I have an interesting topic to discuss today. At what point is the government entitled to use any means necessary to catch a criminal, and at what point do we say something is an unethical use of power?

I’m thinking of traffic cameras, and lie detector tests, and the use of MRI machines to scan the brains of criminals. I’m also thinking of Microsoft Vista and Windows Media Player 11 and how it checks to make sure you have paid for the rights to listen to music and haven’t burned it more than once. Should it be against the law to speed and run read lights and lie to cops? Sure. Those are all bad ideas (well, most of the time anyway). It should also be against the law to make private copies of songs and sell them for personal profit. But at what point is my privacy negated because of a corporations fear that all the fees aren’t getting paid?

It seems like, if the police have a warrant for my computer and they discover I’ve been breaking copyright laws then I deserve what I get. But the fact that my personal laptop, my home computer is watching my activities to make sure I don’t break certain laws really upsets me. Who is Microsoft to program safeguards into my programs without my permission? If I’m savvy enough to get ahold of pirated music, or just want to play the music I burned off a friend’s cd, where’s the line there?

There are some, many perhaps, who would say if it’s against the law that’s the end of it. You can’t do it and those who police you are allowed to use any means necessary to prevent you. I can see why that argument appeals. In general, our laws are good--usually they are there for a reason and, when going after a serial killer for example, it’s a good idea to catch him however possible. But here’s the deal with absolutes--if I say it’s never okay to break the law and the law may always use whatever means possible to catch me, I’ve just given up any context that might affect the situation.

Not all of our laws are good ones you see. Most people know that, even acknowledge that things like Slavery and Jim Crow were a bad idea. It was a good thing that people broke those laws, but we aren’t like that today. Our laws are good today. But are they? How do you know? What is your gauge to evaluate the ethicality or lack there of of our modern laws? If you speed and a traffic camera takes a picture of your license plate and sends you a ticket in the mail a week later, why does that give you an uncomfortable feeling in the pit of your stomach? Even those of you who shake your heads and say, “well then don’t speed” can’t tell me you really like the idea of that. Who is that camera helping I ask you? What does the ticket in the mail accomplish? You are punished for your bad behavior. Great. Why do you need to be punished? Did you hurt someone? Run over someone? Were you reckless? A danger? Why was your speeding bad? Because the law said so? Did you feel out of control while you were driving? Tell me, I want to know. Why does the government get to punish me? Is the government my parent? Should it have absolute power over my behaviors and the right to punish me without qualm?

What if you were speeding because your wife was in labor? Or your mother was dying and you needed to get there as soon as possible? Or because your child, sibling, friend had gotten into trouble and needed you to come pick them up? Are those good reasons to speed? What if you’ve never had a traffic accident in your life, and even though you were speeding you were doing so safely? What if you’re a complete wreck on the road and are constantly getting tickets for one thing or another, but weren’t misbehaving that night, except for the speeding of course. Should that make a difference?

Context. The problem with people is that everybody’s got a story. Everybody’s got a reason for why they are the way they are. Not all of them are good reasons--sometimes they’re pretty shitty ones, but everybody’s got something. So what do you gain by enforcing laws with machines instead of people? You’ll probably catch more “criminals.” Probably keep more cds and dvds from being burned. Maybe even people will speed less. But you give up context. A lot of people don’t think that matters; context is something criminals hide behind after they’ve broken the law. Maybe you’re right, but if you give up context now what happens when you need it further down the line? Or your kid? Or your grandkid? Or your friend? Why is it so damn important to enforce all those little laws all the time? What is gained by that?

Before you answer that go read 1984. And then read Brave New World. And then watch V for Vendetta. They all gave up context too. You look at the societies in those stories and tell me how we can give up context but not turn out the same. People were miserable in 1984, but blissfully happy in Brave New World. And they were all completely “safe” as long as they followed the law. But is it really better to be “safe” from the world when you’re under constant threat from your government? That’s what happens when you give up context, and I would love to understand how, and why, that’s such a good thing.