One of the top demands among the citizens in a city is security.

Security, for me, means feeling

safe to go outside, having no fear about being defrauded, or even maybe having faith in being able
to get back the things someone could’ve have stolen.
This topic is different in each country and has another meaning. But one thing is sure, someone
must take the responsibility to bring this safety for the citizens. Normally, the entity in charge is
the government of the country.
The governments should have a plan to protect the people in every case such as, robbery,
scammers, hackers, terrorists, and more. Installing cameras, expanding laws against criminals and
tracking phones are some examples of how the government can prevent several crimes. However,
there are cases where the government has more power and “overprotective” laws that becomes a
big brother with a “god’s eye” that can produce a side effect rather than having the feeling of
protection.
In this controversial situation, there exists different points of view. Some people are okay with this
overprotection, even if that means having zero privacy. While on the other hand, there are people
who think those restricted laws are invasive. I have always said, it depends on what we are dealing
with. If the country were dealing with a high amount of terrorism every day of the week, it would
okay for me to have more control like tracking cellphones, more cameras, and a high presence of
police in the streets.
I believe the country must respect people’s privacy and must announce when something invasive
is going on. Banning social media, political persecution, and hiding information are against human
rights and become illicit and reproachable when it gets implemented without people’s consent.
That is the case in some countries (normally that are under a dictatorship) that mass surveillance
is pretty common and intrusive. Governments say they are protecting their population, when, in
reality, it is just a way to control them, to keep them under the regime. Some examples are North
Korea, Venezuela, Russia, and other countries.
The mass surveillance does not stay in third world countries and dictatorships, it is something real
that governments usually implement without notifying or giving a pretext that does not fit with the
non-traditional methods they are applying. In some cases, racism is the real reason, political ideas
as well, or even gender and lgtbq-phobia. And those public politics will increase in the future
because of insecurity and internet massification. I think that in five years, most of the people
around the world will have access to the internet and with that, hackers will have the opportunity
to approach everyone´s information, that is why the states will have to expand the laws to every
surface they can to limit the hackers, but at the same time, it will limit the same population they
are trying to defend.
I suppose there is no real solution to this problem, we all know mass surveillance is against human
rights, but laws will not have a solid solution. I would say communication and cooperation between
countries can help to reduce terrorism, and equality among the citizens, will significantly reduce
the number of criminals and could end poverty and delinquency.