The issues regarding the violation of family and personal privacy
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was proclaimed on December 10th 1948 in order to make the world we live in a better and more peaceful place. Even after the establishment of the Universal Declaration, many rights are still being transgressed; the violation of Article 12 being one that is seen very often in our society today. Article 12 states that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks”(O’ Byrne, 401). Different types of authoritative organizations, including governments, have throughout history transgressed the right for privacy of humans and the law was not always a successful recourse for defending that right. The documentary “Spying on the Home Front” discusses the issue of invasion of privacy by the United States government after the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings. I believe that it is important for the law to do all that is possible to defend the right for privacy and that we as people, who can live freely due to the establishment of human rights, should do everything in our power to protect them. The violation of Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been executed by authority figures around the world due to the failure of the protection of the law against such transgressions or the perpetual cowardice of the society.
History
Authoritative organizations such as governments, companies and police forces have violated the right for privacy of the people all around the world. The privacy of humans is violated by many different establishments in many different ways whether it is the personal privacy of an individual or the privacy concerning his family or household. Not only has this right been transgressed numerous times, but the law sometimes disregards the importance of the respect of this right by not defending the people whose right was violated. Such cases are not always properly dealt with in court since the organizations, that are violating the article, are the ones who have the upper hand in the judicial system. This also is a transgression of the right for privacy because the article itself states that if such an interference is to occur, the person who is suffering from this violation has the right to be protected by the law. The police are one of the main organizations that have the tendency to violate the privacy rights of individuals. Daniel James Gomboc had his right for privacy violated when he was arrested in January 2004 for possession and intent of selling marijuana. The violation of privacy in this case is encountered when the court discovered how the police obtained a search warrant for Daniel’s home. That is, a DRA probe was installed by Enmax, an electric provider, in order for the police to be able to keep a record of how much and when electricity was used in his home. The police did this before getting the permission to search his house which means that they, in a very guileful way, invaded his household and by transgressing his rights, obtained a search warrant to put him in jail. However, in this case the court was on the side of the citizen since it was stated that the police had no right to install the DRA probe on the defendant’s house before getting a search warrant; therefore, the evidence that they found could not be used in court. For example, in addition to the statement of the court, Justice Peter Martin wrote “”It has been famously said that, ‘The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation,’”" and “ordered a new trial for Gomboc” (Slade). Undoubtedly, the defendant was put in jail for the crimes he committed once his new trial was over, but what was most important in the trial itself was that it was shown publicly that even though the police have a certain authority, it should always be remembered that they have no right to violate the privacy of individuals.
Moreover, another debatable subject in relation to the violation of privacy is the extent of email privacy that should be given at workplaces. It is important to make a distinction between private e-mails (private account) and company e-mails (company’s account). The issue here is whether bosses or supervisors should have the right to check the company e-mails of their workers. One situation that raised this debate was seen in February 1995 in Philadelphia when Smyth, a regional operations manager from the Pillsbury Company, got fired “for transmitting what it deemed to be inappropriate and unprofessional comments over [...]e-mail system” (Lane,140).The man went to court to defend his right for e-mail privacy which had been promised bythe company and to get his job back, but his right was disregarded. For instance, the court stated that “the company’s interest in preventing inappropriate and unprofessional comments or even illegal activity over its e-mail system outweighs any privacy interest the employee may have in those comments” (Lane, 141). The court states that the company’s interest outweighs the privacy interest of an individual, but it is also stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” (O’Byrne, 399). Therefore, the court is stating that a corporation has more rights than an individual, if one’s interests outweigh the other’s. This is a good example of a situation where the law does not protect an individual’s rights. It can be concluded that a person has to give up his right to privacy at work because it is the company that controls that system; therefore, the heads of that company have the right to read any e-mail that is sent from that server. What is worse is that many cases such as this one have occurred and are still occurring: “by now, employers can rely with confidence on the long line of court decisions that have resolved the tension between the company’s property and employee privacy interests in favour of businesses” (Lane 141).
Furthermore, governments have also violated the privacy rights of individuals in the past and are still doing it in the present time. In England, there is presently a new reform that was started by Ed Balls, the Secretary for Children, Schools and Families, for the purpose of fixing the “bad behaviour” of families. He calls it the “Family Intervention Project”. These families, approximately 20 000, will be under 24 hour surveillance in their own homes in order for the government to make sure that the children eat sufficiently, sleep properly, and go to school. The parents will also be checked on by private guards on a regular basis and they will have to sign “behaviour contracts” every year in order to guarantee that their children’s conduct is acceptable. For example, an even more troubling aspect of the reform is the fact that “responsible parents who make sure their children behave in school will get new rights to complain about those who allow their children to disrupt lessons” (Little). In other words, parents do not have the right to complain about such things before they become “responsible parents” in the eyes of the government. The basic fact that the government is taking rights away from some people and giving new rights to others goes against the whole point of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These authoritative figures have no right to pertain in activities such as monitoring families and judging what is good or bad family behaviour. The fact that these families are willingly inviting the government in their home and being told how to raise their children or how to act as a family is discouraging in relation to the importance of the defence of the human rights by the people. This remains a violation of article 12 whether the people who are victims of the government’s transgression realize it or not. It is a question whether the people could gain anything from going to court with this situation, since there are little to no chances that individuals could win against the government in a court case, but they could still protest and try in some way to defend their right of privacy. Conclusively, the violation of article 12 has been done by authority figures everywhere due to the unsuccessful protection of the law against such transgressions or the cowardice of the people whose right is violated.
Documentary
The documentary “Spying on the Home Front” discusses the issue of the invasions of the privacy of U.S citizens by the United States government, after the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings. On September 11th 2001, in New York City, two planes crashed into the buildings of the World Trade Centre. Since then, the U.S.A, including some other countries, has had many difficulties respecting the rights of humans, especially the right for privacy. The PBS documentary “Spying on the Home Front” was organized by Frontline, a group of journalists and filmmakers that make controversial documentaries. Hedrick Smith was the senior producer, correspondent and writer along with journalist Rick Young who also produced and directed the documentary. The 55 minute documentary deals with The Patriot Act, the NSA, Total Information Awareness and other organizations that arbitrarily violated the privacy of U.S citizens after the World Trade Centre buildings collapsed. “Spying on the Home Front” appeared on American television May 15th 2007 with a cast of people who have either been affected by the lack of privacy or people who have significant information to give on the subject. The first part of the documentary deals with a search for terrorists in Las Vegas and the FBI chief of the investigation Ellen Knowlton explains throughout the documentary the process of the investigation. Also, Attorney General John Ashcroft (2001-05), FBI National Security Attorney Michael Woods (1997-2002), White House Privacy Counsel Peter Swire (1999-2001), former NSA analyst Kevin O’Connell, Justice Department Sr. Attorney John Yoo (2001-03) and other people discuss the different situations that are dealt with in the documentary. The viewer also gets glimpses of Senators opposing Bush such as Sen. Patrick Leahy and Sen. Arlen Specter.
The documentary deals mainly with the acts that were established after September 11, the programs that are used to retrieve the private information of people, and the organizations that use these programs. One of the first acts that is mentioned in the documentary is called the Prevention of Terrorism Act. This act was a security measure that, out of other things, gathered the private information of U.S citizens. Specifically, the reason why this act is a violation of privacy is because it collects information on anyone and everyone. It is not a narrow search like the collect of personal information of a criminal should be, but very broad since the government does not know exactly who or what they are looking for. It would be logical to figure out what to look for before invading the privacy of all citizens without a legitimate reason or way of searching information. Also, even the people part of the Congress protested to this kind of violation. For example, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont stated that it was time for America to have some sort of stability, and Senator Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania also protested to the act, saying that the way the act is being dealt with and what it implies is breaking the law. He stated in Congress: “…inexcusable to be spying on the people of the U.S.A without court surveillance. It is a violation of our law by any question”. Obviously, if the government is not even asking the permission of the law to get the private information of people, there is a serious problem.
Also, another act that was established after September 11th was the Patriot Act. This act was also a security measure and it stands for the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. The place where the U.S government goes to ask for the permission to get a warrant for an act like the Patriot Act is called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court or the FISC court. This court was established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or FISA. Hence, it can be either called the FISC or FISA court. George W. Bush did not ask the FISA court for a warrant for the Patriot Act, which was essentially the activity of acquiring private information, either because he knew that it would not be allowed or because, as he had stated, asking for warrants to the FISA court must be for a long-term operation, and that this act, according to him, was only a short-term operation. It was mentioned that it was necessary to get all the information possible in order to “detect quickly”. However, the Patriot Act lasted 5 years and other matters of the act violated the privacy of innocent American and Afghani citizens. For example, not only was the monitored information from a bigger portion than suggested, but the whole process of finding the people they were looking for was based on assumptions and guessing. They also tapped the flow of communication that was coming from Afghanistan without even knowing exactly what they were looking for. It makes a person wonder whether the government was using the search of terrorists as an excuse in order to collect the personal information of the American citizens. Whenever the representatives were confronted by the issue of the immense content of information being collected because of the Patriot Act, the replies were very ambiguous or it was stated that such actions were not being done in “this program”.
In addition, the National Security Agency or NSA is one of the organizations that have invaded the privacy of a great number of U.S citizens. The process that the NSA used to try to find suspicious activity is called Data-Mining. This consists of looking through billions of conversations without any particular suspicion and when some random connections are found in the immense amount of data, suspicion develops. In relation, Mark Klein, an AT&T technician, spoke to an NSA technician about installing a room in the AT&T building that could only be accessed by the National Security Agency technician, and he made sure to precise that the content of that room would not be spoken about to anyone. Mark then explained that the internet room was directly connected with the room that the NSA technician was using by a splitter, which is an object that taps the flow of data, makes copies of the information, and sends it to the NSA room. For instance, one of the programs that were used in the room was called the Narus STA 6400. This program is Latin for “to know” and its purpose is to supervise all internet traffic. When Steve Bannerman, the Vice-President of Narus Marketing was asked about selling this product that invades the privacy of citizens to companies he stated that he could not say anything. When he was precisely asked about the company’s involvement with AT&T, he stammered for a couple of seconds and then stated that he did not know the answer to the question. It is obvious that this massive collection of private data is not legal; therefore, it is no surprise that Electronic Frontier Foundation sued AT&T in 2006 for their illegal internet activity. Likewise, the FBI has violated the right for privacy of U.S citizens by using National Security letters in order to get private information from people. For instance, they have used this tactic in an abusing manner by sending 150 000 National Security letters to random people from 2005 to 2007. However, the law prevailed in relation to this violation of privacy. The Justice Department Inspector General complained that these letters were improperly used and in response, the Director of the FBI informed him that the mistakes that were done would be fixed. Furthermore, government agencies have also violated the privacy rights of individuals in the U.S by collecting all the private information that they could find. For example, the Government Accounting Office discovered 199 Data-Mining projects in over 50 government agencies. It is no more a case of individual suspicion but general suspicion, and by permitting this, there is much more access to private information.
Moreover, there are certain programs that were invented to find the personal data of people and decipher connections between the vast amounts of information. Nora is a program, invented by a man named Jeff Jonas, which can be used to get people’s personal information. The specific difference between this program and all others is that Nora can decode connections in the great amount of information that is received. This program has been used by the FBI in the past, but it is not at all surprising since after September 11th 2001, many agencies have been driven, by the event itself, to use such private databases. It is important to note that such gathering of information was only supposed to be used by the government on specific occasions. In other words, when they are looking for someone specific and not when they have no clue about what it is that they are searching for. Similarly, another program that resembles the Nora information seeking program is called the Total Information Awareness. Specifically, it is almost the same process of seeking information and it is quite clear in the name of the program what lengths it can achieve. This program is just as much a violation of privacy of the citizens as the Nora program. In fact, Senator Ron Wyden describes it as “Over the line. It is invading the civil liberties of law abiding Americans on U.S soil”. In other words, the program, including others that have the same goal, violates the rights of the people; therefore, these programs are “over the line” and inacceptable. Thus, the violation of Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, seen in this documentary, has been executed by authority figures, through programs and acts, due to the failure of the protection of the law against such transgressions or the perpetual cowardice of the society.
Moral evaluation
I believe that the most essential thing in relation to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is for the law to do all that is possible to defend the rights and that we as people, who can live freely due to the establishment of human rights, should do everything in our power to protect them. It is always important to keep in mind that the people in the government are working for the population of citizens that they represent. Therefore, any action or research that is done by the government on certain citizens should be done for the well-being of the population. For example, if a person has no legitimate reason to be suspected in doing something illegal, the government should have no reason to try to acquire private information on them. On the other hand, if such a person’s actions prove to be illegal it is then and only then that authorities should take all the necessary legal measures to ensure the security of a person or a population. However, the government cannot collect the information of a large number of people in order to find a criminal because that violates the privacy of a many innocent citizens and it is not right for the government to view the whole population as the enemy. All people highly placed in governments around the world know they are out of line when they research particular information on innocent people who have no reason to be suspected as felons. This is so because any private data regarding a person’s life such as personal privacy, family, domicile and others are not supposed to appear in the hands of the authorities. Thus, if ever the human right of privacy is violated, the court of law is expected to protect and ensure the privacy of a citizen from further violation.
However, this is not always the case because if a citizen is going against a company or the government, the people in the authoritative positions can pay better lawyers than the citizen. Not only is the citizen’s right for the defence of his privacy violated but his right for a fair trial is also transgressed. It is very difficult to believe that the rights of humans are still present if a certain amount of money can make these rights non-existent.
Moreover, our generation has been willingly giving up their privacy by joining groups such as Facebook or MySpace. I personally do not believe that anyone who gives away their private information in such ways has the right to complain about privacy issues. For instance, it is no one’s business to know your private life and see pictures of your daily routines. People that use Facebook or such sites simply want to keep in contact with their friends but they do not realize to what degree they are giving up their privacy. I believe that you can keep in touch with friends and family in different ways which does not reveal so much information on your life, such as using the telephone or writing a letter. Technology has made us undermine our privacy rights since there is a constant posting of private data on the web. How can we complain about any issue regarding privacy if we voluntarily give up that right? For example, it is not only the web that contains much of everyone’s private information but the cash cards or credit cards that we use contain all our financial data. Everything that we have bought can be known through these cards, if the cards were indeed used for the purchases. In this case, it is our financial privacy that is at stake. Therefore, if we know this information and we are still using these cards, we are giving up our right to privacy without any protest. I must admit that it is very hard to keep our personal lives private during our time since technology plays a big part in our society, but there are some precautions that can be taken in order to hide as much personal information from the public as possible.
On the other hand, when the government decides to violate the privacy of the citizens in a very obvious way, it is the fault of the people that their privacy has been taken away if they do not perform any type of protest. For example, the government in England has great control over the population they represent, yet the people do not say a word or utter a complaint of any kind. Every corner of each street has a camera and as I have described before, they are even putting cameras in people’s households. This is said to be done for the security and the well-being of the English citizens but it is hard to understand how a person who has absolutely no privacy can be well in his or her skin. Another thing that is very difficult to comprehend is the fact that these people do not do anything about their situation. For instance, as free humans, people have the right to protest for their rights, but it does not seem to concern them in the slightest way. This is why I believe that these people can be perfectly described as cowards since they do not stand up for what is rightfully theirs. Conclusively, the transgression of article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been performed by authority figures around the world due to the failure of the protection of the law against such violations or the perpetual cowardice of the society.
In conclusion, the failure of the law to protect people from the violation of Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the incessant cowardice of the society is what causes this right to be violated by people in authoritative positions. Authoritative organizations, such as governments and companies, have violated the privacy of humans in the past and the law was not always there to protect the people whose right had been violated. “Spying on the Home Front” is a documentary that aims to uncover the invasion of privacy that has been done by the government after the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings. The law must do everything possible to defend this right and since we live as free people, due to the formation of those rights, we should do all that we can to protect them from being transgressed.
- Little, Alison. “Sin Bins for Worst Families.” Daily Express. 2009. 23rd of July 2009.
- Lane, Frederick S. The Naked Employee: How Technology Is Compromising Workplace Privacy. New York: American Management Association, 2006.
- Slade, Daryl. “Alberta Court Rules Grow-op Detector a Violation of Privacy.” Times Colonist. 2009. 23rd August 2009.
- “Spying on the Home Front.” Dir. Rick Young. Frontline. Documentary Consortium. PBS. WTVS, Miami. 15th May 2007.
- Stocker, Christian. “How Wired Gadgets Encroach on Privacy.” Business Week. 2009. July 28th 2009. /gb20090728_790451.htm?chan=globalbiz_europe+index+page_technology&FORM=ZZNR2.>
About the Author
Anja Mileusnic-Plecas was born in Zagreb, Croatia during the war. She moved to Belgrade, Serbia at a very young age and shortly after moved to Fredericton, New Brunswick to flee the war. After a year stay in this city, she moved to Gatineau, Quebec where she obtained a Liberal Arts diploma at Heritage College. She is presently studying at the Conservatory of Music
3-15 NIT 1st Round Vermont at Cleveland State
|
|
United States / Vermont / University Place, Burlington (Usa-874) $0.99 |
|
|
UVM University of the State of Vermont 1791 – Newcomen Address Borgmann 1956 $9.99 |
|
|
VA Tech Hokies T SHIRT VT State University Football L $9.99 |
|
|
Virginia Tech State University Hokies Chrome Auto Emblem metal decal Self Stick $18.77 |
|
|
Virginia Tech State University Hokies Marron Color Chrome Auto Emblem decal $18.77 |
|
|
Vermont Wrestling T Shirt S-3XL Free Shipping USA University State Team 094Z $12.29 |
|
|
Vermont Wrestling T Shirt S-3XL Free Shipping USA University State Team 094Z $12.29 |
|
|
Vermont Wrestling T Shirt S-3XL Free Shipping USA University State Team 094Z $12.29 |
|
|
Vermont Wrestling T Shirt S-3XL Free Shipping USA University State Team 094Z $12.29 |
|
|
Vermont Wrestling T Shirt S-3XL Free Shipping USA University State Team 094Z $12.29 |
|
|
Thunder Below!: The USS *Barb* Revolutionizes Submarine Warfare in World War II $14.73 … |
|
|
Where the Rivers Flow North (Hardscrabble Books-Fiction of New England) Available again, six tales of Kingdom County, Vermont…. |
|
|
The EatingWell Diet: Introducing the VTrim Weight-Loss Program $22.88 A science-based plan that brings together cutting-edge, university-tested weight-loss strategies with delicious, quick and easy recipes and an arsenal of self-help tools.Funded by the National Institute of Health, the ground-breaking VTrim behavioral weight-management program is at the heart of The EatingWell® Diet by providing dieters with the steps that are clinically proven to work, including:… |
|
|
GO JETS I MAY STILL SLOBBER SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW THE PATRIOTS SUCK FUNNY ITEM TO PROTECT A SHIRT BABY BIB IF YOU WANT TO REPLACE THE TEAM THAT SUCKS WITH A DIFFERENT TEAM THAT SUCKS LET US KNOW…. |
|
|
REPUBLICAN BRAINS DEMOCRAT ON DRUGS ANY QUESTIONS POLITICAL USA UNITED STATES OF AMERICAN VOTE RED T SHIRT GILDAN ULTRA COTTON TEE ? 6.1 oz., 100% Cotton Preshrunk ? Seamless double-needle collar. ? Taped neck and shoulders. ? Any questions please call or email us… |
|
|
JESUS LOVES THE STATE OF VERMONT PEACE TO ALL SPIRITUAL VACATION IN THE USA T SHIRT GILDAN ADULT HEAVY COTTON TEE 5.3 oz., 100% Cotton, preshrunk Cotton/10% Polyester). Seamless double-needle collar. Taped neck and shoulders. Double-needle sleeve and bottom hems. Any questions please call or email us. …2T- 13″ CHEST X 17″ LENGTH |
|
|
It’s a Vermont Thing You Wouldn’t Understand State Pride T Shirt ADULT HEAVY COTTON TEE 5.3 oz., 100% Cotton, preshrunk Cotton/10% Polyester). Seamless double-needle collar. Taped neck and shoulders. Double-needle sleeve and bottom hems. Any questions please call or email us. …2T- 13″ CHEST X 17″ LENGTH |
