Reading Response #4

In the first essay I read, Is Privacy Overrated? The Merits, Drawbacks, and Inevitability of the Surveillance Nation by Katherine Mangu-Ward makes two claims, but they sort of tie together. First of all, she makes the point that the value of security and convenience outweighs the need and right to privacy in terms of public video surveillance. She talks about how the security that the video cameras provide is put to much greater use, deemed more important, and has been much more beneficial than the argument of people being tracked and viewed innocently as they walk through the streets of downtown. Another claim that the author makes is that we are in an age of zero privacy, so having the public video surveillance is not a big deal and hardly represents a new invasion of privacy. Through credit cards, EZ Passes, and bank records a person’s identity and information is already in jeopardy and by no means ‘private.’ In this essay/article, there is no place that she uses citations or sources, which leads me to believe that the information is coming from personal knowledge and experience, although it would surprise me that someone would just know some of this information off the top of their head. Katherine Mangu-Ward does seem to be creditable after reading the short paragraph about her at the end of the essay. Nonetheless, I think the facts and experiences she presents support her claims and lead to me to side with her on both issues. She gives strong examples of how video surveillance has and does benefit people (pg. 13), one of them being how video cameras helped several protesters beat charges of resisting arrest. After reading the essay, I agree with the arguments she made, maybe because I did not know very much about this topic nor have much of an opinion prior to reading it.
In the second essay I read, Reclaiming “Abandoned” DNA: The Fourth Amendment and Genetic Privacy, by Elizabeth E. Joh, makes the claim of police using abandoned DNA without the consent of the individual. Everyone, without knowing it, leaves traces of their genetic identity, whether it be licking a stamp or the seal of an envelope, or as simple as handling change (pg. 30). With police being able to use abandoned DNA, people lose the ability to protect their genetic information. Again, the research presented in this article is not cited, but I believe the author is credible considering the information and the ending biography. The facts and examples presented in this article are influential and help support the author’s claim. There are multiple cases and examples that are presented in the article. In the case of Adolph Laudenberg (pg. 31), the use of abandoned DNA is what ultimately causes him to be charged with murders from decades before. Is this legal or does it violate Laudenberg’s rights? According the essay, there has never been a court that has help police collection of abandoned DNA illegal (pg. 32). Prior to reading this article, I knew some information regarding the use of discarded DNA, but Joh’s article put it in a new perspective for me. It showed me that not only does the law permit it, but police seek it and use it to their advantage.
In Ben Quarmby’s excerpt, The Case for National DNA Identification Cards, the author makes the claim that National Identification Cards could potentially be introduced into the United States and without too much public opposition. People seem to believe that giving up your finger print and other personal genetic information is relatively unsubstantial as compared to potentially terminating the threat of terrorism within our country (pg. 37). I did not think this essay was very strong and it really did not influence me. There was not a lot of factual information to back up his claim, maybe because the essay itself was fairly short. I did not have any prior knowledge of these ID cards before the article, but I feel more informed then persuaded after reading it.
In the fourth essay, Putting a Price on Nature by Drenner, the author makes a very strong point. The main claim of the article is that although the need for oil is high, the government should not drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Drenner points out the many negative effects of drilling in the ANWR, for example, how much land it would take up and how many other things would have to be built including roads, airplanes, electric plants, and pumping stations (pg. B64) This article was very persuasive and really influenced me. It gave many different arguments and research supporting the claim. One example that really stuck out was the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill (pg. B64). Eleven million gallons of oil spilled causing death to thousands of animals and many environmental problems. Also, another factor that the author used was giving the arguments of the opposing side and then, using research and facts, he shows the inefficiencies of the opposition. Prior to reading this article, I did not have very much background on the topic, but my opinion has stayed the same throughout. I think the wildlife refuge should be saved and this article definitely continues this belief. I think it would be better to find other sources instead of oil or maybe a different location but the ANWR should be kept how it is. It is one of the last large refuges and drilling for oil will have irreversible lasting effects. This was a very well written argument essay