"Less Privacy Is Good for Us (and You)" Discussion question #3

Amitai Etzioni, the author of, "Less Privacy Is Good for us (and You)," believes that the privacy issues should be examined under the Fourth Amendment rather than the First Amendment. Throughout the article, she mentions incidents that a normal person would not even think about happening such as, "Neighbors who listen in on your cell phones, and E-Z passes that allow tollbooth operators to keep track of your movements (131)." These examples just previously mentioned are allowed to happen because the privacy issues are examined under the First Amendment, which states the freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition. On page 134, Etzioni explains, "Moreover, it provides a mechanism to sort out which searches are in the public interest and which violate privacy without sufficient cause, by introducing the concept of warrants issued by a "neutral magistrate" presented with "probable cause"." This way, no one can just come into an individuals house, or work place just because they feel the need to search it. They have to have a written document that explains why they are allowed to search and invade his or her privacy.
I definitely agree with the fact that the privacy issues should be examined under the Fourth Amendment instead of the First Amendment. I do not agree with the fact that people can listen in on private phone conversations, or just walk into someones house and demand to look around. I also do not agree with what Etzioni was talking about when she said if a baby was born with the suspicion that he or she might have HIV, without the mothers permission, doctors will just take the baby and do whatever tests they want on the newborn. Luckily, the Fourth Amendment is being looked at to replace the First Amendment. Privacy is called that for a reason.