Juan Valentin Garcia
Ms. Avila
English III, Period 3
11 December 2017
Invaders of Our Lives
Imagine one day you and your family are having a wonderful delicious dinner meal, all of a sudden some armed men such as policemen and swats show up in the front of your doorsteps. All of a sudden you hear a loud noise and you then notice they have broken in and have taken away one of your family members. A full investigation is led then, and afterwards they notify you and your family about what the situation was, a joke of terrorism. The government had listened to a phone conversation your family member had a few days before of a “bombing” that would occur, but it was all a joke he was having with his friends thru the phone. This is why if the government would have full access to our digital privacy through online resources it makes it not visible on what is happening behind the screen, this would make all the data the government collects inaccurate and is unsure of what the real case for the search was online. Invasion of our digital privacy would invade our 4th and 5th amendments which give us protection of searches happening without warrants and answering questions without a jury. The government would also expose us to a possibility of our identities and information to be obtained by random people, by which can eventually be lead to being hacked and have identity theft . Since the government would be knowing our everyday lives they could be able to limit us professionally and educationally. Therefore, digital privacy should be illegal since it invades our privacy and breaks our constitutional rights, would put us in harm of hackers stealing our identities and information, and could limit us professionally and educational.
Due to the government invading our digital privacy its invades our 4th and 5th amendments, it would make it illegal to interfere with our constitutional rights. The 4th amendment states, “It protects people from unlawful searches and seizures. This means that the police can’t search you or your house without a warrant or probable” (Staff). This shows that police have no right to do searches or seizures without a warrant. Therefore, the government could not look through our digital privacy without a warrant. The 5th amendment states, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury” (Staff). This shows that we need a jury in order to answer questions and require them to have full evidence of crimes committed. The 4th and 5th amendments gives us rights to having our privacy safe. These laws protect us from searches and accusations, but it does not mean it protects us from hackers.
Since all our information would be gathered by the government such as, locations, bank accounts, usernames and passwords, and phone calls this all could be hacked by a random person. We would not know how safe our information would be with the government. Due to all the information that has be collected by the government, society would be unaware of how safe and protected our information can be stored by the government. Because of this we could be hacked due to all the information gathered. Ms. Mayrlen Garcia, a person I recently interviewed stated that when she was applying for Financial Aid, she a received a phone call saying she received a $5000 grant from FAFSA; however, she would have to deposit $500 into a given bank account to receive her grant. She then asked who has called and they told he it was a FAFSA representative. She then said she would deposit the money and hung up the phone. She then contacted the Federal Trade Commission and reported a scam from a so called FAFSA representative. She found out from the representative from FTC said that grants do not require a deposit if it is coming from the government (Garcia). This shows that our information is not private and it could be hacked anywhere, she was applying for a government aid for a university and her information was hacked, by reporting it, it could of possibly helped them find the hackers and could prevented this in the future.
Despite digital privacy controversies some people may agree that the government should have full access to all our information due to hackers and terrorist attacks. This could possibly prevent terrorist attacks or make them less effective. In a recent article, titled The FBI paid $900,000 to unlock the San Bernardino Terrorist’s iPhone, written by Matt Novak declared that in San Bernardino, on December 2nd, 2015 a terrorist attack that occurred killed 14 people and seriously injuring 22 others people. The FBI found an iPhone 5C that belonged to the terrorist attacker. The FBI paid a total of $900,000 so they could hack into this device (Novak). All this could have possibly been stopped if they were able to look through the attackers’ social media, if not prevented a lot of lives lost. Invading our digital privacy could possibly make safer communities; however, it could also limit our lives in what we can search and unaware in how it can affect us in the future.
Our safety is as important as our future. Invasion of digital privacy can create a safe environment for kids and students, but could limit them, applying to schools and high quality jobs could possibly become harder due to possible background checks. In a CNN article entitled, Why You Should Protect Your Child’s Online Privacy, written by Caroline Knorr, she states that “Under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), schools are allowed to share certain information without getting parents' consents. That means that an individual education plan (IEP), attendance records, a disciplinary record, prescribed medication, or even a high body mass index could be disclosed and used to unfairly disqualify your kid from opportunities, such as advanced classes, government services, or special schools” (Knorr). This statement shows that that students could be limited in what they are allowed to qualify for. All information would be gathered and spread through the networks and show all our background in searches we done and websites we visited or days we attended school as well as, discipline and grades. Students would not be able to apply for governmental help or special class they would like to attend. Limiting our lives in what we can do and put a boundary around us would not inspire us to do what we want and keep progressing in courses. That is why the government should be allowed to know what we do on everyday bases cause it could affect us in the future without us knowing.
In conclusion, even though it is important to have society safe but invading our digital privacy is unnecessary, since it is breaking our constitutional rights that the 4th and 5th amendments give us. Our privacy should be kept to ourselves since we have full control over what we do and know the reason for our online search. Since all the information from accounts to websites visited would be gathered this would put us to a high possibility of a lot of our data being hacked and being used such as, social security, bank accounts, addresses, and phone numbers; however, this does not stop the government from invading our privacy. Would you like is someone knew what you are doing every day? Would you like to be unlawfully accused of crimes that you have no clue that happened? The answer should be no, that is why we should prevent false incrimination through websites, possibilities of identity theft and information being exposed, and having limits to our lives in what we can do without having plenty of knowledge of what is going on. This is why we should not allow the government to have access of our digital privacy.
Work cited
Garcia, Mayrlen. Personal Interview. 24 Nov. 2017.
Knorr, Caroline. “Why you should protect your child's online privacy.” CNN, 7 June 2017. Web. 6 November 2017.
Novak, Matt. “The FBI Paid $900,000 to Unlock the San Bernardino Terrorist's iPhone.” Gizmodo, Gizmodo.com, 8 May 2017.
Staff, LII. “Fifth Amendment.” LII / Legal Information Institute, 5 Feb. 2010. Web. 24
November 2016
Staff, LII. “Fourth Amendment.” LII / Legal Information Institute, 5 Feb. 2010. Web 24 November 2017