Protecting Privacy and Securing the Nation in the 21st Century

With the rise of the internet, some people argue that privacy no longer exists. From the 2013 revelations of government surveillance of citizens’ communications to companies that monitor their employees’ internet usage, this argument seems to be increasingly true. Yet, Harvard Law professor Charles Fried states that privacy, “is necessarily related to ends and relations of the most fundamental sort: respect, love, friendship and trust” (Fried 477). However, Fried is not arguing that in a world where privacy, in its most simple terms, is becoming scarce that these foundations of human interactions are also disappearing. Instead, Fried expands on the traditional definition of privacy while contesting that privacy, although typically viewed

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.

During the past decade, an issue has arisen from the minds of people, on which is more important? Privacy or national security? The problem with the privacy is that people do not feel they have enough of it and national security is increasing causing the government to be less worried about the people. National security is growing out of control which has led to the decrease in people’s privacy and has created fear in the eyes of U.S. citizens. “Twelve years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and amid a summer of revelations about the extent of the surveillance state built up to prevent others, leaders, experts and average Americans alike are searching for the right balance between security and privacy” (Noble). Americans should be able to live their daily lives without fear of an overpowered government or a “big brother” figure taking over. “According to a CBS News poll released Tuesday evening, nearly 6 in 10 Americans said they disapproved of the federal government’s collecting phone records of ordinary Americans in order to reduce terrorism” (Gonchar). While it is good to keep our country safe with security, American’s privacy should be more important because there is a substantial amount of national security, the people 's rights should matter first.

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.

Privacy is one of the most controversial, yet most essential topics in the discussion of civil liberties. Some treat it as a necessity along with life, liberty, and property, whereas other people see it as something that shouldn’t get in the way of things like security (Sadowski).

Since the time the framers of the constitution, technology has improved significantly which has led to an increasing concern in the privacy of an individual. Technology, used by government agencies and commercial enterprises, has led to a change in one’s privacy and freedom. For this reason, the agencies and enterprises have been called into question of infringement of the fourth. Using the lessons learned from history, the framers of the constitutions created the fourth amendment, which protects from unreasonable searches, and the fifth amendment, which prevents a person from incriminating himself or herself, to create a government with just laws, but with the advancement in technology, the fourth amendment needs to expand its policies to fit the changes in modern society.

Americans security and the Fourth Amendment have been conflicting since the origin of the amendment. Some Americans started to be at odds with whether their security is at risk with the amendment, yet other citizens feel that privacy is equally important. With the coming of the twenty first century complications between the two are certainly bound to occur. Since the coming of the digital age and mass production of personal electronics, people’s privacy becomes imminent. Simple reasoning shows America rebelled from Great Britain; and one of those reasons for America to fight for its independence is that there was no sensible privacy was being showed. Although the Fourth Amendment tries to protect the privacy of Americans data, it should be

Privacy is what allows people to feel secure in their surroundings. With privacy, one is allowed to withhold or distribute the information they want by choice, but the ability to have that choice is being violated in today’s society. Benjamin Franklin once said, “He who sacrifices freedom or liberty will eventually have neither.” And that’s the unfortunate truth that is and has occurred in recent years. Privacy, especially in such a fast paced moving world, is extremely vital yet is extremely violated, as recently discovered the NSA has been spying on U.S. citizens for quite a while now; based on the Fourth Amendment, the risk of leaked and distorted individual information, as well as vulnerability to lack of anonymity.

With all of our technology advances today, for example, drones, it is hard for the laws to keep up to date on what is legal and what is illegal. Our privacy is one of those things that technology is able to invade. With technology, it is getting easier and easier to invade people’s privacy and their personal data. People want to feel safe and secure if they want to share their data with others and not have to worry if someone is trying to steal the data. If people knew that there data is more secured and safe to tell other people then they would share their ideas about things more and not have to worry that someone will steal it. Some say that we should add privacy to the fourth amendment so people can’t invade their personal life or their

As an American, we know, and are immune to this country starting to build on technology. Where every call or click online can be traced back, stored, searched and put together to reveal a portrait of private life. However, current law gives little privacy protection to information about these activities, overstepping the First and Fourth Amendment safeguards that are guaranteed to individual freedoms. There are two cases to be discussed, Smith v. Maryland and United States v. Miller, two of the most important Fourth Amendment decisions of the 20th century. “In these two cases, the Court held that people are not entitled to an expectation of privacy in information they voluntarily provide to third parties” (Thompson, para. 1). This proposition, know as the third-party doctrine, permits the government access to a vast amount of information about individuals, such as the websites they visit, who they have emailed, the phone numbers they call, and their utility, banking, and education records.

Government surveillance in the past was not a big threat due to the limitations on technology; however, in the current day, it has become an immense power for the government. Taylor, author of a book on Electronic Surveillance supports, "A generation ago, when records were tucked away on paper in manila folders, there was some assurance that such information wouldn 't be spread everywhere. Now, however, our life stories are available at the push of a button" (Taylor 111). With more and more Americans logging into social media cites and using text-messaging devices, the more providers of metadata the government has. In her journal “The Virtuous Spy: Privacy as an Ethical Limit”, Anita L. Allen, an expert on privacy law, writes, “Contemporary technologies of data collection make secret, privacy invading surveillance easy and nearly irresistible. For every technology of confidential personal communication…there are one or more counter-technologies of eavesdropping” (Allen 1). Being in the middle of the Digital Age, we have to be much more careful of the kinds of information we put in our digital devices.

Technology is constantly upgrading everyday and it creates unique challenges for individuals privacy rights while there are regulators looking to preserve both privacy rights and technological innovation. For awhile now society has been struggling on how to balance privacy rights and emerging technologies. For example, early as 1890, Newspapers and Photographs were on the rise and legal scholars called for added privacy protections, including enshrining those rights in criminal law. As people have a right to protect their privacy, it is still a struggle while promoting innovation in this fast increasing technology world we live in today.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”) was passed in 1986 to update the 1968 Title III Wiretap Act, the federal statute that first prohibited the actual or intentional interception communications without judicial authorization (Wiretap Act, 1968). The 1968 act only concerned wire and oral communications; a wire communication was defined as “any communication made in whole or in part through the use of [common carrier] facilities for the [interstate or foreign] transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception,” and oral communication was defined as “any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation [of privacy].” ECPA sought to amend the Wiretap Act in order to accommodate privacy protections for the increasingly prolific use of electronic devices in communications between citizens that do not apply to the original definitions (Comm. on the Judiciary, 1986). ECPA consisted of three titles: the first title amended the 1968 Wiretap Act, the second title addressed stored communications, and the title addressed pen-registers and trap and trace devices.

Individual citizens' rights to digital privacy continue to be to challenged by the increasing need for national security one the one hand, and the increasing digital vigilance many companies are putting into place to protect themselves while learning more about their customers. These factors are a volatile catalyst that continues to change the ethical, legal and personal landscape rights of digital privacy in the information technology age. The depth and pace of change that is occurring in the areas of capturing, aggregating, analyzing and using personal data is unprecedented and will continued to escalate as new risks emerge (Ottensmeyer, Heroux, 1991). In conjunction with these volatile catalysts of change, there has never been an era where every aspect of activity in a company or enterprise is monitored (Riedy, Wen, 2010). From the use of company telephones and networks to the monitoring of Wi-Fi signals accessible from outside the four walls of a business, surveillance and the implications for digital privacy continue to exponentially increase. Beginning with an analysis of three dominant technologies that give individuals the ability to research others' backgrounds and personal data, this paper looks at the advantages and disadvantages to this type of information distribution.

However, the Court also cautioned in the same case that the right to privacy is not absolute. The right to privacy does not bar all incursions into individual privacy. The right is not intended to stifle scientific and technological advancements that enhance public service and the common good. It merely requires that the law be narrowly focused and a compelling interest justify such intrusions. Intrusions into the right must be accompanied by proper safeguards and well-defined standards to prevent unconstitutional invasions. When a certain technology is used for legitimate reasons coupled by adequate safeguards, the intrusion is justified. However, when an already intrusive technology is used for non-legitimate reasons, the right to privacy is violated.