Against Government Surveillance
The issue of security keeps coming up each and every time government surveillance is mentioned. It is something that makes most individuals squirm and fringe; especially the rich and famous. The concern on where the line should be drawn has caused a lot of discussion from various parties. This then gives rise to the question: where should the line be drawn? This is majorly due to the fact that the government feels that what they do is protect their citizens, as opposed to spying on them.
Politicians have especially, fallen for the government “bait” with some of them feeling that they were being tracked. This was then followed by random searches that were more intimidating than comforting. The call for surveillance to recognize personal boundary has been raised of late mostly because of improved technology that makes the process a lot easy.
For government surveillance
In this article, the author is curious on whether the US is safe from terrorism. The government came up with the homeland security system with the hope that they could terminate terrorist articles way before they ever took place. The only way this can be achieved is by the government carrying out constant surveillance.
Essentially, this will enable them track and identify terrorism suspects and their activities. This is a necessary action as the government is obligated to offer its citizens with protection. As such, surveillance is a small price to pay as far as matters security are concerned. Proponents of the system argue that the guilty are always afraid, and this is why they oppose surveillance as much. For the normal citizens, they argue, all they desire is security and nothing more.