1

Maryanne Martini
Padgett
English 102
April 5, 2016
Privacy in the Twenty-First Century

Comment [CR1]: No italics in you title.

Over two hundred years a go there was no such thing as a light bulb much less an iPhone,
or a computer, or any other way to communicate other than a pen and a piece of paper. There
were no data clouds that hold millions of peoples personal information and there was definitely

Comment [CR2]: I like where you go with this but be

careful with this kind of intro. It sounds very much like the
since the beginning of time intro that English professors
hate.

not a way to hack into peoples telephones or emails. James Madison did not know about any of
these new forms of technology when constructing the fourth amendment, which is the only

Comment [CR3]: Capitalize any amendment or article of

the Constitution

amendment in the United States constitution that directly addresses privacy. The fourth
amendment states, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall
issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation (Fourth Amendment). This

Comment [CR4]: Make sure that this is the best way to

cite this. Check with OWL Purdue

amendment does not adequately protect the rights of those who use technology and have
different ways of storing their personal information. Edward Snowden revealed this to the world
when he exposed that the NSA was listening to phone calls and seeing recipients of emails of
everyday Americans. Apple, who creates half of the phones in citizens pockets today, does not
have the ability to reveal to the government their customers personal information whether that
person is a terrorist or not. To reform privacy demands the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act of 1986, that is supposed to protect our fourth amendment rights and keep law enforcement
in check, needs to be amended. In todays digital age, the privacy of United States citizens
should be a larger factor than the federal governments surveillance of data.

Comment [CR5]: Now theres a position.

2
When Edward Snowden revealed to the world that the American government had been

listening in on phone conversations and looking into the senders and recipients of emails of
everyday citizens the public was shocked. Before the Snowden leaks American citizens had no
idea they were being spied on by the government from their cell phones. Snowden was a former
CIA employee and government contractor who revealed that telecommunication companies had
been cooperating with the government to conduct secret surveillance programs to catch terrorists
(EDITORIAL - Apple vs. the FBI). The Record Journal analyzes how since Americans have

Comment [CR6]: If there is an authors name on the

article, I would use that. If not, then I would stick with this.

received this unsettling news consumers became more jealous of their privacy (EDITORIAL Apple vs. the FBI). Recently a federal appeals court ruled that the telephone metadata collection
program is illegal under the Patriot Act (Vogue). The court found that section 215 of the US

Comment [CR7]: Capitalize

Patriot Act has for years been secretly interpreted to authorize the collection of Americans
phone records on an unprecedented scale. It was found that the NSA has repeatedly engaged in

Comment [CR8]: Cite this

legal violations in section 215 and other surveillance authorities (The Pro And Cons Of The
NSA's Domestic Surveillance Program). Vogue writes that, the Court did not address the larger
question of whether the program is constitutional (Vogue). While this phone program was
reportedly only used for counter-terrorism investigation one might be concerned over the fact
that the government can see who American citizens are calling, the length of the call, and the
person who originated the call.
There are some people who believe that the government has every right to look into the
private lives of citizens. Gerald Walpin served as inspector general under President George W.
Bush and is the author of The Supreme Court vs. the Constitution. Walpin argues that the NSA
surveillance is necessary because it does not take away any of our constitutional rights as United
States citizens. The NSA is needed to prevent attacks such as 9/11 and the Boston Marathon

Comment [CR9]: Awkward working here. Consider

revision.

bombing from happening. The author argues that the NSA having telephone numbers and email
addresses could determine whether someone is innocent or not. The author uses many examples
to back up his claims. The Federalist Papers, the bible of the constitutions meaning, warns of
those who take rights of the people to oppose the governments efforts of defeating an enemy
that is trying to destroy us (Walpin). The author says this applies to everyone who is against the
NSA phone breech program. Walpin also says that the surveillance program is constitutional
because the Supreme Court has always held that such information like telephone conversations
and email addresses are not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Walpins argument does not
agree that the NSAs phone surveillance program is a breech of privacy for United States citizens
because he reads the constitution word for word and does not take into consideration the changes
that have happened over time. While the NSAs phone program could be a measure of safety that
could provide information for tracking terrorists, it should not come before the privacy wanted
by citizens.
An example of the government problem of not having standard digital privacy laws is a
recent court case that involves Apple and the FBI. This is the first of many issues that will
develop in the twenty-first century without set privacy laws put into place. A writer for the Hays
Daily News, Gene Policinski, says this case is the, first step in figuring out where new
boundaries that protect core freedoms will exist in a wireless, digital age (Policinski). The
Record Journal discusses the argument between Apple and the FBI that is about unlocking an
iPhone that the FBI has acquired during a recent case. Apple has recently updated their security
systems so the FBI needs the help of the company to crack the code to an iPhone. This change in
the system that protects the security of every person with an iPhone made it nearly impossible for
hackers and the FBI to get into the updated phones. The Record Journal says that Apple changed

Comment [CR10]: A quote would be good here before

you attack

their security systems after the NSAs reported telephone privacy breech and saw the spying as a
marketing opportunity. The court order came after the FBI found the phone of a terrorist who
shot and killed fourteen people and injured twenty-two in San Bernardino, California. Apple has
refused court orders to unlock the iPhone because Apple is fighting to protect the civil liberties

Comment [CR11]: I know its common knowledge right

now but it would be helpful to get into the habit of citing
statements of fact like this.

of its customers (EDITORIAL - Apple vs. the FBI). Apples CEO, Tim Cook, wrote a letter
published to the Apple website discussing the need for encryption and the San Bernardino Case.
He writes, the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and
something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the
iPhone (Customer Letter - Apple). A backdoor or key to the security encryption of an iPhone
does not exist today and if put in the wrong hands would be detrimental to society and the safety
of personal information. Apple is refusing these claims against the All Writs Act, which provides
that federal courts may order anyone to help authorities investigate crimes (EDITORIAL - Apple
vs. the FBI). Apple argues that the All Writs Act is not as broad as the government claims and if
Apple does this for the FBI it will have to comply with other investigations. The All Writs Act is
another piece of legislation that needs to be revised by the Supreme Court to clarify the murky
area of privacy laws that go with owning a piece of technology.
As these sources reveal there are many problems that have been created today because of
new technology. The government and lawmakers do not have specific standards to follow when
deciding on legislation and deciding on cases. The Albany Law Journal of Science and
Technology published an article by Andrew Bagley that discusses the Fourth Amendment law
and how concepts of the law have different expectations of online privacy. While this is a broad
statement, the writer focuses in on the legal issues that have arisen following the NSA Terrorist
Surveillance Program. The subject of Bagleys article is Congress push to change the Electronic

Comment [CR12]: Last name would be better here.

Communications Privacy Act. This Act was enacted in 1986 before the time of iPhones and
digital data storage. The specifics for the ECPA at the time it was created were standards for
law enforcement access to electronic communications and associated data, affording important
privacy protections to subscribers of emerging wireless and internet technologies (Digital Due
Process: Who We Are). Technology has changed so much over the past twenty years that the
needs for this kind of doctrine have changed dramatically. There have been no revisions of the
EPCA since 1986 and as a result, it has been interpreted in different ways by the courts. Big
businesses are affected by privacy policies too and Google even chose to voluntarily provide data
to the NSA with hopes that it would boost its own security (Bagley). The country needs a
doctrine that can protect the huge amount of personal information that is made today by digital
communication services. While it sounds like this act needs to be put into place to keep the
government in check it also needs to be flexible enough so that the government can do its job
too. This act needs to create a balance of keeping personal information protected and letting the
government track cyber-criminals and sexual predators who are trying to seize this kind of
information (Digital Due Process: Who We Are). The Digital Due Process Organization is
working to reform the EPCA so it can provide stronger privacy protections for communication. It
is made up of a number of privacy advocates and major companies that are working together to
lobby to the courts about the issue.
Since the ECPA was created the changes in digital communication have been endless.
Email has become a staple in Americans professional and private lives and many people have
years of saved email that is stored on computers of service providers. GPS and mobile location
services have come so far that people can know where one is at any point in the day based on the
cell phones location. This location data is stored and saved in logs and files that can reveal a

Comment [CR13]: This is starting to feel like a

redundant statement at this point. I know it is the crux of
your thesis, but consider way to restate it.

persons movements which can be a real value for law enforcement. Cloud computing is
common within businesses that store important data in a cloud that makes it easier to share
information. Social networking is perhaps the biggest digital communication development in the
past years that allow millions of people to share information with friends. All of this is important
because the EPCA does not have set standards for these important tools of communication. The
EPCA as it is now states that a document that is stored on a computer is protected by the warrant
requirement of the Fourth Amendment but the same document stored with a service provider or
in the cloud may not be subject to the warrant requirement (Digital Due Process: Who We Are).
There are no standards for government or law enforcement access to location information on
cellphones. Without reform, records from email, social networking posts, cloud documents, cell
phone location information, and text messages that are older than one hundred and eighty days
can be seized without a warrant (The Aall Government Relations Committee). The solution to

Comment [CR14]: ?

these unclear standards is to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act to set an
understood set of rules for government and law enforcement access to digital information.
In todays digital age of iPhones and iClouds, it is necessary that the privacy of United
States citizens is held at a higher standard than the federal governments surveillance of data.

Comment [CR15]: Use the word be here if you want

the sentence to flow

Recent events such as the NSAs telephone breech and Apples want for privacy of its customers

Comment [CR16]: This feels awkward and confuses the

point. Consider rewording.

indicates that there needs to be reform in privacy laws. The Electronic Communications Privacy
Act is a start to this reform but needs to be updated to keep up with the new technology that has
been created in the past twenty years. In a survey completed by the Pew Research Center, 93%
of Americans say that being in control of who can get information about them is important
(Americans' Attitudes About Privacy, Security and Surveillance). This reflection emphasizes the
need for a change. The Fourth Amendment cannot be the only law that the criminal justice

Comment [CR17]: Pew usually has a writer associated

with their articles and studies

system looks to for support of cases like Apple vs. the FBI. The Fourth Amendment was not
created in a time where terrorists are using iPhones and clouds to plan their attacks. An
American business should feel secure about the confidentiality of their emails or files that are
stored with service providers. In order to have a safer, more secure digital communications
platform that Americans can trust with all of their personal information there needs to be a
change.
Comments:
1) I would go back and take a good look at your citations. Im no MLA expert, but I think
you can make your in-text citations more uniform in nature.
2) Your stance is very clear. But it is also repeated in very similar ways throughout the
body. Certainly keep it present in the paper, but dont let it become repetitive.
3) Good job of using multiple points of view.
4) There is a clear synthesis of the information. But I am worried about your paper hinging
on only two specific cases with Snowden and Apple. You can go further with the apple
side of things. Look for statistics on the number times that the federal government and
state governments have tired to access encrypted phones through less that legal means. It
happened a lot and there are statistics out there on it that would greatly strengthen your
paper.
5) The paper works well, but could use polishing of language.

Comment [CR18]: Wording can be stronger

Maryanne Martini
Padgett
English 102
April 5, 2016

Comment [CR19]: Dont need this.

Works Cited
"Americans' Attitudes About Privacy, Security and Surveillance." Pew Research Center Internet
Science Tech RSS. N.p., 20 May 2015. Web. 04 Apr. 2016.
Bagley, Andrew William. "Don't Be Evil: The Fourth Amendment in the Age of Google,
National Security, and Digital Papers and Effects." Albany Law Journal of Science &
Technology 21.1 (2011): 153-192.
Chideya, Farai. "The Big Issues Of The 2016 Campaign." FiveThirtyEight. N.p., 19 Nov. 2015.
COLE, DAVID. "SnowdenS Vindication." Nation 300.22 (2015): 4. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 24 Mar. 2016.
"Customer Letter - Apple." Apple. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2016.
"Digital Due Process: Who We Are." Digital Due Process: Who We Are. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Apr.
2016.
"EDITORIAL - Apple vs. the FBI." Record-Journal (Meriden, CT) 29 Feb. 2016, Main: A04.
NewsBank.
"Fourth Amendment." LII / Legal Information Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2016.
Perez, Evan, and Tim Hume. "Apple Opposes Order to Hack Gunman's Phone." CNN. Cable
News Network, n.d.
Policinski, Gene. "Where are privacy, national security limits in new Digital Age?." Hays Daily
News, The (KS) 28 Feb. 2016, A: 04. NewsBank.

Stigations., Written by The Aall Government Relations Committee, and (20 Aall Contact: Emily
Feltren. Reforms to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (n.d.): n. pag. American
Association of Law Libraries. Mar. 2015. Web. 4 Apr. 2016.
"The Pro And Cons Of The NSA's Domestic Surveillance Program." Congressional Digest 94.10
(2015): 12-31. Academic Search Complete. Web. 4 Apr. 2016.
Vogue, Ariane De. "Court Rules NSA Program Illegal." CNN. Cable News Network, n.d.
Walpin, Gerald. "We Need NSA Surveillance." National Review Online. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Mar.
2016.