On page 208 of Little Brother, Marcus gets into a heated argument with his replacement social studies teacher and Charles. The teacher and Charles are arguing that rights provided to the people in the Constitution/Bill of Rights can be suspended under certain circumstances. Marcus is arguing that the rights are absolute, and that the teacher's way of thinking leads to the idea that the government can perform any action they deem necessary to "keep citizens safe". While I completely understand this opinion, I don't know if I agree with Marcus entirely about this conflict. The Bill of Rights, while an incredibly important document of American history, at the end of the day are just reflections of the perspectives of men who lived in an entirely different era. I feel honored and protected by this document, yet I do not believe it is absolute. In my opinion, certain laws/rights are outdated, and to argue that a rule should stay as it was written because "it's my constitutional right" is simply not a valid argument. Times change, and with it, so should governing structures. The men who wrote the Constitution were never under the constant danger we experience today, danger of identity theft, bombings, terrorism, hackers, etc. Why do we continue to take their word as law? Granted, the extent to which the government invaded privacy in Little Brother was certainly extreme, and I don't condone that, but I do believe the government should be allowed to access certain information about people if it can help prevent terrorism or violence. In Judaism, there is this idea of pikuach nefesh, which is that saving even one life overrules any other religious obligation. If it can be proven that government surveillance saves even a handful of lives, then I believe that we as citizens should understand that.