What do you think about this topic?

Oay it is long... but I think you'll like it. What I would like to know is if my essay is essentaily crap or worthy of college...?

FYI : First is an article I researched, and second is a response not only to the article but combined with 1984 (Orwell)

A popular illusion is that we use technology to serve our ends. In fact, we seem to follow it to ends inherent in the technology. It has a will of its own.

For example, the automobile once invented made a dense network of roads inevitable, which made suburbs inevitable, which made malls inevitable, which made community and localism impossible and utterly changed the nature of society. This wasn't planned. Neither was the Internet, which grew as it chose while we watched in astonishment.

Today we hear much fuming about electronic surveillance and whether we should allow it. A better question might be whether we can not allow it. It is too easy, too convenient to be avoided.

The technical capacity exists for detailed watchfulness that Stalin would have envied. For practical purposes, the power of computers is now without limit. You can buy a commodity computer with a terabyte of storage. Global networking is a reality, the Web being the obvious example. Databases of virtually unlimited size can be searched almost instantly from around the globe. Google indexes billions of pages. How long after you hit the Enter key does it take for search results to appear?

This is new--not that governments will spy, but that they can do so easily, massively, and undetected. In 1950, police agencies could clandestinely open mail or tap phones, but it took time and manpower. Today enormous volumes of e-mail can be read automatically and copies sent to whoever wants them. The intended recipient has no way of detecting the interception. You can use encryption, yes. But unless you have the source code for your encryption program, and know enough cryptology and programming to read it, you can't tell whether it has been backdoored.

An insidious quality of modern surveillance is its inconspicuousness. If jackbooted storm troopers kicked your door in and rifled through your papers, you might object. This seldom happens. Yet every use of your passport, every phone call, every purchase you make with a credit card or check, where and when and what, goes into a database. Cameras can (and in some places do) read the license numbers of all passing cars. This is not the place to go into the details of radio-frequency identification devices and cellphone tracking, but both exist.

My point here is not that any particular government is intentionally using the technology to impose totalitarian control. Some are (China, for example) and some aren't. My question is whether, as every move we make becomes watchable and trackable, any government will be able to resist the temptation.

Local governments are not immune to the attractions of intrusion. I recently read that in York, England, the wearing of hats in pubs is illegal because it interferes with the surveillance cameras. These are supposed to spot "troublemakers." Thus quickly does the pretext go from the exalted cause of opposing terrorism to catching guys with a snootful. What can be done will be.

All of which raises a couple of questions. First, is freedom possible without privacy? Those in law enforcement will argue that surveillance doesn't matter. If you do nothing illegal, their reasoning runs, what difference does it make what the government knows? A lot. For anyone who might butt heads with a government, whether in Beijing or Washington, being watched is intimidating. We all do things that can be used against us. A compromising e-mail about a tryst, sent to someone not a spouse, is embarrassing.

The second question is whether people really care about freedom. I think not, though we tell ourselves that we do. The majority care about prosperity and comfort--a nice house, tolerable job, consumerism's trinkets, beer, sex, 500 channels on the cable, and a couple of weeks a year at Disneyland. They go to Joe's Rib Pit, congregate with friends, swill Bud, and watch NASCAR. This is not contemptible. (I hope not: I do it.) It is enough freedom for most.

The abolition by disregard of the Constitution? An abstraction that doesn't register. I'll guess that 95 percent of the population have never heard of habeas corpus and don't know what the Fourth Amendment is. Freedom of speech matters only to intellectuals. The cameras are everywhere, but you hardly notice them. Anyway, Kyle Busch is eating up NASCAR in that Toyota. Toyota--ain't that something? In Georgia.

The comfortable do not revolt against what does not inconvenience them. Can the police always tell where your cellphone is? Know what books you have checked out? What websites you visit? Read your e-mail? Why, we hardly notice. Anyway, it is only to catch terrorists.

Source Citation:

Reed, Fred. "Modem operandi: I wonder whether a sort of totalitarianism, or