[bmelton]

> No right is absolute, and that includes the right to privacy. Criminals, for example, simply don't have it.

I know nothing of Brazilian law, but in America, criminals have rights, including the right to privacy. Convicted criminals and convicted felons do not, but that is an entirely different category, and your wording seems woefully imprecise.

> Do you guys think that pedophiles, terrorists and drug dealers have the right to privacy ? I don't.

Alleged pedophiles, terrorists and drug dealers have the full panoply of rights available to them as anyone else until such time as enough supporting evidence may be provided that the police can say that a) a crime has been committed, b) the alleged had the means to have committed the crime, c) the alleged had the motive to have committed the crime, d) the alleged had the opportunity to have committed the crime, and often e) the alleged is very likely to have committed the crime.

Only after THAT hurdle is cleared may the rights of the alleged criminal be intruded upon by the state, and without a grand jury, even those intrusions must be minimally invasive.

At least in America, a judge cannot issue a warrant for the wiretaps you described on the mere accusation that "so and so is a {pedophile,terrorist,drug dealer}."

[will_brown]

>Alleged pedophiles, terrorists and drug dealers have the full panoply of rights available...

For starters, lets throw right to privacy out the window, from the US perspective what we are talking about is 4th Amendment "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."

>Only after THAT hurdle is cleared may the rights of the alleged criminal be intruded upon by the state...

No. In many instances police are not limited to obtaining a warrant/judicial oversight before conducting searches and seizures (including communications). Just a few examples: (a) if an officer conducts a lawful traffic stop, and smells marijuana (plain-view/plain-smell doctrine) the officer can lawfully search your person and the vehicle,seizing any evidence of a crime, even if unrelated to marijuana; or (b) subsequent to a DUI arrest, an officer can impound the vehicle and conduct a search/inventory of the vehicle and seize any evidence of a crime (even unrelated to the DUI). These are some of the many lawful Government searches and seizures without prior judicial approval.

>At least in America, a judge cannot issue a warrant for the wiretaps you described on the mere accusation that "so and so is a {pedophile,terrorist,drug dealer}."

A judge certainly can issue a warrant based on accusation as long as the judge makes a finding there is probable cause. In fact an officer can obtain a warrant from a Judge based on an anonymous tip, or what would be called hearsay evidence which would be inadmissible in an actual trial.

[Brakenshire]

> I know nothing of Brazilian law, but in America, criminals have rights, including the right to privacy.

I think your post rests on uncharitably interpreting what he means by absolute rights. Your post itself is a demonstration that the right to privacy is not absolute - if the criteria you describe are met, a wiretap can be permitted. He was talking about the fundamental question of whether or not a state has the right to set and apply those criteria (at least, within reasonable limits) within its borders.

[bmelton]

Possibly fair. I set out only to amend the sloppy use of 'criminal'. Many varieties of criminals in America still have rights that prevent mere allegation from allowing the infringement of those rights.

I am not a judge, nor a lawyer, but as someone who's been casually studying law for years, the thing I've noticed most about lawyers is that they tend to not speak in anywhere near such sweeping generalities, and felt it worth correcting as it would be unfortunate, and potentially dangerous if the wrong person were to take the word of a judge as canon and start enacting social justice against alleged criminals.

I deliberately avoided touching on the "no rights are absolute" statement because it is charged, and while it is grossly overused to the point of being tired, I was specifically trying to not open that particular can of worms. Also, any such discussion would possibly have furthered the gulf between "rights in Brazil" and "rights in America", which I can't begin to comment on intelligently, whereas "criminals are still entitled to due process" is a shorter bridge in either country.

[pjc50]

The US does not have a general right to privacy; the 4th amendment is very limited, and does not apply to information held by third parties.

4th amendment litigation is full of really questionable reasons for "probable cause" for warrantless searches, and then there's things like the FBI fake base stations and the NSA listening programme.

The EU has a general right to privacy .. with a law enforcement exception.

[Lawtonfogle]

>The US does not have a general right to privacy

Yes we do. It isn't enumerated, but our rights are not limited to merely those which were enumerated.

[Retric]

In the US convicted criminals still have privacy rights after release. They are slightly less than a non criminal, but after probation ends cops can't just enter a criminals home on a whim.

[bmelton]

Correct, but they do have other rights-restrictions.

Regarding privacy though, I think we're in agreement that the only people who don't have it are those that are currently incarcerated as a result of due process.

[sliverstorm]

in America, criminals have rights, including the right to privacy. Convicted criminals and convicted felons do not

It sounds like you are rather pedantically making a distinction between criminals and convicted criminals.

[bmelton]

Indeed. It is the very crux of my post. I view the distinction as worthwhile. In fact, I should probably have gone further and drawn distinction between convicted criminals and convicted criminals who are currently serving time.

[bmm6o]

You know what you call someone who hasn't been proven guilty? Innocent.