Return to CreateDebate.comJoin this debate community

Mr. Mountain's Community


Debate Info

89
138
Yes No
Debate Score:227
Arguments:124
Total Votes:301
Ended:04/01/09
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (60)
 
 No (64)

Debate Creator

bmountain(422) pic



This debate has ended. You can no longer add arguments or vote in this debate.

Should the government be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals?

Yes

Side Score: 89
VS.

No

Side Score: 138
Winning Side!
4 points

Yes I think the government should be able to monitor suspicious individuals because we as civilians need an amount of protection. The government has a lot of technology to either invade our privacy or protect us from people that may be harmful. I think we should be thankful that someone is watching and could protect us. At the same time most people may not like the idea of being watched. But if you are doing nothing wrong then you should have no problem of knowing someone could be watching you. Because they only watch you if you have done something wrong. I do not like government and or some of our leaders. But I am some what thankful we have at least someone looking over us.

5 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

"But if you are doing nothing wrong then you should have no problem of knowing someone could be watching you."

Totally agree.

5 years ago | Side: yes
3 points

I believe that the goverment should monitor suspicious individuals, not only to keep our citizens safe but also to find out what is really going on, why is that individual being suspicious. Our goverment has already done this in a couple occasions such as interfiring in phone calls. I believe they do all this to keep everybody safe and it really helps to find criminals. But they should have a stoping point they shoulnt think everybody is suspicious.

5 years ago | Side: yes
2 points

I feel that if the government thinks that you are suspicious of something that threatens the U.S., that you should be monitored. They can do the whole phone tapping deal and have the van that sits out in front of their house, as long as the government does what they say they will do, which is to keep us safe from terrorist and other people like that

5 years ago | Side: yes
2 points

Everyone has the same amount of rights, but if the government thinks that you are acting suspicious and they believe that you are involved with something that is illegal then they have the right to monitor you for the safety of others and the government.

5 years ago | Side: yes
2 points

I think the government should be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals because we as citizens need all the protection we can get. For example, what if someone is trying to bomb or attack the White House, because we now have a African American as a president so I think we need the government monitoring suspicious individuals.

5 years ago | Side: yes
2 points

I do believe that the government should be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals. Their job is to make sure that society is safe and protected and if it means that they should monitor those who look suspicious, then that's what they should do. However, I do believe there is a limit to their watchings; they shouldn't monitor individuals when they are changing/using the restroom/showering, although they could be committing clandestine wrong doings.

5 years ago | Side: yes
2 points

The whole purpose of the monitoring is to maintin a safe enviroment. If you have nothing to hide, you will not be suspicious, therefore the goverment should have no reason to monitor you. I think it is a small price to pay to maintain safety.

5 years ago | Side: yes
Reyna09(18) Disputed
2 points

There is really no way to ensure safety. Would you like to be watched all the time? :)

5 years ago | Side: No
2 points

I would have to say yes if you have proof that would lead you to that one person than yes keep and eye on them but you shouldn't be able to if just a gut feeling. Privacy of people is important. So unless you have narrowed it down to that person he should not be monitored.

5 years ago | Side: yes
2 points

Yes, I think if someone is being suspicious or if they have went to jail for something bad then they should be monitored by the government. Yeah we all have equal rights but if you're doing something illegal or harming other people then the government should know about it and they should act on what you're doing illegally. If the government monitored murderers and kidnappers then parents would feel more safe to let their kids go outside and play without worrying about their kid coming up missing.

5 years ago | Side: yes
2 points

I believe that we should be monitored to an extent. If the government were to monitor the important things then it should not matter. If a person has done some wrong doing then they should be caught. And if that means invading someone's privacy then so what.

5 years ago | Side: yes
2 points

The government should be allowed to monitor dangerous people, and in our government they do. If you've ever seen NCIS or Law in Order you know that in some of the episodes they stake out or spy on people, stalk people and even dig through peoples trash to help out their investigation. I believe there is a certain amount of monitoring that should be allowed and so does the United States government and the 4th amendment clearly states that you have the right to make people get a warrant to search your house. The government is here to protect us and as long as we are being protected I have no problem with them secretly monitoring suspicious individuals.

5 years ago | Side: yes
2 points

I think the government should be able to secretly monitor people that are legitimately a threat. The government should focus more on meth labs and crack houses before sending out the police force to gaurd our streets from 16 year old potheads who aren't hurting anyone. The government already monitors us without or permission, they just aren't helping because they are focusing on the unimportant aspects of crime. But if they really think someone is a threat to society, yes, I think they should be able to monitor them.

5 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

"The government should focus more on meth labs and crack houses before sending out the police force to gaurd our streets from 16 year old potheads who aren't hurting anyone."

Hah.

5 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

Everyone deserves rights, and the government should respect those rights. But, when someone does something that is suspicious or might be harming the good of our country than they waive that right. They no longer have it, for the country must protect its citizens.

5 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

I feel that they should if the person seems to threaten America and have proof before they do so. If they find nothing of any proof then still go through with it and they are still wrong, then they have to announce that they were wrong and make a public apology. I also feel that the government could use the “suspicious” acts to their advantage just to intrude on our constitutional rights so unless the have hard core proof the government should be put to shame by saying a public apology and how horribly wrong they were.

5 years ago | Side: yes

The government should respect the individual privacy in their own home but if the individual is doing something suspicious outside of home they should monitored. I believe that being watched at home is very wrong because at home is where you are with your family, in your shower, on your bed and so on but when you’re outside and displaying suspicious actives you doing it for the whole world to watch.

5 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

I believe this question could go either way for me. People have rights and the government can't be digging their nose in peoples business. However, if the government believes and has proof that an individual or a group of individuals is planning something that is wrong then I think it is okay for the government to do something about it.

5 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

I’d have to say they should. Those individuals have done something in order to be monitored in the first place, like getting in trouble with the law; house arrest, etc. There’s no question that it should be done. Though on the other hand, people have a right to own their own privacy; their own space to themselves. This country has already set a standard; a common way of life to live and to proceed by establishing the Constitution; the Bill of Rights, and so on. The government should be able to adhere and withstand to the original rules of old; build off from them constructively in order to continue a better America. Our rights should not be relinquished for anything, but if it’s for the greater good, to help out the next person from a sexual predator or a potential murderer, etc., then hey, the door’s open.

5 years ago | Side: yes
letamclarry(14) Disputed
1 point

slowly but surely we are giving away our rights. Its the "I dont care" attitude that is furthering this epidemic and its wrong. Stop laying down our freedoms and stand up for what our country has given us.

5 years ago | Side: No
1 point

Yes, why not? If you are not doing something wrong, then why should you be worrying about? now, if you are doing what you are not suppose to be doing, then this would be a problem for you. I think this is a good idea, because the government is protecting us from other suspicious individuals.

5 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

If they secretly monitor you for being suspicious where does the whole sense of privacy kick in? How would you feel when you won’t be able to say a single thought in your own house? Unable to express your self in your home in your so called sanctuary is a scary thing. Being heard or watch whit out being aware of it. But then if you don’t know your being watched what would be the difference? You could live your life like it really hasn’t happened. That’s if you have nothing to hide.

5 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

It honestly wouldnt be any different from what the government and legal system is doing right now. When the police decides to pull over an individual and randomly search their vehicles its because of probable cause which is just another way of saying resonable suspicion. If the government feels there is something an individual is doing that is a threat or can impact our community in a negative way they have probable cause to spy, monitor, or do what ever to set the issue straight. They don't just randomly pick a person and montior them, they do have reasons or causes to do so. Just like in banks any time a specific amount of money is added to an account, it is reported to the authorities, that is how most people whom steal money or randomly come across a large amount are caught if the money really isn't theirs. I mean if you have nothing to hide, then why would you have a problem with them monitoring you?

5 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

Every government has one main objective; to defend their community and citizens by any means. We should all be protected by the government even if there is someone suspicious roaming around doing suspicious things. Knowing that the government is secretly monitoring suspicious individuals is excellent because that means that the government is doing everything possible to protect us from possible enemies.

5 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

The government has the right to do what they choose to when they are not obstructing the law. If it is a matter of national security, the government will do whatever necessary to ensure the country's well being. Those who are being monitored have done something that has caused them to be under suspicion. If you haven't done anything wrong there should be nothing to worry about.

5 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

I think the government has the right to monitor individuals because what if someone has done something really bad and people don't know. You never know that person may be a terrorist to our country and our country may be in dangerous.

5 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

I think that if the government was going to impose something of this nature than they would have to have very strict and defined guide lines as to who and who is not considered suspicious. If the government made an exact legal line that should not be crossed than I don't see any problem with people being monitored if they do something that blatantly crosses that line.

5 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

We all have the right to our privacy, but when it comes to endangering other peoples rights which can happen in a number of ways, people should be conserned and get involved. So yes i think that suspicious individuals should be monitered only if they have an applicable warrant to say its allowed. But, it would be proper to interrogate the individual first then let them know what they are in for depending on the circumstance.

5 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

American law enforcment isnt prepared to stop a well planned and thought out criminal act. 9/11 for example could not be stopped by police, but if suspcious activities had been caught and closely monitored we could have had a better chance of stopping the terrorist attack. Although, I do feel that people should be allowed to know what is considered "suspicious activuty".

5 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

I'm pretty sure The government has caught a few bad people by keeping an eye on some suspicious individuals. Suspicious to me is someone who might have a bad background and whose name is being thrown around in some suspicious activity. I think that if you are being watched for whatever reason and you're not doing anything wrong, then you should not care. It's not like they have cameras in your restroom, unless you're an extremely suspicious, past terrorists, about to commit some big crime. I just think its for our protection and it should be allowed. You don't want someone invading your privacy but do you want someone planning to kill 20 people have a lot of privacy to plan the perfect murder?

5 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

Only if the government has legitimate and substantial evidence that a person is committing a crime should they monitor them secretly. When this sort of power is available to the government they should be responsible enough to not abuse their power and use it only when absolutely necessary.

5 years ago | Side: yes
keldiaz(18) Disputed
1 point

No matter what the government will abuse this law and end up putting cameras every where. There is no way to really monitor the suspicious people.

5 years ago | Side: No
1 point

The government is supposed to protect people from outside intrusion, and maintain order in it's country. If one job fails the other will too. So in order to maintain an anti-hostile enviromnent, the government should secretly monitor suspicious individuals to preserve harmony and tranquility. However if our government were to ignore observing these people, so many negative things could happen to our country's security.

5 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

Tell you the truth. . . YES! I think everyone that looks "to" suspicious should have a full servalance on them to see what the bizz is all about at appropriete times you know? And don't be a stereo type about it! Just by the color of there skin, that dont mean they're going to committ a crime. You just have to watch out for who you know, and how they act.

5 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

Yes. If someone was known to be a killer or a thief you would want them to be far from you or if you couldn’t be far from them you would watch them at all times. Well wouldn’t it be great if the government was to supervise them at al times the same thing with suspicious people they should be supervised also so that good citizens don’t have to frustrate over trying to look at the suspicious people and there actions

5 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

I agree that suspicious individuals should be secretly monitored

because there is a reason why they believe that person is suspicious and it should be monitored, that is the only way they will find out if that person is guilty of something or has been braking the laws , and I also think is for everyones safety.

5 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

The role of the government is to serve nad protect its people, and if the government feels that any suspicious activity is happening, it has the right to monitor that activity and try to prevent it. When you turn on the news, you see so much evil happening. You hear about war in the middle east, and terror in the world, and you know that the ony thing keeping you safe is the government and the men and women fight out their for us. So if the government thinks that their is some illigam activity is happening on american soil, then they have the right to stop it.

5 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

If you do something that wrong or makes majority of the people feel like you need to get watched then i think you should. They should be happy that their not gettin takin to jail or anything worse than that. So if thet have a problem with being watched then they nrred to jus go to jail.

5 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

Yes, because crime comes and goes in different matters as far as a human being. Government should investigate on certain individuals who is acting and/or looking suspicous. Not invade there privacy because they also have rights like every other citizen in this world, but a nice minor inspection on the person wouldn't hurt. If it's a everyday deed that the weird and unusal activity continues, then it's possible to be something wrong. Government don't pay attention to you too much if you don't do nothing wrong. Just a check up.

5 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

I myself think the government should be able to, because it they have received information or such thing to have them believe this person is doin somethin such as: planing to kill someone, cause someone hurt or some kind off wrong doing then that gives them reason to monitor that person.

5 years ago | Side: yes

You might ask:

"Should the government be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals?"

My answer is yes. As citizens of the United States, our Government has a commitment to our Rights. We, the People of the U. S. have a Right to have a safe home from harmful Outside Powers that want nothing more than to harm us. If someone is seen doing something suspicious, then we need to know what it is to be sure the individual is not planning or involved in harmful activities. At this point of time, our safety is going to need help. The reason is because there are events going on everyday that seems to go in an never-ending cycle with severe consequences.

5 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

Yes, the government should be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals. If an individual is suspicious then that person is up to no good and I think they should be stop before it gets out of hand and uncontrollable. For example, like in prison when prisoners are on the yard and you see everybody start gathering up in big crowds and in numbers then you know something is about to happen like a riot, so you would want to stop it before it gets out of control or if somebody walks into Home Depot and buys all of the equipment and pieces to make a home-made bomb then you know something is not right and you would want to stop it before somebody gets hurt. So I think certain people who act and look suspicious should get monitored.

5 years ago | Side: yes
0 points

I believe that if a person looks suspicious and isn't doing anything wrong then why shouldn't the government be able to monitor the individual, if there not hiding anything then what do they have to be afraid of. If we did not monitor the suspicious girls walking the streets at 3 O'clock in the morning, we would not be able to lock up hookers for there wrong doing. Airport security are racists for good reasons they see a guy who looks like a bomb threat there going to monitor and continue to interrogate this individual because yes there racists and thats how they save lives.

5 years ago | Side: yes
0 points

the govertment should secretly monitor suspicious individuals becasue is the only way of people being secure, some suspicious individual might act as normal person in front of the people but might be thinking in doing dome thing bad and that is why i believe secretky is better.

5 years ago | Side: yes
0 points

I think that if they have a good reason to secretly monitor someone then it's ok because what if someone is planing something bad against our country. If they have him/her secretly monitored they can prevent him/her from putting all of us in danger. So yes they should be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals but only if they have enough proof against them.

5 years ago | Side: yes
0 points

i think for me this is a difficult subject, but i would have to say yes, but there would have to be sertain rules for it. For example if your a completly innocent person and they start reading you emails or listening to your calles that shouldnt be allowed. Only if they have proof that you are in any way suspiciouse.

5 years ago | Side: yes
0 points

I think if the government has a reasonable amount of proof or foretelling information then they should be able to monitor a suspicious individual. It is the government's duty to protect the people of the country and to keep harm out of our way, and even if the case is a false alarm it's better safe than sorry. I would rather have someone listen to my phone calls or watch where I visit rather than be blown up because the government doesn't care enough to keep an eye out.

5 years ago | Side: yes
0 points

I think that the government has the right to watch suspicious individuals so that they can make sure the rest of us are safe. There is no reason to not want them to watch you unless you have done something that you don't want no one to know about. I think that the government is there to protect us and not to hurt us. I think that they should have a good reason to watch the individual, and not just because they do one thing wrong.

5 years ago | Side: yes
0 points

It wouldn’t matter to me because if the suspicious wants to do something he is going to do it, it’s going to happen, if that is what he is looking forward to. But it would be nice if they monitor everyone and not just suspicious people out there, just for everyone safety. I personally think that they should enforce the laws more towards everyone such as have restrictions everywhere you go because you never know what’s going to happen, always expect the unexpected.

5 years ago | Side: yes
0 points

We all have equal freedoms, though some people cannot be trusted plain and simple. i think if you're suspicious enough to attract government attention, and if they are willing to spend time and money on them to monitor their actions, i say, let them have at it. With good reason of course, simply monitoring someone because they can without any real cause is just wrong, i say they'd have to be pretty convinced with evidence that they could be, in some way, harmful to our country.

5 years ago | Side: yes
0 points

I think the government should be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals. It is just for the safety of others and who knows these suspicious individuals could be planning to kill someone, they can prevent that. Also, what is there to hide? You shouldn't be worried about the government watching you if you didn't do anything wrong.

5 years ago | Side: yes
0 points

Of course the government should secretly monitor suspicious individuals.For our own safety and our country's safety.For example, 9-11 was a horrible attack on are land.Also, plenty of others attacks were planned; but were eventually stop because of secretly monitoring suspicious individuals.

5 years ago | Side: yes
0 points

The government should be able to monitor supicious individuals. I think you should have privacy but not when you give up that right and start doing things that attract bad attention to yourself. People may feel like the government is wrong but if someone is plotting that could cause harm you would want them to be caught before it happens.

5 years ago | Side: yes
0 points

Well, for me if government is controling suspicious individuals for the good of the country that's a great choice. Because many people out there are doing bad stuff that can ultimately effect the country in a variety of ways. For example, many people, Hurt, steal, and kill in order to obtain wealth. So Why not have a protective government.

5 years ago | Side: yes
0 points

As much as i hate the United States government, they should be able to secretly monitor suspicious people. If they do not then they fail in protecting us. The government has the responsibility in protecting the people not just sit around and lie to us. If they do not then they are in danger as well, in the case of some criminal that breaks into a government facility. They must monitor those who possess a threat in this hostile society

5 years ago | Side: yes
-1 points

i think the government should watch people that are suspicious because the same thing might happen were terrorists come into the country and try to hijack a plane or try an bomb something again. but its wrong to watch everybody because thats an invasion of privacy and people do have rights and if the people are not doing anything wrong then thats wrong.

5 years ago | Side: yes
-1 points

The police alone are not prepared to stop a well planned and thought out criminal act. For example, 9/11 may have been planned months even years ahead of time, but when the time came it was too late to stop the terrorist attack. I still think people should have their freedom and privacy, so letting people be aware of what is considered "suspicious activity" would let them know if their being watched.

5 years ago | Side: yes
-1 points

I believe if there is nothing you are doing that is wrong then you have nothing to hide. Privacy is important but if you are not suspicious then you are not going to be monitored, therefore you are fine.

5 years ago | Side: yes
-1 points

I going to go with yes. Because in a way that is an good idea. If the person did someone wrong. But it is not OK to monitor people who didn't do anything wrong. But it is OK to do monitor people if they did something suspicious. Because that person can be an terrorist or something. Then we probably feel stupid not watching them. Because we could have stop them from doing something real bad to hurt our country. So on the safe side it is an good idea. Because it is to be us all safe.

5 years ago | Side: yes
-1 points

I think that in some parts, the government should monitor any suspicious individuals. That’s because some people might need to be protected from any one causing or trying to cause any harm. I also disagree with the fact of them monitoring just anyone that they think are suspicious. The government at some point is going to think that everyone is suspicious and that will only cause people to be watch and not be able to have any privacy.

5 years ago | Side: yes
8 points

What classifies an individual as suspicious?

Our government is set up to limit powers. Right now, the government uses its powers to maintain the well-being of its citizens. Many might say that the government's job is to protect us, and that they should have the right to secretly monitor suspicious individuals, but we are being protected by the laws that are already set in place. As we give the government more rights, we will see more corruption. If the government is allowed to secretly monitor suspicious individuals, how will they classify who is suspicious, and who is not? Eventually, the government will find everyone suspicious in one way or another, in order to keep ‘tabs’. There is no real way to classify someone as suspicious, meaning that we will ultimately end up with our own Big Brother if we let the government secretly monitor ‘suspicious’ individuals.

5 years ago | Side: No
4 points

No I don’t think the government should be able to monitor any individuals. That is giving them too much power over some people. If the government has control over something like that, then eventually they are going to want more power over the peoples’ lives. This country will not be free if the government had control to view every little thing about a person.

5 years ago | Side: No
4 points

The 4th amendment of the Bill Of Rights states that:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Suspicious behavior does not give the government the right to monitor in the first place, so in secret is just ridiculous. That is without a doubt an "unreasonable search", which is something that the government is supposed to protect us from.

I believe that the constitution and the bill of rights protects us from things like this.

With the advances in technology we are making we should be improving law enforcement, But not in secret and not by invading privacy.

5 years ago | Side: No
4 points

I don't think the government should be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals. Everybody has a right to privacy and it should not be violated. But what makes the government think a person is suspicious? How to they get to the point where they classify a person as suspicious? I think the only way the government should monitor a person is when they actually become a national threat. If the government started watching everybody and everything we did, we would no longer have privacy or freedom.

5 years ago | Side: No
3 points

Honestly, I don't believe that the government should be able to monitor anyone without them knowing that there is at least the chance of being monitored. I believe that would be an invasion of privacy, which means it would go against the Bill of Rights our Founding Fathers put into place. I don't think that anyone has the right to go against the Bill of Rights.

5 years ago | Side: No
kenblack(25) Disputed
1 point

Honestly, what if osama was right next door to your house and you smell sulfur and bomb fluid and loud crashing noises all the time and you call the police and they say sorry its an invasion of privacy to go into this guys house and see what it is that he is doing what then hu?

5 years ago | Side: yes
JakeJ(3232) Disputed
0 points

Yeah planning a massive terrorist attack that caused the death of thousands is pretty suspicious. If we ever find Osama we should just monitor him. [sarcasm]

Actually, Osama is the most wanted man on the planet. The government has a right to put him on trial.

Your example is invalid because there is nothing in the constitution that says you can't call the cops on somebody, that's not secretly monitoring.

5 years ago | Side: No
3 points

No. I think they should not do this because this takes away their privacy. No one should be watched. How would you know if they are really doing something? Until the government proves they did something wrong then they would have the right to watch them.

5 years ago | Side: No
1 point

I agree with you Javier people should not be stripped from their priivacy.

5 years ago | Side: No
3 points

I don't think that the government should be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals unless they have physical evidence that this person has done something wrong, or committed a crime. Everybody as an individual has the same rights, and they shouldn’t be judged based on their appearance.

5 years ago | Side: No
3 points

No.

I think the government should monitor everyone. For most things there's a fine line as to wether something is legal or illegal, so if someone is doing something clearly illegal then they'll be caught and if no one is doing anything illegal then they have nothing to worry about. What matters is how the government is using the information. They need to use discretion and shouldn't keep information on people who aren't doing anything wrong.

5 years ago | Side: No
2 points

I think the government should not be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals. Just because someone seems suspicious doesn't necessarily mean they are doing something against the law. For example, I remember when I got pulled over by a cop I was driving at speed limit and everything, but the only reason he pulled me over was because he had seen me parked at the gas station and to him I seemed suspicious. However, I was really up to nothing bad. Therefore, I think that just because someone seems suspicious it doesn't guarantee they are and if, in fact, they aren't up to anything bad then the government would be taking away their right to have privacy. In addition, I believe that it's the government's job to protect us and keep us safe, but if they need to secretly monitor someone to do it then maybe they are just not good at what they do and they have to monitor people to make their job easier.

5 years ago | Side: yes
2 points

I don't think they should be allowed to monitor suspicious people becuase it's not fair to that person. The government need to be watching they people because the security they have watching them is more sneaky than people on the streets. The government think they have control, and they do but the thing about the situation is they can't go and just pick up a person just because they look suspicious. I think they should just get the criminals that's breaking laws and not judge a book by it's cover.

5 years ago | Side: No
2 points

i don't think that the government should secretly monitor suspicious individuals for several different reasons. For one, what if they think you loook suspicious and start to monitor your every move and invade your privacy. Second, if you haven't done anything wrong, but look suspicious, that still doesn't give them the right to monitor you unless they have evidence that you've done something wrong and even though you have done something wrong it still doesnt give them that right.

5 years ago | Side: No
2 points

No they should not because it is wrong for the government to secretly be monitoring people who just look suspicious rather than spending more time watching ones who have already committed a crime. It is an invasion of privacy and people should be able to live a normal life instead of becoming paranoid of everything they do just because the government could secretly be watching them.

5 years ago | Side: No
2 points

I say no to this because it doesn't feel right to sneak up on individuals like that. The government shouldn't allow these secret monitors to be out there. What if the individuals are not suspicious at all? What if that's just the way they are,the way they look. They can't tell the difference between whose bad and not.

5 years ago | Side: No
2 points

I think that no matter how suspicious someone seems, they have the exact same rights as someone who doesn't. Not just because someone seems suspicious means that the government should hack in and monitor them 24/7, SECRETLY! Government shouldn't just judge a book by its cover.

5 years ago | Side: No
2 points

I strongly believe that both sides are correct to some extent. "Yes" because there are some that do deserve to be monitored for protection of oneself or of others. I decided to choose "No" for one reason, we are all guilty of being suspicious of something. If we monitor one suspicious individual, then we all become suspicious by association. To monitor someone is to infringe the rights of someone. We cannot just deny that right to some and give it to others, that would mean that our government does not give us "Equal rights".

5 years ago | Side: No
2 points

Letting the government secretly monitor suspicious individuals will only give them more power. They will become leaner and pacifists. Knowing that they can accuse anyone will relax their minds and they will rely only on what they see in monitors. If the person is guilty but regrets what they did and tries not to sin again, how will the government ever know?

5 years ago | Side: No
2 points

I say no because for one we wouldn't know what the government would consider suspicious and even if we as people and the government find a way to set a standard of suspicious who says they will keep their word?

And than even if a person looks suspicious who says that they are doing anything of harm to dome one or anything.

5 years ago | Side: No
2 points

No I don't think that an individual should be watched just because he is "suspicious" does not necessarily mean that they are actual criminals or doing something wrong. I feel like no one should be watched without their consent. Invading someones privacy is not right. If they are criminals that can be a threat to the community then they should be monitored as long as they are aware of it.

5 years ago | Side: No
2 points

No, i think government should not be able to monitor suspicious individuals because this gives the government too much power to control over people. Then there will be no more privacy among people.They can monitor the people who have commited enough crime to harm the country but not the people who they think are the criminals.Then they will have the full authority to invade in the secret lives of any people. People will fell less protected from government whereas they should be the one to protect us from any threat.

5 years ago | Side: No
2 points

You can't really depend on secretly monitored cameras to define what and who suspicious. With some people, yes you can tell that they are suspicious. But what about the " under cover " people, the people who are smart and plan out everything. How can we tell if they are suspicious, if they aren't?

5 years ago | Side: No
2 points

this would be unconstitional who knows if their susupsicous unless you have proof

5 years ago | Side: No
2 points

I don't think the government should be able to monitor a suspicious individual. People need their privacy and nobody is sure if that person is goin to do anything or not, so it's not ok for the government to watch somebody if they don't know what's goin on. If that person hasn't commited a crime before then there is no reason for them to be watched.

5 years ago | Side: No
2 points

I say no because thats invasion of privacy. I mean everyone looks suspicious once in a while, does that mean that the government is going to watch everyone. I think that the only people should be watch are the ones that have a crimminal background to help and protect the lifes of others.

5 years ago | Side: No
2 points

For this question it depends on what you consider monitoring. If it means having a camera in their television, home, or other places of security I would say no they shouldn’t. A person has the right to privacy and when it’s taken away then what do they have? If monitoring means keeping tabs on them like where they go and when. Monitoring them while they're out then I don’t see the problem. If they are harm to others they are going to be harmful outside of their home, not in it. Also they are in a public place when you’re not in your home, and you never know who is watching you anyway.

5 years ago | Side: No
2 points

I don't think the government should be able to monitor suspicious people. Just look at it like this, if the government thought someone who looked suspicious and decided to monitor them only to find out that they were completely innocent then they just wasted their time watching that person. As to someone who the government thinks is completely innocent and could do no wrong could secretly be plotting something like world domination. Also, what happened to the saying, "Dont judge a book by its cover"? It just isn't right.

5 years ago | Side: No
2 points

I think the government shouldn't be able to do that because of peoples rights everyone is in titled to have their privacy no matter how crazy or suspicious they might be. Even though it would be a good thing and could stop a lot of things that they might or would be capable of doing, it's still wrong so I say no!

5 years ago | Side: No
2 points

No, I don’t think the government should secretly monitor suspicious individuals. At least not anyone born of this country, because we all have rights, and we should embrace them. If the government secretly starts watching people that seem suspicious, how do you know they wont monitor you? I'm saying if they can monitor someone’s privacy they can ruin all of ours. If we give them the okay then that’s just going to be the foundation for them. We wouldn’t feel safe so we would want security, but after some time they’re going to use it on all of us. To keep us in check, in line.

5 years ago | Side: No
2 points

I Strongly believe not because who's to say that that person is actually guilty of what you're looking for. Then you're invading privacy for no reason. That person probably has some inportant document or things he treasures that he doesn't want others to see. How would you feel if you are completely innocent of whatever and people are monitering you closely at what you are doing? And I know it's different if they are guilty at whatever but still thats invading privacy.

5 years ago | Side: No
2 points

No i don't think the governent should secretely monitor any person. This is a free country and we should be able to do what we want without someone watching. Also, not every invididual is a criminal to have cameras everywhere those who are criminals will be face their consequences. Being monitored would take our individual freedom away.

5 years ago | Side: No
2 points

The government should not be able to monitor anyone. That is a violation of privacy. That could lead to an abuse of power, and then everyone would be paranoid of doing something wrong. How would they even class someone as to being suspicious. They could also then pin everyone as being suspicious, thus giving them more control of everybody.

5 years ago | Side: No
2 points

As a viewer of the show Cheaters I think about this situation every time I see the show, and how wrong it is for couples to have to hire somebody to spy on the spouse. I say no because of the fact that there is crazy people out in the world who are serious about the privacy and space and if you run up and steak out on the wrong person that could be your last day on this earth. So Just "Mind Your Own Business" and everything will be OK.

5 years ago | Side: No
2 points

No one has the right in a free country to invade someone else's privacy without a plausible reason. What classifies you as being suspicious? In the novel 1984 basically everything you did was being watched, and being watched because of suspicion in today's society would mean that the government had a little more than limited power.Not only is it rude it might as well be a perverted act. Why would you secretly monitor someone? Though no one should be watched due to suspicion, they should at least have the right to know if they are and why.

5 years ago | Side: No
2 points

I don't think the government should be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals because they would take out your privacy, the government would gain more power over the people, and probably the next step is that we would end up having a dictator or a king that wants to control all the people lives.

5 years ago | Side: No
2 points

No the government should not be able to monitor anybody because people should not have their privacy taken away from them. That takes away the things that you can do. Its like having someone looking at your emails.

5 years ago | Side: No
2 points

No they shouldn't due to the fact that everyone should have they're own privacy. They can't just monitor certain people that wouldn't be fair to them, and the government is based on treating everyone equally. People need they're personal freedom in order to achieve happiness.

5 years ago | Side: No
2 points

I personally think nobody should be watched for being supposively suspicious. Who knows, maybe the person is a detective himself for another country or city. I think what you do on your own time is private and its your business. It wouldn't be fair if the government doesn't have to be watched and we do. It's our own birth right to have our own privacy. It shouldn't done even for suspicious individuals. Figuring out that whatever they do can be solved another way.

5 years ago | Side: No
2 points

No. I'm not sure how they justify finding suspicious individuals, but either way its wrong. Our government is seriously overstepping its boundaries and needs to be refreshed on what exactly a governments duties are. I understand that if they were able to "spy" on a guilty party it would be a positive thing, but based on principal alone it shouldn't be legal or allowed. This is a free country, or at least its supposed to be. Until we become a dictatorship, stop snooping

5 years ago | Side: No
1 point

TO ME THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T BE MONITORING NO ONE UNLESS THE REALLY NEED TO BE MONITORED.SOMETIMES EVERYONE IN THIS WORLD BE LOOKING SUSPICIOUS SO HOW WOULD THEY MONITOR THE WHOLE WORLD? THIS IS WHY I SAY NO BECAUSE WE ALL NEED OUR PRIVACY AND JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE MIGHT LOOK SUSPICIOUS DOESN'T REALLY MEAN THEY ARE SUSPICIOUS IN THIS WORLD YOU WOULD SEE A LOT OF SUSPICIOUS PEOPLE BUT DOES THAT REALLY MEAN THEY IN THE WRONG. I BE LOOKING SUSPICIOUS SOME OF THE TIME BUT I'M NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG OR HARMING OTHER PEOPLE THAT MIGHT BE SURROUNDED BY ME...

5 years ago | Side: No
1 point

No, because what the government is thinking just might be wrong now people are misunderstood there are enough laws as it is.

5 years ago | Side: No
1 point

I think that they shouldn't be doing that because just because you seem suspicious they think you gonna do something bad or something but that doesn't mean they got the right to monitor you. If they person doesn't look suspicious they shouldn't do nothing to that person because he or she is not doing nothing wrong at all. If you been watch most of the time you won't have at least your own privacy.

5 years ago | Side: No
1 point

In my opinion I go for yes and no. I think they should be able to monitor you secretly if they really think that you are part of some crime or if your a killer or something then yeah they should be able to watch you cause they are trying to find out if you did what they think you did. but if they are doing it just to monitor you. then i dont think that they should be able to do that at all cause thats basically invading your privacy.

5 years ago | Side: No
1 point

Even though it would be a good thing if the government caught every suspicious terrorist before they harmed our country it would also be a bad thing. What if the government blamed everyone to be suspicious then no one in this country would have privacy! There is no way that the government can know who is really suspicious and who is not suspicios!

5 years ago | Side: No
1 point

I believe that the government should not be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals, because everyone has their rights and by the government secretly monitoring everybody they are violating their rights by the constitution. Also, everyone deserves their privacy not only does the government already limit our rights, but trying to spy on their every move? No, that's not even right at all.

5 years ago | Side: No
1 point

The government should be able to monitor us, but secretly is just impractical. It's like waiting for something bad to happen and then do something about it. Wouldn't it be better to just let the suspects know that they're being watched? Chances are they're not even going to attempt it because they won't be able to carry it out succesfully. Giving suspicious people such as terrorists any chance of having drug-resistant anthrax or something of the sort, is just stupid.

5 years ago | Side: No
1 point

No, I believe that we are in America for a reason, we have rights and being spied on definitely isnt one of them. There is already a certain amount that the Goverment knows about each of us now, and if they cant charge someone with just the evidence that they have than its not fair to invade their personal space.

Although I can understand if they are keeping tabs on someone who maybe has committed a few crimes and maybe they are a suspect for murder, or something really drastic. But even then we are all created equally and we all deserve equal rights.

5 years ago | Side: No
1 point

To be Honesty, Even Though the Government is the limit power. I think that the Government have no right to secretly montior individuals because its invading in personal space in their on home or where ever the individual is at.

5 years ago | Side: No
1 point

Should the government be able to take away unalienable rights? I don't think so. There is a place where suspicious people go and that place is called jail. Just because a man/woman is said to be suspicious does not mean there rights should be taken away from them. I believe that a person should be more than suspicious in order for them to be monitored. If the case is a little more severe that's what house arrest is for. Either way the government should not have the right to monitor a beings every movement.

5 years ago | Side: No
1 point

The goverenment has the right to basically do watever they want. If they wanted to monitor people, it doesnt matter if they are suspicious or not, they can do it. However, i disagree with this action. A man should have his privacy no matter what he has. What classifies a person as suspicious really? Does he have to rob a bank? or kill a man? What if a man has done nothing wrong but is blamed for an unruly action? Is it fair for him? I think not.

5 years ago | Side: No
1 point

I beleive the Government should not be allowed to moniter any individuals. We as Americans have rights, and are supose to be free to do whatever is not illegal, and if we have the Government watching us we would be free but would have no privacy. The Government has no right to invade your privacy even if you are a wierd crazy person.

5 years ago | Side: No
1 point

No, I don't think that the government should be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals, because whose to decide what is and what isn't suspicious. Just because someone acts suspicious doesn't mean that they are going to end up being guilty of something. Most individuals who have gotten to the point where they are professionals at doing whatever they do, don't act suspicious at all. They normally know how to handle situations to where they seem as if they are innocent. So, just because someone is acting suspicious doesn't mean that they should be monitored.

5 years ago | Side: No
1 point

I belive that the government shouldn't secretly monitor suspicious individuals because it's taking our analiable rights from us. We are all equal in this country and it's not right for the government to invade our privacy. If we let the government do this, they will have the opportunity of taking more of our rights and corrupt us.

5 years ago | Side: No
1 point

No one is exactly the same, so what classifications in a person seem suspicious? And who decides what is suspicious? Is it a person morals, alibis, or religious backgrounds that decide if they are “not normal” enough to be treated like a regular human being? I would love to live in a safe and sound world where the government takes drastic measures to ensure the safety, but who is going to discriminate against what? I don’t believe suspicions define a person. Many different people are worried by many other people or the things they do, but no one has the right to quarantine an individual on a hunch.

5 years ago | Side: No
1 point

The government is only limited to the amount of information given from individuals. The input given can only derive from the information that the public produces and the word of the spoken. I feel that the government should not be able to monitor suspicious individuals because it is a choice that the individuals have made. I believe that keeping up with today’s society and crime records, the government already knows of the negative side. Throughout my lifetime, I have seen several individuals who have made bad decisions but they learn from them. The crime rate has gone up, but the government has found ways to protect society as a whole. Monitoring individuals only shows that the government is weak and can’t protect the other citizens like they have been doing for a long time. We, as citizens of the United States, have rights that we are given when we were born and to invade our privacy is wrong. I feel that the government should not be allowed to secretly monitor suspicious individuals.

5 years ago | Side: No
1 point

I think that the government shouldn't be able to watch suspicious people. What if the person that they were watching turned out to be a good person? Now probably that person feels like his rights were taken away for him and maybe he felt upset. But who knows maybe the person might be fine with it because they know that they didn’t do anything. No one wants to be spying on!

5 years ago | Side: No
1 point

I think that would be a good idea. Us being citicens of this country need some sord of protection. But that would be to much for the goverment would do. This is the united states of america. I dont think that would be freedom.

5 years ago | Side: No
1 point

The government should not monitor suspicious individuals. If they do, they might be monitoring innocent people with them as well. The government should provide other ways to trap the bad guys. For example they should monitor their phones, texts, and emails. If they monitor one person then they monitor his or her family too, in that case the innocent people will suffer from their privacy.

5 years ago | Side: No
1 point

I say no to that question because not everybody is a criminal or a dangerous person. Yes people need protection for the better of their lives but not to the point where someone is watching you 24/7. The Government has to abide by the law to run the country in the right way not to creep up and watch people run around lingering and living there life.

5 years ago | Side: No


About CreateDebate
The CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Help/FAQ
Newsletter Archive
Sharing Tools
Invite Your Friends
Bookmarklets
Partner Buttons
RSS & XML Feeds
Reach Out
Advertise
Contact Us
Report Abuse
Twitter
Basic Stuff
User Agreement
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
Creative Commons
©2014 TidyLife, Inc. All Rights Reserved. User content, unless source quoted, licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Debate Forum | Big shout-outs to The Bloggess and Andy Cohen.