Sociology

The Right to be left alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms (Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas) .

In a democratic society, there has and will always be a conflict as to the need of the state to openness and access for information and the desire of a person for secrecy. Information is power and as such, the freedom of information is one of the most fundamental human right and the touchstone of all freedoms to which the United Nations is consecrated, however, there are some information in a democratic society that should not be made available for the interest of security. The government, as parens patriae has the right to interfere with the affairs of the citizen for the safety and benefit of the general welfare of the public but there are some information about a private citizen that the government has no right to meddle with because the right of a person to privacy is protected by the Bill of Rights and as such, private persons have a right to privacy just as the state has the right to withheld information to the public.

Generally, people have faith that the government and other authorities must act on behalf of the people in order to guarantee their right to privacy. Many Americans have a hard time reciting the Constitutional amendments and their understanding of what the law is about maybe a little bit shallow but they have an underlying trust that the government will not transgress the law and that it will do everything in its power to safeguard the citizens. It is however unfortunate that security often finds itself in conflict with privacy. In order to provide the people with adequate security, police officers are allowed to store detailed information about the private citizens to allow them to watch every movement. This procedure enable police to thwart attempts on the life and property of the people even before they attack. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution is the most popular law dealing with privacy. It safeguards the people from any unlawful search and seizures but it also grants leeway to law enforcers to continue the search upon presentation of a search warrant.

There are many rights protected by the international community and out of all these rights, the right to privacy is the most difficult to describe. However, the lack of definition does not suggest that the issue is of no importance. Privacy is a fundamental human right whose roots have been traced as far as year 1361 from the time when the Justices of Peace Act in Britain legislated laws making arrest for the peeping toms as well as eavesdroppers ( Privacy and Human Rights ). This right is recognized by diverse cultures and regions from all over the world. It is protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights and many other treaties. Almost all country from the world protect their right to privacy in their constitution. At the very least, their provisions may include the right of the people to be safe in their own houses and the right to secrecy of communications. Many constitutions include the right to access and control a persons information. In countries where privacy rights are not specifically acknowledged in their fundamental law, their courts make sure that there are statutory provisions that cater to this right.

There are arguments on the other hand that the right of the society at large is more important than the right to privacy and when there are reasonable circumstances  that threatens the very existence of this society, the government can invoke their right to pry into the personal affairs of the people. Todays world is filled with new technology and security concerns that pose a real danger to the public because there are people who are taking advantage of their privacy in order to wreck havoc and harm to the society and as such, there are some controversies that the right to privacy is inferior to the right of the state to information and access in order to protect its survival.

America is one of the most powerful countries in the world and they take pride taking care of their citizens. One of the ways in which the American government has proven their power in protecting its men and women is by ensuring that the Bill of Rights is being upheld. These rights have not been put by the forefathers in the Constitution to ensure that the very essence of liberty and independence of the people will not be subjected to the abuse of the government. One cannot help but compare the privacy laws of America to other powerful countries in west. There is indeed a notable difference in political and social laws of both Europe and America but they share many similar principles when it comes to protecting the privacy of their citizens. Both the European data protection derivative and the American Principles for Providing and Using Personal Information generates obligations as well as responsibilities for the users. These include collection of information and its usage only in ways that are in line with its purpose. Both the European directive and the U.S. Principles require that the individuals must be given notice whenever personal information is collected about them and an opportunity to consent or to withhold such consent for some uses of personal information. Despite the striking similarity, it can be further observed that the United States law affords an even greater protection to sensitive data by  giving weight to the privacy interests at stake every time the date concerned involves the fundamental rights of the people (Cate).

Due to the September 11 attack, the United States government enacted the USA-Patriot Act which removes some of the privacy protections for the interest of the countrys security. Many citizens were filled with fear  but they were left with no choice but to adhere to the law as an incident to the police power of the state. President Bush signed this into law on October 26, 2001 and by doing so, the law granted the law enforcers and the international agencies sweeping powers by eliminating the checks and balances ( EFF Analysis Of The Provision Of The USA Patriot Act ). This law provides that any person may be deemed as a  person of interest  and should this happen, the rights afforded by the constitution will become a complete nullity. Changes were made for the reduction of the red tape that is necessary for the government to wire tap and search those that have been deemed  persons of interest  and they may be detained for an indefinite period of time without the benefit of being afforded a lawyer ( USA Patriot Act ).

Privacy is one of the values considered as highly-esteemed by the American society as such, they have many laws that gives their citizens the assurance of preserving their privacy. Over the course of time, Americans have been afforded numerous rights and these rights have developed and have been been added to the amendments to the United States Constitution. It is a fact that most people are not aware of the contents of these amendments. The fourteenth amendment is always referred to as the right to be left alone but a quick reading of this amendment may lead one to conclude that the law does not explicitly protect the peoples right to privacy. The first, the fourth as well as the fifth amendment are also referred to in discussing the right to privacy (Bradley). Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis formulated the concept that privacy is the right of the people to be left alone. According to him, this is the most sheltered freedoms in a democratic society (Warren and Brandeis).

There is no law that can be found stating that the right of the government to information is more superior than the right to privacy. First of all, the right to privacy of persons must be honored by the government because the invasion of right to privacy launches the government to a slippery slope. The United States Constitution does not expressly provide the right of privacy, however, there are several provisions in the Bill of Rights that mirrors the concern of James Madison and other framers in providing  provisions that protect specific aspects of a persons life such as the privacy of beliefs as stated in the First Amendment, the privacy of home against the demands that it be used for housing soldiers, the privacy of persons against unreasonable searches and seizures and the right against self-incrimination which protects the privacy of an individuals right to information.

Privacy can be defined as the expectation that a confidential or secret information disclosed in private will not be disclosed to third parties when such disclosure would lead to embarrassment and distress to one who has reasonable sensitivities. The right of privacy of a person is restricted to individuals who are in a place that is expected to be private such as at home, room or even in the phone or in correspondence (Standler).

Keen observers of the law may easily notice that due to the lack of direct laws that define and describe the right to privacy, it is better illustrated in breach than in observance. It is more easy to say when invasion of privacy happens rather than to define which actions are considered as exercises of privacy. As a concept in tort, it encompasses four aspects of protected interest which are the protection from unreasonable intrusion upon a persons seclusion, protection from appropriation of name or likeness, protection from unreasonable publicity given to an individuals private life and protection from publicity which places unreasonably a person in a false light ( Invasion of Privacy ).

Unreasonable intrusion provides little support to the privacy of information other than a restriction on the gathering of information. Like the three privacy torts, it is necessary that this one involves solitude or seclusion of ones private affairs and that the act committed constitutes as a highly offensive behavior to a reasonable person. This tort is recognized forty four states. The tort of appropriation applies only to the name or likeness of a person and is therefore of limited value.

Approximately two-thirds of all the states recognize this tort and a majority of them require that the appropriation is for commercial gain. On the other hand, the tort of unreasonable publicity is given to the private life of a person and will only be of application when there is a disclosure to a big number of audience of a private information that will not concern the public and will highly be offensive. Aside from these limitations, the Supreme Court ruled that the information that is truthful and lawfully obtained on a topic that is of significance to the public will never be a subject of legal liability in the absence of the requirements of strict scrutiny. The last privacy tort is a publicity that places a person unreasonable in a false light in front of the public. In order for this to be actionable, the publication must be false and highly offensive. In the case of Time, Inc., v. Hill (1967), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment extends to the concept of defamation to actions for false-light privacy. Therefore, the court required the plaintiffs to show that the defendant knew the publication to be false or reckless. In the case of Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), the Supreme Court held that the Times privilege is not applicable in cases of defamation unless the person concerned is a public official (Cate).

There are many cases decided by the Supreme Court upholding the privacy and the right of the people to be left alone. The highest court of the land uses the concept  of privacy in order to designate an area surrounding persons, their homes and their families into which the authorities may not intrude in the absence of any compelling interest. It can be noticed that the decisions of the Supreme Court starting 1920s broadened the liberty provided by the Fourteenth Amendment in prohibiting the state from interfering with private decision of educators and parents when it comes to making decisions about the education of children. The court said in the case of Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) that the liberty of the people does not only pertain to the freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract and engage in common occupations of life, to gain useful knowledge, to marry and establish a family and to worship God in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience. There are certain aspect of a persons daily living that the government must not be a party to because even if they are considered as the protector of the citizen, this right of the government is not absolute and without limitation. They have to honor the fact that the right to privacy is a constitutionally protected right which the state must adhere to.

In the case of Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the matters involving the personal and most intimate of choices that a person may make in a lifetime, more specifically those choices that are central to the dignity and autonomy of a person are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution . At the very heart of liberty lies the right of an individual to define his or her own concept of existence, meaning and mystery of life. As such, the State does not have the right to demean or control their existence by ruling that their private sexual  conduct is a crime. The due process clause provides that every person has the right to engage in a personal conduct without any intervention from the government because as promised by the Constitution, there is a realm of personal liberty which the government has no right to interfere with.

Second of all, the very essence of political liberty lies in the exercise of a power  that is not injurious to another. The importance of this right to privacy is not only recognized by the United States Constitution but by the international community as well. Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that no person shall be subjected to any kind of arbitrary interference with his privacy, home or correspondence or to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Every person has the right to the protection given by law against such interference or attacks ( Universal Declaration of Human Rights ). Human Rights Committee have set out guidelines for the government by stating that the interference must be lawful, it must not be arbitrary and it must be reasonable. ( Interference with the Right to Privacy ).

The most quoted statement by a Supreme Court Justice about the subject of privacy came from the dissenting opinion of Justice Brandeis in the case of Olmstead v. U.S. (1928). It was his opinion that the framers of the highest law of the land understood the need to safeguard conditions that are favorable to the pursuit of happiness, and the protections that are guaranteed by this are wider in scope thereby including the right to life and an inviolate personality- - the right to be alone-- which is the most comprehensive of rights and the right that is highly treasured by the civilized society. The principles aforementioned in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments pertain to a protection against the invasions of the sanctities of a persons home and privacies in life. This laws are but an act of recognizing the importance of the spiritual nature, feelings  as well as intellect of men.

The right to privacy of the citizens serve as a limitation to the states inherent powers of such as police power and the power of eminent domain. It can be observed that the Bill of Rights act as a limitation on all of the three inherent powers of the state. Without the provisions of the Bill of Rights, the citizens will be left unprotected and vulnerable to the abuses of the government. There are many questions as to what the scope of the right of privacy really pertains to but an extensive study of the law may lead one to believe that the right to privacy does not limit itself to the bodily privacy which many citizens are familiar with. The right to privacy covers information, communication and territory. Information privacy deals with the rules and regulations regarding the gathering and handling of personal data ( Information Privacy ). The are many kinds of information that often become the subject of privacy concerns. There are many reasons why people do not wish to divulge details about themselves such as religion, political ties, and sexual orientation. Others do not want to reveal intimate details about themselves in order to avoid discrimination, embarrassment and damage to their reputation.

The Constitution is not the only source of the protection of privacy, there are a number of laws both in the federal and the state levels which are based in the aforementioned right. The Privacy Act of 1974 was established for the purpose of preventing any unauthorized disclosure of private information in possession of the federal government. The Privacy Act requires the agencies to first comply with the requirement of giving public notice of their records in the Federal Register. This act prohibits any form of disclosure without the written consent of the individual whose right to privacy is about to be disturbed ( The Privacy Act of 1974 ).

Aside from the Privacy Act of 1974, there are other legislations enacted in other industries to safeguard the privacy of individuals among which are the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FRCA) which protects information that are gathered by the credit reporting agencies and the Childrens Online Privacy Protection Act which gives the parents the authority to gain access to any information about their children ages 13 and below.

If a person applies for a charge account, loan or insurance, it is a standard practice for companies to gather information about the person and the information gathered will be stored in a file. The files contain personal date such as the place of work, residence, how a person pays bills and criminal records if any. The FRCA exists for the promotion of accuracy and privacy of information  that are were used in making the reports. The businesses that supply information about consumers have a legal obligation not to divulge the data gathered ( Fair Credit Reporting ). While the FRCA protects the financial privacy of individuals,the Childrens Online Privacy Protection Act which took effect on April 21, 2000  protects Internet privacy because it covers on line collection of personal information. Operators of commercial websites or on line service that cater to children under 13 must comply with this law ( Childrens Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 ).

It is not hard to convince everybody that the technological advances have dramatically altered the balance of privacy and disclosure. The dawn of Internet and the world wide web has become a major challenge for the government to uphold new laws that will maintain the privacy of persons. Other areas of protection afforded to citizens safeguarding their privacy deals with their medical and political privacy.  The Office for Civil Rights are vested with power to enforce HIPAA Rules on Privacy which safeguards the privacy of the health information of persons. This agency sets the standards for the security of the electronically protected health data. They also uphold the confidentiality provisions of the Patient Safety Rule which protects the information given by patients from being disseminated to the public ( Health Information Privacy ).

People not only value the privacy of their information but they are also secretive when it comes to dealing with their political decisions. Political privacy of citizens are cherished as much as the other categories of privacy. The right to vote is actually not a right in the truest sense of the word but a mere privilege afforded by the Constitution to those who are have the qualifications and none of the disqualifications. The voting system has been around for hundreds of years and the secrecy of the ballots is the most basic measure afforded to the people to make sure that political judgments are not known to anybody other than the voter. The privacy of the voting system is perhaps the most unnoticed privacy right of all but this must not be taken for granted because the very essence of democracy is embedded in the right of citizenship. Politics is all about settling of disputes and the application of violence and restraint. The losers are vulnerable because they can be subjected to the authority of the winner. Law enforcers are often prejudicial about the fact that an independent judiciary will not always be available to watch over the fairness as to how the winners deal with the losers. As a matter of fact, this right have always been in existence even if other rights are not. The political privacy of the citizen is not limited to merely voting rights. This includes opinions and views that may have political implications. For instance, those who are against homosexual marriage may be considered by others as homophobic even if their objections originated from economic or procedural reasons ( Political Privacy ).

One of the most controversial issues concerning privacy deals with the privacy in the workplace. There are many employers that monitor the use of the Internet, email and other computer technologies provided by the employer in carrying out the purpose of the company. It through the use of these technological tools that Americans became productive laborers. The scope and level of monitoring will depend on the nature and type of business involved. The employees must be notified upon hiring and periodically thereafter that all their electronic mains, voice mails, Internet and computer files are properties of their employer and are therefore subject to monitoring ( Privacy in the Workplace ). Employers are in the position to watch every move of their employees because they have the right to monitor and protect their business and office equipment and security is legally superior to the privacy rights of the employees. This is the reason why the employee privacy rights are almost nonexistent in the private sectors. It is understandable that in employers merely want to ensure the safety of their businesses but there are times where employers can get away with unnecessary monitoring activity because there is no Federal employee workplace rights and most of the sates do not have the privacy rights for their employees either. Herein lies one of the examples where the people are left vulnerable to any attack upon their privacy which the Congress must look into ( Employee Workplace Privacy Rights ).

A deeper analysis of the issue that surrounds privacy may lead one to think about the different avenues where the laws should apply in order for the right of the people to be more protected. The advent of technology made life better for everybody and as convenient as this development is, the benefits come with a danger to the right of privacy. Not everything is as personalized as it was before when it comes to commercial transactions. Anyone can communicate with anyone from anywhere using the Internet. This convenience and efficiency comes with a price because accomplishments of contracts over the Internet may endanger the privacy of people. Doing business on line leaves a consumer with no choice but to give personal information  and all these people can do is hope that those whom they have given their data will not share it with anybody else. A person who do not have any confidence in the business dealings of others must think carefully before giving private information.

The dawn of computer technology forced the legislature to enact laws that would cope up with the changing of the times. In 1986, the Electronic Communication Privacy Act was enacted. This law includes provisions about the use, disclosure, interception and privacy protections of electronic communications. This law intends to cover any means of transfer of signals, writing, date or any information of electronic nature which is transmitted in whole or in part by wire, radio, telephone or photo optical system. The law also prevents government authorities from requiring the disclosure of electronic communications without a proper procedure ( Electronic Communications Privacy Act ). In addition to laws that aim to protect the privacy of individuals who are engaged in Internet activities, the legislature has also widened the scope of criminal liabilities perpetuated with the use of the Internet or any computer activities.

The most popular privacy right that Americans are familiar with is the bodily privacy which deals with the protection of the physical selves against arbitrary and invasive searches and seizures. This is a well-known privacy right because the Constitution explicitly provides that people have the right to be protected from their houses and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The law originally provided for a remedy for the violation of bodily privacy but as time passes by, the legislative department was able to enact other laws that would answer to the violation of the other categories of privacy. There is also the aspect of territorial privacy which deals with the settling of limits in the intrusion into the domestic and other environmental affairs in the workplace or in other public spaces ( Privacy ).

The Bill of Rights give protection to all the life, liberty and property of the citizens in an equal fashion. Perhaps one of the reasons why people would go to great lengths in order to protect the sanctity of their privacy is because the right to privacy is more personal than the other rights mentioned in the constitution. It is more personal because people feel at liberty to do all kinds of things in their comfort zone and if this very intimate space is violated, no person will ever feel truly protected anytime and anywhere. It can be observed that there is a wide array of laws governing privacy because there are various types of information that people are do not want to share with others and there are those types of information that people have disclosed to others but despite such disclosure, they do not want anybody else to know these kinds of information. Many people think that America is slowly becoming a big-brother society wherein every action is being watched and the danger lies in the question what kind of people are watching and what these people will do with the information that they have obtained. The privacy laws exist for the very purpose of shielding the people from being harassed by others.

Lastly, the liberty that a citizen enjoys is not measured by the government he lives under but by the amount of restraints it imposes on him. Freedom would not be the same as it is today in the absence of the guidelines given by law to the state when it comes to interfering with private affairs. The protection in favor of privacy is always perceived as a way of drawing the limitation as to how far the government and the society can intrude into ones personal affairs. The notion that an innocent person does not have anything to fear is but a mere illusion because it shows lack of knowledge. If the privacy is the right of the people to be left alone, then every person will draw a different boundary line. On the other side of that boundary, there are institutions and other people who will cross that line if they want to. There are also instances wherein the government is legitimately authorized to cross that line but they need to do so in a legitimate manner. A significant thought to remember is that there will never come a time where there is no line. Therefore, privacy is valued by everybody.

Benjamin Franklin once said that those who would give up one of the essential liberties for temporary security are not worthy of liberty or security ( Ben Franklin ). The fact is that once the privacy line is drawn it will never be officially erased. The government must recognize the fact the democracy quintessentially pertains to their adherence to the will of the people. Everybody has information and activities that they would rather keep to themselves than share it with anybody else. The truth of the matter is that even though there are some people who have no reason to fear the government for prying into their personal affairs, every person is exposed to the danger of potential abuse and it is for this reason that the right to privacy is always connected with human rights. Privacy encompasses many things such as the protection of the peoples thoughts, independence, security in our persons, houses and belongings. Even though the society is filled with noise and self-confessions, it is the right to privacy that permits us to keep some things to ourselves if we so desire. Therefore, the right to privacy must be upheld because it seems that it is one of the few things that makes men civilized.