Question

As Professor Semitsu discusses in his article, "From Facebook to Mug Shot," not even George Orwell would have predicted that "an omniscient Big Brother" would result from government inactivity as opposed to a totalitarian takeover. There has been much criticism regarding post-9/11 changes in law allowing the government to access certain electronic files without a warrant or even probable cause. However, the U.S. population has ultimately surrendered its right to privacy to corporations. If government ever tried to persuade the average citizen to permanently document his or her every action and thought, there would be mass resistance and outrage. But when a teenage Harvard-drop out created a website for just that, hundreds of millions of people began voluntarily documenting their life (and crimes) with amazing precision. The Fourth Amendment provided U.S. citizens with over 200 years of protections to their persons, papers and effects. But today, in 2011, the Fourth Amendment does not cover anything having to do with the government's seizure of Facebook activity, email older than six (6) months, or much of our web activity. Technology allows us to neatly document our day-to-day activities, while the law allows the government to seize these writings and use them to deprive people of life and liberty without the due process granted to other papers and effects.

Argue for or against Professor Semitsu's proposition that the system is broke and needs fixing.
Should U.S. citizens enjoy the same constitutional protections to their social networking communications and emails as they do to their personal diaries and hand-written correspondence? Or, should the government have ready access to public or semi-public social networking commentary for the purposes of legitimate law enforcement investigations without a warrant? If the police ask the Facebook legal department, without a warrant, for social media records, is that similar to a detective going into a bar and interviewing people; or, is it closer to the seizure of letters or documents?

Part 1 - Write your original response. Be sure to include at least one (1) descriptive hypothetical situation.

Answer 1

Yes, the citizens should enjoy the same constitutional protections to their social networking communications and emails as they do to their other personal belongings. The Fourth Amendment should be revised to include all the current and the upcoming technologies. Social networking sites and apps which hold personal data of the citizens, from where the Government or any other organization can easily gain information is a loophole to gain the same information which needs to be protected. These social networking companies are already selling the data to other companies and hence people get advertisements pertaining to their product search in other platforms. They are linked to each other. In future, this may not limited to products alone. The entire data of the person has become vulnerable. It can be a source for theft and other crimes. A layman may fail to understand the connection and the loophole it has. However, it is absolutely necessary to consider this and make necessary amendments so that the data is protected. The Government should put forward guidelines which the companies need to keep in mind while running their platforms.