Prism

An education is designed for an individual to have the opportunity to advance themselves. If you major in basket-weaving, that's your problem (and in your words, an education wasted). In addition, you assume that I have a problem with being below an elite. I don't. It's how society is. I honestly don't care.

You just love missing the point don't you. You say that being below the elite you're simply a tool for them, as history, or your interpretation of history suggests. Thus education, one of the most valuable things to strive for, is a worthless endeavor, or it should be in your own perspective. You're not elite, thus you're simply a tool for them. Your words not mine.

Your argument here is predicated on the fact that privacy comes with age. Some people are more comfortable with their lives being in the open (Kardashians, socialites), some people are more comfortable living in privacy (you?). You also assume that this information would be public.

No, you saw age and assumed that. When you live out your life you gain more experiences, thus may want those to be hidden, especially if you feel inadequate with your life accomplishments. Even the Kardashians have skeletons in their closet they got ape sh`it about.

All that information is public. The prism just makes it more concentrated for the government to possibly exploit, considering the IRS debacle, I've become a wee bit skeptical.

Additionally, you can do the vast majority of that without Prism anyways. It'd just take more time. If I wanted privacy, I wouldn't have a Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram, a Vine. I probably wouldn't have an iPhone since that would be a wasted investment.

There is no such thing as true privacy on the Internet.

No one is arguing true privacy, but there's a line to be drawn with personal phone conversations, even in house communication. "Man obama sucks" could be considered something worth investigating, let alone any congress member. Having to be careful what you say is probably the most un-american thing you can expect out of someone. I certainly don't want an fbi agent at my door for screaming ALALALALALALALALALA as I play as a terrorist on borderlands 2.

Except it is not possible for an egalitarian society to exist. It is not a "maybe we'll work on it more," it's a "can't happen."

Equality is a very ambiguous term, in my opinion its a fair opportunity for all to reach success, and allow those who don't have the tools to get the bare essentials to attempt to do so. The ideal "equality" has too many factor's to even deem an argument, however you can take very progressive steps to reach the closer to that equilibrium. Though I don't see how anyone is even arguing that we should fight for equality, but to fight for what makes us evolve to a type 2 civilization.

In addition, there is no explicit right to privacy.

While the right to privacy is firmly rooted in the ethical tenets of the library profession, it is also an intrinsic American value, guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Although the Constitution does not explicitly reference the word "privacy," the Supreme Court has nonetheless inferred a right to privacy from various portions of the Bill of Rights and the common
law.

The most obvious protection of privacy in the Bill of Rights is the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals in their persons, homes, papers, and effects from "unreasonable searches and seizures" by the government. The First Amendment, which protects freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly, also implicitly safeguards the right to privacy in the form of freedom of thought and intellect. As eloquently articulated by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in his famous dissent in Olmstead v. United States: "The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness . . . They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, THE RIGHT TO BE LET ALONE - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."

The first Supreme Court decision to fully articulate the right to privacy was Griswold v. Connecticut, which held that the right to privacy included the right for married couples to use contraceptives. In Griswold, Justice Douglas, writing for the Court, famously explained that the guarantees in the Bill of Rights have "penumbras," or somewhat hazy, but obviously present, extensions, which must be read as creating "zones of privacy, such as the First Amendment right of association, the Third Amendment prohibition against quartering soldiers in a home, the Fourth Amendment right to be secure in one's person, house, papers and effects, the Fifth Amendment right to not surrender anything to one's detriment, and the Ninth Amendment right to not deny or disparage any right retained by the people."

In recent years, several federal courts have recognized the right to privacy in public libraries. Specifically, these courts found that the First Amendment protects the right to receive information in a publicly funded library. However, the professional code of librarians provides a much broader promise of privacy than is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Consequently, constitutional limitations on the right to privacy are often at odds with the librarianship principles of privacy and confidentiality.

http://www.fontanalib.org/Privacy_Tutori...rivacy.htm

Derp.