State Surveillance

Munk Debate members can access past downloads of debate media. Advanced and basic members can access all full length videos, transcripts, and podcast downloads.

This is the current discussion. In a dangerous world, is there a reason to turn to large scale nationwide surveillance both at home and abroad to compete democracy with complex and non-type threats? Or is the emergence of a watchdog country, is the force it draws from information technology a new and widespread threat to our fundamental freedom? For some people, the answer is obvious. The threat is not just the rationality of the current monitoring system, but democratic laws and institutions balance the need for individual privacy and collective safety. For other people there is a risk of sacrificing national supervision and exaggerating the threat of terrorism. It is civil liberty to guarantee the basic freedom of citizens. In order to participate in this global debate, the spring meeting of 2014 will be held.

HIST 0523 B. State supervision in history How and why does the state see their citizens? This course explores the practice of historical national supervision from the viewpoint of "observer" and "observer". Particular emphasis will be placed on Europe in the 20th century, but other parts of the world and examples from the United States will also be featured in reading. Several reading materials will be the main source of information: memoirs, diaries, watched files. Other sources will include movies and short stories as well as academic articles on national security and administration of secret police organizations. FYS WRIT Fall HIST 0523 B S 01 15426 W 3: 00 - 5: 30 (17) (H. Case)

This is the current discussion. In a dangerous world, is there a reason to turn to large scale nationwide surveillance both at home and abroad to compete democracy with complex and non-type threats? Or is the emergence of a watchdog country, is the force it draws from information technology a new and widespread threat to our fundamental freedom? For some people, the answer is obvious. The threat is not just the rationality of the current monitoring system, but democratic laws and institutions balance the need for individual privacy and collective safety. For other people there is a risk of sacrificing national supervision and exaggerating the threat of terrorism. It is civil liberty to guarantee the basic freedom of citizens. In order to participate in this global debate, the spring meeting of 2014 will be held.

The danger of monitoring the state far exceeds the debate on privacy attacks, or simply the balance between security and civil liberties.

The problem of monitoring the state is that it does not know, it knows what it can do. Monitoring status is not dangerous as it violates some privacy standards, but you can control monitoring. Once introduced, high-level day-to-day monitoring (such as fixed costs) means a reduction in marginal information costs, reducing administrative costs and making it more attractive to the country. At the expense of control, I mean resources and political costs to impose new laws and regulations. As something goes down, that user needs more. The more know the country, the more management will be implemented in the future.