Question

Government surveillance is said to address threats to public safety and national security. In addition, private sector organizations often claim that the collection and analysis of “big data” leads to highly efficient business practices and better service to customers. Yet, the methods and scope of surveillance in the 21st century generate difficult questions for policy makers. Suppose it is your task to find an acceptable balance between, on the one hand, the use of surveillance to enhance public safety and national security and, on the other hand, society’s interest in guaranteeing personal privacy. To which fields of academic or professional activity will you turn for perspective and guidance? How, in your view, do these various fields of academic or professional endeavor inform policy debate about surveillance in a democratic society? Carefully explain your responses. [note: the purpose of this question is to cause you to think in interdisciplinary ways about the matters of “surveillance society” and person privacy

Answer 1

Note: This response is in UK English, please paste the response to MS Word and you should be able to spot discrepancies easily. You may elaborate the answer based on personal views or your classwork if necessary.

(Answer) Crimes like abduction, killings, thievery and others would require a resourceful pursuit of the criminals by the authorities. Sometimes it may require the help of technology. Going through phone records, surveillance videos and other such tools are implemented. Therefore it is only logical that a crime within technology would require even more resources of technology to be applied in order to identify the perpetrator.

Modern crimes can rarely be solved using obsolete resources. In a normal situation, when an individual is a subject of suspicion, it would take legal methods and warrants to investigate that individual.

It would be akin to a dictatorship style government to simply hack into an individual’s private files simply because one may vilify the operations of that particular person. Therefore, it would be essential to turn to the profession of law and even political science in order to find a balanced solution. This is because the legislature would need to be revised while still upholding the policy.

For instance, with the breach of privacy with Sarah Palin’s private email, there are several violations. Even if Palin was a subject of suspicion, there would be certain legal procedures to follow in order to properly investigate a citizen’s private documents. Hacking into accounts in such a manner would be a stain on the right of an individual living within a democracy. Such cases would have almost no difference to the case of exposing cloud files of unsuspecting celebrities.

Generally, the validity of one’s intentions are nullified if operations to attain justice are boisterous in nature. The basic dilemma is whether or not it is wrong to let an individual be under surveillance and if it infringes their rights. This problem has simply occurred because the constitutional tangents that deal with these laws were framed centuries before modern technology. The challenge is to adapt the old rules to the new ways while still retaining the essence of democracy. Therefore, it is probably permissible to use surveillance in a case that issues justifiable cause and a legal warrant.