Editing Privacy (section)

===Technology===
{{further|#Techniques to improve privacy|Privacy-enhancing technologies}}
[[File:IllinoisTelephoneAndTelegraphAd.png|thumb|200px|Advertisement for dial telephone service available to delegates to the 1912 [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] convention in [[Chicago]]. A major selling point of dial telephone service was that it was "secret", in that no operator was required to connect the call.]]

As technology has advanced, the way in which privacy is protected and violated has changed with it. In the case of some technologies, such as the [[printing press]] or the [[Internet]], the increased ability to share information can lead to new ways in which privacy can be breached. It is generally agreed that the first publication advocating privacy in the United States was the 1890 article by [[Samuel D. Warren (US attorney)|Samuel Warren]] and [[Louis Brandeis]], "The Right to Privacy",<ref>{{cite web|url=http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html |title=4 ''Harvard Law Review'' 193 (1890) |publisher=Groups.csail.mit.edu |date=1996-05-18 |access-date=2019-08-22}}</ref> and that it was written mainly in response to the increase in newspapers and photographs made possible by printing technologies.<ref>Information Privacy, Official Reference for the Certified Information privacy Professional (CIPP), Swire, 2007</ref>

In 1948, ''[[Nineteen Eighty-Four|1984]],'' written by [[George Orwell]], was published. A classic dystopian novel, ''1984'' describes the life of Winston Smith in 1984, located in Oceania, a totalitarian state. The all-controlling Party, the party in power led by Big Brother, is able to control power through mass [[surveillance]] and limited freedom of speech and thought. George Orwell provides commentary on the negative effects of [[totalitarianism]], particularly on privacy and [[censorship]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=Nineteen Eighty-four {{!}} Summary, Characters, Analysis, & Facts|url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nineteen-Eighty-four|access-date=2021-09-27|website=Encyclopedia Britannica|language=en}}</ref> Parallels have been drawn between ''1984'' and modern censorship and privacy, a notable example being that large social media companies, rather than the government, are able to monitor a user's data and decide what is allowed to be said online through their censorship policies, ultimately for monetary purposes.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Leetaru|first=Kalev|title=As Orwell's 1984 Turns 70 It Predicted Much Of Today's Surveillance Society|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2019/05/06/as-orwells-1984-turns-70-it-predicted-much-of-todays-surveillance-society/|access-date=2021-09-27|website=Forbes|language=en}}</ref>

In the 1960s, people began to consider how changes in technology were bringing changes in the concept of privacy.{{sfn|Solove|2010|pp=3–4}} [[Vance Packard]]'s ''[[The Naked Society]]'' was a popular book on privacy from that era and led US discourse on privacy at that time.{{sfn|Solove|2010|pp=3–4}} In addition, [[Alan F. Westin|Alan Westin]]'s ''Privacy and Freedom'' shifted the debate regarding privacy from a physical sense, how the government controls a person's body (i.e. ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'') and other activities such as wiretapping and photography. As important records became digitized, Westin argued that personal data was becoming too accessible and that a person should have complete jurisdiction over their data, laying the foundation for the modern discussion of privacy.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-07-24|title=Alan Westin is the father of modern data privacy law|url=https://www.osano.com/articles/alan-westin|access-date=2021-09-28|website=Osano|language=en}}</ref>

New technologies can also create new ways to gather private information. In 2001, the legal case ''[[Kyllo v. United States]]'' (533 U.S. 27) determined that the use of [[thermal imaging]] devices that can reveal previously unknown information without a warrant constitutes a violation of privacy. In 2019, after developing a corporate rivalry in competing voice-recognition software, [[Apple Inc.|Apple]] and [[Amazon (company)|Amazon]] required employees to listen to [[#Intimacy|intimate]] moments and faithfully transcribe the contents.<ref name=bloomberg-siri-alexa-listen />

====Police and government====
{{main|#Legal right to privacy}}
{{further|Police|Police body camera|PRISM (surveillance program)}}
{{see also|The Wire}}

Police and citizens often conflict on what degree the police can intrude a citizen's digital privacy. For instance, in 2012, the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] ruled unanimously in ''[[United States v. Jones (2012)|United States v. Jones]]'' (565 U.S. 400), in the case of Antoine Jones who was arrested of drug possession using a [[Global Positioning System|GPS]] tracker on his car that was placed without a warrant, that warrantless tracking infringes the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth Amendment]]. The Supreme Court also justified that there is some "reasonable expectation of privacy" in transportation since the reasonable expectation of privacy had already been established under ''Griswold v. Connecticut'' (1965). The Supreme Court also further clarified that the Fourth Amendment did not only pertain to physical instances of intrusion but also digital instances, and thus ''United States v. Jones'' became a landmark case.<ref>{{Cite web|title=United States v. Jones|url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/10-1259|access-date=2021-09-27|website=Oyez}}</ref>

In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in ''[[Riley v. California]]'' (573 U.S. 373), where David Leon Riley was arrested after he was pulled over for driving on expired license tags when the police searched his phone and discovered that he was tied to a shooting, that searching a citizen's phone without a warrant was an unreasonable search, a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court concluded that the cell phones contained personal information different from trivial items, and went beyond to state that information stored on the cloud was not necessarily a form of evidence. ''Riley v. California'' evidently became a landmark case, protecting the digital protection of citizen's privacy when confronted with the police.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Riley v. California|url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/13-132|access-date=2021-09-27|website=Oyez}}</ref>

A recent notable occurrence of the conflict between law enforcement and a citizen in terms of digital privacy has been in the 2018 case, ''[[Carpenter v. United States]]'' (585 U.S. ____). In this case, the FBI used cell phone records without a warrant to arrest Timothy Ivory Carpenter on multiple charges, and the Supreme Court ruled that the warrantless search of cell phone records violated the Fourth Amendment, citing that the Fourth Amendment protects "reasonable expectations of privacy" and that information sent to third parties still falls under data that can be included under "reasonable expectations of privacy".<ref>{{Cite web|title=Carpenter v. United States|url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-402|access-date=2021-09-27|website=Oyez}}</ref>

Beyond law enforcement, many interactions between the government and citizens have been revealed either lawfully or unlawfully, specifically through whistleblowers. One notable example is [[Edward Snowden]], who released multiple operations related to the mass surveillance operations of the [[National Security Agency]] (NSA), where it was discovered that the NSA continues to breach the security of millions of people, mainly through mass surveillance programs whether it was collecting great amounts of data through third party private companies, hacking into other embassies or frameworks of international countries, and various breaches of data, which prompted a culture shock and stirred international debate related to digital privacy.<ref>{{Cite web|title=17 disturbing things Snowden has taught us (so far)|url=https://www.pri.org/stories/2013-07-09/17-disturbing-things-snowden-has-taught-us-so-far|access-date=2021-09-28|website=The World from PRX|date=30 July 2016 |language=en}}</ref>