Reading Response 4

            All three of the writers focused on material pertaining to the fourth amendment. They all argued both sides of the issues that come up when introduce privacy and what violates our fourth amendment, of the right to privacy, and what does not violate this amendment. Ward mainly focuses on United State’s surveillance system, and her main idea comes across to me that we, as a society, have already come to terms with our faces on camera, and cameras being everywhere, and that it should not violate our privacy. Joh focuses on the collection of DNA evidence, and the privacy we have over our DNA, Joh gives many examples of times our DNA has come in handy in solving cases. Joh seems skeptical of a full scale DNA database, but seems to approve our use of DNA for information without our consent. Quarmby gets into the idea of having a card that has our bio-information on it, such as DNA, etc… Quarmby much like Joh is skeptical, but comes across to me as an advocate for this, and his main idea, is that the attack on September, 11, just might have tipped the scales into those for less privacy, and more power to the government. “We might scoff at the possibility of such a DNA card ever being introduced in our lifetimes, and may feel protected by the 4^th amendment, but this is not a clear cut issue. September 11^th may have touched our lives in more ways than we know.” (Quarmby 38)

            I was not very influenced by their research very much but I have my own strong opinions on such matters, that I was a little biased when reading this. I do agree somewhat with what Joh says, “The collection of abandoned DNA by police threatens the privacy rights of everyone. The law permits it, and the police seek it.” (35) I feel that our DNA can and should be used to solve criminal investigations, to me if I touch something I meant to touch it, I would not deny touching it, but I also do not plan on doing anything criminal. Ward follows with much the same idea, “My credit card company has long known where I buy underwear, but I don’t lay awake at night worried that prosecutors might demand knowledge in my preference in skivvies.” (12) I thought that this was a good point, I have not done anything wrong and I have nothing to fear. So to me it is one thing to find DNA to discover something, and I feel if needs be for example some criminal act and they have reasonable suspicion, I don’t think it is a question that they should be able to take your DNA without you knowing. However; it is another thing to take it at the beginning for no reason, which is why I disagree with what Quarmby says,  “Relinquishing your personal fingerprint information seems a small price to pay in the fight against terrorism.” (37) I completely disagree with Quarmby’s idea to have an ID card and database everyone, I feel that extremely cuts into my privacy rights, I like having my own identification that no one else knows.

            I felt that the research they did was very well done, I liked how Joh went and researched the case about the man licking the letter and sending it in to the police, I felt it gave a very good example of how this is not an invasion of our privacy and was very persuasive. I also liked Ward’s research about how the cameras captured the faces of the bombers, then how she related it to her shopping for underwear. This personal aspect makes it much more influential.