What particularly alarms me about current Internet policies regarding privacy is that private establishments can track an individual’s activities on the Internet without the individual having any knowledge of being tracked, such as the company ChoicePoint [sic] and another company that can track what individuals are buying at grocery stores and student activities on the Internet. One could argue that these companies do not pose a real threat since the information they accumulate is only attainable by the government with a warrant or subpoena. As technology improves other companies will be able to record more activities in the physical world and the cyberspace. People’s lives are becoming more intertwined with cyberspace and the physical world as individuals can now shop online, communicate with through social networks, and conduct research all on the Internet. Before the vast improvement of technology, all of these actions could only be accomplished in the physical world; thus, the government could not invade a person’s privacy quite as easily. The architecture of the physical world posed many obstacles, such as the simply boundary of a private home or building, for the government to investigate a person’s private life. With the efficiency and success of the Internet, it is almost necessary for an individual to communicate for business and pleasure purposes through social networks and e-mail. The exclusionary rule in the ECPA does not protect e-mail and other means of technology, which means the government has access to such records. In Katz v. US, the Supreme Court decreed that the fourth amendment protects “people, not places.” However, it is paradoxical to not extend this concept to e-mails and technological forms of communication that are not protected from government interception in the ECPA’s exclusionary rule. In this instance, people are not being protected, but are rather vulnerable to having their privacy invaded.
It is logical to draw parallels between the use of public phones and e-mails. In both mediums, communication is the primary objective. However, in the eyes of the government, this is not true as the ECPA’s exclusionary rule as e-mails communication can be intercepted by the government and admitted into trials without the need of a warrant. This must mean that not all Internet actions can be related to the physical world. Where should the line be drawn?