In 1984, people live in a world were they are constantly watched and have no expectation of privacy at all. In Gattaca, people are required to constantly give some sample of themselves in order to prove who they are and retain their privileges. The principle difference between the worlds portrayed in these two films and the one we live in is that we don't expect to be constantly monitored nor are we ever expected to constantly give biological samples of ourselves as proof of identity.
Perhaps the main concern for privacy advocates is not that they will fear that they will be exposed for doing something illegal, embarrassing or morally wrong, but to the purpose the information is being put to use.
Immediately after 9/11, there were greater calls for tighter security, some of which would have never been publicly acceptable beforehand. Some may argue that if one hasn't done anything wrong then one should have nothing to hide and therefore not resist the invasion to privacy. The (1) logical counter-argument is that unless the information gathered is actually being put into good use then that information should not be gathered to eliminate the possibility of abuse. (The author assumes "good uses" to be the things like crime prevention, safety, etc.) This is where the balance should be drawn.
Monitoring (or the surrendering of privacy) would be acceptable to people if the people who are being monitored can be convinced that it is justified and that the monitoring will be done in a fair way. Introna argues that the main reason employees resist monitoring is that they fear that it will be abused or used against them, generating unfair or misleading information. Since employees have no control over what and how information is collected and therefore cannot be sure that accurate information is collected.
The issue of how much privacy an employee should be allowed to have at work is really an issue that is decided by employers, as they control this aspect of the work environment. An employer's viewpoint would entail maximizing productivity and minimizing waste. Introna points out that there is no long-term evidence of productivity improvement and that surveillance tends to generate mistrustful environments that leads to employees acting out their "employer's expectation of them -- thereby eradicating any benefit that surveillance may have had." The author concludes that employees should generally be given privacy and not be monitored if they (2) can be trusted and only use surveillance when there is already an environment of mistrust and the employees are not acting out the expectations of the employer.
In terms of students, they probably don't need to be given any privacy in any academic (3) environment. Students know that they're only in that environment temporarily and don't really have much to hide at this point of their lives.
Good discussion of some of the main issues...
(1) I agree with you that there is little justification for gathering data which is not put to "good use", however, I think we need t be concerned about the data which is put to "good use" as well. There are many issues to be considered, such as who defines what good use is, what future restrictions should be put on the use of the data, whether setting up data gathering technology now will lead to future abuses and so on.
(2) Okay, I think your suggestion is a good one for employers to maintain friendly relations with their employees, and have a productive work environment. Do you think that it is right that employers control how when and where surveillance takes place? I'm wondering who will decide that there is an "environment of mistrust" in the workplace. Do you agree with Introna that the employee should be able to limit the surveillance employer or control surveillance?
(3) Poor students! If privacy is a right, isn't shared by all people, "even" students"? Do you think that all marks and academic records should be public (for example, disabilities or illnesses, special exam requests or cheating files)? Yes?
8/10