"To what extent should governments be allowed to monitor their citizens in the name of protecting the general public, and through what measures? Do domestic surveillance programs such as screenings at the airport, CCTV cameras, and domestic drones actually keep us safer?"
The government should be able to monitor us as citizens to protect us not only from terrorist and foreign harm, but also to protect us from ourselves. We have more problems with domestic violence and crimes that can be prevented by video surveillance.
The FBI does so by keeping all of the domestic wiretapping and monitoring secret and private so that there's not mass chaos over privacy issues. Every once in a while we get glimpses on how far the extent of the public and domestic camera control and audiovisual
…show more content…
The crime rate will go way down, because citizens are being held accountable for their actions. People will be a lot safer and are much safer due to the airport screenings. Drones can sweep over an area and check on everything, which can prevent crime, but also can check for house fires and public disturbances. For example, if a lady falls into her pool and can't swim, and she lives home alone, someone can notify the public ambulance services, and she might be able to be saved and\or pulled out of the pool.
The cons that could occur: A public official could be twisted or corrupt and use the cameras for bad purposes such as: stalking a child or a woman for horrible intentions. Letting crimes that are very bad happen to other people and won't call it in, try to stop the crime or at least report it. Good people would run out of money because of the overproduction of traffic violations and some of the violations could have been prevented by better surveillance. People's private information or addresses being televised or given to media by