It currently a fact that the U.S.A. faces an unprecedented level of threat from terrorists of all shapes, sizes, colours and creed. As country we have suffered attacks, both cyber and physical and we must do everything that we can to make sure that these attacks are not repeated ever again. In short, we must make sure that we given nothing at all away to any terrorist, either in terms of money, weapons or information. Not only that, but we must also ensure that we know everything possible about the terrorists themselves. Without highly advanced information gathering technology then we don’t stand a chance of beating them in any kind of combat. The question then becomes, how much is too much in terms of information gathering.
It is often common now to hear stories that state that fare too much time is being spent of surveillance, that nobody trusts America any more and that any kind of human rights with regard to privacy have simply been thrown away, to be worried about when the situation is less pressing. People no longer feel secure in even their smallest communication and worry that even their phone conversations are being logged and recorded. Even the most paranoid talk of complete surveillance has been proven to pale next to the reality of the situation. The question is simply what can we, as a country, do in order to make sure that we are able to balance out communications and our own needs to protect ourselves?
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Modest Proposal Examples".
Some people would say that we need to implement new laws to control surveillance. Some people would say that we need to simply stop worrying and just trust in the fact that our government nows what it’s doing and that there is simply no way that the it would every do anything that deliberately counter to its citizens interests. I want here to suggest a third way around the problem, one that takes into account both of these. I wish to make a modest proposal for the banning of speaking or communication. It is already the case that the majority of conversation that takes place in America takes the form of conversations about work, about money or about T.V. shows. It can be confidently hypothesised that the same can be applied to people’s correspondence and the use of their phones and other devices for communication. Why then do we need to carry on doing it?
It would be simple enough to communicate in work related terms as and when they are needed. A simple linguistic exchange of figures and symbols would do the job when it came to compiling necessary data for take overs or acquisitions. Food could be bought with small gestures or people could simply enough throw money into allocated slots enabling the desired item to be dispensed at will. Police would need to employed in order to cut down on unnecessary communication, but money would be saved as they would require very little training and of course legal costs would go right down as people would no longer be able to appeal charges or seek and kind of justice either from, in or through the state. Finally, such a ban would make married life more pleasant for many Americans and would greatly aid the education system as any kind of unnecessary information could be removed from people at an early age. After only one generation then I believe that it would be possible to remove the need for excess communication, and once this has been done then it would possible to progressively scale the aspects of the state needed to enforce the ban.
It remains a fact that, no matter how rigorously and consistently we conduct surveillance, we will never be able to fully capture everything that is said and spoken in America and we therefore never understand everything that is said by and about the terrorists. If we cannot capture communication in the open, the only option is to capture it before it has a chance to bloom. Any thing else would be absurd.
