Privacy within America

The Privacy Act, prior to blogging was something I was familiar with but didn’t know that it had an impact on so many legal topics. In many countries throughout the world privacy for them is seen to be a privilege and not guaranteed to every citizen. The reason that privacy rights are so significant within the United States because it establishes a code of fair information practices that help to govern the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of information about an individual, this was stated within the Privacy Act of 1974. Privacy can be defined as an essential autonomy and the protection of human dignity, serving as a foundation upon which many other human rights are built. Privacy does provide boundaries and protection from things or people who are not wanted within someone’s life. It gives people the willing to set boundaries to be put into place within the world that we interact in. Privacy is a human right that everyone should have and is entitled to have. An important part of this is being able to know that your protection over your personal data. Overall, privacy is so important to the protection of you and your private data.

Throughout my understanding of privacy acts/rights and laws, something that has a huge impact is this idea that privacy doesn’t apply as much when it comes to safety. After the 9/11 terrorist attack, on New York. Privacy with the United States has changed drastically. During times of war, the balance between both security and privacy is hard to keep equal. The reason is that the idea of security out ways privacy. This is a fair justification. I feel that privacy and security are used interchangeably because they both are dealing with the idea that someone needs to be protected. I also think that the government views this, as long as security is needed then privacy will be there as well. In my eyes, this isn’t the case, when traveling having to go through so much bag security slow things down, but it also violates my privacy because they are checking through my things. Within the airport, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), has checkpoints, which select certain individuals and examine them more in-depth. I have been through this process and when you are in a rush to go to travel it really can be an annoyance that you don’t want to go through. I do understand that terrorism has no one image and you have to be prepared for the worst, but I just wish searches weren’t so invasive. In America, all big events, games, concerts, theme parks, and even some schools require searching, whether it be a body scan or looking into a bag. I would like to have a safer America whether that be having fewer safety checks or more people willing to be caring about the other people around them.

Overall, the reason that privacy is so important is that every day of our lives we are posting and sharing feed and we want to know that what we are sharing isn’t being accessed for all to view. In a world, without privacy, everyone has access to all of your information which isn’t fair for anyone. I don’t think that privacy should ever be taken away from people because that is something that we all should be entitled to have.

Technology Takeover

As technology continues to advance safety and privacy rights solely decrease. What I mean by this statement is that technology makes it much easier to access people’s personal and public information. Individuals are able to monitor people’s location and hacking has advanced. One example is when people access free Wi-Fi zones, hackers can intrude into any information because they are sharing the same network. Not only is dealing with every day people it also encompasses, big companies that use the things that you like as a way to cater advertisements and get paid from these services. What makes this hard, is that every day of our lives we are all surrounded around technology and we use it so often. When we sign up for subscriptions companies get paid to submit our information to other companies. It is very easy for information to get spread throughout the internet because of all of the people that are on it and all the different services that are displayed take information. As more people continue to develop technology it does threatened our privacy. Companies such as Google and Facebook, are places where people put their information such as photos and emails. Your email hold can be where you store password information or just a basic conversation that you have with you and another individual. Overall, with all this information it is an invasion of privacy.

One social media site that had a privacy scandal was Facebook. Facebook had a collection of information of about 87 million people. The Cambridge Analytica is a consulting and strategic communication firm. This company along with many other companies was able to gain the personal information of Facebook users. These companies engage and things such as data harvesting and Facebook employers had no insight of what exactly is going on. The company uses apps within the website to be able to gain information such as personality quizzes. When you add the app to an individual’s personal account it also gives access to the users’ history as well. Another company that hold people’s personal information that was invaded was Panera Bread. When you a person gives a company their information to things such as their birthday and email if they are hacked this leaves that individual just as vulnerable. Panera Bread had a data breach that exposed personal information of thousands of customer’s records. The breach was connected to any customers that signed up to order food from Panera Bread. The information revealed information that included names, emails, addresses, birthdays, and the last four digits of the credit card that was used. Although, Panera does take security very seriously and has resolved this issue. They do have an on-going investigation but, isn’t sure about the information that pertains to people payment. Although these aren’t the only companies that handle people personal information and has be released or hacked.  Orbits exposed about 880,000 credit cards and OnePlus shut down their credit cards after they were affected by a breach.

This overall is very concerning because it is a big privacy issue but there isn’t much that one can do to change this completely? Gathering information allows a company to get to know their users better and it helps to improve the company so they know what works and what should be changed. I think that people need to be more cautious about the information that they are sharing. The person that need to be the biggest advocate for their privacy is the individual.

F.E.R.P.A.

In the United States, there are laws that protect the right of students’ academic records. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act also known as FERPA is a federal law that affords parents the right to have access to their children’s educational records. According to studentprivacy.ed.gov, “the right to seek to have records amended, and the right to have some control over the disclosure of personally identifiable information from the education records.” When a student turns eighteen years old there FERPA rights are transferred over to the student. They are then considered an eligible student. This law overall is helpful because it allows a parent that is concerned about their child to be able to get them the help that they need. Another reason this is helpful is being able to know what areas that a child needs help in. FERPA can get challenging for people when entering college. The records are only at the access of the student. When families call to see if the student is enrolled in an institution a school isn’t able to release that or if a parents wants to know where there student stands in a class they aren’t able to see that either. When a student askes through email about what their grade is for a test that shouldn’t be seen as an individual violating FERPA the professor should have to provide them those records. In some cases that doesn’t happen or they don’t want to discuss your grade with you through email because they are unsure of who’s sending the email. If the FERPA law is violated it can result in serious penalties. I do think that students should have the right to know what their grades are throughout the school year, because it can get complicated when a student isn’t aware resulting in them potential not improving in time. Overall this is meant to protect student’s records whether that be where that student lives, what classes they are taking, and what grades they have.

In the case Miami Student v. Miami University, the student newspaper requested records from the university which detailed criminal activity that occurred on campus. The university released the information, but didn’t release the identities of the students that were present within these crimes. The newspaper wasn’t pleased that they didn’t receive the names of the people. They filed an action with the Ohio Supreme Court demanding that they would receive the names. The students felt that the First Amendment gave then the right and access to public record. The university felt that this is violating the rights of FERPA. Ohio Supreme Court concluded that these rights were not covered by FERPA. Since this happened the Department of Education filed a complaint against the University. This stated that student disciplinary records are a part of the student record. This lead to the district court determining that this was under education records and should be under FERPA. This does apply on my campus as well within our own newspaper various incidents whether they be in the classroom, resident halls, or off campus. They are reported in the newspaper not directly identifying the person, but letting the Utica College community know what is exactly occurring. I do think this is important because schools are responsible for the students that are on campus and they also need to protect their rights as well.

Gay Rights

Over many decades people have pressed the issue of same-sex marriage and whether or not their rights are protected by the state. The bigger issue here that comes to question is whether or not people’s privacy rights are being violated. As early as the 1960s, police would raid gay bars which started the Stone Wall Riot in New York City. This along with other offensive events that occurred gave way to political movements for gay rights. When gay individuals aren’t able to marry or have the same rights as their peers this is a privacy violation. When a person is in their own privacy and isn’t able to have relations with another individual because they are the same sex this is a violation. I also think that since many people didn’t see this as a privacy issue and see it as it’s not morally acceptable made this issue a lot more difficult.

In the case Bowers v Hardwick, Michael Hardwick was observed by a Georgia police office while engaging in consensual homosexual sodomy with another adult in his bedroom. He was charged with violating a Georgie statute that criminalized sodomy. Hardwick challenged the ruling in the Federal District Court. The court dismissed Hardwick and stated that he failed to make a state claim. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that Georgia’s statue was unconstitutional. The court had a five to four decision stating that the court was divided and expressed that there were no connotationally protections for acts of sodomy. Justice White argued “the Court has acted to protect rights not easily identifiable in the Constitution only when those right are “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” This was a violation of privacy for a police officer to witness the act of sodomy between two homosexual individuals. I wonder if that same police officer would have reported this if it dealt with people who were heterosexual. In 1999, the court struck down the statute first challenge in Bowers as a violation of the Georgia Constitution. Overall, this case touched on discrimination and privacy violations. The state constitution violated privacy rights because it doesn’t allow the freedom of expression it prevents people to act on their own will. They are subjected to the actions they can or cannot have because of the state.

In the case, Obergefell v. Hodges, in 2004 Ohio passed a ballot that added to the state’s constitution an amendment that stated: “Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions.” This imposed to that state banned same-sex marriage and it also wouldn’t be recognized by the state. Groups of same-sex couples sued their relevant state agencies in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee to challenge the constitutionality of those states. They argued that it violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They also found this to be a civil rights violation. This just like Bowers v Hardwick, was a five to four decision. The Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to marry as a fundamental liberty and it protects and applies to the same-sex couple. This helped to establish the right to all same-sex couples because people from every state are now given these rights.

Blog Audit

Throughout the semester my blog assignments have been about the “Right Privacy”. Each week I have covered different topics that express the “right to privacy” such as drug testing, security, search and seizure, the right to die, and women’s right dealing with abortion and contraceptives. My blog post deal with different issues under the right to privacy. My first blog assignment spoke about the issue of security when dealing with authority. When the federal government needs answers from a company such as Apple and they don’t get them because that company doesn’t want to invade everyone’s privacy, this can and is a security issue because one person is ultimately hurting the safety of all individuals. Although Apple didn’t see it this way those views can be very conflicting. Another blog of mine that caused a high concern for me was the “Women’s Rights” blog. This touched on the issues of abortion and contraceptives. I found it to be disheartening that states felt they should be the ones to regulate whether or not a woman should be able to take contraceptives. States shouldn’t have any input in what a woman does with their body, especially if it isn’t causing any harm. The case of Roe v. Wade is still debated today. This expresses women’s rights and the right to privacy that all women should have. I feel that my blog has a general theme, but it’s just expressed through different topics.

I don’t think the nature of my post has changed, I feel that I have a very direct message in all the blog post that I have posted. One thing, I can say is that I feel that I’ve been using more cases to prove my point compared to online sources. I enjoy using the cases because it helps express the changes over time and helps to emphasize the change that needs to continue. One thing that I noticed while doing my blog post is that all the topic are different, yet they all have an impact on how privacy is handled in America. I also notice that there is no clear privacy law that can be put in place because privacy is such a dynamic issue. Lastly, I think privacy issues are going to improve because privacy is something that can always be challenged. While rereading something that I felt was very interesting was the right to die because I never saw this as a privacy issue. I thought this was the most interesting of all the topics that I have covered yet. I would like to look further into this topic because it is something that many aren’t aware of.

One thing I value about blogging is the ability to express how I felt about a particular issue and have others read about it. I think the right to privacy is something that has an impact on everyone and people aren’t really aware of exactly what it is and the impact that it has. Prior to reading and writing about privacy rights I wasn’t aware at all so this helped to expand my views and ideas about it.

Women’s Rights

There is a divide on the controversial issue of both abortion and contraceptives. The right to receive contraceptives and/or have an abortion should be solely up to the individual that is dealing with this issue. No state or person should be able to take away your right to privacy. In the case, Griswold v. Connecticut, this is tested because the state of Connecticut banned any form of contraception. This violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution which states “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Griswold v. Connecticut was very similar to the case Poe v. Ullman, which tested in 1879 a law in Connecticut that banned contraceptives for two patients. In this case, Estelle Griswold was the executive director of Planned Parenthood League in Connecticut. She opened this office with the sole intent to be arrested and was arrested for violating the same Connecticut law which was the same issue in Poe. She argued that “The rights involved are fundamental, rather than commercial…” This explains that people have the fundamental right to be able to prevent themselves from having children. They also have the right to be able to get these contraceptives, no one is forcing these women to receive this type of contraceptives. The state felt that this was the best way to exercise their police powers. They felt that other states should have these regulations and should be upheld. This case overall, tested the idea of privacy on the basis of taking rights from women as well. The only group that is being affected is women and they took the privacy rights from them when they wanted to control what was going on with their bodies. The Court found that although the right of privacy was not explicitly written out it can be inferred based off of the Bill of Rights. The constitution does contain an act called the “zone of privacy” which the state of Connecticut did violate.

When dealing with both abortion and contraceptive many people have different opinions based on what they think is right. Another case, that touches on privacy rights is Roe v. Wade which is a pivotal case for the right to privacy and abortion. In August of 1969, Norma McCorvey was a twenty-one-year-old carnival worker that lived in Texas. She was raped and was pregnant because of this rape. Although her doctor refused to perform an abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except if it was going to save the pregnant woman’s life. Her attorney began to challenge on the grounds that it violated privacy rights, women’s rights, due process, and so on. The court agreed to hear her case and two debating sides began to emerge one was based on pro-choice and pro-life. The pro-life side wanted to emphasize the ruling of Griswold v. Connecticut that this was a fundamental right that women should have. This was a 7- 2 United State Supreme Court decision. The court recognized that women’s right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy which is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision helped set the standards for an abortion which explain the trimesters and the different stages of pregnancy. This had an impact on 46 states because of this ruling. Each case helped to establish the role of privacy based and helped to give a standard on the way women should not be treated. It is a woman’s privacy and that should be stripped away by laws and regulations.

Sources:

“Roe v. Wade.” Oyez, 17 Oct. 2018, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-18.

“Griswold v. Connecticut.” Oyez, 17 Oct. 2018, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/496.

Epstein, Lee, and Thomas G Walker. Constitutional Law for a Changing America. 7th ed. Vol. , Rights, Liberties, and Justice /. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2010

 

Whose Right is it?

The right-to-die is an issue that brings up so many opinions and presents many different questions. Who has the right to take someone’s life? If a person is no longer capable of making those important decisions, can someone else take that responsibility? In the 1970s and 1980s, this became a debate between hospitals and the courts. In 1976, Karen Ann Quinlan was a twenty-two-year-old woman that was placed in a coma. Her parents wanted to have the respirator that was helping to keep their daughter alive removed. Although, the doctor refused to take the orders. The family took this issue to court, and the court decided that the right to privacy is broad enough to allow a patient to decline medical treatment under certain circumstances. Since Karen wasn’t able to make this decision due to her circumstances the best way to have her privacy justified is by letting her parents be able to make this decision. In this situation, the family removed her from the respirator without any further interventions from the state or the court. In the state of Jersey, this was able to occur although in the state of Missouri they viewed this situation very differently. In the state of Missouri, protecting a life out weights the ability of a family to prove what the best option is for the individual. In the case Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990), which examined Nancy Beth Cruzan who was an individual in a serious car accident. She was found face down in a ditch and had no respiratory or cardiac functions. This placed Cruzan in a vegetative state she was no longer able to have significant cognitive functions. She required feeding and hydration tubes to be able to stay alive. Her parents wanted to remove her from this and this would end Nancy life if this was done. The hospital refused, in the state of Missouri a person needs to provide clear and convicting evidence that the person would want to be medically terminated. The state of Missouri to me emphasizes the idea of privacy and the need to say yes this is my decision by the individual and not just make an assumption. This is giving the individual the right to privacy over their body and not just using better judgment. The Cruzan family provided a friend to speak on the behalf of Nancy which stated, “she would not wish to continue her life unless she could live it at least halfway normally.”[1]The court ruled in the favor of the family, but the court reversed it. This case was the central figure in the ruling of the Supreme Court’s 1990 right-to-die ruling. Since the state of Missouri was acting in a way to preserve life, they found this to be seen as a constitutional action. I think the right- to- die can be hard when dealing with privacy rights. Yes, an individual who is dying should have the right to choose what happens to them but, when that option is no longer there they do need someone who’s going to act in the best interest of the patient. In both cases, these women were in situations that recovery wasn’t likely. I also wonder what if this same situation deals with a minor than is it a right to privacy because your parent is in charge of you and acts on the minors’ behalf. Although, is it always going to be right decisions the right to privacy continues to be a very difficult topic because it has so many sides to it.

[1]Epstein, Lee, and Thomas G Walker. Constitutional Law for a Changing America. 7th ed. Vol. , Rights, Liberties, and Justice /. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2010.

 

Can we search that?

Search and Seizure appears in different forms and levels. The search tactic that’s most familiar with people, is when a police officers without a warrant searches a person that is already arrested to disarm the suspect. This prevents possible destruction of evidence, and removes anyway for the individual to be able to escape. This search is solely conducted at an arrest. When dealing with crimes, conditions, and limitations it can get misconstrued for being a security dilemma. Although, if law enforcement would value the privacy of the person they are trying to incriminate, there is a much more likely chance that they would be able to catch the individual. In the case, Kyllo v. United States, law enforcement over stepped their privacy boundaries and the Court had to protect the rights of the individual. A federal drug a suspected that Danny Kyllo, was growing marijuana in his Oregon home. The officer set up a thermal imaging device across the street to measure that amount of heat that was leaving the house and yard. The federal agent believed that since it was not directly on the property there was no need for a search warrant. The device was able to pick up a large amount of thermal heat leaving the garage area. Later, the agent obtained a warrant and found hundreds of plants that were growing. Although, the Supreme Court stated the use of thermal imaging device without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. This case was able to identify the use of modern technology to help an investigation can violate privacy. This leads me to wonder, when New York City police are posted in the subway station and an individual walks pass them with a potential drug on them and they use a drug-sniffing dog to identify who has what. Could this be seen as an invasion of privacy because there was no warrant to search that particular person? In many privacy cases dealing with search and seizure, it can be very hard to identify was can be considered crossing the line. In the case, Hudson v. Michigan, the police were able to obtain the proper warrant to search the home of Booker T. Hudson due to the use of drugs and having fire arms. When the police arrived they announce who they were but, didn’t give Hudson enough time to answer the door. They continued with the search and was able to find drugs such as cocaine rocks and loaded guns in numerous of places. Hudson’s attorney argued that the evidence should be excluded from the trail because the police failed to give the proper “knock and announce” rule. Although the police, didn’t follow that specific rule this becomes a security problem for everyone else. They found and obtain loaded guns and drugs that can easily endanger people. One could say it violates the Fourth Amendment because Hudson should be able to allow individuals to enter but, they did have the proper documentation. Since the office didn’t wait longer, the evidence is suppressed. I do feel that our search and seizure system does need to be looked over because privacy does need to be protected but, also the security and protection if the people matter more.

Source:

Epstein, Lee, and Thomas G Walker. Constitutional Law for a Changing America. 7th ed. Vol. , Rights, Liberties, and Justice /. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2010.

Drug Testing!

Some individuals would argue that drug testing can be seen as an invasion of privacy. Many private and public employers have shifted toward using drug testing. This process can either be used for potential employees or individuals that are currently working there. While they are being conducted they can be displayed in a numerous way from taking by breath, urine, blood or hair follicle test. Each of these are used for different drugs test, although each test can expose a drug that might not be able to be seen as easy in another. When it comes to pre-employment screening a person that denies taking a drug test can result in not obtain the job. In this case, before a person is an employee a job really has the right to question them initially. Drug testing doesn’t have to be justifiable because it can be seen as a safety concern. An example: what if an individual is working with children and does drugs. That is a safety concern and he/she shouldn’t be able to work alongside where people could be placed in danger. When employing individuals there’s a difference between people who work in private sectors compared to public sectors. The United States Constitution doesn’t protect private sector business and employees when it comes to the invasion of privacy. Although, some states do have laws that limit employer rights. In California the law states “Employers awarded state contracts or grants must certify that they will provide a drug-free workplace (similar to the federal requirement); contractors also must provide a written policy to their employees.”[1]Compared to New York, which states “No legislation concerning drug testing; random drug and alcohol testing of city bus drivers, police officers and corrections officers has been upheld by state courts.”[2]Each state determines who gets tested and who does get tested, but certain companies such as CVS and Walmart even do it as well. In 1988, the Drug – Free Workplace act was passed which states on the federal level. This promoted mandatory drug testing guidelines for many federal employees. They follow the procedures set forth by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. As an employee, I along with the working class should be able to have privacy outside of a workplace and it should threaten my position. This is clearly a complex double-sided issue because it can be seen as a safety concern but people should be allowed to have a way of separation. “While drug testing itself usually does not violate an individual’s rights, the manner in which the test was conducted (or its results utilized) may sometimes cross the line.”[3]In 2018, there are at least 16 states, that have legalized the use of marijuana. This can cause issues because although it is legal a private business may not be “fine” with the use of it by their employees. Marijuana last up to 30 days within your body . At the same time the federal law trumps over state law. Overall, I think there should be a balance between the reason for drug testing and the responsibility as the employer.

[1] “Drug Testing at Work.” Findlaw. Accessed September 27, 2018. https://employment.findlaw.com/workplace-privacy/drug-testing-at-work.html.

[2] “Drug Testing at Work.” Findlaw. Accessed September 27, 2018. https://employment.findlaw.com/workplace-privacy/drug-testing-at-work.html.

[3] “Drug Testing at Work.” Findlaw. Accessed September 27, 2018. https://employment.findlaw.com/workplace-privacy/drug-testing-at-work.html.

Privacy and Security

In 1974, the Privacy Act was established which was a code of fair information that governs the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of information. The information is maintained in systems of records by the federal agencies. The Privacy Act was created due to the creation and use of computerized data bases that would hold information and could have impact on people’s individual’s privacy.  This was considered to be a safeguard practices, through four levels individuals were able to have rights within a person’s information. The first level requires the government to show any personal recorders that are kept on them. Secondly, government officers are meant to require agencies to follow the “fair information practice.” Third, the government has placed restrictions on how agencies can share information with other people. Finally, individuals can sue the government for violation provisions. Although, there are some exceptions to the Privacy Act. One example is when officers and employees of agencies, need to maintain record. Since, these records are used to perform their duties they are able to be confiscated. Within society there’s a thin line between what is allowed and what is seen as an invasion of privacy. Although, one person may see confiscating a phone or access to email could be used as a privacy violation, others might see it as security. This happens with big companies like Apple and the United States government. Apple has been known for having technology that is very advanced. In California, eight people were shot in an apartment complex. The FBI asked Apple to unlock a phone which belonged to one of the San Bernardino shooters. Apple felt that giving the FBI access and teaching them how to unlock an IPhone was violating the privacy of all Apple users. This can be seen as both a privacy and security issue. On one side the FBI, needs the information to be able to assist future shooter case. Apple didn’t give the FBI the needed information to unlock the phone. The state of California stood by the FBI and issued a court order requiring Apple to unlock the phone. Apple ignored the court order and refused to create software. Individuals can debate that opening the device of one individual can allow the government to have control over many. The FBI hired a third party participate, who was able to unlock the phone.  Many people have assumption that the government listen to our conversation already. At the same time, I think that Apple should be fined for their actions because this was a serious case. One thing I was wondering is why the Privacy Act, in this specific cases wasn’t seen as an exemption. Since the government needed to gather information for a case. I also think that the government has a right to protect people more compared to their privacy. If that phone, had information about potential crimes or just information to help to build a stronger cases against the person being charged it is important to put them in the correct place. I think that there’s a thin line between both security and safety. I also think it is important to be able to identify both.

 

 

 

Source:

https://www.justice.gov/opcl/privacy-act-1974

https://www.epic.org/privacy/1974act/

https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/12/03/504130977/a-year-after-san-bernardino-and-apple-fbi-where-are-we-on-encryption