Carpenter v. the United States or China’s Social Credit System

In the digital era, developments in technology have introduced new issues. The paradigm
shift poses new ethical and juridical problems that relate to the right of access to information. In
addition, the digital era also introduces problems associated with the right to privacy that may be
threatened by the actions of the government. Every individual has a right to privacy, which
means that certain aspects of their lives are excluded from publicity. Privacy is a natural right
that is also seen as a legal right. The government is bound by the provisions of the Constitution
to respect the privacy of the private citizens. One of the cases that have been brought in the
judicial system in recent years is Carpenter v. the United States. The paper analyzes the decision
of the majority using the ethical framework of utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that weighs the morality of an action based on
the consequences of the action. Utilitarianism holds that an action is morally right if it produces
the greatest good for the greatest number (Williams 33). Although different varieties of
utilitarianism exist, the basic principle is that utility should be maximized. The theory states that
human beings are ruled by two sovereign masters, namely pleasure and pain. Every human being
seeks to avoid pain while attempting to maximize pleasure (Foot 196). To this end, laws that
exist in any society must attempt to maximize pleasure. Laws should seek to promote overall

Surname 2
happiness. In evaluating ethical judicial decisions, one must analyze whether they yield the
greatest good for the greatest number.
In the case of Carpenter v. the United States, the court was presented with a difficult
decision surrounding the privacy of cellphone location records. The Supreme Court was also
expected to provide a valid interpretation of the Fourth Amendment (Chaudhari 130). The Fourth
Amendment protects the citizens of the United States against unlawful searches. Government
agencies had the power to obtain cellphone location records by arguing that the records were
required for the successful conclusion of an investigation. The Supreme Court held that the
government needed to secure a warranty in order to secure phone call records.
The opinion of the majority in the case can be weighed based on the principles of
utilitarianism. For the decision to pass the criteria of being deemed ethical, it must result in the
greatest good for the greatest number. In this case, one might look at the consequences of the
Supreme Court decision. In the year 2010, a robbery occurred in RadioShack in Detroit. Various
robberies also took place after the RadioShack incident. Police officers were able to obtain data
from cellphone companies, and this resulted in arrests and subsequent convictions. An analysis
of the RadioShack incident reveals that the actions of the police helped secure the community.
Criminals were arrested and put to jail for crimes that they had committed (PBS). To this end,
the actions of the police can be considered to be ethically based on utilitarian principles.
However, the Supreme Court decision overturned the gains made. The ruling means that police
officers face a tougher task of arresting criminals (PBS). Warranties are difficult to obtain, and
this may result in some criminals escaping arrests and convictions (PBS). Evidently, the
Supreme Court ruling does not result in the maximization of happiness of the majority. The
ruling is thus unethical based on utilitarian values.

Surname 3

Work Cited

Chaudhari, Nehaa, and Smitha Krishna Prasad. “Carpenter v. United States: State Surveillance
and Citizen Privacy.” NALSAR Stud. L. Rev. 13 (2019): 129.
Foot, Philippa. “Utilitarianism and the Virtues.” Mind 94.374 (1985): 196-209.
PBS. “What The Supreme Court’s Cellphone Location Data Ruling Could Mean For Your
Digital Privacy”. PBS Newshour, 2020, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/what-the-
supreme-courts-cellphone-location-data-ruling-could-mean-for-your-digital-privacy.
Williams, Bernard, and J. J. C. Smart. “A critique of utilitarianism.” Cambridge/UK (1973).