We’re facing a war — not on terrorism, not on drugs. This war concerns our right to privacy, and we’re losing. (A strikeout, for anyone keeping score.)
Last week, Tyler Clementi, a Rutgers University freshman, committed suicide after his roommate and an accomplice illicitly broadcast footage of Clementi’s sexual encounter with another man. Tragically, this case isn’t unique. Clementi is one of an increasing number of students who have been victimized by cyberbullying via text, instant messenger and other media.
Technology can be used as a check on the abuse of power and, conversely, to visously abuse someone. When breaches of privacy occur, where do we turn for regulation or sentencing?
Do we even have a right to privacy?
There’s no right to privacy in the Constitution. Not explicitly, that is. It’s within our capability to insert it, although, the Tea Party- trembling Democrats and the Eric Can’t-or (won’t) Republicans couldn’t collaborate to pass gas, much less an addition that bold.
An amended constitutional right to privacy could garner bipartisan support by assuaging conservatives’ desire for minimal government, while appeasing liberals by solidifying female autonomy over their bodies. Bipartisan or not, the complexity of privacy issues demands a constitutional framework.
An explicit, expansive, right to privacy couldn’t possibly account for all potential privacy violations in future technology. It’d be foolish to claim it could. However, we’d at least have parameters to work from, which could deter bullies like Clementi’s roommate by making privacy as sacrosanct as free speech.
Instead, we live in a legal vacuum. Our privacy rights hinge in the courtroom on the whims of a single judge. Gridlocked legislatures are unable to keep pace with rapid technological growth, so our judicial system weathers the challenge. Yet even judges are ill-equipped to confront these issues with no clear precedent or constitutional relevance.
Closer to home, a Maryland man was recently acquitted after filming a routine traffic pullover. “[Circuit Court Judge Emory] Plitt cited the videotaped recording of the Rodney King beating in Los Angeles and the explosion of ‘rapid fire information technology’ to note that virtually anyone in a public place should expect their actions could be recorded and broadcast,” according to the Baltimore Sun.
Important clarification: rights to privacy shouldn’t be blanket. Public figures should forfeit much of their privacy. And while police should have reasonable rights to record, citizens should be afforded a comparable level for their protection.
Even closer to home, the Obama administration is expected to advocate for expansion of wiretapping (Skype, Facebook, etc.) according to The New York Times. “The bill, which the Obama administration plans to submit to lawmakers next year, raises fresh questions about how to balance security needs with protecting privacy and fostering innovation.” Under the guise of national security and without a constitutional impediment, he will likely have as much trouble as LeBron James dunking. Not the kind of ‘change’ I was ‘hoping’ for.
Privacy issues permeate our daily lives and no attention is being paid to assess the root of the problem. As essential as a detailed right to privacy in the Constitution is, it needs to be augmented by an evolving standard of decency. A privacy amendment should designate different standards to distinguish public officials, celebrities, regular Joe’s, etc.
Privacy rights are complex, and while there’s no universal definition, you can’t build a house before you lay the foundation.
Conor Shapiro is a graduate student in the School of International Service and a liberal columnist.
edpage@theeagleonline.com
