The right to privacy is as much a cherished Constitutional right as that of free speech or the right to bear arms.  Opponents of this right argue that a “right to privacy” is not clearly enunciated in the Constitution.  On the other hand, proponents of a right to privacy as well as the latest judicial decisions do indeed acknowledge a right to privacy.  They cite the 4th Amendment as evidence of this right which states,

The 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, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This issue has recently come to the forefront after the FBI began running a website that featured child pornography.  The goal of the operation, named Operation Pacifier, was to apprehend child molesters.  The website was operational for two weeks and the FBI nabbed Daryl Glenn Pawlak and charged him with receipt and possession of child pornography.  Since the arrest, defense lawyers have filed motions arguing that the FBI acted inappropriately and went beyond the bounds in setting up the child pornography sting.

“Not only was the government the largest distributor of child pornography … it was also the largest exploiter of children,” Pawlak’s attorney said in a court filing. “This conduct is the essence of outrageousness, and a serious need for deterrence exists.”

Now, I’m never going to be on the side of adults who are involved in child pornography.  It is one of the worst scourges on our society and the most innocent among us suffer irreparable damage.  Anyone who abuses a child should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Having said that, this case involves more than just child pornography.  The larger issue concerns everyone’s privacy rights.  In this case, the FBI used a single warrant to hack into anyone who visited the child porn site.  Generally, a judge will issue a warrant concerning a specific issue and that warrant will be limited to a person of interest or a group of persons of interest.  What happened in this case is far different.  The FBI used the single warrant to hack into thousands of computers never set forth in the warrant.

Andrew Crocker, staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco nonprofit group dealing with civil liberties in the digital world, said the government abused its power in these cases.  “It was as if they said, ‘We can search anywhere,'” Crocker said. “The breadth of this operation is what we are objecting to … hacking into a computer is very invasive. The government needs to meet a high standard.”

Since this case involves child pornography, many people will support the government’s effort to arrest and prosecute those who harm children.  The problem arises when the government chooses similar tactics to hack computers concerning other issues.  This is the legal and ethical conundrum which judges face.  In my opinion, this case will reach the US Supreme Court.  Privacy issues will be front and center and the outcome will affect everyone of us.  Does the government have a right to hack private computers if in the government’s opinion, the safety and welfare of the larger society is endangered?  What does this mean for Internet privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures as set forth in the 4th Amendment?  Time will tell.  In the meantime, know that privacy issues concerning the Internet are not clear.  Your online privacy may be invaded in the meantime.