the political leadership, which has never happened before. Since the attacks have happened, surveillance became more important and it has become a fundamental tool in the fight against terrorism with new policies and technologies. These technologies and policies allowed the military and the police operatives to monitor suspect populations (Haggerty & Ericson, 2006).
After George Orwell published the novel 1984, we started to compare this phenomenon, to a huge superpower, which observes every step of our life and made us paranoid. Most of the people associate the word ‘surveillance’ with something negative but it has a lot of positive effects which we all enjoy.
Security is a prerequisite of enforcing other values and rights. Physical security is of prime importance because it is not possible to enforce another right if the individual is not safe, that is, if something happens to him, for example he is being attacked, beaten, raped, or robbed (Shue, 1996). So, on this basis, we can say that physical security is not just an inalienable right of everyone, but a must and a priority for everyone. As mentioned in section 1, beyond physical security, your sense of security plays a very important role. Security policy is well designed when citizens feel safe. Living in fear can bring out the worst of the people; they can destroy a whole society, so security is not just the individual’s interest but the whole community’s. Furthermore, security is the foundation of the political community (Loader & Walker, 2007), among other things, that is why we give state the power, to create it. For example, according to Raab (2005), “safety state” is above all value. However, to create such a state, not only the rights of individuals and society as a whole should be limited but also the modern democratic society’s main values and the power of the leadership as well. Therefore, we have to ‘civilize’ (Loader & Walker, 2007) security. In line with the argument above, it is necessary to adapt to the jurisprudence of Western-style democracies more, and to incorporate to the political decision making (Székely, Somodi & Szabó, 2017).
Why does the government not use other legal channels against crime and terrorism can also be classified as privacy-related arguments. It is rarely heard that they are surveillance us for the fight against drug trafficking. In addition, there are many laws that just regulate that the authorities might seize the computers and mobile phones of potential criminals and terrorists. The question arises to why they should observe us then.
Most of the regulations and laws are not unlimited and have to be balanced with other rights. Take for an example when governments regulates our privacy. Governments are allowed to discipline drivers if they do not engage the seat belt. This is a little infringement into our privacy but no one argue that is a problem, because the most important rights still be respected and this regulation is protects’ us.
Observation is not a new phenomenon, it has always been in the communities, as he explains its historical background and analyzing the appearing and embodiment of surveillance through several periods. Lyon () says governments have always been observing society so that they can spread their control and deeds. In another book (Lyon, ) he argues that surveillance is a part of modern life and not ‘intrinsically anti-social or repressive’ (p. 31). It coordina
