|
|
|
| Home Archive Submit About Contact Us |
POINT Americans Should Codify a Right to Privacy By SARAH LOONEY 11.03.03 2:11PM CST Rapid advances in technology have accelerated the capacity of government and business to gather personal information on American citizens. Furthermore, the social shockwaves of September 11th made it politically feasible to rationalize these invasions in the name of national security for the first time since the Cold War. We must act now to come to a consensus about how our society defines the right to privacy, codify its protection through legislation, and guarantee implementation through a federal privacy commission. Instantaneous photographs and newspaper enterprises have invaded the sacred precincts of private and domestic life; and numerous mechanical devices threaten to make good the prediction that "what is whispered in the closet shall be proclaimed from the house-tops." It was 1890 when Justice Louis D. Brandeis and his colleague Samuel Warren published these words in their well-known Harvard Law Review article "The Right to Privacy." Concerned that new technologies and changing social mores threatened Americans' private lives, Brandeis and Warren argued that legal protection of "the right to be left alone" is warranted because "political, social, and economic changes entail the recognition of new rights and common law, in its eternal youth, grows to meet the demands of society." As in Brandeis and Warren's era, we are once again faced with dramatic changes that create an opportunity, or as many believe, a mandate, to address privacy protections through U.S. law. Our current body of law regarding privacy is pieced together from implied Constitutional protections, disparate legislation, and judicial precedents on a variety of topics. As such, it is controversial, self-conflicting, and insufficient to safeguard the public. Our rapidly evolving society needs a clear privacy standard that is flexible enough to provide guidance on both contemporary issues and unforeseen future events. Legislating the right to privacy is necessitated by the fundamental principles of our democracy. It has typically been the judiciary, not elected legislators, which deals with issues of privacy in the U.S. From a Constitutionalist viewpoint, this is a direct affront to the protections afforded by the separation of powers in the United States. More disturbing, however, is the fact that it is not government but big business that increasingly shapes privacy policy. Americans are willing to accept some limits on their privacy to protect national security and ensure societal wellbeing, but the basic tenets of democracy and accountability dictate that it should be the peoples' elected representatives establishing these standards, not judges and CEOs. Just as the Food and Drug Administration sorts through highly technical information to provide the public with policies to protect our health, creating a commission to monitor privacy protections would be an important safeguard for the public. Every American would benefit from formalizing our privacy rights and establishing a federal oversight commission. Technological innovation revolutionized methods for gathering and sharing private information more quickly than our awareness and ability to understand these methods has matured. Many people have some awareness of security issues relating to personal data, thanks in large part to media accounts of identity theft. But are Americans fully aware of increasingly common affronts to our privacy? An October 2003 survey by Bentley College's Center for Business Ethics found that 92% of employers monitor their employees' use of the Internet and email at work. Privacy laws passed in 2001 allow businesses to aggregate and share data with one another, enabling them to create a complete profile of an individual's financial status, consumption patterns, and demographics that can be accessed by anyone the company chooses - all without notifying consumers. Clearly these issues impact every American. The lack of a coherent privacy policy imperils democracy and freedom. The Cold War, like the War on Terror, created an atmosphere in which concerns about national security often conflicted with Americans' rights and liberties. No one wishes to repeat the divisive era when Joseph McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover spied on and persecuted American citizens because of their political beliefs; modern technology could amplify such a witch-hunt. Language in the latest manifestation of the Patriot Act, the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, states that the "intent to relinquish nationality need not be manifested in words, but can be inferred from conduct." Paired with insufficient privacy protections, such a clause could condemn America to repeat one of the darkest chapters in our history. Without a formal right to privacy, our other rights - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - are incomplete. Elected officials should take action to guard our privacy though legislation and create an oversight commission at the federal level to guarantee implementation. Americans must demand privacy protections before our rights are decided for us. Sarah Looney is a second-year MPAff candidate at the LBJ School of Public Affairs. She holds a B.A. in American Studies from the University of Texas at Austin and is the Bryna and Henry David Fellow at the Ray Marshall Center for the Study of Human Resources. |
for compensation of any kind without prior written permission from the author.
Direct questions about permissions to lbjjpa@uts.cc.utexas.edu.