Taking away surveillance means taking away jobs
Surveillance is now a big employer. Diminishing the industry would be disastrous for thousands.
<
(3 of 3)
Next argument >
Context
Surveillance has given thousands of people jobs, and without it they would be affected
The Argument
From security guards to military personnel, surveillance has become a popular and fast growing line of work to pursue. Whether you're improving existing strategies or keeping the public safe, there are many opportunities and many would be without a job if it were to be eradicated.
Occupations such as night guards, law enforcement and government agencies in certain countries are expected to grow significantly by 2028. Surveillance is a large part of their job, more so each year, due to the escalating need of public safety.
When it comes to defense and jobs revolving around bringing justice, we live in a world where the safety of everyday citizens rely on specific surveillance methods. Without those, we would truly be in the dark and possibly in danger. Many people are involved in this area of labor and they are trained and skilled in using these specific skills. It takes only seconds to collect the information you need from a video, versus finding a suspect with little to no evidence. Loss of surveillance would make these legal processes longer and more difficult.
Counter arguments
Skills in this department are quite transferable, therefore it should not be difficult for those who work in surveillance to find a new job. The STEM field is growing rapidly, as are human resource positions, which can be applied to the social aspect with a specialty in surveillance.
Premises
[P1] Surveillance as a job has grown significantly, so it is necessary to many people's income.
[P2] Average citizens benefit from those who work in surveillance.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P2] Regardless of the consequences of those currently employed, it is both inappropriate and unnecessary to monitor others.