The response to this will be "yes, but it's only natural to give up some privacy for the greater good", and they'll be right insofar as there's a lot of precede

The response to this will be "yes, but it's only natural to give up some privacy for the greater good", and they'll be right insofar as there's a lot of precedence for this. - We have driver's licenses, passports and all manner of ID's - The IRS can audit banking records to ensure there's no tax fraud, sans warrant. - You can be filmed and photographed in public places for security purposes The list goes on, and the argument will be that new technologies require new compromises. Yours is hardly a constructive (or even correct) 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! That said, we'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.