argument top image

Has surveillance gone too far?
Back to question

Constant surveillance is a waste of resources

There are millions of cameras - and they require time, money and people to control them.
< (3 of 4) Next argument >

The Argument

In the eyes of many, there are important things that require more of an urgent response. For instance, in London there are approximately 600,000 CCTV cameras spread throughout the city which inhabits about 9 million people.[1] Cities comparable in size and population to the city of London have this similar amount of cameras, particularly in developed countries. This means that billions of dollars worldwide have been spent on not just surveillance cameras, but the equipment and manpower it takes to operate them. In a world where countries are in debt, tensions between nations grow and wars seem never-ending, surveillance is not a crucial thing we cannot live without. Too many resources such as money, labor and technology should not be put toward cameras that do not even capture a majority of criminals.

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.


[P1] There are more crucial events that happen which require more attention.

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.


This page was last edited on Thursday, 16 Jul 2020 at 17:24 UTC

Explore related arguments