IBM recently announced the beginning phase of a surveillance project that would be so sophisticated it would be able to track suspicious activity and report it to authorities without the aid of a person.

The system is aimed for initial use in Chicago, Breitbart.com reported.

It would be able to spot cars that drive around high-rises three times, identify the license plates and then call authorities, all on its own.

It would also be able to identify backpacks left alone for more than 30 seconds.

Chicago already has thousands of cameras around the city, some designed to turn in the direction of gunshots, but the new system would work 24 hours a day in real time, making Chicago's surveillance the most technologically advanced in the nation.

"You're talking about creating (something) that knows no fatigue, no boredom and is absolutely focused," said Kevin Smith, spokesman for the city's Office of Emergency Management and Communications, Breitbart reported.

The whole idea is oddly similar to the security systems in George Orwell's novel 1984.

As companies grow resourced enough to build more sophisticated security systems, it's prudent to ask whether or not they should build them.

Although the machines are reportedly more reliable than security personnel nodding off to endless video footage, one begins to wonder how much control the government should have in tracking and regulating people.

The argument against advanced surveillance falls in line with gun-rights advocates. The government may not be tyrannical now, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't be prepared for it to happen someday.

Many argue that if you're not doing anything wrong, there is nothing to fear. Although this may be true, if there is anything Americans learn from the Constitution, it should be that the government will always be vying for more control.

They have already developed face recognition software and used it to catch high-profile convicts on the run. What is to stop them from using it against protestors or journalists who get too curious?

Although surveillance is important and law enforcement essential, the government's technological power for enforcement should not vastly surpass its citizens' ability to overcome it. Individuals can access more basic security tools such as cameras or guns, but these proposed systems would remain exclusively governmental. If we let the government's ability to control its citizens grow too strong, it could prevent freedoms of future generations.