argument top image

< Back to question Has surveillance gone too far? Show more Show less

The Post-9/11 political consensus put a greater emphasis on state surveillance. Increasingly sophisticated technologies gave state actors the power to track and watch ordinary people like never before. While supporters argue that this is a small price to pay for increasing safety and preventing terrorism, others see this as a serious contravention of human rights. Is the extent to which we are now surveilled a step too far?

Yes, surveillance has gone too far Show more Show less

Unwarranted surveillance is not just intrusive; it is also a heinous violation of our human rights.
(1 of 3) Next position >

Surveillance is an invasion of privacy

Public surveillance is a slippery slope to even more invasive forms of social control.
< (2 of 4) Next argument >

Vote

Not sure yet? Read more before voting ↓

Proponents


Context

Surveillance technology interferes with some of our most basic rights

The Argument

Governments and law enforcement have been known to abuse their power using surveillance. Most people feel that a group as powerful as such could easily take advantage of others. There have been cases of blackmail, framing and various scandals which have been caused by observations using technology. For example, after the 9/11 attacks, the President of the United States stated that voting against The Patriot Act (a new American surveillance law) would cause to government to have "immediate suspicion of you in the event of another attack".[1] This caused many citizens to feel as if they were losing their constitutional rights, by being punished unlawfully and without evidence. The majority of the time we are in a public place, we are in some sort of surveillance recording. It has become so normal over the last decade that most of the time we do not even think to look for them, although most are hidden. Social media is also a form of surveillance, as any information posted has the ability to be seen by almost anyone in the world by potential employers, schools, law enforcement, etc. As technology adapts, it becomes harder to maintain the freedom of privacy. More sinister situations, such as being recorded by another person in the form of stalking, also exist and are reported every single day. The general public having access to surveillance will only endanger society as a whole.

Counter arguments

If someone has not committed a crime, realistically they do not have anything to worry about when it comes to surveillance. Fear of being punished or convicted of a crime usually comes from a guilty conscience, such as when the person knows what it is they would be in trouble for.

Premises

[P1] People should not be recorded without their consent [P2] Individuals in powerful leadership positions have the potential to abuse their power [P3] The public worries that this could lead to charges against them or various issues in their lives.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Surveillance is considered to be hard evidence, and regardless of the intentions or circumstances of the charges against someone, whoever committed the crime will be the one to experience the consequences. [Rejecting P3] Some find surveillance comforting, as it makes them feel more protected and aware.

References

  1. https://www.aclu.org/other/surveillance-under-usapatriot-act

This page was last edited on Thursday, 16 Jul 2020 at 17:24 UTC

Explore related arguments