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?
Unwarranted surveillance is not just intrusive; it is also a heinous violation of our human rights.
Surveillance technology is increasingly sophisticated and unseen
Today, there are many more types of surveillance than just cameras.
Surveillance is being used as sole evidence for culpability
Innocent people are being punished for crimes they didn't commit thanks to how surveillance is used as evidence.
Constant surveillance is a waste of resources
There are millions of cameras - and they require time, money and people to control them.
Surveillance is an invasion of privacy
Public surveillance is a slippery slope to even more invasive forms of social control.
Surveillance must only be used in situations where it is absolutely necessary.
Surveillance should only be used for crime
Surveillance is crucial for pinning down criminals, and stopping innocent people being blamed for crimes they didn't commit.
There are many benefits to surveillance. Above all, it keeps the country safe.
Surveillance has proven useful internationally
A worldwide surveillance system allows us to track illegal activity much quicker across borders.
Taking away surveillance means taking away jobs
Surveillance is now a big employer. Diminishing the industry would be disastrous for thousands.
Surveillance keeps us safe
Surveillance reduces overall criminal activity. People are less likely to break the law if they run the risk of being watched.
This page was last edited on Thursday, 16 Jul 2020 at 17:21 UTC