Privacy In Turkey
Introduction
What is privacy? Who decides what is private and what is not? Is it acceptable if someone interferes or discloses personal information? These are some of the questions that we face everyday in our lives. It is mostly up to the individual to keep some information private but what happens when the flow of information occurs based on the trust to the underlying infrastructure, such as phone lines? Should we, as individuals, expect that every phone conversation is being monitored or as confidential?
It is known that knowledge of information is vital, especially in the 21st century where the timeliness, accuracy, and confidentiality of information mean everything. In 1988, United Nations Commissioner on Human Rights Article 17 states that integrity and confidentiality of messages should be guaranteed; despite this fact, many countries, primarily the US, have involved in an effort to limit individual privacy and improve the ability of governmental agencies to listen in personal conversations.1 As an example of such activities, this paper will provide information regarding an actual case that took place in capital city of Turkey, Ankara in 1999. The case will be followed by some facts that will be relevant; then an analysis from different ethical perspectives on this issue will take place. This paper will conclude by depicting my personal ideas and reasoning on the ethical aspects of this particular privacy case.
Privacy Case
In 1999, Ankara police was sued because of listening in personal telephone conversations of Prime Minister.2 It was later discovered that, Prime Minister was not the only person whose phone lines were tapped, an additional 962 people’s private conversations were interfered with also.3 Among the victims there were governors, businessmen, attorneys at law, and journalists. This was a much publicized incident due to its scope and effect on the privacy and notion of privacy for individuals. As a result, Interior Ministry of Turkey was sued for invading privacy of individuals but Interior Ministry declined these allegations and stated that nothing really bad happened at the end.2 None of the information that was gathered during the eavesdropping sessions was disclosed. In addition to suing of Interior Ministry, some of the officers from Ankara Police Department were sued and some of them were convicted.3
Facts
In Turkey, there are laws that are similar to the US Fourth Amendment. Individuals have expectation of privacy. Article 20 of Turkish Constitute states that the privacy of individual and family life is protected under the law.
Communication surveillance has been a controversial issue in the US since the 1920's, when the Supreme Court deemed unwarranted wiretaps legitimate in the case of Olmstead v United States. Since telephone wires ran over public grounds, and the property of Olmstead was not physically violated, the wiretap was upheld as lawful. However, the Supreme Court overturned this ruling in 1967 in the landmark case of Katz v United States. On the basis of the fourth amendment, the court established that individuals have the right to privacy of communication, and that wiretapping is unconstitutional unless it is authorized by a search warrant. [Bowyer, 142-143] Since then, the right to communication privacy has become accepted as an integral facet of the American deontological code of ethics. The FBI has made an at least perfunctory effort to respect the public's demand for Internet privacy with its new Internet surveillance system, Carnivore. However, the current implementation of Carnivore unnecessarily jeopardizes the privacy of innocent individuals.
According to the Fourth Amendment, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Without the Fourth Amendment, people would have no rights over their own personal privacy. Police officers could just enter people’s houses and take anything that they could use as evidence and use it against them. With the advancement in today’s technology, it is getting more and more difficult to define what exactly privacy is to us, and whether or not the Fourth Amendment protects it.
One of the most sacred ideas that we hold dear is our right to privacy. It a simple correlation between being free and doing what we want, legally speaking, in our own homes and lives. Unfortunately, our lives seem to become less...
Privacy (Pri-va-cy) n.1.the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people. Americans fear that technological progress will destroy the concept of privy. The first known use of wiretap was in 1948. It’s no secret that the government watches individuals on a daily bases. According to the constitution, the Fourth Amendment serves to protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Unreasonable is the word that tips the balance On one side is the intrusion on individuals’ Fourth Amendment rights and the other side is legitimate government interests, such as public safety. What we consider reasonable by law, the government might not think so. The word ‘privacy’ seems to be non-existent today in the 21st century; the use and advances of technology have deprived us of our privacy and given the government the authority to wiretap and or intervene in our lives. Our natural rights we’ve strived for since the foundation of this nation are being slashed down left to right when we let the government do as they wish. The government should not be given the authority to intervene without a reasonable cause and or consent of the individual
In the film V for Vendetta the director James Mcteigue uses a range of different film techniques in order to gain the audience's attention and to make the movie more interesting. The four film techniques I’m going to focus on in this essay are editing, music, camera angles and the lighting. I am going to do this by analysing the ‘Domino Montage’ scene.
The word “privacy” did not grow up with us throughout history, as it was already a cultural concept by our founding fathers. This term was later solidified in the nineteenth century, when the term “privacy” became a legal lexicon as Louis Brandeis (1890), former Supreme Court justice, wrote in a law review article, that, “privacy was the right to be let alone.” As previously mentioned in the introduction, the Supreme Court is the final authority on all issues between Privacy and Security. We started with the concept of our fore fathers that privacy was an agreed upon concept that became written into our legal vernacular. It is being proven that government access to individual information can intimidate the privacy that is at the very center of the association between the government and the population. The moral in...
Most people concerned about the privacy implications of government surveillance aren’t arguing for no[sic] surveillance and absolute privacy. They’d be fine giving up some privacy as long as appropriate controls, limitations, oversight and accountability mechanisms were in place. ”(“5 Myths about Privacy”). The fight for privacy rights is by no means a recent conflict.
The world erupted in outrage following revelations by Edward Snowden regarding the extent of surveillance perform by the National Security Agency. Privacy becomes one of the hottest topic of 2013 and was chosen by the world’s most popular online dictionary, Dictionary.com, as the Word of the Year. However, the government is not the only one that conduct data gathering and surveillance. Employers often monitor their employees, and businesses collect data on theirs customer. The morality of these practices is a topic that generates heated debate.
One of the hottest topics in privacy is regarding our phone conversation with others. It doesn't take a whole lot these days to be in someone's business, in their conversation, breaking the law of privacy with out spending that much time and money. "…Compared to an average monthly phone bill of seventy dollars, the option to wiretap the average phone line is probably worth less than twelve cents a month to police and spy agencies."1 These days, when information is transferred from one person to another, or from point A to point B, there are more people who are interested in know what they are talking about, not just to know but to benefit something out of it. This is illegal if it is done without the knowledge of the individuals involved. Since people are not giving communication privacy enough attention, it is getting to the point that it is out of control of anybody. Anybody can just get up and get in to others conversation with out their knowledge. This is having a big effect in out community these days. There are a lot of scenarios were people are involved in this situation.
Privacy is defined by many as the ability for a person to act as they desire -these actions being legal of course- without being observed by other people. Privacy is a right granted to all American citizens in the fourth amendment which states “people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures”. Although our founding fathers could have never predicted the technological advancements we have achieved today, it would be logical to assume that a person's internet and phone data would be considered their effects. This would then make actions such as secretive government surveillance illegal because the surveillance is done so without probable cause and would be considered unreasonable search or seizure. Therefore, access to a citizen’s private information should only be provided using probable cause with the knowledge and consent of those who are being
As society has progressed, there have been many new innovative and unbelievable developments in almost all aspects of life that have ultimately created an impact. More specifically, advancements in technology have rather had a much larger and intense impact on society as it continues to grow. Technology has allowed for many great and useful applications that has made life much easier and convenient. However, many aspects of technology have given a rise to a number of social and ethical issues, causing numerous debates and concerns. One of the more prominent concerns deals with the issue of privacy rights.
Nearly every major international agreement on human rights protects the right of individuals to be free from unwarranted surveillance. This guarantee has trickled down into national constitutional or legal provisions, protecting the privacy of communications.
If people feel comfortable in their surroundings then privacy is not a concern. At other times, people feel violated when they are subject to random searches; this random factor is what other people consider wrong. People feel intruded on when they see a roadblock ahead or a request to see their driver’s license when writing checks. Others are interrupted at dinner by the phone ringing from telemarketers. This selling of information is what the Europeans call data protection. If the data is not kept private, things such as credit card numbers could be stolen over the phone.
Americans’ personal privacy is being to be ruined by the rise of four different types of surveillance system. The four are: federal government agencies; state and local law enforcement entities; telecoms, web sites and Internet “apps” companies; and private data aggregators .The right to privacy is not derived from any source; however the Declaration of Human Rights states that "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor attacks upon his honor or reputation"(Stone 348). The right to protection is also secured by the Privacy Act of 1974 and found through the in the first, fourth and fifth amendments of the United States Constitution.
The study of international relations takes a wide range of theoretical approaches. Some emerge from within the discipline itself others have been imported, in whole or in part, from disciplines such as economics or sociology. Indeed, few social scientific theories have not been applied to the study of relations amongst nations. Many theories of international relations are internally and externally contested, and few scholars believe only in one or another. In spite of this diversity, several major schools of thought are discernable, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize on military power, material interests, or ideological beliefs. International Relations thinking have evolved in stages that are marked by specific debates between groups of scholars. The first major debate is between utopian liberalism and realism, the second debate is on method, between traditional approaches and behavioralism. The third debate is between neorealism/neoliberalism and neo-Marxism, and an emerging fourth debate is between established traditions and post-positivist alternatives (Jackson, 2007).