Today, with the rapid development of technology, ubiquitous surveillance is gradually building an invisible but huge network. From the public security cameras, to personal cell phones and computers in the privacy tracking technology, our every move seems to be difficult to escape the electronic eyes of the probe. Some have raised the alarm that this kind of surveillance has broken through the bottom line of what we can accept.
The answer may vary from person to person. Groups in favor of surveillance believe that it helps maintain social order, prevent crime and improve public safety. Opponents, however, worry that excessive surveillance will seriously infringe on personal privacy and may even be misused for improper purposes. The two voices have been tugging at each other in the society, and the debate is endless.
Against this backdrop, “jammer” have emerged as a powerful tool for blocking electronic surveillance networks. This small device can send out a special signal interference, masking the camera, blocking radio waves, thus cutting off the connection between the monitoring device and the control center. The original “electronic eyes” have lost their “vision”.
Some people agree with the use of GPS tracker to protect their privacy. They believe that jammers are justified for special occasions, such as in the home or other places that are completely private. Others are skeptical, fearing that the illegal use of recording jammers will give criminal gangs easy access and pose a risk to social order and security.
Undoubtedly, there has always been a contradiction between privacy protection and security monitoring. Which bottom line should we stick to? Is it to completely let all kinds of surveillance to ensure social “transparency”? Or should we reject all kinds of surveillance in order to maintain personal “darkness”? Both sides have some validity. Perhaps the best balance is that surveillance must be carried out at a minimum and reasonably regulated within the legal framework; at the same time, individuals should also be allowed to protect their privacy by using blocking means in specific private occasions.
In the final analysis, the development of science and technology is for the benefit of mankind, not in turn to suppress us. We need to maintain social security and safeguard the rights of individuals, to seek a reasonable balance, so that the new technology for our use, rather than we are the new technology servitude. This requires in-depth reflection and consensus in society as a whole, and should not be absolutized by any party.
