According to Richards (2013), it is illegitimate and pernicious to establish an underground and comprehensive surveillance in the society. First, individual privacy, which should be granted and well protected by the law, is now violated. Under PRISM, personal details, including thoughts, movements, communication, transaction and health record, is being systemically and consistently collected without a permit from the owners. The right to hold these details is shifted from the individuals to the state. The state then can make use of the information for certain political purposes like filtering criminal/ terrorist-related suspects out of the government or even country.
They can prohibit future violations of the law, such as trespass to real property, infringement of a patent, or the violation of a constitutional right (e.g., the free exercise of religion). Or they can require the defendant to repair past violations of the law. An injunction can require someone to do something, like clean up an oil spill or remove a spite fence. Or it can prohibit someone from doing something, like using an illegally obtained trade secret. An injunction that requires conduct is called a "mandatory injunction."
Arizona ruling eliminated the fear of the accused from torture and coercion and notified individuals of their rights that they otherwise wouldn’t have known that they had. The ruling explicitly stated that if a person was not informed of their Fifth Amendment right, then compelling pressures could cause a person who otherwise not have spoken, to incriminate themselves (Document J). In the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, it had not specifically stated that a suspect must be informed of their rights before they are questioned. The ruling of Miranda v. Arizona finally cleared up the confusion concerning the rights of the accused and self-incrimination and required officials of the law to read out the warning known as the Miranda warning to anyone they may question. Additionally, manuals such as Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation, specified the rules to be used during interrogations to prevent coercion (Document F).
The rule is intended to prevent police officers from violating the rights granted by the Fourth Amendment. Thus, evidence obtained by the police that violates the Fourth Amendment cannot be used to convict someone accused of a crime. Some people think that without this rule, the Fourth Amendment would not make sense. As with many other legal rules, this rule has several exceptions. In the Supreme Court relied on the rule of "good faith" holding that the evidence obtained by the officers conducting inquiries based on a "good faith" court order that is subsequently found to be deficient is also admissible.
Surprisingly, The American Civil Liberties Union states that,“history has shown that powerful, secret surveillance tools will almost certainly be abused for political ends and turned disproportionately on disfavored minorities”(ALCU). This suggests that privacy is often unjustified within the barriers of the national security and many people are associated with the stigma of being targeted by national security through surveillance. This is important because the use of security can violate the rights privacy and contribute to the stigmation which in the DHS case is the blame of being associated with
Information security considered as the procedure of protecting information against unauthorized access, disclosure, disruption, modification, use, or destroyed. In other word information security include defending information whatever the form this data may take. Although each organization employ information security to protect its secret data, but security breaches or identity theft may take place, security breach mean illegal access to defined categories of personal information. In other word it mean illegal access to personal information to use, destroy or amend it (Cate, 2008, p.4). Furthermore, identity theft considered as forgery seeking to use the identifying information of another person without legal authorization or permission.
DNA profiling is a method of identification that is seen more and more often. Although the method of DNA profiling is a great method to use and has multiple upsides to using it; DNA profiling also has several disadvantages that come along with the method. With all of these negatives, people are opposing the use of DNA profiling in all fields that can use the method. One of the downsides to using the method of DNA profiling is that the method involves the invasion of a person’s privacy. Taking DNA from someone either willingly or forcefully, and investigating the person’s personal background, invades their privacy in a situation like a criminal investigation.
Public Lewdness Public Lewdness refers to vulgar and obscene behaviour in the public space. Laws were created in relation to protect the society from this lewdness which is considered as immoral and inappropriate. (S Houselaw, 2016) If one is being convicted for public lewdness, the prosecutor needs to have relevant evidence to convince a judge/jury that the defendant did commit the crime of lewdness in open and public space. The meaning behind lewdness is an element of both lustful and sexual indulgence on the part of the defendant. An example of an unlawful act in relation to lewdness would be to engage in sexual intercourse in public space.
Generally, the major elements of trespass “include an unlawful intrusion upon a property, with intention, force and injury to an owner. A trespass can become intentional if the acts leading to the invasion were done with knowledge that a trespass would result.” There are three main forms of trespass to a person which include assault, battery and false imprisonment. Besides, it is advantageous to look into what is intention in order to argue for the question. Intent can be defined as “a mental attitude resulted from an action of a person, and hence it cannot ordinarily be directly proved but must be inferred from surrounding facts and circumstances. It is not necessary that any illegal or wrongful means be used to carry out the negative result, provided the wrongful conduct was intentional and was not accompanied by justifications and excuses.” Firstly, “tort of
But Baudrillard goes on to argue that 9/11 defies not just morality, but any form of interpretation. This statement feeds back to the earlier idea that the sheer size and scale of the attacks and their enormous visual symbolism posed specific problems for writers attempting to accommodate the subject into conventional fictional narratives. Indeed, contrary to Amis; assertion of a literature that would stand in opposition to what he sees as irrational, religious violence, the realist novel has struggled profoundly to represent the
The biggest benefit of the Fourth Amendment is that it deters searches. A search under the Fourth Amendment is “when a governmental employee or an agent of the government violates an individual 's reasonable expectation of privacy” (Legal Information). If the government were to invade a citizen’s property no law enforcement shall search the human, but upon probable cause. The court will be the one to tell if the search falls under the Fourth Amendment, if it were to fall under the Fourth Amendment the citizen would not be searched. In addition, when the law enforcement believes searching a citizen is reasonable, no excessive force shall be used.
The patriot act has in my opion violated the 4th amendment. It has its advantages as far as terrorizim but to normal citzens this is a complete violation of our privacy. bThe late Benjermin Franklin warned us about trading our liberty for sucureity. This act has taken away a lot of our liberties it gives the government way too much power to invade our privacy. They now have unprecedented power to monitor the phone calls, e-mails, without a warrant.
(1914), but only the federal cases were affected. It didn’t touch the state courts until Mapp v Ohio (1961). It was because of Mapp v Ohio that Wolf v. Colorado (1949) was overturned. The exclusionary rule is a safeguard for the deterrence of police participating in illegal search and seizures. The exclusionary rule states that any evidence obtained by illegal search and seizure or information derived from the evidence from an illegal search and seizure will be inadmissible in court.
Again, the standards of use are clear and the expectation of privacy does not survive the government’s interest and already established case law. If using a personal thumb-drive in a government owned device, the employee would not have any rights under the Fourth Amendment for that thumb drive being searched and seized. Is the governments search or seizure unreasonable? It would not be once an employee introduced a device such as a thumb-drive into the government computer. The government has a vested interest in the cyber security of their network.
Should Sex Offenders Name be Public? It is debatable if sex offenders names should be public, some people believe is a invasion of there private life, “There is a real danger of vigilantism and publicizing their names (and the info required goes far beyond just their names) is an invasion of privacy of the wives, children and families of these offenders, which is an invasion of privacy no other class of criminal faces”(debate.org) . Others believe this is not even debatable, that Sex offenders name should be public, period, “Once somebody commits a sexual crime, they have given up their right to anonymity. As a parent, I want to be very aware of the sexual offenders who may be near my children. The sexual registry list is a good tool that