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?

Surveillance is necessary to prevent serious crime Show more Show less

Surveillance must only be used in situations where it is absolutely necessary.
< (3 of 3)

Surveillance should only be used for fighting against crime

Surveillance is crucial for pinning down criminals, and stopping innocent people being blamed for crimes they didn't commit.
< (1 of 1)

Vote

Not sure yet? Read more before voting ↓


Context

There are some circumstances in which monitoring and forms of surveillance are absolutely necessary, but others, not so much.

The Argument

Surveillance helps society to remain safe. It is impossible to tell how often that those who are guilty are caught by the use of camera footage. The ability has even aided us in preventing tragic events. It is useful in protecting us during potential mass crimes at public events, home robberies, store break-ins, violent shootings, etc. On the other hand, crimes are more likely to be committed in areas where there is no heavy monitoring. There are many cases where even cameras cannot assist in identifying the culprit. Busy streets and the outside of many town buildings are dotted with video cameras. Cities are beginning to modify these cameras to have facial recognition. Many resources from all over the globe have been used to produce this new technology. Because keeping these intricate systems running is a costly endeavor, it may be unnecessary to keep them on city streets waiting for a crime that is not guaranteed to happen. Clearly, they can be useful against enemies whether foreign or domestic, as well as bringing justice to dangerous people. Wherever the highest level of threat is, is the location that should house the highest resources for surveillance.

Counter arguments

As it is not possible to expect where criminal activity will take place, it would be a major risk to lessen the amount of cameras. With crime and terror rates skyrocketing each year, we would need additional surveillance if anything. Surveillance is one of the most convenient forms of protection, saving a lot of time and manpower.

Premises

[P1] It is not necessary to use surveillance against most citizens.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The path that dangerous criminals take through towns or nations could be found easier through facial recognition from cameras located in various locations.

References


    This page was last edited on Tuesday, 1 Sep 2020 at 14:12 UTC