• This is pretty obvious

    Obviously surveillance increases safety. This is a very one sided vote. Those on the left here say that when you increase your surveillance, you see more threats and potential threats... Therefore giving you the opportunity to stop threats... Less threats equals more safety.

    The right, no matter how correct they may or may not be in their opinion on privacy, have shown zero arguments to the actual question, unless referring to a completely totalitarian regime where there is either no surveillance, or total control.
    The question is merely... If an entity, be it government, parent, teacher, business, anything, looks harder, or more often, then they will see more things that could pose a threat

    no one mentioned government in the question

  • Yes even though it is wrong

    It does increase safety because more people are caught and things prevented. But even though it makes life safer dose not mean it is morally right. We should have a right to privacy that extends further than our homes. I think that most of the time surveillance is not even used. Crimes are rare in perspective. So it may keep us more safe, but at a highe price than what it is worth.

  • It's all about context

    I fully embrace the individual freedoms of every individual as affirmed (not granted) by the Bill of rights. I do abhor the police state created by a post 9/11 government, and think that we the people need to take back our own form of government. However, surveillance on the local level created multiple layers of benefit to both the individual citizen and society as a whole. The presence of video cameras both inside and outside stores create a deterrent against open crime and theft. Body/ car cameras in law enforcement makes cops accountable for the power bestowed upon them. Of course the possibility lingers for local surveillance to be exploited by the national surveillance web. That is why the delicate balance between security and privacy depends on an involved citizenry who holds their elected officials accountable.

  • It just doesnt

    D d d d d d d d d do o o o o o o o o o o s s s s s s s s s s s se e e e e ee e e e n n n n n n nn n t t t t t t t tt t t

  • Security is Better

    Security guards are, no doubt, a good way to provide safety for people. But, words can be misinterpreted, and there's no guaranteed proof of evidence (if needed) without a surveleinace camara. Witht the surveilance camera, any wrongdoings can be seen right then and there, and it would be pretty difficult for anyone to twist what had happened.

  • Yes, Increased surveillance makes society a safer place

    Yes, increased surveillance increases safety for people. Technology has become very sophisticated, with digital computers/video and cameras in every public place. While people might often feel that their sense of privacy is being infringed upon, the use of more surveillance makes people accountable for their actions. People are less likely to commit crime if they know they are being watched. High surveillance maintains an orderly society.

  • In the long run, increased surveillance lowers the crime rate and increases safety

    Yes, I think that in the long run, increased surveillance increases safety. One of the reasons I can think of is that I myself, as a female, feel way safer when I see or know that there is any kind of surveillance over the place I am currently at; especially if I am in an unknown part of town or in a foreign state. On top of that, I reckon that any lawbreaker would think twice before committing a crime, given that there would be evidence of his wrongdoing. Therefore, my opinion is that in the long run, increased surveillance lowers the crime rate and increases safety.

  • The truth is, is that it doesn't

    More cops might help increase safety but not more surveillance then what we have already.

    Leadership and governing can be looked at in a similar way as holding a fist full of marbles (fist= law enforcement marbles=people.

    If you don't hold the marbles tightly enough (decreasing law enforcement's ability) the marbles will fall out, (you'll get anarchy because every one can do whatever they want without fear of punishment)

    If you squeeze your hand to tight (increasing what law enforcement's abilities are) the marbles will be pushed out of the hand (the people will get suspicious of the over controlling law enforcement an raise hell just for the sake of defiance)

    you need to find just the right amount of grip to hold them without loosing any marbles.

  • Not from the government for sure.

    What is the most obvious example of a terrorist attack? 9/11. And what was the cultural result of 9/11? Surveillance. Massive surveillance. As a result of the attack, the Patriot Act was introduced. Once this act expired in the filibuster on Rand Paul, the senate reinstated its power with the Freedom Act. The NSA was given the power of a mass warrant to spy on any citizen it pleased.

    So how is this surveillance harmful, you might ask? Well first, we must understand what a terrorist is. A terrorist is an individual with the intention to inflict "terror" in a people. The intent is more than blind genocide. Terrorists won the battle of 9/11, not because of the thousands they killed, but because of the psychological impact it induced on our nation. Their intent was to turn our fear against us- to cling to our government for protection and to demand surveillance. By doing this, we have sacrificed our privacy, our freedom.

    Surveillance is nothing more than an enforcement of authority. Read 1984. Read Little Brother. What we see in these two novels is a tyrannical government, as the result of war or terrorism, abusing its citizens, most prevalent in the form of spying. A single criminal can be stopped by the barrel of a gun. A tyranny requires much, much more.

  • It just doesnt

    D d d d d d d d d do o o o o o o o o o o s s s s s s s s s s s se e e e e ee e e e n n n n n n nn n t t t t t t t tt t t

  • No, increased surveillance will infringe privacy.

    Increasing surveillance is equivalent to providing access to the personal lives of individuals to a figure of authority, giving them control. By permitting these authorities this power, we are taking a large risk as this type of power becomes easily abused. Over countless occasions in history, we have witnessed the detriments of totalitarian and authoritarian systems of government. Rather than moving towards control and obstruction of privacy, safety should be increased by preventing these abuses of power, which in itself is the danger.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.