Would it? The 1st is a prohibition on the rights of government, not private parties. Would the new amendment apply to the government, or to private sector, or to individuals? In any case, the 1st and the 28th? would continually be butting heads, since the 1st prohibits congress from passing laws that would enforce the 28th (and by extension, the states via the 14th). Would a newspaper be allowed to publish unflattering personal, privacy violating details? Would you be allowed to put up a political flyer alleging the same? I'm not sure an amendment is _the best solution_.
We already have laws that abridge the freedom of speech, so it's not absolute.
What's special about slander that we can have a say "you're not allowed to make defamatory false statements about people," but we couldn't have "you're not allowed to spy on people and sell information about them"?
Granted slander is a civil and not criminal matter, but if I could sue companies for sharing personal information about me that would still be something.
> Would the new amendment apply to the government, or to private sector, or to individuals?
It depends on how it's written, but there are no inherent limits here. You can make it do either.
> In any case, the 1st and the 28th? would continually be butting heads, since the 1st prohibits congress from passing laws that would enforce the 28th
Amendments, by definition, amend the constitution, as it was prior to them (meaning with all the previous amendments applied) so a later amendment can always override an older one explicitly, and even if it doesn't do so, the plain intent of the new amendment would likely suffice.
The fun part about amendments you can write that into the amendement and it can say whatever you want. There is no special expceptions, it defines what legal government and persons actions are by definition. The only problem (good thing imo) is it takes 2/3 to approve it which is a mountain of opposition. Complex Amendements suffer immensely from this since they have much more power than laws congress passes. But honestly privacy could probably be ensired easier with a law from congress. It is a right but perhaps starting with a law would actually be easier than an amendment nothing stops the government currently from have laws about privacy if there is an objection the escape hatch could be granted by an amendment
id see a limitation on the government to limit or remove liability for private entities to invade privacy.
private corps could still invade privacy, but they wouldnt be able to shrug the liability from torts related to their bad activity.
eg. the government can not remove liability to any behaviour that breaks the constitution, as thats the government brraking the constitution by deputizing somebody else to break it
I suggest that the new amendment make it illegal for devices to track us.
Cameras, microphones, computers, robots, algorithms, etc would not be able track people. Those are in-animate objects, not people, and shouldn't have any rights, especially the right to intrude on people's privacy.
Individuals would not be able to leverage such devices for power, influence or other selfish raesons.
Only another person, a real human, can watch you in public. Even take notes on you. Like a doctor. Or the employees of a grocery store.
Yes, why not? All existed models have been rewarded for cheating (extensively). That is us, putting intense evolutionary pressure, on a system to produce a result we don’t want through indifference. Why can’t we post train them not doing that?
Similarly, I’ve seen more than one accident caused by a pedestrian stepping into traffic without looking, taking out a cyclist in the process (from between vehicles, eyes on a phone). Nothing too serious, but only by luck. No one is overtly concerned by traffic laws in SF regardless of the mode of transit.
On the (literal) one side, two ton death machines trying to run you down and honking if you're not as far to the right as physically possible, safety be damned.
On the (literal) other side, people staring at their phones wandering out without paying attention calling you aggressive for existing.
I biked 3x weekly to work for a decade from NoPa. Muni busses repeatedly “tried” to kill me - so much so that going up McAllister, I’d hug the double yellows to keep buses from precariously passing me and then cutting me off every other block. The ass end of accordions in particular would rest half way into the other lane, leaving absolutely no where for me to go, and no ability to start from a stop in the middle of the road going up hill in the wrong gear (with other cars and buses soon to be wizzing by). I’d classify the overall behavior as between casual indifference to my safety (let alone me as a person) and outright contempt for my existence.
Some/many people who can’t smell actually don’t know that, nor do the people around them. The same can be true for color blindness and actual blindness!
Several labs that manufactured the original polio vaccine shipped the live virus - ie, we just injected kids with polio. Low double digits of people (kids?) died, a few hundred were paralyzed, etc. Later vaccines also had the same problem, but at very low rates (1 in millions maybe).
Yes, but it still ended the polio epidemic resulting in a drastic drop in total polio-related deaths.
You don't get vaccines in use for 50 years without vaccines in use for 1 year, and you don't get that without using them for 6 months, and you can say the same about COVID-19 vaccination. Arguing otherwise is just failing to understand linear time.
There can be understanding, but nothing really beats mass numbers of doses over multiple years to generate it.
The safety factors of a vaccine become better understood over time and use, and you can say the same about COVID-19 vaccination.
You should conclude that COVID-19 vaccination - even the early versions - had net very good outcomes too, unless you're a wilfully ignorant conspiracy theorist.
The bar isn't "perfect vaccine", the bar is "significantly better than no vaccine". And this depends on the urgency of the situation.
The only "debacle" is a political/sentiment one, the mainstreaming of crankery, especially in the USA. It's now a full-fledged systemic public health anti-vax debacle.
But MRNA vaccines are a significant new medical tool, not just for COVID-19, not just for viral diseases.
