Government surveillance is the monitoring of behaviour, activities, and metrics of societies by governments for the ultimate purposes of information gathering in general, as well as for influencing, managing, and directing the general populous. This process actively is the most widespread in mainly Eastern countries e.g. China, India, and Russia (Statista), and it is increasingly causing the violation of citizen’s personal liberties, while also causing the increasing infringement of personal privacy too, therefore creating the need for societies to reject its further development.

 Government surveillance has a range of implementations and comes in a range of different forms, such as CCTV security cameras, internet surveillance, GPS tracking, as well as wiretapping occasionally. Nevertheless, certain methods are differently invasive and provide varying levels of access to our daily activities. For example, while GPS tracking gives rather vague data by providing only location intelligence, internet tracking can provide our assessor with complete knowledge of our minds, as through our browsing data, online communications, and Ip addresses we access, trackers can create complete pictures of the who, what, where, when, why of our actions. However, more widespread surveillance methods like CCTV can be utilised by government agencies together with internet and GPS monitoring, in turn allowing for the creation of complete profiles of their target individuals, down to even the most minute details of their thoughts, beliefs, motifs, and actions. As a result of such detailed intelligence, which can monitor citizens in both public and private settings, an overly informed and dictatory government, as well as extensive police surveillance can be caused, resulting in the over enforcement, penalisation, and conviction of the public for even minor offences, as well as for laws opposed by the majority of the general public.

 So, should government surveillance be prohibited as a basic human right? 
While Government surveillance does possess some minimal benefits for citizens, such as the profiling of criminals, it simultaneously creates the basic forms of oppression required by governments to not only create a one-party ruling system, but also a police state. I believe this, as social data gathered from surveillance if used maliciously can help governments to gain overly high levels of insight and political advantage amongst their voters, which is made feasible through improved awareness over their own shortcomings, and the movements and habits of their opposition. This in turn can result in the swift and efficient shutting down of any activities conducted by opposition groups, while also letting way for ultra efficient propaganda, that can personally target the needs and wants of each community and its every member. This is shown by how political parties or federal governments in at least 70 different countries have used social media to spread propaganda and political disinformation as of recently. For example, Britain created their own “information warfare division” of the British Army in 2015 (Robitzski). Subsequently, such manipulative programs, which so heavily rely on tracking the public, initiates a highly likely cycle of one-sided election results, caused by unjust access to government operated and/or sourced surveillance data. However, as governments are tax funded, data gathered by its boroughs should theoretically all be made public, as it is of the public’s right to know what their taxpayer money has funded and discovered, however, that would highly likely lead to the disclosure of large amounts of sensitive data about the lives of citizens, hence interfering with the rights of its citizen’s privacy protection. Therefore, surveillance funded or granted access to by governments creates the aforementioned cycle of unequal access to demographic data amongst political parties and entities, hence inciting the increasing risk of a dictatory system, which does not and cannot face any opposition.

 In conclusion, government surveillance can lead to the malicious tracking and surveillance of citizens, hence I believe that the best way to solve this challenging issue of who is and is not allowed to conduct surveillance over the general public is to allow governments to conduct surveillance only through simple sensing equipment, such as speed cameras, as well as surrounding the buildings of their boroughs. On the other hand, however, I believe that governments should not be allowed to conduct mass surveillance elsewhere, with devices such as CCTV with integrated facial recognition, or through internet tracking. Moreover, in my opinion the only justifiable way for governments to conduct any reconnaissance outside of their property boundaries should be with valid and based search warrants, in order to reduce and eliminate the risks carried towards personal freedom and democracy through overly well-informed governments.

Work Cited 

Statista. “Most Surveilled Countries Worldwide 2022, by Number of People Affected.” Statista, 14 Feb. 2023, www.statista.com/statistics/1290708/top-surveilled-countries-worldwide.

Robitzski, Dan. “Dozens of Countries Are Deploying Propaganda on Social Media.” Futurism, 26 Sept. 2019, futurism.com/the-byte/countries-sponsor-propaganda-social-media.

Robitzski, Dan. “The British Army Has an Official Viral Content Division.” Futurism, 14 Nov. 2018, futurism.com/the-byte/british-army-viral-content-division.