Less Privacy Is Good for Us (and You) Question for Discussion #2

Etzioni's article, Less Privacy Is Good for Us, definitely helps readers to see the complexity of privacy issues. One example the author points out, is how mothers who have HIV can pass it on to their children. To get rid of the disease from the infants the mother cannot breast-feed and have to be given AZT immediately. What civil libertarians and some gay activists argue about is that the mothers have to be tested for HIV to know if the baby will have it as well and libertarians say that it is privacy violation. I completely disagree. I think it is unfair to the child to be born with HIV, especially if it can be treated. The mother should have to be tested without people thinking its a violation of her privacy. Throughout the article, Etzioni makes it very clear how complex people's views about privacy are. Another example the author made was about how biometrics will not allow a person who had a criminal history to move to another part of the country with a clean slate and not be looked at as a criminal. I, again, think there is nothing wrong with that. Someone with a bad history should not be able to get rid of it because for example if that person wanted to get a job, a boss would want to know his or her past. No one would want to hire a theft or any other type of criminal. I think it is rediculous that libertarians think that making it mandatory to take a drug test if you wish to become a driver of a school bus, train engineers, or pilots constitute suspicionless searches. If you wish to pursue one of those careers, you should not be under the influence of any type of drug for other peoples safety. Some people may agree with libertarians, but I surely do not. As you can see, Amitai Etzioni helps readers see the complexity of privacy issues.