History of Right to Privacy

The United States of America is one of the nations that is fully affected by acts of terrorisms. Some of the actions are politically oriented, and others are disagreements between terrorists such as Al-Qaida and Aum Shinrikyo. Despite the reason behind the apparent terror attacks, the current threats within USA are different from what used to happen in the past. Today’s threats pay significant attention to the size of the damage caused. For example, in 2011, terrorist killed thousands of people and damaged the USA economy since it incurred a loss of a hundred billion dollars. Also, the terrorists use advanced information technology to generate data they require to carry out attacks within the U.S. Thus, any terror attack experienced is planned through a network of people who know about a particular location and also who knows how the place operates. 

Besides, the government is of the people by the people and for the people. For this reason, all citizens should be protected from terror attacks equally. Therefore, to deal with terror attacks, the government of the U.S. must also use advanced technology that will help in observing and identifying people who look suspicious and who commit criminal activities. The new technologies revolve at keeping track of people’s location and also conclude on how they carry themselves and how they think. The new approach of fighting terrorism with technology has to take into consideration the person that will be accessing people’s data. Furthermore, the new plan is also a threat to the citizens because it may interfere with people’s right to privacy. 

The research question that should be asked is whether the right to privacy in an age of terrorism, should it still be strong? Given that a country is more important than an individual, the interest of the government as far as protecting the citizens comes first. While it is argued against the will of the people to dishonor their entitlement to privacy, public safety is important than an individual’s privacy. The essay will disclose the government’s counterterrorism measures with advanced technologies, which at times delimit people’s privacy. 

History of Right to Privacy 

The USA has passed private legal laws that advocate for the respect of the people’s right to privacy. The privilege of free expression was experienced in world war two and also amid modern surveillance where people's privacy acts as a defense against abuse by the government ( Chatterjee, 2017). However, in the era of genocide, many nations such as Ethiopia, Iran, Vietnam, and China revoked the right to privacy to date to bring justice to the victims. Subsequently, privacy was summoned to curtain the government’s authority of seizure, where the supreme court's certification turned out to be a regular need in various legal systems, and the idea of privacy of association enlarged to involve advanced technologies with rules controlling wiretaps. 

Technological Challenges 

According to the Olmstead Case held in 1928, it was held that illegal wiretaps could not violate people’s right to privacy that is being secure in person, effects, papers, and houses. However, in 1967, the court reversed the ruling and stated that a person should have “reasonable expectations of privacy” ( Dinerstein, 2016). The decision created a doctrine that disclosed the right moment of curtaining government authority over carrying out warrantless searches, and despite the tradition, the court decides on what they see fit for public safety. For instance, the court can order the installation of camera at a person's backyard because what can be seen by camera can also be seen by naked eyes. However, in the Carpenter vs. US, the court ruled that the police should not carry out surveillance or even interfere with people’s privacy without a warrant ( Gasser, 2016). 

Counterterrorism and Privacy as an American Value 

Given that the U.S. is among the nations most affected by terror attacks, the government must increase its countermeasures with a significant purpose of improving its ability to prevent terror attacks before they are implemented. However, the States’ efforts to fight terrorism violate people’s rights to privacy at times. The violations come into place when countermeasure programs negatively affect civil liberties, privacy, and the adequacy of essential civil liberties protections. Since terrorists are part of the law-abiding society, the countermeasures programs must run through everybody the government finds to be suspicious or who have a past of criminal offenses. The operations of countering and detecting people’s data or information may violate their right to privacy and go against the constitution ( Cramer, 2018). In regards to this, when people who are law-abiding citizens realize that they are being watched, they may fear that their intimate life will be recognized and may be used in the future to blackmail them. 

Nonetheless, the government, through its security organization cannot look into someone’s life or violate their privacy if they do not suspect the individual is behind attack or something is linking the suspect to the attack. Given the credibility of such suspicions, the security agency may look into their private life to see what they do on a routine day. According to the third-party doctrine, the government, through the police, has the right to access a person’s privacy in an authorized way without a warrant. Some of the information that can be retrieved include call records, social media messages and posts, phone messages and any other information that seen relevant to help with the ongoing investigations. Arresting a person under the claims if he or she did, but there is no proof brings the aspect of unprofessionalism of the law enforcement officers. Therefore, violating suspect’s privacy to get credible evidence of how he or she may be linked to terror attack can help protect the lives of many people ( Tzanou, 2017).  Furthermore, holding a person without enough evidence is a violation of their freedom. However, if the agency of security thinks that the person has something to do with the terror attack, they can obey the fourth amendment by obtaining a warrant to put twenty-four-hour surveillance on the suspect and also cross-check on bank records, computer files, hardcopy documents and search their homes and business places. 

Role of Information 

Terrorists are generally living among the law-abiding citizens, and law enforcers can hardly know to identify them and their plans. Such individuals aim to destroy others or revenge for their people using all necessary tools available to develop a network that helps in planning terror threats with the most significant impact possible. One of the critical among these tools is technology, and with enhanced equipment, one can execute an attack without leaving signatures or tracks while using networks and digital databases while communicating with others. Identifying terrorists out of millions of people is not undeniably a task that may prove to be complicated even with the most sophisticated technologies. It follows, therefore, that security teams have to dig dip into people’s information as a way of finding a small link or communication related to the attack ( Lindsay, 2017). 

The government has recognized the security mentioned above teams' abilities, and as a way of enhancing public safety, law enforcement agencies have reinforced operations by investing in countermeasures programs. Employing these strategies aim at collecting and analyzing information to safeguard the country from terror attacks and also threats that can interfere with public health and public safety. In respect to this, the investment revolves collecting information from various government organizations and industries such as air transportation, banking, finance, chemical and biological industries, customs agents, law enforcement, transportation and shipping, electricity, and telecommunication to gain relevant information that can help fight terrorism. Also, the government has technical abilities in assistance with legal right to gather and hold information of a US citizen when at home and even abroad. As a way of increasing the entire counterterrorism measures, the USA government has mandated inter-jurisdictional and interagency sharing of information. The sharing is another approach that is used to see whether there is a way to know whether terrorists leave tracks and how swiftly is it possible to track down their communications ( Clapper, 2016). Since it is hardly likely to differentiate terrorists from ordinary civilians, the security agency has to go through people’s information as a way of gathering information and differentiating data associated with terror attacks and that which is legal. As mentioned earlier, a country is more important than an individual, including their privacy. Seconding this, the security agency automates its digital database and analyzes all information. The act interferes with the privacy of the people without their consent and without them knowing that their data is being investigated. 

In the case of the Carpenter vs. US, the carpenter’s call records were retrieved without his consent. According to him, the act was illegal because the police did not obey the fourth amendment. However, the USA constitutional law concerning right to privacy contradicts one another because there is a third party doctrine that states that “ sharing information or records with a “third party,” meaning a business or another person, a person gives up any reasonable expectation that the information will remain private” ( Klein, 2019). Since the U.S. A has legal rights to hold information of a US citizen both at home and abroad, then the act of accessing call records was appropriate. The case held that the most crucial action was ensuring security by using the information obtained appropriately. 

Organizational Models for Terrorism  a nd the Intelligence Process 

Planning for an attack entails a significant number of people who form an organization. Security agencies thus have to realize how terrorist groups are formed by following two end spectrum models that help them to stay relevant. One of the theories employed is the command and control approach. The model acts as a traditional multinational corporation and military organizations. The top management team encompassing the leaders responsible for planning and coordinating the operations of the group ( Clark, 2019).    Another model is the entrepreneurial approach where terrorist groups are formed without anybody’s consent, and they carry out terror attacks without requesting permission, although they may have a small link with big terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda. Recognizing how they form themselves, it means that if the agency works closely with their operations, they may get them at either end or even in the middle when they are trying to communicate with big terrorist groups to get financial support. 

Deciphering how terrorist groups are formed is critical to the security agencies as it enables them to know the kind of information they can expect to flow. Such flow is significant because it offers chances for exploitation and disruption in countermeasures efforts ( Narchet et al., 2016) . In Carpenter vs. US case, if the security had linked the carpenter to any of the two end spectra and gave him the warrant to look for calls records, the carpenter may have refused or even have alerted others, and due to the alert, the terror group may have gone away again. The process of getting a warrant is another way of putting people’s lives at risk. For instance, if Carpenter was a terrorist and he realizes that his cover was blown, he may end up destroying what he was after and killing himself. However, if the agency realized who he was and retrieved records under the third-party doctrine, they could have arrested him and protects the life of many citizens ( Klein, 2019). 

Activities of the Intelligence Community  a nd Law Enforcement Agencies 

It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that all citizens are safe from any public harm. Protecting the public means that the government has to invest heavily in security by establishing security bodies such as Homeland security, which is responsible for ensuring that America is safe again. Homeland security agency's primary goal is to control and get rid of terrorists within the USA. Since other criminal activities are found within the U.S., the agency has structured itself in a manner that there is a unit that deals with every illegal activity ( Johnson & Hunter, 2017). T he U.S. government has advocated for information sharing between securities bodies – both national and international – where all units work together when needed to see Americans safe. The terrorist’s investigation goes hand in hand with criminal prosecution and all information regarding the prosecuted must be retrieved with or without their consent. 

Conclusion 

A country is more important than an individual, and the interest of the government as far as protecting the citizens comes first. While it is argued against the will of the people to dishonor their entitlement to privacy, public safety is important than an individual’s privacy. In regards to this, the fourth amendment may be suspended in matters involving public safety because the time taken to obtain a warrant may hinder the timely detection and prevention of terrorist activities. Thus, the absolute entitlement of the right to privacy in the age of terrorism is undeniably unatonable. Today, differentiating terrorists from law-abiding citizens in society is a difficult task to law-enforcers, and more information will go a long way to facilitating an effective execution of such responsibilities. 

References 

Chatterjee, S. (2017). Right to privacy and its current trends a comparative study under the legal systems of USA, UK, and India. 

Clapper, J. R. (2016). Statement for the Record.  Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community, Senate Armed Services Committee ,  9 . 

Clark, R. M. (2019).  Intelligence analysis: a target-centric approach . CQ press. 

Cramer, B. W. (2018). A Proposal to Adopt Data Discrimination Rather than Privacy as the Justification for Rolling Back Data Surveillance.  Journal of Information Policy ,  8 , 5-33. 

Dinerstein, R. D. (2016). The Olmstead imperative: The right to live in the community and beyond.  Inclusion ,  4 (1), 16-20. 

Gasser, U. (2016). Recoding privacy law: reflections on the future relationship among law, technology, and privacy.  Harv. L. Rev. F. ,  130 , 61. 

Johnson, T. C., & Hunter, R. D. (2017). Changes in homeland security activities since 9/11: an examination of state and local law enforcement agencies’ practices.  Police Practice and Research ,  18 (2), 160-173. 

Klein, D. (2019). Carpenter v. US on Digital Privacy Under the Fourth Amendment. In  SCOTUS 2018  (pp. 15-24). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. 

Lindsay, J. R. (2017). Target Practice: Counterterrorism and the Amplification of Data Friction.  Science, Technology, & Human Values ,  42 (6), 1061-1099. 

Narchet, F. M., Russano, M. B., Kleinman, S. M., & Meissner, C. A. (2016). A (nearly) 360 perspective of the interrogation process: Communicating with high-value targets.  Communication in investigative and legal contexts: integrated approaches from forensic psychology, linguistics, and law enforcement , 159-178. 

Tzanou, M. (2017).  The fundamental right to data protection: normative value in the context of counter-terrorism surveillance . Bloomsbury Publishing.