http://www.wisn.com/r/25677181/detail.html
This is an article by Milwaukee news discussing issues regarding video cameras in public settings.
Questions to guide you along:
1.)Do you think the author of the article supports or objects video camera in public settings. What information made you think that way?
2.)There is a link in the middle of the article and one at the end of the article. These are the same links. What do you think the purpose of putting the article in those region of the article are? Does the heading of the link make you feel a certain way?
3.) How does this article relate to the bigger picture of public vs. private?
It seems like the author of this article objects to the idea of video cameras being displayed in public settings but he does do a pretty good job and pointing out he other side of the argument. He opens up his article by pointing out that cameras all over the place are focused specifically on us whether we realize it or not. The article goes on to state different opinions of some unbiased people which seems to stand on both sides of the fence. One person is specifically stating that they dont like the idea of always being on video but at the same time another person answers by saying then could careless.The overall feel of this author is that he is simply giving an analysis of the idea behind camera privacy without choosing a side and simply letting people take whatever side they individually choose. As for the link in the article it seems like it is there to specifically reinforce on of the sides of this invasion of privacy idea by giving a specific example of when someones privacy was invaded. If people watch this clip in the hyper link it could potentially sway them big time toward one side because of the tragic events that occur in this story. In terms of private vs. public this article overall gives the idea that the public sphere(camera usage) is invading the private sphere(people's lives). But the interesting thing about this article is that it details two different ways that this happens and shows how one is extremely beneficial and how the other is very worrisome.
ReplyDeleteThe author seems to do a good job to explain the advantage and disadvantage of camera using in the public area. He does not show his attitude to the camera using in public clearly, but he displays his worry about the improper use of the camera. If you open the hyper link, you can watch the tragedy news about the crime by camera use improperly. The author points out more than once about the link in the article in order to illustrate the danger of camera abuse and want to draw people in worrying about this criminal behavior.
ReplyDeleteThe article shows the concern about public invade privacy. The cameras appear in almost everywhere you live, such as street, restaurant, bank etc. There is no absolute privacy in the world. You can appear more than hundreds of time a day in the public camera record. If nobody pays attention to you, then you get a relative privacy in the public area, but if you are well-known and have high attraction to the society like the celebrities, then the camera record will be a good tool to disclose your privacy.
I agree with Tyler about this author. He/she is simply "giving an analysis of the idea behind camera privacy without choosing a side" rather than trying to persuade readers. However, this author might be objecting the use of video camera in public settings because the link was placed right after a student's comment who believes that the use of video camera in public settings doesn't matter to him because he looks good in it. I felt like the author was trying to warn people with the similar thoughts by letting them how the misuse of camera could lead to such tragedy. In terms of private vs. public, this author includes the beneficial use of video cameras in public settings such as for investigating crime scenes. This may imply that although it might seem as if the public is invading private by placing video cameras everywhere and filming people w/o informing them, public isn't actually invading but rather protecting private.
ReplyDeleteI believe the author doesn't support the amount of surveillance that is happening these days. I think this because of the way the author worded things like "few public places are actually off-limits." Also, most of the people that the author chose to interview believed they were being watched most of the time. I think the link being put in the two different places was done because the video was relevant to a particular part of the article (its first occurrence) and the second time was in case the reader didn't see the link the first time. I could understand the author wanting to make sure the reader watched that video, because it was quite relevant. This article relates to private vs public because it is calling attention to the fact that public cameras pick up a lot of what we do. However, I think it's important to make the distinction of security professionals watching these tapes, vs our peers tweeting them to people we know. In my opinion, the information these cameras pick up, is still very much private.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article I felt as though I was told that there are just too many cameras watching the public. It seems as though it would be a good thing for people our age (or like they mentioned, people under 30) to read this article to make the generation who have grown up in such a technological dependent age think that is it more creepy rather than just dismiss it. I know that before I read this article, I didn't even think twice about cameras set out in public, thinking they were for safety only. Now, I am more aware that, yes I do not know who is watching these videos captured from the cameras. I do agree with George that people forget that many of these cameras are for security reasons and handled by professionals. Yet It makes me wonder if we do just assume that security officials installed the cameras we see in public places, like parks where anyone has unlimited access. How do we know that those are security cameras? That is when I become concerned.
ReplyDeleteThe article introduced the video at the end much better than the video randomly placed in the middle of two paragraphs because after reading, “To learn why your privacy might be invaded in your own home by a camera, check out our Web extra below”, I wanted to watch the video. I honestly didn't even read what the link said when reading the article for the first time.
This is very true. Since cameras are so easily attained nowaday, anyone can put up cameras in public places. It is a different if security officials put up cameras, but it is a different story if regular people like you and me put cameras in public. And with the knowledge that people are soaked in society, most people will just assume that cameras in public are just security cameras so they are not concerned, but how do they know.
DeleteAs was also stated before by Ms. Lauren in regards to the generation gap I wholly concur. The older generation views this as “creepy” or eccentric because the older generation witnessed a time of much more freedom. The was no “Nanny-state' then to the degree that there is now. There has to be a degree in which the public, the people actually going about there business at work, the market, or anywhere outside of their home, must assume responsibility for watching out for fellow Americans rather than the government witnessing and recording every action. I like security, and that is the prime objective of the government, but when surveillance is abused to the degree that it is in Britain and perhaps even the United States there must be a line drawn. The younger generation doesn't know where to draw this line though. They do not know a land where you are not always being watched.
DeleteI like Lauren's comment about security cameras in public places, and whether they are actually security cameras or not. It seems that our society just assumes that all cameras in public are just security cameras for a business or industry. In reality, most of these security cameras are most likely for businesses, but nobody can actually tell if they are or not.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the article is relatively unbiased about cameras, there is a hint of bias at the very end of the article. The sentence "To learn why your privacy might be invaded in your own home by a camera, check out our Web extra below." implies that public is invading private. Also, the very first sentence of the article "Cameras are at the ATM....realize it or not." shows that the author is saying that the public is invading our private space through the use of cameras.
The author has a general coverage on the topic of surveillance cameras being used in public. I also agree with Lauren, that the younger generation has an oblivious reaction to the technology that is being used. Whether it is being used for our good of against us is the issue. Would people react differently in public if they know they are being watched?
ReplyDeleteI think this is a public invading private issue because there is no consent given of the video footage. There are cameras everywhere in public but there are not notifications on all of them.
This is a very good point. Most people do not realize that there are cameras out in public, even if they do they do not realize the amount of cameras out there. Therefore, they feel a sense of invisibility when they see that nobody is watching them, but there might actually be a camera watching them. Having a camera filming them is as real as a person watching them, making their privacy public again so they will do what they will do in public instead of doing that they will do in private.
DeleteThis is very true. I have noticed the number of security cameras on campus watching us at all times. The next time you are going to class, look up, usually at the corners of buildings. More than likely you will find a security camera. The university is watching almost every street on campus. Even the COTA busses have cameras (I haven't looked for them on the CABS). My point is, these cameras are everywhere, and if you have access to the system, you can view the feed from anywhere with an internet connection.
DeleteSean, you bring up exactly what I was going to say. No matter where you are on campus (in some cases even off campus, such as High Street) you will most likely notice multiple cameras staring you down. I've even noticed Morril and Lincoln towers have cameras at the tops of them. This makes me wonder how much those cameras can actually see, given that I was being watched even at the very bottom of the two 20-story buildings. I agree with Austin as well, in that the issue is whether or not the cameras are being used to defend us. Whether with good intentions or not, we can be sure that somebody working for this university probably knows where we are, and that we're reading this blog at this exact moment.
Deletei feel like the author is trying to tell us that camera is invading people's privacy. the author puts the first link right after a Joe's annoucement: "i think i look pretty good, so i am all right.", which makes a strong contast. followed by Wanda's "You see yourself on somebody's camera or somebody's video, and you don't even know. I don't like that,", which makes the author's opinion stronger.
ReplyDeleteafter describing some details about how cameras influence people's life, the author pointed out Winsconsin's law, which is against inproper camera using. and the author gives the link again, saying "To learn why your privacy might be invaded in your own home by a camera, check out our Web extra below.", which indicates that the author believes our privacy are invaded by cameras~
Overall the article gives good perspective on both sides of whether there are too many cameras watching the public’s every move. Because cameras are so accessible it makes it hard not to be watched by either a business or even by just a random person with a video camera. When you look at camera from the business point-of-view it would seem essential and beneficial for them to have those around the store for safety and security purposes which makes sense and doesn’t compromise our privacy. However the hyperlink shows a different side to how a camera can be used. This tragedy shows how owning a video camera can be turned into a negative and one’s private lives can immediately be made public in some of the worst ways possible.
ReplyDeleteRelating to the theme of “privacy vs. Public” I do believe that because of all the cameras today our private lives are being somewhat invaded. The fact that in the United Kingdome a person is caught on camera an average of 300 times a day seems very invasive. I don’t think the United States is quite that bad but I’m sure it’s not too far off depending on where you happen to live.
I get the feeling that the author of this article doesnt lean either way with this issue. He or she uses arguements for both sides. The author shows how the police use it to help find criminals or figure out an investigation. He or she also talks about how people are uncomfortable they are about being filmed and that it gives them a big brother feeling. I like the quote, "I'm in public anyways so why should I care," this contradicts what we have been talking about in class about how people have a feeling of privacy while in public. The fact that you could read this article and could be swayed to either side of the issue makes this article very unique. This relates to our theme of privacy vs. public because even though the cameras are in public they are filming our private interactions and like the artilce said they are focused on us. Here I would have to say the public is invading the private.
ReplyDeleteI agree. The author did a very good job of not being basis while writing this article. The author seemed to be on the fence about the topic. There was argument for both sides and both sides and credible sources for the readers to see. The author wrote this so the reader could pick a side about the topic.
Deleteafter reading all the existed comments, i still feel that the author opposes widly using cameras, for it might invade people's privacy.
ReplyDeletefrom the very beginning, the author points out that cameras are everywhere and we can not escape from them, no matter we realize it or not.
also, the author provides extra web to support his opinion--video can make your privacy accessible to the ones who initially don't have the chance to share it.
and, in the UK, it is 300 times (the average person caught on camera per day),while in the US, this number is unknown, which might indicate that it is a huger number that no one would tell the public.
as for police deparment, i think it is another supportive evidence of the author's opinion that cameras should not be installed too many. even criminal deeds, which are the last thing people want to be seen doing, can be recorded, then, personal privacy can be taped too.
i don't know. maybe i don't get the whole idea~
Surveillance is a huge factor in the discussion of "public vs. private." Is the public invading the private here? Is the private invading the public? What about private invading private? Perhaps the protection offered via video surveillance outweighs any potential invasion of the public or our privacy. For me, the statistic of average English citizens being caught on camera 300 times PER DAY was a scare tactic used by the author. Either way, I feel the author clearly does not have a bias, and that the point of this article was to give people an awareness of how often they're being watched, and perhaps even spark the debate that we have in our English class. The Big Brother debate, as Austin pointed out, will always be based on the question of whether or not this invasion of privacy is being used to protect us, or monitor us.
ReplyDeleteRight at the very beginning of the article the author states that cameras are always watching one in public, no matter when or where. This first sentence already makes the reader feel a bit apprehensive about going outside. However, this tone and fear-instilling does not keep constant pressure on the reader. Instead the author presents and unbiased interview with numerous local people. After the quote from the Marquette student was used though, the first quote used to present that some people had no issues with all of the cameras, the author posted a link to a persuasive article that presented that people should actually show concern about the increasing number of cameras. This link, along with the latter at the end of the article, was strategically placed to make the opposite argument reconsider.
ReplyDeleteThe author though does a great job in presenting the opposite argument. The presentation of how police, fire-fighters, and other emergency assistance providers reach victims with the help of live-feed cameras is a very persuasive case of how cameras can provide valuable security to a populace. Interviews with a few professionals on the matter do help make the article more credible, especially when the the professionals themselves present their own concerns about the topic.
The author did a very good job at relaying his message to the audience. The author spoke from both sides from both sides. The author included in the reading, comments from anabasis people. The author adds information of how the police and the fire department use cameras to help people in trouble. This fact helps develop the argument. The facts will influence the people to also agree and take sides. The article does a very good job of being in the middle, leaving the decision to be made from the readers on which side to take.
ReplyDeleteFor the first question, I think that even though the article mentions examples opposing video cameras in public places, the author supports the cameras. The author appears under age 30 because they stated that the under 30 age group had grown up with digital technology and cameras moreso than those over age 30. As for the second question, I think that the author put the links where they are to lead the readers to another perspective on the issue.
ReplyDelete