Accommercial Applications v. Privacy Rights

Individual Insights

If this sample essay on"Accommercial Applications v. Privacy Rights" doesn’t help,
our writers will!

Trust an expert

Privacy rights are a right for everyone. Every individual is concerned about their privacy as opposed to the privacy of others. Privacy right is often focused to safeguarding ones secrets from the public exposure. In most instances, privacy rights are based on social cognitive attributes that are central to the realization of individual self-esteem. Nevertheless, individuals are set to define measures and perspectives in which they view privacy based on the social attributes of their cultural settings. In this regard, culture may be one of the elements that define individual scopes with regard to privacy rights. This implies that individuals have different perception towards what the term privacy means.

Culture defines the levels and perspectives tow which privacy may be determined. For instance, depending on the cultural aspects of the society, one issue may be considered a taboo in one society while other may not be ascribed to these beliefs. For instance, in very hot countries, the societal acceptable modes of dressings may be define through a light garment and other forms of apparels that allow free coping with the intensive natural heating. However, some of the extents of exposure of human body to the public especially the thigh and the sleeves or armpits may be considered in other culture an elaborate disregard for privacy. In this regard, privacy rights may be perceived as individual prescription to their own ways of lives as opposed to externally defined perception towards individuals codes of conduct.

In order streamline and ensure that individual privacy rights are protected, individuals, governments and the society congregate to determine the optimum standards and perspectives in which privacy rights may be determined. The role of any government is to ensure that the citizens have the right ways of life in which case individuals are charged with ensuring that their code of conduct is aligned to the provisions of the law in order to mainstream social and governmental provisions for effective co-existence. Diversity has become a major attribute of the contemporary societies, principally due to the impact of globalization. As a result, there have been increased societal relations between members of different cultures, race and ethnic groups globally. These people are acculturated differently and may have different orientations to attributes of privacy. As a result, individuals may find offences while co-existing in similar habitats due to discrepancies that exist among them with regard to privacy.

The modes of communication, use of words that are considered ethically defined or otherwise may result into momentous collision between members of different sects and cultural backgrounds. In order to alleviate this challenge, it is important for a common perspective to be drawn with regard to the considerations of privacy and its scope in a cosmopolitan society. This may take the perspective of establishing legal guidelines that abides the entire society together on matters of privacy rights regardless of the social domains that individuals are ascribed to. In particular, it should involve all the stakeholders in order to consider the virtual rights and practices of every group while formulating a universal legal prescription to define the privacy rights of the groups. Every individual regardless of their social origins have the right to privacy as defined by the societal prescription or the legal perspectives.

Research-Based Analysis of Privacy Rights

The privacy rights is considered a time-travel paradox within the constitution of the lad though it was in-existence during as one of the constitutional doctrines till 1961. As a result, the privacy rights did not form a ground for Supreme Court determination due to its lack of constitutionality. However, it is also referred to as the oldest constitutional right. Right to privacy is associated with forming the basic foundation regarding the freedom of conscience, which is mainly the right to reject self-incrimination though the word privacy in isolation does not individually appear in the constitution of the United States (Hall & Joel et al. 11).

Privacy rights were subject to debates through scholarships long before they were incorporated into the constitutional jurisprudence. Researchers have identified privacy rights as one of the highest and most important laws on the law. For instance, as perceived in my individual insights to the privacy law, the Warren Familys eminence in the Boston Society had been associated with making the society a target of late 19th century prescription of paparazzi that were quick to manipulate some of the aspects that were initially referred to as instantaneous photographs. These version of the privacy codes provided the each individual had the full protection in property and in person as a principle as old as the typical law (Sprague 18). This shows that though privacy rights may have been entrenched into the current constitution late, its roots were as old as the typical laws on the land. The individuals protection against government influence also enshrines the provisions of the privacy laws.

Prohibition resulted into many issues surrounding privacy to the attention of the Supreme Court in the event of wiretapping case involving the United States and the Olmstead in 1928. In this particular incidence, Roy Olmstead was convicted after being linked to bootlegger deduced from evidence from wiretap obtained from his private mobile phone. This case was subject to contentions and was appealed to Justice Brandeis on issues of privacy fray. From this perspective, the Court virtually interpreted Fourth Amendment to the constitution to be isolated to search and seizure of tangible objects only. Reviewers have also observed that Justice Brandeis challenged the constitutional provision that it provides general right to privacy terming it as non-existent. This foreshadows the contemporary constitutional provision that provides individual rights to privacy (Flaherty 8). However, Brandeis recognized that privacy was far imperiled compared to the time of drafting the Bill of Rights. This implied that the prospects of invading privacy had become present to the government.

In this regard, privacy rights have grown considerably over time and have been subject to societal and social-cultural interpretations based on the individuals perceptions on their rights. Both discoveries and inventions in the modern societies have also enabled the governments to obtain disclosures in Court cases of any form of information that would have otherwise been regarded as intrusion into personal privacy. The constitutional privacy right in the contemporary domain was however not part and parcel of the law till 1965 during the time in which the court ruled between Connecticut and Griswold case. Incidental happenings can be credited with increased concerns from the public despite lack of legal prescription to resolve privacy issues (Kelly & Scott Erickson et al 23). As a result, the legalization of the procedures to which privacy issues are handled has been one of the main handles that the government has been seeking to resolve in order to generate the best path for decision making on matters pertaining to privacy intrusion by civilians or the government.

In history dating back in late 19th century, privacy rights had not developed fully. As a result, researchers states that Courts were tasked with categorizing particular unlisted rights to being immunized and fundamental from governmental intervention. One of these rights was surprisingly subjected to historical misgiving. In particular, this was the right to presumption of innocence as well as the standard basis for the proof beyond reasonable doubt which were principally, the original principals of the judicial system of America. The case that however defined these rights was however determined in 1895, about a century after enactment of the Bill of Rights (Rotenberg 31).

As noted in the first section of my individual insights to privacy rights, the provisions of these rights is still controversial perhaps due to the diverse perspectives in which individuals view privacy. In the contemporary case, the US constitution still lacks an express provision to the privacy right. Nevertheless, the Bill of Rights in the country reflects upon concerns that had been made by James Madison towards protecting particular aspects of privacy including but not limited to privacy of beliefs. Besides, from the ninth Amendment, enumeration of particular rights within the Bill of Rights is not prescribed to deny other rights that had been retained within the people. These developments remain highly elusive in the sense that they have created controversies in the perception towards the provision of basic rights to privacy. Similarly, the perception in which the constitution is perceived to protect privacy rights devoid of direct provisions in the Bill of Rights is also highly controversial (Glancy 20). This shows that the rights to privacy are highly controversial issues that are dictated by certain ideals and perceptions of individuals regarding their basic interests.

Finally, in the wake of the controversial reference to the privacy rights across history, it is clear that majority of the interpretation of the rights to privacy has been left in the hands of the judiciary since historical times to present (Evans, 32). This is a serious issue that may intrude into the delivery of justice in future and countries around the globe must constitute multi-sectoral and inter-ethnic participation to draft the legal prescriptions to the limits of privacy rights especially in the execution of justice. This should involve the opinions of different ethnic groups and social classes towards the issues in order to facilitate the congress in the making of legal provisions that define the privacy rights more conclusively devoid of controversies enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Otherwise, this issue may result into heightened tension in future due to concealed information in the court of law while exercising the right to privacy.

Work Cited

Evans, David S. "The online advertising industry: Economics, evolution, and privacy." Journal of Economic Perspectives, Forthcoming (2009).

Flaherty, David H. Protecting privacy in surveillance societies: The federal republic of Germany, Sweden, France, Canada, and the United States. UNC Press Books, 2014.

Glancy, Dorothy. "At the Intersection of Visible and Invisible Worlds: United States PrivacyLaw and the Internet." Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. LJ 16 (2000): 357.

Hall, Kermit L., James W. Ely & Joel B. Grossman. The Oxford Companion to the SupremeCourt of the United States. Oxford University Press on Demand, 2005.

Kelly, Eileen P., & G. Scott Erickson. "RFID tags: accommercial applications v. privy rights."Industrial Management & Data Systems 105.6 (2005): 703-713.

Rotenberg, Marc, ed. Privacy Law Sourcebook 2003: United States Law, International Law, andRecent Developments. Epic, 2003.

Sprague, Robert. "Orwell was an Optimist: the Evolution of Privacy in the United States and itsDe-evolution for American Employees." John Marshall Law Review 42 (2008): 83-135.