Arguments Against Government Surveillance

Beginning our discussion with the first point I made—surveillance is less of a protection, but of an invasion of our basic human and constitutional rights. In the midst of our government using programs to monitor people, in an effort to help in the fight against terrorist and ensure that Americans stay safe, it has been forgotten about the increasing political surveillance, in the name of protection against war or an enemy, fuels the never-ending excuse to monitor innocent people’s lives. Just like anything else in life an excessive amount of anything is harmful. In this case our government is delving too far into innocent people’s personnel life in search of ‘terrorism’. In our country’s panicked state, the pressure the Government must feel to protect is great and understandable, evident, and understandable. …show more content…
With terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda and, most recently, ISIS making threats against our country, our government seems to be using these terrorist’s groups as an excuse menace its people. Government agencies such as the American Civil Liberties Union have been found at the forefront of the struggle to prevent the entrenchment of a surveillance of a surveillance state by challenging the secrecy of the government’s surveillance and watch list practices; its violations of our rights to privacy, free speech, due process, and association and its stigmatization of minority communities and activists disproportionately targeted by surveillance. It is understood while, surveillance may not cause physical harm, it is implications like this that make it difficult for society to understand our governments ‘need’ to watch so intently. All this is to say, that while surveillance may not cause any physical harm, the damage that has been imposed society by this ‘stalking’ of the government proves that government surveillance is more harmful, than helpful to