The Fourth Amendment Revisited

-- By AhiranisCastillo - 05 Mar 2024

The Fourth Amendment serves as a crucial pillar in protecting individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by government authorities. It explicitly 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 essence, this amendment safeguards the privacy and security of individuals by requiring that searches and seizures by the government be conducted under specific conditions. These conditions include obtaining a warrant from a judge, supported by probable cause, which particularly describes the place to be searched and the items or individuals to be seized. An individual, then, has a right to their own privacy and any information that the government extracts about that individual must follow protocol.

However, the advent of the digital age poses new challenges to our right to privacy. In an era where individuals willingly share personal information with their devices, which subsequently transmits this data to numerous third parties for various purposes, questions arise regarding the extent of access to this data, often without explicit (or if explicit, often unknowing) consent from citizens. This extends not only to third parties like companies who extract user data for the sake of selling advertisements or products.[1] Our devices now know our most intimate details, from who we’re friends with, where we travel, our expenditures, even our sexual endeavors. And this information could land in the hands of a company who exploits this information for profit, or travel further upstream to government entities. The US recently forced Tik Tok to be either sold or banned for fear of the access that the Chinese government may have to user data.[2] Ironically, this government is no stranger to using our data themselves for a variety of enforcement and surveillance reasons.[3] But when we are handing over our information willingly – and in some cases, without actual regard for the implications, it forces us to question what the Fourth Amendment means for this moment in history and when the benefits of handing over our most intimate details is worth it.

Expanding on the idea of "to be secure" and "against unreasonable searches," it becomes evident that the concept of security under the Fourth Amendment isn't a one-size-fits-all notion. The phrase "to be secure" implies a subjective element where individuals possess agency over their sense of security. In a digital age where personal data fuels many aspects of our lives, the willingness to provide such information might be construed as a manifestation of feeling secure. However, the crux lies in the qualifier "against unreasonable searches." This provision calls for a deeper examination of the motives behind surveillance practices, particularly in the realm of governmental oversight.

The question arises: What constitutes reasonable surveillance? While proponents argue that extensive data collection enhances national security by preempting threats, there should also be concerns about the erosion of privacy rights and the potential for abuse of power. Government surveillance, especially without transparency, can encroach upon individual liberties and undermine the fundamental principles of democracy.

To truly uphold the Fourth Amendment's mandate of protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures, we need to delve deeper into the motives behind the power we give to our devices. Are they driven by genuine concerns for public safety, or do they serve ulterior motives such as political control or social manipulation? While individuals may willingly share information in the pursuit of security, it's essential to interrogate the justifiability of surveillance activities to prevent infringements on our rights. That justifiability, if it exists, leans on user consent but also on the impact of our given consent.

When we think of the impact as just a few push notifications to a woman who has missed her period, indicating that her devices know she may be pregnant, the cost of freedom does not seem too steep. Very few people would argue that this convenience, if anything, feels in some ways more freeing. This bargain is what keeps that willingness for us to hand over our information.[4] And in doing so, our devices can continue to keep us addicted to them, and perpetuate a cycle in which we feel completely vulnerable without them. However, when that same device can later predict that said pregnancy has been terminated, and there are potential legal consequences to that decision, a different calculation is needed.

When we think of freedom, we think of the choices we make as individuals and as a collective. And a lot of that freedom feels like it’s intact when we prioritize the immediate satisfaction of having our lives facilitated. But an expanded view of what doors this growing dependence on facilitation is needed for people to truly decide what price they’re willing to pay.

Links

1. [ https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/how-websites-and-apps-collect-and-use-your-information%23:~:text%3DWhen%2520a%2520website%2520you%2520visit%2520lets%2520another%2520company%2520track%2520you,your%2520interests%2520and%2520online%2520activity.&ved=2ahUKEwjyouqhv4GGAxXwEFkFHVj8CX0QFnoECA8QAw&usg=AOvVaw0EV2gs06bTILed4UgnlV7z ] 2. [https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.nytimes.com/article/tiktok-ban.html%23:~:text%3DConcerns%2520that%2520the%2520Chinese%2520government,to%2520a%2520government%252Dapproved%2520buyer.&ved=2ahUKEwiWmJGrsoGGAxV9k4kEHWwoAqwQFnoECBAQAw&usg=AOvVaw2v6mZaBlKn9tqxUPfwWS68 ] 3. [ https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/02/28/government-buying-your-data-00143742#:~:text=The%20data%20is%20used%20in,agency%20is%20doing%20the%20acquiring ]. ; [ https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/us-government-buys-data-americans-little-oversight-report-finds-rcna89035 ] 4. [ https://fortune.com/well/2023/07/19/how-to-cut-back-screen-time/ ]

You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.