Analysis of Big Brothers Eyes Essay Example

for some reason only interested in those operated by local police departments - Big brothers eyes. Eggers and Tushnet are familiar with some of the arguments against the use of video surveillance, and it shows in their references to "a bored man who's zooming in on a woman's chest".

Over-confident Eggers and Tushnet try to do two things at once -acknowledge that there is a growing opposition to surveillance cameras in America and misrepresent that opposition - in the following sentence: "Many civil libertarians insist that the only way to protect privacy is through prohibition: Tear down the cameras. Ban government from using face-recognition and other biometric technologies. Sounds good, but it won't work. For one thing, the spycams are already here and Congress is highly nlikely to pass a law forcing every city in the country to take down their cameras. What's more, the 'ban everything' approach ignores the technologies' plain benefits. Any woman who's had to walk through a deserted parking garage to her car knows why many people might welcome cameras. With many advances ahead, computer-linked surveillance cameras can already identify crimes as they occur, reduce false arrests and convictions and provide much better evidence than notoriously unreliable witness testimony.

Linked to biometric databases, the cameras can help prevent fraud, find a lost child, and keep terrorists out of airports and pedophiles out of schools. -The logic here is specious just because the spycams are already here does not mean that they aren't going away. Police surveillance cameras were installed in Times Square in the late 1960s, but were taken down because they were judged to be cost-ineffective: in 22 months of operation, they

led to the arrest of only 10 people, all for minor infractions. Eggers and Tushnet's belief in "computer-linked surveillance cameras" is not unusual these days.

Over the last year, several prominent right-wing groups and individuals, including the Law Enforcement Association of America and House Majority Leader Dick Armey (a Republican from Texas), have strongly condemned computerized surveillance cameras. Maybe the point of Eggers and Tushnet's defense of surveillance cameras are that they aren't defending surveillance cameras, but helping to market face recognition software. On 2 May 2002, The New York Post published an article about the use of surveillance cameras in public places written by William D.

Eggers and Eve Tushnet of the Manhattan Institute, a high-profile right-wing think-tank. Entitled "Big Brother's Eyes" and printed on The Post's opinion page, William (Bill) Eggers was born in 1967 and is an American writer and government consultant. Eggers was born in New York City, grew up in the Chicago, Illinois area and attended the University of California-San Diego. Eve Tushnet was born in 1978 and grew up in Washington DC. She studied philosophy at Yale University, where she was received into the Catholic Church.

She is a freelance writer in DC, and has been published in (among others) Commonweal, The National Catholic Register, National Review, and The Washington Blade. She earns her living by writing and speaking about gays and religion and heaven and sex. She is the celibate lesbian roman catholic. She is gay and advocates against same-sex marriages. The language in the text is very easily comprehended, its direct - as if it speaks directly to you. No retorical devices nor foreign words have been used in this

article, and has been written in an "everyday-tone".

It is a logical composition and supportative for my understanding of the text. All the information in the text is relevant and coherent and there are no repititions anywhere. This article does appeal to my sense of logic. Eggers and Tushnet's piece focuses exclusively on what they call "government cameras. " Though "government cameras" should include surveillance cameras operated by federal law enforcement authorities, intelligence agencies and the U. S. military, Eggers and Tushnet are for some reason only interested in those operated by local police departments - Big brothers eyes.

Eggers and Tushnet are familiar with some of the arguments against the use of video surveillance, and it shows in their references to "a bored man who's zooming in on a woman's chest". Over-confident Eggers and Tushnet try to do two things at once -acknowledge that there is a growing opposition to surveillance cameras in America and misrepresent that opposition - in the following sentence: "Many civil libertarians insist that the only way to protect privacy is through prohibition: Tear down the cameras. Ban government from using face-recognition and other biometric technologies.

Sounds good, but it won't work. For one thing, the spycams are already here and Congress is highly unlikely to pass a law forcing every city in the country to take down their cameras. What's more, the 'ban everything' approach ignores the technologies' plain benefits. Any woman who's had to walk through a deserted parking garage to her car knows why many people might welcome cameras. With many advances ahead, computer-linked surveillance cameras can already identify crimes as they occur, reduce false arrests and convictions and provide

much better evidence than notoriously unreliable witness testimony.

Linked to biometric databases, the cameras can help prevent fraud, find a lost child, and keep terrorists out of airports and pedophiles out of schools. -The logic here is specious just because the spycams are already here does not mean that they aren't going away. Police surveillance cameras were installed in Times Square in the late 1960s, but were taken down because they were judged to be cost-ineffective: in 22 months of operation, they led to the arrest of only 10 people, all for minor infractions.

Eggers and Tushnet's belief in "computer-linked surveillance cameras" is not unusual these days. Over the last year, several prominent right-wing groups and individuals, including the Law Enforcement Association of America and House Majority Leader Dick Armey (a Republican from Texas), have strongly condemned computerized surveillance cameras. Maybe the point of Eggers and Tushnet's defense of surveillance cameras are that they aren't defending surveillance cameras, but helping to market face recognition software.