The Importance Of Computer Privacy

Riley v. California is a Supreme Court case that pertains to the Fourth Amendment; specifically, the privacy clause. This case was decided by the Court in 2014 with a unanimous decision for Riley. It came to the Court after the petitioner, Riley, was stopped for a traffic violation and then arrested on a weapons charge. The arresting officer proceeded to search Riley and removed a cell phone from his pocket. After accessing the phone the officer found evidence of gang related activity. The officer took Riley back to the station and a detective that specialized in gang related crime went through the phone and found multiple pictures and videos pertaining to a shooting a few weeks prior. They sought to enhance the charges due to the evidence found on his phone that connected him to the gangs. Riley moved to suppress the evidence that was discovered on his phone; the trial court denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed. A number of interests groups appeared as amici in this case including: EPIC, American Civil Liberties Union, Cato Institute, DKT Liberty Project, Constitutional Accountability Center amongst others submitted briefs in support of the petitioner. Two groups submitted briefs in support of the respondent and those include Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies and Arizona et al.

The Fourth Amendment is about search and seizure. This amendment is mostly about having one’s own privacy. The amendment has been implemented to protect against unlawful searches and seizure by the federal law enforcement and also by the state. The Fourth Amendment protects the U.S citizen’s right of privacy from invasion. Today, the topic of privacy is frequently and heatedly discussed. As a person who wants to be aware of my rights, I and also the U.S. citizens need to know this amendment better, to know the histories of the amendment, the evolvements of its interpretation and how it plays the role in Supreme Court.

Protecting American citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures is the central idea of the Fourth Amendment; however, the Fourth Amendment may also apply to electronics. Classified organizations, such as, the NSA secretly collect information that includes, details of phone calls, e-mails, and personal Internet activity, although, in 2013 the NSA’s secret was revealed to the public, since it was not publicly known that the NSA had been collecting bulk phone data. The NSA later tried to defend itself and state that it doesn’t mean that they collect all personal records, such as, medical records and library records. In order for the NSA to legally store phone data the agency must first receive a warrant from the FISA Court each time it wants

The fourth amendment states that “persons, houses, papers, and effects” cannot be searched without a warrant. If so many people own a cell phone, wouldn’t they be no different than documents or other pieces of property that conceal private information? Cell phones contain just as much information about a person as any paper would. A cell phone is a piece of private property that one may use on an everyday basis. Mr. Riley is no different. His cell phone was his property that was searched illegally, and although he did commit crimes that were shown in his cell phone, the police still needed a warrant to search the phone. Based on the 4th amendment, I have concluded that the San Diego Police Department’s search of David Riley’s cell phone was unconstitutional and

The Court faced the question of whether the search of Riley’s cell phone violated his Fourth Amendment rights to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution 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”. It consists of two clauses, the reasonableness clause which focuses on the reasonableness of a search and seizure and the warrant clause which limits the scope of a search. There are many views on how the Fourth Amendment should be interpreted, especially by today’s standards. The world has evolved significantly since the implementation of the Bill of Rights. As it evolved, time brought about numerous cases on the applicability of the Fourth Amendment. When plaintiffs are not satisfied with the decision of lower courts, they can

In the Fourth Amendment of the U.S Constitution provides privacy as it states in the Constitution “the rights of the people to be secure in their persons, house, 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.” this amendment assures you how you have the right to your privacy a personal life or just technology without a search warrants. The Fourth Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights because it deals with the privacy for the individuals and because the people have the right to feel secure in their house or while using their technologies. There has been many court cases regarding the rights that the Fourth Amendment provides. For example in the article “Creating a Fourth Amendment loophole” talks about how there was a policeman who suspected drugs in an apartment and kicked the door open without a search warrant. When they

The United States v. Jones case is distinguished by the use of GPS tracking (as that was not an entity when the Fourth Amendment was created). Antoine Jones was arrested for drug possession after police attached a GPS tracker to his car for more than the allowed time the warrant held out for. With this case, the U.S. Supreme Court universally established that Americans have constitutional protections against GPS surveillance by law enforcement. In this day and age, GPS tracking is considered a search under the Fourth Amendment. The founding fathers who put together the Constitution never imagined technology like this, so they had no reason to include examples like this case in the Fourth Amendment. As the Fourth Amendment

Because of the new technology boom, over the years the courts are being bombarded with request, for upholding or appealing, in what applies and does not apply, to the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment is within the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment, clearly states people have a right to be secure in their privacy, in their own persons, own homes, and their own papers and their personal effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, if there is probable cause of criminal or harmful intent being committed with a particular person or persons, than warrants can be issues with the written out plan of what is exactly going to be searched and exactly whom.

The Bill of Rights is a necessary piece of the Constitution, written to protect the people of the United States of America. The fourth amendment in particular is designed to protect one from unreasonable searches and seizures of ones property. A search or seizure is considered unreasonable without an issued search warrant. However, a peace officer may search without having a search warrant if there is probable cause. According to Cornell University Law School “The Fourth Amendment applies to the search and seizure of electronic devices.” The fourth amendment does have rules set for protection of telephonic and electronic activities requiring search warrants, but the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center has altered this law.

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 Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "[t]he 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." The ultimate goal of this provision is to protect people’s right to privacy and freedom from arbitrary governmental intrusions. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourth Amendment to allow for a number of exceptions to this requirement where there are exigent circumstances.

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution holds grave importance for the citizens of the United States of America. This amendment of the Constitution is exceptionally important due to the fact, that it protects citizens from unreasonable searches or seizures. However, the phrase, “reasonable expectation of privacy” is a different aspect that is pertinent to the evolution of the Fourth Amendment, and Riley v. California. To dissect this phrase, reasonable is the important aspect here, this is where the court must decide what is and what is not reasonable, in relation to the Fourth Amendment. Privacy, on the other hand, seems to be defined inadequately. (Baude & Stern, 2016). Within this, importance comes from the actual warrant requirement

Until now, many people argued that searching of historical cell phone records affects people’s privacy, but some other argue that the fourth amendment gives extreme protection for people’s privacy and it puts the country’s safety at risk. In general, it’s obvious that the fourth amendment gives extreme privacy to people since searching for the call history of a person to find just the location and time of call of a person without getting deep into its contents doesn’t touch the privacy of a person but at the same time gives an important information for

The words, “Arguing that you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say” were said by Edward Snowden who is a computer professional in America. Similarly, the essays “Tracking Is an Assault on Liberty,” “Web Users Get as Much as They Give,” and “Facebook Is Using You” from Nicholas Carr, Jim Harper, and Lori Andrews respectively points out that the internet privacy is good and bad. However, the articles by Carr and Andrews are based on the negative side of the internet privacy, which means that the internet privacy is not good. On the other hand, Harper’s article is based on the positive side of the internet privacy, which means that the internet privacy is good and scary, but people need to be careful of their own information and browsing histories, and websites. Jim Harper’s essay is more relevant and reasonable than the Nicholas Carr and Lori Andrews’s essays. However, Harper seems more persuasive to readers because he believes that the internet is good if people use it in a right way, whereas Carr and Andrews believe that the internet is not good at all.