Double-Edged Swords

Much has been said about the fear of loss of privacy, the loss of freedom, the loss of civil rights in this context and in others as well. If such security-related technology and activities were to become de facto in future, would generations of the future lament the loss of privacy? Would they regret the loss of freedom? For them, having been born without experiencing such things, the concept of loss in these areas probably would not apply.

To cite an analogy (this is a true case): I have a friend who is a social worker. An extremely motivated lady who dedicated much of her life to help those in need, sacrificing her time and money just to lend cheer to those who were not as well off as her. On weekends she would visit old folks who stayed by themselves in the older housing estates (usually one-room flats) and bring them food and money. Though what she could do for each individual is limited by her finite resources, her spirit was indomitable in rendering her help.

One day, she visited a particular family for the first time. The nucleus was made up of the parents and two young daughters. She spent more than two hours talking to them and trying to understand their situation. Though she knew that happiness can exist even in an improverished state, she was still pleasantly surprised to find that the two young daughters were playing happily with what little they had. As she tried to get to know them better, she found that they had little realisation of what other children of their age knew - Kentucky Fried Chicken, Barbie dolls, etc. They rarely left their home.

Feeling sorry for them, my friend brought along two big boxes of KFC burgers and chicken wings for the family the following visit. The children were curious but nevertheless ate the unfamiliar food which tasted great. My friend felt happy to see the children enjoying the treat and thought to herself that seeing the smiles on their faces made whatever she had sacrificed to help others in need worthwhile.

The subsequent visit was a totally different situation altogether. The mother of the two young children was upset and when my friend asked her what she was troubled by, she replied that the two young daughters had been pestering her to buy them KFC for the past week. Never did my friend realise that her good deed of wanting to bring some enjoyment to the poor children had inadvertently turned into misfortune for the family. Without having even seen a KFC advertisement (the family did not have a television set at home), the children had not realised that they were missing what other children possessed. The introduction of this apparent luxury had unfortunately seeded the feelings of craving and desire in them.

We appreciate privacy, freedom and civil rights because we are aware that such things exist. If there were to come a time when the future generations do not even know of these fundamentals, they will likely not view the world in the same way we do right now.

What is right and what is wrong? There isn't a clear line to separate right and wrong for they differ from individual to individual, and even for a single individual, the definition varies from situation to situation and from time to time. Your definition of the "right balance of privacy and security" is possibly not the same as mine. We often have little option but to depend on those in the positions of power (political, scientific fields) to make decisions on our behalf such that the majority of the people agree with their selected definitions and can therefore (usually) benefit from these decisions.