Ethical Controversy: The Invasion Of Privacy

Whether it is calling someone on your phone or online shopping on the computer, people are more connected than ever to the internet. However, a person might be oblivious to the fact that they are being watched using these technologies. The NSA (National Security Agency) is an intelligence organization for the U.S. to protect information systems and foreign intelligence information. Recently the NSA has been accused of invading personal privacy through web encryption, tracking, and using personal information for their own uses and without permission. The surveillance of the NSA produces unlawful invasion of privacy causing an unsecure nation.

With the seemingly exponential propagation of inexpensive digital communications technologies over recent years, the general public is becoming more aware of the issues surrounding information privacy and government surveillance in the digital age. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a smart-phone has to be wary of how they use their private information for fear of that information being collected and used in a way contrary to their wishes. "Leaky" smartphone apps that transmit private information across the internet can be unethically used by government agencies. The issue of privacy is a balancing act; the public usually wants increased privacy and the government usually wants increased access.

It would be unethical for an employee or another internal user with the appropriate access to

People might not think about being watched when they’re posting personal experiences in their life on social media. The government has the ability and justification to go through a person’s social media site, listen to phone calls, and read text messages as a way of narrowing down possible suspects for terrorism. The privacy laws in America are what allows the U.S. government to search the digital world for possible threats to the country. Although some say that privacy laws help American citizens keep their confidentiality for medical reasons, also as benefits for social security, I still maintain that privacy laws gives the government undeserved power and can give the impression of being watched .

While I trust the government and support their policies, you, the federal government, have failed us Americans. When attempting to gain information for an investigation, nearly 22.1 million innocent Americans have been exposed to the public with their personal information hanging by a thread, according to the Washington Post. You politicians may assume that justice is served by providing victims with incentives of extra security technology, but the federal government should not be allowed to gain information from personal devices for their investigation. Furthermore, the use of malware to hack these innocent Americans is an invasion of privacy, ruins devices and their data, ensues lawsuits and their costs with unnecessary breaches, and may even put people’s lives at risk.

Privacy is an especially equivocal idea, in particularly because invasion of privacy is a concept that is arguably questionable. Privacy has been defined as the right to be left alone without unwarranted intrusion by government, media, or other institutions or individuals. While this definition serves as a quick start to the right of privacy, there are still several interpretations as to what may or may not constitute as an invasion of privacy. What one person may believe to be an innocent curiosity, another may feel as though it is a deliberate invasion of privacy. Often these disputes make their way into courtrooms and are subjected to controversy and evaluation.

The topic of this paper is privacy. It will talk about the ethical and legal reasons for maintain privacy. The audience for this paper is high school level teachers in a school with one-to-one devices for every student.

The First Earl of Chatham, William Pitt, in his Speech on the Excise Bill, claimed that “The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter, the rain may enter,—but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!”

We’ve all heard the conspiracy theories. Alien aircrafts are kept in Area 51. Obama can control the weather. Neil Armstrong never landed on the moon. Some people see these theories as a product of irrationality but they’re really a product of fear. Ever since 9/11, Americans have been desperately searching for a sense of security within the country that was taken from us. We’ve been so desperate in fact that we’ve given up some of our basic rights in order to restore that sense of security. When you walk through a metal detector at an airport and they scan you for any metal items, would you consider that an invasion of your privacy? Would you sacrifice that privacy to feel safer on an airplane? Most of us would because when the choice is life or death, the decision becomes a lot simpler.

For the reasons stated in Part I, supra, when the invasion of privacy torts were created, its promulgators went to great lengths to distinguish the interest protected by those causes of action as opposed to traditional causes of action for defamation and the like. Nevertheless, those distinctions have faded throughout the years, and in Maryland, “[a]n allegation of false light must meet the same legal standards as an allegation of defamation.” Piscatelli v. Van Smith, 424 Md. 294, 306 (2012). Accordingly, for the reasons stated in my prior memoranda, if it is determined that the plaintiff does not state a cause of action for defamation, so too must the false light claim fail. Stated differently, defamation is a necessary condition in order to achieve false light. See Id. (“We shall address in greatest detail [the plaintiff] 's defamation claim, but need not address the false light claim separately.”). Accordingly, all that follows assumes first that the plaintiff has made a claim for defamation.

When I was in high school, my teacher asked the class, “What do you prefer liberty or safety?” I prefer liberty because the United States was created on the principles of freedom and liberty. Invasion of privacy, such as reading our emails or monitoring our phone calls, violates our Fourth Amendment. Our privacy is our right, it is protected by the Fourth Amendment. The government cannot invade our personal information without a warrant or probable cause, even the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional for NSA to read our text message without probable cause or a warrant. After the attacked of 9/11, individuals were afraid and scare to experience another terror attack on the United States. Therefore, we allowed for certain ethnicity group be

We have all experienced it. The tingles down your spine while your sixth sense picks up someone’s harsh eyes scanning you. You are being watched. As the little hairs stand up on your neck and the chill of judgment floods your body, you choke on the insecurity that comes over you. Some break out in a nervous sweat and drown themselves in doubt; others do not hesitate to send beams of criticism back. Many stare with innocent intentions while others purposely hope to provoke anxiety. However, if you did not know that someone’s cruel eyes were on you, would it be just as bothersome? Since 2000, internet security has been an issue that many feel is a violation of their privacy. This controversial topic has hit almost all newspapers with

The Circle represents the story of pushing boundaries of privacy, ethics and personal freedom. The main character of the movie is Mae Holland who gets an opportunity to work for the world’s largest technology and social media company named Circle by the help of her friend Annie. Mae pushes boundaries of privacy, ethics and personal freedom and agrees to be a part of an experiment where all her personal activities and whatever she does can be seen by public because according to the company’s founder no one should be scared to share their information if they are doing everything right. Also, going full transparent made Mae a celebrity where she had millions of friends who would see her daily activities and support her or discourage her. However,

As citizens of America we are all entitled to our rights of privacy. When something threatens this guaranteed privacy we tend to take extra precautions to prohibit prolonged violation. As the advancing world of technology continues to grow and expand, so do the amount of cases involving privacy invasion. Technology drives these privacy-invading crimes; however, crime also drives technology, creating a vicious cycle. Without technology an invader could not enter that of a stranger’s life. Conversely, without technology that same criminal would evade the law enforcers. So does technology protect citizens’ privacy, or does it expose one’s entire life? In regards to this question, one must

Before Victoria, privacy was only a prerogative for royalty and the elite. But as she reigned, the concept of privacy was finally an integral part of middle-class life —"the cult of domesticity matched by a cult of privacy." (Summerscale) However, the human desire for privacy became synonymous with the dark recesses of human hypocrisy —which, in a society that lived for appearances, privacy served its role to protect people from themselves. Such an allure engaged writers into exploring the secrets they hid from themselves.