Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The morals and ethics of electronic surveillance
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The morals and ethics of electronic surveillance
Mr. Zeigler was an employee of an IT company. He was given a computer which was property of the IT company. Upon being hired, he was told that the computers would be subject to monitoring and that computers should not be used for personal use. The FBI received a tip that Mr. Ziegler had been visiting child pornography websites from his work computer, and conducted a search. They copied contents from the hard drive of the computer, which confirmed their suspicion. Mr. Ziegler was arrested and charged with crimes. After his arrest he argued that his constitutional rights had been violated because the FBI searched his computer without a warrant. He filed a lawsuit against the company claiming to have had his constitutional rights violated (Walsh, 2007). According to the guidelines of the Supreme Court, a search will be warranted when it is justified before the search occurs. For example, work-related purposes such as an employee’s job …show more content…
Ziegler was given privacy a reasonable amount of privacy. His computer was password protected, and only he could unlock it. He also was the only employee to use the particular office, in which he was stationed and it was kept locked. However, the FBI had reason to believe he was unauthorized websites. Since there was suspicion of misconduct, the employer had a legitimate reason to enter Mr. Ziegler’s office and copied contents from the hard drive of his computer. In presenting this case to the court, the plaintiff (Mr. Ziegler) had to have known that the ruling would more than likely be in favor of his employer. This was not his personal property, and he was given instructions on how it should be used. The company made it very clear that the computer belonged to them and would be subject to monitoring at any time. Although, Mr. Ziegler had a key to his own private office, the company also had a right to enter and search his office as well. Mr. Ziegler’s expectations of privacy were clearly
Facts: According to the case Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati (1986), an Ohio physician was being investigated for fraud. During the course of the investigation, it was necessary to interview two employees from his practice. Since the employees did not respond to a subpoena, a warrant was issued and the Sheriffs were sent out to the physician’s office where the employees also worked. Upon arrival, the Sheriffs were not allowed to enter the area where the two employees
In this court case I do believe that most of the evidence found in this case should be thrown out because it was found out illegally. The officers stop was over after he found out about the computer. Also the officer did not have the right to move around the things in his trunk to find out about the computer. Mr. Wilson also should not have been convicted since he was asking for an attorney and that told you have the access to in your Miranda Rights. In my opinion Mr. Wilson's 4th and 6th Amendments were violated in the search for the car and the confession.
... is one that a reasonable guardian and tutor might undertake.” And he concluded that given the mission of public schools, and the circumstances of this case, the searches required by the school board's policy were “reasonable” and thereby permissible under the Constitution's 4th Amendment.
Decision : Reasonable standard held to be proper standard for determining legality of searches conducted by public school officials.
The logic used by the Court in order to justify their conclusion is fraught with weak reasoning and dangerous interpretations of the Constitution. It violates the precedent set in Miranda and seems tainted with a desire to justify consent searches at any cost. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte is a decidedly pro-order case because it qualifies another excuse police can raise to search a citizen, but it is also dangerous because it shows that the Court is not the unbiased referee between liberty and democracy that it should be.
Appellant argued that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights because the consenting party did not have authority to do so. R. 8-11. The Judge issued an order denying the motion, ruling that although the third party’s authority was ambiguous, the search was reasonable under the court’s adoption of the Seventh Circuit’s approach to ambiguous authority. R. 21,22.
The act of search and seizure is derived from the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment is focused on privacy. Its sole purpose is to protect against unreasonable search and seizures performed by State and/or Federal authorities. Most search and seizures are performed by law enforcement officials. There are certain circumstances in which search and seizures are considered reasonable. They can include but not limited to, owner consent, an issued warrant, probable cause, reasonable suspicion and reasonable expectation of privacy. With any of these circumstances an officer has the right to conduct a search of the suspect. A search and seizure is only to be considered unlawful when an individual’s personal property i.e., their house or car is searched or breached without owner consent. Consent is the permission granted for a search to given in one’s personal property. Otherwise, a warrant must be issued for the conducted search in order for evidence to be admitted lawfully. If...
In an age where instant access to information has influenced the privacy workplace model, which once prevails over what were inalienable assumptions of privacy is no longer a certainty in the workplace. Some companies require employees to sign confidentiality agreement to protect their patents, formulas, and processes. There are instances where companies dictate a “no compete” clause in their hiring practices, to prevent an employee from working for competitors for typically two years without legal implications. While these examples represent extents, employers go to protect their company’s privacy; companies do not go to that extent to protect the privacy of their employees.
In the world we live in today, technology has become a major role in our lives and has impacted the way our government responds to different threats of security. The TSA is now using x-ray scanning machines to detect certain materials, while policemen can now use specially trained dogs to search for and sniff out different drugs that originally would have taken teams of DEA officials to locate. However, among this explosion in the use of technology, one question comes into our minds, and has been brought up repeatedly through different cases such as DLK vs United States, “Did the government go too far in terms of search and seizure? Have officials abused technology in such a way that our own privacy and rights in the 4th amendment in search
Edward Snowden, the famous “whistleblower”, shocked the world with his revelations about the NSA’s database and the programs which allow the organization to access personal information not only of citizens of other nations, but also of citizens of the U.S. The most shocking revelation of all was not the existence of these programs, but the fact that the Obama administration allowed those programs to exist in direct violation of every U.S. citizen’s right to privacy.
The controversy surrounding Edward Snowden has been one of the most controversial whistleblowing stories regarding the United States. Snowden is a former technical contractor for the National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employee, therefore he had access to a numerous amount of classified information. Working primarily with Glenn Greenwald, Snowden sent various government documents containing classified information. The top secret information that was leaked involved several ongoing mass surveillance programs of the United States government. These leaked documents exposed plans to seize and record all US and European telephone metadata as well as information from internet surveillance programs such as PRISM and Tempora. Consequently, this situation provoked many ethical dilemmas to surface. In this memo I will argue whether Edward Snowden
But because of how often technology changes, how can it be known that the laws made so long ago can still uphold proper justice? With the laws that are in place now, it’s a constant struggle to balance security with privacy. Privacy laws should be revised completely in order to create a better medium between security and privacy. A common misconception of most is that a happy medium of privacy and security is impossible to achieve. However, as Daniel Solove said, “Protecting privacy doesn’t need to mean scuttling a security measure.
Technology has developed in leaps and bounds over the past few decades. The case is that the law always has difficulty keeping pace with new issues and technology and the few laws that are enacted are usually very general and obsucre. The main topic of this paper is to address the effect of technology on privacy in the workplace. We have to have an understanding of privacy before trying to protect it. Based on the Gift of Fire, privacy has three pieces: freedom from intrusion, control of information about one's self, and freedom from surveillance.1 People's rights has always been protected by the constitution such as the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from "unreasonable searches and seizures". As said by Eric Hughes, "Privacy is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world."2 As written by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in 1928 is the right most valued by the American people was "the right to be left alone."3
Policies affect employee privacy by lowering employees' expectations of privacy in the workplace because he or she cannot expected privacy if an employee conducts the activity in a manner open to other employees. If an employee's reasonable expectations are similar to the privacy of personal mail delivered from the post office, he or she may believe the computer are just as private as the documents that he or she stored in the personal workplace's desk or filing cabinet. This reasoning of employee's reasonable expectations violates the employee's privacy. Yet, the employer stands may be that it has a justifiable interest in the oversight of business related employees communications, and in the cost of the used of the computer system. Only through consideration will these two interests will allow the right determination to be determine.
In terms of government intelligence, in the information age greatest threats to privacy have been the result of technology and business practices related to e-commerce, marketing and information databases, and not the result of government intrusions (Hoffman, Novak & Peralta, 1997). Nevertheless “all things considered, the increasing and overlapping information sharing by governments and businesses about formerly confidential or private activities generates concerns about potential violations of individual’s privacy rights” (Mace, 2008 cited in Gal, Kantor & Lesk, 2008, p.41).