Quote:
Originally posted by yatzr
I think our society values privacy too much. But there are two different types of privacy: there is the right to not be seen and the right to be left alone. I think the right to be left alone is necessary for everyone. However, I don't think the right to not be seen is absolutely necessary.
|
The problem is with where to draw the line. Arguably when you're in public, you are going to be seen, heard, etc., and your right to privacy ends where the air around you begins. However, the trade-off you're talking about involves giving up privacy in exchange for security, and that's not a trade-off I'm willing to make, nor, would I argue, would most Americans. People would be able to witness illegal activity, but they would also be able to witness any activity that might not be illegal but would be disapproved of. Look at the sodomy case in Texas. Or what if I want to walk around nekkid, or have sex on the living room floor? Or dance the boogaloo, whatever. Bottom line is, I don't want to live in a fishbowl. I'm afraid it would begin to exert a measure of public control over private behavior that would stifle a lot of peoples' ability to just be themselves.
Also, there is a huge difference between simple visibility and the kind of intrusiveness the article describes - having your mail observed, wire taps on phones, etc. It's all fine and good when it's "them" the government is watching - potential terrorists, criminals, whatever, but who is it going to be next? People who disapprove of the government? People who contribute to fringe-y activist groups like PETA? People who subscribe to Adbusters? This kind of invasion of privacy establishes a dangerous precedent, and once granted, these powers are very hard to retract.
At risk of beating a dead horse around here, Ben Franklin said "He who would give up essential liberty in order to have a little security deserves neither liberty, nor security." Amen, Ben.