| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. |
|
<
< | Complaisance with Speech Surveillance |
>
> | Relying on the Constitution |
| | -- By LeylaHadi - 04 Mar 2015 |
|
<
< | Isn't a part of the reason why we would never have believed Snowden and are still in a form of paralysis or active denial about it is because we think we are somehow protected by the Fourth and First amendments? |
>
> | Isn't a part of the reason why we would never have believed Snowden and are still in active denial is because we think we are protected by the Constitution? |
| | Fourth Amendment Protection |
|
<
< | The prevalent and archetypical view that spying is done in specific places on specific people who have created suspicion based on their activities is, in our time, false. The popular First World fear over the prospect that the government will replace cops with drones, and where the privacy line will end up when drones take over law enforcement, speaks to the persistent idea that we can only be physically under surveillance. Physical searches without our consent or a warrant in a particular space have been the predominant focus of Fourth Amendment search cases, with an emphasis on the reasonable expectation of privacy in that space. We have reasonably expected privacy within the home, but not when we are stationary or transitory in public space. Inspection of physical aspects of the home has been found illegal when made through thermal imaging, and warrantless tapping of the circuits in our home has been found illegal too. Yet, with our speech in the private domain accessible to the government without any physical intrusion or action, the Fourth Amendment has not lived up to its framers' hopes. While the government may not create any law that hinders upon the freedom to say whatever we will, it does not protect us fervently from having that speech obtained against our will and potentially used against us.
Only the Physical
The language of the Fourth Amendment speaks to places. Searching someone's speech was not possible in the eighteenth century without obtaining somebody's physical items in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protected one's speech from being illegally examined and obtained because it protected a citizen's "papers" from warrantless search and seizure, which is where speech existed at the time. Technology has expanded the means by which the government can search and seize speech, first through circuits and now packets of data. The Katz Court
Why doesn't the Fourth Amendment cover the expansion? Why should they be able to search our speech? Is it because we don't have a reasonably expectancy of privacy anymore, or because we are so convinced and dependent on the idea that the values of the Fourth Amendment are still being upheld?
Comparison of Cases about Physical versus Verbal
Extending the Fourth Amendment to Speech |
>
> | The prevalent and archetypical view that spying is done in specific places on specific people who have created suspicion based on their activities is now false. The idea persists that we can only be physically under surveillance. Physical searches without our consent or a warrant in a particular space have been the predominant focus of Fourth Amendment search cases, with reliance on the reasonable expectation of privacy in that space. We have reasonably expected privacy within the home, not when we are in public space. Inspection of physical aspects of the home through thermal imagining has been found illegal, and warrantless tapping of circuits in our home has been found illegal too. Yet now, with our speech in the expected private domain accessible to the government without any physical intrusion or action, the Fourth Amendment has not lived up to its framers' hopes. While the government may not create any law that hinders upon the freedom to say whatever we will, it does not protect us fervently from having that speech obtained against our will and potentially used against us. |
| | |
|
>
> | When the issue focused entirely on national security and the need to monitor foreign communication, the argument that Bush's surveillance directive was a necessary program could stand firm on the idea that Americans communicating with Americans weren't targeted. Just suspicious outsiders to Constitutional protection would be monitored to protect the "freedom" that this country extols. After Snowden, it's clear that this is not the case. Why doesn't the Fourth Amendment cover the expansion? Why should our speech be searchable? Is it because we don't have a reasonably expectation of privacy, or are we just convinced that the values of the Constitution are still upheld? We should have a reasonable expectation of privacy in our virtual life, and privacy from government intrusion must include the net. |
| | |
|
<
< | Purpose of the Fourth Amendment as Seen Through Judicial Interpretation |
| | |
|
>
> | Only the Physical |
| | |
|
<
< | Data Surveillance and Metadata
When the issue was focused entirely on national security and the need to monitor foreign communication, the argument that George W. Bush's surveillance directive was a necessary program could at least stand firm on the idea that Americans communicating with Americans were never going to be targeted. Just suspicious outsiders to Constitutional protection would be monitored to protect the "freedom" that this country extols. After Snowden though, it's clear that this is not the case. His documents...
First Amendment Protection
If we're looking at the First Amendment as a broad, general concept against a totalitarian regime, it should be enough to protect citizens from data surveillance. While technically Congress has not made a law that abridges freedom of speech, which is what the Amendment literally says, we are living in a world in which the federal government has permitted and used data mining. If the First Amendment did what it was supposed to do in a binary system of total freedom versus anything else (whether regulated or prohibited freedom of speech), there would be total freedom - to say, to know, to inquire, to be. Already though, it has failed, for what has it done? It's been unable to let Americans speak freely, without warrantless appropriation of their speech by the government, prior to and after Snowden's revelations, because of piecemeal interpretation of its purpose.
Rationale Behind Exceptions |
>
> | The Fourth Amendment speaks of places. Searching speech was impossible in the eighteenth century without obtaining somebody's physical items in violation of the Amendment. It protected one's speech from being illegally examined and obtained by protecting a citizen's "papers" from warrantless search and seizure, where speech existed. Technology expanded the means by which the government can search and seize speech, first through circuits, now packets of data. The Katz Court found warrantless wiretapping illegal, which expanded the protection to physical intrusion into a person's circuits. However, Smith v. Maryland resulted in the finding that a suspect had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his metadata, the records the police asked his phone company to procure for them. The register that collected his records was physically on the company's property, and no invasion or intrusion on to his "constitutionally protected area" occurred. |
| | |
|
<
< | Enumeration of Rights |
>
> | The route to utilizing the Fourth Amendment against the NSA surveillance program is showing that technology requires reformulating the view of searches as physical intrusions. We function virtually and so virtual intrusions need to be characterized as warrantless searches. The Fourth Amendment needs to be construed expansively to stay true to its original premise to find: the government should not be in our private lives, our private lives are on the net, and unless the government has a reason to subpoena our information, it can't. |
| | |
|
<
< | Protection |
>
> | The Companies as Middlemen |
| | |
|
<
< | What the fear is - the government surveillance. Why regulations can't work - 1st amendment. But can't the 1st amendment be the basis upon which to challenge the government surveillance? Why isn't it? |
>
> | The Smith majority found that the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation to privacy because he voluntarily conveyed the information to the company and knew they could record the information. The view needs to change to agree with the dissent: just because you know your information might be recorded, it doesn't mean you expect the government to access it without your consent or a warrant. The amount of interactions that occur via the internet and cellphones was unimaginable in 1979; people's lives didn't function almost entirely through communication means provided by companies. If people are unhappy with companies' recording and keeping their packets, they should stop using those companies. But if they choose to continue - why should they lose their Fourth Amendment rights? Courts need to reframe their understanding of search and seizure in conjunction with what have now become our "effects" instead of undermining the Amendment's purpose through an antiquated view of society and communication. The whole point of the Amendment is to protect its citizens from exactly what is happening now: mass access to unauthorized data. Using companies as middlemen to invade privacy is a farce that courts need to strike down. A reasonable expectation of privacy needs to exist in communications that were intended to be private even though the information was voluntarily given to one or more companies because that is how people now communicate. |
| | |
|
<
< | Examples - How Else Could it Possibly Look and the Use of Fear |
>
> | Two Rights To A Wrong |
| | |
|
<
< | Two Rights Make A Wrong |
>
> | The Fourth Amendment should be used to fight the darkness. Coupled with the First Amendment, a beacon of enigmatic freedom, the two can fight this age of government surveillance. Basing arguments against information and speech regulations on the First Amendment necessitates a block to the government's access to that information and speech. While Congress has not made a law that abridges freedom, we are living in a world where the federal government has access to our virtual lives. If the First Amendment did what it was supposed to in a binary system of total freedom versus anything else, there would be total freedom - to say, to know, to inquire, to be. Knowing the government has access to your life inherently abridges that freedom. The First Amendment has failed to let Americans speak freely, without appropriation of their speech by the government, even after Snowden's revelations, because of piecemeal interpretation of its purpose. The Fourth and First Amendments were required for this new principled and free nation to succeed in its existence without totalitarian realities. Why aren't they doing their jobs? |
| |
|