Government Surveillance

Is There “Enough” Surveillance?

Do all the recent attacks and mass shootings make you question whether or not there is enough surveillance? Do you think there is such thing as “too much” surveillance? These questions have led to the debate on whether or not government surveillance should be legal. Immediately what comes to mind is questioning if there is more than one kind of surveillance, and the answer is yes. Public surveillance consists of having cameras in public facilities, such as airports, malls, and banks. Citizens are aware of these cameras because there are signs outside and/or inside the buildings notifying that surveillance is taking place. Government surveillance is the government having access to all of your information by installing

Just imagine one night you are alone and decide to go to the drive thru at the bank. Since it is late and you are by yourself, you might feel hesitant to make a transaction because you are not sure who is watching you or what could possibly happen. You would hope that there are cameras while you are at the bank because if something does happen or a crime is committed, it would be caught on video. My argument is that although cameras may catch the person committing a crime, it does not prevent the crime taking place. The public surveillance camera will watch the crime being committed, and those in favor of government surveillance argue that it will prevent crime and lower crime rates, when in fact it will not. In the year of 2001 in Tampa, Florida, cameras were installed and within the two years of the installation, the cameras were taken off due to the fact that it did not lower arrest rates. In Oakland, California, the police chief claimed that there is no way to make government surveillance cameras lower crime rates, it can only be used as a forensic tool to track down criminals. Terrorists are willing to hijack planes, perform mass shootings, and detonate bombs at the expense of being caught and put to death. Government surveillance will not prevent crimes for being committed, therefore making it an unnecessary law that should not be

Just because someone does not want the government monitoring and accessing every piece of information of someone’s life does not make them suspicious of a crime. It’s not a crime to want to have some things in your life to be private information. The reason for making government surveillance illegal in this scenario would be for privacy reasons. When you go on Facebook or buy an Apple iPhone, you agree and consent to a “Terms and Conditions” contract. Very seldom do people read word for word what those contracts consists of, but the bottom line is that you are consenting and allowing a private company to access your information on your device. Supporters of government surveillance believe that since you are already allowing companies to access your “private” information, who cares if the government can see it? The answer is just that- “private.” When you consent to companies accessing your data and information, you are voluntarily allowing the private company itself know everything on your device, not the government. Although the government may request personal information of someone to the private company, the government is not guaranteed access to that information. It is ultimately the private company’s decision on whether they give the government their data or not. Legalizing government surveillance would not be voluntary and would