Surveillance is definitely one of the many moral dilemmas present in today’s societies. Trust and distrust of government or higher authority figures inevitably impact individuals and groups (Hadjimatheou 195). If surveillance and unjust suspicion can leave the individual stigmatized and scrutinized from the community surrounding them, then why do we do it? The idea of justification in and of itself is a rationale. It is morally acceptable for a government to monitor the communications and activities of all of its citizens because every citizen is subject to the exact same treatment as others around them. There is no way for an individual or group to get upset because there is no discrimination taking place. Untargeted surveillance and targeted surveillance have many things in common but a few pertinent differences that differentiate the two. Untargeted surveillance is unspecific monitoring of all individuals or groups in the effort of stopping or disenfranchising an action or operation (Hadjimatheou 197).While targeted surveillance is focused on a single individual that falls into a group that is under the same circumstances as others in the same surrounding group, basically riding the line of profiling. Targeted surveillance is specified or …show more content…
Individuals need privacy in their lives to be able to function as prosperous citizens. Only by having personal privacy can individuals come to their own conclusions and morals. If surveillance over steps that boundary, how does that affect citizens or communities? Individuals often rebel against strict authoritarian figures that are overbearing and restrictive. Thus causing social and community issues resulting in felonious or unjust actions by the citizen being affected. This result is the exact reason why surveillance and other actions are implemented in the first place. It almost seems counter intuitive (Hadjimatheou