Law and Internet in the United States Report

Introduction

Gradually, more citizens of the United States express anxiety concerning the requirement for extra protection under the right of privacy, also referred to as the “right to be let alone.” High rates of citizens’ concern are the straight outcomes of current complicated technological advances and developments that make it both cheap and simple to classify (Paul &Dickman 1999, P413). Technological advances also help to trace what was once believed to be individual information. The ultimate aim of this context is to examine the principles of Information Privacy as outlined in the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and the reasons as to why they need amendment. The paper also examines the type of information that might be observed when the system is at risk and the impacts of technology on information privacy. It then winds up by providing recommendations that can help in amending the Privacy Act 1988 (Erik 1990, p47).

Section 14 of Privacy Act 1988

Section 14 of the Private Act 1988 (Cth) needs amendment because as it shall be noted, it only focused on how personal information should be acquired and how it should be kept by a record-keeper. However, it failed to consider the fact that information and technology are consistent and there is no way personal information can be tackled and assume technology (Orwell 1984a, p. 179).

Privacy principles

The following are the eleven information privacy principles that are obtained from section 14 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).

Principle 1: Manner and Purpose of collection of personal information

This principle has two major rules that were to be respected during that period. Note that they are still being obeyed even today only that they were greatly modified due to changes in technology that have modified how information privacy can be kept (Westin 1996, p67). The first one is, personal information shall not be accumulated by a collector for addition into a record or in a normally present publication unless:

1. The information is accumulated for a function that is a legal function directly associated with a purpose or activity of the collector;
2. The accumulation of the information is essential for or directly associated with that function.

The second rule is that a collector through illegal or unfair means shall not acquire individual information (Ryan 1984, p193).

Principle 2: Solicitation of Individual Information from the Person Concerned

This is where:

1. An accumulator accumulates individual information from insertion in a record or available publication and
2. The information is importunate by the accumulator from the person concerned. The accumulator shall presume such steps (if any) as are, in the situations reasonable to make sure that before the information is accumulated or, if that is applicable, as soon as applicable after the information is acquired, the person concerned is actually familiar with:
3. The function where information is being accumulated;
4. If the information accumulated is authorized, or needed by or under the law – the fact that the accumulation of the information is so approved or needed (Erik 1990, p82); and
5. any individual to whom or any person or agency to which it is the accumulator’s necessary practice to unveil the individual information of the type so acquired, and (if known by the accumulator).

Principle 3: solicitation of individual information

It is where:

1. an accumulator accumulates individual information for insertion in a record or generally present publication;
2. the information is asked for by the accumulator: the accumulator shall take such actions (if any) as are, in the situations, reasonable to make sure that having considered the purpose for which the information is accumulated (James 2010, p. 365):
3. the information accumulated is pertinent to the function and is modern and advanced; and
4. The accumulation of the information has not encroached to an unnecessary extent ahead of the affairs of the person concerned.

Principle 4: storage and safeguarding private data

A record-keeper who controls private data should ascertain:

1. That the record or data stored is not accessed by unauthorized parties and that it is used for the purpose that it was created for (Orwell 1984b, p. 201)
2. That all the privacy stipulated by the regulations is observed when releasing the data (Davis v. Davis 1992, P. 100).

Principle 5: information associated with records kept by the record keeper

Under information linked to the records kept, there are four major rules. To begin with, a record-keeper who has ownership or control of a record that holds individual information shall honor section 2 of this Principle, take such actions, as they are, in the situations, sensible to enable any individual to determine (Scott 2001, p. 100):

1. whether the record-keeper has control or ownership of any record that restricts individual information;
2. if the record-keeper has ownership or control of a record that restricts such information:

• the native of that information;
• the major function for which that information is employed;

Secondly, a documentation-keeper is meaningless under section 1 of this rule to issue individual information, if the documentation keeper is needed or authorized to refuse to give the information to the individual under the appropriate stipulations of any law of the Commonwealth that issues for access by individuals to documents (Allan 1996, p. 88).

Moreover, a documentation keeper shall uphold a record setting out the:

1. the scenery of the documentation of individual information kept by or on behalf of the documentation-keeper;
2. function for which every kind of record is kept;
3. levels of people about whom the records are kept;
4. time for which the record is retained;
5. people who are permitted to have access to individual information restricted in the records and the restrictions under which they are permitted to have that access (Ryan 1984, p. 201); and
6. ladders that should be climbed by individuals wishing to acquire access to that information.

Principle 6: Access to records holding Individual Information

When a documentation keeper has ownership or control of a record that holds individual information, the person concerned shall be given the right to have access to that record (Dillon 2001, p. 628). However, this is only when the documentation-keeper is expected or authorized to deny an individual from accessing the record under appropriate stipulations of any law of the Commonwealth that permits access by individuals to their documents (States v. Pinson 1994, p.1).

Principle 7: Alteration of records holding Individual Information

This rule contains four major principles. The first one states that a document-keeper who has ownership or control of a record that upholds individual information shall take such ladders (if any), by way of creating suitable corrections, removal and supplementations as are, in the situations, reasonable to make sure that the record (Hodge 2000, p. 219):

1. is precise;
2. is, having considerations to function for which the information was gathered or is to be used and to any function that is openly associated with that function, pertinent, advanced, complete and straightforward (Walker 2006, p.158).

Secondly, the compulsion inflicted on a document-keeper by section 1 is subject to any appropriate curb in law of the Commonwealth that issues a right to ask for the correction or amendment of documents (Pennock &Chapman 1994, p. 116).

Thirdly, where:

1. the document-keeper of a document holding individual information is not ready to amend that record, by creating a correction, removal or supplementation, in accordance with a demand from the person concerned; and
2. no decision or advice to the effect that the document should be altered wholly or partially according to the requests made under the appropriate stipulations of a law of the Commonwealth (Scott 2001, p. 100);
3. the document-keeper shall, if so asked for by the person concerned, take such ladders (if any) as are sensible in the situations to attach any statement issued by that person to document for corrections, removal or supplementation sought.

Principle 8: Monitoring Appropriateness of Personal Information before using it

Any document-keeper with possession or record management authority especially if it enfolds personal information has no right to use the same information without following the appropriate procedure (if any) as are. This refers to the situations, sensible to make sure that having consideration to function for which the information is suggested to be used, the information is correct, advanced and complete (Klein 2005, p. 151).

Principle 9: individual information to be used only for pertinent functions

A document-keeper who has ownership or control of a record that encloses individual information shall not make use of the information unless the function of the information is pertinent (Dillon 2001, p. 628).

Principle 10: Limits on use of Individual information

This principle contains two major rules. First, a document-keeper who has ownership or control of a record that encloses individual information that was acquired for a specific function shall not use the information for any other functions unless:

1. the person concerned has permission to use the information for that other function;
2. the document-keeper believes on a sensible basis that employing the information for that other function is essential to prevent or lessen a solemn and looming danger to the life or health of the person concerned or another individual;
3. employing the information for that other function is needed or authorized by or under the law;
4. the function for which the information is employed is openly associated with the function for which the information was acquired.

Lastly, where individual information is employed for the implementation of the criminal law or of a law inflicting a financial penalty, or for the defense of the public returns, the document-keeper shall encompass in the record enclosing that information a note of that use.

Principle 11: curbs on disclosure of personal information

This principle also contains two major rules. The initial one is that a record-keeper who has ownership or control of a record that encloses personal information shall not reveal the information to an individual, body or agency (apart from the concerned person) unless:

1. the person concerned is sensibly probably to have been familiar or made familiar under principle 2, that information type is generally passed on that individual, body or agency;
2. the person concerned has permission to the disclosure (Gavison 1998, p. 512);
3. the document-keeper believes on the sensible basis that disclosure is essential to defend or diminish a serious looming threat to the life or health of the person concerned or of another individual;
4. the exposure is needed or authorized by or under the law;
5. the exposure is sensibly essential for the implementation of the criminal law or of a law or a law inflicting a financial penalty, or for the record enclosing that information a note of the disclosure.

Finally, if the information under section 1 of this principle is revealed to a person, agency or body an individual, he or she is obliged not to unveil or use it for any other reason besides its main objective.

The principles are very right, are much protective, and enhance the right of privacy of the information of people (Suro 2005, p. 191). However, the principles are only based on ways through which information might be protected physically without involving technological advancement. The reason why these principles may seem to be meaningless today is that technology is too high for their application. This is because the records might be interfered with by several internets’ risky information and persons as observed below.

Type of information that might be found when the system is at risk

When an organizational information system is at risk, some of the most anticipated information to be acquired is:

• Spam – emails sent to the system with garbage data to inform or annoy
• Denial of service – due to too many threats, the system may be overwhelmed in terms of ala IP syn flooding, Smurf with ICMP Echo appeal or mail-bombing. In case of such threats, take advantage of software packages such as Ping of death, LAND and ala Buffer overflow.
• Bacteria – this is known for corrupting live data and destruction of boot zone. It prevents the recovery of backup data (Hodge 2000, p. 213).
• IP Address spoofing – this is when a scoundrel site cuts off authenticated communications between lawful users and bestows altered material as rightful.
• Man-in-the-middle spoofing – it is where the captured bags are interfered with and reinserted into a lively session tube.
• Spoofing – interfering and changing DNS namespace to complex Web Page Redirection

Note that several systems contain the personal information of people. For instance, hospital systems contain the health histories of several people and should never be exposed to the public without the authority of the patients (Gavison 1998, p. 276). Therefore, the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) could not be effective today because such things could be interfering with information privacy thus leading to too much leakage of important personal information that could create enmity and cause a lot of disputes. This issue is best tackled under the right of privacy 27.

Right of Privacy 27

As technology advances, several techniques of assimilating and delivering information become available (Gavison 1998, p. 300). As the Supreme Court of United States becomes identified, a person’s interest in managing the dissemination of individual information should “never hand out or disseminate because that information may be present to the public in a different form.” When given the present state of technology and the possibility of more complex advancements, the period is ripe to think about taking steps that may guarantee the defense of people’s privacy into the future (Hayden & Novik 2003, p. 150). Hackers individuals are the most dangerous people who threaten the privacy of information since they are able to hack into an individual’s email address and get to read and use the information they acquire (Privacy Amendment Act 2000).

In fact, if correct measures are not taken, information privacy may cease to exist in the next decade because as technology advances so are information privacy diminishes if nothing is done about it. Therefore, before examining a way forward for information privacy, it is important to look at the influence of technology on information privacy.

The Challenge: The Impact of Technology on Information Privacy and recommendations

As far as information privacy is concerned, there is a need to review these questions. Who knows about your personal life? What do they know about it? How many cookies have you issued out presently? How safe is your information? Technology has made it considerable to lever open into almost every sector of people’s lives. According to George Orwell (1984) in his book, We Were Warned, he cautioned people to watch out for “big brother”. During those days, physical energy mattered a lot even in acquiring a job particularly in industries (Alan & Simpson 1994, p. 231). Physical strength played a major role in almost everything in society beginning from security to job operation. However, today, we are cautioned to watch “little brother” because physical strength no longer matters.

Currently, it is all about your brains and your level of technological advancement. It is no longer interruption by the government of which people should be worried about it is the imposition by a range of commercial units looking to make huge profits from the use of private information. Nowadays, almost every single day, people are challenged with attacks and incursions of privacy, which they may be totally uninformed (Suro 2005, p. 204).

Effects of Automated Teller Machine cards

An Automated Teller Machine (ATM) card does more than a single operation; it is able to purchase items from stores, purchase an airline ticket, “surf” the internet, rent a movie or hotel room or simply employ an electronic record or telephone and your activity are produced. Note that all of the activities that are undertaken by an ATM can be located and recorded in several databases functioning as storage banks of personal information (Hardiman 1986, p. 217). For example, internet surfing can now trace the “clickstream” of traffic to screen pages that are used on the internet. “Cookies” and “mouse droppings” are two techniques through which users of the internet can be tracked. Cookies permit an internet site to amass information to a hard drive that belongs to a visitor in the sense that when the user goes back to that site, the site opens the cookies from the hard drive to acknowledge whether the visitor has prior visited the site (James 2010, p. 365).

Mouse dropping, on the other hand, permits an internet website to recognize any individual who visits the site. Through these means, it is very easy for people to access other people’s private information and this is what the law has to tackle. It should not just lay down principles without considering technology because information and technology are much consistent. It is, therefore, clear that the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) needs amendment because it only centered on how to protect leakage of private information from a record-keeper point of view. However, information privacy is not just about the storekeeper or how the information should be stored; it is about how information should be protected from being accessed by other unnecessary parties (Klein 2005, p. 151).

Effects of Data Matching Process

Moreover, through a procedure referred to as data matching, a collection of an individual’s purchases and operations can be organized and matched to generate a profile on the individual, listing his personal tastes, lifestyles and buying patterns. Eventually, the information is “digitized, connected, packaged, sold and re-sold” (Peck 2000, p. 897). Through this system, such an individual would be greatly exposed since all his private information would have leaked to the public through the process of digitizing, linking, packaging, selling and reselling. For instance, if the person is maybe a lady who loves to visit a sex materials shop to purchase things like sex toys, dildos, thongs, oils and bras among others (Rose-Acherman 1995, p. 931). Through her purchase and activities, her profile would contain very shameful personal tastes and lifestyles. For example, the profile would conclude that the woman loves to masturbate using sex toys; she is a lesbian through purchasing dildos and such sorts of things or she is a whore because of the type of bras she purchases. Assume this woman is a prominent person say, a vice president, cabinet person or even a senate, what kind of portrayal would she receive from the public when such information leaks out? All these are impacts of technology that prompt the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) to be reviewed and amended due to the advancement of technology and introduction of things like data matching software which can expose an individual to the public (Privacy Amendment Act 2000).

Access to People’s Information

One author argued that “[y]our name is required for databases like data matching software from the moment you are born: birth is depicted as the time to sell your parents; death is depicted as a time to sell your survivors. The period between the two is the time to sell to you”. What this means is that technology has made it possible for access to other people’s individual information (Hayden & Novik 2003, p. 156). In fact, other people’s private information is readily accessible by unwanted parties. Health records, driving records, social security information, credit files, employment files, music club purchase, charitable donations, website subscriptions, mail-order catalog purchases, magazine subscriptions, frequent flyer records, family structures and detailed financial records are now readily available to the public. Just imagine your net salary is known to more than a thousand people who should not be aware of anything concerning your life; how can a person feel? Imagine subscribing to one of the adult sites on the internet and almost half of your community knowing about it; imagine purchasing a new vehicle and your registration warranty noted by strangers (Hardiman 1986, p. 212). Very little or limited restrictions are placed on the Privacy Act 1988 concerning access to some of the above-mentioned information thus the information may be acquired through very little effort.

Privacy for Scale

Jeffrey Rothfffeder (1995) states in his book Privacy for Sale, that it is very easy to access much of this information using computers and the internet. He explains that for a fee, a person can acquire bank records, non-published numbers, credit charges, post office addresses, social security earnings, internal revenue service records, safe deposit boxes, and much more. Rothffeder goes on to give an example of Westlaw Publishing Group, Inc., which is a field in the legal ground that provides access to the possibly continuous amount of individual information. Some of the information accessed includes lawsuit records, asset locators, bankruptcy records, property assessors’ records and people finders (Nedelsky 2000, p. 510). When the basic database of this company was tested, the following information was acquired on author Justice Overton in less than ten minutes. The information is his full name: his telephone number; the address to his Tallahassee home; his date of birth and his social security number. The Corporation also contained the same information for his wife; the average income for his neighborhood; names of ten of his closest neighbors, the average value of the homes in his neighborhood; the addresses and telephone numbers of these ten closest neighbors and the same information for his condominium in another city.

All the information acquired was correct and at the same time, the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) was actively functioning (Miller 2004, p. 198). It must be amended no matter what because people will continue to suffer under the same act. There is no way a prominent person like Justice Overton’s information would leak out like that and expect no harm on him.

Internet Surfing

Besides, through internet surfing, the authors managed to acquire information from Country Property Appraiser reports issuing details of property values, mortgage values and square footages; and admission to credit reports for a fee. Others include acquiring telephone numbers and residence maps for any person in the country with a published telephone number; and checking who has contributed to federal movements by means of zip code. The probability of collecting information is infinite, in fact, the amendments of the Privacy Act 1988 can only minimize them but cannot end them because technology grows day by day (Rose-Acherman 1995, p. 931).

Effects of Smart cards

Some proposal suggests that “smart cards” consists of computer chips that have peoples’ health history and other important data to help in emergencies. Microchips that have information recognizing pet owners have been put in household pets. Chips that have a health history have in a few cases, been put on human trial. “Smart meters” can trace the kind of appliances people use and how frequently they use them (Shattuck 1984, p. 204). The non-stop distribution of “automated surveillance systems” will soon denote that each movement on foot and by car may be traced during the day or at night. In fact, in a decade’s time, there will be machines that could detect the number of hair a person has on his/her body. There would also develop machines that will be viewing people naked despite wearing clothes. What this means is that technology is advancing at a very faster rate, the more it grows the more privacy of information and other things diminish (Greenleaf 1997, p. 461).

In addition to that, the enormous selection and arrangement of electronic equipment with which people equip themselves with such as cell phones, baby monitors, portable phones, pagers, interactive cable systems, personal digital assistants and laptop computers generate other routes of the incursion of peoples’ privacy (Klein 2005, p. 151). It is clear that the era of technology has made the lives of people in the world easier in several aspects.

Technology provides people with significant information at the touch of a button and, for several parts, operates as socially useful ends. For instance, data matching can be greatly useful particularly in matching items like income tax refund beneficiaries against the names of crook borrowers from the student loan programs. It can as well issue information concerning the location and situation of familiar sexual predators. Nevertheless, to some extent, the compilation of data can become so invasive that it comprises what has turned to be “date rape.” Date rape is the putting of a person’s individual and private information into a mass database that is not secure to prevent unauthorized individuals from accessing it (Nedelsky 2000, p. 514).

What can forbid providing information concerning your individual activities to insurance companies, direct marketers, employers or credit bureaus (Schoeman 1984, p. 221)? If a person hires an erotic “pay-per-view” film from the satellite dish or cable organization, should your employer has admission to such information? What extent of privacy do people anticipate when they send electronic mails using email addresses via their employer’s computers? Do they have the capability to control the sale of their individual information by one company to the other (Miller 2004, p. 198)? Should they be aware of the sale so that they may correct flawed information? How about if a person wishes to send that erroneous information to a friend, how sure will he or she be that other parties will not access the information? How confidential do people think their medical history is and who should have admission to that information? As hereditary information about people becomes recognizable, should it be present to the insurance companies, employers or even the government (Shattuck 1984, p. 201)?

In reality, defense against the secondary use of individual information causes one of the most problematic challenges. The following are ways to fight private information abuse and misuse by irrelevant parties.

Conclusions

Citizens of a country have a right to governmental responsibility meaning that information accumulated and used by the government must be admissible to the public. Several constitutions of different states support that and protect that right of admission including the Florida Constitution. However, the declaration of sufficient governmental liability and elementary rights of honesty and sincerity should never force the citizens of the United States to surrender the defense of the individual information from being accessed and employed for secondary commercial functions (Graham 1997, p. 589). Whereas both national and international laws may soon compel greater identification of technological privacy concerns, regional laws should also take that chance to issue their citizens with tougher privacy defense. Privacy concerns in the technology era are in their childhood stages while legislation to guard those concerns is in “an evolutionary stage.” Similarly, information privacy is not sufficiently protected. The question to be asked is; what can be done to save the situation. A number of resolutions are as follows.

To begin with, the constitution amendment is the most suitable way to go about it. The Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) is just but a set of rules that can only function in a stagnant world where there is nothing like technological advancement (Shattuck 1984, p. 991). Whereas the US constitution does have an explicit privacy stipulation to guard people against government interference, the stipulations should be expanded to encompass the right to be left alone and free from private interruptions (Moore v. Regents, 1990). This is a suitable subject for deliberation by the constitution revision. In dealing with the 1988 commission (Schoeman 1984, p. 221), Justice Overton precisely recommended that the constitutional commission tackle this issue. Nevertheless, the authors identify that skilling an amendment that will give sufficiency to people and still be flexible enough to contain technological improvements will present a challenge to the commission (Dan, Melissa & Kristen 2009, p. 138). Therefore, the commission has to restructure the present Privacy Act 1988 amendment and include language that will guard people against private interruptions. Therefore, this has to be stated this way;

1. Each native individual has the right to be left alone and free from governmental interruptions into his or her private life, not unless otherwise issued herein (Erik 1990, p. 234).
2. Nothing in this sector shall be interpreted to limit the rights of the public from accessing public records and meetings as issued by the law.

The second protective statutory stipulation has to be considered in the legislation. For example, legislation could be ratified that includes the principles laid down in the Code of Fair Information Practice and the Canadian Standards Association privacy principles. At a reduced effect, legislation should permit consumers to rectify and modify their individually identifiable information. Since they need services to describe how and why they accumulate information and what type of information is accumulated, they limit the disclosure of customer-associated information to third parties without the authority of the client and forbid governmental entities from selling individual information for secondary commercial functions (Greenleaf 1997, p. 461).

Moreover, it is essential to note that the government all by itself cannot protect us as citizens from ourselves, we need to protect each of us as individuals. Every one of us has a liability to perform whatever possible to give the privacy protections that every one of us desires. We should be familiar with and acknowledge what can be done to defend or informational privacy. Government, whether through statute, rule or constitutional stipulations, can never do it all (Paul & Dickman 1999, p. 213). According to Bryan Ptaffenberger (2001) in his book Protect Your Privacy on the Internet, internet users develop bulletproof passwords in order to prevent intrusion by invaders. This can be modeled through employing the first letters or words in a sentence that is easily recalled and mixing numbers together throughout the letters (Ghafele 2008, p.231). All in all, the following “Privacy tips” suggested in the book Who Knows: Safeguarding Your Privacy in Networked World by authors Ann Cavoukian and Don Tapscott.

1. Questions why you are asked for information.
2. Provide only the reduced information needed.
3. Ask why the information is required.
4. Challenge the sale, exchange or rental of the individual information to third parties for secondary usage.
5. Request to be selected out of a direct mailing list.
6. Be familiar with special offers.
7. Pay with cash whenever possible.

Once these measures are observed and put to practice, information privacy will improve greatly in comparison to section 14 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).

References

Alan, K. & Simpson, L. 1994, That’s not the Idea, The Plain Dealer, 9BGeorge de Lama, Candidates Backing Proposition 187 Could Get Burned. Chicago: Chicago Tribune.

Allan, W. 1996, Privacy and Freedom. Los Angeles: Longhorn Publishers.

Bryan P., 2001, Protect Your Privacy on the Internet, internetlab.com, North Carolina University Press, N. Carolina.

Dan, K., Melissa, B. & Kristen, D. 2009. “Uncertain Rights: Student Speed and Conflicting Interpretations of Morse v. Frederick”. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 86 (1): 138–156.

Davis v. Davis, 842 S.W.2d 588 (Tenn. 1992), cert. denied, New York, 113 S. Ct. 1259.

Dillon, T. P. 2001, Note, Source Compensation For Tissues And Cells Used In Biotechnical Research. Why a Source Shouldn’t Share in the Profits, 64 Notre Dame L. Rev. 628, 631

Erik, S.J. 1990. Note, “She’s Got Bette Davis[s] Eyes”: Assessing the Nonconsensual Removal of Cadaver Organs Under the Takings and Due Process Clauses, 90 Colum. L. Rev. 528, 554.

Gavison, R. 1998, Privacy and the Limits of Law, Yale Law Journal 89 (1980): 421–471.

Ghafele, R. 2008. “Perceptions of Intellectual Property: A Review”. London: Intellectual Property Institute.

Graham, J. P. 1997, Privacy, Computers, and the Commercial Dissemination of Personal Information, New York: SAGE.

Greenleaf, G. 1997, The Australia Card: Towards a National Surveillance System, Law Soc’y J., 1997 at 24, 25.

Hardiman, R. 1986, Comment, Toward the Right of Commerciality: Recognizing Property Rights in the Commercial Value of Human Tissue, 34 UCLA L. Rev. 207, 213.

Hayden, T. & Novik, J. 2003, Your Rights To Privacy 100. New York: SAGE.

Hodge, S., 2000, Big Brother’s I.D. Card Better Yet, Why Not Just Brand Babies? Los Angeles Daily Journal

James, F. 2010, BONG HiTS 4 JESUS: a perfect constitutional storm in Alaska’s capital. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press.

Jeffrey R., 1995, Privacy for Sale. New York: Longman Publishers.

Klein, G. 2005, National ID Seen As Way To Screen Illegal Workers, Tampa Tribune, New York: New York press.

Miller, J. L. 2004, Search and Seizure of Air Passengers and Pilots: The Fourth Amendment Takes Flight, 22 Transp. L. J. 199, 200

Moore v. Regents of the University of California, 51 Cal. 3d 120 (1990).

Nedelsky, J. 2000, Private Property and American Constitutionalism. Longman publishers: Washington D.C.

Orwell, G. 1984, We Were Warned, The Wall St. J., New York: New York Publication. pp.178 – 213.

Orwell, G., 1984, We Were Warned. Washington, D.C.: Washington University Press,

Paul E. F. & Dickman, H. 1999, Liberty, Property, and Government: Constitutional Interpretation Before the New Deal. New York: Florida University Press.

Peck, R. S. 2000. Extending the Constitutional Right to Privacy in the New Technological Age, 12 Hofstra L. Rev. 893, 898.

Pennock R. & Chapman, J. eds., 1994, Nomos XIII: Privacy. New York.

Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Act 2000. Administered by: Attorney-General’s Originating Bill.

Rose-Acherman, S. 1995, Inalienability and the Theory of Property Rights, Florida: Florida University Press.

Ryan, A., 1984, Property and Political Theory. New York: New York Publication.

Schoeman, F. 1984, Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy. New York: New York Publication

Scott, W. B. 2001, In Pursuit of Happiness: American Conceptions of Property from the Seventeenth to the Twentieth Century. California State University Press, California.

Shattuck, J. 1984, In the Shadow of 1984: National Identification Systems, Computer-Matching, and Privacy in the United States, 35 Hastings L. J. 991

States v. Pinson, 24 F.3d 1056 and the United States v. Ford, No. 92-5181, WL 514580 (11th Cir. Sept. 21, 1994).

Suro, R. 2005, Workplace May Be Focus of Immigration Control; White House Officials Consider Programs That Could Spawn Computerized National Registry, Washington Post, Washington University Press, Print.

Walker, G. Q. 2006, Information as Power: Constitutional Implications of the Identity Numbering and ID Card Proposal, Queensland L. Soc’y J., at 153, 158

Westin, A. 1996, Privacy and Freedom. Longhorn Publishers: Los Angeles.