A couple of weeks before Christmas I visited one of my oldest friends, she lives in London. This is a city with many cameras watching over you, did it make me feel unpleasant? No, because I don´t have anything to hide.
In Sweden there is a big debate whether you should have cameras or not in public places. Our personal integrity is very important, sometimes more important than the security of the citizens. We do have surveillance cameras in this country, mostly in public places like the underground and shopping centers. I think this is good, people may feel more secure when they walk in public places, especially in the evening or at night time. If you don’t have anything to hide, the cameras should not be any problem.
Most of the cameras today save the materials that are filmed. After a couple of days this material is deleted if nothing especially was “caught on tape”. This is a good thing, the material is only supposed to be used to catch criminals or criminal acts. If the material is used in a wrong way, as surveillance of citizens, or that private persons can watch these films, this is wrong.
But this is not the only cameras you may get in contact with, high speed cameras is another one. This is one type of surveillance cameras I really like. They actually save lives! Drivers really slow down when they see a camera, a fine is not fun to get. But one thing that hit me this weekend when I was driving down to Skara, why do you need a sign a couple of hundreds meters before a camera as a warning? If someone is driving too fast, let the person get a fine and learn a lesson. Take away the warning signs.
My opinion is quite clear, I think we should have cameras as surveillance, but we must be really careful with them, not letting the wrong persons get hold of the information.
Most of the cameras today save the materials that are filmed. After a couple of days this material is deleted if nothing especially was “caught on tape”. This is a good thing, the material is only supposed to be used to catch criminals or criminal acts. If the material is used in a wrong way, as surveillance of citizens, or that private persons can watch these films, this is wrong.
But this is not the only cameras you may get in contact with, high speed cameras is another one. This is one type of surveillance cameras I really like. They actually save lives! Drivers really slow down when they see a camera, a fine is not fun to get. But one thing that hit me this weekend when I was driving down to Skara, why do you need a sign a couple of hundreds meters before a camera as a warning? If someone is driving too fast, let the person get a fine and learn a lesson. Take away the warning signs.
My opinion is quite clear, I think we should have cameras as surveillance, but we must be really careful with them, not letting the wrong persons get hold of the information.
Hello Petra!
SvaraRaderaI really like your text! It is not to long and not to short, you present different suggestions why you think the surveillance cameras are needed and your text got a nice flow so it is easy to read. It shows your point of view in a good way. The pictures put an extra edge to the text, great move=)
I did not think of the speeding cameras when writing this assignment, which shows a totally different angle in this discussion. Very good to think of that!
Your paragraphs are containing one unit of thought and you use the transitional devices in a way that I find correct.
I would have liked to read more about what kind of problems you see in this the matter with surveillance cameras and Big brother watching us. You did write a bit from that point of view when discussing the personal integrity, but I would like to see more suggestions to what you think is the danger with being watched and registered all the time.
I so agree with your last sentence in the inledning “Did it make me feel unpleasant? No, because I don’t have anything to hide. It is just so true! Why are we so worried about surveillance cameras if we don’t have anything to hide...
Good luck with your last blog!
Best regards,
Dear Petra,
SvaraRaderaThank you for your thoughts on the topic of surveillance. You make some interesting points in your text, and I certainly agree with you!
As to structure, You include all the necessary parts of an argumentative text, although there is no thesis statement in your introduction. Your paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 deal with one idea each, which is correct, and you use topic sentences in all of them. I also like the way you sum up your view on each topic at the end of each paragraph. In your concluding paragraph you again state your view, but I think your argument would have been even stronger if you had repeated your main points (e.g. increased security) and then made your final remark. Try to make better use of transitional devices in order to create coherence in your texts!
As to language, you have quite a few run-on sentences, and there are different ways to deal with them. In “A couple of weeks before Christmas I visited one of my oldest friends, she lives in London” you could have written “who” instead of “she”, and thereby got a subordinate clause rather than a main clause. Another one is “This is a city with many cameras watching over you, did it make me feel unpleasant?” where a full stop instead of the comma would be a solution. A third one is “I think this is good, people may feel more secure when they walk in public places” where you could have written “I think this is good, since they might make people feel more secure when they walk in public places”. A fourth one is “This is a good thing, the material is only supposed to be used to catch criminals or criminal acts.”, where you could have used a colon instead of the comma. In paragraph 4 you have another two run-on sentences. Also, you use the adverb “especially” to modify a noun (“nothing”), and you therefore should have used an adjective (“special”).
Best,
Marika