<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>pstack</author><text>Unfortunately, our education system does not teach us that the Constitution is a framework setting form constraints upon the government, but as a framework establishing and itemizing a list of freedoms citizens are allowed.&lt;p&gt;So, we have an entire population that assumes if it is not enumerated in the Constitution, you do not have that right. For example &amp;quot;hey, the Constitution doesn&amp;#x27;t say privacy is a right&amp;quot;. Well, no. It doesn&amp;#x27;t need to. You already have that right, without a piece of paper declaring it.&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, I&amp;#x27;m afraid that this understanding of the Constitution has become so pervasive that it can not be changed, thereby completely reversing the entire intention of the founding fathers in constructing it. Thereby giving the government &lt;i&gt;all the rights&lt;/i&gt; and citizens &lt;i&gt;only&lt;/i&gt; the rights specifically declared in it (and, these days, not even that).&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s kind of stomach-turning to see that reversal.</text><parent_chain><item><author>ctdonath</author><text>The Founding Fathers of the USA were concerned about writing a Bill Of Rights because any natural right not enumerated therein might be construed as not being a right at all. This is where we are with pervasive surveillance: being incapable of imagining&amp;#x2F;comprehending a surveillance system of this scale, it never dawned in them to protect anything more than &amp;quot;persons, papers and effects&amp;quot;. At a time when just overhearing a conversation was hard enough to require concerted effort, they could not dream of a day when a significant percentage of every conversation among 300,000,000 people could be monitored and catalogued automatically at a not-prohibitive cost. Methinks: had they known, they would have not hesitated to prohibit it as explicitly as they did infringement of arms possession. Alas, the courts adhere only to the letter of the Constitution, not its spirit.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Obama and the N.S.A.: Why He Can&apos;t Be Trusted</title><url>http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2014/01/obama-and-the-nsa-why-he-cant-be-trusted.html</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>alexeisadeski3</author><text>How do originalists regard digital privacy and speech protections?&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m pretty sure that they &lt;i&gt;do&lt;/i&gt; afford all rights and protections to digital messages as to written letters, is that correct?</text><parent_chain><item><author>ctdonath</author><text>The Founding Fathers of the USA were concerned about writing a Bill Of Rights because any natural right not enumerated therein might be construed as not being a right at all. This is where we are with pervasive surveillance: being incapable of imagining&amp;#x2F;comprehending a surveillance system of this scale, it never dawned in them to protect anything more than &amp;quot;persons, papers and effects&amp;quot;. At a time when just overhearing a conversation was hard enough to require concerted effort, they could not dream of a day when a significant percentage of every conversation among 300,000,000 people could be monitored and catalogued automatically at a not-prohibitive cost. Methinks: had they known, they would have not hesitated to prohibit it as explicitly as they did infringement of arms possession. Alas, the courts adhere only to the letter of the Constitution, not its spirit.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Obama and the N.S.A.: Why He Can&apos;t Be Trusted</title><url>http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2014/01/obama-and-the-nsa-why-he-cant-be-trusted.html</url></story>