Technological Surveillance Should Not Keep Up With The Swift Changes

Since its inception, the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution have been expanding and evolving because of new technology. The Fourth Amendment generally protects us all from “unreasonable searches and seizures” by the government (Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure, n.d., p. 1199). Court cases such as Katz v. United States and Riley v. California highlight how new technology can lead to decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States that alter the protections provided by this amendment (Hall, 2015). In 1968, the Supreme Court decision in Katz v. United States fundamentally changed the measure used to judge whether a Fourth Amendment violation occurs due to new technology being utilized by law enforcement. The 2014 Supreme Court decision in the case of Riley v. California is a more relatable case, since it involves technology that the vast majority of us use everyday (Savage, 2014). This case changed the way law enforcement is able to legally search the cellphone of an arrestee, by strengthening the arrestee’s right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment.

The 4th amendment to the US Constitution serve as a security to the privacy of citizen but as American citizen would rarely have the government to use the surveillance to ensure the nation security from terrorist threat. People use the internet, phones, and cameras to record information. The government do wire taps and now even in the City of Atlanta we have camera on light poles and on the streets in downtown but it is for a good reason to help protect the people that work, live and walk the streets this also help the police where that they are short of help. I think the government has stop more attacks on the country using the surveillance since 9/11 incident. I believed if this will help protect us then the government

The Fourth Amendment Precludes worry about government trespassing. David Sirota author of the website”Does the government actually understand the 4th Amendment?” says "Mother Jones Reports that an 86 page court ruling determined that the government had violated the spirit of federal surveillance laws and engaged in unconstitutional spying"(understand). Cornell University law school states, "electronic surveillance is also considered a search under the fourth amendment.” (Fourth amendment). Cornell University also states,"A seizure of a person, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, occurs when the police's conduct would communicate to a reasonable person."(Fourth Amendment).According to the American Civil Liberties Union the NSA examines

The fourth amendment is designed to protect the privacy of its citizens, its ultimate goal is to protect the right of privacy from the arbitrary government. Due to the fourth amendment, the NSA can only record the phone numbers and the duration of citizen’s phone calls, not the content. Nobody can heedfully listen onto the content of your phone calls because of the fourth amendment. As well as phone calls, the NSA can also not read or document your personal emails. If the NSA does conduct any illegal recordings of any sort the information cannot be used in court or to prosecute an individual. Lastly, if the NSA wants to access any information of phone calls or emails of citizens, they must acquire a court order or a warrant to access the information

Just as the freedom of the press is backed up by the first amendment, our right to privacy is also protected by the fourth amendment-at least that was what I thought. In his book, “Privacy Lost,” David Holtzman elucidates that many Americans are under the impression that the law protects their right to privacy; when in fact, “the word privacy doesn’t even appear in the Constitution-not once” (93). This is what the Fourth Amendment actually states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" (US 1). It is important to understand the protection we do have under this law-even if it is very limited. This law was created to insure its citizens that the government has limitations on its powers, and that it cannot gather any information from people without first asking the court for a warrant. Does this mean that the government cannot search our home, our computer, and our records? No, on the contrary, the government can search and engage in any kind of surveillance, and in anyway it pleases. The only thing that stops the government from searching our home, is a warrant. Which is a piece of paper that can easily be acquired by his friend, the judge. Furthermore, this law will protect us when we

According to the Fourth Amendment, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against irrational searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Without the Fourth Amendment, people would have no rights over their personal privacy. The 4th amendment protects US citizens from irrational searches and seizures by the government. If it is violated by the government, all evidence found by the unlawful search and seizure must ought to be excluded as according to the exclusionary rule, which serves as a solution for 4th amendment violations. Before a solution can be given for violation of the 4th amendment, a court shall decide whether the 4th amendment is appropriate to a certain

Illegal search and seizures is a rising problem in today’s culture. It can be found as Police will seize your belongs illegally. It often comes up in court that evidence was inadmissible, due to the fourth amendment. In today’s society more and more people are wrongfully incriminated. People often look at the technology we have, as it could be used to gather our information. Phone towers record our information everyday with violates the fourth amendment. They use this information which is an invasion of our privacy, which brings up the debate of what the fourth amendment covers. As many argue over this issue. Many see it as you forfeited the rights when you agree to their policy and terms. Most say

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution does not allow unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and is required to be supported by a reason. When the government spies on citizens internet there is no individual warrant and the inspection is not supported by a reason. The people have not agreed to their information being looked amongst and it is their individual choice if they want to share it with someone. The fourth amendment protects Americans from this unreasonable search due to its private information being accessed without a

In the case of Katz v. the United States, reasonable expectation of privacy questioned government’s intrusion of one’s privacy by eavesdropping (Hall, 2015). This paved the way for the Fourth Amendment to be dissected when electronic devices are utilized rather than physical means to obtain evidence. It eliminates the snooping of wiretapping by upholding conversation overheard through eavesdropping to be protected under the Fourth Amendment. Consequently, the matter at hand was the misleading issues of the characterization of the telephone booth which Katz placed the call from. The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment protected people, not places under the trespass theory but overturned the conviction on grounds that his telephone

He wrote, “To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment.”10 This approach was used several decades later in the case of Katz v. United States (1967), which reversed the ruling in Olmstead v. United States.11 In this case, the Supreme Court held that the government needed a warrant under the Fourth Amendment to listen to a person’s conversation from a telephone booth. The court stressed that the individual had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

In the mid 1800’s detectives and even business owners were caught in the act of wiretapping (Sillet, Matteo, and Kaplan, 4). Though, in the early ages of the telephone, there was no law against it, it was not until the passing of the 18th amendment that jurisdiction as to whether the information gathered during a wiretap was valid in a court. Olmstead versus the United States was the initial deciding case. In this case Roy Olmstead was convicted of the illegal distribution of alcohol and all the evidence gathered against him was in the form of a wiretap conducted in his office. In his effort to appeal this, he was denied because no one physically invaded his space to obtain any information and therefore it didn’t violate his fourth amendment. As a result of this case, wiretapping was found unethical but could not be denied in any further cases. This is until the case of Katz versus the United States transpired. In this case Katz was convicted of providing gambling information to fellow clients over a public pay phone. In his effort to appeal, Justice Potter Stewart stated that “the fourth amendment protects people, not places” (Katz v. United States). In doing such Katz was protected under the fourth

Supporters of the surveillance program argued that wiretaps are a necessary tool for preventing terrorist activity. Some argue that the current process of judicial review and oversight is obsolete given the nature of the terrorist threat, and that the president has been forced to engage in aggressive measures to ensure national security (Jacobs and Newton 2). The first ever used wiretap in the United States was invented before the telephone. Law enforcement started eavesdropping on telegraph communications in the 1860s. Several states made it illegal to “eavesdrop” on other peoples telegraph communications. Telephones and wiretapping was common in the United States by the 1890s. Some of the media criticized the government for allowing wiretapping without permission. Phone companies stopped helping authorities with wiretapping because they didn 't like how they were using it. Most states banned the wiretapping while other states needed a court approval before they could wiretap telephones.

A Surveillance Society” By William E. Thompson and Joseph V. Hickey states a serious dramatic of an event of consequential conflicts concerns the security of every individual’s inhabiting in the general public; Moreover, it addresses how Surveillance technologies are intervening in peoples' lives and the Government has an enormous part in it. Farther more when the United States had a terrorist attack they had to enforce surveillance upon the humanity; It was called the USA Patriot Act. The USA Patriot Act is an act of Congress that was signed into the law by President George W. Bush on October 26,2001 It allowed appropriate tools required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. Essentially the citizens were being spied on to ensure security for

Society is a living breathing organism, one that constantly pushes for constant advancements in everything. This could be through medicine, social skills, physical ability, and even technological advances. Specifically for the application of law and a person’s right to privacy technological advances in surveillance will be analyzed. Whitebread, and Slobogin (2014) give a good working definition of what technological surveillance is and what is covers. “Technological surveillance,… is meant to encompass a wide variety of techniques that enhance the ability to ease drop or spy on the activities of others” (Whitebread and Slobogin, 2004, p. 134,)There are many forms of technological surveillance, example will be show through case law. As new

Recent technological advancement has generated a plethora of new circumstances where the extent of Fourth Amendment protections must be decided. New tools are available to assist both law enforcement and criminals. Furthermore, this has contributed to complications in court rulings, which seem to be aimless during the digital age. The first modern Fourth Amendment Supreme Court case was Katz v. United States. The Supreme Court ruled that Fourth Amendment protections applied to all locations where there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. In this particular instance, it prevented the warrantless wiretapping of telephone calls in telephone booths. However, this ruling sparked a fierce debate concerning the definition of a reasonable expectation of privacy, and what actions trigger