“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”― Benjamin Franklin. Despite the fact that these words are three centuries old, they are magnificently related to the present. The world nowadays is going towards constant technological advances and political turmoil. Evolution of technology is considered as the best thing that happened to human kind; however, the lack of privacy comes along, which means the government may take advantage of it by having the people’s records with or without their permissions in the name of protection.
The famous philosopher Aristotle defines privacy as the sphere of one’s home life as opposed to one’s political activities. Every person, regardless of his or her life outside the home, is entitled to privacy (DeCew). Whereas the concept of privacy is considered in many modern cultures as a basic human right, the advent of the Computer network has complicated it.
Privacy, or freedom from interference, has countless implications. The individual would struggle for living if he/she sought for absolute privacy. Although the people have the right to keep their privacy, they tend to forget that it is being vanished by the government. According to the fourth amendment in the U.S. Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (The United States)
The personal privacy has been saved under American law since the 20th century. People can claim their right of living in a country that does not search in their personal lives.
Privacy matters for the people even if there is noting to hide. Numerous discussions are going on the nothing-to-hide argument. This argument applies not to all personal information but only to the type of data the government is likely to gather. It concenters on just one or two specific kinds of privacy, telling to people of personal information or secretly recording and watching people while ignoring the others. This issue isn't concerning what information people want to secrete but about the dominion and the form of government. Government information-collecting programs are questionable even if no information that people want to hide is uncovered. But the problem with the nothing-to-hide argument is the hidden under assumption that privacy is about hiding bad stuff. Those advancing the argument have in mind a particular kind of shocking and terrible privacy harm, one in which privacy is interrupted only when something deeply embarrassing or proving false is showed or told about. The deeper problem with the argument is that it narrow-minded that perceives far things blurry myopically views privacy as a figure of secrecy (Solove).
How to prevent...