Skip to main content

James Comey view of 'Privacy'

As I was reading this week's chapter on Privacy, I couldn't help but think about the most recent speaking out of James Comey. James Comey was the former director of the FBI, and after being fired by Trump he had a lot of opinions about privacy in the United States. During a Boston College conference on cybersecurity Comey said that "There is no such thing as absolute privacy in America; there is no place outside of the judicial reach." (Mallonee and Scott, 2017) and adding "Even our communications with our spouses, with our clergy members, with our attorneys are not absolutely private in America." (Mallonee and Scott, 2017).

After reading what his opinions were on privacy, I started to question what is actually private in this country anymore. We know the FBI keeps track on Americans and their conversations in case they are affiliated with terrorist groups that could harm the U.S.'s safety, but at what point is our right to safety being threatened? I am like many other Americans who wonders if compromising my privacy for FBI investigations; and wonders when absolute privacy will become an actual thing.

Sources:
Mallonee, Mary Kay and Scott, Eugene, "Comey: 'There is no such thing as absolute privacy in America'." 2017

Comments

  1. AnonymousOctober 4, 2017 at 11:05 PM

    Comey's remarks during this hearing certainly came across to me as unsettling, even if this was unintentional on his part. Recent discussion regarding how much weight should be assigned to privacy vs. security reminds me of the classic Ben Franklin quote: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Although his remarks aren't a perfect comparison to this debate today given their context, I believe this question of prioritization is a valuable basis to establish policy that's conscious of people's rights to physical and technological privacy. I also think constant and continuous debate over legislation like the Patriot Act and the information revealed by whistleblowers like Edward Snowden is crucial to better developing the notion of privacy as we continue in the 21st century.

    Sources:

    “Ben Franklin's Famous 'Liberty, Safety' Quote Lost Its Context In 21st Century.” NPR, NPR, 2 Mar. 2015, www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gamifying Citizenship

The historical context of freedom of speech is an extremely interesting one. Why is it that the concept of free speech has been an undying one and has span the history of human communication. Breaking free speech in to three traditional rationals makes the concept easier to understand and definitely makes sense. These three modes of freedom of speech are philosophical, political and individual. They are easy to distinct from one another and function in completely different ways. From a philosophical level, free speech is a device of truth. That if people are able to speak freely and let their ideas compete, "in the long run the truth will prevail" according to Tedford and Herbeck. I find this interesting, because in my mind, this is the most important facet of free speech. I say this, because I find free speech essential for any kind of societal advancements. If people are not allowed to speak their mind and share their ideas, or discredit others ideas, how is a society supp...
1 comment
Read more

Wedding Cake Court Case (make-up post)

Wedding cake court case involving a gay couple, Charlie Craig & David Mullins, and a cake baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a wedding cake for the couple. Just all around, it's a tricky debate with many different angles due to the baker arguing on the grounds of the First Amendment---its protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion. In the end, I think it comes down to whether we consider baking a cake qualifies an exercise of freedom of expression. I would say that it depends on the situation/context of baking. If Mr. Phillips wants his cake baking to be categorized artistic expression that falls under free expression, he can just go bake a cake on his own. Only then when he's on his own private time does it qualify, but as soon as he offered his skills as a public service via his business, I'd argue he gave that right to expression up. Also, what's stopping other artisans/professional services to deny services? By Mr. Phillip's logic...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why is Freedom of Speech Important in a Democracy

While reading Chapter 15, I got the sense that the book was really coming full circle. In the first week of class, we established a meaning for freedom of speech and that shared meaning allowed us to navigate the classroom together as a classroom and a collective group. Creating a space that also involved mutual respect of opinons but encouraging difference in them as well. This brings me to an article I found about the importance of Freedom of Speech in a democracy. It is a basic human right to be able to express opinions and beliefs in our country. Although that is the main component, just like we established in class the first few weeks, in a government and democracy, Freedom of Speech also consists of the ability to listen to people with difference in opinions. In the article , editor Rachael  Jolly says, “ We are going through a time where people don’t want to be on a panel with people they disagree with. But we should feel comfortable being in a room with people who disagree ...
4 comments
Read more