Case Study (Email Privacy) Technology Case Study Essay

Email Privacy
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation

Email Privacy
In the digital era, the use of electronic devices and communication is ubiquitous. Many people have embraced current technologies without asking themselves whether they have a right to privacy or not. Based on the constitution, individuals have the right against unreasonable seizures and searches. However, Mark Rasch argues that the right to privacy does not cover stored electronic communications. During the hearing of the United States v. Warshak in 2007, the Court of Appeal gave the government the right to access people’s electronic communication. In other words, the government can subpoena everyone’s copies of their email in the same way they can do to physical mails. The author asserts that the primary issue is the loss of electronic privacy, where the state can read individuals’ emails without a warrant.
In Katz v. United States case of 1963, the Supreme Court ruled that a payphone user has the right to privacy of the communication contents. The ruling was made after referring to the Fourth Amendment that says “houses, effects, places, and people are protected against unreasonable seizures and searches” (Rasch, 2007). In that case, the government must provide a warrant before accessing anyone’s properties. When it comes to electronic communications, the court implemented two-pronged tests. First, one must ask herself or himself whether what one is doing is private or not. Second, will society accept that a person’s belief is objectively reasonable? Rasch claims that the most significant issue with the right to privacy when it comes to electronic communications is the “reasonable expectation of privacy.” For example, a person should not expect privacy to be retained in her or his communication by using unsecured analog cell phone, cordless telephone, or a WIFI router. Consequently, there exists no constitutional prohibition that restrict the government from accessing individuals’ electronic content when they are using unsecured medium of communication.
Rasch seems worried after knowing that the constitution only safeguard people’s “reasonable expectations of privacy.” If individuals fail to have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” to their email, it means that anyone can examine the contents of their electronic communications. Moreover, the Fourth Amendment does not protect them (Rasch, 2007). Currently, many firms have a business policy that warns employees from using the company’s supplied network for individual gains or things outside the scope of work. Others have implemented an employee monitoring policy, which permits an organization to check the contents of workers’ email. In the above scenarios, employees have no expectation of privacy, which means that their employers can access their email any time they want. As a result, privacy rights in electronic ...