Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness: three ideas, three unalienable rights that have come to define our country and our country’s mindset. But there’s another idea that is thought to be in line with those: privacy. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. But is privacy a right, or is it just assumed to be a right? In a modern world where Facebook and targeted ad campaigns based on ¬¬internet surfing patterns reign supreme, can we even assume that our information is being kept private and safe?

In the wake of recent congressional hearings on online privacy, major players such as Facebook, Apple and Google were questioned on that very topic: Is their consumers’  information safe and private?

At the hearing, Facebook chief technology officer Bret Taylor assured Senate leaders that they “never sell data to third parties or advertisers” and that “in every aspect of a product’s design, privacy is an aspect of the discussion.”

However, one day after these hearings, multiple media outlets reported that a hacker had compiled information from 100 million Facebook users—including email addresses, individual websites, and phone numbers—and made all of this information available for download.

This flies in the face of exactly what Taylor said, that such information is private and not  available to hackers. Facebook will counter with an argument centering on user privacy controls, but does the company believe that everyone who uses their product is aware of these controls?

In a recent E-Business and ForeSee Results customer satisfaction index report, Facebook scored in the lowest five percent of private sector companies.

“Our research shows that privacy concerns, frequent changes to the website, and commercialization and advertising adversely affect the consumer experience,” said Larry Freed, president and CEO of ForeSee Results, in a press release.

Google, meanwhile, has faced similar problems concerning privacy. More than two months ago, Google admitted it collected date on users of its Google Maps Street View program. And in a move that will surely raise some eyebrows, Examiner.com reported Monday that a German company recently sold GPS-controlled surveillance drone cameras to Google. The reported purchase of these drones is that they will be used with other mapping projects.

In a world of increasing surveillance and by default, less privacy, is there a reasonable right to expect privacy?

According to the Wall Street Journal, in 2008, Microsoft had plans to unveil its Internet Explorer 8 with a “privacy by default” setting, as opposed to Facebook’s opt-in privacy mantra. But Microsoft’s plan was quickly scrapped in favor of a track-and-sell targeted ad program aimed at its users. The reported reasoning for such a change: “Executives who argued that giving automatic privacy to consumers would make it tougher for Microsoft to profit from selling online ads.”

So the question becomes: If the companies in charge of so much of our so-called “private” information have no incentive to protect what we do online, should demand more control over our privacy?

According to the blog post, three programs stand out: Pantheon, Pathfinder and Organizational Shared Space. They add to a growing list of domestic intelligence and surveillance efforts, including  information-sharing programs, “dozens of intelligence “fusion” centers formed by local, state and federal officials, and data-mining projects that involve probing mountains of telecommunications and commercial records for leads.” Though much of the information in the released documents is redacted, the Center for Investigate Reporting is able to read some details of the three noted programs.

Pathfinder, for example, is described as an “integrated text search, retrieval, display and analytic tool suite used to analyze intelligence community message traffic,” while Pantheon is described as a “system for the Department of Homeland Security to share intelligence with other federal, state and local governments when requested, which again includes information about U.S. citizens and permanent residents.”

Organizational Shared Space is described as “an umbrella portal for systems like Pantheon and allows agencies within DHS, from the Coast Guard to the Transportation Security Administration, to access classified intelligence internally.” The blog posts makes note that it is housed on the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System, which defense and state departments use to exchange classified information. The implication is that those departments also have access to  information from the Organizational Shared Space.

The complete documents are also posted to the Center for Investigative Reporting blog using Scribd.