The right to privacy is an essential part of civil liberties and freedoms expressed in the constitution. Under the right to privacy, individual personal information is protected from any form of public scrutiny and often restrain protect government and private entities from threatening different persons (Stone, 2014) . While there are exists no specific constitutional clause that provides for most of the protections falling under privacy, statutory law is most often cited. Such include HIPAA and other bodies such as the Federal Trade Commission that enforces privacy rights.
Several Constitutional amendments of the constitution provide for the protection of privacy. The Fourth Amendment protects an individual's privacy against unreasonable searches. Also, the Fifth Amendment protects the confidentiality of personal information. Also, by stating that enumeration of individual rights in the constitution shall not be used to deny rights retained by people, the ninth Amendment also protect privacy (Stone, 2014) . However, in the age of technology, the provisions of the constitution do not adequately protect privacy rights. Due to the lack of specific constitution clause detailing the process and circumstances under which the individual's privacy rights are protected, most times interpretation depend on an understanding of the Fifth Amendment.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In the case of Carp v. the United States, the court provided a delicate balance between privacy rights and matters of public safety and security. Before the incident, government agencies would obtain records of cellphone locations and other information under the notion that it was needed as part of investigations Liptak, A. (2018, June 23) . However, after this case, all the entities must get a warrant first to acquire such information. While not changing third-party doctrine the law protects individual rights to an extent to the detriment of public security.
I agree with the majority of members of the public who dissent the opinion of the court to favor privacy over public security. In determining the type of legal authorization required by government to compel third-party providers to give physical location records, the Supreme Court held that a search warrant was needed rather than the less stringent order for disclosure. While a law of exposure requires that a government agency has reasonable grounds, a permit requires probable cause. In most cases in the age of digital technology, it is hard to provide evidence for probable cause without breaching privacy laws in the first place (Castellano, 2018) . This case law, therefore, makes it hard for government agencies to provide legal background for searching information assets; hence personal privacy comes before public security. I think personal privacy should be protected only if it does not cause undue harm to general safety.
The protection of civil rights and liberties have been a fundamental value of the American political system. The security of civil rights and freedom started at the declaration of independence as a method of protecting citizens against government actions. Each passing government regime has been accused of abusing the rights and liberties of citizens to the extent that people can opt to have privacy over security (Lee & Rosenbloom, 2015) . Due to historical events, most Americans feel that the government in a way will work against the interest of individual persons.
Civil rights and liberties and politics have a significant relationship concerning the protection of the minority in the US. Civil rights movement started even before independence and after independence especially concerning the protection of liberties and rights of slaves (Stone, 2014) . After the civil war, the politics of civil rights and freedoms are led by issues of racial segregation and women leadership in the country.
Both government agencies and private individuals should be held responsible in case they violate constitutional rights. Compensation of individuals whose rights have been violated and proper public scrutiny should be the penalty for these breaches.
References
Castellano, M. (2018). The United States v. Carpenter (on Fourth Amendment Protection for Historic Cell Records).
Lee, L. X. H., & Rosenbloom, D. H. (2015). A Reasonable Public Servant: Constitutional Foundations of Administrative Conduct in the United States: Constitutional Foundations of Administrative Conduct in the United States . Routledge.
Liptak, A. (2018, June 23). Warrant required for cellphone tracking data. New York Times, p. A1(L). Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/apps/doc/A543973598/ STND?u=oran95108&sid=STND&xid=753160e8
Stone, R. (2014). Textbook on civil liberties and human rights . Oxford University Press, USA.
