It is very hard to set a standard for how much the authorities can monitor us without jeopardizing our privacy. On one hand we lose some of our privacy. But on the other hand, our safety can be in the balance. Both sides of this question arises good and solid reasons for their cause, but if it was up to me, we would have more cameras in our society.
The strongest argument of them all, in my opinion, is that if you are a law abiding citizen, you will not mind big brother watching. I don’t mind the cameras in the shops I enter and I don't mind them watching me in the streets. The cameras have proven over and over again that they make crime rate, among other things, drop. So go crazy, put em' up everywhere. The only demands I have before this would could be put in reality is that the cameras are monitored by people interested in solving crime or preventing them. Not by companies trying to get to know how and where you and I spend our money so they can advertise in a more personal way. The second is that there are no cameras inside anyone’s home. Some privacy is required and this is where I draw my line. The third and final demand I have is that the information at hand is deleted after a certain amount of time. Other that that, sure, put them up in parks, on free ways, in tunnels and dark street corners I don’t mind, as long as the cameras are there to prevent crime and nothing else.
Since we live in Sweden I would not like to se cameras be put up because of “the fight on terror”, which perhaps could be used as an argument in the US or perhaps in the UK. I don’t think the Swedish population, I know I wouldn't, would accept that as a reason for putting up cameras. But in the name of fighting and preventing crime, I do believe that the bigger part of or society, including me, would accept the cameras. I mean, our picture is already being taking in taxis and on some public transports, at least in our bigger cities. Why not extend this to all public transports. As long as your not there to rob, hurt or kill someone there is no need to worry about the cameras because nobody will ever know what you did anyway. And if you are up to no good, at least we have you on camera and will identify you fast and in-expensive. Every tax payers dream; get the bad guy fast and cheap.
The only upholding argument against governments putting up cameras everywhere is the privacy issue. You will get caught on tape and there is a chance, however small it may be, that the information will end up in the wrong hands. But to be honest, what difference does it make if the government knows where you went for coffee during your lunch break or if you prefer McDonalds to Subway? As it is now your credit card company knows all this already and is more likely to give out this information than the government would ever be, at least here in Sweden.
All in all, we are already being watched more or less 24/7, at least in the bigger cities. So what difference would an extra pair of cameras do to us more than give us a safer place to live? Well I certainly can’t come up with one single argument that can overturn my believes on the issue. If you want to live in a safe society, this is unfortunately the only way to go. What is important in this question is not how many cameras is accepted and where, it is how the information are handled and by who, the rest is not interesting.
Prenumerera på:
Kommentarer till inlägget (Atom)
Dear Mattias,
SvaraRaderaThank you for an excellent text on surveillance! I really enjoyed reading it!
Your text is well structured and contains all the necessary elements. The paragraphing works well, it is only paragraph 3 where the topic sentence should have been about the main idea of the paragraph: crime prevention (rather than anti terrorism, which you have at the beginning now). Also, avoid writing things like “in my opinion” and “I think”, since they weaken your argument.In paragraph 4 you have a counter argumet which you refute – excellent! – and in the concluding paragraph you sum up your main points before you make your final comment. Well done!
As to language, think about subject-verb agreement, as in “Both sides of this question arises ”, “how many cameras is accepted”, and ” the information are handle”. Rather than “On one hand”, say ”ont the one hand”. Think about where you put the apostrophes, as in “em’” where it is actually the first letters that have been removed. In “Other that that, sure, put them up in parks, on free ways, in tunnels and dark street corners I don’t mind, as long as the cameras are there to prevent crime and nothing else.” you have a run-on sentence. Rather than “I don’t think the Swedish population, I know I wouldn't, would accept that as a reason for putting up cameras.” you should let “I know I wouldn’t” form a sentence of its own , after the long sentence. Use the past participle in the progressive, “being taken” rather than “being taking”. Be careful not to mix up “your” and “you’re”. Note that “inexpensive” in “identify you fast and in-expensive” functions as an adverb. The plural of “belief” is “beliefs”.
Best,
Marika