Surname 1

Student’s name

Professor’s name

Course

Date

Government Surveillance and Infringement to Right to Privacy

Most cities in the United States including, New York, Baltimore, and Chicago,

continue to honor the effectiveness of state-owned camera network about minimisation of

crime rates, effectiveness in law enforcement and upholding of officer safety. Despite the

essential benefits, the city-owned cameras are very much unregulated. The most critical and

unanswered question during use of the video cameras is when the public video surveillance

goes beyond limit or security boundaries and infringe on citizens reasonable expectation of

privacy.

Edward Snowden, a government contractor, leaked classified government document

to the media. The documents revealed the implementation of top-secret state surveillance

programs (Toxen 45). From the information, the public is now aware that the National

Security Agency collects data pertaining phone logs and internet data from thousands of

citizens with the objective of ensuring the safety of the country.

Immediately after the exposure of classified surveillance programs, most Americans

disapproved the move by the government to gather phone information of ordinary citizens.

Some were oblivious to their phone data and internet activities being recorded and monitored.

According to the polls conducted CBS news in June 2017, a majority 57 percent were of the

opinion that leaked information about the security program is not in any way affecting the

government in dealing with cases of future terrorist attack. 30 percent believed that since the
 Surname 2

information is already dispensed to the public the efforts of the state to control instances of a

possible future terror attack is compromised (Etzioni and Amitai 20).

Edward Snowden, who is also an American NSA whistle-blower, is of the opinion

that citizens of any democratic nation are entitled to their privacy. Therefore, the

incorporation of public video surveillance into the system is just another means of the

government through the elected leaders disrespecting the fundamental rights of its citizens

(Scheuerman and William 615). He first criticises the cliché argument that if there is nothing

to hide, then there is nothing to fear. He goes ahead and explains that privacy is not about

hiding something. Privacy should be interpreted as protecting something. Privacy is

embedded into American language and culture, and without it, there will be nothing to call

private property. Privacy is the write of self, and it avails the ability for one to express their

self to others on personal terms. Therefore, if you do not recognize privacy, then you lose the

ability to make mistakes and also to be yourself. He believes that privacy is supreme to all

other rights. He cites freedom of speech without a quiet space as meaningless and even

freedom of religion without the opportunity to decide the things to believe in without being

influenced by peer pressure or any other criticisms from external sources to be of no use.

Another incident to explaining a situation of privacy is that of Chelsea Manning. A

U.S official informed both CNN and TMZ that Manning had attempted suicide while in

prison (Hackl and Andrea 670). Manning's legal team then argued that it is a violation of their

client's fundamental right to privacy when an officer gives her medical information to the

public. The legal team led by Nancy Hollander categorized the information as private,

confidential medical information about Manning.

Manning was arrested in 2010 and charged with violation of the Espionage Act. The

incident resulted from she confined a hacker online by the Adrian Lamo and the hacker
 Surname 3

snitched her to the FBI giving information on the documents Manning had leaked to Julian

Assange who is the founder of WikiLeaks (Rothe Dawn and Kevin 289). She faced a

sentence of 35 years imprisonment, but president Obama commuted her sentence. Manning

claimed that she knew the content of the documents when asked in an interview and insisted

the government had framed the situation in a particular way. She said the materials were

containing historical data as opposed to what the government claimed of sensitive data

relating to the troop movement. No evidence has ever been presented to support the claims

that WikiLeaks log was directly associated with any deaths. During an interview, Manning

argued that the government is incapable of proving that the leaked documents contained

military intelligence information relating to sources or methods. Manning is now considering

herself an activist for privacy rights and lobbying for increased transparency in the

government.

It is evident from the thought of Edward Snowden that ensuring privacy as a right is

essential and every individual should have his or her privacy. From the case of Chelsea

Manning, it is also evident that the officers entrusted with the information about citizens are

also capable of misusing it. While public video surveillance has its advantages, regulations

are also necessary to control how the officers operating the city-owned cameras should

handle the information (Hackl and Andrea 688). A precise definition is also imperative to the

extent of information that should be filmed so that balance is attained. The level of operation

that does not compromise the privacy of individuals and also maintains the efficiency crime

reduction, effectiveness in law enforcement, and safety of police officers. Some court

decisions can be used to establish the limits that law enforcement should consider when

targeting using GPS systems, video cameras, and pinging cell phones.

The first case is U.S versus Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945(2012). The Supreme Court judge

ruled that tracking car using a GPS for more than 28m days is considered infringement into
 Surname 4

an individual’s reasonable expectations of privacy (Kerr and Orin 71). It was also argued that,

disclosing information in public about a person such as the location a car is subject to

amendment IV protection. Justice Sotomayor concurred and added that he would inquire

whether an individual reasonably expected that information about their movement would be

recorded and consolidated in a manner that gives the government the opportunity to prove,

more or less at will, sexual habits, religious and political beliefs. The basis is that prolonged

tracking of a car just as the lengthy targeting of the surveillance camera, create information

on the private life of individuals. Judge Alito also confirmed by saying that it is unnecessary

straining to determine at what particular time the tracking of the vehicle crossed the line since

the line was already crossed before even the fourth-week mark.

The second ruling elaborating how long to tolerate is the case of U. S versus Vargas.

The case was decided in the Eastern District of Washington, December 15, 2014. A video

surveillance camera focused the front yard of a person for six weeks (Kerr and Orin 78). The

court decided that such a situation provokes adverse reactions on an individual. The court

argued that since the unsuspecting victim lived in the rural area on a gravel road, he was

capable of herring approaching vehicles and changing his behavior. The reasonableness of

Mr. Vargas expectation of privacy was therefore based on the environment he lived in. The

situation could have been different if he lived in the urban area such as the south side of

Chicago where another surveillance camera was focused on a person's front yard for three

weeks but, the individual's expectation for privacy was found unreasonable, and so the video

surveillance was declared consistent with fourth amendment protection.

The third case is that of U.S versus White. The case was decided in the U.S district

court of Michigan, on November 24, 2014. The case was about pinging of a given person's

cell phone repeatedly over two 30-day periods targeting to continually determine the

individual's whereabouts (Kugler Matthew and Lior 33). The court decided that such a
 Surname 5

situation rolled the balance in favor of the victim since the intrusion proceeded for more than

four weeks. The magnitude of interference was also cited and together it amounted to

undermining the victim's reasonable expectation of privacy. The state, therefore, had to

demonstrate probable cause to justify the act of intrusion.

Three common issues arise in the above three cases about video surveillance when

critically analyzed. Firstly, the disclosure of an individual's information publicly such as

location is protected by the fourth amendment (Etzioni and Amitai 24). Justice Sotomayor

stated that GPS monitoring is capable of generating a comprehensive and precise record of an

individual's public maneuvers that satisfactory creates an image of the person's sexual,

familial. Religious, political and professional associations.

The second issue is the question of how long the targeting of surveillance should

take. From the cases, the judges decide that the time limit of 4 weeks is a very long and

exceeds the limit necessary to record an individual's information (Etzioni and Amitai 32).

The officers operating the cameras should therefore at list consider retargeting the video

surveillance cameras before four weeks elapses so that they adequately protect the reasonable

expectations of privacy as illustrated by the fourth amendment.

The final issue is how technological advances continue to change the definition of

what an individual considers to be a reasonable expectation of privacy. Justice Alito notes

that advancement in technology is responsible for increased convenience and efficiency in

security, but all is achieved at the expense of privacy, and some people find the trade-off

worthy while others do not(Etzioni and Amitai 28). The public may not embrace the demerits

accompanying technology especially by infringing on privacy rights, but the developments

are inevitable, and it is better the public reconcile themselves with the situation.
 Surname 6

The desperate situation to deal with is how to choose between privacy and security.

The news on Snowdon was not a surprise. The government having surveillance on its people

takes away much of the privacy, but the same has been in existence since the system of

governing began. The point should be whether the government commits or not, it should put

enough effort in upholding the privacy of its citizens. From another point of view, security is

also crucial since no privacy will exist to talk about if the country is facing extreme cases of

terrorist attacks. Both security and privacy are on different aspects and achieving the best

balance of the two that comfortable suit every individual is tough. It is therefore advisable to

trust the government and give it the necessary support while putting essential regulations in

place to enable it to have a balance on both security and privacy.

 Surname 7

References

Etzioni, Amitai. The new normal: Finding a balance between individual rights and the

common good. Routledge, 2017.

Hackl, Andrea M., Amy B. Becker, and Maureen E. Todd. "“I Am Chelsea Manning”:

Comparison of Gendered Representation of Private Manning in US and International

News Media." Journal of homosexuality 63.4 (2016): 467-486.

Kerr, Orin S. "The Curious History of Fourth Amendment Searches." The Supreme Court

Review 2012.1 (2013): 67-97.

Kugler, Matthew B., and Lior Strahilevitz. "Surveillance Duration Doesn't Affect Privacy

Expectations: An Empirical Test of the Mosaic Theory." (2015).

Rothe, Dawn L., and Kevin F. Steinmetz. "The case of Bradley Manning: State victimization,

realpolitik and WikiLeaks." Contemporary Justice Review 16.2 (2013): 280-292.

Scheuerman, William E. "Whistleblowing as civil disobedience: The case of Edward

Snowden." Philosophy & Social Criticism 40.7 (2014): 609-628.

Toxen, Bob. "The NSA and Snowden: Securing the all-seeing eye." Communications of the

ACM 57.5 (2014): 44-51.