Digital Privacy

660 Words2 Pages

The issue on digital privacy has been predominantly significant over the past years since technology has continued to advance. Firstly, many people believe that digital privacy does not exist, nor should it, and that the government needs to be able to search anyone’s computer or device at any other time. Others may disagree with this statement, and suggest that people should have their right to privacy on their digital devices. In addition, they may argue that the government should not be able to tap into digital devices at any time given. Americans who care about their digital freedoms should also be asking tough questions about the government tapping into their devices. Digital privacy stands as an issue today and the issue should be constitutionally resolved, with different cases that support it.
Privacy rights are embedded under the Fourth Amendment, which states that citizens are protected against unreasonable search and seizure. But the Patriot Act, which was passed after 9/11, allows the FBI to acquire telecommunication, financial, and credit records without a court order. Furthermore, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 2008 allows Untied States private and public companies protection from being sued by their customers when they comply with illegal government surveillance requests. Such acts have provided laws that do or do not protect citizen’s privacy on their personal digital devices. The most notable act was the Electronic Communications Privacy Act that was enacted in 1986. The ECPA identified standards for law enforcement access to electronic communications and data, affording privacy protections to people who use emerging technologies today.
Since the time of the enactment of the Electronic Communication...

... middle of paper ...

...nvestigators obtained from his bank. He argued that he had an expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. It was then held by the Supreme Court because it was found that checks and deposit slips sent to banks are actually freely circulated within the institution. It was resulted that Miller in fact had no reasonable expectation to privacy. Law enforcement did not need a search warrant to acquire the data as well. The second case was Smith v. Maryland. Patricia McDonough was robbed in Baltimore, Maryland on March 5, 1976. After she was robbed she informed the police with a brief description of the robber and believed that the robber was driving a 1975 Monte Carlo. After a few days, she began to receive anonymous phone calls that seemed threatening. The caller told her to stand on her porch from where she originally observed the same Monte Carlo car drive past.

Open Document