Some governments today seek to monitor the general public’s electronic communications (in the form of phone calls, texts, and emails) saying that this reduces crimes. Many people oppose this, however, saying that it erodes individual freedoms. Discuss the aspects of this debate and give your conclusion to the discussion.

Online surveillance has become a new buzzword in public journals recently. Admittedly, to vox pop, it is an outright fraud and an invasion of privacy; meanwhile, to government agencies, it acts as a shield against national security threats. Following this essay is an analysis of this trade-off between privacy and security that hopefully would reach a consensus. On the one hand, a myriad of problems would crop up once access to personal data was granted to authority. Firstly, the future of an astronomical amount of information is in the midst of unknown. For instance, the fact that administration can penetrate into an individual social network without a hitch proves its vulnerability to hacker attacks, collapsing the idea of cybersecurity. Worse still, if fell into the wrong hands, for example, corrupt ministers, confidential data are likely to be sold and exploited by marketing tycoons. Sooner or later, this type of warrantless monitor will menace everyone’s life by disrupting promotional calls, irksome pops-up, and littering spam emails. This scenario is amplified by the mind-blowing revelation from U. S whistleblower, Edward Snowden, about the impact of monitoring programs operated by NSA (National Security Agency). Consequently, objection to pervasive surveillance is understandable. On the other hand, authoritarian regimes such as comprehensive regulation of media use are inexorably paramount to forestall criminal acts in advance. On a national scale, the number of online frauds has decreased dramatically, profoundly due to the exposure of private affairs under oppressive monitoring programs. Also, in this age of globalization, the most omnipresent national security threat is a subversion, which often seems to cloak in off-the-grid networking sites. Accordingly, to safeguard its jurisdiction, the government has no alternative but to control its residents’ digital footprints. Furthermore, it is widely acknowledged that only by such modus operandi can the suppression of terrorism be assured. Indeed, its efficacy has been witnessed since a series of bombs planted in railway stations have been diffused over the past decades. Thus, it is better off for citizens to surrender their privacy for security. In conclusion, I firmly believe that the benefits of public surveillance exceed its drawbacks. Hence, it is highly recommended that citizens should come to term with the fact that their lives are under constant scrutiny, after all, just for their sake.