The integration of the intellectual property and the computer crime section in the "Criminal Division of the Department of Justice" was an appropriate move in helping fight cybercrimes through the anti-cybercrime efforts such as the electronic surveillance use. The initiative has assisted significantly in combating both computer and intellectual crimes such as trade secrets and stolen information. Despite the effectiveness in reducing the cybercrimes, the law plays a central role in breaching American constitutional rights. Electronic surveillance use is a critical issue that facilitates irrelevance in the privacy law that safeguards persons from stalking and spying. The paper will address the problem as viewed through the use of electronic surveillance in fighting cybercrime. Recommendations will also be addressed to encourage both enforcement and lawmakers to continue with the protection of the Americans' constitutional rights while combating cybercrime.
Problem
The bill of rights and the United States' constitution are the primary cornerstone that aid in constructing an American society that is comprised of every person living freely with no forms of restraint. Nonetheless, electronic surveillance as a tool of domestic relations, national security, and law enforcement negates and limits citizens' rights to be free. It is true that the indiscriminate utilization history that has been employed using electronic surveillance at the domestic level shows that American citizens' are susceptible to privacy-based violations. The constitution in different amendments such as the third, first, fourth among others is against the indiscriminate and unlawful privacy invasion. The fourth amendment safeguards personal privacy since the mid-nineteenth century. Experts in different fields such as sociology, philosophy, psychology, and law believed that human beings value privacy, and the Supreme Court as well found privacy to be fundamental. The fourth amendment 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, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Little, 1981)." Therefore, the fourth amendment offers particular rules protecting citizens' rights against unreasonable search and ownership rights.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Nonetheless, electronic surveillance is used to follow or track what an individual is doing which they are not aware of or have no consent. Such a practice leads to the infringement of an individual's privacy of being free from attention, expression, observation, and public association. Moreover, the metadata collected using various means such as electronic surveillance establishes threats to the people being tracked because the metadata allows the surveillance to map both activities and networks (Lyon, 2003). The electronic surveillance practice has led to the change of culture and habit of persons as they have fear of being spied on whilst they interact. It is indeed true that data confidentiality concerning someone is often at stake due to the data breach. One's information may be unintentionally shared or lost in the process of the operations.
Recommendations
The fourth amendment maintains that the rights of citizens are safeguarded against seizure and unwarranted search while the first amendment increases the protection rights concerning free assembly. The ninth amendment states that "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people (Sharp, 2013)." Law enforcement and lawmakers need to safeguard citizens' rights while combatting cybercrime.
Therefore, one of the recommendations is that law enforcement and lawmakers should combat cybercrime by clarifying and assessing the surveillance extent. Such a recommendation would increase the citizens' insight on the disclosure degree when they could be using internet browsers. Secondly, individual issues regarding disclosure and consent need to be addressed effectively by law enforcement and lawmakers (De Hert & Gutwirth, 2006). Third, adjustments are needed for the federal laws based on technology changes and also to changes pertaining to privacy protection to help balance citizen rights as well as combatting cybercrime at the same time as described in the constitution. The move would help the law enforcement and lawmakers engage in enhancing and continuous preservation present capabilities.
Conclusion
Both law enforcement and lawmakers have a role to play in combatting cybercrimes. The use of electronic surveillance is a good move to assess the extent of cybercrimes. However, such practice using electronic surveillance should be well outlined not to harm the rights of citizens to their privacy. Consent and disclosure to citizens should be provided to help them embrace the use of electronic surveillance as well in combatting cybercrimes.
References
De Hert, P., & Gutwirth, S. (2006). Privacy, data protection and law enforcement. Opacity of the individual and transparency of power. Privacy and the criminal law, 61-104.
Little, R. (1981). Protecting Privacy under the Fourth Amendment. Yale Law Journal, 91, 313.
Lyon, D. (Ed.). (2003). Surveillance as social sorting: Privacy, risk, and digital discrimination. Psychology Press.
Sharp, T. (2013). Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws. Retrieved from https://www.livescience.com/37398-right-to-privacy.html
