Showing posts with label rights to privacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rights to privacy. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

ID For All?


In his Newsweek May 13th editorial entitled "Why All Americans Should Carry ID Papers," Christopher Dickey proposes a different solution to the controversial Arizona law allowing policemen to search Hispanics that they suspect of being illegal immigrants. He suggests that it would be wisest making it a law requiring to have government-issued identification cards with all people at all times, and that if someone cannot produce their identification, they are to be detained by the police until they are proven to be American citizens or not instead of being instantaneously deported. He says that this would relieve the discriminatory pressures on the Hispanic community that come with the hot-button Arizona law. Also, the fact that these would be cards would mean that it would be far easier to keep track of, instead of having to tote around a birth certificate or a passport. Also, Dickey denounces a section of the Arizona law that states that people may complain to the police department about police officers not being zealous enough in searching for and deporting illegal immigrants.
Personally, I think that this whole situation is rather preposterous. All of this need for constant identification for no other purpose than showing that you are an American citizen is vaguely reminiscent of Stalin-era Communism, where neighbors could turn anyone in for not being enthused enough about the government's policies. In my opinion, these laws, both the one in effect in Arizona and the one proposed by Dickey, are blatant violations of the implied right to privacy as established by Griswold v. Connecticut. Citizens should not be subject to these random interruptions just because a police officer has a sneaking suspicion about them not being legal.
Mary Morris (extra credit)

Friday, May 7, 2010

Facebook Privacy Doesn't Exsist



In the Inquirer article, Bad Week for Facebook Privacy, by Asavin Wattanajantra on May 7th 2010, Wattanajantra talks about how Facebook has failed at protecting the possibly sensative information of their users, unlike what they have advertised. For example Facebook has been giving, "users' personal information to companies like Microsoft, Yelp and Pandora without first obtaining their consent," allowing these companies to advertise to certain individuals based on their interests posted on Facebook. All of these privacy violations are recent (which comes weeks before this article was written), but unfortunately this is not the first time that Facebook has had questionable ethics with people's privacy, "three years ago, [where] it disclosed personal information, including video purchases and rentals, without users' knowledge or permission." Facebook, the company, has made clear to its users that it is content with disregarding all privacy issues to expand their bussiness. Facebook has violated the people's right to privacy given by the penumbra of rights implied by the Bill of Rights. Chief Justice Warren, laid down a court decision reenforcing this unenumerated right. In our personal opinions, we see that Facebook has possibly let down its users by disclosing more of their personal information than they lead them to believe. While we personally are somewhat dissappointed by this, we mantain that Facebook is still a reasonably satisfactory social networking experience, and while we may monitor our profiles more closely, we don't plan to delete them.
Posted by: TFavaron and EMcKee