Has surveillance gone too far?

Surveillance technology is increasingly sophisticated and unseen

Question: Has surveillance gone too far?
Position1 of 3›: Yes, surveillance has gone too far
Argument‹2 of 4›: Surveillance technology is increasingly sophisticated and unseen

Today, there are many more types of surveillance than just cameras.

The argument

If an employer examines your Facebook, or if your school is doing a "sweep" through student social media accounts, any recorded information can be accessible. In the long run, you could be affected if they perceive something in a negative way — and you would have no way of knowing which post did it, or that the review ever happened. In fact, using social media, email, texting apps, makes it very easy for law enforcement to find an excessive amount of information on you, not because any single message reveals much, but because the accumulated record of an ordinary life is now written down somewhere. Media proof is considered evidence just as much as physical proof, so that record carries the same weight as anything a physical search might turn up. In a world where our understanding of science is constantly developing, the reach of that observation keeps extending. Surveillance is already being used along with satellites in order to see a large area at a time, which changes what surveillance is: watching a population no longer requires selecting anyone in advance or suspecting them of anything in particular. These constant steps forward invade our privacy and limit our freedom, giving those in control of the satellites an unnecessary amount of power over the mass majority. The ability to view a large population all at once is a powerful one, and it belongs to whoever owns the equipment rather than to anyone the public has chosen. The same trend runs through the systems people meet every day. Other mass systems, like cameras in museums for example, are becoming more technical and used all over the world, so the watching grows more capable at the same time as it grows less visible.

Context

Information can now be sought from technological improvements in surveillance technology

Premises

[P1]Employers and schools can access recorded social media information, and law enforcement easily finds excessive personal data through apps, treating media as evidence like physical proof. [P2] Surveillance now uses satellites to watch large areas and increasingly sophisticated cameras worldwide. [P3] These advances invade privacy and give those who control them an unnecessary, growing power over the masses. [C] Therefore, because surveillance technology is increasingly sophisticated and unseen, surveillance has gone too far.

Counter-arguments

These newer advantages allow employers to be more aware of their employees, schools to create a safe place for all and for police to help maintain acts of crime. If this were to be taken away, information would be much harder to find.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] The usage could possibly be justified, and there is no evidence backing up that mass surveillance systems are used randomly.