The Constitution was written in 1787 and is still used today. Over time, the meaning of the amendments has been interpreted differently due to technology and society advancing. The Fourth Amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”. In simpler words, it’s the right to have privacy in your own living space. The problem is new technology is evolving and blurring the line between what is personal information and what can be shared. Many think that the information you choose to provide on the Internet should stay private. Others think that what you chose to share is no longer private. People are very divided on this issue, but by taking the time to research, one could find where they sit in the current debate.
Noah is a high school student, and like most, uses a cell phone. He gets home from school and flips through his social media. Noah stumbles across an advertisement for a pottery wheel. He finds this strange because he was recently searching on Google for a pottery wheel. This is because Noah’s search history is shared with other companies so they can show him advertisements for things he’s likely to buy. The problem here is Noah is unaware his search history and other aspects of his data are being shared. He believes everything he searches is private. This is true for most people young or old. “Roughly half of Americans do not trust the federal government or social media sites to protect their data”, says the Pew Research Center. Are companies violating the Fourth Amendment when they share your data?
The proposition for change is that phone and Internet companies should make it more known that the user’s data is allowed to be shared once they agree to the terms of service. Those arguing for change suggest that it should be the first thing one sees when utilizing any of these platforms. As seen in the court case Carpenter v. United States, the tracking of this man’s location without his direct consent or warrant present was in violation of his 4th Amendment rights of search and seizure. “The Fourth Amendment protects not only property interests but also reasonable expectations of privacy. Expectations of privacy in this age of digital data do not fit neatly into existing precedents, but tracking a person's movements and location through extensive cell-site records is far more intrusive than the precedents might have anticipated”. People in favor of change argue that companies should make their intentions clearer, and some feel strongly that releasing any information at all is unconstitutional. 49% of Americans believe their personal information is less secure than it was five years ago. This tells us that more personal data is being shared and consumers are starting to feel that their right to privacy is being violated. Just as quickly as technology is growing, so is the demand for reform and the number of people that support it.
The opposition to change is that people are aware that their data can be shared. Many who oppose believe that if people are so concerned that their privacy is being invaded, they shouldn’t be so quick to just check the boxes without understanding the terms of service. In the court case Smith v. Maryland, Smith was accused of robbing a woman and then making threatening calls to her. The police use his call log as the reason for getting a warrant to search Smith’s home. The Supreme Court decided against Smith. “This reasonable expectation of privacy does not apply to the numbers recorded by a pen register because those numbers are used in the regular conduct of the phone company's business, a fact of which individuals are aware”. Taking a look at today’s politics, it is easy to see that the number of conservatives is growing. Conservatives often use the issue of national security to justify invading people's privacy. It is groups like this that would obviously be in opposition to stricter regulations of what data can be shared. The more society becomes dependent on technology, the quicker users are to agree to give away their information.
Thomas Jefferson would have never pictured his identity being stolen simply by writing it down somewhere. Although the Founding Fathers did not live in today’s society, they were able to predict that privacy would be an important issue in the grand scheme of things. Now that both sides have been presented, it is clear that Americans are very split on the issue of Fourth Amendment rights. It’s easy to see why people would argue for privacy because they want to feel that their individual safety is prioritized. It’s also easy to see how people would argue that your data should be shared because it keeps everyone safe on a national level. I think the information should be collected and shared in the presence of a warrant to assure citizens are safe. “The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects citizens' homes, property, and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The amendment, however, does not provide for what will or even what should happen when evidence of criminal activity is uncovered by virtue of a government actor's violating this constitutional provision”. The Fourth Amendment will be an issue as long as technology keeps advancing. No one knows what the future may hold, but at least we have the Constitution to give us a strong backbone.
References
Carpenter v. United States. Oyez, 2017/16-402. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-402
Shulman, William L. Exclusionary Rule. https://issues.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/1499296?terms=exclusionary+rule&sTypeId=2
Smith, Aaron. Americans and Cybersecurity. 1/26/17. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/01/26/americans-and-cybersecurity/
United States of America 1789 (Rev. 1992). https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992