nToday, privacy is very important to us people. We appreciate the freedom we have and the privacy we have. But unfortunately, the connection between private life and public space has been broken a bit, because surveillance cameras destroy the private lives of many people. This has started a discussion in many people around the world.
In the text “Big Brother is watching you more closely than ever”, John Kampfner discusses the subject of surveillance cameras.
In John Kampfner’s article, it is claimed that a minister does not believe that you should be afraid of surveillance cameras. He told John Kampfner that most of them nevertheless do not work. The author tells in his article about a visit to a surveillance station where the employees felt that the surveillance cameras are very important, and then he sat down and examined the history of these surveillance cameras. He claims that it started in 1993 when the kidnapping of a boy was seen on a camera where the recordings helped to find the culprits.
John Kampfner also mentions that there are over 2 million surveillance cameras in the UK, but they are not being used as they should. He mentions that the number of crimes cleared by cameras is very low, which is not a good sign.
The article ends with John Kampfner asking if we should be concerned about these cameras.
The main theme in the text is the discussion about these CCTV cameras.
The article is a non-fiction text, which is seen in the structure. The article has an introduction, a main part and a conclusion or a rounding. The author has already made it clear to the reader in the headline or introduction what he wants to talk about in the article, which keeps the reader firm and which also shows that the author’s attitude is very clear.
In the “introduction” of the article, the author starts saying: “Do not get so agitated, a minister in the last labor government once told me, most CCTV cameras do not work anyway”. After that he says that this is not the case anymore.
In the main section, John Kampfner mentions a lot of examples to support his own views.
John Kampfner has built his article in the way that he has mentioned a number of examples of how the situation is. Then he has gone back in time, to show how it has become as he describes.
Already at the beginning of the article, the author suggests that there are reasons to worry about the CCTV cameras. It is seen on page 1, line 23: ‘It’s not hard to imagine a Kafkaesque situation in the near future where – thanks to the state’s extensive collection of personal data – you could be walking along a crowded street and the camera could home in on you, zooming up, forwards and backwards, keeping tabs on you.’ Already here the author has given us a hint of what his attitude towards the situation is and it is seen, that he is very serious about his opinion.
The author also mentions some rhetorical questions, which convey his opinion, including page 1, line 1: ‘The march of CCTV cameras – which now recognise your face from half a mile away – is remorseless. So why aren’t we all as mad as hell?’. And page 3, line 77: ‘In that case, what was the point of the cameras, apart from snooping on citizens?’ and on page 4, line 105: ‘If the man in charge of the system is worried about Big Brother, why shouldn’t we be?’
To support his claims, he mentions an example from his real life, when he was doing a radio programme on the subject. ‘The room resembled the Starship Enterprise, with its banks of screens. The operators were polite, 35 decent people, using their controls to change angles as they munched on crisps. They also proudly
showed me a so-called ‘talking camera’ in the car park, where they could admonish folk through a loudspeaker for anti-social behaviour. They were convinced that the state had every right to intervene, everywhere.’
After that, he says ‘This, I would argue, is a profoundly disturbing trend’. Here the author’s attitude reflects again.
John Kampfner also use the appeal forms, logos and pathos. Logos also supports the quote above, which shows that he tries to substantiate his claims with his own experiences. Pathos in the way he appeals to the feelings of the reader, by getting the individual to consider one’s attitude towards the subject.
He also uses open argumentation, as seen in the way he mentions examples of things he has experienced or can remember from before.
Generally, the author’s position comes to mind in many places in the text and generally he is worried.
Throughout the text it is very clear that the author speaks down to eg. Parliament, or in general, is a little ironic about this. An example on this is seen on page 4, line 100: ‘Mr Rennison’s job is to bring some order to a system at risk of running out of control. He will report to Parliament next April. It will be intriguing to see whther secrecy-obsessed officials take any action’.
After the article’s main part, the author has come to an end or conclusion. And in general, one can assume that he is critical of the cameras because he does not believe they are particularly effective at solving crimes and destroying people’s privacy. However, it should also be pointed out that John Kampfner is still not completely against surveillance cameras. See page 2, line 42: The police released a blurry CCTV image of a trusting toddler taking a stranger by the hand and being led out of a Liverpool shopping centre. That was two-year-old Jamie Bulger, whose body had been found on a railway track. This was seen as a huge and very welcome breakthrough in policing. Although the camera did not prevent the crime, its images helped the police find the two boys who were later convicted of his murder.’
In the discussion about cameras in public places, there are many different attitudes to this.
If you want to look at the benefits and disadvantages of these CCTV cameras, you can start by grabbing the quote as mentioned earlier on page 2, line 42.
In the discussion about cameras in public places, there are many different attitudes to this.
If you want to look at the pros and cons of these CCTV cameras, you can start by grabbing the quote as mentioned earlier. The advantage here is that it helps to solve crimes where you can see that it has helped find the culprits. He also mentions that the cameras are so good, that they now can find suspicious people.
It is also mentioned that the cameras makes the schools more safe for the pupils.
On the other hand, these arguments can also be reversed. There will always be someone who is against these CCTV cameras as it destroys the freedom of the people and sharpen their privacy. On the other hand, they can also make people feel more unsafe than safe. Two internet sources both show the disadvantages of surveillance cameras: ‘Video surveillance has not been proven effective’, which also supports John Kampfner’s claims a little.
Another example is seen in another internet source: ”If people are going round with surveillance equipment attached to them, there should be a genuinely good and compelling reason for that. It changes the nature of society and raises moral and ethical issues ‘ about what sort of society we want to live in ‘ I’ve heard that supermarkets are issuing staff with body-worn videos. For what purpose? There is nothing immediately obvious to me.’
But in some reason, I am still not completely convinced.
I can mention an example from the terror attack on the Boston Marathon. It was the surveillance cameras who helped the police find the terrorists. And in this way, I do not think you can feel monitored in any way. The recordings are most often used only in case it is necessary. Therefore, one might think that this discussion about CCTV cameras is a bit uphill.
here…