Protection of Privacy from Government Intrusion

The personal privacy of citizens should be protected from government intrusion.
Describe a specific situation in which government might justifiably intrude upon a citizen's personal privacy. Discuss what you think determines when government has a right to intrude upon citizens' privacy and when it does not have a right to intrude.

---

The dystopian novel 1984 by George Orwell depicts a totalitarian state where the government keeps close watch on all actions of its citizens. The "Big Brother" type of surveillance is often alluded to in the present day whenever criticism is directed to types of government intrusion on personal privacy. In the United States, one's personal privacy is guarded as a Constitutional right. However, in order to protect the nation form danger, the government reserves the right to intrude on citizens' privacy to a certain extent. While policies such as the baggage check-in requirement are accepted as reasonable intrusion, other government actions continue to be challenged as an unjustifiable intrusion.

Specifically, government can justifiably intrude on a person's privacy when he/she poses a danger to society. This may include the government stepping into family matters through Protective Services in the case of child abuse. Requirements of checking in personal effects in a federal building are deemed reasonable by virtue of preventing terrorist attacks. The government has also instituted the use of cameras to catch people while speeding. These are some of many examples deemed as reasonable intrusion on personal privacy.

The government,when intruding on personal privacy, cannot go above and beyond what is necessary to protect citizens. For example, when police receive a warrant to only search a person's car for a weapon, he/she cannot also search that person's abode (unless, of course, he/she receives permission from the court to do so). Certain people and groups believe that the government's new policy of full body scanners and pat-downs cross the line as far as intruding on personal privacy. The government argues that these actions are necessary to protecting fliers from terrorist attacks; some people maintain, however, that the scanners and body-pats go too far.

In totalitarian societies, citizens do not have a way to challenge intrusions on privacy. However, in a democracies---such as the United States---citizens may attempt to challenge the government intrusion in court. A ruling in favor of the plaintiff may result in an injunction (which stops government from doing the action) or sometimes monetary damages.


Indeed, a balance must be sought when government decides to intrude on personal privacy. On the one hand, it needs to assure the safety and well-being of society as a whole. On the other hand, it needs to be cognizant of the personal privacy of individuals. In this day and age where terrorist threats seem more tangible to the citizens, the government will continue to make intrusions that may be considered controversial. However, watchdogs such as ACLU serve as a check on unjustified government intrusion.