In Praise of Big Brother

In the article “In Praise of Big Brother: Why We Should Learn to Stop Worrying and Love (Some) Government Surveillance” Taylor contends that individuals ought not stress over state monitoring. Taylor calls attention to that an individual ought to grasp surveillance as opposed to rejecting it. The development of surveillance is huge with current innovations permitting spies to find individuals in any part of the world. Taylor is, in any case, snappy to bring up that private data ought to just be utilized as a part of ethically passable ways (Winston, M. & Edelbach, R., 2012). Taylor contends that individuals ought not be concerned over who is viewing however what the watcher will do with the content gathered. He contends that surveillance is not wrong as long as there are legitimate lawful shields to ensure individuals from government abuse. Grasping surveillance has some positive properties, for example, stopping wrongdoing. At the point when people are mindful that there is surveillance, the inclination for wrongdoing lessens. Additionally, surveillance diminishes the need to drive people to be witnesses in legitimate cases.

Dependable content can be gained from the surveillance. Taylor argues “it is morally permissible for the state to compel witnesses to testify about past events in criminal trials” (Winston, M. & Edelbach, R., 2012, p 237). This is particularly so if there are no different witnesses or center proof in the trial. In any case, permitting state surveillance takes out the need of witnesses. Surveillance will allow the state to catch occasions each time, anyplace. From the accumulation of surveillance content, the state can decode which data is significant for a criminal trial and is then made accessible. Therefore, the courts will legitimately serve their part and witnesses with fewer expenses. Taylor’s thoughts with respect to state surveillance are truly enticing. In a few circumstances, the requirement for surveillance surpasses concerns of infringement of privacy. Taylor brings up a situation where a judge allows the state to introduce surveillance technology on people suspected to participate in criminal activities. On the off chance that there is confirmation that watching the suspect is justified, then it is advocated on the grounds that it ensures a safe.