- Question
Has surveillance gone too far?
The Post-9/11 political consensus put a greater emphasis on state surveillance. Increasingly sophisticated technologies gave state actors the power to track and watch ordinary people like never before. While supporters argue that this is a small price to pay for increasing safety and preventing terrorism, others see this as a serious contravention of human rights. Is the extent to which we are now surveilled a step too far?
Yes, surveillance has gone too far
This position holds that surveillance has gone too far. It argues that unwarranted surveillance is a serious violation of privacy and rights, that the technology grows ever more sophisticated and invisible, that it wastes resources, and that it is wrongly used as sole evidence of guilt.
No, surveillance has not gone too far
This position holds that surveillance has not gone too far. It argues that surveillance brings many benefits — above all keeping the country safe — that it has proven useful internationally, and that scaling it back would also cost jobs that depend on the security industry.
Surveillance is necessary to prevent serious crime
This position holds that surveillance is necessary to prevent serious crime, but only within limits. It argues that surveillance should be deployed solely where genuinely necessary — for fighting crime — striking a balance rather than being abandoned or allowed to run unchecked.