The Right Of Privacy And Protection From Government Abusing Power

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.

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.

The Fourth Amendment is based on probable cause which means that there are reasonable grounds for an action. When police go to get a search warrant from a judge they must have a good reason. Probable cause in the fourth amendment, “protects people’s right to privacy and freedom from arbitrary governmental intrusions (L.I.I Fourth Amendment).” “There a circumstances when police feel that the public is at risk and they will then pursue a warrantless arrest (L.I.I Fourth Amendment).” When Apple receives a request from the government for customer information, they cannot oblige “without a court order(Apple).” It is important to some companies to protect their customer’s information, make sure it’s safe, and to ask for a warrant. Probable cause

What started as a private issue spread like wildfire as it was made public by Apple. This problem has created two sides that ask whether Apple should have the right to not oblige or if the FBI has the power to force them to make these means a reality. This specific issue opens up a greater problem that takes it outside the US and affects anyone with any kind of technology connected around the world: should the government have the right to access information on your phone? It’s a seemingly yes or no answer, but the precedent this situation will create makes it a lot more important as it can determine what the future of privacy on technology is like. When looking at the facts, rationality, and emotions that stem from whether the government should have the means

Apple has the right to resist the FBI’s pressure to hack Syed Farook’s phone. Some say that Apple had no right to resist because the FBI are working on a case, but to hack into someone’s phone breaking their privacy, which is violating the Fourth Amendment. On Google, the fourth amendment clearly states, “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The amendment does not say that third parties can force people to help aid the Federal Government. The FBI has no right to invade on Farook’s life. Some again say, yes they do, they are trying to protect Americans from future bombings, shootings, and any other types of terrorism. However, this may be true, it

Meanwhile law officials are saying that the quality of their equipment to get into gadgets are low.But then Apple says that opening the phone leads to other problems like violation of the customer’s rights and privacy. Apple has protested that it is not right for the F.B.I. to go behind their back and have a third party join and decrypt the password.Apple also said that the government had forced them to try to open it for them and or to create a new way to unlock Mr.Farook’s phone and considered it to be forced speech and viewpoint of discrimination which violates the first amendment.The Apple had also said that the government had violated Apples Fifth Amendment right which says they allowed to dothings without the governments comments.They

As a nation, we have had many first-hand experiences with terrorism and violence. The pain and suffering we are put through as a nation, people tend not to consider being subjected to government surveillance. Our security from future terrorist attacks is vital, then again, not as vital as our privacy. People shouldn’t be so quick to sacrifice their privacy rights, to allow the government to monitor national security. Giving the government the power of invading our privacy, creates an effortless way for them to violate their power and strip citizens of their constitutional rights. People will argue that the price one has to pay for safety, is giving up their rights to privacy. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” (Independence Hall Association). In other words, those willing to give up their privacy for security, deserve neither. We the people, those who assemble this nation, should not allow the government to invade our privacy or void our 4th amendment right.

After the terrorist attacks in San Bernardino, the United States government, specifically the Federal Bureau of Investigation was in a dispute with the technology company Apple. The FBI seized the iPhone of Syed Farook who along with his wife Tasfeen Malik killed 14 people and injured 22. Farook and his wife were then killed in a shootout with the police. However, the FBI could not bypass the security code that Farook placed on his phone, and access information within the device. Therefore, the bureau requested that Apple create a backdoor which is a mean of access to a computer program that bypasses the programs security measures. Apple refused to comply with the bureau’s request as the company argued that it would jeopardize the privacy of their customers and is an overreach of state power. Thus, the conflict was going to be decided legally, until the FBI canceled the first court hearing with Apple. The FBI was able to unlock Farook’s phone without Apple’s help through a third party company. But the government’s actions set in place a dangerous precedent. By creating a back door, the government is able to access information on any Apple device and has weakened the company’s cyber security. To prevent further legal disputes, Congress and the president should create a modern law that can balance the interests of national security and privacy in the 21st century.

Personal interest in the right to privacy has intensified in recent years along with the rapid development of new technologies. A century later, these concerns remain, but many others have joined them. Advances in information and communications technology have increased our ability to collect, store and transmit data about individuals. While these advances could be considered useful, some see them as a situation where anyone can watch and record the actions of every individual, and where the individual has lost control over information about herself and thus over her very life. As a reaction to these concerns, new regulations have been formulated to define the rights of individuals and the limits on the use of technology with respect to personal information.

Apple has satisfied the warrant issued by the government to the best of their ability. There is an implied social contract between citizens of the United States that living in a liberal democracy; one must give up some freedoms for the public safety of all. However, the FBI is asking for the exact opposite from Apple by asking them to give up the freedom of one iPhone that can potentially harm the freedom of millions of iPhones. The magistrate on behalf of the federal government issued a warrant on Apple to give up the data stored on an iPhone by hacking into the iPhone of the San Bernardino shooter. Case law is on the government side with Smith v. Maryland, which there is no expectation of privacy for information given to third parties. The courts have issued warrants on third parties before, and the data contained by these third parties had to be turned over. But Apple does not have the data the government is looking for, and the government knows this. The government is trying to force Apple to create software to get into iPhone. The warrant to search the phone is valid, the government has the phone, there is no prohibition from searching the phone, and Apple is not holding data from the phone. The warrant has been satisfied. The shooter no longer has an expectation of privacy. However, all other Apple iPhones and product user besides the San Bernardino shooter does have a reasonable expectation of privacy. And that is why Apple never created a decryption key for their

I, Savannah Parmelee believe an individual's right to privacy should be protected if they do not violate the law to a certain degree therefore, I plan to seek out evidence during my research that supports this controlling idea. I am greatly concerned about this topic due to the people’s privacy not being fully protected for both terrorist and by the government.In the video “Impact of drones on privacy rights” on “CBS This Morning” claims that “Lakota, N.D., is the first known site where a drone was used domestically to help arrest a U.S. citizen.” What the quote is saying is that drones helped arrest a U.S. citizen. The incident in the video proves that drones can help see illegal activities happening and can try to stop

On February 16, 2016, a United States judge working in the District Court of Los Angeles ordered the technology company Apple to help the FBI break into a work phone previously owned by one of the San Bernardino shooters. Apple was expected to assist in bypassing a feature of the iPhone that deletes its contents after a certain number of password tries. This would allow the FBI to enter an infinite number of passcodes, eventually cracking the iPhone. However, Apple denied this request, and appealed the initial hearing. Apple said that doing what the FBI asked would not only go against it’s First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights but, also, would endanger privacy of iPhone users everywhere. Apple is right in standing up to the FBI on this

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.

The right to privacy was not established as a constitutional doctrine until after the result of the Supreme Court ruling in the 1965 case of Griswold vs. Connecticut. The court decision was based on the interpretation of several amendments within the Bill of Rights. Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly state anything about the right to privacy, a combination of its sections was used as the framework for establishing the right (“Griswold v. Connecticut (1965),” 2007).

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.