Thoughts on Discussion Last Class

I enjoyed our class discussion on Tuesday.  I think it was interesting how there became two clear opposing sides concerning the "tug of war" between individual privacy and public safety.  Some said that they would be willing to give up some level of privacy to ensure safety, while others said they would not.  I can understand the argument positing that if an individual has nothing to hide, why should he worry about allowing the government to monitor his activity.  However, I think this is a somewhat dangerous idea and a slippery slope.  More than anything, this issue is a matter of principle--it's not about whether an individual has anything to hide, or even whether a particular individual is willing to give up his or her "right" to privacy; rather, it's about what the government has the right to do and what the government does not have the right to do.  As technology improves in the future, there is no question that novel technologies will be developed that will allow government to monitor every aspect of individuals' lives, perhaps without their knowledge.  As this technology becomes available, it will become necessary for individuals in society to decide where to “draw the line in the sand” when it comes to government monitoring and invasion of privacy.  And as history, shows us, the term “slippery slope” is definitely applicable to this argument.  All we need to do is look back to the Red Scare to see an example of government monitoring run amok in our own country.  A witch hunt of sorts came about as the government initiated an investigation to find so-called “communists” in the U.S.  Individuals’ “right” to privacy was simply “thrown out the window” in many cases and uncovered information was taken out of context.  Reputations were wrongfully smeared and individuals were unfairly fired or even blacklisted.  And today, since 9/11, we are beginning to see a new type of witch hunt targeted at Muslim Americans.  Racial profiling in airports is something considered acceptable by some, as long as it is “in the name of safety.”  I think the question is not whether or not an individual is inconvenienced by certain “safety” measures, but whether the government has the right to profile, and whether it has the right to impose those measures on individuals, who may or may not be deemed “high risk.”