Privacy Vs. Non-Privacy

Is Nothing Sacred Anymore?

Our societies have unfolded and taken on the belief that it's "safe" and perfectly acceptable to allow our privacies to be invaded, adopting views that it would be an almost impossible plight to conquer even if in disagreement. People simply don't have the energy and have abandoned to wave the banner to defend rights of privacy, as the current to the river, washing all values and moral ethics, has become too strong to fight against.

We now have in our midst defeated individuals who are willing to forsake their privacies in not wanting to cause ripples and sound overly dramatic, as the tide seems to be in favor of those who relish satiating their curiosities at whim without taking into consideration the repercussions of their actions and how, in the long run, such actions will only lead to more unstable societies.

For the parents that have tried and failed, the next generations suffer the lack of precious values which should be instilled in the moral fabric of their upbringing.

In the weighing of ethics, where does one draw the threshold as to what is acceptable as opposed to what isn't? How can we use our moral judgment when the majority populace have been programmed and conditioned by uncontrolled media to believe that 'privacy invasion' doesn't exist, and to just go along with the 'normal flow' of what our so-called democratic societies are sweeping us with and implanting more seeds to keep that corrupt flow going?

Cause and Effect

There was a time when if one so much as dared to take a picture of someone out in the public, that a person who had been "snapshotted" could pull the film out of that individual's camera, but then complaints of "abused cameras" led to new by-laws which contradicted a person's public privacy. In other words, "don't touch my personal possession (camera) ", but this left a loophole in the system that granted the "camera-voyeurs" to snapshot anyone at their convenience as long as their cameras were untouched. Film included.