# data[].attributes.body
Privacy Act of 1974
the right to privacy refers to the concept that one's personal information is public scrutiny

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The right to privacy refers to the concept that one's personal information is protected from public scrutiny. U.S. Justice Louis Brandeis called it "the right to be left alone." While not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, some amendments provide some protections.

The right to privacy most often is protected by statutory law. For example, the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) protects a person's health information, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforces the right to privacy in various privacy policies and privacy statements.

The right to privacy often must be balanced against the state's compelling interests, including the promotion of public safety and improving the quality of life. Seat-belt laws and motorcycle helmet requirements are examples of such laws. And while many Americans are quite aware that the government collects personal information, most say that government surveillance is acceptable.

The right to privacy often means the right to personal autonomy, or the right to choose whether or not to engage in certain acts or have certain experiences. Several amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been used in varying degrees of success in determining a right to personal autonomy:

The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs

The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers

The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches

The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information

The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

However, the protections have been narrowly defined and usually only pertain to family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing.

For example, the Supreme Court first recognized that the various Bill of Rights guarantees creates a "zone of privacy" in Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 ruling that upheld marital privacy and struck down bans on contraception.

The court ruled in 1969 that the right to privacy protected a person's right to possess and view pornography in his own home. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote in Stanley v. Georgia that, " If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch."

The controversial case Roe v. Wade in 1972 firmly established the right to privacy as fundamental, and required that any governmental infringement of that right to be justified by a compelling state interest. In Roe, the court ruled that the state's compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting the life of the mother outweighs a mother's personal autonomy only after viability. Before viability, the mother's right to privacy limits state interference due to the lack of a compelling state interest.

In 2003, the court, in Lawrence v. Texas, overturned an earlier ruling and found that Texas had violated the rights of two gay men when it enforced a law prohibiting sodomy. [ Countdown: 10 Milestones in Gay Rights History]

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."

A person has the right to determine what sort of information about them is collected and how that information is used. In the marketplace, the FTC enforces this right through laws intended to prevent deceptive practices and unfair competition.

The Privacy Act of 1974 prevents unauthorized disclosure of personal information held by the federal government. A person has the right to review their own personal information, ask for corrections and be informed of any disclosures.

The Financial Monetization Act of 1999 requires financial institutions to provide customers with a privacy policy that explains what kind of information is being collected and how it is being used. Financial institutions are also required to have safeguards that protect the information they collect from customers.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act protects personal financial information collected by credit reporting agencies. The act puts limits on who can access such information and requires agencies to have simple processes by which consumers can get their information, review it and make corrections.

Internet users can protect their privacy by taking actions that prevent the collection of information. Most people who use the Internet are familiar with tracking cookies. These small stores of data keep a log of your online activities and reports back to the tracker host. The information is usually for marketing purposes. To many Internet users, this is an invasion of privacy. But there are several ways to avoid tracking cookies.

Browsers and social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, allow users to choose levels of privacy settings, from share everything to only share with friends to share only the minimum, such as your name, gender and profile picture. Protecting personally identifiable information is important for preventing identity theft.

The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) enforces a parent's right to control what information websites collect about their children. Websites that target children younger than 13 or knowingly collect information from children must post privacy policies, get parental consent before collecting information from children, allow parents to decide how such information is used and provide an opt-out option for future collection of a child's information.

Just as a person has the right to keep personal information private, he or she also has the right to control the use of his or her identity for commercial promotion. Unauthorized use of one's name or likeness is recognized as an invasion of privacy.

There are four types of invasion of privacy: intrusion, appropriation of name or likeness, unreasonable publicity and false light. If a company uses a person's photo in an ad claiming that the person endorses a certain product, the person could file a lawsuit claiming misappropriation.

The Supreme Court approaches the right to privacy and personal autonomy on a case-by-case basis. As public opinion changes regarding relationships and activities, and the boundaries of personal privacy change, largely due to social media and an atmosphere of "sharing," the definition of the right to privacy is ever-changing.

Related:

Further reading:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The right to privacy refers to the concept that one's personal information is protected from public scrutiny. U.S. Justice Louis Brandeis called it "the right to be left alone." While not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, some amendments provide some protections. The right to privacy most often is protected by statutory law.

# data[].attributes.body
The HEW report
in 1973,the department of health, Education, and welfare(HEW) issued a report entitled records, computers, and the rights of citizens

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) focuses public attention on emerging civil liberties, privacy, First Amendment issues and works to promote the Public Voice in decisions concerning the future of the Internet.

# data[].attributes.body
net neutrality is the principle that individuals should be free to access all content and applications equally

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On December 14, 2017, the FCC voted to repeal the strong net neutrality rules that were preserving an open, fair, competitive internet for all

# data[].attributes.body
limitations on the use of social security number
-section 7 of the privacy Act says that no federal, state, or local government

# data[].attributes.body
Net neutrality
Who-senators, Donald Trump, and Chuck Suhumer
What-senator force vote in last-ditch attempt to save net neutrality
When-May 9,2018
Where-In Washington D.C.
Why-the senators are hoping to save the open internet rules through the congressional review act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Democrats in the Senate - and one Republican - took a step Wednesday toward saving net neutrality by forcing the U.S. Senate to vote on whether to overrule a Federal Communications Commission decision to undo open internet protections put in place under President Barack Obama.

The senators are hoping to save the open internet rules through the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to veto rulings by federal agencies. Without congressional action, net neutrality supporters say it will just be a matter of time until the Office of Management and Budget approves the change and they go into effect.

On Wednesday, the group of senators, led by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., filed a discharge petition, a formality needed to trigger a vote on the Senate floor. It was not immediately known when the vote will be scheduled, although the deadline for a vote is June 12.

At its core, net neutrality regulations prohibit internet service providers from engaging in "unfair" practices, including blocking websites, throttling traffic and engaging in paid prioritization, or when an internet provider favors one of site over a competitor's or offers better access to companies that pay for it.

The issue has split hard-line members of both parties. With a Republican majority, the FCC voted 3-2 in December in favor of returning to a "light touch" approach and ending what the commission's chairman, Ajit Pai, has called the "micromanaging of the internet."

While a Senate vote appears to be one of the final chances to stop the FCC rule, getting the necessary votes is going to be an uphill battle.

The good news for open internet supporters is that, at present, they need one more vote in the Senate to pass the resolution. The chamber's 49 Democrats support it, as does the one Republican who joined them in pushing for a vote on the FCC rule, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who is known for crossing party lines on key votes. If Sen. John McCain, a Republican who is currently home in Arizona battling brain cancer, is not present for the vote, a 50-49 decision would send the vote to the House.

But the fight there looks a lot less promising.

With Republicans in the majority, 236-193, in the House, the resolution is unlikely to pass, and even if it does, it would still need President Donald Trump's signature.

The Democratic senators are getting some help, though, with popular websites like Etsy and OKCupid issuing red alerts on Wednesday, encouraging visitors to contact members of Congress to help save net neutrality.

Following the FCC's repeal of the Open Internet Order last December, Senate Democrats have been working with open internet advocates by holding meetings around the United States with the hope of rallying grass-roots support.

Even if the Senate vote doesn't happen, or the resolution doesn't pass, net neutrality is still showing signs of life at the state level, with a number of states passing net neutrality protections. However, with a patchwork of regulation around the US, and the potential for a challenge at the federal level, the fight for net neutrality is clearly far from over.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Senators force vote in last-ditch attempt to save net neutrality

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Democrats in the Senate - and one Republican - took a step Wednesday toward saving net neutrality by forcing the U.S. Senate to vote on whether to overrule a Federal Communications Commission decision to undo open internet protections put in place under President Barack Obama.

# data[].attributes.body
due to the 3 current events i can predict that they will be less rights for net neutrality. An article by the New York times describes the repeal of current Obama era regulations for net services. What this means is that consumers utilizing the internet have fluctuating prices and internet speed coverage.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Image

Ajit Pai, the F.C.C. chairman, said the rollback of the net neutrality rules would eventually help consumers because broadband providers like AT&T and Comcast could offer people a wider variety of service options. Credit Credit Tom Brenner/The New York Times

WASHINGTON - The Federal Communications Commission voted on Thursday to dismantle rules regulating the businesses that connect consumers to the internet, granting broadband companies the power to potentially reshape Americans' online experiences.

The agency scrapped the so-called net neutrality regulations that prohibited broadband providers from blocking websites or charging for higher-quality service or certain content. The federal government will also no longer regulate high-speed internet delivery as if it were a utility, like phone service.

The action reversed the agency's 2015 decision, during the Obama administration, to have stronger oversight over broadband providers as Americans have migrated to the internet for most communications. It reflected the view of the Trump administration and the new F.C.C. chairman that unregulated business will eventually yield innovation and help the economy.

It will take weeks for the repeal to go into effect, so consumers will not see any of the potential changes right away. But the political and legal fight started immediately. Numerous Democrats on Capitol Hill called for a bill that would reestablish the rules, and several Democratic state attorneys general, including Eric T. Schneiderman of New York, said they would file a suit to stop the change.

Several public interest groups including Public Knowledge and the National Hispanic Media Coalition also promised to file a suit. The Internet Association, the trade group that represents big tech firms such as Google and Facebook, said it also was considering legal action.

The commission's chairman, Ajit Pai, vigorously defended the repeal before the vote. He said the rollback of the rules would eventually benefit consumers because broadband providers like AT&T and Comcast could offer them a wider variety of service options. His two fellow Republican commissioners also supported the change, giving them a 3-to-2 majority.

"We are helping consumers and promoting competition," Mr. Pai said. "Broadband providers will have more incentive to build networks, especially to underserved areas."

The discarding of the net neutrality regulations is the most significant and controversial action by the F.C.C. under Mr. Pai. In his first 11 months as chairman, he has lifted media ownership limits, eased caps on how much broadband providers can charge business customers and cut back on a low-income broadband program that was slated to be expanded to nationwide carriers.

The F.C.C. voted to dismantle rules that require internet providers to give consumers equal access to all content online. Here's how net neutrality works. Credit Credit Michael Bocchieri/Getty Images

His plan for the net neutrality rules, first outlined early this year, set off a flurry of opposition. The issue has bubbled up occasionally for more than a decade, with the debate getting more intense over the years as digital services have become more ingrained in everyday life.

Critics of the changes say that consumers will have more difficulty accessing content online and that start-ups will have to pay to reach consumers. In the past week, there have been hundreds of protests across the country, and many websites have encouraged users to speak up against the repeal.

In front of a room packed with reporters and television cameras from the major networks, the two Democratic commissioners warned of consumer harms to come from the changes.

Mignon Clyburn, one of the Democratic commissioners, presented two accordion folders full of letters protesting the changes, and accused the three Republican commissioners of defying the wishes of millions of Americans by ceding their oversight authority.

"I dissent, because I am among the millions outraged," said Ms. Clyburn. "Outraged, because the F.C.C. pulls its own teeth, abdicating responsibility to protect the nation's broadband consumers."

Brendan Carr, a Republican commissioner, said it was a "great day" and dismissed critics' "apocalyptic" warnings.

"I'm proud to end this two-year experiment with heavy-handed regulation," Mr. Carr said.

During Mr. Pai's speech before the vote, security guards entered the meeting room at the F.C.C. headquarters and told everyone to evacuate. The commissioners were ushered out a back door. The agency did not say what had caused the evacuation, other than Mr. Pai saying it had been done "on advice of security." The hearing restarted a short time later.

Despite all the uproar, it is unclear how much will eventually change for internet users. Major telecom companies like AT&T and Comcast, as well as two of the industry's major trade groups, have promised consumers that their experiences online would not change.

Mr. Pai and his Republican colleagues have echoed the comments of the telecom companies, which have told regulators that because of the limits to their business imposed by the rules, they weren't expanding and upgrading their networks as quickly as they wanted.

"There is a lot of misinformation that this is the 'end of the world as we know it' for the internet," Comcast's senior executive vice president, David Cohen, wrote in a blog post this week. "Our internet service is not going to change."

But with the F.C.C. making clear that it will no longer oversee the behavior of broadband providers, telecom experts said, the companies could feel freer to come up with new offerings, such as faster tiers of service for online businesses willing and able to pay for it. Some of those costs could be passed on to consumers.

Those experts also said that such prioritization could stifle certain political voices or give the telecom conglomerates with media assets an edge over their rivals.

Consumer groups, start-ups and many small businesses said there have already been examples of net neutrality violations by companies, such as when AT&T blocked FaceTime on iPhones using its network.

These critics of Mr. Pai, who was nominated by President Trump, said there isn't enough competition in the broadband market to trust that the companies will try to offer the best services. The rule changes, they believe, give providers incentive to begin charging websites to reach consumers.

"Let's remember why we have these rules in the first place," said Michael Beckerman, president of the Internet Association, the trade group. "There is little competition in the broadband service market."

Dozens of Democratic lawmakers, and some Republicans, have pushed for Congress to pass a law on the issue.

One Republican commissioner, Mike O'Reilly, said he supported a law created by Congress for net neutrality. But he said any law should be less restrictive than the 2015 rules, protecting the ability of companies to charge for faster lanes, a practice known as "paid prioritization."

Any legislative action appears to be far off, however, and numerous online companies warned that the changes approved on Thursday should be taken seriously.

"If we don't have net neutrality protections that enforce tenets of fairness online, you give internet service providers the ability to choose winners and losers," Steve Huffman, chief executive of Reddit, said in an interview. "This is not hyperbole."

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: F.C.C. Reverses Rules Requiring Net Neutrality. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - The Federal Communications Commission voted on Thursday to dismantle rules regulating the businesses that connect consumers to the internet, granting broadband companies the power to potentially reshape Americans' online experiences. The agency scrapped the so-called net neutrality regulations that prohibited broadband providers from blocking websites or charging for higher-quality service or certain content.

# data[].attributes.body
“Net Neutrality.” Public Knowledge, www.publicknowledge.org/issues/net-neutrality.

“Senators Force Vote in Last-Ditch Attempt to Save Net Neutrality.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/senators-force-vote-last-ditch-attempt-save-net-neutrality-n872711.

Electronic Privacy Information Center. “EPIC - The Privacy Act of 1974.” Electronic Privacy Information Center, epic.org/privacy/1974act/.

Sharp, Tim. “Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws.” LiveScience, Purch, 12 June 2013, www.livescience.com/37398-right-to-privacy.html.

Kang, Cecilia. “F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 14 Dec. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html.