Justices Consider How to Apply 18th Century Law to Digital Privacy
When the constitution was written in 1787 no one expected that the world would change so drastically. With the development of technology and the constitution not adapting, there comes an issue of how to apply the old laws to the new world. Since the government started tracking information people have raised concern about how it violates their personal rights. Currently the Supreme Court “require[s] a warrant to search the cellphones of people placed under arrest” but you don’t need a court-ordered warrant to access data collection through phones. There is a precedent set by a 1979 case, Smith v. Maryland, that people have no right to expect that their privacy extends to a third party. There is a federal law that requires prosecutors to basically get a warrant to get tracking data. In Timothy Ivory Carpenter's case he was convicted of a series of robberies that were partially tracked via his cellphone GPS over the course of months. Carpenters lawyer argued that this violates the "fourth amendment, which bars unreasonable searches, by failing to get a warrant for the information". Although there are laws about cell phone tracking, they are very loose.
Justice Considers How to Apply 18th Century Law to Digital Privacy
Should lawmakers adapt the fourth amendment to reflect current times?
How should the Supreme Court set guidelines to control the collection of people's private data?
Why is it important for amendments to be reevaluated every so often?
1. I do think it's a breach of privacy for cellphone location data to be accessible without a warrant. If there is probable cause, it is protected; but the availability of cellphone data violates our 4th amendment right to privacy if there's no reason to be suspicious.
ReplyDelete3. It is important that amendments be reevaluated because as times change, so should the rules. The framers of the constitution did not write the constitution with the thought of cell phones or other modern technology in mind. Amendments exist to better the constitution and help the constitution to stay current with the times. Moreover, amendments should also be subject to reevaluation because they become old too at one point. Therefore, in order to account for changes in time, we need to look back on the rules we've set and change them if need be.
ReplyDelete1. The framers of the Constitution could not have envisioned the cellphone, much less its ability to establish the whereabouts of its owner. This stems back to the idea of a living Constitution versus originalism. In my opinion, the Supreme Court should adapt the amendments to reflect current times for everything, not just the 4th amendment. When discussing the 4th amendment specifically, it is crucial to adapt to the rise of technology because otherwise there may be loopholes to the constitution. For instance, one can use GPS or wiretaps to "search" or "seize" information without actually physically doing so, which means that the original 4th amendment wouldn't consider this illegal. That is why we have Supreme Court cases such as Katz v. United States and Carpenter v. United States.
ReplyDelete1. Lawmakers should adapt the fourth amendment to reflect current times; however, I think it would be difficult to apply this to tracking data in phones. I think this adaptation is necessary, and I think it will happen eventually, but with how quickly technology is evolving and how easy it is to find loophole in technology, this would implementation would be difficult. I believe tracking via cell phone GPS does violate the user’s privacy and I think lawmakers should adapt the fourth amendment to reflect current times.
ReplyDelete3. It's important to reevaluate the amendments every now and then in order to ensure that the rules fit the times. We should be adapting amendments to current times because rules should adapt to times and not the other way around. If we were to adapt the 4th amendment to reflect current times, then the reevaluation of the amendments be crucial in order to amend for loop holes.
ReplyDelete3) It is important to reevaluate amendments every so often because times changes and people's views change. The Bill of Rights was first passed over 200 years ago and the circumstances were much different back then. With the emergence of new technologies and ideas, the original meaning of the bill of rights might need to be changed to fit our current narrative, much like the 4th amendment.
ReplyDelete1. I don't think the 4th amendment needs to be adapted. I don't really think it is a breach of privacy for cell phone data to be accessed without a warrant. Most people aren't up to anything suspicious, so I don't think this is a concern unless you are a criminal- in which case this would help to protect common citizens
ReplyDelete2. In order for the Supreme Court to set guidelines on the collection of private data, there first needs to be a case brought to it. Secondly, it is the private companies themselves that are collecting the data, which is then being given out after the fact. The regulation that needs to be made is not on the collection of data but on who can access said data.
ReplyDeleteAmendments should be reevaluated from time to time based on a liberal interpretation of the Constitution. I will take the originalist perspective to say that wherever the Constitution does not apply, the laws are the way to go. In other words, the Constitution can only be interpreted so broadly. At a certain point, people must turn to legislation to make change and reform.
ReplyDeleteI personally don't think the collection of personal data should be considered as a violation of the fourth amendment's "unnecessary search and seizures" clause. In my mind, no one sits at the screen pouring through your information unless there's a certain reason. I think the fourth amendment only applies when the data is actually being searched through to find something. Of course, at that point I'd love to be certain that the act is lawful and a warrant has been obtained before someone just goes searching through a third party's collection of someone's personal data. As Lambson said above, I think this is a problem of monitoring who gets to see the data, not the pooling of data itself.
ReplyDelete1. Yes it is key that we adapt the constitution and amendments to current time. With the digital age we have so much more information at our finger tips and we need to protect the privacy of other and what is essential. With no laws surrounding data gathering you could impose on someone else's life or steal things electronically from them like money with no real consequence. This also applies to law and gathering information. If you cannot self incriminate than a police man should not be able to look up you information and hack your computer data to find suspicious activity. That would be "immoral" and against the idea of 5th amendment.
ReplyDelete3. It is important for amendments to be reevaluated every so often because they were create in a time very different than the present. Because society is always changing it is important to check that the amendments still function as they should. In addition, over time people's views change and with that comes a change in laws.
ReplyDelete3. Ammendmants need to be reevaluated and reinterpreted as times change because the situations of the context in which the laws were created also change with time. I believe this should be an institutionalized process (not just done through Supreme Court cases).
ReplyDelete3. It is essential for amendments to be reevaluated every so often because society changes just like the Constitution should. There appears to be increasingly more grey area on what the amendment, and more generally laws, can apply to. There needs to be clear methods in which cases can be approached by rather than potentially violating individual rights.
ReplyDelete3. It is important for amendments to be reevaluated because, like organisms, countries are subject to evolve over time. The norms now are vastly different from those in the late 18th century, and it would be unrealistic for people today to adapt to an old interpretation of an amendment. The Constitution should adapt to the nation's societal changes.
ReplyDelete