Elizalde 1

Stephanie Elizalde

Ms. Alcaraz

Contemporary Composition P. 2

20 May 2018

For Government Surveillance

Have you ever questioned to what extent are we being watched? Why are we being

watched? In recent years, the word “surveillance” has strengthened its existing negative

connotation, reason being, the heightening of pervasive surveillance. The Internet has become a

broad web of shared personal information that allures criminals. From fraud and identity theft, to

hacking and phishing scams, the internet is a dangerous place indeed. Although government

surveillance and security programs have little evidence to have caught or prevented terrorists,

government surveillance is there for the good of the public because it is beneficial for the

public’s safety, necessary to protect national interest, personal information is secured, and it

deters law enforcement misconduct.

Government surveillance is advantageous to the public’s safety. Maya Wang informs, “

According to Sina online news portal, the project is supposed ‘predict... individuals and vehicles

posing heightened risks’ to public safety” (Wang). In other words, not only are these cameras

very important in monitoring some places in particular to prevent theft, but they too have a

built-in predictive mechanism which can be used to help prevent accidents. Utilizing surveillance

for the prevention of accidents will ensure a safer public setting. Additionally, as reported by

Maya Wang, “A country’s rulers should determine what netizens can say and read” (Wang). If a

government can control what citizens on the net read, such as something that encourages crime
 Elizalde 2

and violence, like child abuse material for example, then the material will be vetted and

censored. A child abuse image is a crime scene and to have such content censored keeps children

safe. Pervasive surveillance is in no way harming the individual. The Chinese government

installs predictive cameras and, too, censors what it’s citizens do on the net to promote safety and

security, for the benefit of the public.

Opposing views being “Government Surveillance and Academic Thought Police Are

Taking Us to 1984” (Foundation Free Education) claims that surveillance is useless because it

hasn’t done any good to prevent terror, “And there is little evidence that all the surveillance and

security programs added since 9/11 have caught or prevented terrorists in any significant

number” (Foundation Free Education). However, surveillance serves a purpose. According to

“Big Brother? US Linked to new wave of censorship, surveillance on web”, John R. Quain

states, “Restrictions on Internet freedom and even censorship are necessary to(...) protect

national interests such as nuclear power plants from hackers” (Quain). The issue of cyber attacks

on nuclear-related facilities or activities can possibly lead to the leak of nuclear manuals online

and trigger concerns about the facility's network stability and security. With the absence of

censorship the power plant would be inferior to its hacker. Nonetheless, the disruption of the

plant can be prevented with the enforcement of pervasive surveillance.

Having surveillance affects the safety of the country by having a safe regulated

environment for its citizens. According to freedomhouse.org the report states that, “The ISPs

collaborate with the Icelandic Save the Children (called Barnaheill) and participate in the

International Association of Internet Hotlines (INHOPE) project which solicits reports of illegal

content” (freedomhouse.org). Save the children is an international organization whose aim

 Elizalde 3

is to protect the rights of children. INHOPE with a similar mission makes the internet a safe

regulated environment by fighting against child sexual abuse material online. Also, according to

Article 51, “Journalists cannot be held responsible for potential libelous quotes from sources, but

they can be held responsible for libel in their own content”(freedomhouse.org). Journalists rights

are also protected. Government surveillance is the virtual police. With the surveillance of the net,

false accusations can be deterred and further drama within journalists’ work is avoided. To add

on, according to the “Electronic Communications Act of 2003”, it states that companies may

only deliver information to telecommunications in criminal cases or on matters of public safety,

and that such information may not be given to anyone other than the police or the public

prosecution(freedomhouse.org). In other words, your private information is kept confidential.

Fourthly, In October 2014, the domain hosting company ISNIC, which operates the Icelandic “.is

domain”, was forced to shut down a website for the first time when it discovered that the domain

was being used by the self-described Islamic State terrorist group(freedomhouse.org). Pervasive

government surveillance also protects its citizens from danger. Law enforcement is constantly

scouring the web to search for any threats such as the one mentioned, ISIS.

Government surveillance is beneficial because the cameras used to surveil will reduce the

risk of government abuse. According to “Big Brother is Watching — Be Grateful” Eugene

Volokh states, “The camera that might videotape a mugging can also videotape police stops of

citizens, providing evidence of possible misconduct and maybe even to some extent deterring

such misconduct” (Volokh). In other words, law enforcement may feel a sense of obligation to

act accordingly. This is beneficial towards the public because such technologies can surveil any

law enforcement abusive acts. To add on, Volokh says, “The red light cameras are less intrusive
 Elizalde 4

than traditional traffic policing” (Volokh). This is to say, government surveillance such as red

light cameras, an alternative to traditional traffic policing, can prevent unwanted conflict

between an officer and the civilian. It also prevents an egoistic officer from being about

unnecessary conduct. Red light cameras can also help you avoid a higher risk of being wrongly

ticketed. Also, Volokh states that, “Videotape evidence can decrease the risk that the wrong

person will be arrested” (Volokh). An analysis by the NYCLU of 2017 reveals that 67% of

persons pulled over by the police were innocent. Videotape evidence will deter policemen

discrimination of civilians because of their sex, race, or age. Government surveillance benefits

the public because it prevents law enforcement misconduct and it provides evidence to help

defend the civilian from any false accusations.

Instead of rejecting such technologies people should recognize its benefits. From

ensuring the public’s safety, to protecting national interest and securing private information to

deterring law enforcement, etc. We also need to recognize that government surveillance can

increase the benefits rather than decrease them.