Privacy,Security, Freedom:Social Concerns for the 21st Century - Essay Example

YOUR FULL YOUR Justice Douglas and Privacy Rights Justice Douglas, in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), began firmly framing a constitutional right to privacy where one had previously existed only in shadow. His recipe was a various mix of Amendments within the Bill of Rights although how, exactly, the right to freedom of speech and assembly (First Amendment) interacts with the right to not be forced to quarter soldiers during peacetime (Third Amendment) never really coalesced into a solid doctrine for some. What did make sense, however, was the use of the idea found in the Ninth Amendment that just because a right was enumerated in the Bill of Rights didn’t necessarily mean there weren’t other rights held by the people; stated positively, there may be “constitutional” rights not specifically noted in the constitution itself. Hence, the doctrine of privacy rights was born. There are two fundamental aspects of Justice Douglas’ statements which should be addressed here. The first is Incrementalism; the idea that privacy is not taken away in a day by one major act, but rather eroded over time. For Justice Douglas, the government may “intrude into the secret regions” of an individual’s life through its actions which, almost imperceptibly, use the massive power of the federal system to weaken the standing of an individual. Secondly, Justice Douglas articulates the “Big Brother” principle; in the name of protecting us or advancing us, the government requires more access to our lives. In other words, we have a benevolent overseer who will, if allowed, take care of us; but only at the cost of our individual freedoms. At the end of the day, Justice Douglas may be guilty of some excesses, but he has a good point. Privacy is important to individuals who live in a free society, and that right should be protected. While extremists exist on both sides that are willing to take the issue beyond its rational boundaries, the notion that there are extra-constitutional rights, of which privacy is one, is not heresy. Reasonably applied, it’s a good idea. Pro-Con Debate on the Patriot Act The Patriot Act is a controversial set of laws which, in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, circumscribe certain rights heretofore felt to be inviolate by many. Others, perceiving a need to protect society from an insidious enemy, are perfectly willing to trade personal privacy rights for safety. Here are six examples, three on each side, of the debate. Pro 1984 in 2003?: Fears about the Patriot Act are Misguided In his comments regarding the position of civil liberties organizations in regard to the Patriot Act, Ramesh Ponnuru points out that much of the criticism of specific governmental behaviors existed well before the Patriot Act and that civil libertarians are overreacting. He notes, for example, that the roving wiretap—authorization for the government to tap any phone line which a particular suspect uses rather than getting a court order for each one—has been around since 1986. Yet it has only been since the enacting of the Patriot Act that there have been complaints. His conclusion is that it isn’t “1984 in 2003.” Keeping America out of Harms Way: From a National Health-Surveillance Network to Better Whistle-Blower Protection, Security Experts Provide Their Commonsense Ideas for Improving Homeland Security In his article regarding security measures, Sam Macdonald notes the fact that the Patriot Act is controversial, but points out that even when Americans are united in a war against terrorism, there is disagreement on how to address the issues. The overriding thrust of his article is that many of the nation’s most prominent experts on security feel that our vital structures are still vulnerable to attack. He points out that conservative organizations like the Heritage Foundation consider the government’s need of information to be paramount. Reading this article causes me to consider the balance between my individual freedoms and the valid concerns and duty of the government to protect American citizens. The Patriot Act: Searching for Monsters in the Closet In his defense of the Patriot Act, Paul Ibbetson uses a monster analogy to describe the intent of terrorist organizations and their designs upon America. He disagrees with civil rights groups who oppose the Act, saying that the monsters they portray are false. Of particular interest is the fact that there have been no documented abuses of the Act, resulting in no individual actually suffering the deprivation of their constitutional rights. I find it very interesting that, given the strident voices objecting to the Act, no one has actually come forward with a case of abuse. While the debate is largely philosophical in terms of civil liberties, if the facts are that no one has been injured by the Act—and it has been effective in making Americans safer—I don’t see the harm in giving authorities expanded powers; especially if they are demonstrating that they are using those powers responsibly. Con Unpatriotic Acts: The FBI’s Power to Rifle Through your Records and Personal Belongings without Telling You This special report by the ACLU emphasizes one of the more intrusive aspects of the Patriot Act; that of federal agents being permitted to obtain personal records or enter an individual’s home and search their belongings without notification. The fact that a governmental authority can access records—including medical files—and never inform the person under the investigation (and the institution that was forced to release the records is prohibited by law from notifying the individual) is a specious invasion of privacy. The articulation is intentionally dramatic in this advocacy piece, but the facts are nevertheless unsettling. The thought of the police visiting a person’s home, searching it, and never revealing their search doesn’t sound very American. The Un-American Patriot Act: The New USA Patriot Act, Enacted in Response to the September 11th Terrorist Attacks, Could Pose More of a Threat to Personal Liberty Than to Terrorists As the title would suggest, Steve Bonta’s article takes a very dim view to the Patriot Act in general, and several portions in particular. He specifically decries the secret searches and other violations of privacy and points out some good observations about the fact that the Patriot Act limits some parts of judicial oversight regarding evidence, blurs the line between foreign intelligence gathering and domestic law enforcement, as well as uses a broad definition of “terrorist” which could permit unconstitutional police power to be brought to bear against American citizens. I think he makes a good point; while we need to be safe from terrorists and law enforcement needs to be free to protect us, there shouldn’t be a trampling of our constitutional rights in the name of security. Insight and Action: Patriot Act In his website article, Congressman Dennis Kucinich calls upon the Democratic Party to “show some backbone” and repeal the Patriot Act. He notes that President Bush “rammed” the Act through congress with very little debate and that the law is an unprecedented threat to individual freedoms. Interestingly, he notes that many of the new powers given to authorities under the Patriot Act are provisions that have long been sought after by law enforcement but repeatedly rejected by Congress. I find it interesting that police have sought these powers before and only in the wake of 9/11 did they get them. I am forced to wonder if they had them before the attacks, would they have been able to prevent the horrific events of that day. Works Cited Beeson, Ann and Jaffer, Jameel. “Unpatriotic Acts: The FBI’s Power to Rifle Through Your Records and Personal Belongings without Telling You.” ACLU Report Jul. 2003. Bonta, Steve. “The Un-American Patriot Act: The New USA Patriot Act, Enacted in Response to the September 11th Terrorist Attacks, Could Pose More of a Threat to Personal Liberty Than to Terrorists.” The New American 18(1), 14 Jan. 2002: 23. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) Ibbetson, Paul A. “The Patriot Act: Searching for Monsters in the Closet.” April 2006. The Patriot Act Research Newsletter Page. 5 Oct. 2006. Kucinich, Dennis. “Insight and Action: Patriot Act.” No Date. Re-Elect Congressman Kucinich Committee. 5 Oct. 2006 . Macdonald, Sam. “Keeping America out of Harms Way: From a National Health-Surveillance Network to Better Whistle-Blower Protection, Security Experts Provide Their Commonsense Ideas for Improving Homeland Security.” Insight on the News 18(17), 13 May 2002. Ponnuru, Ramesh. “1984 in 2003?: Fears about the Patriot Act are Misguided.” National Review 55 (10), 2 Jun. 2003. Read More