How does Etzioni’s article help readers to see the complexity of privacy issues? Provide examples from the text.
The level of privacy has different meanings to us all. Etzioni beings his article by stating that the fact of privacy was never mentioned in the Constitution and was only added in around thirty-four years ago, some people view privacy as an inalienable right anyways. The article then goes further into explanation of how our privacy is being violated when we have our e-mail being read, our phones being listened in on, and E-Z passes which allow people to keep track of our movements.
HIV testing of infants has become an issue of privacy. There are two ways a mother who is infected with the disease to not pass it on to the child and that is by not breast feeding them or they must be given AZT immediately, but this only works if the mother is aware that she is a carrier of the disease. If the mother is unaware and the child is tested for HIV and the results come back as positive the mother’s privacy has just been violated because this means that she has the disease as well.
The new idea of biometrics has also caused issues with privacy. Biometrics allows a person to use natural features such as hand design, voice, and even eye pattern to gain access to something or somewhere. This may cause issues with many Americans because if someone is known to have done something in one part of the country they cannot pick up and move on to a different place without the idea of what they have done following them. There is no “fresh” start for these people.
Etzioni allows readers to see that privacy is becoming an issue. The government may not see it as s, but there definitely is a fine limit to privacy some people see that line as already crossed and some believe that the government and health agencies are getting relatively close to crossing the limit and going too far.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This blog is written very well and I completely agrre when you state that "there is no fresh start for these people." This is true because they have already messed up and it is their fault that they are followed. Privacy is becoming a huge issue, but privacy is good and bad in certain ways and it depends on the situation to see if your privacy should be invaded or not. It is true that some government and health agencies are going too far and they should lay off a little.
ReplyDeleteI both agree and disagree with you. I don't really see HIV testing of pregnant women as an invasion of privacy, if it could potentially save their child from contracting HIV from them if they are a carrier of it. Privacy invasion in that form would help more people than it would harm. I also agree with people having a "fresh start", but if they are running from the government because of something horrible, they deserve to be caught and put in their place. Depending on the situation and how it's used, invasion of privacy can help and harm us at the same time.
ReplyDeleteThere are a few grammatical and spelling errors. It is an interesting article to blog about because it deals with problems that some are not familiar with and are just beginning to become issues. I personally do not think it is invasion of privacy of the mother if the baby is tested for HIV and it comes back positive. I think it is a good thing because if the mother did not know she had it, she would find out and hopefully take the right precautions to keep from spreading HIV to others. But in other instances invasion of privacy is unnecessary and the government needs to be kept in check because not every person is involved in illegal activities and they shouldn't have to worry about what they say on the phone or in an email.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with your statement saying that HIV testing is a violation. They aren't doing any harm. They find out what results are but that isn't a huge deal. It's a good idea for people to have a fresh start but in some cases people don't change and need to be monitored.
ReplyDelete