Privacy and Surveillance

Paper Summary:

In this essay, the writer argues that privacy is very important in a liberal, democratic state and that it should be extended to the fullest practicable extent. At the same time, the writer also maintains that privacy concerns have to be balanced against the understandable need to protect others in society - this is especially true in a day and age of global terrorism. As a result of all this, the writer proposes that one should draw the line on surveillance in the following way: In the public space one should permit video surveillance, visual surveillance, and intermittent "checks" on employees just as long as the surveillance adheres to the standard of reasonableness articulated by the United States Supreme Court in "O'Connor v. Ortega". Turning to the private sphere, the writer holds that the much tougher standard of probable cause should be employed when it comes to watching and/or searching a citizen's private dwelling. A significant component of this paper is also set aside to looking at different types of surveillance approaches or activities and when and where each one is defensible - and when and where each one is not. The writer concludes that society does itself a grave injury by not ensuring that the prying eyes of the government cannot intrude into the inner sanctum of our lives.

From the Paper:

"For one thing, the more traditional Fourth Amendment warrant and probable-cause requirements - requirements that permitted law enforcement searches of the personal possessions of private citizens - should really only apply in instances where a private dwelling is being searched or a personal vehicle is being searched; in cases where it is a desk or file or locker at a place of business, "reasonableness" alone is sufficient because the smooth operation of the workplace demands that investigations be launched periodically when an employee's performance or conduct is damaging to the organization. Additionally, when people enter someone else's private dwelling, they usually do so because they have been invited into that dwelling; to simply invite oneself in is, of course, tantamount to criminal trespass. Conversely, when people enter a public space to work, they are not doing so of their own volition but because they have a contractual obligation to do so; in other words, if they decline to appear (enter into that public space) for work without a legitimate reason (such as illness) or without proper notification, they run the risk of being ejected from their position. Because other people have to be present, a safety issue inevitably comes into play in public spaces - one that demands reasonable precautions be undertaken by management to protect others from possible harm."

Sample of Sources Used:

• Anton, Gary, and Joseph J. Ward. "Every Breath You Take: Employee Privacy Rights in the Workplace - An Orwellian Prophecy Come True?" Labor Law Journal, 49.3 (1998): 897-911.
• Bloss, W.P. "Warrantless Search in the Law Enforcement Workplace: Court Interpretation of Employer Practices and Employee Privacy Rights under the Ortega Doctrine." Police Quarterly, 1.2 (1998): 51-69.
• Sanchez, Julian. "How We Got to Caballes." Reason, 38.8 (2007): 24-25.
• "US Constitution: Fourth Amendment." Findlaw: For Legal Professionals. 2007. Findlaw, a Thompson Business. 6 Jul. 2007 <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/>

More papers on Privacy and Surveillance:

• Essay # 68279 : "Privacy and Surveillance"
• Persuasive Essay # 134205 : "Privacy vs. Surveillance"
• Essay # 27663 : "Employee Privacy and Video Surveillance"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: