Constitutional Issues – Right to Privacy | COMPLIANT PAPERS

Constitutional Issues – Right to Privacy

Published by admin at August 12, 2022

Categories

Accounting

Tags

Constitutional Issues - Right to Privacy

Prior to beginning work on this discussion, read the Smith (2013) (Links to an external site.) and Kerr (2012) (Links to an external site.) articles and watch the Privacy protection in today’s society video segment below:

The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has traditionally applied to tangible materials: home, car, purse, personal belongings, etc. This Amendment states in pertinent part, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” In your 400 word minimum initial post, examine how this well over 200 year old amendment applies to the Internet and cyber crime investigations by addressing the following areas.

Explain how the 4th Amendment applies to non-tangible materials, such as the Internet, emails, and social media applications.
Analyze the “reasonable expectation of privacy” for individuals and corporations when utilizing the Internet.
Summarize the limits on governmental powers and methods to obtain private information from people and corporations garnered through the Internet.
Evaluate exceptions to the warrant requirement that police agencies can use to prosecute Internet crime.

The Fourth Amendment was drafted and ratified at a time when all of a person`s possessions were tangible. Now, privacy concerns must adapt to technological advances and these concerns also relate to the data stored in cyberspace. Today, the Fourth Amendment permits law enforcement to search and seize papers in criminal investigations. When it comes to digital devices, moreover, magistrate judges now routinely issue warrants authorizing police of federal agents to seize suspects` digital devices and search every nook and cranny. If the agents seek even one incriminating document, they often enjoy the power to open every file and folder, and review metadata, location data, and deleted data. Most magistrates meet this particularity requirement by listing the electronic device as the thing to be seized.

lth can go to war, but more importantly, “the prince” where he has “the natural order” according to Augustine, and all authority is given to him. This is further supported by Aristotle’s Politics ((1996), Page 28): ‘a king is the natural superior of his subjects.’ However, he does later emphasise to put all faith in the prince is wrong and has consequences; a thorough examination of the cause of war is required along with the willingness to negotiate rival party (Begby et al (2006b), Page 312& 318). This is supported by the actions of Hitler are deemed unjustly. Also, in today’s world, wars are no longer fought only by states but also non-state actors like Al-Queda and ISIS, showing Vittola’s normative claim on authority is outdated. This is further supported by Frowe’s claim that the leader needs to represent the people’s interests, under legitimate authority, which links on to the fourth condition: Public declaration of war. Agreed with many, there must be an official announcement on a declaration of war (Frowe (2011), Page 59-60&63).
Finally, the most controversial condition is that wars should have a reasonable chance of success. As Vittola reiterated, the aim of war is to establish peace and security; securing the public good. If this can’t be achieved, Frowe argues it would be better to surrender to the enemy. This can be justified because the costs of war would have been bigger (Frowe (2011), Page 56-7).
Consequently, jus ad bellum comprises several conditions but most importantly: just cause and proportionality. This gives people a guide whether it’s lawful to enter a war or not. However, this is only one part of the theory of the just war. Nevertheless, it can be seen above that jus ad bellum can be debated throughout, showing that there is no definitive theory of a just war, as it is normatively theorised.

Jus in bello

The second section begins deciphering jus in bello or what actions can we classify as permissible in just wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 323).
First, it is never just to intentionally kill innocent people in wars, supported by Vittola’s first proposition. This is widely accepted as ‘all people have a right not to be killed’ and if a soldier doe

This question has been answered.

Get Answer

Testimonials

Awesome Writers

When I ordered my paper, even me i couldn’t understand some of the things the professor needed. My writer first tutored me to ensure we were on the same page, and proceeded to deliver a masterpiece. It was too good to be true. I still use this site hitherto.

McCarty

Wiley