The
Protected Privacy That’s Unsecured
Okay,
so it seems that privacy rights and associated legislation primarily refer to
the personal information American citizens willingly submit to organizations, information
government agencies collect during investigations and general surveillance, individuals’
personal property, as well as environments which warrant an expectation of
privacy. That said, any right to privacy we have has been
articulated by Supreme Court Justices via judicial opinions and court rulings, informed
by perpetual interpretations of the Bill
of Rights and other constitutional provisions and amendments, or explicitly
expressed in various pieces of federal and state legislation. Additionally, the general concept of the
right to privacy is a derivative aspect of our civil liberties, and can also be
linked to civil rights—which may also be considered as rights, enumerated or
implied, in the Constitution. Moreover,
with the plethora of federal and state legislation regarding privacy, along
with liberties and rights depicted in the national Constitution, United States’
citizens can be confident that their privacy is as well protected as it is
unsecured. Our real concerns about
privacy rights and, more specifically, privacy invasions, should be centered on
the ever-growing technological abilities of ordinary citizens, and the
possibility of business organizations and government agencies neglecting to
operate within company and legislative guidelines.
Although
civil rights do not particularly pertain to privacy rights, there is an association, given certain situations. Civil rights have more to do with unfair or
uncivilized treatment by public organizations on the basis of race, gender,
religion, sexual orientation or other personal characteristics. The recent IRS scandal is a sufficient
example of the relation between privacy and civil rights. The Internal Revenue Service was accused of
unfairly targeting “conservative groups who applied for tax-exempt status” (www.nationaljournal.com). In this scenario, the behavior of the IRS was
nothing less than the agency discriminating against conservative groups, clearly
infringing upon their freedom to privately
conduct their own business, legally, in their own way. Another example, is the racial profiling of individuals. This is discrimination as well, as it invades
a person’s right to be left alone, on the basis of his or her ethnic
background. It is necessary that we are
aware of the link between civil rights and the right to privacy provided in
these two examples, as we strive to better mitigate these things in the future.
Further, the concept of privacy rights can be likened to
an offspring of civil liberties. According
to civilrights.findlaw.com, civil liberties “typically include basic rights and
freedoms that are guaranteed by law—either explicitly identified in laws and
constitutions, or interpreted through the years by courts and lawmakers”
(2014). Freedom of speech, the right to
privacy, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the
right to a fair court trial, the right to marry, and the right to vote are all
included in our civil liberty package deal.
However, the right to privacy stands out in this list because of its implied nature. Although it is “guaranteed by law”, it is not
“explicitly identified” in the constitution.
When discussing
privacy rights, it is fundamentally significant to, establish an adequate
understanding of the subject and the development of its jurisprudence. With no explicit
right to privacy expressed in our national constitution, any right to privacy
we have is recognized as mere implications
noticed when observing our civil liberties and other provisions and amendments,
found in the Constitution. These
implications are the soil to the federal “common law approach” used in the
development of privacy jurisprudence, while the Bill of Rights is the primary
point of reference (www.intechopen.com,
2014). Moreover, the 14th Amendment
and its “guarantee” of liberty has also been used by the Supreme Court to
determine a “fairly broad right of privacy”, providing
the Court leverage to decide on a variety of different cases (law2.umkc.edu,
2014). Ultimately, the Bill of Rights
and other constitutional provisions and amendments encompass our civil
liberties and civil rights, and has simply allowed us to determine the who,
what, when, where, and how of privacy rights.
Opinions written by Supreme Court Justices reflecting
their interpretation of how constitutional provisions and amendments were used
to sufficiently rule on certain questionable cases is the essence of the
aforementioned common law approach that ever-develops privacy jurisprudence. Various case law examples assist in providing
a more clear understanding of how privacy jurisprudence is developed. In Meyer
v. Nebraska (1923), a “7-2 decision […] held that it was indeed a violation
of the Due Process Clause” (atheism.about.com, 2014) to attempt to regulate
what parents are allowed to teach their children. According to atheism.about.com, this was one
of the first cases that revealed implied liberty rights in the Constitution
(2014). The conclusions generated in
Meyer v. Nebraska have been used in at least two other cases since then. Because of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)—one of the cases supported by Meyer—birth
control was made legal. Griswold also
provided groundwork for the famous Roe v.
Wade as well as Eisenstadt v. Baird—both
of which also are examples of case law that has contributed to the
jurisprudence of privacy. The
conclusions of the cases mentioned here have primarily contributed their own distinctive
element to privacy jurisprudence, which allows us to have a better defined
perception of the subject.
Privacy
rights have also been protected by many different laws legislators have
specifically enacted for various reasons. These laws have been established on the federal
and state levels. For example, the Privacy Act of 1974 is a “comprehensive
law governing the protection of personal information in
the possession of the federal government” (www.gsa.gov,
2014). The Privacy Act’s intention is to
ensure that personal information is used properly and that “agencies institute
measures that prevent any misuse of information in their possession” (www.gsa.gov,
2014). The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act “imposes restrictions on the ability of
financial institutions to disclose non-public personal information about
consumers to nonaffiliated third parties and requires financial institutions to
provide privacy notices to consumers” (www.cftc.gov,
2014). The Health Insurance Probability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA)
protects the privacy of personal health information. Additionally, there are 28
federal and state laws related to data
privacy alone presented on informationshield.com
(2014), which consist of laws such as the Cable
Communications Policy Act of 1984, the Electronic
Funds Transfer Act, the Information
Security Management Act, and many more.
Although some of us may be unaware of it, our personal privacy is
legally protected from a variety of perspectives on the national and
sub-national levels, and it is clear that the subject has been thoroughly
considered by legislators.
After arriving at the conclusion that our privacy is
indeed very well protected legally, why do we yet experience a sense of
insecurity about the subject? Why is it
that we yet believe our privacy is not totally protected? At the end of the day, we are insecure and we
lack confidence in privacy protection because there will simply always be “those
possibilities”. Regardless of all of the
laws that have been enacted on the federal and state levels, humans are still
in control of it all, and some of us simply do not have the best intentions or
discipline to make decisions of integrity in certain instances.
Edward Joseph Snowden is a computer specialist who once
was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and was also a
contractor for the National Security Agency (en.wikipedia.org, 2014). Snowden is responsible for providing classified NSA documents to media
outlets. This was considered the most
“significant leak in U.S. history” (en.wikipedia.org, 2014). Moreover, even though Snowden indicated that
his intentions were good, which has
garnered support from certain people—and this example does not directly pertain
to personal privacy—this is yet the “grandfather”
of examples that support a profound point discussed in this paper.
Aside from the enactment of the Patriot Act of 2002, the leaking of the NSA documents by Edward
Snowden is a factor that played a substantial role in provoking the current
cynical mentality regarding privacy rights.
It is because of this leak of information that mass surveillance and
government secrecy has been primary topics of conversation in the last year. It is because of this leak that people seem
so concerned with the possibility of their emails and telephone conversations being
monitored. Furthermore, according to
wikipedia.org, Snowden specifically expressed that his “’sole motive’” for
exposing the information was to “’inform the public as to that which is done in
their name, and that which is done against them” (en.wikipedia.org, 2014). This clearly supports any speculation of
government agencies acting outside of legislative guidelines.
Our ability to use the advanced technology we have
developed today is growing in an exponential way. This means that not only do government
agencies and private business organizations need to tighten and maintain their
virtual security, but those of us that live on our computers and other devices
that allow us to exist virtually, must not hesitate to do the same. Because the use of computers has become such
a necessity, government agencies,
private business organizations, and everyone existing virtually is knowingly or
unknowingly engaging in a cyber-war. This means that no computer system, personal
data, or any kind of records stored virtually are any more protected than files
stored traditionally in someone’s office.
Additionally, it seems that we simply cannot escape the
technology once we have entered its realm. It is wise for us, if we are interested in
concealing things about our personal selves, to do the least amount of things
electronically. According to hg.org, many
people that visit websites that require the submission of personal information,
often neglect to read the “terms of use” statement included on most websites of
that kind (www.hg.org,
2014). The terms of use statement on
these kinds of websites usually permits the company to track a person’s
activity on that website as well as their general online activity “through the
use of ‘cookies’” (www.hg.org,
2014). Further, almost anyone can access
your personal information by simply tapping into “public and private databases
that gather buy and sell your vital statistics” (www.consumerreports.org,
2014). Our personal information is often
“used for direct marketing” and it may even sold to “third parties” (www.hg.org,
2014). These facts only make us more
wary about the security of our personal information in the hands of government
agencies and private business organizations.
Even
ordinary individuals can hack into other peoples’ systems as well as systems
belonging to government agencies (e.g. Edward Snowden and NSA documents), and
private business organizations. In 2013,
the retail store, Target, had its system hacked, and the personal data of over
110 million customer’s was exposed (ww.bgr.com, 2014). The breach exposed the credit and debit card
information of at least “40 million” customers, according to bgr.com
(2014). Target customers probably would
not have even considered something like that happening to them in a million
years, nor would customers of any other retail establishment. However, as mentioned
previously, not only has technology advanced, but our ability to use technology
has advanced in a remarkable way. An
expert explains that a program called “BlackPOS” (bgr.com, 2014) is possibly
the tool that was used in the scam.
Although this is high-tech stuff, money can undoubtedly make almost
anything happen these days. The
“malicious program” can be purchased on the black market for as low as $1800,
and is a “specialized piece of malware designed to be installed on
point-of-sale devices (POS) and record all data from credit and debit cards
swiped through the infected system” (bgr.com, 2014). Obviously, it is just that easy.
Hence, it is very difficult to experience a sense of
complete security after becoming aware of the many possibilities associated
with cyber-war and the virtual invasion of privacy. The use of technology is simply a more
intelligent way of committing crimes—normally crimes dealing with the invasion
of peoples’ personal information.
However, as we are constantly experiencing a cyber-war, it is important that we implement the necessary measures that
will assist us in combat. Extensive
government oversight is needed in regards to enforcing proper use of citizens’
personal information. As citizens, it is
smart for us to limit the things we do electronically—which actually includes a
wide range of things that may not be particularly as necessary as they are
convenient. Also, those of us that
almost live our entire lives online must expediently take the proper
precautions to keep out unwanted virtual guests. These are just a few things we can do to
experience a better sense of comfort as we yet share ourselves with the rest of
the world.
As oxymoronic as it may seem, it is appropriate here to
say that our privacy is as well
protected as it is unsecured. While the
many federal and state laws that have been established encompasses nearly
every aspect of privacy we can think of, there are still individuals that either
know our every move or are able to observe certain things about us at absolutely
any time. This is, without a doubt, an
invasion of privacy, but can seriously be considered a potential threat to a
person’s overall safety as well. How
secure can we really believe our privacy is if a Florida couple can intercept a
Republican conference call in 1995
(Lane, 2001)? There is really no
question if the growth of our abilities to develop and use technology is
considered. Since 1995, we have grown
from cellular phones that allow us to talk to other people, to cellular phones
that allow us to talk to other people, text other people, send pictures to
other people, submit a final paper to our college instructors, watch movies,
and control things in our homes all from the same essential device we were
using in 1995. If ordinary people can create
the type of cellular phones we have today from the ones we had in ’95, they
most certainly can hack into Target’s database and steal customers’ personal
information, or hack into their boss’ email account, or even hack into the NSA’s
database and take classified documents. Whether
our personal information is exposed to a particular employee of the Central
Intelligence Agency, a doctor’s office or the local library, it seems safe to
believe that someone we do not even know has reached a level of intimacy with
most of us to an extent we could never imagine.
Furthermore, it is affirmative: the national constitution’s provisions
and amendments express civil liberties and rights that imply our right to
privacy, just as legislators have been able to enact federal and state laws
that protect it. However, not only does
it seem that laws are meant to be broken, it is fitting here to assert that
they will be.
