Written in 1949, George Orwell’s 1984 depicts a dystopian world where the absolute governmental power, with the aid of technological advances, completely strips citizens of any rights. Under consistent video and audio surveillance, with even the slightest alteration of facial expression scrutinized, every citizen of the society has even been denied the ability to think his or her own thoughts. Orwell’s prediction of how the abuse of technology can steal an individual’s right to privacy, though exaggerated, is not exactly inapplicable to the direction the world is headed.
In this Age of Technology, information is becoming more valuable. More and more businesses are constantly being conducted through cyberspace. On the same note, as information increasingly becomes more significant, it also becomes more vulnerable to falling into the wrong hands. As a result, the general public has increasingly employed cryptology, the art of secret communication, in their everyday lives to protect their privacy. This, however, interferes with law enforcement and national security. Before, law enforcers largely relied on phone taps, which also was debatable in terms of privacy, to secure vital information. Now, with the widespread use of encrypted messages as a means of secret communication, officers are severely limited in their ability to effectively do their job. Consider the laws regarding police warrants. Even if an officer finds damning evidence that a person is guilty of a crime, the perpetrator could walk free on account of a technicality in the protocol of receiving a warrant. This corresponds to the issue of invading the criminal’s privacy. The debate of cryptology is founded on the question posed by Simon Singh, “Which do we value more- our privacy or an effective police force? Or is there a compromise?” Where do we draw the line in allowing the government access to our personal lives? How far-fetched is Orwell’s prediction of the future?
Amy,I defintley see your point that our personal level of privacy from the government is diminished. They say it is for safety (no doubt we do need some of the security measures in today's day and age), but at what cost to our privacy? Like you said, I believe we need to find a middle ground, like needing evidence to "spy" on someone or collect evidence. The laws maybe could be improved to make the system more streamlined and help make the process simple.
ReplyDeleteAmy, the one problem is that if you really think about this, the issue of privacy hasn't really changed much. The only thing that has changed is how much privacy we have in general. For example, lets say you look at an ordinary person now and an ordinary person living in the Roman Empire. The modern person needs only to enter into an enclosed room in his home to have some privacy. But, the Roman individual has to worry about being overheard in their own home, which is designed not to give the individual privacy and comfort like the modern home, but only to give the individual a place to sleep and be safe. The point is, the more luxiories a person has, the greater any disturbances to a person's life will seem.
ReplyDeleteIn the world today, where privacy is so important to individuals, it is a constant debate about the line between personal privacy and safety. I believe that there will never be one compromise to this issue. The world is constantly evolving, and each persons belief's are changing in a similar way. There is the possibility that at some point in time the government will have reached a compromise with the people about what is respecting privacy and what is protecting their safety. However, about 1 second after that point is reached another person will change their mind or the country will have a breech in security and the governments ideas of protecting security will change. I think Orwell's prediction was spot on for where our country is heading, unfortunately I don't think there is much we can do to change this.
ReplyDelete