It has been common today to dismiss the idea of having the government use technology to closely inspect the public in promotion of its general welfare due to the right of privacy among the citizens in the United States. However, recent scenarios where technology benefitted communities’ safety suggests that the loss of certain privacy rights may not be such a bad idea. Searching for a way to improve the war efforts in Iraq, Ross McNutt and his team invented a way to go back in time to a crime scene by sending a plane with a camera in the sky to supervise the area 24/7. Once this technology was promoted and implemented in the cities with high crime rates, the effects were dramatically apparent; In a matter of minutes, a homicide cases were pin-pointed to its source. In sum, the opportunity of immediate justice for the victims is far more important than giving up some personal privacy if it means better protection of the public.

The rights of privacy have been viewed as a divine entitlement to all citizens of the United States. However, with the increased sophistication of technology, privacy which has once been thought of being an absolute right is now becoming more conditional. Although Ross McNutt’s technology has been effective in the Iraq war efforts and is useful in protecting our society, there must be a limit on the amount of privacy that an organization can take from the citizens in the merits of “general welfare”. While it is successful in solving crimes at a faster rate, the issue lies in the possibility of even more privacy restricting technology that may arise. In addition, while crime rate may initially decrease, the initial change may revert back to its original condition due to the fact that criminals will just adapt to the new conditions and find other ways to commit crimes more discreetly. Having the ability to closely inspect the population doesn’t justify whether or not it is something that we should do.