I agree that the state have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders as long as it does not affect the privacy of the people. A state should monitor the actions of people within its borders to prevent bad events such as terrorism from happening in the country. This could be through the usage of closed-circuit cameras or patrolling around an area. For example, people who are lurking suspiciously in the MRT could be monitored and followed to see what the person is up to. However, it might be difficult as this might be against the personal privacy of the person and makes it bad for the government to monitor. For example a person who is behaving suspiciously in the MRT might just be waiting for a friend. Thus a state should have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders as long as it does not affect their personal privacy of the person.
i dont understand what i am writing. Sorry.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
For example, people who are lurking suspiciously in the MRT could be monitored and followed to see what the person is up to.
ReplyDeleteToby, you need to be clear under what conditions your example supports your first argument. I assume you are talking about Singapore MRT's security system? If so, people are not followed. They are monitored on CCTV and citizens are constantly encouraged to be vigilant. Why is this acceptable? For the greater good?
"lurking" and "following" are exaggerations.
Also, move on to another example when you are limiting or look at the extreme conditions. to what extent should the monitoring occur? is it alright for people to be so paranoid that they finger each other on no larger an offence than accidentally leaving one's bag behind? What about stereotyping? Should a man with a beard instantly be recognised as a potential terrorist?
How far should the monitoring go? you have not clearly stated your conditions.