Step 1: Read the two texts below.
Step 2: Identify each author’s point of view and evidence.
Step 3: Write your own point-of-view based on the text.
For VCE students, please write an analysis of arguments/techniques.
Text 1: Put police body-cams under a proper lens (Jock Halley)
With the help of CCTV footage, the police zoomed in on Adrian Bayley, who murdered Jill Meagher. Again, it was video footage that led to his arrest. There is no doubt that the widespread use of CCTV cameras assists police with their investigations.
However, the camera culture that is now engulfing police is different.
During the past two years, the government is moving increasingly towards surveillance gadgets that are changing the nature of policing. It has introduced 11,000 police cameras. There has been little to no debate about privacy problems. It has been revealed that officers can deactivate their cameras at their discretion and edit footage before court cases.
Once again, too, any complaints are handled mainly by a board that is biased towards the police. The storage of data is controlled by police; access and privacy are controlled by police.
Compare our approach to that taken in some US cities that are so perturbed by the loss of privacy that they are banning facial recognition software from police body cams.
The US company that developed the software decided not to go ahead with it. It did a report that concluded that face recognition software was problematic. It was less accurate when identifying women compared with men and young people compared with older people. It was particularly inaccurate when scanning people of colour compared with white people. It seems those who are vulnerable are more at risk.
Or compare this with China, which has 200 million surveillance cameras watching its people — about one camera for every seven people. Police wear facial recognition glasses to capture criminals and cameras scan train stations for their most wanted.
We need to talk about how far we really want to go down this untravelled pathway and which system of government we really want to copy.
Jock Halley, Staff reporter, The Daily News
TEXT 2: An extra dose of courtesy
(The Editor, Spencer News).
The recent scuffle between a group of commuters because of a young lady’s loud and intrusive phone call highlights the need for greater controls. We are not surprised that the lady was hounded off the train.
For a long time, The Spencer News has advocated for the introduction of “quiet zone” (mobile phone-free) carriages on public transport.
Although this will not be enforced by law, it will be self-policing and well signposted by clearly designated carriages. It has proven to be effective in major cities around the world such as Salzburg. Whilst the Boston model in the United States forbids passengers from using mobile phones or having loud conversations during peak hour, we believe that this model is not as effective as a “quiet-carriage scheme”, which would not restrict the rights of those to enjoy noise — but in their own space.
We agree with Independent MP Lee Trent who recently said: “It is extremely frustrating to listen to a chorus of mobile phone calls in a carriage. I don’t need to listen to Ms Businesswoman’s executive meeting, or Mr Pick-Me-Up organising the time and location of his social gathering, or Mr or Ms International face-timing with his cousin in Woop-woop. I would certainly opt for a quiet carriage.”
So would we!
Currently, Transport New South Wales has a select number of services that provide for quiet carriages. People are not allowed to use a mobile phone or have a conversation in certain designated carriages. This seems to work well and should be rolled out across the network.
Such carriages would protect people’s right to privacy and peace, while ensuring that those who do not give a stuff about others are able to click with like-minded commuters.
As our population swells and the cities become over-crowded, we need to be aware of the rules of etiquette It’s the same with dog walkers; they must respect on-and-off the leash signs in our increasingly rare quiet spaces and pick up their dog poo. It’s the same for parents at playgrounds and at bus stops — the non-smoking signs are there to protect people’s health. So the signs are obvious. Be nice. It costs nothing, and we will all benefit from an extra dose of courtesy.
Reading in peace – what a luxury!
Took the train from Sydney to Newcastle (Intercity service run by NSW TrainLink) and it was amazing to have a choice! You can read in peace if you want to, doze off or flick through your phone messages without hearing someone’s loud talk. Perhaps we need signs in a few different languages. (Jemma Carney)
- For middle years: Return to “Exercises on Persuasive Essays”: Zoom class
- For VCE students: See Recent Post for Arguments