Should governments be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals?
The government should be allowed to secretly monitor suspicious individuals, so that we can keep our county safe.
Monitoring suspicious individuals has resulted in averting many attacks on America, as well as other parts of the world. It has also helped in fighting the drug trade, the sex trade, and many other illegal activities. If you are not doing anything illegal then you shouldn't be affected by these actions.
Posted by: SauBauerYes, because I believe that the government exists to secure the citizens of the country.
Looking at all those terrors that are occurring all around the globe, such as the recent Boston Marathon terror, I believe that there is need for a better solution; and that is government monitoring of phone calls and the social media. It might seem like the government is violating the 4th Amendment of rights on privacy, but I would say that this does not apply here, as a fellow debater also mentioned below; for the 'greater good'. I'm not saying that this country is turning into another form of a country like the one in the novel 1984; the government is just trying to 'monitor', not 'stalk' information about people. Besides, does privacy even matter when people's lives are sake?
Posted by: AnonymousYes, because it's in all of our best interests.
People don't act suspicious for no reason. If a person is partaking in suspicious activities, then they likely are hiding something. It just seems that it's in our best interests to have suspicious people monitored. If a few people have to have their privacy invaded to keep the rest of the people safe, so be it.
Posted by: R4v4g3rJohnyes i do believe that government should spy on citizens
Because some people might go crazy and not know what there doing and they might actually hurt someone but if the government spies on them then know one gets hurt and so i carry on this but if they do spy then there not giving citizens the right to be free and do what ever they want because this is a free country
Posted by: AnonymousSecurity of our nation must remain top priority to our government and, so, monitoring suspicious individuals should be allowed.
The monitoring of suspicious individuals has provided our government with valuable intelligent information. It has also likely helped to divert some terrorist attacks on our shores and overseas. I think that strict guidelines should be put in place as to who can be monitored and under what circumstances. But, if an individual meets those guidelines, then monitoring them may prove to serve the greater good.
Posted by: SpitefulChiWould-be terrorists have gotten caught thanks to government monitoring.
Since September 11, the government has captured a large number of terrorists who were planning attacks on American soil, such as Jose Padilla and the renegades planning to bomb American bridges near the 10th anniversary of September 11. The government does not have the right to arbitrarily arrest people without cause, but it should have the right to observe people it believes may deem a threat and take action if the individuals commit an act that makes the government believe they will attack civilians.
Posted by: SoWinifI believe that the government should be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals because it is for the greater good.
People are so gung-ho about the Constitution. It is a great document, but it is pushed so far. When people can get away with murder because of a piece of paper, it's gone too far. I believe the right of privacy does not apply here. If the person is suspected of harming others, then it is the right of the government to monitor them.. for the greater good.
Posted by: I33HorrayThe government should be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals, as long as they feel that illegal activity is taking place.
The government should be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals, but in a legal way. That is, with a court order. If the authorities suspect that an individual is engaged in illegal activity, there is no reason to announce their surveillance either. Announcing their intention will cause the suspect to alter their behavior, and render surveillance useless.
Posted by: jackprague94Governments must be able to monitor suspicious individuals in order to effectively protect citizens against terror attacks.
Governments must be able to monitor suspicious individuals in order to effectively protect citizens against terror attacks. Homeland Security must have the ability to monitor suspicious individuals in order to react in a proactive manner to threats of terror against United States citizens. Without the ability to monitor suspicious individuals, the government is unable to protect the citizens effectively.
Posted by: HugeGilberto52Yes, If There Is Credible Evidence And A Warrant Is Issued By A Judge
There are legitimate reasons for the government to do this. That's why we have processes to deal with this. To prevent abuse these processes must be honored. When the government ignores these processes it invariably goes after people for what when examined are clearly political reasons. Look up "COINTELPRO" and see what I mean.
Posted by: MasturDbtorI agree that governments should be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals, because there are a lot of crazy people in this country, and if we can stop one from doing something terrible, we have that duty to our citizens.
With all of the extremists in our society, we need to be proactive in avoiding disasters, versus waiting for an act to be committed, and then punishing for it. If we can stop the act before it is committed, we can use the same manpower for monitoring, versus punishment, and have a safer society to live in.
Posted by: R43GallaThe government should be able to monitor suspicious individuals if they have legitimately determined the person poses a threat.
The government should be able to secretly monitor individuals that they deem suspicious, but there must be clear parameters on what "suspicious" means and how the government must verify and certify that the individual is indeed suspicious. This is the way the government has been able to shut down organized crime, in particular, and to try to prevent terrorist actions in recent years. However, this is still the United States, and this is still a free land. Any infringement on inalienable rights needs to be clearly justified by an independent party. If the government has determined that someone needs to be monitored, the government's case should be reviewed by an independent and uninterested court or committee in an expedited manner, before they can move forward with their monitoring.
Posted by: RapidGarret59
No, because we have a fundamental right to privacy in this country.
If the government knows about an impending threat, with probable cause, then government authorities can monitor individuals involved in those kinds of things. But merely being suspicious is not enough. What constitutes suspicious? Looking different? While it is important that our government keep us safe, we have to respect the rights given to us in the Constitution, and that includes privacy.
Posted by: tagpixelsGovernments should only be able to monitor individuals with a warrant.
Trading liberty for security is not justified in the modern era. While many people willingly give up their rights for a false sense of security, they are actually losing both. The government gains so much power it then becomes the enemy the people gave their rights up to be protected from in the first place.
Posted by: RayEarGovernments shouldn't be able to monitor suspicious individuals as it's a violation of civil liberties.
In some extreme cases it may be necessary, but time and time again there have been cases where the procedure is abused, and innocent students who are, say, the head of the Muslim society at a university are being targeted and arrested on camera, humiliated and then sent home with no apology. If governments were allowed to spy on people they thought were suspicious (and it's probably already happening, anyway), then it would foster a large amount of distrust between the people and their government, and could even result in anarchy.
Posted by: R053NeddyWake Up America
Anyone heard of the 4th Amendment??? It was put there for a reason---to protect Americans from tyranny and government overreaching it's authority. Go back and do some reading about the general warrants issued by the King. Our founding fathers fought and died to give us this protection. Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them!!!
Posted by: AnonymousThere is no need for surreptitious government monitoring of individuals when open use of monitoring would be more effective.
I would rather that monitoring be done without surreptitiousness and I think that would be more effective. For instance, if we had security cameras in all public places then there would be no selective monitoring of 'suspicious' behavior which is very subjective and prone to discrimination. At the same time, people would gain greater security and illegal activity would be curtailed.
Posted by: Th4FireIf someone is not accused of a crime, they have a right to their privacy.
If someone is accused of a crime, that should be dealt with through the legal system. But who decides that someone is "suspicious" and what makes a person suspicious? This could be abused in so many ways by law enforcement officers who are racist, have a grudge against someone, or make up their own reasons to label someone as "suspicious".
Posted by: N Schroeder 60The government should not be able to monitor suspicious individuals, because the risk of them unnecessarily monitoring people who have done no wrong is excessively high.
Monitoring "suspicious" people is too vague and broad of a subject for the government to pull off effectively. And, to a degree, non-offending citizens will be effected. If the government is allowed to simply say who will be monitored, the odds of them using the system corruptly goes up.
Posted by: GainfulBobbierand paul amendment for computer privacy
The people monitoring computers overreact and are causing the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater. Our young people are being monitored, teens, elders, and there is overreaction-at a word. For example, shut up means something different nowadays. The monitors react at language cognates. There are people projecting their views; they do not posess the ability to rate medical conditions, and there is no need to monitor people as if they are under house arrest. We should be ashamed of this conversation; but unless you have cherished the founding fathers wise instruction you can see what you have not known. Our run of the mill bureaucrats should never monitor any one at any time. They drink, have high case loads, work under pressure, may be jealous of someone playing solitaire, etc. Look at Casey Anthony--would you like to have her mother or father professionally monitoring you?
Posted by: AnonymousIt's creepy.
First off, isn't it kind of a stalker move? I mean, who says that the person or persons who do the monitoring aren't whack-jobs or psychos. Also, it is a violation of a person's privacy. If the person is known FOR SURE to be conspiring against the government, it makes sense, but otherwise it doesn't.
Posted by: AnonymousGovernments should not be able to monitor suspicious individuals because they are innocent until they commit a crime.
To monitor an individual on suspicions would be an abuse of human rights and could lead to people being terrorized by the government. Not all suspicious people go on to commit crimes, and people should only be targeted for monitoring by the government after they do something wrong. To monitor individuals is an encroachment on their privacy, and it is essential to have privacy to maintain a small amount of human dignity.
Posted by: EImerBuddieAbsolutely no
Who will monitor the people monitoring us? A people who are willing to sacrifice their freedom for temporal security, will receive neither and deserve neither as well. Also we risk becoming a military police state devoid of freedom and democracy will be a farce after which no action of the government can be trusted. Who is to determine what is suspicious?
Posted by: AnonymousThe ability to freely stalk any individual a governmental worker opines to be "suspicious" is a step toward the creation of a police state.
All citizens should be guaranteed the right to privacy. This is the first world. The right to privacy is only negated when probable cause has been established. That is, the government should only have the right to secretly monitor someone AFTER they have been given reason enough to arrest and detain them BEFORE having started monitoring.
Posted by: FRI completely oppose the government secretly monitoring suspicious individuals because I do not trust their judgment.
Who is to say that the government isn't suspicious? They are taking our privacy away from us. Think of the countless times people were sent to jail when they were innocent. Think of the countless times we've captured the wrong guy. There IS human error. There ARE corrupt people. People will bend our suspicions and use them for their will, and I'm not okay with it.
Posted by: greatin04This nation is still free, and suspicion is often the fault of the person who is suspicious and has little to do with the person they are suspicious of.
The government does not need to know every move that anyone makes. We are each individuals, and even criminals have moments when they are not planning criminal behavior! Monitoring someone on suspicion alone is one of the worst violations of individual rights I can imagine. Sometimes, people are simply different. There are many who would consider the odd behavior suspicious, but there is no reason for them to. It's just the way some people are.
Posted by: TownNoamIt would violate our privacy
If the individual in question has proven themselves to be a possible threat, the government should have to obtain a warrant, just like if the police wanted to search a home. But 9/10 times, I would say this is invading our privacy and the system could be easily corrupted. (after all, "suspicious" is a pretty vague criteria.)
Posted by: Inconsistent