Question #5ddde
1 Answer
Well, I see your point but....
Explanation:
Consider that his is a very controversial issue and probably here we will not find the right answer.
Anyway, the problem, in my opinion, is to define what is dangerous and what it isn't.
I want to be a bit extreme here: imagine you were in Germany in 1935: you were walking minding your own business and entering in a shop owned by a Jew. Now, you could be watched and your action recorded. Ok, no problem, you didn't do anything wrong...or not? At that time to "fraternize" with Jews was considered an offence against the constitution and the state so you could be arrested and sent to a camp only because you were too "friendly" with an enemy of the state!
What I want to imply is that surveillance can be used for different motives and it is dangerous in the hands of the wrong people (today they are ok but what if they change?).
I remember an anecdote again in Germany during the Nazi regime. Governmental functionaries were going around offering people to swap their old radio sets with a new one built and offered by the state. Obviously it wasn't exactly as the others....for example you couldn't tune in foreign radio channels...! Ok, you had the choice; to swap or to stay with your old one...if you didn't swap they took and recorded your name! Strangely enough a lot of people after knowing of this procedure decided to swap (to be on the safe side) and the few that didn't received (sooner or later) a visit by serious people wearing black leather overcoats inviting them to join them for a talk...
This is only a thought and I do not want to say that surveillance is inherently wrong but as everything if you exaggerate you could get into a far worse situation. If you are interested, you should read the novel "1984" by G. Orwell describing a society where everybody is surveilled by the “thought police” to avoid any possible opposition against the regime...even in your mind!
