Has surveillance gone too far?

Constant surveillance is a waste of resources

Question: Has surveillance gone too far?
Position1 of 3›: Yes, surveillance has gone too far
Argument‹3 of 4›: Constant surveillance is a waste of resources

There are millions of cameras - and they require time, money and people to control them.

The argument

This argument objects to mass surveillance on grounds of cost rather than privacy: whatever one thinks about being watched, the money and effort involved buy very little and are needed elsewhere. The scale of the spending is illustrated by London, where there are approximately 600,000 CCTV cameras spread across a city of about 9 million people. Cities of comparable size and population have similar numbers, particularly in developed countries, so this is not a peculiarity of one place. Taken together, billions of dollars have been spent worldwide, and not only on the cameras themselves: the equipment and the manpower required to operate them are part of the bill as well. What that expenditure delivers is the weak point. These cameras do not even capture a majority of criminals, which means the spending is not buying the outcome it is justified by. A system that does not catch most of the offenders it exists to catch is not a proportionate use of the resources committed to it. The comparison that closes the argument is with everything else the money might address. In the eyes of many there are more urgent priorities, and in a world where countries are in debt, tensions between nations grow and wars seem never-ending, surveillance is not something societies cannot live without. Money, labour and technology are finite, and every camera installed and staffed represents a choice not to direct those resources at problems with a stronger claim on them. Because constant surveillance consumes resources on this scale while failing to catch most offenders, the argument concludes that it is a waste — and that surveillance has gone too far.

Premises

[P1]Cities like London spend billions on hundreds of thousands of CCTV cameras plus the equipment and manpower to run them. [P2] In a world of national debt, tension, and war, surveillance is not something we cannot live without. [P3] These cameras do not even capture a majority of criminals, so the money, labour, and technology are misspent. [C] Therefore, because constant surveillance is a waste of resources, surveillance has gone too far.

Counter-arguments

Detailed budgets and monetary policies pertaining to the usage of civilian taxes are already in place. Extensive research and thought has gone into adjusting expenses. Citizens with average education and no political or economic experience do not qualify to make decisions regarding their country's financial situation.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The public does use their own forms of surveillance. Stores, homes, and every bank or school are guarded by cameras.