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 technology is increasingly sophisticated and unseen

Today, there are many more types of surveillance than just cameras.
(1 of 4) Next argument >


Not sure yet? Read more before voting ↓



Information can now be sought from technological improvements in surveillance technology

The Argument

If an employer examines your Facebook, or if your school is doing a "sweep" through student social media accounts, any recorded information can be accessible. In the long run, you could be affected if they perceive something in a negative way. In fact, using social media, email, texting apps, makes it very easy for law enforcement to find an excessive amount of information on you. Media proof is considered evidence just as much as physical proof. In a world where our understanding of science is constantly developing, surveillance is already being used along with satellites in order to see a large area at a time. These constant steps forward take part in invaded our privacy and limiting our freedom, giving those in control of the satellites an unnecessary amount of power over the mass majority. The ability to view a large population all at once is a powerful one. Other mass systems, like cameras in museums for example, are becoming more technical and used all over the world.

Counter arguments

These newer advantages allow employers to be more aware of their employees, schools to create a safe place for all and for police to help maintain acts of crime. If this were to be taken away, information would be much harder to find.


[P1] Social media should not be considered evidence, as it shouldn't be seen as accurate. [P2] These advancements interfere with our rights more so now than they did in the past

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] The usage could possibly be justified, and there is no evidence backing up that mass surveillance systems are used randomly.


    This page was last edited on Thursday, 16 Jul 2020 at 09:23 UTC

    Explore related arguments