https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment
Mark Warner, a Democrat, senior Senator from Virginia, and a tech millionaire, surprised the public last week by declaring that big technology companies such as Twitter, Facebook, and Google allowed for corruption of the election platform last year. Russian-linker accounts were able to buy political ads and spread foreign propaganda, and yet these companies still refused to disclose enough information for officials to track the hackers. While Warner, also the top Democrat on the senate Intelligence Committee, is fighting to tighten regulations on tech companies and pass a law that forces them to disclose who paid for digital political ads, because he believes that tech companies still aren't fully aware of the potential for political chaos that free-flowing digital media create.
Personally, I believe that Warner is wise to call for investigation into the murky business partners of these big tech companies, because their reluctance to release information regarding the election from last year sounds like they are clearly trying to hide the fact that they allowed corrupt foreign sources to leak propaganda. However, as a Democrat I am biased, and many Republicans will argue that imposing such strict regulations on private businesses and companies is potentially infringing their fourth amendment right to privacy. The 4th amendment states "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause." Thus, although the amendment aims to prevent the government from unreasonably intruding and extracting private information, it specifically refers to "the people," as in individual citizens. Thus, do you think the 4th amendment should apply to corporations as well? Why or why not?
8 comments:
I understand that we need to maintain the personal liberties of our country, but various civil liberties get incredibly fuzzy when it comes to these corporate conglomerate entities, especially when it comes to the greater good. Now, I know that the sacrifice of freedoms for the ever nebulous "greater good" is a path to dictatorship, but the growing impact that social media on elections cannot simply be ignored. The rapidly evolving manner in which social media can affect elections ought to be controlled, if not curtailed, and disclosure surrounding political ads bought on the sites is, in my mind, a step in the right direction. The threat of legislative action, compounded with the potential of a pr disaster has already resulted in changes of policy by certain companies, such as Twitter blocking Russia-based media organizations from purchasing ads, better late than never, I suppose. However, there is still more to be done, even if it takes what some may denounce as overt interference from the government.
I think that Mr. Silton (Mr. Felder as well) has made it quite clear that there's really nothing the federal government can do to restrict your limit of speech. What makes it worse is that this isn't even physical speech. It's typed out and sent around the world online. Where's the internet police? Should there be internet police? I don't have an answer and personally I don't want to get involved in anything that might entail my profiles and personal information being dug up and inspected by some secret online government investigator. All these social media companies are dealing with a moral, and constitutional nightmare. It's a lose-lose situation for them. Either they give up private information entrusted to them by their users, or they keep it locked up, and then mainstream media brings down the thunder on them, saying that they're manipulating politics on a nationwide, arguably global, scale. There's no real positive way to describe the situation of social media giants, especially when it's them who've dug themselves into a hole.
I agree with the above comments. People should definitely have the right to freedom of speech (even on the internet) and their rights should never be compromised (except in certain cases). However, as a social media user, it's not like I have anything to hide, but I would not want my own stuff to be accessed. Especially with Facebook and Twitter- the main source of ads for the Russians- targeted ads strongly swayed the election in a different direction. Theo is completely correct in that it is a lose-lose situation for the social platforms. I mean, if the companies want to be involved in politics, that's fine, but they should be willing to elaborate if a scandal like this is involved.
I believe that searches and seizures that violate personal privacy shouldn’t be performed unless a dire cause calls for it. While I have nothing to hide, some information that are shared among family should stay within that range and many might not be comfortable with others violating that. But when a probable cause is presented, then I believe such searches should be occur. Although private organizations owe no affiliation to the government, I believe they should to some extent release information to the government and or police if dire circumstances call for it. While I believe the 4th amendment should apply to corporations, I dissuade putting into action because it will cause unnecessary distrust in citizen’s trust in social media and their own privacy.
I agree with the previous points made. I believe that everyone has the right to the 4th amendment, including corporations. I looked up cases involving fourth amendment rights for corporations and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in 1920 in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States that “the rights of a corporation against unlawful search and seizure are to be protected even if the same result might have been achieved in a lawful way.” I honestly believe that corporations should be deemed and treated like an individual. They should have the same rights and same constitutional protections. I also agree with Theo's point that there really isn't much that the government can do to restrict freedom of speech on and off the internet. And although I do agree with you Diana as a Democrat and a US citizen, that these companies who are so reluctant to release information regarding their role in last year's election seems kinda suspicious, I don't believe that this suspicion is enough to impede on their 4th amendment rights.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that corporations are regarded as individuals when it comes to constitutional rights. Therefore, the 1st and 4th amendments should apply to these companies. Personally, I don't feel like this should be changed because a private company ultimately does have the rights to show whatever they choose so long as it does not directly violate any law. I guess things get a little cloudy when funding to assist a political campaign comes from a foreign nation, but at the fundamental level it's not much different from if any other private American citizen buys their own ads in favor of a political candidate, which is legal. I guess people might be squeamish about the idea that this is an outside influence which could sway voters one way or another, but, as the textbook reading suggested, people are usually only influenced by things that they allow themselves to be influenced by. I also would not support any regulations on the content of the internet because that can easily lead to a slippery slope landing us in a situation not unlike to the Chinese government (Baidu ftw), unless somehow every nation with access to internet finds a way to agree on regulations.
Though I see your (and Warner’s) point that there ought to be investigation into tech companies’ business practices due to the spreading of digital political ads from Russian entities, I do not believe that these corporations are the sole reason for the corruption in the election (though they did contribute a lot to it). The reason I say this is because they’re simply doing what they’re supposed to be doing as a corporation: being a business. It is natural for them to follow where the money goes, regardless of who or where it comes from. And, going along with their established businesses come rules and regulations that they impose upon themselves, including not releasing any private information from their databases, no matter how much it would protect others. I think that, like others before me who have established this, the rights outlined under the 4th Amendment should be/are extended to these corporations and that they, therefore, should not be forced to release the data they collect from sponsors and other users of their platforms. As we have learned, the Constitution is a malleable document that was purposely written in a vague manner because the framers didn’t quite know what to expect of future generations, so the term “people” in this instance can be interpreted as including business models since those are “entities” that consist of people.
I agree with much of what my peers are saying up above - this is a very difficult situation to figure out. Do corporations have the same rights as an individual? Not really, but a company’s users do have those 4th amendment rights and their right to privacy should be protected. At the same time, it is definitely possible that foreign online content swayed the elections and that should be prevented. However, forcing tech companies to release the information now is going to open the door to a little too much government infringement of privacy and I think that the companies might be right to refuse to release the information, just as Apple refused to open up the Apple iPhone in the San Bernardino investigation. Making new laws regulating who is buying digital ads is the best way to combat this at the moment.
Post a Comment