U.s. Government Over Unethical Data Turnover Orders Essay

We Americans are very fortunate that we have one of the top ten amendments that grant us the right to our privacy not being violated. The Fourth Amendment search and seizure clause focuses primarily on privacy; and this is enforced to ensure that citizens are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also does not matter what level of law enforcement jurisdiction an officer is apart of, whether it be State or Federal they are not allowed to violate this right. This particular amendment has been ameliorated many times, and that is to meet the needs of the American people. This paper shall discuss the following: the history and purpose of the Fourth Amendment, an explanation of whether or not the United States requires police to

The past several years have seen a proliferation of legislation directed at controlling criminal activities through the increased application of new laws. The effectiveness of these new laws, remains in question due not only to their relative infancy but also due to a uniform determinism of what constitutes effectiveness. The purpose of this paper will be to review the Fourth amendment particularly relating to NSA, FISA, Title III and the PATRIOT Act.

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 sets limits on the government’s rights to search our homes and businesses and to seize documents and other personal effects. It requires that the government have probable cause for the search and seizure. That is, there must be good evidence to support the specific search. Two key problems arise from new

Also mentioned in Zwerdling’s (2013) article was how the “world of computers has weakened the Fourth Amendment.” Before technology it was never easy for the government to receive your information without a said warrant. Those times have all

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution emphatically states that “no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause (Legal Information Institute 1.1).” Although the Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of people, today’s technology has led to privacy issues that need to be addressed. For example, when people comment on Twitter, it and a few other digital companies keep all the comments a person has ever posted (Daniel Zwerdling 1.2). Similarly, warrants must be used at all times if people are seizing information from someone, but searching through metadata does not require a warrant and there is no cause. Another issue is camera surveillance, which captures people who have not committed a crime, and security people do not need a warrant to

The issue of search and seizure is more than a simple legal problem, for it is directly related to a deeply held constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Additionally, the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was enacted with the purpose of protecting citizens from the Government infringing on their privacy without just cause; likewise, this includes the right to be secure in their person, their property and to be free from unreasonably searches and seizures (Varone J. C., 2012).

The Fourth Amendment allows electronic surveillance to be used to help solve crime while still protecting privacy. The NSA and FBI are looking directly into nine U.S. internet companies, extracting audio and video chats, photographs, emails, documents, and connection logs, which help to track foreign targets. The formal legal process required in Britain to seek personal materials such as emails, photos, and videos from an internet company based out of the country is being circumvented. It was agreed that they would minimize the amount of personal data being taken from people without a warrant and that people should know when their information is being used. Apple, for example, believes the customers have a right to know how their private information

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.

Privacy is a freedom that many people don’t recognize, but is essential to many. Personal information; social security numbers, passwords, text messages, etc., are now available online, and are kept personal, right? As the internet is becoming more and more accessible, everyone’s digital footprint is growing. Since the government has easy access to this information, privacy, free speech, and security suffer. The fourth amendment protects tangible items, but it never said anything about digital items. I propose a new amendment, that our digital footprint be protected, and out of the hands of the government, the only exception being in a criminal case. They should not be able to search through it as they please, just as they are not allowed to

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.

Many investigators can get retrieve valuable information about people, though their electronic devices. Larry Greenemeier stated “ People continue to use their devices to send and store more sensitive data...”. For example, Society puts information in their electronic devices about their finances and health records. Even though, citizen care about their private information being seen, avoiding the fourth amendment can help solve crimes faster and can help with the police investigation.

While how it is utilized has changed from what the founding father’s intended, but the principles remain the same. It seeks to balance the interests of the government with the rights of the people to be free from unreasonable governmental interference. For over 200 years the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment have been construed in the context of physical searches; modern technology has introduced video monitoring equipment, infrared, quick digital record searches and police are beginning to rely more on virtual searches that do not require physical access to persons, houses, papers, and effects. The Supreme Court has not only failed to anticipate and recognize these changes, but continues to ignore it in all except narrow

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 Playpen Story: Some Fourth Amendment Basics and Law Enforcement Hacking” is an analytical blog post published on the Depplinks Blog section of the Electronic Frontier Foundations (EFF) website by Mark Rumold. Mark Rumold is a senior staff attorney at EFF, a non-profit organization with a stated purpose of: “defend[ing] free speech online, fight[ing] illegal surveillance, advocating for users and innovators, support freedom-enhancing technologies”. This article is one of several, written by Rumold covering the FBI investigations and prosecutions connected to the child pornography hosting Tor site called “Playpen”. The author analyzes how the FBI actions during the investigation relate to the Fourth Amendment and proceeds to contrast them with the established legal precedence. The author argues how the hacking performed by the FBI are either searches or seizures and thus covered by the Fourth Amendments. He interprets the courts’ rulings on these cases and translates them into future implications for privacy. Author’s objective tone with a hint of concern indicates that this article is for readers 25 years of age or older valuing their privacy and constitutional rights. While he could have included greater detail, it would turn off his intended audience by providing superfluous information unrelated to the analysis he is conducting. Lack of case details and references to previous postings and articles shows that he is writing for