He feels that if everyone has no privacy then everyone becomes equal, which is an opinion that I do not share. Looking toward the future, he then predicts new tools that might be invented and how he is optimistic that the future will bring less privacy and more surveillance on both domestic and macro levels. I feel that Platt's opinions are leaning far too much toward a world without privacy and thus I do not agree with stance on surveillance. I disagree with Platt about why people should be under surveillance: he believes it will make everyone equal, but I believe people should only be under surveillance if they are suspected f attempting to commit a crime. Thus, Platt is far too extreme in his views on surveillance.
Platt begins his argument by stating that cultures other than our own have little need for privacy. "The Japanese, for instance, don't even have a word for it" domestic privacy that is; the simple need to hide some f you home life from the neighbours." (Platt, 344) He also claims that most people do not appear to be interested in spying on their neighbours, but I completely disagree with this. I believe that there are many people that would spy on their neighbours if given the chance to do so without facing any consequences. ...Show more