Four Forms Of Invasion Of Privacy

1984 has come to life in many cases for the United States. One of the big issues is the public’s privacy in the US, or lack of it in better words. The government spies in on its people in more ways than one, and it’s not just one country now. It seems that all over the world citizens are losing freedom in ways they never thought possible. A quote from 1984, “War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”(Orwell 4), shows how the government in 1984 wanted people to accept slavery as a part of life, even if that meant spying in on the citizens every waking moment of their lives. In a world where the government turns children against their parents, telescreens monitoring people's lives at home, and thought police

Thomas Jefferson once said that “Everyone has the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” If the government spied on its citizens, the citizens would carry the burden of having the government constantly watch every move being made, interfering with citizens pursuit of happiness. With that being said, if a citizen’s privacy was invaded then their pursuit of happiness would be demolished. The government should not be able to spy on its citizens because it is a major invasion of privacy, people become fearful of the government, and is a large violation of the rights citizens are permitted.

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.

Is anyone’s private information contained in their cell phone actually private? Are appointments, bank information, conversations, the user’s location or other sensitive personal information truly confidential? Is there a Big Brother watching? There is no definitive answer to any of these questions. From the beginning of time to now, privacy has become more and more scarce. Through new developments in technology, it is hard to believe that someone is not watching your move at any given moment. The government’s job is to keep Americans safe, but where is the line drawn? Where is the difference between having a reasonable doubt and accessing information solely because these government officials have the power to do so? The government has infringed upon the rights of the American people when it comes to this topic.

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.

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.

In early common law, right of privacy simply meant the right to left alone from prying eyes ( ). However, over time common law found that invasion of privacy can also occur when a person, “appropriates to his own use of benefit the name or likeness of another is subject to liability to the other” ( ). Under common law, the misappropriation of someone’s name, image, and likeness must meet four elements: 1) the defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s identity, 2) the appropriation of plaintiff’s name or likeness to defendant’s advantage commercially or otherwise, 3) lack of consent, and 4) a resultant injury ( ).

It's easy to see and understand the ideas of intrusion and appropriation. In fact many media slightly encourage their reporter to dig up dirt by either trespassing or sneaking around to get information, and as well to use a person's picture with out consent. However the two more serious of the privacy laws are very much like that of libel.

Government surveillance has not contributed to a decrease of percentage in crimes, but has created a controversial topic instead. Online surveillance has been an invasion of privacy, because everything the users access is seen without their consent. Due to the fact the stored data is not used, government surveillance in the united states has not been very impactful. Crimes and terrorist attacks were not stopped, and the mass storage of personal data within the last year has violated privacy laws 2,776 times (Government Surveillance 722). Surveillance online is not only unsuccessful in America, but in UK, and Canada as well. Out of every 1000 security cameras, only one camera is actually used to catch a criminal (Government Surveillance 722). However, there are several solutions that can be made to allow the usage of government surveillance without the violating the rights of Americans. Some of the solutions have already taken action, and will give users more freedom online.

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 .

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

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

Since the right to privacy has conventionally been described as the right to be left alone, invasion of privacy can be defined as an intrusion upon a person's sensible expectation to be left alone. The rapid technological advancements in the recent past have contributed to alterations in the reasonable expectation of privacy. However, legal principles that govern the right to privacy have remained constant despite of these technological advancements. Generally, there are four types of invasion of privacy i.e. unreasonable intrusion upon another person's solitude, misuse of an individual's name or likeness, irrational publicity of someone's private life, and publicity that irrationally puts an individual in a false light before the public ("Invasion of Privacy", n.d.).

First of all, it is important to know the definition of privacy, it is the right to control who knows what about you, and under what conditions. The right to share different things with the people that you want and the right to know that your personal email, medical records and bank details are safe and secure. Privacy is essential to human dignity and autonomy in all societies. If someone has committed a physical intrusion, or, in discussing the principal question, has published embarrassing or inaccurate personal material or photographs of the individual taken without consent, he is invading their right of privacy, which is in the article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights.