Surveillance Is Only Appalling to People with Hidden Agendas - Essay Example

SURVEILLANCE IS ONLY APPALLING TO PEOPLE WITH HIDDEN AGENDAS al Affiliation) Surveillance refers to the careful observation and scrutiny of someone or something. In the reference in question, surveillance is mostly in a domestic way. Domestic surveillance is partaken as a form of intelligence gathering. Surveillance allows the authoritative body to have an intricate look and access into the lives and activities of individuals. Contrary to popular belief, surveillance is not founded on information developed and transmitted as a whole and not upon the actual physical observance (Raban, 2006). It is usually carried out by governmental agencies mostly those whose duty is to directly ensure the maintenance of security for the citizenship. Surveillance as a concept has generally been associated with a version of terrorist activities. If surveillance is taken up by a nation, it is inclusive of both citizens and non-citizens to ensure its effectiveness. The issue of electronic domestic surveillance has raised a lot of controversy in the developed world. Those that are in support of it, claim that one should have nothing to worry concerning the issue if they truly have nothing to hide. Those in opposition cite the breach of the freedom of confidentiality, privacy and association as the very first reason (Latimer, 2011). This breach, they insist, takes the globe back to decades ago when civil liberties and humanitarian issues were not accorded due respect. This paper is directly supportive of the latter argument. The focal point is to illustrate that unless one has something to hide, then they logically have no reason to be afraid of surveillance. Although, the paper generally focuses on the United Kingdom and other developed countries, some conclusions have been drawn from global case studies. The interactions that human beings have with each other are what determine the existence or lack thereof of crime. Any crime is a breach of another human being’s space. For instance, fraud is the breach of another human being’s (or plural) financial accounts through deceitful means. Murder is the breach of another human being’s right to exist. Rape is the breach of another human being’s physical and mental well-being. Whatever way one looks at it, crime is abuse of a certain nature. Normal human behaviour encompasses one interacting in a fruitful way with other human beings. They should not in any way attempt to harm themselves or those around them. If behaviour is to be deemed normal, then it is practiced by at least 94% of the average population. Any behaviour outside this statistic is for the larger part, abnormal. The only reason, therefore, that one would feel threatened by surveillance is if they are committing a breach of the above. Surveillance detects and monitors abusive behaviour (“House of Commons Home Affairs Committee”). If one is leading a life, where they are mindful of their own well-being and not invasive in other people’s lives they would have no fear. Furthermore, a normal human being, although wary to some extent, should be content with the lifestyle they lead and therefore not afraid of its exposure. This is because the interactions that one has either interpersonal or externally are indicative of one’s soundness of mind. Although people generally differ in likes and preferences, the average normal human being does little out of the ordinary. Surveillance is in no way focused on these ordinary acts, but rather on the extraordinary (that which illustrates unsoundness of mind). It is in actuality hypocritical for people to be in condemnation of surveillance. As of 2014, 74% of the world’s populations were active users of social media. The United Kingdom Statistic for active users stood at 57%. Social media allows the world to get an intricate look into people’s lives. The majority of the people that get to interact with each other have no personal knowledge of one another. The exposure sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram bring to a person’s life is in actuality threatening. These sites retain user information in the long-run (Gehl, 2011). There have been a number of incidents where criminals used social media to track and bring harm to their victims. Yet, people display an overwhelming amount of recklessness with their personal information on social media. It is much safer to have personal information in the hands of governmental agencies rather than in the hands of the entire world in the name of socializing. The reason that people feel secure with social media is because they feel that their activities are “normal.” Therefore, for one to be in opposition of domestic surveillance would illustrate that they feel that the information that may be garnered from said activity is abnormal. It beats logic, for the population to be comfortable with depicting various stages of their lives on social media, but feel insecure about doing so with their own government. If any harm, were to come to anyone, it would most likely come from social media information rather than from domestic surveillance (Coleman, 2011). Therefore, if one‘s activities are “normal,” then they should have no fear over domestic surveillance. Furthermore, unless one is part of the 26% global population that has not signed up to social media, any criticism over surveillance is hypocritical. Guilty persons always look for flimsy reasons to cover up their activities. In most cases, the reasons given do not even add up. In the issue at hand, the main stakeholders are the citizenship and the government. If one truly believes, with the right conviction, that surveillance is harmful, they would have to prove that the government‘s “case” is lacking in some way. If there is no cause for that conclusion and the person in question does not have any ulterior motives, then they ought to be in support of domestic surveillance. Anyone that cannot prove that the government’s case is flawed yet still does not support the concept of surveillance, in all logic, has something to hide. Respective to the above logic assertion, the government is not a public enemy. The aim of a government is to ensure that its citizens’ well-being tops the list of its priorities. The citizenship is responsible for the existence of a government. This is especially so in developed countries – the citizenship directly determines the government of the day. Therefore, citizens cannot then claim that the government is an enemy to their own progress as they instituted it. Secondly, in developed countries governmental activities are usually transparent. The citizenship’s information is protected even in the simplest activities. For instance, national libraries ensure that information regarding their readers is safeguarded to avoid misappropriation (McDiarmid, 2009). It proves a difficult task to acquire individual information in the government’s position. Overall, the government’s motives are pure for its people. Therefore, unless one has something they feel should not be disclosed to anyone; something they are ashamed of – they cannot cite distrust in their government. The role of elections is to ensure that people put in place a government that they feel is trustworthy. If the government then feels that surveillance would go a long way to ensure that it is able to protect the citizens, then this should not be opposed. Doing so amounts to standing in the way of the government as it attempts to fulfil its obligation. Therefore, should harm come to the citizens due to security breaches that could have been avoided, they will only have themselves to blame. The surveillance systems have been used in the past to put a halt to terrorist activities in various areas of the world before harm came to the citizenship (The Herald, 2007). Furthermore, the government is only interested in legal breaches (Kling, 2008). Notably, human beings have a lot that they may not want exposed. These are in the form of activities that could portray them in a negative light. This is actually quite normal that they would wish to cover up these flaws. However, this desire should not override their desire to live and allow others to live in a safe and secure environment. Surveillance does not at all focus on the activities of a petty nature. Furthermore, it is unlikely that those that carry out this surveillance would ever meet those that they monitor. So ultimately, there is no cause for shame in one’s normal activities. A government would have no use for retaining personal irrelevant information about simple human misgivings. Their aim is to counteract activities that could cause damage of an immeasurable and irrevocable nature. Unless someone’s activities supersede the normal wrong- doings, then they should not be negative towards surveillance. The question that should be on every one’s mind is what the alternative to surveillance. A world where there is no surveillance has certain unappealing characteristics. Firstly, security agencies would be at a limitation in terms of preventing insecurity. They would not be able to stop life-threatening activities before they took place. Secondly, should terrorist activities take place; they would be at a disadvantage on evidence of how they came about it. Thirdly, they would be unable to learn from their shortcomings on how criminals supersede their way of thought. With surveillance systems, it would be much easier for them to pinpoint where exactly they fell short and improve their security strategies (Smith, 2013). Lastly, without surveillance the citizenship has to be wary of their safety and be solely responsible for it. With surveillance systems, the burden is shared between the government and the citizens. Following the above assertion, this illustrates the preference that the opposition of the surveillance system has. Firstly, the opposition prefers that security agencies would be unable to prevent incidences of insecurity. Secondly, they propose that the government remains unable to comprehend its shortcoming in security matters. Thirdly, they propose that evidence with regard to crimes be limited or inadequate. Lastly, they do not prioritize the peace of mind that comes with one knowing that their government has their back. The only reasonable explanation for an individual that has this line of thought is that they are malicious. Another explanation is that they would be the perpetrators of the acts laid out above. There is no reasonable human being, given the above assertions that would feel inclined to oppose the institution of a surveillance system. Domestic electronic surveillance would bear nothing but positivity for human kind. Those that oppose it merely twist the facts to work against the benefits that it would have. One must analyse whether or not, life would be better with surveillance; it would be. If not for the existing generation, human kind should be worried about future generations. Surveillance would contribute greatly to sustainability. It would serve this generation and ensure that the ability of future generations to protect themselves is not compromised. Because of some degree of surveillance, crimes such as fraud have been averted (Ball, 2006). Most of the crimes that surveillance deals with, would set victims back years and years of financial emotional and resource investment. The opposing forces in this debate convince the audience that everyone has something to hide. This is essentially true. However, one’s hidden aspects should not be greater than their desire for progressiveness. If they do, they are more likely unlawful. Only persons that have ill motives towards their fellow human beings would be in opposition of this. In conclusion, surveillance is by far the only viable solution to putting an end to endless massacres and human loss. It is then unfathomable that anyone would be against its institution unless it would draw activities of the nature in reference to light. Furthermore, the reference to civil liberties is unwarranted. It cannot be argued that surveillance inhibits civil liberties. Civil liberties are of no use to human kind if they find themselves dead. In truth, the above outline emphasizes that the only people that would oppose surveillance are those that have destructive elements they intend to keep hidden. References Ball, K. L. 2006. A Report on the Survelllance Society. Surveillance Studies Network. Coleman, R. 2011. Surveillance & crime . London: Sage. Gehl, R. 2011, May 13. The archive and the processor : The Internal logic of Web 2.0. Retrieved March 19, 2015, from Sage Publications Website: http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/05/12/1461444811401735 House of Commons Home Affairs Committee. 2008. A Surveillance Society - fifth report of session 2007-08. London: Authority of the House of Commons. Kling, A. 2008. Surveillance . Detroit: Luscent Books. Latimer, C. 2011. Civil liberties and the state : a documentary and reference guide . Santa Barbara: Greenwood. McDiarmid, A. 2009. Privacy Reccomendations for the Google Books Search Settlement. Washington,D.C: Center for Democracy and Technology. Raban, J. 2006. Surveillance . New York: Pantheon Books. Smith, J. 2013. British writers and MI5 surveillance, 1930-1960 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The Herald. 2007, October 6. The Herald| Sunday Herald. Retrieved March 3, 2015, from HeraldScotland Website: http://www.heraldscotland.com/uk-2017-under-surveillance- 1.827970 Read More