Leonella Linares

English B 11

Ms. Alcaraz

05/18/18

Surveillance: Too little or too much?

Nations all over the world have to face the controversial question: should they or should

they not implement government surveillance in their countries? It is clear and known to most

people, that crime and delinquency has existed ever since humankind can remember. Because of

this, some governments all over the world have seen the need to implement pervasive

surveillance-close observation of a suspected criminal that is extensive or widely spread-in order

to keep their people secure, while other governments have little to no surveillance because they

believe that privacy, the state of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people, is a

right that their citizens have. Although many say that it clearly would be violating the citizens;

privacy, this types of surveillance should be enforced because it stimulates crime control, it

makes the nation stable and strong, and it undeniably increases the safety of the nations’ people.

A government with pervasive surveillance establishes this intense censorship and security

to ensure crime control. Maya Wang, in her article “China’s Dystopian Push to Revolutionize

Surveillance”, states that China is planning to “establish a national DNA database that logs

genetic code irrespective of anyone;s connection to a crime”(Wang). This new technology

completely changes the game for criminals and law enforcement, these projects shall increase the

level of security for the people, connecting anyone in the nation, to any possible crime. Clearly,

though to some it may seem extreme, this pervasive security will highly discourage anyone to
commit a crime. Furthermore, besides lowering crime “the project is supposed to

‘predict...individuals and vehicles posing heightened risks’ to public safety”(Wang). China’s

upgraded technology makes it nearly impossible for criminals to act against innocents. Clearly,

with this advanced technology, the government will be able to detect future crime, giving them

time to stop it from happening. The governments pervasive surveillance, which is there to protect

and ensure public safety, is necessary and clearly equipped to control and reduce the entire

nation’s crime.

Like mentioned before, there are other that argue against surveillance because, beside

claiming that it invades privacy, they claim that it doesn’t increase the safety of the nation’s

citizens. According to the article “Government Surveillance and Academic Thought Policing Are

Taking Us to 1984”, it states that, “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). On the contrary, government surveillance does in fact

increase the nation’s safety not only by preventing terrorist attacks but it also does it through

other forms too. Just like it is mentioned in “Big Brother? US Linked to new wave of censorship,

surveillance on the Web”, increasing the surveillance and the restrictions on Internet like

censorship are “necessary to protect intellectual property rights, prevent cyber espionage, fight

child pornography, and protect national interests such as nuclear power plants from

hackers”(Quain). There is more to protecting a nation than just preventing terrorist attacks.

Governments aim to decrease the degrading criminal acts foreign and domestic. This can only be

done by incrementing the amount of surveillance and censorship exerted on the nation by the
security agencies. Increasing or having surveillance in a government, just like those with

pervasive surveillance, will benefit the nations by the security agencies.

Having little to no surveillance affects the safety of the country by having its citizens

vulnerable to foreign attacks and risking the increase of criminal acts in the country. “In

democracies, security agencies must abide by the law, answer to citizens and to the governments

those citizens elect, and in an open and transparent fashion” (Petrou). Compared to totalitarian or

communists governments, democracies have to respect what their citizens say; they don’t have

complete control over the nation and on what the citizens choose. Security agencies are unable to

fully establish security in these democratic nations because they have to answer to the

government and the civilians. This leaves a window of opportunity open to those seeking to do

criminal acts; they have no strict laws or surveillance that will be able to stop them. Also, in a

democratic government, the state’s surveillance job i to identify and know the difference

between a simple criminal act and something major like a national threat (Petrou). These

governments, with little to no surveillance or censorship, let multiple criminal act slide. Meaning

that unless it is a severe and major attack or threat to the government, the security can’t or won’t

get involved, this will lead to a with high criminal rates but little foreign attacks. However a

government's priority should be protecting its own people, which can only be done with an

increase of surveillance. “The Anti-Terrorism Act, ratified in december 2001...officially

recognized CSE’s three-part mandate: acquiring foreign signals intelligence; protecting Canadian

government computer system and networks; and assisting federal law enforcement and security

agencies” (Petrou). Canada, a former country with little to no surveillance, just increased its

governmental surveillance by acknowledging the Communications Security Establishment as an

effective and important part of maintaining the nation’s security, this action was taken only a few

months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States, a government with selective

surveillance. Clearly, Canada saw a the necessity of increasing their own government

surveillance will be useful in a foreign attack to the Canadian government. Lacking these

security measures left the nation vulnerable to similar events as to those that happen in 9/11.

Many deem that in order to work, government surveillance has to be secretive and this is why the

governments refuse to address the topic of mass surveillance (Petrou). Due to the fact that

democratic government have to answer to its citizens, many of the security have to be reserved

about the security measures they take. They are restrained and limited to taking minimal actions

when it comes to ensuring the nation’s safety. However, their work would be way more effective

if they were to be unrestrained and transparent; these would discourage any possible criminal

acts or national threats. If given the liberty and the power they need, security agencies would be

able to decrease the vulnerability of the nation and would decrease the crime rates, which are the

effects of a country with little to no surveillance.

Lastly, but most importantly, enhancing intense government surveillance and censorship

will of course increase the entire nation’s strength and stability. First of all, according to

“China’s Dystopian Push to Revolutionize Surveillance”, the author mentions that China is

trying to “build a fortress city with technologies” (Wang). Given that China is in fact a large

country, it has to find a way to maintain control over its people. By increasing its security

systems, it is able to create a calm and dominating environment, and the other countries will have

to acknowledge its supremacy and stability. This is because, as Maya continues stating, “local

governments are spending billions of dollars implementing sophisticated technological systems

for mass surveillance” (Wang). Any country that wants to look and appear firm and strong

amongst other nations needs to be secure. However, this cannot be done if they have a weak

security system and if their security agencies have their hands tied. The Chinese government’s

security system is so firm and strong that, as the article continues saying, even ”The United

States needs to review and enhance a long-standing ban on exporting policing and ‘crime

control’ equipment to China”(Wang). It is clear that governments with selective surveillance,

like the United States, feel threatened by the amount of security of pervasive governments like

China. Clearly, if a government wants its nation to be strong and stable, it needs to step up and

increase its security and surveillance.

In conclusion, government surveillance and censorship may be invading privacy,

however it also increases the safety of the nation, it promotes crime control, and it makes

countries stable and strong. Whether it’s very little or pervasive, every citizen should have the

right to live in a safe country, and as mentioned, this can be done if the government enacts

security measures to ensure this safety. The best way to fully guarantee the protection and

security of the citizens is by enforcing extensive government surveillance and censorship.