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

U.S. citizens should not enjoy the same constitutional protections to their social networking communications and emails as they do to their diaries and hand-written correspondence because it lacks privacy. Everyone should have the right to live their lives in the way they want to. The Supreme Court got that there is continuously a deep connection in the middle of privacy and freedom of expression. Most citizens are not eager to engage in any political dissent that is likely to trigger government surveillance. Of course, the challenge comes in determining where to draw the line between radicals' privacy interests like Corliss Lamont or supporters of the NAACP and asserted governmental or public interests in disclosure and transparency.

If the police ask the Facebook legal department, without a warrant, for social media records, then that similar to a detective going into a bar and interviewing people, the company should not give the data because it is closer to the seizure of letters or documents.