Surveillance technology such as RFID (radio frequency identification) should not be used to track people (e.g. human implants and RFID tags on people.

The systematic investigation or monitoring of the actions or communications of one or more persons has become imperative in a rapidly technological developing world (Greisler et al, 2007). As the random acts of destruction by human beings increase, the sphere of freedom reduces, be it in homes, offices, stores or even communal areas and educational institutions (Laurant, 2003). Human beings are practically living in a surveillance environment. Like the saying goes, “people can run but they definitely can’t hide” from surveillance encounters. Life revolves around surveillance technology, virtually from dawn to dusk. Living under such scrutinizing eyes of surveillance technology has disrupted in ways as intrusion of individual privacy, uncertainty of surveillance technology and generate an uncomfortable feeling of being watched hereby proposing that surveillance technology should not be used to track people.
Firstly, surveillance technology is an intrusion of individual privacy. According to a former supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, the right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms (Konvitz, 2003). If privacy has been infringed, an individual will lose his or her free will, independency and individuality. In the Singapore context, privacy law is not pertinent; however in the United Nation Declaration of Human Rights maintains that private spaces away from the prying public eyes should be made significant (Laurant, 2003). With this, privacy is a basic need and right for a human being to have. It has been argued that “if we are not doing anything wrong, we do not have anything to fear.” Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy further reiterated this point by saying “You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it” (Herbert, 2008). However, Schneir (2003, p. 289) further refutes that, “it is an inherent human right and a requirement for maintaining the human conditions with dignity and respect.” Infringing on someone’s privacy rights may pose legal liability if surveillance technology becomes intrusive when the results are at risk of leaking out.
In addition, the effectiveness of using surveillance technology is uncertain. For instance, the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts recently voted to ban the use of surveillance cameras because it concluded that the potential treats to invasion of privacy and individual civil liberties outweighed the purported benefits (ACLU, 2009 February 18). As stated by a recent study in San Francisco, California, it was concluded that cameras failed in reducing violent crime thus it was unsafe. Moreover, in The Los Angeles times, the National Institute of Standards and Technology found that digital evaluation of photographs of the same individuals taken 18 months apart generated fallacious denunciation by computers 43 percent of the time (ACLU, 2001 July 11). Law enforcers using these technologies will be questioned on the reliability and credibility of the outcome of the result. With this, surveillance technology might just be another white elephant – set up and maintenance costs are monumental but the objective is not being met.
Furthermore, surveillance technology is often abused for personal or public gains without seeing the fact that it is morally unjustifiable (Monmonier, 2002). These technologies are often abused for personal purposes such as voyeurism (Benny, 2002) or to target individuals on the basis of race, gender or other classification (ACLU, 2009 February 18). These show that even in the good name of surveillance technology, there has been misuse of power. Consequently, banning these technologies protects our information from abuses, misguided agendas and deviant motives. Reflecting on these evidences, there is a rightful reason to assume that future individuals or groups might misuse surveillance powers for reaping personal and public gains (Moore, 2000).
Similarly, surveillance technology generates an uncomfortable feeling of being watched in people. It is a proven that people act differently when they think that others are watching them. This might hinder self exploration, creative expressive and intellectual inquiry (Moore, 2000). Williamson et al (2000) even suggests that it might even snowball into detrimental psychological implications. In addition, surveillance technology shows false sense of security which could cause individuals to be much less watchful than individuals would have been devoid of a surveillance system in place. A video surveillance might not be functioning efficiently if the system is not actively monitored and cared for. Furthermore, monitoring people indicates a lack of trust, thus decreasing people’s morale (Greisler et al, 2007). This is not beneficial especially in a workplace and school, which will have negative effect on employee’s and student’s work performance respectively.
In conclusion, the factors mentioned above brought about many negative effects in the aspects of personal and social concerns. With that, it is clear that surveillance technology should not be used to track people.
(764 words)
References

1.Benny, E. (2002, September 9). Surveillance Society – Don’t look now, but you may find you are being watched. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved Sep 10, 2009 from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/09/09/BU.DTL
2.Cameras in Pioneer Park Pose Privacy Problems Won't Reduce Crime. (2009, February 18). American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Retrieved September 24, 2009, from http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/39142prs20090218.html
3.Greisler D., Stupak R. J. (2007). Handbook of technology management in public administration. CRC Press: Taylor and Francis Group
4.Herbert, G. (2008, Aug 13). Zero privacy. Guardian. Retrieved October 13, 2009, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/13/privacy.privacy
5.Konvitz M. R. (2003). Fundamental liberties of a free people: Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Cornell University Press
6.Laurant C. (2003). Privacy & Human Rights: An International Survey of privacy laws and developments. Retrieved September 24, 2009, from http://www.privacyinternational.org/survey/phr2003/index.htm
7.Monmonier M. S. (2002). Spying with maps: surveillance technologies and the future of privacy. London: The University of Chicago Press.
8.Moore A. D. (2000). Employee monitoring and Computer technology: Evaluative Surveillance v. Privacy. Business Ethnics Quarterly, Vol 10, No 3. pp. 697-709. Retrieved September 24, 2009, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3857899
9.Proliferation of Surveillance Devices Threatens Privacy. (2001, July 11). American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Retrieved September 24, 2009, from http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/14871prs20010711.html
10.Schneir B. (2003). Beyond fear: thinking sensibly about security in an uncertain world. United States of America: Copernicus Books
11.Williamson R.A., Nickens P.R. (2000). Science and Technology in Historic Preservation. New York: Klumer Academic/Plenum Publishers