The Pros And Cons Of Government Surveillance
“The way things are supposed to work is that we're supposed to know virtually everything about what they [the government] do: that's why they're called public servants. They're supposed to know virtually nothing about what we do: that's why we're called private individuals”(Glenn Greenwald). Over the last few years, numerous ways of increasing government surveillance have been introduced with the hope that they will increase public safety. In contrast, many people have argued that government surveillances’ effective ability to increase safety was not worth it if it leads to a dramatic loss of privacy. Clearly, there are numerous pros and cons to government surveillance, but one must distinguish their priorities, whether they feel government
…show more content…
The main pro is that government surveillance does have the ability to reduce crime rate. For example, “In Baltimore, officials installed 500 cameras mostly in a 50-block downtown area, monitored by retired police officers in a control room, and saw crime rates drop steadily”(Do surveillance systems reduce crime?). Consequently when government surveillance was placed into an area appropriately, it had a positive impact. Therefore this demonstrates government surveillances’ potential to reduce crime rates in many areas all over the nation. Another example can be described when “Chicago flooded its downtown with 6,000 cameras, paid for by a combination of federal, state and city funds.The institute’s study focused on two neighborhoods, Humboldt Park and West Garfield Park, that had a combined 2,000 cameras. It found that crime rates dropped in one area but not the other”(Do surveillance systems reduce crime?) As a result, government surveillance has shown that its presence can intimidate criminals enough to where they don't have the guts to attempt a crime. Therefore, this example shows that government surveillance can decrease crime rate dramatically, but it has not properly addressed any possible side-effects. In conclusion, with the proper discipline and control, government surveillance can make a positive impact on public
The main pro is that government surveillance does have the ability to reduce crime rate. For example, “In Baltimore, officials installed 500 cameras mostly in a 50-block downtown area, monitored by retired police officers in a control room, and saw crime rates drop steadily”(Do surveillance systems reduce crime?). Consequently when government surveillance was placed into an area appropriately, it had a positive impact. Therefore this demonstrates government surveillances’ potential to reduce crime rates in many areas all over the nation. Another example can be described when “Chicago flooded its downtown with 6,000 cameras, paid for by a combination of federal, state and city funds.The institute’s study focused on two neighborhoods, Humboldt Park and West Garfield Park, that had a combined 2,000 cameras. It found that crime rates dropped in one area but not the other”(Do surveillance systems reduce crime?) As a result, government surveillance has shown that its presence can intimidate criminals enough to where they don't have the guts to attempt a crime. Therefore, this example shows that government surveillance can decrease crime rate dramatically, but it has not properly addressed any possible side-effects. In conclusion, with the proper discipline and control, government surveillance can make a positive impact on public