Abstract
Technological advances have affected the definition of the right to privacy more than any other right provided for under the Constitution. Technological advances have triggered many privacy right cases imputing infringement of Fourth Amendment rights. Many of these types of privacy infringement cases involve, among others, wire-tapping, internet-tapping and other cyber crimes. The Fourth Amendment essentially protects the privacy of individuals from unwarranted govermental intrusion. This paper compares and contrast public safety versus civil rights issues based on the impact of technological advances on individual privacy rights. Lost in the Matrix
Introduction
Technological advances have created ground-breaking ways in which individual privacy can be infringed upon. These innovative technological advances have, among other novel affects, increased the ability to gather and share information. This increased ability has nearly made it impossible to retain privacy. Database systems have become so advanced that much more information can be stored on these databases worldwide leaving individuals with no method of knowing or controlling what type of information about themselves are being accessed. Information privacy has become a major privacy rights issue in the criminal justice system. This paper compares and contrast public safety versus civil rights issues based on the impact of technological advances on individual privacy rights.
Privacy Rights Laws While the right to privacy is not explicitly laid out in the Constitution, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated”(Rossum and Tarr, 2007, p. 797). This Amendment essentially protects the privacy of individuals from unwarranted govermental intrusion. For example, in a recent case, Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Company (445 F.Supp.2d 1116) the court found that the Fourth Amendment provides privacy rights to users of text messaging services. Judge Wardlaw in his opinion noted that:
The extent to which the Fourth Amendment provides protection for the contents of electronic communications in the Internet age is an open question. The recently minted standard of electronic communication via e-mails, text messages, and other means opens a new frontier in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence that has been little explored. Here, we must first answer the threshold question: Do users of text messaging services such as those provided by Arch Wireless have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their text messages stored on the service provider’s network? We hold that they do (Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Company, (445 F.Supp.2d 1116 )).
Certainly with all the new technologies being invented, when it comes to the Fourth Amendment relative to privacy rights and searches and seizures, judges do not have much case law to go on and are being charged with the task of setting precedence for future technology-related, especially those relating to public safety and civil rights.
Public Safety Regulations Aspects of information technology filter through every facet of American citizens lives. Despite the fact that our country is going “green” to create a safer environment to dwell in, the use of information technology has increased in recent months to allow for citizens to become more familiar with technology use. In the past, it was normal to receive notices, bills, and solicitations, ect... in the mail, however, since the country has resulted to better practices, the use of technology has allowed for these notices to enter homes across America through information technology. The problem is that without suitable public safety regulations, the continuing use of technology could be damaging and threatening to the public’s well being. Although there has been an increase of American citizens resulting to technology use, since the attack on 9/11 the government has also made progression of its own concerning information technology and public safety. The government has responded to prevent further damage with the passing of the Patriot Act. As it is known, the USA Patriot Act stands for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism” (EPIC, 2001). Because of its extended authority for the government’s surveillance, the USA Patriot Act gives law enforcement the ability to invade the privacy of foreigners, but is not limited to the U.S. citizens, through telephone, wire tapping, internet communications, and other electronic communications. Furthermore, “the Patriot Act gives law enforcement authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to computer fraud, and abuse offenders” (EPIC, 2005). In reference to civil rights, the extent of the USA Patriot Act only enforces protection for the better good of the American citizen’s public safety. Because the passing of this act, it serves as notice to all foreigners and citizens who may attempt to violate the safety of American citizens. Needless to say that without the USA Patriot Act, and other Information Technology laws, U.S citizens is placed at risk that could be detrimental when using technology for everyday activities.
Types of Technologies that Can Impact Privacy Rights
Amber’s section

Pros and cons to public safety argument relative to technological impact on privacy rights
Shawn’s section

Pros and cons to civil rights argument relative to technological impact on privacy rights
Dave’s section

Conclusion
Asharah and Aleishia The influx of technological advances has certainly produced many avenues for infringement upon privacy rights. _______________________________. Soon the government will be able to examine items in citizens’ homes without ever setting foot in their houses. Certainly interesting questions about the reality of privacy rights have been triggered.

References
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) (2001, Oct 24) H.R 3162 In the Senate of the United States Retrieved October 27, 2008, from http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) (2005, Nov 17) USA Patriot Act Retrieved October 27, 2008, from http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/
Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Company, (445 F.Supp.2d 1116 ). Retrieved November 4, 2008 from The Volokh Conspiracy Web site: http://www.volokh.com/posts/chain_1213821576.shtml.
Rossum, R.A. and Tarr, G.A. (2007). American constitutional law: The bill of rights and subsequent amendments. Volume II. (pp. 124-731). California: Thomson Wadsworth.