Name
Professor
Course
Date
Online privacy
The Fourth Amendment of the United States constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizure by the government. It recognises the right of the people and their property to be free from these searches unless a warrant is issued on the basis of a probable cause. Such warrants can only be valid if it describes the place to searched and the things to be seized. The objective of this amendment is to protect the citizens from arbitrary government intrusions. To be protected by the Fourth amendment, it is important that a legitimate expectation of privacy is demonstrated. This expectation is not subjective but should be recognisable by the society under the prevailing circumstances. Under this …show more content…
In US v Forester the court held that the use of pen registers without a warrant is legal because these numbers are considered addresses and not content. The court observed that a pen register on an individual’s computer that captures the individual IP addresses, email addresses, sites visited and the volume of data sent from that account, is similar to a traditional pen register that does not constitute a search and as such a warrant is not …show more content…
Because online activities are treated like any other communications, the rules of privacy should apply. When people engage in online activities they have a legitimate expectation of privacy and this privacy is violated when the government accesses online activities without a warrant. The government should therefore not be allowed to access your online activities without a warrant. Moreover, there are situations where the government does not need a warrant but a court order to access this information. Despite the lesser evidence required for court orders, they nevertheless involve some adjudication on whether it is proper to infringe on the individual’s right to privacy. The regulations put in place for the requirements for search warrants before a search is conducted is intended to protect the individual from unnecessary intrusion by the government and it extends to online activities. The ease of obtaining subpoenas and court orders makes illegal access of an individual’s online activities even more undesirable. Unlike warrants, subpoenas and court orders do not require the strict threshold that s associated with warrants and eliminates the need to conduct unauthorised searches of online activities. For these reasons, the government should not be allowed to access your online activities without a
Professor
Course
Date
Online privacy
The Fourth Amendment of the United States constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizure by the government. It recognises the right of the people and their property to be free from these searches unless a warrant is issued on the basis of a probable cause. Such warrants can only be valid if it describes the place to searched and the things to be seized. The objective of this amendment is to protect the citizens from arbitrary government intrusions. To be protected by the Fourth amendment, it is important that a legitimate expectation of privacy is demonstrated. This expectation is not subjective but should be recognisable by the society under the prevailing circumstances. Under this …show more content…
In US v Forester the court held that the use of pen registers without a warrant is legal because these numbers are considered addresses and not content. The court observed that a pen register on an individual’s computer that captures the individual IP addresses, email addresses, sites visited and the volume of data sent from that account, is similar to a traditional pen register that does not constitute a search and as such a warrant is not …show more content…
Because online activities are treated like any other communications, the rules of privacy should apply. When people engage in online activities they have a legitimate expectation of privacy and this privacy is violated when the government accesses online activities without a warrant. The government should therefore not be allowed to access your online activities without a warrant. Moreover, there are situations where the government does not need a warrant but a court order to access this information. Despite the lesser evidence required for court orders, they nevertheless involve some adjudication on whether it is proper to infringe on the individual’s right to privacy. The regulations put in place for the requirements for search warrants before a search is conducted is intended to protect the individual from unnecessary intrusion by the government and it extends to online activities. The ease of obtaining subpoenas and court orders makes illegal access of an individual’s online activities even more undesirable. Unlike warrants, subpoenas and court orders do not require the strict threshold that s associated with warrants and eliminates the need to conduct unauthorised searches of online activities. For these reasons, the government should not be allowed to access your online activities without a