argument top image

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

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?

No, surveillance has not gone too far Show more Show less

There are many benefits to surveillance. Above all, it keeps the country safe.
< (2 of 3) Next position >

Surveillance has proven useful internationally

A worldwide surveillance system allows us to track illegal activity much quicker across borders.
< (1 of 3) Next argument >

The Argument

There is a system used by governments, agencies and companies around the world that allow them to communicate with one another in regards to finding suspected criminals. This way, if a criminal (or a potential one) decides to leave the country, surveillance footage in airports, gas stations and even phone records will help to pinpoint their location. Monitors and advanced tracking systems that militaries across the planet have adopted are a big factor in protecting their countries. It would be much easier for extremist groups or other foreign enemies to strongly impact the public in currently unaffected nations. As a result of various surveillance systems, we are usually able to see international threats before they happen. Fortunately, due to the amount of surveillance, major crimes like terrorist attacks or homicides can be solved much faster than they used to be. Thanks to the fast working processes that most developed countries have agreed upon, the risk for international threats decreases.

Counter arguments

While attempting to capture those who are breaking the law, you are interfering with the rights of citizens such as freedom of speech, search rights that vary by country, as well as other civil rights. The actions of extremists and tyrants should not affect the rights of innocent people.

Premises

[P1] With the chance of international threats increasing, it is important for law enforcement and various responders to have an eye on as much of the population as possible.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Events such as these do not happen frequently enough to justify the government spying on their people.

References

This page was last edited on Tuesday, 14 Apr 2020 at 15:13 UTC

Explore related arguments