The threat of terror and the government’s ready access to tracking technology has renewed the debate over the ‘right’ to privacy
People around the United States are in an uproar over some recently leaked documents from the National Security Agency.
Edward Snowden, an employee contracted by the federal government, leaked documents last week showing that the NSA has been tracking information such as phone calls, text messages, and websites visited on a massive scale. While there’s much debate as to whether Snowden should be labeled hero or traitor, one thing is for certain.
Big brother is listening.
While it’s been known that companies such as Facebook openly say that they’re giving away your personal information, (that’s why Facebook is free,) there’s a difference between having your information used for targeted ads, and being surveilled. The documents specifically name nine companies that are currently giving your information to the government. They are: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple.
YOUR PRIVACY: Is it constitutionally protected?
Despite what many American citizens believe, there is no constitutional “right to privacy.” The right to privacy is implied through certain amendments. For example, you have the right to privacy of your own home (III amendment), you also have the right to privacy of your own religious beliefs, (I amendment), etc.
While there’s not an amendment that specifically gives Americans a “right to privacy,” some people interpret the ninth amendment, which says that other “certain rights” should also be protected, to be an “umbrella clause” that vaguely protects privacy in general.
In an email interview with George Cochran, a law professor at Ole Miss and former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Stanley Reed and Chief Justice Earl Warren, Cochran explains that a landmark case in 1965 established some parameters for personal privacy.
“The Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution to include a right of privacy in Griswold v. Connecticut,” Cochran said. He also believes that this type of surveillance has been going on for longer than many would expect.
“Remember what Ben Franklin said, ‘Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.’”
Charles Mitchell, assistant dean of the Meek School of Journalism and New Media at Ole Miss, says that the American public can be fickle when it comes to issues such as national security.
“I think that the people should be informed, and the government should be transparent,” Mitchell said in an interview with HottyToddy.com on Wednesday. “That being said, prosecutors have a lot of discretion, and this is one of those hard cases.”
Mitchell said that while it’s true that many people voluntarily give away their own personal information on social media and Internet marketing websites, there’s an obvious difference between willingly giving up information, and having it taken without consent.
“There’s a certain level of intrusiveness that the public doesn’t mind, especially in a commercial context, but that shouldn’t be conflated with the government retention of that data,” Mitchell said.
“There’s an explicit promise from government in the fourth amendment that ‘we’re going to leave you alone, unless we have a reason not to,’” he added.
Based on statements from President Obama and others who defend the government’s intrusion into private communications –– public comments that mince no words in asserting that the surveillance has thwarted terror plots at home and abroad –– the government clearly believes that’s its surveillance is both legal and warranted as justification to snoop on its own citizens.
Mitchell said what the people are really looking for is transparency from their government. People want to be kept informed as to what’s going on, and they don’t like to be spied on.
“People don’t like sneaky. People will give you the shirt off their back or all the money in their pocket, but when they find out the government is lying to them, they don’t like it,” he said.
A poll released in May by TIME/CNN/ORC supports Mitchell’s statement. The results showed that “When given a choice, 61 percent of Americans say they are more concerned about the government enacting new anti-terrorism policies that restrict civil liberties, compared to 31 percent who say they are more concerned about the government failing to enact strong new anti-terrorism policies.”
You can read the full results of the study here
Much the same situation arose after the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, and shortly after, the Patriot Act was put in place.
The Patriot Act allows not only federal government agencies, but also local authorities, to detain anyone “suspected of terrorist activities.” The act has created much controversy since it’s inception, including one case that went all the way to the Supreme Court.
In the case, titled United States v. Antoine Jones, the defendant was tracked via a law enforcement GPS locator placed on his car, with no warrant.
Once the case made it to the Supreme Court, it was overturned in favor of the defendant. The court decided that increasing surveillance allowed by such acts as the Patriot Act, infringed on the defendant’s constitutional rights.
The debate seems far from over, with Congressional committees and right of privacy groups, as well as some of the companies that provide the government data, weighing in on the issue. –– Jared Senseman, senior journalism major, Meek School of Journalism and New Media
Email Jared Senseman at jrsensem@go.olemiss.edu
