Solove Privacy Cases

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

In support of privacy, Daniel J. Solove wrote, Why Privacy Matters Even If You Have ‘Nothing to Hide.’ Solove begins his argument by introducing the nothing-to-hide argument. In general, the argument for surveillance is ‘if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear:’ hence people’s support for government efforts and regulations to ‘protect’ citizens by decreasing privacy. Those who object this argument target its most extreme cases. For example, if you have nothing to hide, could I take a nude picture of you, own all entitlements to the photo, and share it with anyone? Absolutely not, most would say, but this objection is not exceptionally compelling according to Solove. In order to understand privacy, we must not reduce it to one single definition. Privacy is extremely complex and involves a range of different things that share common characteristics. For instance, one’s privacy can be invaded by the expose of your innermost secrets, but it may also be invaded if a peeping Tom (without the reveal of any secrets) is observing you. Your privacy may also be invaded if the government seeks extensive information about you. All of these examples cause harm related to an invasion of privacy, thus making the definition of privacy not applicable for a “one size fits all” conclusion. The underlying and most significant harm that comes from surveillance is the problem of information processing. Solove uses The Trial example to demonstrate this effect. Here, the

The general public gives an problem with the government surveillance as a media for invading others privacy. With the government monitoring, collecting, and retaining people's personal data, one side would claim that it is an infringement of their freedom to the rights to privacy. While the National security associations justifies the reason for monitoring would be to maintain order. Their ways to maintain order would be to monitor criminal and terrorist activity and to detect incoming threats, terrorists, or problems that would harm their country. This issue shows that freedom cannot exist without order. Although the general public wants their freedom of their privacy, they can not achieve their most of their desires because it puts their lives at risk without protection. Order is necessary in order to have freedom. It is impossible to attain entire freedom for a cause, however, it is possible to attain freedom to a certain

Surveillance is not a new thing. In fact, espionage, tracking, and sleuthing were part of society ever since 5000 B.C. But in the rise of the modern era, the idea of surveillance in the public eye serves as a controversial topic of discussion. People everywhere complain about the existence of security cameras, government tracking, and the right to privacy. Such problems, however, are not due to the sudden discovery of surveillance, but the modern abuse of it. Seeing the disastrous effects of over surveillance from George Orwell’s 1984, the public rightfully fears societal deterioration through modern surveillance abuse portrayed in Matthew Hutson’s “Even Bugs Will Be Bugged” and the effects of such in Jennifer Golbeck’s “All Eyes On You”. The abuse of surveillance induces the fear of discovery through the invasion of privacy, and ensures the omnipresence of one’s past that haunt future endeavors, to ultimately obstruct human development and the progress of society overall.

With new technology rolling out onto the market seemingly everyday, the privacy of many is disappearing and has even become nonexistent. With many scandals over the past few years, government agencies have been accused of using these new communication resources as means to keep a watchful eye over their citizens. This is the very topic discussed by Peter Singer in his essay “Visible Man: Ethics in a World without Secrets”. Singer discusses the benefits and pitfalls that have come from these communication innovations, going in depth on the tactics and resources used by civilians as well as governments to keep track of each other. Singer presents strong premises that argue for the conservation of the individual privacy rights while also arguing for governments to become more transparent, creating an overall controversial element to his essay, as he is only half invested in transparency as a whole between civilians and the body that governs them, that comes off as somewhat unconvincing as the two arguments contradict each other.

One example of privacy issues was the famous National Security Agency (NSA) for their collection of, intelligence collection/information gathering of metadata of U.S. citizens which refers to cell phone records, call duration etc. NSA must

As a growing topic of discussion, privacy in our society has stirred quite some concern. With the increase of technology and social networking our standards for privacy have been altered and the boundary between privacy and government has been blurred. In the article, Visible Man: Ethics in a World Without Secrets, Peter Singer addresses the different aspects of privacy that are being affected through the use of technology. The role of privacy in a democratic society is a tricky endeavor, however, each individual has a right to privacy. In our society, surveillance undermines privacy and without privacy there can be no democracy.

The Patriot Act is a clear infringement of the right of people to not be searched and seized. Roving Wiretaps, Section 206, allows the government to acquire a warrant to tap any phone or computer of someone who is suspected to be a terrorist. Critics noted, however, that if the suspect comes into casual contact with someone who is innocent in terms of the acts, the privacy of the latter could be trespassed upon. This is a violation of the Fourth Amendment; the security and privacy of someone who is innocent would be infringed upon. Foreign Intelligence Wiretaps and Searches is a provision similar to that of the Roving Wiretap but for those who are suspected as foreign spies. Critics claimed that international spying and terrorism is too easily given as an excuse and has led to an excess of intelligence taps compared to the criminal taps. “Sneak and Peak” Warrants also comes in violation of the Fourth Amendment because the provision allows the FBI to search and investigate any home or business without prior warning to that of whom they would search and intrude upon, a clear violation of unreasonable search and seizure.

Before reading this article/essay my understanding of privacy was very much surveillance based--I didn't want to be surveyed even if I wasn't doing anything wrong. However when Solove explains that it's not only about the surveillance but the actual information and how it's used privacy and how often my privacy is breached started to make more sense. He goes on to give specific ways the information is and can be used which helped bridge the gap between what I thought information processing was and what it really is in terms of privacy. The examples made the concept come to life as well as allow readers to apply it to their information and life, bringing it closer to home and therefore making it more

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.

In today’s society, the word “privacy” has become ubiquitous. When discussing whether government surveillance and data collection pose a threat to privacy, the most common retort against privacy advocates – by those in favor of databases, video surveillance, spyware, data mining and other modern surveillance measures – is this line: "If I’m not doing anything wrong, what would I have to hide?" The allowance of the government’s gathering and analysis of our personal information stems from an inadequate definition of what privacy is and the eternal value that privacy possesses. The adherents of the “nothing-to-hide” argument say that because the information will never be disclosed to the public, the “privacy interest is minimal, and the security interest in preventing terrorism is much more important.” 1 In an era where the patterns we leave behind will inevitably become the focus for whatever authority, the issue of privacy affects more than just individuals hiding a wrong. In this essay, I will explore the state of online privacy in wake of the government’s warrantless data collection. Respectively, the nothing-to-hide argument and its key variants in more depth.

The Federal Privacy Act was implemented in 1974 to establish a co de of fair information policies that dominate the selection, upkeep, use, and the spread of information abou t individuals that is conserved in systems of records by federal agencies. This act was put into place to protect individuals’ privacy from the embezzlement of Federal records, to ensure that individuals be allowed entry to records concerning them which are maintained by Federal agencies. Priva cy laws are concerning laws that allocate with control, keep , and using of personally distinguishable information of individuals, which can be collected by governments, public or private organizations, or by other individuals. Anyone who has been prosecuted of these

In this paper, the topic being discussed is how technological surveillance has evolved through the courts. Laws have been in place since the beginning of time. With all the new technological advances being made in the world, questions have arisen in court cases. For example, how much privacy can we expect to get if we disclose information on our networking sites? Is posting something on our wall protected as much as a message? What part of our calls are protected? These are questions the courts have been trying to answer and with technology advancing, questions will continue to increase.

How different countries and organizations are approaching privacy issues along with my predictions how it will unfold the future

The issue with one’s personal privacy coexisting with society’s public safety is that it cannot occur. This controversy is a complex situation due to the large amount of cameras and microphones installed throughout everywhere you go today. It is almost impossible to not be invasive of one’s privacy. The topic has silently existed for decades, however with technology enhancing at a rapid rate, the discussion has surfaced and several writers have decided to explore the matter in-depth.