written by Aizat.
Biometric identification, video surveillance, Web tracking, and data mining are definitely without question, things that the framer wouldn't have the capabilities to imagine beyond what he or she could expect as the constitutions are built a long time ago. To put it simple, this is what the true power of technological innovations which before this people seem to take them lightly although in reality we know that they are an ever-expanding technologies. In this case, how far the constitutions are now going to protect us as citizen from such superior innovations? As Lessig points out, he regards constitution as an architecture which not just legal text but a way of life that structures and constrains social and legal power, to the end of protecting fundamental values. One of these fundamental values that I'm trying to stress out since the beginning is privacy. A massive development in the technological innovations has stripped out our privacy to the extent one can knows every single step that we do, where we are and even more extreme, what are we planning to do next. Can such things being considered as legitimate actions? "One of the first booms for the homeland security industry was surveillance cameras, 4.2 millions of which have been installed in Britain, one for every fourteen people, and 30 million in the United States, shooting about 4 billion hours of footage a year," writes Naomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine. Klein goes on to claim that "[w]ho's going to watch 4 billion hours of footage a year" (Klein 302). That once again triggers the inventors to create software that presumably can solve this problem. However, it turns out that this software creates more formidable problems that put one's privacy at a severe state. This condition shows that technological developments have gone far enough to outlaw the human right, right to maintain privacy as clearly stated in the constitutions.
Thanksgiving is not just one day of the year!!
-
Freedom of speech is one of those things in life that people will continue
to take for granted until it is no longer present. Only when our freedom
approac...
17 years ago
1 comment:
written by: Lily Syafikah Mansor
As addition to what Aizat wrote, privacy is sometimes related to ambiguity, the wish to remain unnoticed or unidentified in the public realm. When something is private to a person, it usually means there is something within them that is considered inherently special or personally sensitive. Privacy also can be seen as an aspect of security. Many countries' privacy laws or in constitutions is about protection of the right against unsanctioned invasion of privacy by the government or others. In some countries individual privacy may conflict with freedom of speech laws and some laws may require public disclosure of information which would be considered private in other countries and cultures. Different people, cultures, and nations have a wide variety of expectations about how much privacy a person is entitled to or what constitutes an invasion of privacy. There are several types of privacy such as physical, informational and organizational privacy. Physical privacy could be defined as preventing "intrusions into one's physical space or solitude. An example of the legal basis for the right to physical privacy would be the US Fourth Amendment, which guarantees "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures", like Lessig wrote in Code. Most countries have laws regarding trespassing and property rights also determine the right of physical privacy. Informational privacy is wherever uniquely identifiable data relating to a person or persons are collected and stored, in digital form or otherwise. Government's agencies, corporations, and other organizations may desire to keep their activities or secrets from being revealed to other organizations or individuals. This is known as organizational privacy.
Post a Comment