BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Expectation of Privacy in Cyberspace: The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and an Evaluation of the Turkish Case

Yıl 2012, Cilt: 18 Sayı: 18, - , 01.09.2012

İlker Pekgözlü Mustafa Öktem

Öz

Privacy in cyberspace is becoming a dispute issue for the criminal justice system. Initially, we should determine what kind of cyberspace we desire, and then, we can choose a legal platform to get this online environment. Because policing in cyberspace is an inevitable need, the question of what extent the law can protect individuals’ expectation of privacy in cyberspace has become an important problem. This study initially explains the legal descriptions of privacy, expectation of privacy, and cyberspace. Then, it discusses the expectation of privacy in cyberspace based on the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. It also presents the current state of the privacy of private life and the privacy of communication in the Turkish judicial system.

Anahtar Kelimeler

-

Kaynakça

  • American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno, 929 F.Supp. 824, E.D.Pa. (1996).
  • Ferrera G.R., S.D. Lichtenstein, M.E.K. Reder, R. August, and W.T. Schiano (2001), CyberLaw: Your Rights in Cyberspace, Mason, OH: Thomson Learning.
  • Froomkin, A.M. (2003), “Habermas @Discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace”, 116 Harv. L. Rev., 749-78.
  • Garner, B.A. (2004), Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th edition. USA: Thomson-West.
  • Gleason, D.H. and L. Friedman (2004), “Toward an Accessible Conception of Cyberspace”, 28 Vt. L. Rev., 299-320.
  • Grosso, A. (1994), “The National Information Infrastructure”, 41 Fed. B. News & J., 481, 485-86.
  • Harvard Law Review Association (1997), “Keeping Secrets in Cyberspace: Establishing Fourth Amendment Protection for Internet Communication”, 110 Harv. L. Rev., 1591- 1608.
  • Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 300–03 (1966).
  • Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 133 & n.5. (1990).
  • Hunter, D. (2003), “Cyberspace as Place and the Tragedy of the Digital Anticommons”, 91 Cal. L. Rev., 439-519.
  • Katyal, S.K. (2003), “The New Surveillance”, 54 Case W. Res. L. Rev., 297.
  • Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
  • Kerr, O.S. (2001), “The Fourth Amendment in Cyberspace: Can Encryption Create a 'Reasonable Expectation of Privacy?'”, 33 Conn. L. Rev., 503-533.
  • Kerr, O.S. (2010), “Applying the Fourth Amendment to the Internet: A General Approach”, 62 Stan. L. Rev., 1005.
  • Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001).
  • Lessig, L. (1996), “Reading the Constitution in Cyberspace”, 45 Emory L.J., 869-91.
  • McKamey v. Roach, 55 F.3d 1236, 1239 (6th Cir. 1995).
  • Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 179 (1984).
  • Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 466 (1928).
  • Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 589 (1980).
  • Regulation for Implementing the Information Access Right Law (2004), Order Number: 2004/7189, 19.4.2004.
  • Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973).
  • Seidman, L.M. (1995), “The Problems with Privacy's Problem”, 93 Mich. L. Rev., 1079-1086.
  • Sergent, R.S. (1995), “A Fourth Amendment Model for Computer Networks and Data Privacy”, 81 Va. L. Rev., 1181-1226.
  • Swire, P.P. (2009), “Review of Christopher Slobogin’s Book (Privacy at Risk: The New Government Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment, University of Chicago Press 2007): Proportionality for High-Tech Searches”, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 6, 751–63.
  • T.C. Anayasa Mahkemesi (2011), The Constitution of the Republic of Turkey, <http://www.anayasa.gov.tr/images/loaded/pdf_dosyalari/ THE_CONSTITUTION_OF_THE_REPUBLIC_OF_TURKEY.pdf>, 28.02. 2011.
  • TÜSEV (2011), Turkish Civil Code, <http://www.tusev.org.tr/userfiles/image/ turkey%20tr%20civil%20code%20provisions.pdf>, 28.02. 2011.
  • Tyler v. Berodt, 877 F.2d 705, 706–07 (8th Cir. 1989).
  • United States v. Gines-Perez, 214 F. Supp. 2d 205 (D.P.R. 2002).
  • United States v. King, 55 F.3d 1193, 1196 (6th Cir. 1995).
  • United States v. King, 509 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 2007).
  • United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171 (1974).
  • United States v. Maxwell, No. 95–0751, 1996 (C.A.A.F. Nov. 21, 1996).
  • United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 442–43 (1976).
  • United States v. Smith, 978 F.2d 171, 180 (5th Cir. 1992).
  • U.S. v. Charbonneau, 979 F.Supp. 1177 S.D.Ohio (1997).
  • Waldo, J., H.S. Lin, and L.I. Millett (2010), “Thinking About Privacy: Chapter 1 of 'Engaging Privacy and Information Technology in a Digital Age'”, Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality, 2(1): 19–50.
  • Winick, R. (1994), “Searches and Seizures of Computers and Computer Data”, 8 Harv. J.L. & Tech., 75, 81-82.
  • Yen, A.C. (2002), “Western Frontier or Feudal Society?: Metaphors and Perceptions of Cyberspace”, 17 Berkeley Tech. L.J., 1207-1214.
  • Zevkliler, A., M.B. Acabey, K.E. Gökyayla (1999), Zevkliler Medeni Hukuk, Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.

Expectation of Privacy in Cyberspace: The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and an Evaluation of the Turkish Case

Yıl 2012, Cilt: 18 Sayı: 18, - , 01.09.2012

İlker Pekgözlü Mustafa Öktem

Öz

Privacy in cyberspace is becoming a dispute issue for the criminal justice system. Initially, we should determine what kind of cyberspace we desire, and then, we can choose a legal platform to get this online environment. Because policing in cyberspace is an inevitable need, the question of what extent the law can protect individuals’ expectation of privacy in cyberspace has become an important problem. This study initially explains the legal descriptions of privacy, expectation of privacy, and cyberspace. Then, it discusses the expectation of privacy in cyberspace based on the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. It also presents the current state of the privacy of private life and the privacy of communication in the Turkish judicial system.

Anahtar Kelimeler

-

Kaynakça

  • American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno, 929 F.Supp. 824, E.D.Pa. (1996).
  • Ferrera G.R., S.D. Lichtenstein, M.E.K. Reder, R. August, and W.T. Schiano (2001), CyberLaw: Your Rights in Cyberspace, Mason, OH: Thomson Learning.
  • Froomkin, A.M. (2003), “Habermas @Discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace”, 116 Harv. L. Rev., 749-78.
  • Garner, B.A. (2004), Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th edition. USA: Thomson-West.
  • Gleason, D.H. and L. Friedman (2004), “Toward an Accessible Conception of Cyberspace”, 28 Vt. L. Rev., 299-320.
  • Grosso, A. (1994), “The National Information Infrastructure”, 41 Fed. B. News & J., 481, 485-86.
  • Harvard Law Review Association (1997), “Keeping Secrets in Cyberspace: Establishing Fourth Amendment Protection for Internet Communication”, 110 Harv. L. Rev., 1591- 1608.
  • Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 300–03 (1966).
  • Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 133 & n.5. (1990).
  • Hunter, D. (2003), “Cyberspace as Place and the Tragedy of the Digital Anticommons”, 91 Cal. L. Rev., 439-519.
  • Katyal, S.K. (2003), “The New Surveillance”, 54 Case W. Res. L. Rev., 297.
  • Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
  • Kerr, O.S. (2001), “The Fourth Amendment in Cyberspace: Can Encryption Create a 'Reasonable Expectation of Privacy?'”, 33 Conn. L. Rev., 503-533.
  • Kerr, O.S. (2010), “Applying the Fourth Amendment to the Internet: A General Approach”, 62 Stan. L. Rev., 1005.
  • Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001).
  • Lessig, L. (1996), “Reading the Constitution in Cyberspace”, 45 Emory L.J., 869-91.
  • McKamey v. Roach, 55 F.3d 1236, 1239 (6th Cir. 1995).
  • Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 179 (1984).
  • Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 466 (1928).
  • Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 589 (1980).
  • Regulation for Implementing the Information Access Right Law (2004), Order Number: 2004/7189, 19.4.2004.
  • Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973).
  • Seidman, L.M. (1995), “The Problems with Privacy's Problem”, 93 Mich. L. Rev., 1079-1086.
  • Sergent, R.S. (1995), “A Fourth Amendment Model for Computer Networks and Data Privacy”, 81 Va. L. Rev., 1181-1226.
  • Swire, P.P. (2009), “Review of Christopher Slobogin’s Book (Privacy at Risk: The New Government Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment, University of Chicago Press 2007): Proportionality for High-Tech Searches”, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 6, 751–63.
  • T.C. Anayasa Mahkemesi (2011), The Constitution of the Republic of Turkey, <http://www.anayasa.gov.tr/images/loaded/pdf_dosyalari/ THE_CONSTITUTION_OF_THE_REPUBLIC_OF_TURKEY.pdf>, 28.02. 2011.
  • TÜSEV (2011), Turkish Civil Code, <http://www.tusev.org.tr/userfiles/image/ turkey%20tr%20civil%20code%20provisions.pdf>, 28.02. 2011.
  • Tyler v. Berodt, 877 F.2d 705, 706–07 (8th Cir. 1989).
  • United States v. Gines-Perez, 214 F. Supp. 2d 205 (D.P.R. 2002).
  • United States v. King, 55 F.3d 1193, 1196 (6th Cir. 1995).
  • United States v. King, 509 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 2007).
  • United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171 (1974).
  • United States v. Maxwell, No. 95–0751, 1996 (C.A.A.F. Nov. 21, 1996).
  • United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 442–43 (1976).
  • United States v. Smith, 978 F.2d 171, 180 (5th Cir. 1992).
  • U.S. v. Charbonneau, 979 F.Supp. 1177 S.D.Ohio (1997).
  • Waldo, J., H.S. Lin, and L.I. Millett (2010), “Thinking About Privacy: Chapter 1 of 'Engaging Privacy and Information Technology in a Digital Age'”, Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality, 2(1): 19–50.
  • Winick, R. (1994), “Searches and Seizures of Computers and Computer Data”, 8 Harv. J.L. & Tech., 75, 81-82.
  • Yen, A.C. (2002), “Western Frontier or Feudal Society?: Metaphors and Perceptions of Cyberspace”, 17 Berkeley Tech. L.J., 1207-1214.
  • Zevkliler, A., M.B. Acabey, K.E. Gökyayla (1999), Zevkliler Medeni Hukuk, Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.
Toplam 40 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

İlker Pekgözlü Bu kişi benim

Mustafa Öktem

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Eylül 2012
Gönderilme Tarihi 12 Aralık 2014
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2012 Cilt: 18 Sayı: 18

Kaynak Göster

APA Pekgözlü, İ., & Öktem, M. (2012). Expectation of Privacy in Cyberspace: The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and an Evaluation of the Turkish Case. Sosyoekonomi, 18(18). https://doi.org/10.17233/se.86682
AMA Pekgözlü İ, Öktem M. Expectation of Privacy in Cyberspace: The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and an Evaluation of the Turkish Case. Sosyoekonomi. Ekim 2012;18(18). doi:10.17233/se.86682
Chicago Pekgözlü, İlker, ve Mustafa Öktem. “Expectation of Privacy in Cyberspace: The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and an Evaluation of the Turkish Case”. Sosyoekonomi 18, sy. 18 (Ekim 2012). https://doi.org/10.17233/se.86682.
EndNote Pekgözlü İ, Öktem M (01 Ekim 2012) Expectation of Privacy in Cyberspace: The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and an Evaluation of the Turkish Case. Sosyoekonomi 18 18
IEEE İ. Pekgözlü ve M. Öktem, “Expectation of Privacy in Cyberspace: The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and an Evaluation of the Turkish Case”, Sosyoekonomi, c. 18, sy. 18, 2012, doi: 10.17233/se.86682.
ISNAD Pekgözlü, İlker - Öktem, Mustafa. “Expectation of Privacy in Cyberspace: The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and an Evaluation of the Turkish Case”. Sosyoekonomi 18/18 (Ekim 2012). https://doi.org/10.17233/se.86682.
JAMA Pekgözlü İ, Öktem M. Expectation of Privacy in Cyberspace: The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and an Evaluation of the Turkish Case. Sosyoekonomi. 2012;18. doi:10.17233/se.86682.
MLA Pekgözlü, İlker ve Mustafa Öktem. “Expectation of Privacy in Cyberspace: The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and an Evaluation of the Turkish Case”. Sosyoekonomi, c. 18, sy. 18, 2012, doi:10.17233/se.86682.
Vancouver Pekgözlü İ, Öktem M. Expectation of Privacy in Cyberspace: The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and an Evaluation of the Turkish Case. Sosyoekonomi. 2012;18(18).
 Kapak Resmi İndir