Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on CLANDESTINE MONITORING IN THE WORKPLACE: A POSITION PAPER. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 9 page paper discusses the use of clandestine monitoring by employers of their workers. Case studies, court cases, and specific examples given against this practice. Bibliography lists 9 sources.
Page Count:
9 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_MBcancam.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
law has recently come under scrutiny with the advent of President Bushs use of wiretaps and interrogating operations of those suspected in the WTC bombing September 11, 2001. Perhaps
taking their cue from the president, one has to wonder if employers have gone too far in the name of security as well. In the heightened hysteria following September 11th
it seemed every paranoid tendency was allowed to run amuck. However, this issue was tried and decided decades before in Katz V United States, and numerous studies show that
constitutionally this practice is wrong and morally reckless. Interestingly enough, this idea of a persons right to privacy was already tried and decided as early as 1967 with a court
case called the Katz v United States. A quick summary of the case shows that police arrested and incarcerated a Mr. Katz after obtaining incriminating evidence against him while he
transmitted wagering information by phone across state lines. The tapes, which resulted from the wiretaps, were admitted as evidence at the trial. The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction finding
that there was no Fourth Amendment violation since there was no physical entrance into the phone booth, in other words, his domicile at the time(Katz v US 387 U.S. 347).
Attorneys cried foul stating that the clients Fourth Amendment rights had been grotesquely violated by the FBI agents. This is what caught the Supreme Courts attention and why they agreed
to try the case. The decision in 1967 stated that the Fourth Amendment needed to be expanded to include a two fold agreement, first that a person have exhibited an
actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable(Katz v US 387 U.S. 347). One of the very reasons
...