Privacy
The United States vs. Malaysia
The United States' Response:
Before presenting the facts in this particular case, the
unique nature of this situation should be noted. In the past, it took
massive resources to reach even a nationwide audience with information.
Newspapers, radio, and television were the only ways to reach any
significant audience quickly and effectively. This has changed with the
advent of the Internet. For a few dollars a month one can reach an
international audience instantly. This rapid and radical change in the
propagation of information has led the US to scramble to extend laws to
cover this new form of communication.
The US Constitution does not directly protect the right to privacy of an individual. Despite this, there are a few amendments that prove important to the US view and later court cases that create this view. These amendments, the 1st and 14th, do not specifically give rights to privacy but do provide the framework for such an idea. The two actually work in opposite directions on this issue. The 1st amendment outlines the rights to freedom of speech. The 14th amendment outlines the rights of citizens and has been used in a number of cases to protect US citizen’s personal information, but only in a situation where an organization is disclosing the information.
One law that is a basis for citizen’s protection is the Privacy Act of 1974. This law states that “No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains”. This law, however, has not been extended to hold individuals accountable.
The individual posting this material would only be held accountable if he obtained that information illegally (assuming that the information is true, see below). There are a number of laws regarding legality of obtained information. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 brought privacy protection to email, cellular phone conversations, paging message contents, and satellite communications (Rubinstein). The Wire and Electronic Communications Interception and Interception of Oral Communications code set up standards for interception of information on various electronic media. The ownership, use, or sale of interception devices became illegal except by those recognized in the bill as approved to use such devices. The exceptions to these rules were mostly government and law enforcement agencies. Given these laws, the individual could be held accountable for the posting of the information if the information were obtained through illegal means.
Finally, an important distinction must be made with regard to truth of information. The abovementioned laws are applicable to both true and false statements about an individual. However, the restrictions are more clearly defined when false information is being spread. In the realm of false information, one must understand the ideas of libel and slander. Libel is “false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation” and “The act of presenting such material to the public”. Slander is “Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation”. The combination of these two and laws preventing them make it illegal to spread any type of false information. The only remaining hurdle is to prove that the false publications were meant to, and did, cause harm as described in The Libel FAQs. In these types of cases, there is a distinction between those in the public eye and an average citizen. In the situation examined, the posting of this information would be illegal given that the information was false and caused harm to the individual. However, it is very important to understand that the mother has no legal options unless the information is indeed false.