Argumentative Essay On Right To Privacy

" A U.S. citizen’s right to privacy is apparent in Amendment IV of the Constitution, where it states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated"" (U.S. Const.). In the modern day, the government is obligated to extend this protection beyond its original intentions, especially to the internet. On the web, there is a greater amount of personal information that can be shared or leaked, leading to a greater opportunity for monitoring. Over the past two decades, this issue has created a controversy: both the innocent and the guilty have been subject to surveillance. In cases where this monitoring is justified—when probable cause

In Washington, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is charged with regulating all interstate technological communications. The FCC makes the laws but does not enforce them. Enforcement is the job of the Executive Branch, currently handled by the National Security Agency (NSA). The NSA has the power to track the internet, but ""the law says they always need probable cause"" (Dewey) to do so. Probable cause is defined as “sufficient reason based upon known facts to believe a crime has been committed or that certain property is connected with a crime” (Law Dictionary.) When a serious enough crime is committed, the perpetrator runs the risk of losing some constitutional rights. With probable cause, authorities are justified in intruding on their privacy, because previous criminals are much more likely to commit crimes than non-criminals are (Recidivism of Criminals...). When a crime is committed, the perpetrator's information is recorded, giving the NSA access to crucial data, which in turn means the suspect can be tracked if deemed

In the 2000 Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), the FCC made guidelines that states should implement in their education systems. The CIPA’s goal is to “prevent minors from gaining access to sexually explicit, obscene or harmful materials” (Federal Children’s Internet Protection). For instance, Louisiana requires its schools to limit both “students' and school employees' access to certain ... online sites,” while Massachusetts only has “safety measures to protect students from inappropriate subject matter” (Federal Children’s Internet Protection). Each state has the freedom to make its own specifications either more lenient or stricter than the national government’s. In Massachusetts, there are 160 elected state representatives, while there are only 11 national representatives from Massachusetts. With more than 14 times the number of elected officials in a state legislature than a national one, the people have greater representation, thereby justifying the states in tracking its citizens. If the residents of a state disagree with state laws, they have a greater ability to change them in their own state than in a national