Source: http://www.vaniachaker.com/abstracts-of-articles.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 10:35:20+00:00

Document:
Against a backdrop of stunningly advanced surveillance technology and the strictures of the United States Constitution, the question of how individual privacy comports with the need for police investigation is a complex and impressively difficult one. Judicial vigilance is increasingly important in protecting the appropriate dimensions of individual privacy. The grave risks of governmental abuse may militate in favor of strengthened judicial oversight.
Strong privacy protections, however, may indeed serve to function as a safeguard against the risks of governmental overreach and police misconduct. These are impressively difficult questions which I discuss in this series of law articles. These Chimaera series of law review articles examine the constitutionality of warrantless government searches of private data and monitoring of electronic transmissions using emerging technology. This includes legal analysis and the normative implications of such governmental policies. I certainly hope that you enjoy these articles on Privacy, Emerging Technology, Cyber Law, and Constitutional Law.
- Vania M. Chaker, Esq.
Recently, the United States Supreme Court wrestled with the profoundly complex and bedeviling issue of individual privacy in the landmark case of Carpenter v. United States. It is the most recent in a long line of Fourth Amendment cases that examine an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy. In Carpenter, the Supreme Court revisited and expanded upon this query from Riley v. California and United States v. Jones—both progeny of Katz v. United States, the leading case in this area.
These cases, which stand for the proposition that there is a reduced expectation of privacy in information an individual knowingly shares with another, have thus been narrowed. Against a backdrop of stunningly advanced surveillance technology and the strictures of the United States Constitution, the question of how individual privacy comports with the need for police investigation is a complex and impressively difficult one.
This article analyzes the Constitutionality of the United States government’s warrantless searches of private citizens and companies, including private digital transmissions and stored electronic data, through the use of emerging technology.
This article examines the legal and legislative history of the Fourth Amendment, focusing on Katz v. United States and its progeny. It includes a review of the most recent U.S. Supreme Court cases in the area of privacy and the Fourth Amendment – Riley v. California, United States v. Jones, and Carpenter v. United States. While evaluating the government’s actions with respect to warrantless searches and surveillance in the post-Katz era, it also examines specific examples of surreptitious governmental monitoring programs that likely fall awry of the United States Constitution.
This article also considers the greater normative and policy implications of the government’s arguably extra-legal conduct, including the potential for the derision of democratic values and ideals that may in turn result in the weakening of our country’s political framework and cybersecurity infrastructure.
 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014).
 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012).
The United States government enjoys awesome technological capabilities. It can facilely monitor electronic communications and surreptitiously retrieve stored information on private computer systems. Technology that was once the stuff of science fiction is now routinely used in real life to monitor the activities of citizens, corporations, even foreign nationals in foreign nations.
Unfortunately, such powerful governmental capabilities have not been tempered by the countervailing protective judicial or legislative safeguards necessary to offset the greatly increased potential for improper government intrusiveness.
By Vania M. Chaker, Esq.
​All works are protected by copyright and may not be used without permission.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.