Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

  • Advertisements

Where do we draw the line?

Americans are uncertain if they want full privacy. Many accept cameras on the street, but what about neighbors spying on them?



  • Print
  • E-mail
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Digg
  • Add This
  • Permissions

By Kim Campbell, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor / July 25, 2002

Here's a talking point for your next debate about privacy: What if no absolute right to privacy exists because we don't really want one?

Scholar Alan Westin once observed that "the individual's desire for privacy is never absolute, since participation in society is an equally powerful desire."

That statement from his 1967 book, "Privacy and Freedom," was written long before reality TV shows proved his point. But the observation is worth thinking about as the line between the public and private persona is increasingly blurred for everyone.

Newspapers and pop culture are full of reminders that privacy issues are pressing on Americans like a persistent telemarketer – asking them to consider where they end and society begins.

• To fight the war on terrorism, the government is proposing a data-collection system where citizens, such as repairmen, report any suspicious activity they observe while on the job.

• The Monitor reported earlier this week on a retirement complex in Wilmington, N.C., where residents can watch feeds from the building's security cameras on their TV sets.

• Last month, the Supreme Court approved random drug testing of public-school children who participate in extracurricular activities to help curb abuse.

• Moviemakers are provoking more thought, too. "Minority Report" features outdoor ads that scan your retina and pitch you products as you walk by. Not only do you give up your anonymity in this futuristic vision, but clairvoyants see crimes before they are committed and help the police arrest potential criminals.

If that seems far-fetched, consider this: The cover story in the July issue of PC Magazine includes talk of new software that aims to determine the likelihood of employees committing crimes or becoming violent by analyzing words and phrases they use.

We want privacy – but how much?

In simpler times, monitoring your privacy meant pulling down the shades at night. But today it's an idea – a value, actually – that permeates everything from e-mail to grocery shopping to airport security. The majority of Americans, ambivalent about the issue even a decade ago, now overwhelmingly say it matters to them.

The growth of the Internet is fueling some of the interest. But so is the gathering and sharing of information for medical purposes and fighting crime.

Legislators are responding to the heightened awareness of their constituents by trying to set rules that will govern privacy.

"The pace of legislation has accelerated in the last decade and it continues to accelerate," says Robert Gellman, a privacy consultant. "There are dozens and dozens of bills before Congress and the states."

Not all of those will make it into law, but they suggest a struggle to define what privacy is and how much of it people want.

In many ways, Americans have been trying to figure that out since the Founding Fathers first put pen to paper. American and English society saw a use for laws about privacy long before the Bill of Rights was created. The framers acknowledged privacy in the Constitution, but not as an explicit right, leaving the courts to interpret how much of it should be extended to citizens in modern times.

But today, privacy concerns go beyond government intrusiveness. James Madison likely never envisioned a time when an employer could potentially use a person's DNA to determine if they should be hired based on their future health.

Page: 1 | 2 Next Page

  • Print
  • E-mail
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Digg
  • Add This
  • Permissions