Tuesday, May 25
Xingjie/How far should a state have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders?
The state should have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders when its intervention is for the purpose of the country’s security. With the increased terrorism and disunity in today’s world, there is an increasing urgency and need for the state to monitor the actions of people within its borders so to ensure the security of the country. The monitoring of the actions of the people would provide the state with leads of any undesirable activities being planned by the locals, giving the state a head start in to take action against the planned activity. For example, the United States government constantly monitors the actions of its people. This has lead to the uncovering of several bomb attempts. Armed with this information the United States government was able to take timely action to foil these attempts, thereby ensuring the safety of its citizens. However, the state should not have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders when its intervention is infringes in the personal lives of the people. The monitoring of the actions of people may lead to unhappiness among some who feel that their personal rights and space is being violated. For example, some people may have a “second personality” when online or a private life unknown to others and they strongly keep this to themselves. Hence, the state should have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders when its intervention is for the purpose of the country’s security and whatever information gathered is kept private.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think Xing Jie has answered the question. He has given the conditions where government monitoring of its people is necessary and when it is not necessary.
ReplyDeleteFor example, some people may have a “second personality” when online or a private life unknown to others and they strongly keep this to themselves.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Wen Rui that your argument is clear enough. However, your example may need more elaboration. If the state is monitoring the online activities for the sake of security, is that permissible? But if the state is monitoring CIVILIANS instead, suspected of activities they may not have proof of, is that allowed?