The tensions in the Fourth Amendment ride on the balance between "the protection of individual citizens' privacy and the necessity of the government to discover evidence and prosecute crimes" (Trepel 128) and as technology capabilities increase over time, that balance continues to be pushed and pressured. It is understandable that the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment must change as the technology of society increases, but what fears and concerns me the most about these cases is the implications of these changes. In the reading about RFIDs and the U.S. v. Garcia case, there were multiple references to technology being used in the future as tools for mass surveillance not just of criminals but of ordinary individuals without the use of a warrant. The GPS and RFID are tracking devices that are used commercially by individuals--the first to find directions on roads and the second to help in supply-chain logistics and EZPasses--and if they are ruled by the courts as instruments whose uses do not violate the Fourth Amendment because there is no physical trespass of the individual, then what is it that prevents the tracking function of these devices from becoming devices of searching in the future?
I see this issue of defining which technologies can be used constitutionally and with or without a warrant as mapping directly onto internet use online. Society feels strongly against tracking the activity of individuals online, and if the tracking of GPS and RFID is decided to be within the realms of the Fourth Amendment in the offline world, then I am nervous about a similar kind of tracking becoming constitutional online as well. The push for having RFID put into passports and driver licenses in order to prevent them from being duplicated pushes the balance of the Fourth Amendment as described above to obtaining evidence to prosecute crimes at the sake of individuals' privacy. Will there soon be online technologies that allow for government officials to be able to openly track the websites that individuals visit in order to safeguard individuals from online crime? As mentioned by several blog posts, it is important that society remember the Katz test that states that individuals essentially should feel secure in their privacy when they expect to be private. Individuals value their safety and want the government to have means in which to track criminals, but one of the largest components of safety is the ability to remain private. That second component cannot be forsaken and must be remembered as the Fourth Amendment continues to be interpreted in the changing society.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
great post, monica! i agree that there is this seeming tension between arenas where our conception of privacy is absolute and other arenas where the private sphere is a product of technological development. maintaining a substantive area of absolute privacy seems critical in technologically advanced world in which we live.
ReplyDeleteI like your point that pushes back on the privacy vs. safety dichotomy -- you're right that feeling safe requires not only feeling safe from criminals, but also safe from the government.
ReplyDeleteYou also draw an insightful comparison between mass surveillance using RFID or GPS and online tracking. It's true that as new technologies dramatically decrease the costs of tracking people in the physical world, our concerns about the fact that we leave a trail everywhere we go online looks equally applicable in the offline world. It's often important when thinking about how the Fourth Amendment applies to new technologies to take a step back like you have done here and wonder what the what the world is going to look like if we continue down the path of saying that GPS and RFID tracking are just like a police officer following a suspect in his car.