Privacy Rights in the Modern Day

Famously written in George Orwell’s 1989, the phrase “Big Brother is watching you,” speaks all too well of an issue the United States faces today. The Fourth Amendment is widely known and clearly expressed as the protection of an individual’s assets from “searches and seizures” without probable cause. But in today’s day and age where technology blurs the lines between what counts as “personal property” and what does not, the Supreme Court has found itself in a predicament. Following a recent case regarding a series of nine armed robberies at different Radio Shack and T-Mobile stores in the states of Michigan and Ohio, one of the arrested robbers recently gave up his own phone number along with those belonging to the other accomplices. The Stored Communications Act declares that this type of information can be disclosed, “to a law enforcement agency [ … ] if the contents appear to pertain to a crime.” Timothy Carpenter, the suspected leader of the robberies, was found guilty of “aiding and abetting the crimes” after the prosecutors used the location data from his cell phone as evidence. His lawyers claim that since his location was used to convict him, the charges should not stand and the government should instead, “obtain a search warrant pursuant to a higher standard of ‘probable cause’ before obtaining the data.”

Ultimately, the opinions of the Supreme Court as well as the rest of America are divided. One opinion is that information shared to a third party is no longer private; the other believes access to personal information requires more regulation in order to avoid a “Big Brother watching” scenario. The argument stems from a gap between the Stored Communications Act and true accountability. Investigators do not need probable cause but rather “specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds,” to extract possibly incriminating evidence from private items such as phones. Therefore, the SCA differs from an actual search warrant. Another issue relates to time constraints. Some believe that since the information was found over a period of a few days, the investigators should be required to provide a warrant for information found surpassing a 24-hour period.

In the end, Carpenter was still found guilty. Orin S. Kerr, a law professor from USC, commented that the Fourth Amendment did not even pertain to the case at all since a “search” was not required. Regardless of language or differing opinion, this case has left a profound effect on America’s ongoing battle with privacy rights. Each and every American will be affected by the outcome of this case as personal and tracking information stored on cell phones, laptops, and other personal devices could potentially be free game for governmental use. On the other hand, Americans would have increased privacy for their information at the cost of efficiency in future criminal investigations. The time has come to decide how the Fourth Amendment as well as other privacy acts will evolve along with our rapidly changing technological industry and widespread use of technology’s products.