The short answer is Privacy and Anonymity.  From this follows Safety, and the exercise of the God-given right to be left alone, to associate with those he chooses and avoid those who do not have his best interests at heart.

Have you considered that, with the exception of medical information shared among the healing professionals, information gathered about you is *almost never* used in your best interest?  There are exceptions, but they are few: for example emergency assistance, or obtaining lower insurance rates.  In any case, the information gathered has a very long lifespan.  In the best of cases, it is not used later.  In the worst, information held by "persons" not acting in your interest can be used against you.  As used here and in what follows, "persons" refers to the strict definition of a "legal person".  This includes, but is not limited to, Government entities and their agents, Corporate entities and their agents, and actual human beings.  Basically and simplistically stated, it is any entity which has what is called "legal standing", that is, the right to appear and participate in the court systems, enter into contracts, etc.

When a pup, Sawtooth recalls walking outside at night, in the glare of floodlights, looking out into the darkness and feeling afraid that an unseen evil being might be out there lurking in the darkness, watching him and waiting for the opportunity to do him in.  He had been told that such creatures existed and that therefore he should always walk in the light and carry a flashlight when venturing into the darkness.  In a moment of reflection about his fear, he came to understand that the problem was that he was clearly visible to any such evil being because he was in the light (or was carrying a flashlight), while the evil one hid, unseen in the darkness.  The next thought was how foolish that was.  Sawtooth saw, that by staying in the light, he had surrendered all advantage, and was thereby made vulnerable.  The answer was simple: turn out the floodlights when venturing out, and carry a flashlight (but use it only rarely, when necessary).  This allayed his fear of the darkness, as he knew whatever lay in wait for him could not see him, and therefore was as vulnerable to Sawtooth as Sawtooth was to him.  Common Sense, applied.

The parallel in real life is obvious.  He gives no information not essential to the performance of the task at hand, and if too much information is demanded, considers redefining or abandoning the task.  Sawtooth almost never gives out private information.  He has had information come back and be used to harrass him by "persons" to whom it was not given.  He is aware that friends have trusted friends, and that they have trusted friends, and so on, and so on.  Thus, information he reveals may ultimately end up in the hands of "persons" Sawtooth would never choose to trust.  Sawtooth exercises a strong dose of Common Sense about whom to speak to, and about what.

Information, including private information, is widely gathered and disseminated today, and we do not know who will have access to it, or how it will be used.  Did you know, for example, that the Department of Motor Vehicles (for many years and so far as I know, still) in the state of California sells information contained in their database?  (I know of no reason to believe California is unique in this practice.)  Would you choose to give anyone who can pay the price, information about your address, the make, model, year, and license number of the car(s) you drive, your marital status, your age, and your disabilities?  Are you listening, divorcees, old people, and disabled people?  Another example is voter registration records.  From this information, freely accessible, anyone who wants to find you, and who has only an approximate idea of where you live, can pinpoint your location.  Defend your privacy!  It is your only real protection.

There are at present a number of new Federal incursions into our privacy being undertaken (as if there were not enough already in place).

The "Patriot Act" is so broad in scope and lacking in individual rights or protections as to merit separate discussion, which many others have already addressed elsewhere. I shall not discuss it, nor other such government & business <--> citizen redefinitions, here.

One is the creation of a Federal DNA Identification database, proposed by the Department of Justice.  DNA Identifying data already exists for current military personnel, and DNA Identifying data is also held on certain other groups like convicted felons.  The database might very well be expanded to include all on whom an appropriate DNA test has been performed, and eventually could be required of us all.  It would be easy to do after all: how often do we have some of our blood drawn?  Are we fully informed as to just what tests are performed on our blood samples, and to whom the results are given?  In the interest of our own health, would we dare refuse such "routine" tests?  Certainly medical doctors would refuse to treat us without doing a blood test, and with good reason.  But remember, DNA testing of blood for ID purposes need only be done once, and the results may be made available to third parties, under "appropriate" circumstances.  ("Appropriate" is a term whose defininition is subject to interpretation, and is further subject to legal re-definition in the future.)  There are many other sources of DNA samples, as you no doubt know: basically, any cells from your body will work - a hair, a cigarette butt, any source at all.

A second is to use Social Security numbers as the nucleus of a National ID database and the requirement that all driver's licenses or ID cards issued by a State bear this number (or one which is linked to it in a state-maintained database).  Proposals have been made that such an ID card also include fingerprint, photograph, and Iris-scan information.  It is still in the formative stages (feasibility of State compliance, costs of implimentation, and optimal mix of identifiers are being debated); and it is underway: Illinios began to put a closely compliant system into effect in November of 1998; West Virginia uses facial recognition technology not affected by beards, eyeglasses, and the like; California said it would be compliant by October 1, 2000; many other States are reassuring the government that they too would be in full compliance by that date; 42 states already used digital photographs in the year 2000.  "Compliant" and "Free"...  Sawtooth finds it hard to reconcile these two terms.  Is it possible to be both compliant and free?  It depends on just what one is asked to comply with, and whether that is consistant with what one would freely choose to do.

A third is the creation of a nation-wide, perhaps world-wide, Medical database, again based on an identifying number, certified by some irrefutably certain identifying mechanism.  Again, Social Security numbers have been promoted as an easy and obvious starting point for such an identification system.  Again, the proposal to use DNA "fingerprints" has been suggested as the ultimate identifier.  And again, just whom would be given access to this information is controversial.  Sawtooth was raised with the belief that information held between a person and his or her doctor was absolutely protected and legally priviledged information (the same applied to communications with a person's Clergy or Lawyer).  This absolute privacy right has been seriously comprimised.  Be advised.

Each of these proposals has strong support from its sponsoring agency.  Undeniably, it would make their jobs easier, and improve their efficiency in carrying out their functions.  In the case of Medical IDs, it might even help prevent errors in medical treatment.  So, what's wrong with these proposals?  Each of them envisions a listing for every single person in the society: man, woman and child, without exception.  Remember that children are now issued Social Security numbers at birth.  It is inevitable that certain members of society deemed to have a "legitimate purpose" to have access to this information, would have it (police, DoJ, taxation entities, and intellengence agencies for example; and potentially, credit and insurance companies).  The temptation to expand the quantity and type of information contained in such a comprehensive database would likely prove irresistable.  In short, there would soon be a unified database containing life-long histories and evaluations made on every person.  Furthermore, such a personal file would contain information: not only objective facts, but also subjective evaluations made by people (with all the misunderstanding and misinterpretation attendant thereto, not to mention outright prejudice and bias) and, by inclusion, given the status of truth.  It would add hurdles for anyone who needed to "start over" or get a new start at life with a "clean slate".  The existance of our personal history file would preclude it, at least without first having to take some form of legal action to clarify or expunge this record.  Unconventional persons would be saddled with yet another government system to cope with, just to get by.  Even though there are merits to unified databases which help deal with certain societal problems, there is no doubt whatsoever that "the cure is worse than the disease".

And who can say to what purpose such information would be used, in the future?  Are we really so foolish as to believe that all "official" agencies are now and will always be working for our best interest?  History says otherwise, and very emphatically so!  There are other basic issues involved.  Freedom to live our own lives, as we see fit, complete with the freedom to make errors and learn by them; freedom to be unique and different, to be our own persons; and the freedom to be left alone.  Sawtooth does not ask for, nor will he accept, oversight, even benevolent oversight, of his activities.  He sees no reason whatever to believe that someone else's judgement of what he "should" be doing is better than his own.  Whether he freely chooses to conform or not to conform with social norms (so long as he harms no one else) is no one's business but his own... else he is not free!  It matters not whether others find this convenient: that is irrelevant.  Freedom is not founded on anyone(!) else's convenience.  "Compliance" and "Liberty" are incompatible in the long run.  To say that we are both compliant and free is an oxymoron: sooner or later, we will be asked to comply with something we would not freely choose.  Thus it is that we cannot be both compliant and free!

On another note, many automobiles now contain a microprocessor-controlled anti-theft system combined with Global Positioning System and possibly a Cellular phone, which can track a stolen car and even let the police eavesdrop on conversations inside the vehicle.  What is to stop someone (not necessarily the police) from monitoring in-car conversations, at any time?  Our privacy is under assault from many sides, and major battles have already been lost.  Smile skyward and wave to your local LandSat.