A right to privacy is one of the most essential and fundamental rights that protects against totalitarianism and historical oppression by governmental systems. Any answer that assumes a benevolent government or society is misplaced and misguided. The framers of our nation and constitution understood this well, and is why we have a federalist system. Power should be spread thinly and that means any governmental power to do what would otherwise be known as stalking should not be condoned except under certain pretenses. While the government could prevent damage it could also use this power (which it gives itself) to oppress and strip other freedoms from society. George Orwell depicts this well in 1984 with thought crimes, the problem is the government who has the same power to take your privacy has the same power to say what is a just reason for infringement of your privacy and this power could be wielded unjustly. Again our framers knew this and knew men we bent towards wickedness so they protected against this by limited governmental powers.

Thank you for you Airport response, I appreciate the thought provoking example. This is why my framing was important, because I agreed that under some pretenses the government can for security reasons invade privacy. The problem is your statement is bigger than that, it asserts that security is more important that privacy. Under this logic you have to allow for governments not only to check bags at the airport but put cameras in every house, and phone so that they can track any possible crimes you may commit. While we can agree this would most likely lead to less crimes and therefore more "security." I think we can agree this would be an overstep of Both the first and fourth amendments, as anyone who could be spied on by the government without a warrant could be convicted by that same government who is wielding the power. This means any governmental or political opposition could be silenced before they ever even get the chance to speak and we would have no right to stop the government from doing this. So let me ask you would you allow the government to put cameras in your house to make crimes go down, because this is the plot of 1984 and it should be seen as a warning.

You are talking about a little privacy when your position is that security IS more important that privacy. The concert doesn't work because that is a private venue, It doesn't break any of our rights to freely give up our privacy such as at a bag check we knowingly consent too. Which is what both of your examples fall into, a consensual check is not that same as what your prompt would allow which is complete government overreach and totalitarian regime such as putting camera's in everyone's home.