Reading Response #4

            Mangu Wards essay, Is Privacy Overrated?, has a central claim that increased security and protection may have it’s benefits.  She reinforces her claim with the quote towards the end of her essay, “And more cameras and records, not fewer, may be the best guarantee against abuse of police power in the age of zero privacy.”  Mangu Ward explains that with more surveillance people may be more inclined to do well and also to watch what they are doing.  She also makes a valid point when she says that “but even the most paranoid among us still go in to pick up some beef jerky when we pay for our gas.” –This is completely true and I agree with the fact that most of us remain unperturbed, going about our daily lives as usual- even with the knowledge of being taped in most places.  Most of her research is off the top of her head and common, but interesting facts.  “There have been several smaller occasions where do-it-yourself video privacy violations have paid off, as in the case of recent LAPS brutality caught on a mobile phone or handheld camera.  Think Rodney King meets YouTube.”  I like her points in her essay and I just recently watched a special on the Rodney King event so it is quite touching and relevant to me.   She uses little to no personal facts and experience but does give relevant examples of where our privacy is invaded like in the beginning of her essay, “Have you ever attended a political event?  Sought treatment from a psychiatrist?  Had a drink at a gay bar?...”  I’m not really disturbed too much by her evidence and I agree that security and surveillance is helpful and necessary in the world we live in today, where crime is extremely prevalent.  I already knew that we were being watched in all kinds of places.  If you are a good citizen then you shouldn’t have a problem with the government being able to track down people who deserve it.  I have always felt this way. 

Joh makes a severe claim that we have little to no privacy nowadays and she definitely doesn’t seem to agree with it.  She sounds like she is shocked that the government is able to use our abandoned DNA – “any amount of human tissue capable of DNA analysis and separated from a targeted individual’s person inadvertently or involuntarily, but not by police coercion.”  I think it isn’t really a bad thing because there are people that need to be caught and dealt with, like criminals.   You can tell where she stands by one of her last sentences, “The collection of abandoned DNA by police threatens the privacy rights of everyone.  The law permits it, and the police seek it.”  Joh doesn’t support it and is actually quite worried about how much control the CIA and government have over our lives.  She worries that as “overly deterministic explanations of criminality could also be used to bolster race-based genetic classifications”.  While this could be true, it hasn’t happened yet and we live in a society of high-fear that needs protection.  I may not have known to what extent we were being watched but it still doesn’t affect me that badly, I don’t really care.  Again, I make my point- if you are a good citizen and don’t intend to do harm, then you shouldn’t be too worried about how we are being observed.  I believe that the CIA and governments main motives for watching us is for our own good anyways so why not?  It has also helped in many cases in catching criminals, bombers, murderers and other things.  There are cameras at ATM’s so if you get robbed, the records are there and can help you find the culprit.

 

Quarmby’s opinion is a little bit less clear but he is asking If we indeed need DNA identification cards or not.  He mainly just provides evidence that we may need more security because of our history and because of September 11^th, but he doesn’t make a clear opinion.  His conclusion sort of sways towards how DNA cards may be necessary when he says, “September 11^th may have touched our lives in more ways than we know.”  He leaves the discussion open to many different thoughts and provokes the reader to think about what our country really needs.  Most of his research seems primary- “ A card containing biometric information relating to fingerprints, while certain to be somewhat controversial, could in all likelihood be introduced without too much public opposition.” Quarmby barely broaches the idea that we have too much security and mainly talks about the ID cards.  He makes a point that “most Americans would not, in his opinion, be averse to disclosing the information required by such a scheme and seeing that information accumulated in vast databanks, despite the loss of privacy this entails.”  I am in this category and I don’t really have a problem with increased security or being watched.   Privacy is a huge issue in the US especially nowadays but it is also necessary with an increasing of attacks, robberies, murders and other crimes.  Also, as criminals become smarter and learn ways to find loopholes in the system, our protectors also need to become smarter, so that criminals don’t have a chance.