Less Privacy is Good for Us (and You) - Question #2

Amitai Etzioni’s article titled Less Privacy is Good for Us (and You) emphasizes the pros and cons of privacy. Through this structure, Etzioni help readers understand the complexity of privacy issues. The more privacy wanted the more the safety of every individual decreases. Then on the other hand not enough privacy invades individuals’ lives. It then becomes a battle of importance between public safety and our own privacy. Such as the HIV testing example Etzioni uses. This issue was seen as a violation of a mother’s privacy. If their child was tested then it would expose the mother. So instead of making it law to happen it simply became recommended. Continue reading and you find out that a study showed that most women; those prone to HIV, do not even show up to these recommended testing; privacy out weighted public safety.

Okay, say you lived a not so good life in another part of the world and you have changed and want to start all over. Then say someone in the same situation as you wants to start over except they have not changed. Both of you would want your past hidden for different reasons. Who is hidden and who is brought to light? Too much privacy given allows the second person privacy and puts the rest of society at risk, while less privacy ruins any opportunity that the first person had of getting a second chance. So who decides who gets what? The whole point of privacy and public safety is to protect the individual and the society they live in.

The invention of biometrics seems very promising and on a scale 1 to 10 would get a 10 in protecting the public but would get a 0 in protecting the privacy of individuals. Biometrics shows to put away fraudulency and protect the public from fugitives. As Etzioni stated, “Specifically, each year at least half a million criminals become fugitives, avoiding trail, incarceration, or serving their full sentences, often committing additional crimes while on the lam.” A lot of people would probably be in favor of this until they realize that biometrics will not be bias and would be used on everyone.

Etzioni makes a very important statement at the end of his article. He explains that although privacy is a very important right, we must also consider public safety and health.