The idea of privacy has been a fundamental part of regulations and the law making process. It has also been crucial in defining social norms and the interactions between members of a given society. Certain elements of privacy fall under the responsibility of the legislation whereas other elements can be considered the responsibility of the individual. In less modern times, the idea of privacy was much more simple as private conversations and information was generally kept in close quarters and a person’s location and activities were not the business of the legal system without proper search warrant. However, technology has created a world where the idea of privacy remains but the practice of this idea has completely been altered in both the personal and legal concepts. In short, cellphones and the capability to carryout private conversations in public as well as to track an individual without additional technology have destroyed both the idea of privacy and the rights associated with this idea.
On the personal and social level of privacy, most people understand that what two people discuss is intended to remain between those two individuals without fear of the information being repeated. However, private conversations are no longer carried out behind close doors. In fact, people tend to pay little or no attention to who is around them when they share private information and, even more concerning, is the fact that people are unaware of what information people could be capturing with their cellphones. As the technology is such common place, no one tends to realize that the person at the next table has a cellphone whose ” built-in microphones, cameras, and location awareness can collect images, sound, and GPS data” (Shilton 48). This means that, not only are individuals voluntarily sharing their private conversations, others in the community could likely be using their own devices to violate the privacy of others.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Cellphones are Destroying Privacy Rights".
This leads to a much more intense concern that leads the public to understand that, if citizens have this capability, the government has a much more sophisticated capability for the invasion of privacy. This technology can justified as, “in cases involving human trafficking, sexual slavery and narcotics, the contents of these devices can prove to be an invaluable and recognized tool for law enforcement” (Cottingham 15). However, there is a reason for concern as to where this line is drawn and at what point the law is allowing the violation of privacy rights. Researchers explain that “if someone wanted to create a global system for tracking human beings and collecting information about them, it would look a lot like the digital mobile” (Calabresi, Rogers, and Thorton 30). This leads civilians to wonder how much of this potential data tracking the government is using for the purpose of privacy invasion.
Therefore, these questions have been brought before the Supreme Court. Scholars compare this to “the first significant Supreme Court case to address wiretapping was Olmstead v. The United States (1928)” (Wicker 89). In this case, it was ruled that wiretapping was not the same as search and seizure without a warrant and therefore the same concept is being applied to cellphone tracking. However, the ability to track individuals through cellphones is much more sophisticated than wire tapping and even more so than when only a few decades ago. Specifically, it is noted that “much of the law protecting mobile privacy in the U.S. was written at the dawn of the cell-phoneera in the 1980s, and it can vary from state to state” (Calabresi, Rogers, and Thorton 30). The technology has surpassed the laws and therefore the individual privacy is no longer protected by these regulations.
Privacy is not a concept that changes with technology however the potential for violations and the need for updated regulations changes with each new application. Social norms have made it to where everyone carries a cellphone and few people give thought to the information that they share nor the data that is being collected. The law enforcement agencies are able to utilize this information as the laws and regulations are unable to keep up with the technological changes. Consumers should be aware that their information, beyond face to face conversations that are conducted in total privacy without any technology, are subject to an invasion of privacy.
- Calabresi, Massimo, ALEX ROGERS, and ANGELA THORNTON. “The Phone Knows All.” Time 180.9 (2012): 30. TOPICsearch. Web. 7 Mar. 2015.
- Cottingham, Ron. “Should Cellphones Be Searched Without A Warrant?.” U.S. News Digital Weekly 5.36 (2013): 15. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 7 Mar. 2015.
- Shilton, Katie. “Four Billion Little Brothers? Privacy, Mobile Phones, And Ubiquitous Data Collection.” Communications Of The ACM 52.11 (2009): 48-53. Applied Science & Technology Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 7 Mar. 2015.
- WICKER, STEPHEN B. “Cellular Telephony And The Question Of Privacy.” Communications Of The ACM 54.7 (2011): 88-98. Business Source Elite. Web. 7 Mar. 2015.
