The Right to Privacy

1. The constitutional foundation for the right to privacy is multifaceted. However, this right is implicit to the right of liberty guaranteed by this document. In particular, privacy is a manifestation of the civil liberties which all citizens are assured of in the U.S. Constitution. The preamble to the constitution states this fact. The preamble reveals the Constitution was created in part to “secure the Blessings of Liberty” (Founding Fathers). The blessings of liberty quickly become a curse if there is no privacy.

If people were able to see and become cognizant of everything everyone did, then people are not necessarily free or experiencing a state of liberty. Privacy, therefore, is implicit to liberty, which is why the constitutional defense of this concept provides the foundation for the right to privacy. There are other parts of the constitution which provide a foundation to the right of privacy as it relates to civil liberties. Specifically, certain amendments in the Bill of Rights were established to ensure the right of civil liberties.

Again, the right to privacy is implicit in this part of the constitution. For instance, the first amendment enables the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech. Without privacy, these rights are meaningless. If everyone were privy to everything one said, people would have to considerably limit their speech to keep from offending others or incurring their disfavor. Thus, there is an element of privacy involved in the freedom of speech, as well as in the freedom to practice religion.

The fact that the constitution specifically outlines these civil rights roots means that the right to privacy is foundational to the constitution itself. 2. I definitely believe that there is a right to privacy. I also think that such a right is inalienable, and deserves preservation for all citizens. The right to privacy is one of the more important rights people have (Doshi) because there are some aspects of life which only concern individuals, as opposed to the state designed to protect them.

There are many different aspects of a person, his or her preferences, and his or her daily activities that are simply of no consequence to the public sector. Therefore, there is no need for them to become known to the state or to the general population at large. The social contract that is reinforced by the government is for citizens to obey the law. So long as they do so, the government has measures to punish those who impinge on the law.

In doing so it is effectively protecting those citizens who obey the law. Those who choose to obey the law should thus have the right to privacy. Again, if what they are doing in their private laws is infringing any sort of legal codes, then the government is at liberty to take action against them. But if they are not breaking any laws, no one other than the individual and whoever he or she chooses to notify should know anything about that person’s life.

The Supreme Court has said as much about the right to privacy, which is why the author of this document agrees with that legal entity about this matter. The Supreme Court’s rulings on the subject have a significant amount to do with the distinction between privacy and legal transgressions. If the latter are not involved, then what one chooses to do with one’s life should be kept as private as one would have it be. 3.

In retrospect, it certainly appears Edward Snowden is much more of a heroic whistleblower than he is a traitor who compromised the ability of the government to protect its citizens. Snowden was able to propagate unequivocal evidence that the government was prying into the private lives of its civilians (Frontline). Moreover, he was able to do so by informing the world that some of the fundamental components of basic electronic communication on the internet--specifically email--is used to monitor the activities of people who use this medium.

The example of Snowden is so important because there should be limits to the government's propensity for monitoring civilians in their private lives. It proves that the certain facets of the government believe that the converse is true--that there should be limits on the rights of privacy for citizens. However, basic civil liberties should remain inviolable. The right to privacy is implicit to many of these civil liberties.

Snowden was exposing the government's non-compliance with this fact, and also the covert way in which it was flouting basic tenets of privacy (Wired). The crux of the matter is that as a society, we should not willingly give up any of.