-quality beef whenever you crave it – today or tomorrow! https://freedomfirstbeef.com Be ready for anything life throws your way with The Wellness Company's Medical Emergency Kit. Order today using code TRUTH10 for a 10% discount at https://twc.health/ffn. Protect your financial future with precious metals! Schedule your consultation with Our Gold Guy today and take control of your financial destiny!  https://ourgoldguy.com Unleash the spirit of liberty in every cup with Freedom First Coffee's Founders Blend. Order now using code TRUTH10 and savor the unparalleled taste of freedom in every patriotic sip. https://freedomfirstcoffee.com

On Thursday's show: Ahead of next month's primary election, we talk with Sean Teare, who's running for Harris County District Attorney against incumbent Kim Ogg, who visited us herself for a candidate interview recently. Also this hour: We discuss what happens when the public's right to know bumps up against an individual's right to privacy. Law professor Amy Gajda examines that subject in her book, Seek and Hide: The Tangled History of the Right To Privacy. Then, we learn how a groundbreaking study by two Black psychologists, often referred to as The Doll Test, helped form the backbone of the legal case that ended school segregation. Author Tim Spofford tells the story in his book, What the Children Told Us. We hear an excerpt of his hour-long conversation on this week's edition of I See U with Eddie Robinson. And a mother and daughter we met a decade ago while attending college together tell us us what's happened in the years since.

American Express, Visa, Mastercard, and other major credit card companies will soon allow banks to monitor customer firearm and ammunition purchases, potentially allowing these companies to flag suspicious purchases and report them to law enforcement. Supporters of the law—currently in effect in California and being weighed in other states—say this will help identify suspicious purchase patterns to stop mass shootings, but Second Amendment proponents would have their privacy infringed upon. On the Rundown, retired ATF executive Scott Sweetow and Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen join to discuss what this law means for the rights of gun owners, their privacy, and the "precarious position" it puts these private companies in. Inflation isn't coming down as quickly as economists predicted. However, it is not nearly as high as it once was, with White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre telling reporters that the Biden administration is working to bring it down even more. Yet, many Americans still feel like they are still paying more for everyday goods and putting more necessities on their credit cards. Senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and Trump 2024 campaign adviser, Stephen Moore, joins the Rundown to discuss how inflation continues to impact the country and explain why many Americans are finding themselves in a dangerous debt cycle. Plus, commentary by Jason Rantz, Host of the Jason Rantz Show and author of "What's Killing America." Photo Credits: Associated Press Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

American Express, Visa, Mastercard, and other major credit card companies will soon allow banks to monitor customer firearm and ammunition purchases, potentially allowing these companies to flag suspicious purchases and report them to law enforcement. Supporters of the law—currently in effect in California and being weighed in other states—say this will help identify suspicious purchase patterns to stop mass shootings, but Second Amendment proponents would have their privacy infringed upon. On the Rundown, retired ATF executive Scott Sweetow and Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen join to discuss what this law means for the rights of gun owners, their privacy, and the "precarious position" it puts these private companies in. Inflation isn't coming down as quickly as economists predicted. However, it is not nearly as high as it once was, with White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre telling reporters that the Biden administration is working to bring it down even more. Yet, many Americans still feel like they are still paying more for everyday goods and putting more necessities on their credit cards. Senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and Trump 2024 campaign adviser, Stephen Moore, joins the Rundown to discuss how inflation continues to impact the country and explain why many Americans are finding themselves in a dangerous debt cycle. Plus, commentary by Jason Rantz, Host of the Jason Rantz Show and author of "What's Killing America." Photo Credits: Associated Press Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

American Express, Visa, Mastercard, and other major credit card companies will soon allow banks to monitor customer firearm and ammunition purchases, potentially allowing these companies to flag suspicious purchases and report them to law enforcement. Supporters of the law—currently in effect in California and being weighed in other states—say this will help identify suspicious purchase patterns to stop mass shootings, but Second Amendment proponents would have their privacy infringed upon. On the Rundown, retired ATF executive Scott Sweetow and Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen join to discuss what this law means for the rights of gun owners, their privacy, and the "precarious position" it puts these private companies in. Inflation isn't coming down as quickly as economists predicted. However, it is not nearly as high as it once was, with White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre telling reporters that the Biden administration is working to bring it down even more. Yet, many Americans still feel like they are still paying more for everyday goods and putting more necessities on their credit cards. Senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and Trump 2024 campaign adviser, Stephen Moore, joins the Rundown to discuss how inflation continues to impact the country and explain why many Americans are finding themselves in a dangerous debt cycle. Plus, commentary by Jason Rantz, Host of the Jason Rantz Show and author of "What's Killing America." Photo Credits: Associated Press Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

CONSENSUS on 100x: your mom's fav place to catch everything happening this week in crypto and why it matters to you

In this episode of Consider the Constitution, host Dr. Katie Crawford-Lackey and Professor Kendra Johnson discuss the Fourth Amendment, which focuses on aspects of privacy.  The interpretation of the Fourth Amendment has evolved with technology, with cases involving wiretapping and cell phone searches setting precedents.  Professor Johnson discusses the historical context of the Fourth Amendment, its impact on everyday life, and its potential future implications, particularly concerning advancing technology and privacy concerns.

The battle has already heated up in the new year! We discuss the surprising legal battles over location data and emergency treatment laws as they relate to abortion. Meanwhile, the Pope calls for a ban on surrogacy - which he says is a grave violation of the dignity of the woman and the child. Is he right? We discuss all this and more in this week's episode of the Pro-Life America podcast.   Topics Discussed:The battle over location data heats up!Emergency Medical Treatment Law vs State Abortion LawsTexas Teen Charged With Capital Murder Of Her BabyPope Calls For Ban on Surrogacy Links Mentioned:In the fight over abortion rights, the government bans its first company from tracking medical visits - PoliticoWhat Data Does My Car Collect About Me and Where Does It Go? - Mozilla ResearchPrivacy on the Internet: The Evolving Legal Landscape - FTCEMTALA Abortion Question Set Up for Supreme Court Review - JDSUPRAPro-Life America Podcast Episode 44: Biden's Concerning, “Anti-Life” Pick For HHS SecretaryAttorneys say strict upbringing, abortion laws for minors contributed to teen murdering her baby - CBS NewsPope deems surrogacy ‘despicable,' calls for ban - Arkansas Democrat GazettePro-Life America Podcast Episode 85: Surrogacy & IVF - Good or Bad?‘Designer' babies with made-to-order defects? - NBC NewsRate & Review Our Podcast Have a topic you want to see discussed on the show? [Submit it here.]To learn more about what Life Dynamics does, visit: https://lifedynamics.com/about-us/Support Our Work      

At the founding of the country, the Fourth Amendment was designed to protect against general warrants. In the colonial period, the Crown would secure warrants to search anything and everything in one's possession in often meritless attempts to harass and intimidate colonists. One would think that this history would make people wary at the thought of such a warrant, but with the advent of Geo-Fence and Key Word Search Warrants, the general warrant has entered the digital age…with the legal system struggling to keep up. Today, Hunter is joined by Mike Price, the Litigation Director of the Fourth Amendment Center, to discuss these new warrants, and what, if anything, can be done to stop them.     Guests: Mike Price, Litigation Director, Fourth Amendment Center, NACDL     Resources: Fourth Amendment Center https://www.nacdl.org/Landing/FourthAmendmentCenter US v Chatrie https://www.nacdl.org/Document/US-v-Chatrie-4th-Circuit-Appeal-Brief Colorado Seymour Case https://www.nacdl.org/Document/Seymour-Rule-21-Petition     Contact Hunter Parnell:                                 Publicdefenseless@gmail.com  Instagram @PublicDefenselessPodcast Twitter                                                                 @PDefenselessPod www.publicdefenseless.com  Subscribe to the Patron www.patreon.com/PublicDefenselessPodcast  Donate on PayPal https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=5KW7WMJWEXTAJ Donate on Stripe https://donate.stripe.com/7sI01tb2v3dwaM8cMN  

A “Western Healthy Food Hub” is headed to Hollidaysburg looks to address rising food insecurity with the help of farmers. A new clock at the state Capitol counts the days since the House voted on legislation designed to protect people from gun violence. People in a Union County community say their elected leaders have violated their right to privacy through their complicated Social Gathering Ordinance.    Convicted murderer Danilo Cavalcante, who escaped from the Chester County prison earlier this year and eluded a massive two-week search, is now facing new charges.Support WITF: https://www.witf.org/support/give-now/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The 2 rights are viewed as 2 sides of the same coin. However, debate continues ever since 2017 SC judgment declared Right to Privacy, including informational privacy, to be a fundamental right. ----more----   https://theprint.in/judiciary/can-right-to-know-right-to-privacy-co-exist-electoral-bonds-case-reopens-debate/1833341/ 

The Catechism sets up a pair of definitions for us that, at first glance, appear circular, but upon close examination, reveal profound interdependence: “The good of each individual is necessarily related to the common good, which in turn can be defined only in reference to the human person.” Fr. Mike uses a fascinating thought experiment to illustrate where the common good originates: you. Today's readings are Catechism paragraphs 1905-1912. This episode has been found to be in conformity with the Catechism by the Institute on the Catechism, under the Subcommittee on the Catechism, USCCB. For the complete reading plan, visit ascensionpress.com/ciy Please note: The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains adult themes that may not be suitable for children - parental discretion is advised.

We were talking about genetic genealogy, and we just kept talking. So here's the rest of the conversation.

We talk about genetic genealogy and the right to privacy. And then we just kept talking. This is part 1.

JP2

Courts in India have become increasingly proactive about safeguarding the privacy and dignity of individuals across a range of cases, including in matrimonial and criminal matters.  

This episode features an interview with Yullia Tkachova, Co-founder and CEO of Masthead Data, an observability platform that catches anomalies in Google BigQuery in real-time. She holds degrees in Management Information Systems, Math, Statistics, and Marketing. Prior to Masthead, Yuliia designed complex BI products and solutions powered by ML and utilized by Fortune 500 companies.In this episode, Sam and Yuliia discuss how ML is shaping the future of data analytics, caring about users, and the fundamental human right to privacy.-------------------“We map those errors and anomalies on lineage, helping to understand what upstreams and downstreams are affected, what business users are affected. And that actually speeds up all the troubleshooting from hours to minutes. And this is the ultimate goal where we deliver. Because again, my belief that if you don't have this lineage piece was mapped anomalous in errors, it's not observability. It's monitoring. [...] What is also very unique to us, because Masthead operates on logs, it's triggered by logs. So, we do support streaming data. Unlike SQL-first solutions, as you can guess. We don't have to run SQL queries to see if they're anomalous, we're triggered by logs. And this is also what sets us apart.” – Yuliia Tkachova-------------------Episode Timestamps:(01:14): What got Yuliia excited about math and statistics(11:31): The basic human right to privacy(18:21): What open source data means to Yuliia(28:00): Yuliia's reason for building a solution focused on privacy and security(38:09): One question Yuliia wishes to be asked(42:21): Yuliia's advice for the audience(44:46): Backstage takeaways with executive producer, Audra Montenegro-------------------Links:LinkedIn - Connect with YuliiaVisit Masthead Data

Reddit Stories | OP's mom is of the idea the OP must always share everything that's going on in OP's life. Now that OP is an adult and is living by herself and enjoying or trying to enjoy her life, she doesn't want to share everything, she wants the right to her privacy, something she didn't know was possible until she posted and the Reddit community helped her see this and confront her mother.

James Czerniawski is a Senior Policy Analyst at Americans for Prosperity & contributor with Young Voices. https://www.young-voices.com/advocate/james-czerniawski/ https://twitter.com/JamesCz19 The Future of Privacy is Here™ https://conversoapp.com/download-converso-gml/ Text us anything from your CONVERSO app (555 184 3042) Links: Good Morning Liberty This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp.  Give online therapy a try at Betterhelp.com/gml and get on your way to being your best self.  Join the private discord & chat during the show! joingml.com   Like our intro song? https://www.3pillmorning.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

033023 Podcast, Government Transparency, Right to Privacy, Braggs Folds, Woke Corrupt DOD and State Dept

Does your child have a "right to privacy" when it comes to their device and social media? As parents are we invading their privacy by checking their phones and what they are doing on social media? This is always a sensitive topic, and one that gets brought up frequently when I work with parents...and kids. Parents tend to be on the fence with their answers...and kids unanimously agree that it is an invasion of their privacy. The problem lies in that they are putting information on a device in which the information does not stay there...it is typically shared with others in a very public format. I chat about the idea of privacy, are we invading it...and my thoughts after working closely with parents and kids and in this space. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/kristi-bush/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/kristi-bush/support

Should everyone have privacy in their personal lives? Can privacy exist in a public place? Is there a right to be left alone, even in the United States? The battle between an individual's right to privacy and the public's right to know has been fought for centuries. You may be surprised to realize that the original framers were sensitive to the importance of privacy interests relating to sexuality and intimate life, but mostly just for the powerful and the privileged. The founders demanded privacy for all the wrong press-quashing reasons. Supreme Court jus­tice Louis Brandeis famously promoted First Amend­ment freedoms but argued strongly for privacy too; and presidents from Thomas Jefferson through Don­ald Trump confidently hid behind privacy despite the public interest in their lives. Today privacy seems simultaneously under siege and surging. And that's doubly dangerous, as author Amy Gajda argues. Too little privacy leaves ordinary people vulnerable to those who deal in and publish soul-crushing secrets. Too much means the famous and infamous can cloak themselves in secrecy and dodge accountability. Seek and Hide: The Tangled History of the Right to Privacy (Viking, 2022) carries us from the very start, when privacy concepts first entered American law and society, to now, when the law al­lows a Silicon Valley titan to destroy a media site like Gawker out of spite. Muckraker Upton Sinclair, like Nellie Bly before him, pushed the envelope of privacy and propriety and then became a privacy advocate when journalists used the same techniques against him. By the early 2000s we were on our way to today's full-blown crisis in the digital age, worrying that smartphones, webcams, basement publishers, and the forever internet had erased privacy completely. Renee Garfinkel, Ph.D. is a psychologist, writer, Middle East television commentator and host of The New Books Network's Van Leer Jerusalem Series on Ideas. Write her at reneeg@vanleer.org.il. She's on Twitter @embracingwisdom. She blogs here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Should everyone have privacy in their personal lives? Can privacy exist in a public place? Is there a right to be left alone, even in the United States? The battle between an individual's right to privacy and the public's right to know has been fought for centuries. You may be surprised to realize that the original framers were sensitive to the importance of privacy interests relating to sexuality and intimate life, but mostly just for the powerful and the privileged. The founders demanded privacy for all the wrong press-quashing reasons. Supreme Court jus­tice Louis Brandeis famously promoted First Amend­ment freedoms but argued strongly for privacy too; and presidents from Thomas Jefferson through Don­ald Trump confidently hid behind privacy despite the public interest in their lives. Today privacy seems simultaneously under siege and surging. And that's doubly dangerous, as author Amy Gajda argues. Too little privacy leaves ordinary people vulnerable to those who deal in and publish soul-crushing secrets. Too much means the famous and infamous can cloak themselves in secrecy and dodge accountability. Seek and Hide: The Tangled History of the Right to Privacy (Viking, 2022) carries us from the very start, when privacy concepts first entered American law and society, to now, when the law al­lows a Silicon Valley titan to destroy a media site like Gawker out of spite. Muckraker Upton Sinclair, like Nellie Bly before him, pushed the envelope of privacy and propriety and then became a privacy advocate when journalists used the same techniques against him. By the early 2000s we were on our way to today's full-blown crisis in the digital age, worrying that smartphones, webcams, basement publishers, and the forever internet had erased privacy completely. Renee Garfinkel, Ph.D. is a psychologist, writer, Middle East television commentator and host of The New Books Network's Van Leer Jerusalem Series on Ideas. Write her at reneeg@vanleer.org.il. She's on Twitter @embracingwisdom. She blogs here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

The Dobbs decision is the most significant Supreme Court decision of our lifetime, and it's already been cited in another legal case.   Recently, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall requested that a federal district court remove an injunction against a ban on medical intervention for youth seeking a transgender identity. He wrote: “But no one—adult or child—has a right to transitioning treatments that is deeply rooted in our Nation's history and tradition.”  His words are based on language from Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion in the recent Dobbs case. Alito argued that abortion cannot be found in the Constitution, nor has it ever been “deeply rooted” in the history and traditions of the American people.  Roe v. Wade, which was overturned by the Dobbs decision, was part of a series of Supreme Court decisions that “discovered” new constitutional rights based on little more than the whims of the sitting Justices. Commonly, in the use of the “substantive due process doctrine,” earlier Supreme Courts invoked a so-called “right to privacy,” as they did in Roe v. Wade. While there's little more American than the right to be left alone, the Court misconstrued this reasonable desire for privacy to mean the “right” to kill children in the womb.  “Substantive due process” is supposedly based on the 14th Amendment's due process clause. Proponents of the doctrine contend that, even if a right isn't explicitly recognized in the Constitution, the rights that are explicit cast “penumbras”—or shadows—which suggest the existence of other, unenumerated rights that the Supreme Court should protect. If this sounds like a stretch, that's because it is, not least because the due process clause is about just that—lawful process, not substantive rights.   The notion of “substantive due process” is often a pretext for judges to affirm current social norms with little more than passing reference to the Bill of Rights. So, what was never historically a right could be deemed one simply by finding a way to rationalize it with reference to some other right in the Constitution. Instead of rights finding root in the constitutional text or in who we always are as human beings, they become based on shifting cultural norms, as easily created as denied. As Justice Thomas pointed out in his concurrent opinion in the Dobbs decision, substantive due process is “legal fiction.” Thus, he questioned the Court's power to “divine new rights.”   While substantive due process has been used to cause harm, it's also been used to support good decisions, for example the ruling on interracial marriage in the case of Loving v. Virginia. However, the Court also based Loving v. Virginia on another part of the 14th Amendment, the equal protection clause, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, among other things. In other words, the victory for interracial marriage was a recognition of reality, that all human beings, of whatever race or ethnicity, are fundamentally equal and therefore should not be treated differently. The call for a right to gender transition, however, is a rejection of reality, arguing that maleness and femaleness are illusory or ancillary to who and what we are.  In the current application of the “deeply rooted” test in Alabama, parents demanded a right to experimental medical treatments for their children seeking a transgender identity. They argued that “enduring American tradition” makes them, and not the state of Alabama, primarily responsible for “nurturing and caring for their children.” In that sense, they are right. Parents rank higher than the state when it comes to childcare, but what these parents are demanding is the opposite of nurturing and caring. And in too many cases, government officials are usurping parental rights in promoting gender transitions to children, against their parent's wishes.  American tradition recognizes a right of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children and even to make medical decisions for them, but it has never recognized a right of parents to cause their kids harm by radically altering their bodies in ways that render them permanently sterile and perpetually dependent on medical interventions. This is something radically new, not deeply rooted in American tradition and history, at best social experimentation.   We can expect more cases in which the “deeply rooted” language of Dobbs is cited. Lower courts, taking the Supreme Court's cue, should be reluctant to strike down democratically enacted laws based on newly minted theories of unenumerated rights. In the meantime, Christians must continue to point to the reality of human nature, including the good of our bodies as male and female, and most of all, to the Source of our actual rights: our Creator. 

 This week, Kaanji and Tara talk about their views on allowing their kids more privacy and how it's changed as their sons have gotten older.  This topic has polarizing opinions, so they look to the internet experts for guidance.  They discussed closed doors (and why that is helpful for everyone), social media, and what scares them about allowing more space for their sons to explore on their own.  This conversation had differing opinions, and our hosts each picked up new tips from each other - you don't want to miss it.      Catch a brand new season of The Ms. Pat Show streaming August 11 th , only on BET+. To learn more, visit BET dot plus. BET+. Stream Black culture. www.bet.plus Connect with us:Clubhouse: @Kaanji and @TaraallyceBecome a Podcast Patron: www.patreon.com/blackandwhitemomcastIG:@blackandwhitemomcastKaanji: @Kaanji_irbyTara: @Tatstar

Nita Farahany is a professor at Duke Law School and one of the nation's leading scholars on the social, ethical and legal implications of emerging technologies. Preet speaks with Farahany about how advances in brain monitoring devices will impact the workplace and courtroom, whether a “gene for violence” exists, and how A.I. is influencing bail and sentencing decisions.       Plus, Preet discusses Steve Bannon's potential criminal sentence and the latest on the January 6th Committee hearings, including new testimony from former White House Counsel Pat Cipollone.  In the bonus for CAFE Insiders, Professor Farahany discusses how A.I. is already being used in place of judges, and the influence of machine learning in the realm of dating and matchmaking. To listen, try the membership for just $1 for one month: cafe.com/insider. For show notes and a transcript of the episode, head to: https://cafe.com/stay-tuned/is-there-a-right-to-privacy-of-thought-with-nita-farahany/  Tweet your questions to @PreetBharara with hashtag #askpreet, email us at staytuned@cafe.com, or call 669-247-7338 to leave a voicemail. Stay Tuned with Preet is brought to you by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Get clear on your right to your private space with "I Have a Right to Privacy" The sister episode to this one is Episode 235 When You've Been Setting Boundaries to Help Yourself SPONSOR SPOTLIGHT Thanks for supporting our sponsors! This helps keep Affirmation Pod free for you to listen to whenever you need it. Get your promo codes at AffirmationPod.com/Sponsors WANT MORE EPISODES LIKE THIS ONE? Episode 351 Energetic Boundaries https://AffirmationPod.com/EnergeticBoundaries Episode 312 Self-Boundaries https://AffirmationPod.com/SelfBoundaries Episode 235 When You've Set a Boundary https://AffirmationPod.com/BeenSettingBoundaries Episode 151 Setting Boundaries https://www.affirmationpod.com/SettingBoundaries LISTENER LOVE

Maria and Julio share their responses to the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade case. They talk about the vulnerable communities who will be impacted if abortion bans go into place across the country. They also get into how Republican candidates for Congress, like J.D. Vance, are vying for Trump's endorsement to push ahead in their primaries. ITT Staff Picks: In this personal essay for Prism, Tina Vasquez writes about her experience and struggles with getting an abortion and why it's “a matter of life and death.” Andrea González-Ramírez lists ways to support abortion rights in this article for The Cut.  “Trump now has a definitive rebuttal to those who believed his grip over the party was loosening, and Republican candidates in other states are certain to exert even more energy trying to win his approval,” writes Alex Shepard for The New Republic on Republican J.D. Vance's Ohio primary win. Photo credit: AP Photo/Rick Bowmer