Mapping the world's opinions

argument top image

Has surveillance gone too far? Show more Show less

Post-9/11, there was a sharp increase in the amount that ordinary citizens are watched by the state. Rapidly progressing technologies mean that it is possible to track and watch people like never before. While supporters argue that this is a small price to pay for increased safety and the prevention of terrorism, others claim that increased surveillance is a serious contravention of human rights. Is the way we are now constantly surveilled a step too far?

No, surveillance has not gone too far Show more Show less

There are many benefits to high levels of surveillance - it keeps the country safe.
(1 of 3 Positions) Next >

Surveillance keeps us safe

Surveillance prevents the worst criminal activity.
(1 of 3 Arguments) Next >


Surveillance is the key to protecting the mass majority from future events and finding criminals.

The Argument

During the Boston Marathon Bombings in 2013, investigators were able to find the two perpetrators within several days because their faces were shown on security footage outside of a department store. They were seen behaving suspiciously on the video. Based on the direction they were headed, they were able to tell which exactly cameras they would be close to next. Without footage that we can rely on, there is no telling how much many more crimes would be committed. In most cases, if someone sees an obvious security camera they will choose not to commit a crime there. With more surveillance, we could see a significant decrease in crime, especially in major cities. Pursuing "lawbreakers" themselves can cause first responders to be harmed. If they can judge a person's motives or location from a video, they can predict where they will be next which saves them from running around the city putting themselves in danger. It even makes it possible for them to arrive somewhere in advance and not be put in the way of danger whatsoever.

Counter arguments

People who make cases against surveillance tend to be the ones who commit crimes themselves. It is quite rare that someone who gets in trouble for surveillance did not actually commit the crime themselves.



[P1] Surveillance can prevent crimes from happening simply by putting fear into the people. [P2] Using surveillance keeps first responders and military personnel safe.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] This gives the government or various dangerous groups the ability to use it illegally


Do you agree?

Sign up or log in to record your thoughts on this argument.

Further Reading


    Explore related arguments

    This page was last edited on Friday, 27 Mar 2020 at 14:47 UTC