If one were to say that there is no need for this increase in surveillance, maybe that same person should look to see if such an event as 9/11 has happened again, and see that perhaps the increase of surveillance has had something to do with it. The increase of surveillance can greatly be seen to reduce terrorism and protect the lives of all citizens.
Crime is something that can be seen everyday all over the newspapers, broadcast, and sometimes right in front of a person's eyes. Throughout the past, much has been done to aid in the decrease of crime. Surveillance has also come greatly to aid in this area. If a person is planning an attack on an elderly woman, whom we shall call Edna, on a deserted night street, the attacker would not hesitate to carry out the attack if he or she knew there was nobody watching. However, if a camera were present, the attacker would think twice before acting, and probably not even go near the woman. The thought that somebody might be watching is all that is necessary to prevent the attack. It is "not necessary to use force" to control the attack of criminals (Foucault 234). If someone were to be watching the camera, he or she could step in and catch the criminal. A video tape of an attack is much more solid in court that a simple witness to the crime, and the criminal would be undoubtedly jailed. Foucault argued that power, such as that employed through the use of cameras, must be "visible and unverifiable" (231). If a person knows a camera is there, but is not sure if someone is watching or not, he or she is much less likely to perform a crime. The thought is all that is needed to stop him or her. It is obvious that the use of surveillance greatly aids in the decrease of crime throughout the nation.
After 9/11, and even at times before, people to not always feel "safe," as every person has a right to. For instance, say Edna, the elderly woman from before, was walking down an empty street in the middle of the night.
