{"id":2317,"date":"2016-04-28T06:33:28","date_gmt":"2016-04-28T13:33:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.privateinternetaccess.com\/blog\/?p=2317"},"modified":"2021-08-06T06:48:25","modified_gmt":"2021-08-06T13:48:25","slug":"children-arent-inheriting-parents-civil-liberties-understanding-analog-equivalent-rights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.privateinternetaccess.com\/blog\/children-arent-inheriting-parents-civil-liberties-understanding-analog-equivalent-rights\/","title":{"rendered":"Our children aren’t inheriting the liberties of our parents: The importance of “Analog Equivalent Rights”"},"content":{"rendered":"

The civil liberties of our parents are not being passed down to our children. Somehow, liberties are being interpreted to only apply to analog technology, despite this limitation being nowhere in the books. This is a disastrous erosion of the fundamental liberties our ancestors fought, bled, and died to give us.<\/strong><\/p>\n

This week, there was news of a new law passed in the US House of Representatives \u2013 the lower legislative chamber in the United States \u2013 passing a bill to require a search warrant<\/a> for the government to search and seize people\u2019s e-mail. In other words, the government would need a search warrant to obtain people\u2019s private correspondence if it happened to be transmitted electronically, which practically all correspondence is today.<\/p>\n

This law is bizarre. It should never have passed, because it shouldn\u2019t be any kind of necessary. When you look at the original law giving privacy protection to people\u2019s private correspondence, can you find any passage that says \u201cdo note that this law only applies to private correspondence when it\u2019s sent on paper\u201d? Of course you don\u2019t. It was assumed, since it was the only way to correspond at the time the law was written, and besides, the focus of that law was where it was supposed to be: on protecting the privacy of correspondence, not on protecting a piece of paper as such.<\/p>\n

What twisted interpretation of the law decided that the laws detailing our civil liberties only apply in the old world\u2019s analog environments? Who decided that the paper, and not the correspondence, was the protected part?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Here\u2019s a non-exhaustive<\/em> list of protections our parents had, and our children don\u2019t, because of such interpretations of our liberties:<\/p>\n