Surveillance has proven useful internationally

The argument

There is a system used by governments, agencies and companies around the world that allows them to communicate with one another in regards to finding suspected criminals, and its value is clearest at the moment a suspect crosses a border. This way, if a criminal — or a potential one — decides to leave the country, surveillance footage in airports, gas stations and even phone records will help to pinpoint their location. Without that shared layer a national police force loses the trail at its own frontier; with it, the investigation follows the person rather than stopping at the map. The same logic operates at the level of national defence. Monitors and advanced tracking systems that militaries across the planet have adopted are a big factor in protecting their countries. Were they absent, it would be much easier for extremist groups or other foreign enemies to strongly impact the public in currently unaffected nations, since an attack has to be prepared somewhere and preparation is precisely what monitoring is positioned to detect. As a result of various surveillance systems, we are usually able to see international threats before they happen rather than only afterwards. The benefit also shows up after the fact. Fortunately, due to the amount of surveillance, major crimes like terrorist attacks or homicides can be solved much faster than they used to be, because the material an investigation depends on already exists rather than having to be reconstructed from memory and witnesses. And thanks to the fast working processes that most developed countries have agreed upon, that material moves between jurisdictions instead of stopping at each border, so the advantage compounds and the risk for international threats decreases. Judged on those outcomes rather than on the anxieties the technology provokes, proponents of this position argue, surveillance is doing the work it was built to do: locating suspects who flee, revealing threats in advance of the harm, and closing serious cases faster than before. On that basis, surveillance has not gone too far.

Premises

Counter-arguments

While attempting to capture those who are breaking the law, you are interfering with the rights of citizens such as freedom of speech, search rights that vary by country, as well as other civil rights. The actions of extremists and tyrants should not affect the rights of innocent people.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Events such as these do not happen frequently enough to justify the government spying on their people.