Privacy Matters Analysis

As Solove puts it, “privacy, in other words, involves so many things that it is impossible to reduce them all to one simple idea,” which can be found in Solove’s article “Privacy Matters” (Solove 181). What Solove writes about in “Privacy Matters” is essentially why the “I-have-nothing-to-hide” argument is entirely untrue (Solove’s “Privacy Matters”). Everyone has something to hide, it just may not be something bad (Solove’s “Privacy Matters”). As technology becomes more and more sophisticated, the concept of privacy is disappearing. These days, any information, whether it’s what an individual purchases, or what grades they got in high school, can be found. This information can be distorted and misunderstood, which may create a false image
citizen has the right of privacy when it comes to their houses, personal belongings, and documents, there is a loophole when it comes to information stored in databases. This is due to “the Fourth Amendment and technology [having] always had a volatile relationship” as stated in “Social Networks, Government Surveillance, and the Fourth Amendment Mosaic Theory” (Monu Bedi 2). In short, this article connects the lack of privacy in social networks to the loophole in the Fourth Amendment, and how the government uses that loophole (Monu Bedi’s, “Social Networks, Government Surveillance, and the Fourth Amendment”). But, this flaw in the system isn’t entirely the fault of our founding fathers. Part of the reason it is so difficult to enforce privacy is due to the tense relationship between the Supreme Court and privacy laws, which “The Supreme Court and Privacy Information” goes into detail about (F. Cate and B. Cate’s, “The Supreme Court and Privacy Information”). While “it [the Fourth Amendment] only prohibits ‘unreasonable’ searches and seizures,” the amendment “. . . is silent about what makes a search or seizure ‘unreasonable’” (F. Cate and B. Cate 261). Yes, there are many ways to cheat the “system” when it comes to finding out information of citizens of the United States. However, it’s not only the government that can access information and data without authorization, companies and third parties can as
This once again has to do with the complexity of privacy, as well as its various definitions, and the faults in the system. Is this gathering of personal information and data really that necessary? Well, it really depends on who is asked. The government would probably say yes, it is necessary. Why? Calabrese and Hardwood’s “Destroying Right to be Alone” touches on this subject. When it comes to changes in privacy laws, “law enforcement, of course, remains opposed to any such changes for a reason as understandable as it is undemocratic; it makes an investigators job easier,” which is why courts have such a difficult time agreeing on privacy laws (Calabrese and Hardwood 169). It is not only law enforcement, but also commercial companies as