How far should a state have the right to monitor the actions of people within its borders? Caleb Seow 10S403

The security of a country and its members are always ranked among the top priorities in any state. With such importance placed upon the internal security of a state, the monitoring of its people's actions within its borders is an important right by the state's government to implement. With the growth of the number of terror attacks that threaten a country's security on a country these present days, a government should always be alert for any signs of an impending attack that could place a state's security in jeapordy. By monitoring its people's actions, the government can pick out threats or potential attacks on a country even before they are exectued, which would be able to keep the protect the peace within the state, thus protecting society from harm that comes from the destruction caused during a terror attack. For example, the Singapore Internal security act (ISA) has managed to use this right to prevent many terrorist attacks from happening by running frequent background checks on its people's website visitations and monitoring our phone calls made. Also, the ISA has access to the many CCTV cameras around the singapore state, which allows them to monitor any suspicious individuals actions and what they have been doing. When any suspicious behaviour is detected, the government can investigate immediately to prevent any form of attack. HOWEVER, the government should not have such a right if the people's every move is tracked and monitored. If the government creates a system such that everyone is being watched and monitored at all times, a sense of exposed personal privacy would be felt, which is a universal infringment of an individuals rights for personal privacy. This could cause an outrage of privacy within society. For example, during the World War II, under Hitler's regime, he implemented a system where everyone was watched by his secret police. If the people made any actions or words that were disrespectful to the government, the secret police would find out. Such an act of having "eyes everywhere" made the people feel uncomfoprtable with having their rights to privacy being infringed. Thus, a governement should only monitor a peoples actions when the security of the state is at stake, but not when it invades a society's personal privacy.