There are many arguments that can be made arguing for the right to privacy of digital communications. One I find particularly compelling is the tying of privacy rights to the presumption of innocence.
As it relates to digital privacy, we might say that the presumption of innocence implies that the government cannot collect or monitor digital communication without compelling reason to believe that the target is guilty of a crime. In practice this would mean that law enforcement has taken charges to the court and that warrants have been made with respect to suspicion of guilt.
One clear example in the U.S. of the violation of these basic rights is the so-called FISA Amendments Act of 2008 which retroactively made legal the warrentless wiretapping of U.S. citizens done during the Bush administration, and has seen continued support to date from the U.S. Congress and the Obama administration.
As it relates to digital privacy, we might say that the presumption of innocence implies that the government cannot collect or monitor digital communication without compelling reason to believe that the target is guilty of a crime. In practice this would mean that law enforcement has taken charges to the court and that warrants have been made with respect to suspicion of guilt.
One clear example in the U.S. of the violation of these basic rights is the so-called FISA Amendments Act of 2008 which retroactively made legal the warrentless wiretapping of U.S. citizens done during the Bush administration, and has seen continued support to date from the U.S. Congress and the Obama administration.
Do you know of any articles that talk about the presumption of innocence being violated from lack of digital privacy?
ReplyDelete