The response to this will be &quot;yes, but it&#x27;s only natural to give up <i>some</i> privacy for the greater good&quot;, and they&#x27;ll be right insofar as there&#x27;s a <i>lot</i> of precedence for this.<p>- We have driver&#x27;s licenses, passports and all manner of ID&#x27;s<p>- The IRS can audit banking records to ensure there&#x27;s no tax fraud, sans warrant.<p>- You can be filmed and photographed in public places for security purposes<p>The list goes on, and the argument will be that new technologies require new compromises.  Yours is hardly a constructive (or even <i>correct</i>) approach to the problem, because it (a) dismisses valid concerns and (b) implies a warped interpretation of privacy law.  There is no absolute right to privacy; there cannot be!<p>That said, we&#x27;re largely in agreement -- restricting privacy is probably the wrong approach in this particular case, but I think the counter argument should instead be made as I previously described, rather than by a knee-jerk opposition to restricted privacy.