Since the founding of the United States, our view of how it treats its citizens has not changed significantly. Aside from the abolition of slavery and various other corrupt practices that were fixed, mostly well. The concept of birthright and unalienable rights is not very far-fetched, yet our government continually attempts to thwart these rights in an effort that should not be tested. The right to privacy is a very serious concern and could be taken more heavily especially if it concerns the security of an individual or that of a nation, there is not a big difference, but the government should not go to the extent of hindering our rights or freedom to acquire such measures. The right to privacy is listed in the Fourth Amendment. The constitution is considered the supreme law of the country. The Fourth Amendment has three components. The first is that U.S. citizens have the right to be “secure in person, house, papers, and effects.” The second protects US citizens by prohibiting “unreasonable” searches and seizures, which are without probable cause. The third part specifies that “no warrant may be issued against a law enforcement officer unless such warrant specifically describes “the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized” (“Legal Dictionary” ). The three elements of the Fourth Amendment lay the foundation for U.S. citizens like us to have certain rights, which are expressly written into law. An individual's right to privacy is a very important measure and sometimes the government expresses powers in such cases where it has no legal right to do so. One such case where the government poked its head where it shouldn't have was the case of Mapp V. Ohio (I don't know). In Mapp Versus Ohio a woman was charged with possession of material deemed illegal or obscene, and Mapp took it out on her