Ying Ting's - "How far should a state have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders?"

A state needs to monitor the actions of people within its borders when there may be threats to society’s welfare, such as safety. Safety has become a huge issue in recent years after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Terrorist groups are becoming more prevalent, and with the presence of terrorist groups increasingly felt by bombing attacks, it has contributed to increased insecurities among people. In order to maintain social cohesiveness, governments need to intervene and monitor the actions of people within their country so as to prevent terrorist attacks, and also to give its citizens a sense of security by showing that something is being done about these issues. However, this has led to an intrusion to people’s privacy, and the issue of human rights has been brought up countless of times. This has led to people terming these policies of monitoring as ‘a trade-off between security and privacy’, with privacy being a ‘basic human right’. As much as many may feel irritated by these incessant monitoring of their actions, I feel that a trade-off between security and privacy is worth it in order to protect our people, and to protect our countries sovereignty, social welfare, as well as economic growth. If a terrorist attack were to occur, it would lead to widespread panic, and interference with our daily lives. It can be seen from 911 that a terrorist attack could lead to a worldwide recession, thus harming the economy, and also, grievances among the people as they have lost their loved ones. Psychological health of the people will decline, and there will be decreased morale within the country. I feel that it is better to be safe than sorry, and as long as these monitoring policies prove to be of use, with a number of terrorist plots having been uncovered, it should continue on. Thus I feel that the state should have the right to monitor the actions of people, to a large extent.