In today’s technology-driven world, technological advances have made possible to get personal information and hear private conversations. This is relatively easy since almost everyone own a mobile phone; therefore goverments could have total control of the population. This has generated a debate about whether they should have the right to perform these actions or if privacy should be prioritized. In this essay, I will explore both views and lean towards the view of a restricted use of these technologies.
Advocates for breaking into individuals phones argue that the early information intake by police institutions help them to prevent civil attacks. There are many terrorist groups that plan national and international attacks; for example, by setting up bombs, open-fire in public spaces, or by planning murders of politicians. Therefore, the immediate access of those organizations into suspected criminals records, ultimately aid in preventing multiple casualties. However, from my point of view, these actions should be limited only to security institutions and not the goverment or other external organizations.
On the other hand, critics of this view assert that accessing into people personal data violate their privacy and human rights. Furthermore, the problem lies when that information is not used for security reasons, but for political and marketing studies. It is known that empowered business men and politicians use the population’s private data to create campaigns and directed ads based on personal interests. As a consequence, it fosters a sense of privacy invasion and insecurity among society, cultivating distrust on the political parties.
In conclusion, there are diverse perspectives about breaking into individuals phones records. Personally, I believe it is only acceptable for extreme safety reason and with proven evidence of the suspects. Furthermore, this technology should be totally banned from politics and marketing uses.