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?

Yes, surveillance has gone too far. Show more Show less

The cons are greater than the pros, and is too much of a human rights contravention to be acceptable.
< Previous (2 of 3 Positions) Next >

Constant surveillance is a waste of resources

There are millions of cameras - and it takes a lot to control them
< Previous (2 of 4 Arguments) Next >


The Argument

In the eyes of many, there are important things that require more of an urgent response. For instance, in London there are approximately 600,000 CCTV cameras spread throughout the city which inhabits about 9 million people.[1] Cities comparable in size and population to the city of London have this similar amount of cameras, particularly in developed countries. This means that billions of dollars worldwide have been spent on not just surveillance cameras, but the equipment and manpower it takes to operate them. In a world where countries are in debt, tensions between nations grow and wars seem never-ending, surveillance is not a crucial thing we cannot live without. Too many resources such as money, labor and technology should not be put toward cameras that do not even capture a majority of criminals.

Counter arguments

Detailed budgets and monetary policies pertaining to the usage of civilian taxes are already in place. Extensive research and thought has gone into adjusting expenses. Citizens with average education and no political or economic experience do not qualify to make decisions regarding their country's financial situation.



[P1] There are more crucial events that happen which require more attention.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The public does use their own forms of surveillance. Stores, homes, and every bank or school are guarded by cameras.


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 15:14 UTC