Surveillance is highly rejected in the contemporary society with some people arguing that it is a threat to privacy. The major argument about the euphoria placed on surveillance technologies is essentially not in what information is gathered about the subjects, but in what one does with the information. It also depends on who is carrying out the same. Stacey argues as a proponent of this technology that, with proper legal safeguards in relation to government abuse, surveillance technology should not be a worrying ordeal. He indicates that state of the art surveillance can help in crime detection and minimizing utilization of reluctant witnesses. The surveillance technology in the proper use can enhance security and autonomy of people. Technology in surveillance has undergone a revolution in the recent times with sophistication of the tools used. For instance, spy satellites can detect movements and read a vehicle’s number plates accurately, while the spy software remotely implanted on a computer can monitor the web sites that a person links. This technology emanates from the Big Brother’s sinister, which essentially produced a view with blurred images. However, face recognition software has made a clear view of images even when in a crowd. The argument on the permissibility of the government to access information about its citizens essentially depends on the prior knowledge of the kind of information required. Some information is worth revealing while classified information is too confidential and needs to be kept private.
-
0
Preparing Orders
-
0
Active Writers
-
0%
Positive Feedback
-
0
Support Agents
This essay explicates reasons why people should stop worrying and allow some government surveillance according to James Stacey’s assertion.
Taylor (2005) finds a reason why we should stop worrying and allow some government surveillance. Taylor (2005) defines the importance of surveillance as being not only beneficial to the government but to the people at large. Surveillance enhances security as it helps monitor crime scenes and the evidence therein brought before the courts instead of narratives from witnesses. Unlike the testimonies of witnesses, this surveillance technology is more accurate (Taylor, 2005).
The state is also permissible to carry out surveillance to its citizens since some situations are directly legitimate. Moore (2011) points out that this does not affect in any way the privacy of the people. Surveillance is also helpful in detecting crime, for instance, putting up of surveillance devices can reduce crime rates for fear of publicity, as this would directly make people change their behavior while in the presence of the screens. According to Moore (2011), the technology would not in any way compromise the autonomy of the citizens whose country utilizes this system as this would only record what is happening and would not require one to change their practices especially if they are law abiding (Moore, 2011).
In conclusion, the fear of the West turning into an Orwellian nightmare due to employment of the surveillance technology should not be the setback towards its use as this would not expand the power of the state for a state to put in place such technology, it should implement some vital aspects that will see it well received. It should correctly define the purpose for which the system is set up to the people. Moore (2011) asserts that the technology should not receive any opposition, as the role performed by the witnesses is rendered useless. The technology is also important in changing behavior and motives of the people when approaching the cameras. This would reduce the rates of crime. For implementation of the surveillance technology without opposition, practical concerns should be put in place for this to be a reality. Therefore, there is no reason why one should oppose the use of surveillance.