The significant purpose of any given government is to support its state and people through dissimilar measures including economic, political and military. However, this is the major reasons why during times of war or other threats to the country, the government takes the authority of applying extra ordinary measurers such as restricting freedom and freezing assets among others. Concurrently, I think that such measures are only relevant when there is a state of emergency in the country so that the government can safeguard its citizen but not throughout. Therefore, the government should note that such measures should only be applicable during crisis periods. In recent years, this has turned out to be a big issue in the state because the government has decided to monitor different activities conducted by the public, which I think, is wrong (Welch 162).
I think that it is wrong for the government to monitor the public because privacy of every given individual is extremely important. In most cases, when the government decides to analyze personal information, many people end up claiming that they don’t have a problem with that because they have nothing to hide. However, this is not right because whether an individual has something to hide or not, the government has no powers to interfere with his or her privacy. However, this is an increasing incident in the country because the government has placed dissimilar public surveillance cameras all over the streets, thus recruiting respective officials to watch them using closed circuit television. Currently, different departments in the country are interfering with public privacy. For example, the department of homeland security has been interfering with the public privacy by searching the public social sites such as face book and twitter among others, thus uncovering items of their interest (Bildt 36).
Additionally, the government has a spy program with the main aim of monitoring phone calls, text messages and emails among others. The government monitors those details thus keeping them on record so that they can combat any form of terrorism. The government ensures that all broadband providers save information obtained for up to a year. The government has smart meters approved by the federal communications commission with the aim of supporting the government in spying two-way communication among utilities, as well as, among corporations and the government. I think that it is wrong for the government to monitor the public. This is because the country allows the public to have fundamental rights for their privacy. Therefore, if the government has a hint on the impending threat, with likely cause, then it should take an action of monitoring the suspected individual instead of monitoring the entire public. However, being suspicious is not enough to give the government powers of monitoring an individuals’ privacy since it will be going against the rights within the constitution, including the one on privacy. On the contrary, individuals who support the government in monitoring the public have the following claims. They assert that the government should have the rights of secretly monitoring the public with the aim of enhancing security in the country. They claim that this will be beneficial to the country because it has already averted it from many attacks. Furthermore, such individuals claim that monitoring the public has supported the country in fighting drug issues, sex trade together with other illegal activities (Adams 7).
Furthermore, I think that the government should not monitor the public because it is similar to violating their civil liberties. This is so because there are many cases in the state where the government has misused its powers thus harming innocent individuals. For example, many cases in the universities claim that the government target Muslim university students, thereafter harassing and humiliating them before sending them home without an apology. Consequently, this has been a serious issue in the state because the government has been harassing innocent individuals through misunderstanding their messages. Consequently, this has resulted into much distrust among the people and government, thus resulting in anarchy. On the other side, those who support the government monitoring the public claim that it is a beneficial act. This is because they believe that it is difficult for the government to identify a suspicious individual from the crowd. Therefore, they ascertain that it will be easy for the government to monitor the entire public instead of searching for suspicious individuals. They support public monitoring because they believe that enhances the rate of security in a state (Wyatt 72).
Remarkably, I think that those people who support the government in monitoring the public should wake up, and realize the importance of the fourth amendment. This is because the significant aim of the amendment is to offer protection to the public so that the government can avoid over reaching its authority. Furthermore, such individuals should review the warrant offered by the king, since it explains the manner in which the founding father fought to support freedom together with protection. Instead of the government monitoring the entire public, it should implement strict guidelines that they should follow in deciding the individuals to monitor. However, if an individual meets the formulated guidelines, then the government should have the rights to monitor such individuals for the security purposes of the country. This is to the contrary of individuals who support the government monitoring the public. Most of them claim that security is imperative to the state, thus making it a priority for the government to monitor the public to prevent any crisis that will affect the country negatively. Consequently, they support the issue of monitoring the public because they believe that it has enabled the government to obtain valuable intelligent information. They claim that the government has been using information obtained after monitoring the public in diverting different terrorist attacks.
Notably, it is wrong for the government to monitor the public. This is because if individuals are not accused of any illegal activities, then they have all the rights to their privacy. However, if the government points out an individual with crime, that requires legal system, it is permissible for it to monitor such an individual. Furthermore, it is wrong for the government to be monitoring the public because who will be responsible of monitoring those who monitor the public. On the contrary, individuals who support public monitoring claim that it is healthy because it is for greater good of the state (Welch 162).
Furthermore, I think that the government is crossing the line by monitoring the public social media. This is because there are many other ways that the government can employ in monitoring the country security rather than interfering with people’s privacy. Therefore, I urge the government to employ other means to enhance safety to the population without disrupting the social sites used by the public. For example, instead of the government monitoring the public, it should consider deploying security in suspected areas so that they can protect the protest from turning into violence. This is imperative because monitoring public through social sites has high possibilities of aiding rather than hindering the enforcement of good laws to support public safety (Bildt 36).
On the contrary, individuals who support the act of the government monitoring the public claim that it is essential for them to monitor the social sites used by the public. This is because they believe that many people use internet in disseminating imminent threat to the public. Therefore, they support the act because they believe that it will enable the government in discovering the illegal plans on time thus mitigating them. Furthermore, individuals supporting monitoring of the public claim that it have been applicable since historical times. They say that governments have been responsible of reviewing and controlling different ways in which people use information, thus implementing necessary restrictions. They believe that the government does so in order to sustain morale, as well as, prevent irrelevant and negative information from reaching the public (Waldron 8).
Interestingly, the government should note that monitoring the public is wrong. This is because monitoring does not guarantee the end of crimes among the public. They should also realize that the fact that crime reduced in areas installed with cameras does not imply that the government was able to deter it. This is because different researches have revealed that the rates of crimes have increased in areas close to places of street cameras. Additionally, the government should note that it wastes much of tax money paid by the public to monitor them. Therefore, they should realize that lack of privacy is the norm, as well; it is expensive for the government to be purchasing cameras, installing them is dissimilar streets and hiring experienced public defenders with the aim of monitoring the public. However, in some regions, the government pays the public to monitor the equipment from theft. Consequently, this has turned out to be controversial, thus being damage to the practice that people regard to be invasive and voyeuristic. The government should further note that if people lose the rights to their privacy through monitoring, there are high possibilities of people fearing of becoming target of state scrutiny. Therefore, this will imply that the state will remain unaccountable thus killing its democracy. Additionally, this will enhance lack of transparency, which will increase corruption, thus affecting the state negatively. The government should understand that it is not necessary for the government to justify their need for privacy, but instead, the government should be ready to justify their reason of monitoring the public (Jones 2).
It is essential for the public to note that states do not loose privacy at ones; instead, it occurs over a span of time. It starts by little, which dissolves and after some period, people start noticing how much they have lost their privacy. For example, when the government starts to monitor the numbers that people make their calls, many people take it lightly by claiming that it is only a phone number that they monitor. Thereafter, the government might decide to go beyond by monitoring some phone calls, but many people ignore it by claiming that it is only affecting few phone calls. Additionally, this leads to the government installing video cameras in public places, which people take lightly by claiming that it has no big deal. Thereafter, the government might decide to add satellite surveillance so that they can track different movements made by the people. Thereafter, they might decide to analyze the bank account records of the public, then credit card records then to other records such as internet service providers, the employment records and health among others. However, with time, the government will have the powers to watch and monitor every step taken by the public throughout the state. Concurrently, this will transform the life of the public into an open book, which is not good at all. Even though many people claim that, they do not care whether the government monitors them or not because they have nothing to hide. This can turn out affecting them negatively because the government will be in possession of their dossier of their activities including interests, finances, health and other personal information. This is wrong because the government can use the information negatively by relating the public with criminal acts. Furthermore, it is possible that the government can apply obtained information in denying individuals their rights to fly, and judge people in line with their financial records, which can result into freezing of their accounts. The government might also fail to protect the public private information, thus making it easy for thieves to identify it and defrauding the affected individuals. Therefore, the public should note that it is wrong for the government to monitor them because even if they have nothing to hide, the government is capable of causing them much harm (Kravets 124).
Adams, Lucy, 2012. “Police develop technology to monitor social networks”. Heraldscotland, retrieved from:
Bildt, Carl, 2012. “A Victory for The Internet”. New York Times.Retrieved from:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/opinion/carl-bildt-a-victory-for-the-internet.html?_r=2
Jones, Peter, 2008. "Group Rights", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), retrieved from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2008/entries/rights-group/
Kravets, David, 2011. “UN Report Declares Internet Access a Human Right”. Retrieved from:http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/internet-a-human-right/
Waldron, Jeremy, The Harm in Hate Speech, Harvard University Press, 2012.
Welch, Susan. Understanding American Government. Boston, MA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning, 2010. Print.
Wyatt, Edward, 2012. “FCC Asks for Guidance on Whether, and When to Cut Off Cellphone Service.” New York Times, retrieved from:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/technology/fcc-reviews-need-for-rules-to-interrupt-wireless-service.html?_r=1