this paper I argue that surveillance is a necessary evil, we are not be able to choose alone security or alone privacy, because they are closely related. If we lose or there is no proper security and we have trouble, then our private spheres will no longer matter. When we can feel safe and we have not got the sense of danger is more important than some private data. Do we want to travel by an airplane where everyone’s luggage was screened or by an airplane where no one’s was? For the sake of security, we must abandon certain private data (for example when we let them look into the package and see our personal items) but it has limits too where regulations are needed to find the balance.

1. Definitions and concepts

In order to be able to take a side of this issue, we need to clarify some of the basic concepts that we will be exploring during the essay. Below, I define the three basic concepts of the paper: privacy, security and observation. However, it is important to note first that these terms do not have an exact definition and they are universally disputed issues. Another important influencing factor can be the context in which we put these expressions. They can have a different meaning in a democratic and in a totalitarian system. In this work I incorporate these phrases into a democratic system.

The meaning of privacy can differ from one person to another. It does not have an exact, generally accepted definition. As Lyon quotes (1994) Warren and Brandeis’s idea, privacy is “the individual’s right to be left alone” (p. 14). A more precise definition of privacy was formulated by the Open University during the surPRISE project (2014) “the ability of an individual to be left alone, out of public view, and in control of information about oneself” (p. 14). In this sense, privacy is a persons’ right to act freely, to speak and discuss questions with others without being restricted or observed by anyone.