The article effectively speaks of how CCTV cameras and DNA database are threats to privacy. Though many states have reasoned them for being a 'vital' tool to fight crimes like terrorism, civil liberties campaigners said abuses of power mean "even the innocent have a lot to fear".
Ethical questions:
Where is the line to be drawn to strike a balance between fighting crimes to protect the public while ensuring there are effective safeguards and a solid legal framework to protect civil liberties.
Should there be a new breed of 'checks and balances' third party group to prevent the state from over-stepping their boundaries?
Do users have a right to privacy and confidentiality of their data communications that takes priority over the national security interests of a legitimate government?
The article effectively speaks of how CCTV cameras and DNA database are threats to privacy. Though many states have reasoned them for being a 'vital' tool to fight crimes like terrorism, civil liberties campaigners said abuses of power mean "even the innocent have a lot to fear".
Ethical questions:
Where is the line to be drawn to strike a balance between fighting crimes to protect the public while ensuring there are effective safeguards and a solid legal framework to protect civil liberties.
Should there be a new breed of 'checks and balances' third party group to prevent the state from over-stepping their boundaries?
Do users have a right to privacy and confidentiality of their data communications that takes priority over the national security interests of a legitimate government?