And yet we can have sex with whom we like in whatever orifice we like, and atheists don't get identified as non-citizens by the bloke in the top job.

See, the 1st amendment is all well and good, but it's regularly and comprehensively trampled on. In practical terms, speech is just as free over here. To take your example, remember that a football match takes place on private property, and one of the terms and conditions of the ticket is that you do not indulge in certain behaviours*; in addition to that, you'll notice that people indulging in those behaviours are charged not with thought-crime, but with public order offences.

CCTV? Who gives a fuck? You're in public. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Whilst it'd be nicer if the cameras weren't there, I'm not aware of any specific instances where a (usually shit and blurry) CCTV image has been used to foist foul play on an innocent person. There are lots of CCTV cameras in the USA, too.

I guess it depends on what you value. In the UK, we (still, despite the bleating of the Daily Hitler Mail and its readers) place a good deal of value on an ill-defined notion of "fairness", which is why, for example, all but the most rabidly market-oriented UKians will defend the NHS to the death, warts and all. I couldn't tell you what the definition of "fairness" is, but, as the old saw goes, I know it when I see it.

The Constitution, as laudable as it and its amendments are, is only as valuable as the establishment's willingness to respect it. It seems a week doesn't go by when I don't read a story about how this constitutional right or another doesn't get cast to the four winds, usually in the name of "security".

In all honesty, I'm much, much more concerned right now about ill-conceived and hastily-implemented economic policies resulting in severely disabled people getting the royal shaft, and the fact that our Chancellor has got his austerity goggles set to Maximum.

We've been twiddling with our system of law and government for the thick end of a thousand years; most of the time it works well enough - although that's not to say there's room for improvement (which would, if I were Evil Overlord, take the form of rescinding vast swathes of legislation, and draconian constraints on the commercial activities of elected representatives, for starters).

* Look at section 6.1 here: http://www.liverpool...kets/ticket-terms

Hardly a diatribe, and hardly "better than you". Just explaining how, from my perspective, one possible line of reasoning about we've got to where we are, and why.

You keep bringing up things that happen in private places.

There is simply no privacy debate to be had if you're discussing what a supermarket chooses to do within the confines of its property, where you are present at the sufference of the company. Sure, I'd rather they didn't do it. But at the end of the day, they have the right to safeguard their stock (and razorblades are an incredibly popular target for shoplifters, due to the ease of disposal, high value, and small size) just as I have the right to shop elsewhere if that offends me.

In public, whilst it is polite to ask someone before taking their picture, you have absolutely no right whatsoever to this courtesy. The police and others have fallen foul of this a number of times whilst trying to prevent amateur photographers from taking pictures.

A common misconception is that a place accessible to the public, like a supermarket, is the same in law as a public place, like the street.

It's not, and rightly so.

I think it's a valuable clarification of the relationship between the customer and the vendor with regard to personal data.

Why would I be opposed to that?

You're conflating two different things.

And anyway, Emerson.