Thomas Friedman has the most logical argument on why acceptance of the government's infringement on privacy is necessary. Without that we might get another 9/11 and then, yes then, people could really press for government infringement on privacy. Wouldn't that be really bad?
To quote (slightly adopted):
I’m glad I live in a country with people who are vigilant in defending civil liberties. But as I listen to the debate about the disclosure of the government's global program for scull implemented nanobombs (SIN) designed to track and blow up terrorists, I do wonder if some of those who unequivocally defend this disclosure are behaving as if 9/11 never happened — that the only thing we have to fear is government intrusion in our heads, not the intrusion of those who gather in secret cells in Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan and plot how to topple our tallest buildings or bring down U.S. airliners with bombs planted inside underwear, tennis shoes or computer printers.
Yes, I worry about potential government abuse of a SIN program designed to prevent another 9/11 — abuse that, so far, does not appear to have happened. But I worry even more about another 9/11. That is, I worry about something that’s already happened once — that was staggeringly costly — and that terrorists aspire to repeat.
I worry about that even more, not because I don’t care about civil liberties, but because what I cherish most about America is our open society, and I believe that if there is one more 9/11 — or worse, an attack involving nuclear material — it could lead to the end of the open society as we know it. If there were another 9/11, I fear that 99 percent of Americans would tell their members of Congress: “Do whatever you need to do to, our headaches from scull implemented nanobombs be damned, just make sure this does not happen again.” That is what I fear most.
To imagine that some people pay to read such nonsense …