Maxwell Smith
The Constitution does not explicitly protect an individual's privacy. It is only an inferred right from the 1st, 3rd, and 4th amendments of the Constitution. Additionally, the United States does not recognize Privacy as a universal right.
Individuals may sue if they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" which is invaded by another individual or company by the common law protections of privacy. If your privacy is infringed upon by another individual, you must defend yourself legally.
Privacy is not defined as one singular concept or idea. Privacy's wide scope causes all privacy cases to be handled on a case-by-case basis. While the definition's fluidity allows privacy to be applied to many situations to protect the individual, the loose definition could also enable prosecutors to attack what an individual sees as their right to privacy. This causes major privacy issues to be disputed heavily in court such as Carpenter v. United States, Katz v. United States, and Kilo v. Jones.
Technology such as cell phones has made the Third Party Doctrine more nuanced, as seen in United States v. Carpenter. While the Supreme Court ruled that a warrant would need to be issued for cell-phone records, this is not the case with other online information. Online information such as emails, GPS location of a vehicle, chatrooms, and social media have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
The right to privacy is subjective. For instance, you have the right to privacy in the home however, if you leave your blinds open, you no longer have a "reasonable expectation of privacy."
Wow! The first week has already been so eye opening. Learning about right to privacy, and it’s ambiguity when applied to different situations, I believe that privacy is actually headed less in the direction of personal freedom but more in the direction of control by the government.
ReplyDeleteA clarification regarding bullet point No. 5: If the government is tracking the movement of your vehicle by installing a GPS tracking device on the vehicle, it must have a warrant allowing it to do so. Private parties, however, can do so without running afoul of the Fourth Amendment because the constitutional protection applies only to state actors, i.e. the government or someone operating on behalf of the government. Note that affixing a GPS tracking device (which you can purchase for less than $100 on the internet) on your BFF's car without consent may violate the law in certain states.
ReplyDeleteA lot was spoken about this week and it was very informational and told me a lot of things I didn't know. I really do think tackling the idea of privacy and saying how it is not one easy concept is very interesting. As said in the article privacy is a base to base situation and changes based on the situation. Like how in class how privacy with any messaging source is recorded and companies are allowed to see it.
ReplyDelete