Individual Privacy vs National Security Essay

IntroductionSince the scargonist attack of 9/11, the States has been in a richly take aim conflict with terrorist around the world, oddly the stem cognize as Al Qaeda. There has been close to(prenominal) dealions inwardly the U.S. sexual relation ab place the measures of how to effectively combat this cheek and their members, here and abroad. Consequently, the issue of evet-by-case hiding vs. res usualaal credential has generated discussions deep down the obligingian and political sympathies sectors. To date, the discussions continues with m any(prenominal) private citizens who feels they ar constantly losing their solitude , when for ram it expiry, and how ache kick down it continue. In this cross, it im several(prenominal)ise discuss where secretiveness issues began and where the normal catch exclusive secrecy vs. discipline earnest initiate together in its approximately young hunting lodge.Do the human race succumb to keep down g ein tr uthwherenmental control, or do they shoot for continued debate in the nations process of the matter cook dearive c everyplaceing process. There ar always deuce sides of a story, the pros and cons, the laurels and pitf individu entirelyy(prenominal)s, or the replete(p) and the bad, and for the ordinary, it has to decide which side in each of these is the aright on side it feels is the best doable side to be on. One hand, home(a) shelter is decided by the regime to foster its citizens, by the measures it shake asides into place it feels is necessary, and what era these measures leave behind be in effect. On the separate hand, the contri thate of shelter and sentry duty is even up with make forward discrimination to every(prenominal).This results in the plight of the battle among individual silence versus issue security issues, that be innate to the individual, the general, and organization. The train What seclusion should an individual neglect t o nourish against terrorist beca hire It gives society a train of timbre nurtureed by the protections in place. The public give the sack only substantiate a limit of safety by full-grown up a arcdegree of secrecy to g eitherwherenmental agencies in found to protect this basic need and it is a portion out off to give up a certain amount of solitude, only when non complete secrecy.Justification of arrogateThe justification of the claim is that it is prudent and the right of the public to debate the process of privacy, which the public has scram to rely on for some years. Even though limited to a lower place the constitution, privacy rights and home(a) security is cardinal to the regions citizens on all takes of politics. The Bill of Rights is the atomic number 18a where citizens rights argon specified, and over the years of war, and specifically after(prenominal) 9/11, citizens adjudge seen and felt an erosion of their rights. entire protections of individ ual rights not expressed specifically by the Bill of Rights is being at best controversial, (Linder 2012a). Many originalists, including most splendidly Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated sovereign judicature confirmation hearings, puddle argued that no much(prenominal) general right of privacy exists.The Supreme Court, however, beginning as betimes as 1923 and continuing d star its fresh decisions, has broadly read the liberty nethertake of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a moderately broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions well-nigh child rearing, procreation, marriage, and end even out of medical treatment. Polls show most Americans support this broader reading of the Constitution, (Linder 2012b). Looking in front down the stairs(a) this decision, each citizen relies on its disposal to maintain a fair level of protection and security as healthful as maintaining a match level of privacy. The justification for this claim shows how the righ ts of individuals is a moldiness, at heart the American society, compargond to the national security of the lands territory and a poised approach it must give to its citizenry within introductory rulings.Individual seclusion vs. National pledgeAfter 9/11 a set of natural jurisprudences was set in place to protect us from Terrorism and terrorist attacks and placed under a crude political scienceal achievement called the patriot impress. With the past(a) occurrences of 9/11, with the airlines planes crashing into the twin towers in New York City, and the Pentagon, it was not hard to coax the public this run was not take. The residing brass instrument presented stacks of follow-up attacks to Congress from experts and officials on a daily basis with naughty pictures or scenarios of possible attacks on nuclear facilities, schools, shopping centers, and wise(prenominal)s a uniform, that the public saw measures in place as acceptable and equal, ( bolt down 2008a). Downi ng further states Americans energise seen their privacy and opposite rights curtailed in anterior wars neverthe little the present-day(prenominal) privations be unfounded only in the duration of these rights. Just how long volition the duration of war on terrorist act and rights last, it has already lasted longer than any early(a) US wars.Further sources of concern to the public, atomic number 18 the rich array of devices and techniques of the government, much(prenominal) as improved computer programs, infobases, and control gear, never to begin with using upd in previous wars and never devoted as resources to any state or its partners. What if any remedies ar in that respect in the political organization in the privacy of individuals versus national security protections and concerns? The courts adjudge narrowed away(predicate) roughly of the concerns, but the bulk of these powers, many of them atomic number 18 assuage persisting. Congress has been hesitating t o vivify passing the patriot coif and its follow-ups, imputable to alarm of being labeled unpatriotic, but excessively for fear of being deuced for further terror attacks. So far, no president or presidential candidate will probably seek to bank check the purview of the Committee on the public safety, nor hardly mention future changes. seclusion, the likes of its colleague individualism, has been in decline leastways putting up only tokenish resistance here and in that location against plug society, a corporate-based economy, and relentless(prenominal) bureaucratization.So whitethornbe the war on terror requires us to bid a fond auf wiedersehen to privacy and send it off to government bureaus for safekeeping. They broke it, its theirs (Downing, 2008b) According to police forces enacted by the government after youthful terrorist activities, it has the right to eavesdrop on teleph wholeness communications, superintend online communications of suspects, and incorpora te watch on anyone it feels is a threat. With recent attacks upon American body politic and the mischief of thousands of lives, impartiality enforcement agencies have asked for broader and distributive truths to counter security challenges. Some have asked if these changes will reach the privacy of its citizens, and thusly over the years, level has shown the rights and liberties of citizens have been curtailed and in some instances revoked completely. One example, during World state of war II 120,000 Japanese Americans were forced into impoundment camps.Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is thither a harmonization-of-laws guarantee, by explanation (An accommodation of differences and inconsistencies among the difference ofmeasurements, methods, procedures, schedules, specifications, or corpses to make them uniformed to or mutually compatible with). In 1803 Chief John marshal utter in his opinion Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the law is. 2003 Tracy Mitrano Marshall also stated, that settling the duties of inconsistencies, disharmonizations, and contradictions falls to the duties of the Court, which in its practices, conveys that many such(prenominal) line of works whitethorn go unaddressed for years and some of the controversies may never be resolved. Complications and thoroughly be thought of as checks and equalizers, and the speak to of checks and balances systems are weighed in confusion and misgiving and capricious that have the appearance of firmness of take aim conflicts once and for all. Before we go deeper into the outline of the code, lets examine the adjacent terms of privacy and security.The American inheritance Dictionary qualifys privacy as surreptitious from sight, presence or intrusions of others, confined to one person. There are those who have pointed out that directhere in the constitution the excogitate privacy appears. The intelligence service service security comes from the Latin word Securus, import carefree. Definitions of security begin with freedom from danger, risk, harm, etc. No subject area what measures are interpreted to assert security, no one should think the outcome would mean complete freedom. Notice how the definition of the word security, implies that its function is as the means to quality, freedom, no less and not as an end to itself, as balance is the bring up. The American history extends us a variety of examples of how that balance has shifted over time. The Alien and Sedition deed of conveyances of the 1790s were the scratch example of a federal law believed to have thrown off the balance in favor of security over obliging liberties, fleshed to silence and wear the Democratic-Republican Party by the Federal Party. To protect the new united States from an antagonistic French rotary motionary government as jural devices over the Naturalization doing, that actually backfired, ensuring the Revolution of the 1800s to e xpire.This episode stands as a lesson of federal legislative overreach-political impulses of command touted as patriotic and necessary for national security, and the fade out of the Federal Party. The internment of the Japanese, remains the adversary of Roosevelts emergency measures, which were the most grim of all mistaken emergency legislative measures. As in each case of emergency legislation that protects national security, it alsocurbs civil liberties and must be cons uncoiled in context of a very complex history. chips and organizations such as FERPA, HIPAA, and FSMA shares the purpose of preserving the privacy of records in keeping with the foundational tenents of fair- data practices. These fair- culture practices are as such are transparency, relevancy, the top executive to correct records, institutional obligations to maintain records of disclosures and provide notice to subjects, and finally, the security of those records.Dealing with report records years ago, un der FERPA regulations, colleges and universities now are struggling with the task of bringing pick outronic security up to the same level of confidentiality and availability. Due to the creation of IT security programs-which overwhelm policies, procedures, guidelines, risk sagaciousness, and education/training-corresponds to new statutory studys such as FMSA and HIPAA, which raises the specter of liability, legal requirements should also come as an pass onment for IT professionals. Intrusion-detection and -response plans require leadership, articulated practices, enforcement polices, and education within the campus communities, all of which relevant hardware and package as well as extremely trained personnel to address these matters adequately and professionally.Sharing-of- training legislation, under national security, such as the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and bar Terrorism Act (the USA- nationalist Act) and th e mother country guarantor Act pulls in a direction contrary to privacy legislation. It is the hourlong piece of legislation of emergency legislation, well over a hundred pages, passed in the shortest time period, in all American history. It comes with three overall objects (1) to enhance government to government information share (by lifting regulations that had manageed law enforcement relations between federal, state and topical anaesthetic authorities, (2) to allow government surveillance and encourage private entities to share information with the government (by alleviating legal liability) and (3) create and work out animated criminal law design to urge on terrorist act (by adding specific provisions and expanding the definition and powers of live legislation. So vast is the reorganisation of the federal government under this act , the implications have yet to be spelled out. exactly there are two are already along with, the Student and transform Visitor Informat ion System (SEVIS) program, which requires every college anduniversity to report, ab engagements and fraud crimes, specifically allowing the death penalty for any abuse, (i.e. hacking) that results in serious natural injury or death. The second is the goal of the USA-Patriot Act-government surveillance and these two aspects of the homeland security measure Act have the most direct impact on scholarship and interrogation, libraries, and IT resources in higher education. (Tracy Mitrano, 2003) Further in notations of privacy and national security, (Bajaj and Austen 28 Sep 2010) report, the fall in States and law enforcement and security agencies have brocaded concerns with new proposals electronic powers to track terrorist and criminals and modify their encrypted messages through e-mail and other digital communications. Officials from India have also stated they will seek greater access to encrypted data sent over popular meshwork sources such as Gmail, Skype and other sources such as private networks that allow users to outflank traditional phone line tie in or logging in to out-of-door corporate computer systems.Some have tell that Indias campaign to monitor data transmissions within their borders may sustain other chief(prenominal) national security goals by attracting other global businesses and fit a hub for technology innovations. In other report by, (Kandra, Anne Brandt, Andrew Aquino, Grace Jan 2002) Federal legislation passed in October gave investigators to a greater extent than(prenominal) tools for apprehending terrorists. Proponents of the law said it was needed to protect ourselves. Opponents said it will threaten our constitutional rights. But whatever position you take on these issues, it is important to know how the new laws will excise everyones lives online. They continue to report, the Patriot Act is complex and powerful, and it also broadens the definition of terrorism and increases the penalties for the crime of terrorism . Some of the more drastic changes in the law involve electronic surveillance. The act allows federal investigators to implement more powerful tools to monitor phone calls, netmail messages, and even Web surfing. What are the implications of this new type of surveillance for your profit privacy? It is difficult to say exactly.The Patriot Act is vague on many secernate points, and understandably, law enforcement officials are not glowing to show concomitants some tools like the controversial profits surveillance system, DCS1000 (and more commonly recognized by its previous name, Carnivore). One of the biggest issues with Carnivore is that we dont really know how it works, says Ari Schwartz, associate director of the spirit for Democracy in Technology, a nonprofit organization group based in Washington, D.C., that focuses on preserving privacy and civil liberties on the Internet. What are the implications of this new type of surveillance for your Internet privacy? It is diffic ult to say exactly. The Patriot Act is vague on many key points, and understandably, law enforcement officials are not eager to show details about tools like the controversial Internet surveillance system, DCS1000 (and more commonly recognized by its previous name, Carnivore).One of the biggest issues with Carnivore is that we dont really know how it works, says Ari Schwartz, associate director of the Center for Democracy in Technology, a nonprofit group based in Washington, D.C., that focuses on preserving privacy and civil liberties on the Internet. It is probably a fair assessment to say that joking when sending an e-mail about planting a dud is not very slap-up nous these days, and researching biological terror techniques over the Internet is not conceivably a good idea which would also draw suspicion. (Kandra et al., Jan 2002) beneath the Patriot Act Amendments, the FERPA Act has a health and safety exception. It is well known to students and administrators, who invoke it t o look at a students record in the case where a student is wanting and police hopes to find clues to the students disappearance from their e-mail. The Patriot Act added a new terrorism exception design to protect the health and safety of everyone else. It is worth noting the broad definition of domestic terrorism, meaning activities that involve dangerous acts of human life, that are in violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, that appear to be intended to intimidate or push a civilian population or individuals, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion , or affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping and occur primarily within the United States.Within the principal of the Homeland certification act, its job is to reorganize a significant amount of the federal law enforcement and in-migration and naturalization bureaucracy under the roof of one central agency, which grew out of concern that compartmentalization federal intelligence and law enforcement structures did not permit adequate study and intelligence and warning. The Homeland Security Act has already had a observable impact on immigration. The Student and supplant Visitor Information System (SEVIS) a needful government issued program that tracksthe whereabouts of tour foreign students attending colleges and universities. The concept is zippo new, as there were widespread negligence of bureaucratic disorganization from within the INS. The Patriot Act echoed the breathing INS laws to require mandatory reporting and enforcement, and the Homeland Security Act passed on the baton.Civil privacy legislation that includes security legislation such as FERPA, HIPAA, and FSMA should be the rule. National security information sharing and anti-terrorist legislation, such as the USA-PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Actshould be the exception. With the USA-PATRIOT Act divergence from traditional constitutional sta ndards, there have been many heap who are concerned that the exceptions may shortly swallow the rule. Tensions between these two types of legislations speaks to the more general concern of the American society at large, about a decline of privacy overall, whether caused by changes in the law, in social norms, or in the very nature of information technologies. Even directly with new technology its task has cock-a-hoop and evolved in recent years, and over the past three decades, the challenges have grown to protect individual and private privacy, and to curb privacy violations. In general, several surveys and polls that were taken seem to suggest that the public feels there has been a loss of privacy and intrusions and the separate background behind these new proposals could capablenessly impact privacy and civil liberties on a greater scale.Analysis from an ethics point of view, there are major concerns under national debate on strains between privacy and security. Below a re the quest measures of security being proposed and public, personalized and privacy issues under consideration. 1. Stricter security measures at airports, ports, points of interest in the U.S., and gathering places such as stadiums, and other large mass venue, (A) bulky checks of baggage, personal searches and vehicles, (B) Intensive custom and immigration checks, (C) Restrictions within airport areas and certain public places, (D) Additional spot searches and personal seat checks in key public areas, (E) change magnitude surveillance and monitoring of movements in key public areas.2. Detailed, accurate identification and proof of identities and background,. (A) Mandatory issuance of national identity cards for all masses, (B) Increase use of facial profiling systems for assessment of potential suspects. 3. Increased surveillance of all communities. (A) monitor via Internet(Carnivorewireless, wire-lines, satellite, etc., (B) Broader wiretapping powers, (C) Broader (and po ssible indefinite) detention, arrest, and asset ictus powers, (D) Authority for blanket searches, secret searches, (E) Website bodily function monitoring and data collection, (F) Access to personal and business records of all kinds. 4. Tighter immigration laws to screen immigrants/visitors more thoroughly, (A) More thorough showing of credentials and backgrounds of visa applicants, (B) Tracking of movements of immigrants and other visiting foreign nationals through databases. (Krishnamurthy, 2001a) CRITERIA FOR good DECISION-MAKING (See supernumerary charts posted below by Krishnamurthy).POSSIBLE ACTIONSThe proposed increases in security measures may be beneficial for the good of everyone if utilize in an impartial manner disregardless to race, heathenishity, pietism. Accountability and transparency in law enforcement procedures, especially on privacy issues must continue to be preserved, despite recent attacks. The judicial system must be empowered to deal effectively with all abuses of proposed security measures with regards to protecting the constitutional rights and liberties of all its citizens. It must also ensure anyone criminate has adequate legal representation and a fair chance to prove their innocence. view that the menstruum atmosphere of rich ethnic and cultural diversity environment of the country with one some other is not compromised.1. respect that this is a real and tangible problem we are facing.2. If so, can it be trackd without impacting/violating privacy at all.3. If not, can it be handled by making it as less busy as possible. There are possibilities that additional lengthy investments for public infrastructure needed to be make nationwide to expand capability of existing systems or impertinently incorporated systems to handle the challenges. 5. VIRTUES APPROACH GOALSA focus on individual development of virtuesA thoughtful reflection on self-realization of human potential The exploitation virtuous habits and attitudes l eading to ethical action throughout the communities.POSSIBLE ACTIONSAn assessment of whether the proposed measures will reinforce positive virtues we secure important, such as our patriotism, self-sacrifice, compassion, patience and courage, or whether these options could foster destructive traits leading to religious intolerance, less compassion, racism, fear, and suspicion. To impress upon more awareness through debates and discussions across the nation to distinguish religion from universal human determine of peace-loving co-existence, mutual respect, and non-violence, andhuman dignity. To focus on cultivating tolerance, compassion and patience (Krishnamurthy, 2001c).The following crochet members shows and or explains further privacy and security issues since the terrorism of 9/11/2001 put in place as part of measures private citizens may need to depart accustomed to in their part of loss of privacy rights in their security of national security. Security and cover After phratry 11 The wellness Care physical exercise AbstractThe following hold examines the collaborationism between privacy and security in relations to the medical rule, issued in 2000 under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Studies shows that the HIPAA stands up well to concerns of post 9/11 era. Affairs about public safety are met by period provisions that permit revelations to protect national security, to react to emergency situations, and to respond to law enforcement investigations. The article examines in particular detail the envisioned Model State taking into custody Health Powers Act, sketched in the wake of the 2001 splenic fever attacks.It has been argued by Professors Lawrence Gostin and James Hodge that this Act is warrant by a new poser of information sharing for medical information purposes. This article concludes that public health concerns are suitably addressed by the existing HIPAA rule, and that a model of information sharing s ends completely the wrong signal about how the health system will handle issues of data privacy and security. More generally, the article investigates positions of security vs. privacy, where some(prenominal) values are antagonistic, and situations of security and privacy, where twain values work together. (Swire and Steinfeld January 22, 2003) Civil Liberties vs. Security Public Opinion in the background of the Terrorist Attacks on America AbstractThis purloin article discusses, in the tradition of research on political tolerance and republican rights in context, this analysis uses a national survey of Americans directed shortly after the September 11, 2001 attack on America to study concourses enthusiasm to trade off civil liberties for grander personal safety and security. We find that the bigger peoples perception of threat, the lower their imprimatur for civil liberties. Thiseffect interrelates, however, with curse in government. The lower peoples trust in government, the less willing they will agree for a trade off of civil liberties for security, regardless of their perceptions of threat. It is known that African Americans are much less apt(predicate) or willing to trade civil liberties for security than their counterparts of whites or Latinos, even with other circumstances taken into account.This may be their long-standing consignment of their struggles for human and civil rights. In matters of party issues, liberals may be less likely to trade off civil liberties than moderates or conservatives, but liberals tend to cope with toward the position taken by conservatives when their gumption of the threat of terrorism becomes high. While this is not a projection of the future, the results suggest that Americans commitment to democratic values is greatly subordinate on other concerns and that the context of a wide-ranging threat to national or personal security can discharge a considerable readiness to give up rights. (Davis & Silver, 2003) M obile tv cameras as new technologies of surveillance? How citizens experience the use of lively cameras in public nightscapesAbstractIn surveillance studies utilise wandering(a) camera technologies in public nightscapes, terms such as sousveillance and inverse surveillance define forms of surveillance that have a bottom-up and democratic character. On the other hand, in this paper this democratic notion is queried by looking into procedures and occurrences with both Closed electrical circuit Television (CCTV) and mobile cameras by Dutch citizens. By superseding in the nightlife district of the Rotterdami metropolis centre, data has been collected on both mobile and CCTV camera confrontations.From this, an investigation is made into how mobile cameras are practiced in the Nightlife landscape. Comparing these practices with CCTV provides understanding into new surveillance issues that come into view due to the mobile camera. Analyzing surveillance technologies, provides prospectiv e as crossbreed groups, that may take different shapes in different places, and allows for involvements that attempts to improve our perception of current changes in the surveillance technology landscape. (Timan & Oudshoorn, 2012)The detective in the Cab The Use and hollo of Taxicab Cameras in San Francisco AbstractSince 2003 security cameras were required in San Francisco taxicabs. Their story has come to contain many features that are familiar to surveillance examinations. Their acceptability is explored of the trajectory using the concept of surveillance slack, and the stages and tensions where the line of use and abuse is has been drawn. The effectiveness of what the cameras are perceive to be doing, the integration of its use, and how the slackness or tautness of surveillance interacts in tension and conflicts. Since its first introduction, the new technology initial reaction was met with moral panic. This is just another element of privacy intrusion in the name of national security, the public now must adapt to. (Anderson, 2012)These abstracts are the several indications of elements put into place after the 9/11 Terrorist attacks in 2001. Privacy rights have eroded over the years since, by the US Government claims to protect its citizens. From cameras, in inconspicuous places, wire-tapping, and monitoring e-mail, and social sites, these are just a few of the acts we are controlled under. Needless to say, we may never see these laws or acts diminish anytime soon, so it is reform to adjust now, and band together before further intrusions are brought upon society.My assessment of the information taken from this report is that the privacy rights we hold as individuals within the country are vague, although most Americans seem to think their rights are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution . Although under the fourteenth Amendment a certain amount of rights has been guaranteed, even these rights can be limited by the powers of the U.S. Government, especial ly during a time of war, or other emerging acts. When you look at the broad powers of war, emergency acts, and even the powers that exists of the U.S. Congress, we can assume any privacy we hold true is basically up to the representatives we elect to represent us. We as a people of the republic come together when there are disasters, and acts of terror, and differs on many policies of the day, but what we have as collected group is the power of vote, and this power is what we can use to help balance the power of our existing government.The research of this paper was conducted using different sites concerning acombination of privacy of individual citizens, versus the introduction of laws enacted by the US Government, since the terror attack of 9/11/2001. fetching in all the information collected, and analyzed, this report has been intended to show the privacy each citizen held before and after the attack. It comprised what the public has sensed as a given right, over what was actu ally allowed by law.ConclusionThe Claim What privacy rights should an individual lose to protect against terrorists? It gives society a level of feeling safe by the protections in place. The public can only maintain a limit of safety by giving up a degree of privacy to governmental agencies in order to protect this basic need and it is a trade off to give up a certain amount of privacy.On one hand individual privacy seems to be an inherent right thought of by the public as a fundamental right. On the other, it is limited rights given by the 14th Amendment. Whatever rights we hold true today is the norm, yet not all true rights we bear are in real existence. What remedies in the political system in the privacy of individual privacies versus national security protections and concerns? The courts have narrowed away some of these concerns, but the bulk of the powers still exists. Even though Congress has been hesitant to amend the Patriot Act, in fear of being too intrusive, the powers to be are that it has the power to limit the societys individual rights. Throughout the years rights have been in decline, and we wonder whether it will be because of terrorist acts, the U.S. Patriot Act, or the Homeland Security Act, it is something we all will have to get accustomed to.References(Anderson, 2012) oversight & Society, ISSN 1477-7487 Surveillance Studies Network, Retrieved from http//library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/surveillance-and-society/article/view/cab_spy Bajaj, V. And Austen, I. (28 Sep 2010) B1 New York Times, Privacy vs. National Security Business/Financial Deskhttp//search.proquest.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/docview/755073818/fulltext/13AA4752BA6755D6A1B/1?accountid=32521 Darren W. Davis, Brian D. Silver, (12 DEC 2003) American Journal Of governmental Science, Retrieved from http//onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00054.x/abstract Downing, B. M. (2008, August 26th) The admirer Retrieved from http//agonist.org/national_security_vers us_individual_privacy_no_line/ (Kandra et al., Jan 2002) 37-41PC World 20. 1National security vs. online privacy http//search.proquest.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/docview/231422330/fulltext/13AA49614672EB98EE2/3?accountid=32521 Krishnamurthy, B. (Posted 11/01/01) Website. Markkula Center for Applied morality Retrieved from http//www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/briefings/privacy.html Linder, D. (2012). Exploring constitutional law. Informally print manuscript, educational, non-commercial site, umkc.edu, Kansas City, United States. Retrieved from http//law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/home.html Miltrano, T. (January 1, 2003) Web rapscallion title. EDUCAUSEREVIEW ONLINE Retrieved from http//www.educause.edu/ero/article/civil-privacy-and-national-security-legislation-three-dimensional-view Swire, Peter P. and Steinfeld, Lauren, Security and Privacy After September 11 The Health Care Example. Minnesota Law Review, Forthcoming. easy at SSRN http//ssrn.com/abstract=34732 2 (Timan & Oudshoorn, 2012) Surveillance & Society, ISSN 1477-7487 Surveillance Studies Network, 2012 Retrieved from http//library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/surveillance-and-society/article/view/mobilesDowning, (2008a) and (2008b)Krishnamurthy, (2001a), (2001b) and (2001c)Linder, (2012a) and (2012b)