Reading Response #4

In the essays written by Mangu-Ward, Joh, and Quarmby, the authors argue that the issue of privacy problems and what violate the right of privacy which stated the on fourth commandment.

In the Mangu-Ward’s essay, “Is Privacy Overrated?” the author argued both sides of the use of surveillance cameras by giving both good and bad sides. She explained the benefits of surveillance and how they contribute to the social security, but she also gave the negative way of surveillance cameras that they can violate privacy. I have never have this kind of thought which the surveillance cameras contravene privacy, and I think it is more important to protect citizens’ safety rather than their privacy. The author also mentioned that we do not have much privacy by giving the example of the use of credit card, “…your credit card, EZ Pass, and bank records can all be subpoenaed when necessary (12).” This point might also be considered as a lack of privacy, but same as the case of surveillance cameras, we seek and emphasize benefits rather than our privacy. Also, I believe that our privacy is basically secured and promise, so I am not too much disturbed by her evidence and persuasion.

Joh focus on the collection of DNA. She gave us a story of an LA police officer solving a crime by investigating the DNA on a coffee cup. Joh also mentioned that "not only can DNA provide nearly unassailable evidence of identity; it may one day be used to identify and segregate those who possess a "crime gene (Joh 34)."" I am with this opinion because I have a bias which the investigation of DNA is the most accurate and advanced way to prove and solve the crime. However, Joh also indicated the negative side which surprised me is that, DNA can be collected “without public awareness and thus without discussion of how it may be regulated against abuse” (36). I was influenced by this information because I have never thought this way. Although I still think we should trust government and police, we never know how technology will improve in the later years. According to Joh “although it has not yet been realized in practice, this particular DNA collection technique permits the collection of genetic information from virtually anyone; it is a backdoor to a population-wide data banking” (33). The author seems to want the issue of genetic privacy to be considered as a controversial concern.

Quarmby has an interesting idea that having a national identification card, which has our bio-information such as DNA on it, can not only protect our privacy rights but also contribute to the safety of the country. The author argued “the current identification system, based on the social security number, driver’s license and signature, is no longer adequate” because of “the apparent ease with which the hijackers [of September 11, 2001] entered the country and integrated into American society” (37). Also, “We might scoff at the possibility of such a DNA card ever being introduced in our lifetimes, and may feel protected by the 4th amendment, but this is not a clear cut issue. September 11th may have touched our lives in more ways than we know.” (Quarmby 38) I am influenced and partly persuaded by this argument, and because this is a new policy never have been introduced before, I think it is useful and significant.

All of the essays have a similar form which answering questions by their research or evidences. Mangu-Ward used primary research and included her own experience to make an argument. Joh also used her personal experiences with the reference of the secondary research. Her career as a law professor makes her opinion to be more persuasive and credible. Quarmby mostly focus on the research of facts.

Although I do not want to be easily persuaded but critical to other people’s opinion, I still am influenced a lot by the opinions given by three authors. Through the authors’ arguments, there are still many points which I could not really agree with. But they left a lot of controversial questions which make us to really think about.