Public figures right to privacy?
351887
Public figures do deserve the same degree of privacy as we do.   However, the exception is, whenever they are in public...it is public.   They can never share our level of privacy when shopping at the mall or eating at a fast food restaurant.   If  George Bush decides to throw his milkshake at a waitress, then it needs to hit the national news.  If you do the same thing, it doesn't even have to ever be mentioned.    I don't think we have the right to know what a public figure is doing 24/7 or within the confines of their homes, unless they make it public.   If Angelina Jolie wants to walk around her house naked with the windows open and shades drawn, then by all means she's inviting the public in.    I don't believe the paparazzi should go to the limits they go to when getting pictures and such, but photo ops are photo ops.
807215
If the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as in a private residence or workplace, then the recording will most likely be inadmissible.\n\nIf the recording was made in a public place, or at a party, and there was no expectation of privacy, then the recording might be admissible, depending on the circumstances.
1140358
IMHO, governments should keep away from all matters religious in the same way that religious figures and organizations should keep their hands off politics.\nThis kind of interference with the public's right to learn someone's point of view is an ugly violation of freedom of speech.
1057335
What business is it of yours to invade someone's private life?  We are told there is a right to privacy, at least according to Roe that protects that right from other people's prying eyes.
523647
Its totally illegal.Why are people really so interested in other peoples activities. Simply no privacy! We have our personal issues, personal emotional exchanges and what? another person is listening! Do you think this is good! No its totally a devilish thing to do! They think they are wise guys, but are they really!
53756
I strongly believe in our right to privacy. However they are not listening to my phone calls, and if it would save American lives then I would gladly let them listen. One previous answer quoted Ben Franklin. However Franklin lived in a much different time and couldn't even imagine the enemyies we are facing today. How would you feel if they could have avoided the 911 attack by listening to a phone call and didn't because they did not want to infringe on the civil liberties of a few wack jobs.
925753
I agree.  The government has gotten too big and intrusive.  They have manipulated many into thinking that questioning the government is "unamerican."  \n\nTaking away the right of habeus corpus goes against centuries of democratic law.  The absolute worst argument in support of removing our privacy rights is that if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't care.  This makes no sense.  Many innocent conversations and behaviors can be taken out of context and subhect an innocent person to a trial.   Anyone that has ever been falsely accused of a crime can tell you how hard it is to prove that you are innocent.  \n\nHopefully, we are going to see a backlash against this and a return of the power to the people.
631754
If we allow the government to alter the constitution to protect us from the terrorist then the terrorist have one, they have accomplished what they have set out to do and that is to alter our live to live in terror that it might happen again. So I do not think the government has a right to take away my right to privacy in the name of fighting terror.
57250
Google's not objecting on the grounds of privacy, but that it would be too labor-intensive. I don't think that the defense they're using is valid, but there are valid reasons to withhold them.
967429
that is not allowed..\ninvasion of privacy
715944
it's not, \n\nIf the ACLU or some real constitutional lawers would step up to the plate and challange it, we could get somewhere.  \n\nand for the guy who said we don't have a right to privacy, how about you read the bill of rights.  \n\n"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."\n\nso "sneek and peek" wouldn't exactly be constitutional.
851138
No, they can't give out personal info - Data Protection Act.  What a nice person you must be!
604229
NOPE!! I never did. They want to claim that the president & all other politians should have their privacy. What about the rest of the USA?? We deserve our privacy as well. And the issue with the audio/video...(Patty just shakes her head.)
953263
corrections do not violate right of privacy and won't reveal info
278730
I believe photographers have a basic right to photograph people in public settings when those people being photographed don't have an expectation that they are behaving in a private manner.\n\nTo me, no matter who you are you have a right to privacy.  Celebrities should be able to conduct their lives away from the business of being celebrities without having to fight off photographers.  \n\nObviously there are trade-offs to everything and I'm sure most celebrities understand the concept of "being in the limelight".  I just think that being famous or well-known doesn't automatically exclude you from ever being able to live like a normal person again.
510385
someone or thing trying to take your privacy away.
79004
Ofcourse any where, where they can get privacy.