Privacy Vs. Non-Privacy

Our societies have unfolded and taken on the belief that it's "safe" and perfectly acceptable to allow our privacies to be invaded, adopting views that it would be an almost impossible plight to conquer even if in disagreement. People simply don't have the energy and have abandoned to wave the banner to defend rights of privacy, as the current to the river, washing all values and moral ethics, has become too strong to fight against.

We now have in our midst defeated individuals who are willing to forsake their privacies in not wanting to cause ripples and sound overly dramatic, as the tide seems to be in favor of those who relish satiating their curiosities at whim without taking into consideration the repercussions of their actions and how, in the long run, such actions will only lead to more unstable societies.

For the parents that have tried and failed, the next generations suffer the lack of precious values which should be instilled in the moral fabric of their upbringing.

In the weighing of ethics, where does one draw the threshold as to what is acceptable as opposed to what isn't? How can we use our moral judgment when the majority populace have been programmed and conditioned by uncontrolled media to believe that 'privacy invasion' doesn't exist, and to just go along with the 'normal flow' of what our so-called democratic societies are sweeping us with and implanting more seeds to keep that corrupt flow going?

Cause and Effect

There was a time when if one so much as dared to take a picture of someone out in the public, that a person who had been "snapshotted" could pull the film out of that individual's camera, but then complaints of "abused cameras" led to new by-laws which contradicted a person's public privacy. In other words, "don't touch my personal possession (camera) ", but this left a loophole in the system that granted the "camera-voyeurs" to snapshot anyone at their convenience as long as their cameras were untouched. Film included.

And so, with laws contradicting laws, a laxative attitude began to emerge where people ultimately began to feel defeated and gave up on the notion of "chasing" the offender of their privacies. This is just one small example in the large caldron of ingredients that serve privacy invasion.

We all depend on the "law" to protect our privacies, but what if the very "law" itself invades our privacies by mere contradiction? Alas, a greater irony is in the works.

The Stance - Upholding Societal Values

Still, brave individuals, on occasion, do step forward and will take the time to uphold their rights reminding the public, by their own plights of privacy invasion, that it's essential to defend one's God-given rights to privacy no matter the cost at hand. Ranging from personal Court cases, to the more public outcry on how society in general is being mishandled.

Take the recent case of the Loreena McKennitt vs Niema Ash story. An epic drama resulting between two women, both declaring their rights. (A more detailed story can be found here). For Ms. Loreena McKennitt, her 'right' was protecting her privacy. For Ms. Niema Ash, her 'right' was to disclose in her book biography - "Travels with Loreena McKennitt" - details she deemed were not considered as 'privacy invasion'.

Even after McKennitt's victory over the case, the saga still continues with a "stirred public media" wondering how this will affect their journalistic careers on "kiss-and-tell" stories.

On a much larger grand-scale, other examples include the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) where any curious individual can obtain a person's 'private details' such as full name, address, tel. number, and other in-depth information on the unsuspecting person's vital statistics; the 'homeland security' continuous propagation of the V-chip implants and RFID tags; satellite GPS (global positioning system) tracking of persons; mind control experiments (eg. Project MK-Ultra); amongst many other horrendous acts of privacy invasion that somehow get shuffled under a heading and into a bracket of 'conspirational theories'.

____________________________

Poll Survey: "Do you feel 'personal privacy' should be upheld?" (Please respond your choice in the 'COMMENTS' Section. Thank you.)

(A) Yes
(B) No
(C) It doesn't matter to me

____________________________

Conclusion

For the many that do and are able to stand up for their 'privacy rights', it is not without entailing the tedious process of gathering details, handing out large sums of money to the most savvy lawyers, and plunging oneself into a nightmare that could take months if not years to acquire a verdict. Not forgetting the taxing of energy on nerves in never really knowing if the case will be won or not.

To complain in the sub-layers of privacy invasion cannot possibly equate to a much more grander picture such as passports carrying microchips to have your whereabouts known, let alone satellite intrusions. And yet, all 'privacy invasion' claims are significant no matter how small or big the details and where they can be located on the echelon of injustice.

The American people know what is aloof. We hear of it every day, so much so, that many Americans have become disillusioned by the idea that nothing can be done about placing the reins on privacy invasion and diverting it into a state of non-existence. Especially when our very own governments and public media sources will not even adhere to being a moral and ethical example as to why privacy should be respected.

Indeed, it is a very controversial issue, but nonetheless worthy of serious recognition.

Sources:

The Loreena McKennitt Vs. Niema Ash Chronicle
Snooping by Satellite