In “Less Privacy Is Good for Us (and You)” Etzioni explains how privacy is seen as a right but really it’s not even mentioned in the Constitution. He states that is was “shoehorned in some thirty years ago.” He explains how there is a tremendous amount of “horror stories” in the media of how the government can listen in on your calls and how people can die from invasion of privacy. But the reality is that privacy is good for our safety. Etzioni explains how privacy can be a complicated and touchy issue.
One example he uses is HIV testing in infants. Mothers who are unaware if they are infected with HIV can transmit the disease to their children. However children can ward off the disease under two conditions: their mothers must not breast feed and they must immediately be given an AZT. But, in order for this to happen the mother must be aware (Etzioni). So you would say to have all mothers and infants get tested, right? Wrong! That conflicts with the mothers privacy. If the infant is tested positive then you automatically know that the mother has HIV. This leads to privacy issues. However this should be a case where privacy doesn’t matter because you have to think about the children’s safety.
Another point that Etzioni brings to the reader is biometrics. He explains how the government is losing billions of dollars because of fraud. But if we had more biometrics we would be able to track people based on natural features such as hand design. However, again this would be a problem with privacy. People would not be able to keep their past a secret. Yet, criminals would be less likely to get jobs at schools, kindergartens, or child care centers; which ultimately is protecting our society.
So Etzioni uses this article to explain the complicated arguments that arise when the subject privacy is brought up. Yes we all want our privacy but, less privacy is good for our society.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you when you say that privacy is good for our safety. I think that if you have enough money you can find out anything about anyone.For example when women have the suspision that their husbands are cheating on them and hire personal detectives to spy on their spouses. This is an invasion of privacy. Although i believe it is wrong to cheat on your spouse you shouldnt be able to hire someone to spy on them and retrieve information about them. Also many planned murders occur because the murderer is able to get personal information about the victim to find them.
ReplyDeleteFor some people, their past is the past. Maybe a young man during an adrenaline rush decides to do something stupid. This should be made known to future employers, but it should not hinder them from getting a job just because he did one minor wrong and branded as a "criminal". Judging people based on their pasts is never good. Many crimes are caused because people have no jobs, or that their "criminal record" prevents them from getting one. Employers should know only if these offences are serious enough to cause problems in the conduct of the workplace.
ReplyDelete