an individuals claims to privacy ought not to be valued over competing claims of societal welfare
...the member of society. The value criterion of utmost of authority would be, due to the immensely intertwined nature of the modern world, the smoothness of an individual’s integration into society. I offer two points of contention in order to further clarify my case: firstly, that the negative encourages tranquility; and secondly that situations in the modern day justify invasion of privacy. My first point of contention is that the negative encourages tranquility. An individual who is not a threat to society has no reason to, under this resolution, fear for his right to privacy. It is only when sufficient evidence that an individual’s claims to privacy come in conflict with competing claims for societal welfare, hence proving him a treat to society, that his privacy may be considered forfeit for the good of the community. Such a system will obviously encourage individuals to not present themselves as a menace to the social order, hence providing tranquility through an individual’s seamless integration into the social network. My second point of contention is that situations in the modern day justify invasion of privacy. According to Harvard University’s School of Law, about 9% of all evidence used to incriminate the defendant in United States court cases from 1980 to 2003 was obtained through forceful invasion of a suspect’s privacy. This leads me to my first sub-point: 1 out of 10 criminals put behind bars that would have gone free ...