Big Brother: James Taylor
Big Brother: James Taylor
Taylor in the article “in praise of big brother: why we should learn to stop worrying and love (some) government surveillance” argue that people should not worry about state monitoring. Taylor points out that individual should embrace surveillance rather than reject it. The evolution of surveillance is tremendous with current technologies allowing spies to locate people in any part of the world. Taylor is, however, quick to point out that private information should only be used in morally permissible ways (Taylor, 2011). Taylor argues is that people should not be concerned over who is watching but what the watcher will do with the content collected. He argues that surveillance is not wrong as long as there are proper legal safeguards to protect people from government abuse.
Embracing surveillance has some positive attributes such as deterring crime. When individuals are aware that there is surveillance, the tendency for crime reduces. Surveillance also reduces the need to force individuals to be witnesses in legal cases. Reliable content can be acquired from the surveillance. Taylor argues “it is morally permissible for the state to compel witnesses to testify about past events in criminal trials” (Taylor, 2011, p237). This is especially so if there are not other witnesses or core evidence in the trial. However, allowing state surveillance eliminates the need of witnesses. Surveillance will permit the state to capture events every time anywhere. From the collection of surveillance content, the state can decipher which information is relevant for a criminal trial and is then made available.
Subsequently, the courts will rightfully serve their part and witnesses with encounter fewer costs.Taylor’s considerations with regards to state surveillance are quite persuasive. In some situations, the need for surveillance surpasses concerns of violation of privacy. Taylor points out a scenario where a judge permits the state to install surveillance technology on individuals suspected to engage in criminal activities. If there is proof that observing the suspects is necessary, then is justified because is subsequently guarantees a safe neighborhood. Taylor arguments are also persuasive as he acknowledges that his stand on state surveillance does not permit the state to have access to all information of civilians.
However, he admits that the alternative i.e. no surveillance at all, is risky and more costly to a society. Taylor emphasizes on the need for state surveillance only in morally permissible circumstances. Taylor also argues “information that they are morally permitted to ensure is limited to the minimum…” (Taylor, 2011, p239). This is to say that the information that the state can use from the surveillance must be as minimal as possible. Minimalism in the sense that not all the information collected from the surveillance technology must not be used. The state should select only information that is relevant and relates to the situation in question.
Taylor’s considerations are realistic. As long as the government utilizes the information collected within the permitted laws and structures, state surveillance is alright. Witnesses concerned over their safety and welfare will not face the risk of being witnesses to criminal cases. Surveillance footage will serve as reliable evidence of a criminal act. Evidence from surveillance would be objective and free from any form of distortion from witnesses (Taylor, 2011). The fear of potential abuse and invasion of privacy is covered under the legal requirements of using surveillance content. Information from surveillance technology can be utilized when needed in a certain situation. This makes Taylor’s argument quite plausible.
Reference
Taylor, J. in “in praise of big brother: why we should learn to stop worrying and love (some) government surveillance” Winston, M. & Edelbach, R. (2011) social ethics and technology. Cengage Learning
Is this your assignment or some part of it?
We can do it for you! Click to Order!
