In the article "Why 'security' keeps winning out over privacy," Daniel J. Solove states that too often, privacy is overlooked by the government in favour of security. The article reveals many arguments, showing their effects and the reasoning behind their flaws. Solove includes the all-or-nothing fallacy, the deference argument, the pendulum argument, the war-powers argument, and the luddite argument. I agree with the all-or-nothing fallacy, the deference argument, and the luddite argument. However, I do not quite grasp the concepts of the pendulum argument and I do not think it is a reliable source. In regards to the war-power argument, I do not trust it because it shows that the rule of law can be voided. This article reminds me of the "All the Troubles of the World" short story because there is such a strong desire for change, as there was to rebel in the story. Also, it is similar to the short story in concerns of too much protection. In addition, the way they talk about the 'naked scanners' in airports (luddite argument) reminds me of Multivac: they have too much knowledge. Overall, I agree with Solove's opinion about the government needing to pay more attention to privacy rights when concerning sercurity, but not to the same extent.