Your cell phone records are, apparently, not private. In the U.S., at least. For $110, anyone can obtain a list of everyone you have called, when, and for how long.

This may just be a temporary loophole, but it does raise questions of privacy. Seeing something like this is a bit of a shocker, mostly because it drives home the fact that this can have an impact on you (well, most of you). Would you really be okay with anyone for any reason digging through your phone records?

In writing this, I paused to think about possible situations to give as examples of how you would not want your cell phone records searched. I had come up with a few, like a stalker expanding his knowledge of your life, or your workplace trying to catch dirt on you, when I realized something: it doesn’t matter what the examples are. Privacy is a blanket right, and when you start trying to single out the most shocking examples, you begin to differentiate between the ‘less private’ and the ‘more private.’ And that’s a mistake, because then someone will argue that the ‘less private’ parts of your life are not worthy of privacy.

Not to mention that there are a lot of people who will argue that you don’t have a right to privacy at all–at least no legal right. I would rather strongly disagree, and so would the 9th Amendment, not to mention a few other amendments and the Supreme Court. We’re a territorial race, and privacy is fundamental to our makeup. We expect privacy, we demand it. We require it. None of us is completely open, no one. How could this possibly not be considered a fundamental human right?

So why are there so many people who stridently oppose the idea of a legal right to privacy? Do these people really feel that no one has a right to expect any privacy? Probably they don’t. It’s really about abortion, and the fact that major decisions such as Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade are based upon arguments of privacy. So “the right to privacy” has become a nasty epithet to many conservatives, a sign of “judicial activism” and something that neither you nor I possess. I really doubt that conservatives would be OK with the idea that they have no legal right to privacy any more than liberals would. But in the conservative world, expediency is the name of the game (e.g., winning elections supremely trumps ethics), especially where civil rights are concerned–probably because most conservatives smugly believe that violations of such rights won’t likely happen to them.

Privacy is an extremely fundamental human right. Consider laws against breaking and entering, trespassing, accessing personal records, and, oh, I don’t know, maybe the Third and Fourth Amendments–a plethora of statutes designed to do what? Protect our privacy. Both physical privacy–no one can enter our homes without our permission–and informational privacy–your business is your business–are considered sacrosanct. If someone says they disagree, then tell them to sign a legal waiver that allows you to dig into their financial and medical records–and when they refuse, tell them to shut up.

However, as with all rights, it has limitations. We do allow law enforcement officials to transgress on that right. But we do that on two conditions only: when specific probable cause can be demonstrated, and when a judge takes on the responsibility of signing off on the warrant. But only if those safeguards are in place–because if they aren’t, then we no longer have a right to privacy. Any government official could delve into any of your private information for any reason. That is antithetical to the very concept of privacy, which is why we have those protections in the first place.

Hmm. Privacy. Warrants. I wonder what I could be leading up to?

<COUGH>, <COUGH>