You are here

Home » Content

Tehdit Altında Kişisel Gizlilik: Modern Hayatın Mahremiyete Etkisi ve ABD'de Kişisel Gizliliğin Korunması

PRIVACY AS INVASION: EFFECT OF MODERN LIFE IN PRIVACY & PROTECTION OF PRIVACY IN THE USA

Journal Name:

  • Polis Bilimleri Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2012

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
There has been a significant expansion in the use of undercover p olice tactics and technological means of surveillance in recent years. Such tactics in a democratic society raise significant questions about privacy. On the other hand, there is no doubt that modern methods of surveillance are a powerful tool, sometimes can be the only way, in the detection and prevention of crime and to reach the suspected activity or criminal. This article evaluates the scope of privacy rights, particularly when a search or some kind of surveillance (wiretap/pan registration) has occurred by governmental agencies. It focuses in particular on the courts' response to developments in surveillance technology used by law-enforcement agencies, and assesses the applicability of technological surveillance tools, used by law-enforcements. Then this study discusses the protection of privacy according to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and some other laws and major developments in the field.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Teknolojinin gelişmesi ile birlikte polisin kullanmış olduğu taktiklerde de gelişmeler ve yenilikler meydana gelmiştir. Tabi bu yeni taktikler beraberlerinde demokratik toplumlarda mahremiyet (kişisel gizlilik) ile ilgili kaygıların oluşmasına da neden olmaya başlamıştır. Öte yandan, teknolojinin beraberinde getirmiş olduğu bu yeni taktiklerin kanun uygulayıcı için suçun oluşumunun önlenmesi ve oluştuktan sonra suçluların çabuk yakalanabilmesi için gerekli olduğu da bir gerçektir. Hatta bazen elektronik izleme (teknik takip/izleme) kanun uygulayıcının suçun tespitinde, önlenmesinde ve suçluların yakalanmasında kullanabileceği tek yöntem olarak görünmektedir. Bu makalede ilk olarak, özellikle devlet kurumları tarafından gerçekleştirilen, gizli izleme ve dinlemeye karşı kişisel gizliliğin sınırları belirlenmiştir. Teknolojinin gelişmesi ile paralel gelişen kanun uygulayıcının kullanmış olduğu yeni taktiklere karşı mahkemelerin vermiş oldukları özel kararlara bakılmış ve kanun uygulayıcının kullanmış olduğu, bilinen teknolojik taktikler uygulanabilirlikleri açısından incelenmiştir. Sonrasında ise, kişisel gizliliğin güvenceleri olarak görülen başta ABD Anayasası dördüncü madde olmak üzere diğer kanunlar ve içtihat kararları tartışılmıştır.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-tehdit-altinda-kisisel-gizlilik-modern-hayatin-mahremiyete-etkisi-abdde-kisisel-gizliligin-korunmasi.pdf
  • 1
33-58
  • English

REFERENCES

References: 

Cate, H. Fred, (1997), Privacy in the Information Age, Washington D.C: Brookings Institution Press.
Cavoukian, Ann and Tapscott, Don, (1997), Who Knows, New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Privacy as Invasion Effect of Modern Life in Privacy &
Protection of Privacy in the USA
55
Guriskin, Sofia and Hendrics, Aart, (2000), "The Right to Privacy", Theodore S. Orlin, Rosas, Allan & Scheinin, Martin, (Ed.), The
Jurisprudence of Human Rights Law, New York: Syracuse Un. Press,
pp.223-252.
Jennings, Charles and Fena, Lori & Dyson, Esther, (2000), The
Hundredth Window: Protecting Your Privacy and Security in the Age of the Internet, New York: Free Press.
Julie, Richard S., (2000, Winter), High-Tech Surveillance Tools and the Fourth Amendment: Reasonable Expectations of Privacy in the Technological Age, American Criminal Law Review, Vol.37, No.127.
Marx, T. Gary, (1996), "Ethics for the New Surveillance", Rebecca A Grant & Colin J. Bennett (Ed), Vision of Privacy: Policy Choices for the Digital Age, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary, (2004), Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.
Neuman, Lawrence, (2010), Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Pipes, Richard, (1999), Property and Freedom, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Pope, Carl, Lovell, Rickie, and Brandl Steven G., (2001), Readings in Criminal Justice Research, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Rosen, Jeffrey, (2000), The unwanted gaze: The destruction of privacy in America, New York: Random House.
Rosenberg, Richard, (1992), The Social Impact of Computing, Boston. MA: Academic Press.
Rubin, Allen and Barbie, Earl, (2009), Essential Research Methods for Social Work, Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Rubin, H. Paul & Lenard, M. Thomas, (2002), Privacy and the Commercial Use of Personal Information, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Schneier, Bruce and Banisar, David, (1997), The Electronic Privacy Papers. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
56 Polis Bilimleri Dergisi: 14 (1)
Singleton, Solveig, (1999, December), Privacy and Human Rights: Comparing the United States to Europe, Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute.
Solove, Daniel J., (2004), The Digital Person: Technology and Privacy in the Information Age, New York: New York University Press.
Solove, Daniel J., (2008), Understanding Privacy, Boston: Harvard University Press.
Taslitz, Andrew, (2002), "The Fourth Amendment in the Twenty-First Century: Technology, Privacy, and Human Emotions", Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 65, No. 2, pp.125-187
Twight, Charlotte, (1999, Fall), "Watching You Systematic Federal Surveillance of Ordinary Americans", Independent Review: A Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.165-200.
The U.S.C. Amendment 1st, 4th, 5th, & 14th.
The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001.
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, (1966). UN General Assembly.
The Privacy Act of 1974.
Uthmani, Omair; Buchanan, William; Lawson, Alistair; Scott, Russell; Schafer, Burkhard; Fan, Lu and Uthmani, Sohaib, (2011), "Crime Risk Evaluation within Information Sharing Between the Police and Community Partners", Information & Communications Technology Law, Vol.20, No. 2, pp.57-81.
Van Der Ploeg, Irma, (2003), "Biometrics and Privacy A note on the politics of theorizing technology", Information, Communication & Society, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.85-104.
Weaver, Russell, (2011), "The Fourth Amendment, Privacy and Advancing Technology", Mississippi Law Journal, Vol. 80, No. 3, pp.1131-1227.
Youn, Seounmi, (2009), "Determinants of Online Privacy Concern and Its Influence on Privacy Protection Behaviors among Young Adolescents", Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp.389-
418.
Privacy as Invasion Effect of Modern Life in Privacy &
Protection of Privacy in the USA
57
Cases
Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326 (1987) Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 762-73 (1969) California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 108 (1988) Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967) Commonwealth v. Rekasie, 778 A.2d 624 (2001)
Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979)
Florida v. White, 119 S. Ct. 1555 (1998).
Florida v. Bostick, (89-1717), 501 US 429 (1991)
Go-Bart Importing Co v. United States, 282 U.S. 344, 357 (1931)
Hanlon v. Berger, 119 S. Ct. 1706 (1999)
Hester v. United States 265 U.S. 57 (1924)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351-53 (1967)
Maryland v. Dyson, 119 S. Ct. 2013 (1999)
Nardone v. United States 302 U.S. 379 (1937)
New York v. Burger 482 U.S. 691 (1987)
Olmstead v. United States 277 U.S. 438 (1928)
Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 66 n.13 (1973)
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 576 (1980)
R. v. Dyment, the Supreme Court of Canada, 2 S.C.R.417, (1988) Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 222 (1973) Shadwick v. City of Tampa, 407 U.S. 345, 350 (1972) Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979).
Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 498, 501 (1925)
South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 372-75 (1976)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30-31 (1968)
United States v. Cusumano (67 F.3d 1497, 1506 (1995)
58
Polis Bilimleri Dergisi: 14 (1)
United States v. Ford, 34 F.3d 992, 997 (1994)
United States v. Ishmael, 48 F.3d 850, 857 (1995)
United States v. Kyllo, 140 F.3d 1249, 1254 (1998) United States v. Myers, 46 F.3d 668, 669-70 (1995) United States v. Pinson, 24 F.3d 1056, 1058 (1994) United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 825 (1982)
United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42-43 (1976)
United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 414, 416-17 (1976) Wilson v. Layne, (98-83) 141 F.3d 111 (1999) Wyoming v. Houghton, (98-184) 956 P.2d 363 (1999

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com