Has surveillance gone too far?

Encyclopedia of Opinion

Question: Has surveillance gone too far?
Position1 of 3›: Yes, surveillance has gone too far
Argument‹4 of 4: Surveillance is an invasion of privacy

Public surveillance is a slippery slope to even more invasive forms of social control.

The argument

Governments and law enforcement have been known to abuse their power using surveillance. Most people feel that a group as powerful as such could easily take advantage of others. There have been cases of blackmail, framing and various scandals which have been caused by observations using technology. For example, after the 9/11 attacks, the President of the United States stated that voting against The Patriot Act (a new American surveillance law) would cause to government to have "immediate suspicion of you in the event of another attack". This caused many citizens to feel as if they were losing their constitutional rights, by being punished unlawfully and without evidence. The majority of the time we are in a public place, we are in some sort of surveillance recording. It has become so normal over the last decade that most of the time we do not even think to look for them, although most are hidden. Social media is also a form of surveillance, as any information posted has the ability to be seen by almost anyone in the world by potential employers, schools, law enforcement, etc. As technology adapts, it becomes harder to maintain the freedom of privacy. More sinister situations, such as being recorded by another person in the form of stalking, also exist and are reported every single day. The general public having access to surveillance will only endanger society as a whole.

Context

Surveillance technology interferes with some of our most basic rights

Premises

[P1]Governments and law enforcement have abused surveillance powers—through blackmail, framing and scandals—and after 9/11 citizens felt the Patriot Act punished dissent with "immediate suspicion." [P2] Surveillance now pervades public space and social media, where posts are visible to employers, schools and police, and as technology advances privacy becomes ever harder to protect, even enabling stalking. [C] Therefore, because surveillance is an invasion of privacy, surveillance has gone too far.

Counter-arguments

If someone has not committed a crime, realistically they do not have anything to worry about when it comes to surveillance. Fear of being punished or convicted of a crime usually comes from a guilty conscience, such as when the person knows what it is they would be in trouble for.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Surveillance is considered to be hard evidence, and regardless of the intentions or circumstances of the charges against someone, whoever committed the crime will be the one to experience the consequences. [Rejecting P3] Some find surveillance comforting, as it makes them feel more protected and aware.

Proponents cited

Patrick Toomey
“The unconstitutional surveillance program at issue is called PRISM, under which the NSA, FBI, and CIA gather and search through Americans’ international emails, internet calls, and chats without obtaining a warrant. When Edward Snowden blew the whistle on PRISM in 2013, the program included at least nine major internet companies, including Facebook, Google, Apple, and Skype. Today, it very likely includes an even broader set of companies.”
Buck McKeon
“To keep America safe, does the Federal Bureau of Investigation really need almost unfettered access to Americans’ health records, DNA test results, and even private conversations overheard by digital assistants like Alexa and Siri?”
Martha Spurrier
“If police wanted to root through your bedroom drawers, you’d expect them to have a warrant and a bloody good reason. But if they want to dip into this deeply sensitive personal data, they have a year’s supply of information sat waiting and can grant themselves permission. No need for sign-off from a judge. No need to suspect someone of a crime. We argued that this breached British people’s rights – and on Wednesday the judges agreed.”