Privacy: Olmstead V. United States

According to the text “Our value is founded on a unique and deep understanding of risks, vulnerabilities, mitigations, and threats. Domestic Surveillance plays a vital role in our national security by using advanced data mining systems to "connect the dots" to identify suspicious patterns” (NSA). One of the slogans of the NSA is, “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. However, if you have nothing to hide there is no argumentation as to why the NSA taps into any form of communication or access to the internet. Therefore, this withdraws the power of the people and puts it directly back into the government and, simultaneously belittles citizen’s

"I can 't in good conscience allow the U.S. government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they 're secretly building" (Edward Snowden). The NSA began monitoring and collecting sensitive and personal information from Americans such as their emails, phone calls, photos and other private material. Massive surveillance began in 2001 after the terrorist attack in New York and since then there has been a big peak in government watching. It 's unnecessary for the NSA to monitor American’s private conversations as well as other sensitive data because people should be able to have a sense of privacy in personal communication with others.

Federal agents suspected DLK was growing marijuana in his home. To gather evidence they scanned his house with a device called a thermal imager. A thermal imager detects heat. The results of the scan showed abnormal heat signatures. However was that search constitutional? The use of the thermal imager violated DLK’s fourth amendment right. Even though DLK’s acts were illegal, the process of arresting him violated his 4th amendment right due to the fact that the imager goes enhances the eyes ability, the evidence was not disappearing, and the scanning reveals details that can only be found by going in a given house.

In this paper, I argue against Government Surveillance. Although a society full of cameras could help solve some crimes, it is also true that the Constitution, through the fourth amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Despite the fact that this is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law should be monitored. In addition, increasing political surveillance with the excuse of protection against war or enemies only fuels the fact that innocent people’s lives are being monitored. Finally, the information collected by the mass internet surveillance programs could be used for other harmful purposes since hackers could gain access to the databases and sell the information to other companies or terrorist groups.

believe that if they do not do anything wrong in the face of technology and security, then

Do you ever feel like someone’s watching you? We may not see it, but government surveillance has skyrocketed throughout the years. Anything that we do with our electronic devices can be monitored by the government. Our privacy can be intruded on and we don’t even have a clue. Once our information is in the government’s hands, it can be spread widely and kept for years, and the rules about access and use can be changed entirely in secret without the public ever knowing. This has caused people to be unable to travel, attain jobs, or even access their own money. In Monica Hughes’s Invitation to the Game, we see examples of government surveillance such as the thought police that infiltrate the character’s minds to get information.(pg.19)

In the case of Riley V. California, Mr. Riley was stopped on a traffic violation, which led to his arrest on weapons charges. The officer searching Riley’s incident to arrest seized a cell phone form Riley’s possession. There was information on the phone and repeated use of a term associated with a street gang. Hours later a gang detective examined the phone’s digital contents and based in part on photographs and videos found, the State charged Riley in connection with a shooting that occurred a few weeks earlier. They sought an enhanced sentence based on Riley’s gang membership. He was ultimately charged with connection to an earlier shooting, firing at an occupied vehicle, assault with a semiautomatic firearm, and attempted murder. Riley

The Fourth Amendment protects the fundamental of search and seizure. Which in this case, discusses the importance of obtaining physical evidence and how it is used. In other words, the Fourth Amendment can be violated if the evidence gathered has been obtained unreasonably. The court argued that it is an individual right to keep information private and are protected regardless of the place they are in. In addition, they also mentioned if citizens have an “expectation of privacy” and society recognizes as reasonable then the Fourth Amendment avoids any search and seizure. The “expectation of privacy” applies to not only electronic surveillance but all forms of searches and seizures. The majority also rejected the penetration rule where a person’s rights can be violated even if the police never physically intrude his/her property or possessions. Justice Black dissents stating that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to the eavesdropping. Although he mentions that eavesdropping was unknown during the time the Fourth Amendment was written, he provides an ancient scenario where if eavesdropping had been a big deal back then, then it would have been written in the Fourth Amendment.

Our current article is Mary Jo White’s “Privacy Rules Shouldn’t Handcuff the S.E.C.” In this article, White tries to argue that S.E.C. should have limited rights to access people’s electronic communication records rather than have no rights.

Edward Snowden perfectly sums up the thought process behind the rejection of the mass surveillance: “Privacy isn’t about something to hide. Privacy is about something to protect… freedom of speech doesn’t mean much if you can’t have a quiet space… arguing that you don’t have privacy because you have nothing to hide is like arguing that you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” (Document 2). The point of view is from an ardent Libertarian that has contributed to Ron Paul’s campaign numerous times. Edward Snowden firmly believes in the right to self. His purpose was to let the detractors know Snowden’s exact motive. Because the government constantly looks over ones’ shoulder, they have to constantly be mindful of their online activity and their online footprint. The Constitution was founded upon the principles of freedom from fear of the government, but this is not the case today. Edward Snowden’s views are reciprocated by the general US population. According to the Pew Research Center, 81% of people find it unacceptable for the US to monitor citizens of their countries, 73% finds it unacceptable to monitor leaders of their country, 62% finds it unacceptable to monitor American citizens, and 64% finds it acceptable to monitor terrorist suspects (Document 5). Although the monitoring of suspected terrorists was the original intention, the power hungry intelligence agencies of

persons. They are the people the government tracks to see if anything suspicious comes in to the U.S.. The Obama administration said that “extensive procedures, specifically approved by the court, to ensure that only non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. are targeted, and that minimize the acquisition, retention and dissemination of incidentally acquired information about U.S. persons.”(citation). The government searching people without having a warrant. The government has many tools in looking into people's information but the government doesn't realize that it is violating the 4th amendment by using the resources they have in looking into suspected people and that's the reason why we cannot trust our information to be safe with the government either way. David Cole, a lawyer who teaches constitutional law and national security at Georgetown University, and other legal analysts says that, “The world of computers has weakened the Fourth Amendment. "In the modern digital age, it means very, very little."(citation). The reason why he says this is because, before we had computers, no one knew who we were seeing or where we were going throughout the day, but if someone were to know they would have to wiretap our things to know. If the fourth amendment was follow the police would need a warrant to do that but in today's world we wouldn't need it anymore. Because since we share our things with other people for instance phone companies, credit card companies, or by making your local shopping card, the Supreme Court has the right to look at your personal documents as well. By doing so you let them know what you do, such as who you call, what you buy, and who you call, so you cannot call that information private. “Let's say the police or FBI wanted to gather intimate details about your life back in the old days — meaning, before computers came along. Whom are you meeting? What

Because technology is continually growing, new laws are being passed regarding technology and confidentiality. This article questions the “invasive” internet searches and looks for a constitutional answer. As of now, no electronic device can be confiscated and searched without a warrant. This could prove to be beneficial for Arnie. If he was to report Mr. Bowen’s suspicious data to the police, they would be able to obtain a warrant to officially search Mr. Bowen’s computer. However, until the warrant was obtained, Arnie couldn’t give over Mr. Bowen’s data to the

In making its Smith ruling, the Court considered whether the person invoking the protection of the Fourth Amendment could claim a “legitimate expectation of privacy” that has been invaded by government action, and stated that such an inquiry normally addresses two questions: (1) whether the individual has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and (2) whether the individual 's expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as “reasonable.”

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows the United States government to gather foreign intelligence information concerning persons located outside of the country that are, or are connected to, a potential threat against the nation. In addition to protecting national security, the communications data collected under Section 702 has been used for criminal prosecution in domestic court cases. Since it passed in 2008, scholars have raised questions over the act’s constitutionality, especially about its consistence with the Fourth Amendment which protects both US and non-US persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. These scholars argue that not all communications gathered under Section 702 meet the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment and should therefore not be used in criminal cases. However, Section 702 mainly conflicts with the Constitution only when the act is used inappropriately by agencies to investigate people residing within the US rather than for its intended purpose of gathering foreign intelligence. In order to ensure that the Fourth Amendment is not violated in the process of gathering foreign surveillance intelligence or using such intelligence in a domestic court case, FISA Section 702 must be amended.

"  In our World, threats to our Country are common and are becoming frequent. Issues like bullying, extremism, terrorism, and even the illegal production and distribution of drugs threaten all parts of the world more than ever. Not to mention, our increasing dependence on technology for business transactions, work, school, and storage of information has opened up a medium to effectuate these actions. The use of the internet no doubt is beneficial but like anything else, it can, and has been put to ill use. Controversy has been stirred up concerning the monitoring of internet content by the government. Many believe that this action is violating their right inscribed in the fifth amendment which protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information. But with the existence of agencies such as the NSA and Acts like the USA PATRIOT Act, the government has shown that it is more concerned with the national