This week, an appeals court in the United States ruled that cell phones can not be monitored without a warrant. It is a good decision for privacy and that which comes much closer to analog equivalent rights: For too long it has been that any private information that is being stored in digital form is not worthy of any protection at all, just because governments have gotten away with it.
Consider the old newspaper.
In many jurisdictions, a diary is considered private if it can not be opened or examined, even when the police have a search warrant for a private residence. However, the digital equivalent of today's newspapers - that is, our phone and our computer - are simply considered "tools," the legal equivalent of a wrench or hammer, and are not protected at all - despite the fact that they are much more private than a newspaper has ever been.
This is the dissonance created when diverse interests can get away with refusing to apply the old rules to the new reality. Basically bulk of justification and warrantless searches is nothing more than "because we can" was. In the case of tracking cell phone without warrant in the United States, which was effectively turn every mobile phone into a government monitoring system, the justification was even stranger: "because the information was entrusted to a third party (mobile phone provider), no warrant is required. " This position is staggering.
Imagine that in an analog equivalent rights perspective, the assertion that the private information entrusted to a third party has no legal protection. If this were true, libraries would make your borrowing history to the request, the Postal Service would open letters in transit without warrants, and telephony providers leave law enforcement to listen to anything, because it was entrusted to a third party. But we know that this is not the case. In fact, we know exactly the opposite to be the case. So, governments have turned to different avenues to erode and especially eliminating privacy.
Instead, "wiretapping" is a concept that has expanded horrifically scope to cover all of the above and more. It is used to mean "listen to conversations between two people." Today, that means "look what you do on your own, on your own reading and thinking practically." Never before has a government could observe that the reading someone's journal articles, for how long and in what order. This is justified as "due process of ordinary law" when it is something quite irregular and unprecedented power . Government
I have long advocated for analog equivalent rights is not a difficult concept to grasp. if an activity has been protected as private when exercised with analog technology, the same activity is also protected when using digital technology. in other words, our children should have rights to privacy at least as strong as our parents. Unfortunately, we are orders of magnitude of this Point today.
Our children today do not know what it's like to hold a private conversation. They do not know what it is to be untracked for things you buy. Or the things that you consider buying, but do not . What information you are looking for, what information you read, what information you pass on and share. What information you store on your phone, tab or notebook for later use, and when you bring it back, and along with that. Children growing up today are already conditioned to these areas being without privacy, which means they are far from having the rights and freedoms that our forefathers fought, bled, and even died to give us.
The only way children can now have a private conversation is if they learned proper encryption. Governments have demonstrated again and again that they can not be trusted to protect our freedoms against themselves.
appeal decision this week, however, was a step in the right direction to analog equivalent rights. Meanwhile, privacy remains your own responsibility.
0 Komentar