Isjlp, 10, 641.

Dr. Hollington and Peers, A prevailing challenge faced by law enforcement is the dynamic nature of technology and the training to understand and utilize that technology. In the pivotal Supreme Court case United States v. Jones it was judged that long-term GPS tracking was unconstitutional (Elmaghraby & Losavio, 2014). Key to this ruling is the reasonable expectation of privacy when put in certain situations or in specific places, like a home or car (Elmaghraby & Losavio, 2014). The Constitutional source of this principle is the Fourth Amendment, which states an individual’s protection against unreasonable search and seizures; it notes explicitly that their person, houses, papers, and effects are all protected. Part of the challenge lies in drawing new lines delineating where a reasonable expectation of cyber-privacy begins and ends. In the United States v. Jones case, Justice Alito argued that the length of time someone was tracked by GPS constituted a search in the typical sense (Etzioni, 2014). This further complicates the discussion, now a line must be drawn for what constitutes a search, and then this must be compared to a reasonable expectation of privacy in the cyber world.
Much of the challenge lies in how rapidly the internet and technology have revolutionized society (Elmaghraby & Losavio, 2014). Since privacy, let alone cyber-privacy, is not enshrined in the Constitution, it is up to judges to hand out rulings after cases are brought to court. This drastically complicates the law enforcement ecosystem. Relying on judicial rulings is inadequate from both policy and law enforcement perspectives (Bierens et al., 2017). Jurisdictional differences and the slow nature of the judiciary both contribute to creating these roadblocks for law enforcement. A legislative push must be made to codify specific cyber-privacy protections for individuals and for law enforcement. This would enable law enforcement to execute their responsibilities while not encroaching on the rights of citizens. The Fourth Amendment is as close as the United States comes to universal privacy law, and it only flirts with privacy via judicial interpretation, not the letter of the law (Bierens et al., 2017). While there have been cases such as Katz, Jones, and Berger judicial interpretations are often too specific to be universally applicable, especially when viewed through a lens of digital privacy and data protection (Etzioni, 2014). Law enforcement is beset by challenges in determining what constitutes a digital search, digital privacy, and expectations of digital privacy. They are also being asked to navigate the complexities of jurisdictions. It is past time that legislative action is taken to codify protections for individuals and clarify the roles and responsibilities of law enforcement in the face of the cyber age.
References
Bierens, R., Klievink, B., & Berg, J. V. D. (2017, September). A social cyber contract theory model for understanding national cyber strategies. In International Conference on Electronic Government (pp. 166-176). Springer, Cham.
Elmaghraby, A. S., & Losavio, M. M. (2014). Cyber security challenges in Smart Cities: Safety, security and privacy. Journal of advanced research, 5(4), 491-497.
Entzioni, A. (2014). A cyber age privacy doctrine: a liberal communitarian approach. ISJLP, 10, 641.

Leave a Comment