Recently in Livonia, Michigan, the Detroit Police followed Terry Bowling and his brother David Bowling to a house they were burglarizing by tracking them with GPS without securing a warrant first. This resulted in a gunfight in which both David Bowling and a police officer were killed. Terry Bowling is now facing a second-degree murder charge (30 years in prison). The issue in this article is whether or not the police should have been able to use GPS tracking without a warrant. Law enforcement argues, in favor of the free use of GPS tracking, that in the choice between keeping society safe or respecting the privacy of citizens, safety is more important. On the other hand, critics of this issue claim that the use of GPS technology is not objectionable, but rather the “lack of judicial oversight and the extended lengths of time the devices are often used” is concerning.
The AoK issue in this article is ethics. Despite the benefits of being able to keep innocent citizens safe with the use of GPS tracking, does this invasion of privacy overrule the need to adhere to the Fourth Amendment? However, if a state does not require the procurement of a warrant for GPS tracking, then the government will be able to monitor any citizen, not just criminals, and simply say that it is for the people’s safety. The idea that stems from this issue is that the sufferings of a few individuals are justifiable by the fact that it will help a greater amount of people. It clearly produces the moral dilemma of allowing the harm of certain people to benefit others. On the other hand, if the police are simply tracking the suspects, then technically, there is no physical harm. It could be argued that this new method of tracking people is essentially the same as the old way of monitoring suspects, which was physically following the person around. GPS tracking simply allows the police to monitor suspects from a remote and safer place for a longer period of time.
Another issue is the language problem of defining what constitutes as an invasion of privacy. Critics of GPS tracking without a warrant stress that when law enforcement uses this technology, they are able to see intimate details such as whether the person is going to see a psychiatrist, attends church, or goes to an Alcohol Anonymous meeting. If GPS tracking were to not provide these details, would that make it okay to track suspects? Or is it still an invasion of privacy to just know where a person is at all times through this technology?
I support the use of GPS technology to monitor suspects, but I disagree with allowing law enforcement to do so without first obtaining a warrant. I think that whenever new technology that is potentially harmful to people is produced, there should be regulations to ensure that the potential is eliminated.
Another recent event that has issues with determining the moral lines of whether doing something to benefit public or private interests is the pending release of 1000 Palestinian prisoners for one Israeli soldier – Staff Sergeant Galid Shalit. It is arguable that the Israeli government is failing to see the need to protect public interests in deciding to release 1000 prisoners, including some convicted killers. Is it moral to release potential dangers to society for the safety of someone close to you (in other words, for personal interest)?
Well done on summarizing the article in a concise manner. I think the critical question you raised about the issue of individual rights and collective security is an excellent question. However when addressing the root issue, you should further explore either one area, or way of knowing in more depths. For example you mentioned that there is a language problem in defining what constitutes as an invasion of privacy, but did not further elaborate on why this language issue occurs. Language itself is simply a tool or a method of categorization that represents a general concept. This general concept can be perceived differently by people with the influence of context. The reason why there is still an issue with defining privacy, even with the documentation of the fourth amendment is because privacy is such a vague concept that can also be altered with time. In modern time, privacy is typically perceived in a positive connotation. It is interesting that you support the use of GPS technology to monitor suspect. Who would constitute as a suspect? If any ordinary citizen can be monitored by the government under any suspicion how is this different from censorship that the American government often criticize the Chinese government for? It seems that this decision could be a prelude to more serious government intervention in the private lives of individuals.
ReplyDeleteI think this was a very powerful topic. Nowadays people rely so much on technology and don't realise the detriments of doing so. Your analysis was very thoughtful; however, you should go into more depth about the language issue. Delving deeper into the topic will allow other people to understand what you mean about 'invasion of personal space'.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, warrants are needed to examine an area (e.g. searching the area for dangerous weaponry, drugs, e.t.c and for arrests), so they will not technically be necessary when tracking other people. If that were true, all the companies on the iPhone would need to have warrants instead of asking their users to "grant permission".
Overall, I understand the seriousness of your topic and the implications of 'tracking' people. Also, your related topic is rather terse; I don't really see how it relates to your overall topic.
I think a warrant *is* necessary to track down other people. A search warrant is required mostly to protect the Fourth Amendment, which is "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...". If the police were to track down other people, it would totally make them vulnerable and not secure at all with whatever they are doing. According to the news article that Mika wrote her post on, the GPS devices can tell investigators "such intimate details as whether a person is seeing a psychiatrist, having an affair, goes to Alcoholics Anonymous..." and more. This completely violates their privacy. I don't think it would be hard for the investigators to be granted a search warrant, either, but then again I'm sure the police officers were in a hurry (as they quickly planted the GPS device under the criminals' car bumper) and couldn't have had enough time to ask for a search warrant. Still, although the police claim to use this method purely on criminals, one can imagine how far the government might take this in the future... Technology will always become more and more advanced and newer devices will be invented. Even now, we are worried about colleges and possible future employers checking on our Facebook pages. Many of us may put all of our photos and information on private, but apparently companies and universities can still access our data. It's frightening to know that, in my opinion. Facebook even has a new function where you can "check-in" where you are with your friends for everyone to see. Whenever you're dealing with technology, you always need to make sure your privacy is protected.
ReplyDeleteI think that one example that relates to this issue is the telephone wiretapping by the American government without the consent of the other party. Although not specifically stated in the Constitution, over the years, the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to privacy is part of human rights, so part of the 9th Amendment. So in theory, telephone wiretapping should be illegal, but during the Bush administration, a legislation was passed that relives the requirement of obtaining a warrant when intercepting any intelligence activity through U.S. networks in order to detect or prevent any terrorist attack. So is sacrificing the rights of privacy for some individuals worth it in order to protect the safety of the majority? Some argue that this creates more unfettered power to an administration that has no respect for citizens' right to privacy, but others argue that what is necessary has to be done in order to secure the American people.
ReplyDeleteWell chosen article and good job on steps one, two, and four. I think you could elaborate a bit more on step three and so you could draw out the knowledge issue on itself away from the article. Looking at the language problem from another perspective, I think the problem is defining the word safety. Many times we hear the government or corporate companies justify their actions with 'protecting the people', but what does that really mean? A dictionary definition suggests the act of protecting is preventing injury or harm. In this article, no one could really tell whether the police's action would've protected more people if they haven't tracked the Bowling brother's gps system. This suggests a limitation in our ways of knowing because humans don’t have the physical ability to experience both scenarios and instead, we rely on reasoning and imagination to create the other scenario for comparison and analysis.
ReplyDelete