The Truth About Privacy

            Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, you can rest assured that government agencies are watching as well as listening.  Executive agencies “across all levels [of government] are increasing engaged in collecting data on individuals” (www.intechopen.com, 2014), and by the looks of it, there is nothing particularly constitutional that can be done about it.  Even though there are more than half of the states in America that have express rights to privacy included in their constitutions that may exceed the privacy provisions mentioned in our national constitution (www.intechopen.com, 2014), the federal government yet has jurisdiction to watch your moves and listen to your conversations as long as their actions are aligned with related established laws.  Moreover, it is apparent that the general controversy regarding constitutional privacy protection, is meaningless unless a case is being explicitly examined by the courts.  Additionally, it is appropriate to understand here that citizens most certainly have a right to privacy, but to be aware of what constitutes privacy and how or when it is invaded is the most meaningful when considering the subject.

            Most American citizens will attest that having their personal privacy protected is of grave importance to them, and some would probably also be willing to express their oppositional perspectives regarding government agencies’ extended use of surveillance tactics.  However, most American citizens probably would not want to admit to their lack of knowledge and understanding of certain aspects of the subject—the ultimate reason for their oppositional perspectives.  For example, although it is merely a result of more exposure, there are too many American citizens that are only vaguely familiar with the national constitution—the essence of our government’s power—and have either forgotten or are simply unaware of the fact that state constitutions even exist.  If citizens are unaware of state constitutions, it is highly probable that they are also unaware of the more extended enumerated provisions of privacy rights that more than half the states in America have included in their constitutions.  Yes, American citizens have privacy rights which are protected by our national and some sub-national governments.  Moreover, the national constitutions’ supremacy clause gives federal provisions the upper-hand in questionable cases—yet another minor important detail that “disagreeables” may be oblivious to, causing them to lean towards the wrong direction when considering the right to privacy.

            Further, for the disagreeables’ sake, it is even more worthy of noting that there is no explicitly stated right to privacy in the U.S. constitution (law2.umkc.edu, 2014).  However, “the U.S. Constitutional system has always taken a […] common law approach to privacy jurisprudence” (www.intechopen.com).  The only specific privacy “protection” we have, derives primarily from questionable cases that have been examined and ruled on by members of the judiciary.  Furthermore, “the word ‘privacy’ is not used anywhere in the U.S. Constitution” (Fradella, Morrow, Fischer, & Ireland, 2011).  Albeit, this information may come as a surprise to many American citizens, it undoubtedly allows a more reasonable and meaningful opinion to be formed when considering the subject.

            Additionally, in acknowledging the meaninglessness of the general controversy surrounding constitutional privacy protection (i.e. without first having sufficient knowledge), it is appropriate to understand why the controversy even exists.  It is ultimately simple: people want to enjoy their privacy.  It is safe to assume that no American citizen wants to be monitored like a child, animal, or prisoner, especially when they have not committed a crime.  More importantly, people would like their personal information such as their financial and medical records to be kept confidential.  The Patriot Act of 2002 is legislation that ultimately allows government agencies to do whatever they want, and average American citizens that are unaware of those important minor legislative details and who rely mostly on the sayings of the “peanut gallery”, are dissatisfied.

            We do have a right to privacy, but historically, through the process of judicial review, privacy has had to be defined by various judicial opinions that have set the precedence for privacy protection.  The Bill of Rights is sort of the apparatus that members of the judiciary use to define privacy when reviewing questionable cases.  Research indicates that the “Bill of Rights remains central to the federal jurisprudence for privacy rights” (www.intechopen.com, 2014), and the constitution’s Fourth Amendment, particularly, has “become a fertile ground for privacy litigation” (www.intechopen.com).  Members of the judiciary have had to dig deep and only use what they believe may have been intended by the Framers as they were constructing Constitution.

            Ultimately, as Horowitz described privacy as a “privilege of personhood, which in turn is a right of citizenship” (1999), it is sensible to assert here that the majority of all Americans would much rather be governed by Horowitz’s description, allowing no difficulty in determining the violation of privacy rights in any situation.  Because the framers neglected to include any explicit indication of the right to privacy as they constructed the constitution and because other elements of the constitution are known to be so supremely assembled, it begs the question whether or not the omission of an explicit indication of the right to privacy was the premeditated intention of the framers.  Moreover, even if the framers did purposely omit an explicit indication of the right to privacy, they did not, however, omit the ever-evolving nature of the constitution. Thus, as provisions in the U.S. Constitution and other legislation are able to bring controversy about privacy to a halt, all there is to do now is continue to edify the existing structure.

References

Fradella, H. F., Morrow, W. J., Fischer, R. G., & Ireland, C. (2011). Quantifying katz: Empirically measuring "reasonable expectations of privacy" in the fourth amendment context. American Journal of Criminal Law, 38(3), 289-373. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/912372141?accountid=32521

Horowitz, I. L. (1999). Networking america: The cultural context of the privacy v. publicity debates. Et Cetera, 56(3), 305-314. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/204263138?accountid=32521

http://www.intechopen.com, (2014)

http://law2.umkc.edu, (2014)