F
Fatema Tuz Zohora
ENG 101 – 0768
Dr. Vasileiou
Essay 03 # final
Date: 12.05.2012
Violation of Privacy in the Name of Security
Our society
provides us with certain freedom and protects us from crime and threats like
terrorism. Sometimes in the name of protection, however, the society infringes
upon our privacy. If in the future our society finds a way to punish criminals
before the crime is committed, human privacy will be desecrated and our freedom
will be taken away. Especially if someone changes his mind not to commit the crime
in the end, punishing them will be an injustice. In the movie Minority Report, we have seen chief
officer John Anderton ready to do anything to ensure safety of the people. However
when he found himself as a murderer in a future crime, then he realized that the
justice system he was working under was
in fact flawed because it violated people’s privacy and did not take free will
into consideration. Therefore if our society finds a way to eliminate or
drastically reduce crime, terrorism and other threats, we shouldn’t do so
regardless of ethical consideration of the means we will use.
If our society
finds a solution to protect people and reduce crime before it happens, it will violate
the privacy of innocent people and we shouldn’t let this happen. Privacy is the thought that
information that is confidential that is disclosed in a private place will not
be available to third parties when the information would cause embarrassment or
emotional distress to a person. In the movie Minority Report, John Anderton protects the society by arresting the
criminals by using pre-cog system before the crime is committed. However since
every person has free will and therefore it’s impossible to know beforehand
whether a person will go through with committing the crime, the pre-cog’s
prediction was not the absolute truth. When John realized that the pre-cog system
did not take free will into consideration, Lammer did not want people to know
about that because then the system will lose its credibility. To protect his
turf, Lammer used John’s private data to set him up for Leo’s murder. In the
end, however, John did not commit the murder because he chose not to. Had it
not because of John’s strong determinism to prove himself innocent, he would
have been framed and punished for the murder. Thus even if society finds a way to
predict crimes in the making, we should not allow any action to be taken
because people’s privacy will be violated and innocent people may be punished.
Sometimes
excessive security measures violate people’s privacy. At our airports, the security
checking is tighter than ever. Now days, passengers are asked to show their ids
multiple times and asked to go through a full body scanner. If the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) suspects a passenger, he must go
through uncomfortable questioning and rigorous checking of his personal
belongings. People feel that such extreme measures are violation of privacy as
majority of the air travelers are innocent. In a different kind of scenario, police
in the United States
can enter a suspect’s house unannounced with a search warrant whether or not
the person has committed the crime. This legal loophole causes trouble for
innocent people as they did not do any wrong. Thus security is necessary but violating
people’s privacy in the name of security is not acceptable.
The term “Stop and
frisk” is a strategy for police officers to reduce crime by searching people they
suspect which seriously violates innocent people’s privacy. According to an
article in The New York Times by
Robert Stolarik, the overwhelming majority of the stops do not result in the
discovery of any wrongdoing on the part of the person stooped (Stolarik, 2012).
By using stop and frisk, police unfairly targets, stops and arrests African-American
and Hispanic young men for trespassing. In some cases police stops women which intimidates
and embarrasses them. In one instance cited in, a 17-year-old boy who lives in
the Bronx described being stopped by the
police and questioned after returning from buying ketchup for dinner. His
mother, Jaenean Ligon, was asked by officers to go to the lobby to identify her
son, who she initially feared was dead or hurt (Baker and Gardiner, 2012).
Police argues that this type of method was useful to reduce crime sharply in
that neighborhood. While reducing crime is important, the police must not
forget the importance of respecting people’s human rights. In the case of the
mother and the son, the mother’s fear for her son’s life was unfortunate and
unwarranted.
In the article Police Pursuits, the author Robert E.
Moore discussed the police’s extreme pursuits of criminals by using high
technology which caused tremendous harassment and loss of innocent life in some
cases. The advancing world of technology continues to grow and expand, so do
the amount of cases involving privacy invasion. Technology drives these
privacy-invading crimes; however, crime also drives technology, creating a
vicious cycle. When a criminal tries to get away with a stolen car, the police
usually pursue him using advanced technology. However no matter how advanced
the technology is, the car chasing occurs on the road which is shared by not
only the police and criminal but also by other drivers and pedestrians. In the
moment of a car chase, speed limits are violated and lane changing safety
measures are ignored. When a collision occurs, it usually involves a few
passenger cars who were not related to the crime by any means. In worse cases,
pedestrians are killed as a result of the chase. These types of events
sometimes kill or injure the innocent people. In 1980’s a police officer who is
now retried chased a stolen car at high speed, crashed with a third car; the
driver of that car was killed and a passenger was seriously injured (Moore, 1990). Thus an
innocent person lost his life and another suffered irreversible damage because
of a police officer’s reckless driving in the name of safety.
We,
humans in the society are a law abiding citizens, it means that we are
following the rules of law. By invading our privacy, police and government
aren’t respected our rights. Many of us might be agree with that police and
government are only doing this security system to protect our society. Without
security and safety we would be overtaken and probably killed. I agree that in
certain cases, small adjustment to safety can be better for society but
excessive security and safety system would be intruded into our personal
dealings. However, the Fourth Amendment is particularly states that: “The right
of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
warrants shall issue but upon probable cause....” This amendment provides that,
a person has privacy and freedom which should not be violates by police or
government for security. By searching, stopping, tracking, and scanning
innocent people is to invasive because it violates our fourth amendment.
In conclusion, it
is never justified to take away privacy for security. If the government uses
high technology such as GPS tracking, or wire tapping to prevent future crime,
it gains more power over people and people lose their basic human rights of
privacy. When people’s privacy is compromised, they are vulnerable to various
injustices such as punishment for crime they have not committed or unwarranted
harassment. Thus extra security is not
worth it when privacy and freedom is lost.
Works cited:
- Spielberg, Dr Steven. “Minority Report” 2002, film.
- Stolarik, Robert. “Stop and Frisk Policy – New York City Police Department” The New York Times. Updated Oct 17, 2012. web
- Baker, Al and Gardiner, Aldan. “New York Police Dept. Is sued Over Stops in Private Buildings” The New York Times, March 28, 2012. web
- Moore, Robert E. “Police Pursuits” July-August, 1990. Print
