This week’s blog was the hardest one yet, and I hope that you readers realize that I was playing the devil’s lawyer in the text. I find this a hard issue to come to any conclusion about since there are so many parameters that one has to consider. So please, take my text for what it is, just a way to trigger thoughts in you, hopefully!
I value the democracy we have in Sweden, but I also understand, anyway partly, why there is a need for surveillance and some restrictions in our society. For the sake of catching terrorists and other criminals I don’t mind some types of surveillance in stores and out in public areas. My thoughts are that if I don’t intend to break the law, then what do I have to hide? I would gladly be monitored 24/7 if that would help “Big Brother” to catch awful criminals like murderers, rapists and terrorists.
The only negative side I can see in these restrictions and surveillances is that the methods can be used for bad things. Just like with every other thing that mankind has created to help ourselves, this can also be used by criminals to get away with crimes. As the different kinds of mini cameras came out on the market, new types of criminals also appeared in the open. For instance men who film under girls skirts with hidden cameras and then posts these films on the internet, or gangs filming a ATM just to get hold of peoples passwords so they can clean their accounts.
Sure, there are negative sides to surveillance and restrictions, but do they really weigh more than the positive aspects? If my fingerprint, or my blood would help the police rule me out and put the real criminal behind bars, isn’t it worth it then? I think so. The risk of this information to be misused is a risk I’m willing to take. I rather take that risk, opposed to the risk of letting criminals run loose.
Prenumerera på:
Kommentarer till inlägget (Atom)
Hi Linda!
SvaraRaderaI agree with you that this was the hardest blog assignment. I do not even know if I have an opinion in this subject :).
But anyhow, I think you have written a good text and it is easy to follow.
You have devided your text in good parts and you work with each part in every part and then there is a new one, which I think is good.
You mention a lot of positive things about the cameras and in the end you mention that "there are negative sides to surveillance and restrictions,..." and maybe you could have mentioned some of those.
To the language then, I think you use a good language, and your sentences are well written. I don't have anything to coplain about actually, well done!!!
Best regards
Ulrica
Hello Linda!
SvaraRaderaI´ve just been reading your blog and I agree with you – this 5th blog was a hard one.
I found your blog interesting to read and you really know how to use the English language. There were several expressions which I haven’t heard before “playing the devil´s lawyer” was one. It seemed so easy for you to express yourself in English. Because of the good paragraphing and the structure it was also easy to follow.
I can´t find anything specific that you might have done in another way or if there are any grammatically errors.
Finally, I must say that you succeed with you intentions in your blog - to trigger my thoughts.
Best wishes
Birgitta
Dear Linda,
SvaraRaderaThank you for your thoughts on the topic of surveillance. You make some interesting points in your text!
As to structure, I guess that you intend your text to start in the second paragraph, but you should have made that clear in some way, e.g. by using e.g. italics for the first paragraph or put it in paranthesis. If the last sentence in your second paragraph (=introduction?) is intended as a thesis statement, then you have chosen to structure your text as an argumentative one. Consequently, the paragraphs in the body of the text should have been written with the intention of supporting your thesis statement. However, you only have one paragraph there (tree would have been ideal, presenting three arguments), and this one deals with a counter-argument to your thesis statement. Moreover, this counter-argument is not refuted in that paragraph, but the reader has to wait until the concluding paragraph to see the refutation. In the concluding paragraph you should rather have summarised your main points and after that given a final remark, which, by the way, you do very well! Also, try to make better use of transitional devices in order to create coherence in your texts.
When it comes to language, I’m not sure what you mean by “out” in “out in public areas”. Do you mean “outdoors”? “Surveillance” is uncountable and therefore cannot be used in the plural. Try to use more specialised vocabulary, e.g. in “used for bad things”, “purposes” would be a more informative word than “things”. “Every other thing” actually means ”every second thing”. I take it that you want to say something like ”all the other things”? Don’t forget about apostrophes, as in “girls skirts” (girls’!) and “peoples passwords” (people’s!). Think about subject-verb agreement, as in “men who film [...] and then posts these films” where you should have had “post”. Rather than “fingerprint” in the singular you use the plural. As to “playing the devil’s...”, it is in fact “advocate” rather than “lawyer” that is used in the idiomatic expression. Good try, though!
Keep it up!
Best,
Marika