The Right to Privacy - Essay Example

The Right to Privacy Introduction Privacy refers to the ability of a person or group to seclude information about them, and; hence, expose them discriminatingly (Etzioni 2). In essence, it is the right of someone to be free from secret inspection and to decide whether, how, when and to whom one’s individual or organizational information is to be revealed (Etzioni 2). In particular, privacy might be split into four classes (1) Physical: control on others to experience a situation or person through their human senses; (2) Informational: control on looking for or disclosing facts, which are unknowable or unknown to others; (3) Decisional: control on inquisitive in decisions, which are restricted to an entity; and finally, (4) Dispositional: control on efforts to know a person’s state of mind (Etzioni 56). The content and limits of what is regarded private varies among individuals and cultures, but share general themes. Privacy is, at times, associated with secrecy, the desire to stay unidentified or unnoticed in public matters. When a matter is private to an individual, it normally means there is something in them, which is considered personally sensitive or intrinsically special. The extent to which private and confidential information is revealed, hence, relies on how the public will perceive these facts, which differs between places and over time (Etzioni 56). There have been numerous debates concerning peoples’ right to privacy. The state argues that people make wrong use of this rule by doing illegal activities yet keep it away from the authorities claiming that it is a right to privacy. However, others consider that it is a significant element of human rights and that the regime should grant this right to its citizens (Gonchar 1). This paper will describe this right and where is it found. It will also discuss how was it developed and whether or not it should be openly included in the United States Constitution. Right to Privacy Definition In recent days, there have been extremely few efforts evidently and correctly to describe a "right to privacy." By the turn of the millennium (2000), learners of the Haifa Institute for Law & Technology confirmed that, in reality, the right to privacy ought not to be labeled as a distinct legal right, in any way (Thomson 74). Through their interpretation, present laws pertaining to privacy, in essence, should be adequate. Other scholars, such as Dean Prosser, have endeavored, but not succeeded, to uncover a mutual understanding between leading privacy cases in courts at least to formulate an explanation (Gallagher 12). One law school dissertation from Israel, nevertheless, on the issue of "privacy in the digital world," proposes that the right to privacy ought to be seen as a self-regulating right, which requires legal security in itself (Lever 56). It has, hence, suggested a working description to the "right to privacy. According to this institution, the right to privacy is peoples’ right to uphold a domain around them, which comprises of all those issues that are significant to them, such as their body, property, home, feelings, thoughts, identity, as well as secrets (Thomson 74). This right offers people the ability to choose which parts in this domain can be accessed by others, and to control the extent, manner and timing of the use of those parts we choose to disclose. Where the Right Is Found and How It Was Developed The right to privacy is a historical paradox of the United States constitutional law (Moore 20). Even if it did not exist as doctrine till late 1961, it did not create the basis of a Supreme Court verdict up to 1965 (Thomson 77). It is, in essence, the oldest constitutional right. This right of privacy establishes the foundation of the freedom of conscience articulated in the First Amendment, the right to be protected in one's self articulated in the Fourth Amendment, as well as the right to decline self-incrimination articulated in the Fifth Amendment, in spite of the truth that the word "privacy" itself is seen nowhere in the United States Constitution. Its major origin is the considered to be the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights suggested by James Madison formerly embraced the Fourth Amendment, unfolding an indefinite right of individuals to be safe in their persons, papers, houses, as well as effects, against irrational seizures and searches (Thomson 77). The Ninth Amendment stated that the details of the Constitution, of particular rights, shall not be interpreted to disparage or deny others held by the people, but does not particularly cite a right to privacy. The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment makes a number of general references to rights not clarified in the amendment. The amendment argues that no state shall enforce or make any act, which will shorten the immunities or privileges of citizens of the United States. Also, no state shall deprive any citizen of life, property, or liberty, devoid of any due process of law or deprive to any citizen the equal protection of laws (Thomson 78). In Ullman v. Poe, the United States Supreme Court declined to overturn a Connecticut decree outlawing birth control on the basis that the petitioner was not endangered by the act, and; therefore, was not in a position to sue (Etzioni 45). According to Justice John Marshall Harlan, due process is not eased to any formula. Its content was decided by referring to any code. According to the judge, the ruling of this case signified the balance which U.S., established on claims of respect for the liberty of freedom of people, has struck between the urges for an organized society and that freedom. If the provision of content to this thought has, of importance, been a coherent process, then it surely has not been one where lawmakers have felt free to journey where unguided assumption may take them (Etzioni 45). The case proposes that particular guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras created by secretions from those assurances, which gives them substance and life (Etzioni 45). Various assurances generate zones of privacy. The freedom of association incorporated in the obscurity of the First Amendment is one. The Third Amendment, in its exclusion against the including soldiers in a foreign state in time of peace devoid of the approval of the owner, is another aspect of that privacy (Etzioni 45). Finally, the Fourth Amendment openly reassures the right of individuals to be safe in their persons, papers, effects and houses, against difficult seizures and searches. Should the Right to Privacy be Included in the U.S. Constitution The United States, a nation that is known to consider best the welfare of its citizens, does include a right to privacy law in its constitution (Solove 1). This is a matter that has stirred a lot of debate both in the government, as well as in the general public. When the government gathers information for people, they say they are not worried because they have absolutely nothing to hide (Solove 1). Only when someone is doing something wrong or immoral, then should they keep their matters private. Critics have referred to the nothing to hide debate as the most widespread retort towards privacy advocates (Solove 1). If someone has nothing to hide, then they should not fear. This is what advocators of this law argue towards. Earlier this years, a government contractor known as Edward Snowden leaked secret documents to the media, which revealed the presence of confidential government surveillance endeavors (Gonchar 1). This through this, Americans now know that the NSA collects phone records, as well as Internet data from Americans as an effort to maintain the safety of its citizens (Gonchar 1). The public had many questions concerning what they had learnt. However, the government still maintains that whatever they do is all in an effort to protect Americans (Gonchar 1). Many Americans were disapproved about the United States government’s collecting phone records from ordinary Americans, but many saw any concern about their internet activities. 57% of Americans said that these leaks on the surveillance programs would not influence the capacity of the U.S. to stop future terrorist attacks, whereas 30% said the fact that the programs had been publicized would deteriorate the government’s plans to stop terrorism (Gonchar 1). Gallagher (153) states that roughly six in every 10 Americans argued that they disapproved of the government gathering phone records of normal Americans so as to decrease terrorism. Nevertheless, three-quarters confirmed they accepted the government’s tapping phone records of Americans alleged to be carrying out terrorist actions. Almost the same number approved of the regime’s monitoring the Internet actions of people living in other countries. Maintain privacy is vital for anyone (Sharp 1). People do not want their personal endeavors to be shared by anyone including the good endeavors. However, when it comes to matters of national security, it is better for people let the government do their job of protecting them instead of complaining of their endeavors (Sharp 1). When the American government taps into peoples’ conversations, they do share it with the rest of the world, not unless the information they receive jeopardizes the lives of Americans. Therefore, people could consider their information extremely safe. Therefore, the right to privacy should not be included in the United States constitution. This is because, through this right, the American government will not be in a position to safeguard the welfare of its citizens. Conclusion Privacy refers to the ability of a person or group to seclude information about themselves, and; hence, expose themselves discriminatingly. This paper has discussed the significance of the right to privacy and finds that the right should not be included in the U.S constitution because it would hinder the government’s endeavors of securing the welfare of its citizens. However, more research should be done to this topic in order to educate Americans who support this right to be included in the constitution so as for them to see why it is excluded. Works Cited Allmer, Thomas. “A Critical Contribution to Theoretical Foundations of Privacy Studies,” Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society 9.2 (2010): 83–101. Print. Etzioni, Amitai. The Limits of Privacy. New York: Basic Books, 2000. Print. Gallagher, Susan E., "The Right to Privacy" by Louis D. Brandeis and Samuel Warren: A Digital Critical Edition. Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts Press, 2013. Print. Gonchar, Michael. What Is More Important: Our Privacy or National Security? N.p, 2013. Web. http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/what-is-more-important-our-privacy-or-national-security/?_r=0 Lever, Annabelle. "Feminism, Democracy and the Right to Privacy," Minerva - An Internet Journal of Philosophy 9.4 (2005): 56-70. Print. Moore, Adam D. Privacy Rights: Moral and Legal Foundations. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2010. Print. Sharp, Tim. Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws. N.p, 2013. Web. http://www.livescience.com/37398-right-to-privacy.html Solove, Daniel J. Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have 'Nothing to Hide'. N.p, 2011. Web. Thomson, Judith J. "The Right to Privacy," in Michael J. Gorr and Sterling Harwood, eds., Crime and Punishment: Philosophic Explorations. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 2000. Print. Read More