Invasion of Privacy - Research Paper Example

?Running Head: INVASION OF PRIVACY Invasion of privacy Lecturer: Introduction Every person has the right to privacy, which cannot and should not be compromised without the authority of the courts or in a situation whereby the right conflicts with other fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution (Alderman, 2001). The right to privacy in this context means that no individual or organization has the absolute right to divulge information relating to a person’s private life, which may portray such person in bad light. This is essential especially in protecting vulnerable persons such as celebrities and other public figures that are always under the watchful eye of the media, which is considered as always keen to make business by revealing delicate information which it considers newsworthy. However, it is also notable that the media, being the major tool for information broadcasting, is protected through the freedom of speech, which can be used to challenge and defend its mandate to avail information to the public. On the other hand, it is possible to find that the media may not disclose information such as names of the subject of discussion if there are no hard facts to prove the statements but the reader or listener can easily tell who the person being discussed is (Cate, 2000). In such a context, it becomes difficult for a person to press charges against the media for character damaging or defamation. This paper is a critical evaluation of the right to privacy. The Right to Privacy The right to privacy is fundamental, though not absolute, as it protects human dignity. Apparently, every person has weaknesses, which, if brought out to the public, may influence negatively in shaping public opinion, which may in turn affect the success of such a person either in the social or political life (Alderman, 2001). For example, public offices such as the presidency, legislature, and judiciary among others require people of high integrity not withstanding that the office holders are also human beings and are prone to making errors. It therefore goes without saying that the fact that such people are public servants does not mean that the public should have unauthorized access to their private information such as family life, financial information, and medical records among other delicate issues that may relate to them. The European Convention on Human rights through article 8 protects citizens’ family and private life from intrusion by the state or other agencies (Alderman, 2001). Generally, there has not been a definite definition of privacy but it is worth noting that there are four major categories that have been acknowledged across the board. These are for example; information privacy, physical privacy, communication privacy and territorial privacy (Alderman, 2001). With regard to information privacy, every citizen has the right to withhold any information regarding himself be it personal data, health status, among others. Personal data for example credit card information, bank details should not at any given time be accessed by a second party unless there is a court order demanding the same to be availed in circumstances such as if a person is being investigated for crimes such as corruption, money laundering among other justifying conditions. Most of the constitutions including that of the US indeed do not have specific statutes guaranteeing the right to privacy though most of the privacy issues are covered in other statutes related to human rights. However, it is observable that the US constitution, through the 9th amendment, offer a blank check to the courts enabling them protect human rights that are not included in the constitution (Kennedy, 2003). This means that the courts have the prerogative of ensuring that human dignity is respected and one way of doing so is by protecting their privacy. On the other hand, the government reserves the right to access personal information for the use by its agencies but this must be in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974. With regard to this act, any agency mandated to collect such information must ensure that a written consent is given by the subject i.e. the person represented by the records. By so doing, the person must be informed on the reason why this information is required and the consequences of not providing it. However, the act continues to stipulate some exceptions which must fulfill certain conditions in order for such records to be divulged to other agencies without the consent of the subject. These include; if the data is requested by the census bureau for the purposes of planning, if the data is of historical value to the US and worthy of being stored in the National Archives, if there is a court order demanding for the information, to an agency which has guaranteed that the records would only be used for statistical purposes or for the use of the Congress among others. The department of Homeland Security and the Arrival and Departure System are exempted from this act for the purposes of national security. Any person who accesses and divulges this type of information to unauthorized recipients may be found guilty for misdemeanor and he may be forced to pay a fine not exceeding $5000 with regard to the Information Privacy Act of 1974 (Justice Department, n.d). The importance of concealing this information is to protect oneself from financial crimes such as credit card fraud and identity theft, which may be perpetrated without the knowledge of the card holder. However, as a result of advancements in technology especially the internet, it has become possible for people to conduct businesses and shopping online, which requires disclosure of personal details as demanded by websites supporting this business practice. This is an important development but it has also posed a great threat to online shoppers as malicious programmers have come up with websites that are almost identical to those that are genuine in an effort to access personal information, which is later used to commit fraud. Such occurrences may be difficult to trace and as such, hacking has become one of the major cyber crimes contributing to heavy business and individual financial losses. It is therefore advisable that online shoppers should be keen and careful enough to interrogate the credibility of the commercial websites they are feeding their personal information (Cate, 2000). Information in form of medical records should also be well protected from being accessed by unauthorized persons for the sake of preventing cases of embarrassment. For example, doctor patient relationships should be of discreet in nature especially with regard to doctors’ ability to protect their patients from unnecessary exposure. Medical conditions such as impotence and infertility are a potential subject for exposing the affected persons to ridicule and gossip, a factor which may ruin their reputation in the society. Even though the fight and campaign against HIV/AIDS has contributed greatly to people understanding the condition as a normal infection, medical ethics do not allow doctors to disclose details of the infected persons to the public, without the consent of the patient, as this may cause great harm in form of stigmatization against infected persons by those people who still do not understand that this condition is a societal problem that can affect or infect anyone without regarding social or economic status (Judson, 2009). Probably, this may be the reason why most of the statistics and research conducted on disease prevalence concentrates more on figures and locations rather than specific names. If a doctor goes against this code of ethic, the patient has a right to sue him on the grounds of abusing doctor patient confidentiality. This is a practice that is deeply rooted on the traditional Hippocratic Oath, which prohibited doctors from divulging any information they obtained in the process of carrying out their professional duties. In a greater context, there exists a doctor patient privilege, which is recognized in most of the law jurisdictions (Judson, 2009). This privilege gives the two parties the right to withhold information that may be used against the patient in a court of law. However, it is worth noting that the federal rules of evidence in the US do not acknowledge this privilege (Judson, 2009). Doctor patient confidentiality and privilege is essential as it enhances building of trust between the two parties such that the patients feel free to disclose sensitive information thereby enabling the doctor to make informed decisions and diagnoses. Communication technology has continued to evolve, from the traditional letters and telegrams, to the quick and highly effective wired and wireless communication. It has now become possible for people to communicate through electronic messaging, Voice over the Internet Protocol (VOIP), mobile phones among others, which include social sites such as Facebook and twitter (Solove, 2008). Consequently, this has subjected people to possibilities of breach of privacy whether in terms of eavesdropping, tapping or hacking into communication channels for malicious objectives. Communication should be private as long as the people conversing have taken precaution to ensure that they are in a safe place where they are not being listened to. However, in the past, cases have been reported whereby the government has gone ahead to tap into conversations for people considered to be enemies of the political elite. The most notable case of this nature is the Watergate scandal, which implicated the then president Nixon and several people from his administration, and which forced him to resign from the presidency in 1974 after he was faced with the probability of an impeachment. Apparently, burglars had entered the Democratic National Committee’s offices with the intention of wire tapping the telephones, in contrary with the federal wiretap act, which protects the privacy of communications from unlawful interceptions and tapping. In this case, the president is said to have cooperated with his men to listen and tape conversations between his rivals in an attempt to have an advantage in planning his re-election (Olson, 2003). A person may also have the right to sue another for accessing personal accounts such as emails. It is wrong for anyone to log into a personal computer either accidentally or intentionally for the purposes of monitoring what the user has been communicating with others. This is a common practice mostly noted in the work places whereby employers use their authority to intrude into their employees’ communication privacy. It does not matter whether the equipment you are using to send emails belongs to the organization you are working for; the basic point is that as long as you are using your own email account which is password protected, any unauthorized access to that content should be considered as a breach of privacy. An example is the case of Marina Stengart vs. Loving Care Agency. Apparently, the Supreme Court in New Jersey found out that the agency had violated Marina’s right to privacy after it was proved that her employer had read her emails, which she sent to her lawyer stating the possibility of suing her employer for alleged discrimination (Electronic Privacy Information Center, 2011). After reading the emails, the employer, without Marina’s knowledge made copies of the emails, which were later used in court as defense. Not only did this compromise the right to privacy but also, the actions of the employer and his attorney were described as unethical as they went against the expected client attorney privilege. Even though it is important to monitor the activities of your employees, some employers have gone to the extent of installing surveillance cameras, which they use to stalk employees instead of maintaining security. In one case, an employee went to court to challenge the decision of his employer to punish him just because he had left his work station to visit the washrooms without permission (Kennedy, 2003). As a proof that the right to privacy exists, the court ruled in favor of the employee thereby laying down precedence for the future. Generally, communication technologies have the potential of destroying the reputation of individuals, organizations or even governments as they are prone to intrusion especially by hackers, who work very hard to keep up with the dynamic nature of technology. For example, the US government and other associates faced a major breach of communication privacy after Wikileaks released highly classified information from more than 250000 US diplomatic cables to the public, making it one of the largest bulks of confidential information to have ever been released to the public (Star, 2011). The right to physical privacy protects citizens from unwarranted bodily searches and cavity tests or any other practice that may subject a person to humiliation especially in the public (Alderman, 2001). This means that a person has the right to sue any person be it a doctor, security officer or any other party who may perform such intrusive procedures on a citizen unless there is a reasonable court order demanding for the same. For example, a person may doubt the paternity of his child and as a result, he may facilitate a DNA test on the child without informing the mother so that she can give her consent before the procedure is conducted. The security officers may also trick a suspected criminal into giving out blood for the sake of confirming his involvement in a crime through a DNA test. This is unethical behavior which is punishable by law. In addition, there is no reason as to why a person may be forced to undress in public thereby exposing his or her nakedness. In fact, if a person decides on his free will to do so in public, he can be arrested and charged with the offense of indecent exposure. In this context, one should not at any time install surveillance cameras in places such as bathroom or changing rooms especially since there are people who are addicted to nudity and they may be tempted to install hidden cameras in strategic points such as bedrooms so that they can gain sexual satisfaction by watching couples undress or engage in coitus. One of the cases depicting the importance of respecting other people’s bodies is the case filed by a patient, Elizabeth Mateo, who had sued her doctor for placing a tattoo, though temporary, on her belly just below the panty line in form of a red rose without her consent as at that time she was under anesthesia (Judson, 2009). Conclusion The right to privacy is a fundamental right, though not absolute, which must be respected and protected for all and sundry. This is due to the fact that it protects human dignity, which is essential in maintaining coexistence of human beings. However, it is observable that most of the constitutions around the world do not define what privacy is and the limit to where it can be exercised. On the other hand, the courts for example the US Supreme Court have been mandated through the 9th amendment to protect all the rights that are not enshrined in the constitution. Several acts such as the information privacy act of 1974 have also provided guidance to the level of privacy that is expected and the conditions through which such privacy can be intruded. There are mainly four major categories of privacy i.e. information privacy, bodily privacy, communications privacy and territorial privacy. However, it has not been an easy task to ensure that these forms of privacy are sufficiently protected. This is especially due to the advancement of technology. For example, the use of telecommunication devices such as telephones, emails, and ecommerce expose users to network intrusion through hacking and phishing, whereby personal data is accessed by unauthorized persons from remote locations, who may use it to cause malicious damage or to commit fraud. Tiny surveillance cameras can also be installed at strategic places to stalk people and record their private activities, recordings which may later find their way into the internet fro public consumption. References Alderman, E. (2001).The Right to Privacy, Vintage Cate, F. (2000). Privacy in the Information Age, Brookings Institution Press Electronic Privacy Information Center. (2011). Workplace Privacy, Retrieved 28 May 2011 from http://epic.org/privacy/workplace Judson, K. (2009). Law & Ethics for Medical Careers, Career Education Justice Department (n.d).The Privacy Act of 1974. Retrieved 28 May 2011 from http://www.justice.gov/opcl/privstat.htm Kennedy, C. (2003). In Our Defense: The Bill of Rights in Action, Harper Perennial Olson, K. (2003).Watergate: The Presidential Scandal That Shook America, University Press of Kansas Solove, D. (2008). Information Privacy Law, Aspen Publishers Star, A. (2011). Open Secrets: WikiLeaks, War, and American Diplomacy, Grove Press Read More