Introduction
In the contemporary world, rapid innovation has produced intriguing new technologies, which result in easier data collection and information sharing. However, the use of this technology has resulted to controversial debate because it raises significant questions about the individual privacy rights and the civil liberty. The technological surveillance has presented the world where it is almost impossible to enhance absolute privacy since cameras are watching and recording people's movement. Two articles provide discussion concerning the technological advancement and application of the technological surveillance. The articles provide the discussion of the relationships between international news, politics, technology, science, and business. One of the articles is the Wendy Kaminer's article, "Trading Liberty for Illusion," which was published in Free Inquiry Magazine in 2004. Her main idea is to illustrate how the Americans are scared to raise questions about the government's intentions and the efficacy of their security policies. American liberty has become an illusion because Americans tend to believe in security promises even though their security is just imagination. On the other hand, the second article is The Economist's "If Look Could Kill," which was initially published on 2008 by The Economist. The article main point is to provide insight on the use of the surveillance technology by using cameras to capture and recognize the certain individual behavior. The articles are similar in terms of the same strategies like expert opinions, use of example, and language but different in terms of counterargument and the authors' stance.
Both articles are similar because they discuss the different features of the American Civil Liberty. The two authors discuss how the public privacy has been invaded by the surveillance technology while using the same strategies like expert opinions, use of examples, and language. Both articles utilize the emotive language that attempts to appeal to their audience. They tend to convince the audience that the American Government needs to do more on the progressivism ideology to enhance security and privacy. The Economist article uses the emotional appeal to suggest, " too many innocents are entangled in intrusive questioning or worse with "voodoo science" security measures" (The Economist 2008). The statement appeals to the audience that the surveillance technology utilized is not effective since it threaten the lives of even the innocents.
Similarly, Kaminer also uses the emotive language to capture the attention of her audience. At the beginning of the article, he opens the paragraphs by suggesting that "only a fool with no sense" (Kaminer 2012). She uses the emotional appeal to win the argument by manipulating the emotions of the audience rather than using the valid logic. Her main goal is to trigger the reaction of the audience and convince them to read the article so that they can determine why refuting her argument is considered a foolish decision. In addition, she repeatedly uses the emotional appeal to suggest that during the World War II, people felt safer. Although the statement sounds ironical, she successfully generates empathy and trigger her audience emotions.
In both articles, the authors utilize the specific and examples to keep their argument concrete and specific. The Economist article utilizes examples trough the text to support or refute the effectiveness of the surveillance technologies. For instance, the article suggests that the surveillance systems should incorporate cultural inputs such as rigid body movement to capture the extra anxiety of a suspicious individual. Similarly, Kaminer uses examples throughout the essay to illustrate how liberty was trampled while security was not improved. For instance, she uses an example of President Lincoln, who suspended Habeaus Corpus and ordered the arrest of many people for things such as ‘disloyalty.' In addition, she has used examples to show the dark side of the surveillance cameras. She suggests that the Detroit Free Press article reveals how police utilized the database to train unsuspected females and threaten other citizens (Kaminer 2012). She uses the example to show how the system is completely inconsistent and hence Americans cannot trust it with their liberty and privacy.
The two articles have also utilized secondary sources of information to support and provide credibility of their argument. The two authors have extensively used supporting evidence to support their argument concerning the use of the surveillance cameras in the American context. For instance, Kaminer shows that she has a more profound understanding of the topic by deriving information from various reports such as American Civil Liberties Union and Detroit Free Press article. Similarly, The Economist utilizes secondary information from "The Minority Report" by Philip K. Dick's. The article also acquires information from various professionals such as psychologist Frank Morelli, Charles Cohen (Cybernet Systems' boss), James Davis (video security expert), and a researcher, Paul Ekman. This illustrates that the authors have conducted an extensive research concerning the topic and hence affirming their credibility on the argument.
Although the articles have used many similar techniques, noticeable differences can be pointed out. One of the main difference is that The Economist has used enthusiastic and hopeful stance while Kaminer has used the skeptical view. The Economist suggest that although the government has failed to produce a surveillance system that is not effective, more can be done to improve the situation. For instance, the lie-detectors can be improved to accommodate the psychological measures that correlate stress. In addition, the article reveals that there is an opportunity for the system to be integrated with the cultural input to increase effectiveness (The Economist, 2008). On the other hand, Kaminer is skeptical about the surveillance system used by the government because she believes that it infringes individual privacy and liberty. She argues that the surveillance systems in the United States have been prone to abuse and hence constitute a threat to liberty, privacy, and physical safety. Therefore, they have been inconsistent, and Americans do not need them.
Another difference between the articles is the use of the counter argument. While the article from The Economist illustrates the two sides of the argument, Kaminer utilizes only one side to refute the idea of the intelligence surveillance. The Economist article appears more persuasive than the Kaminer's article because it provides a viewpoint that refutes the main argument. For instance, the author suggests, "Supporters of this sort of technology argue that it avoids controversial racial profiling: only behavior is studied" (The Economist, 2008). This illustrates that despite the ineffectiveness of the surveillance technologies, some few benefits can be observed.
As elucidated above, the articles are similar in terms of the same strategies like experts opinion, examples, and language. They appear to use similar techniques such as emotional appeals, specific and examples, reports from various organization, and opinions from professionals and experts. However, the two authors differ in terms of using counterargument and their stances. While The Economist uses enthusiastic and hopeful stance, Kaminer uses skeptical view to portray the argument of the surveillance technologies and privacy.
References
Kaminer, W. (2012) Trading Liberty for Illusions. Writing in the Disciplines: A Reader and Rhetoric for Academic Writers. 7th Ed. ed. Mary Lynch Kennedy and William J. Kennedy. Upper Saddle River: Pearson. 397-399. Print.
The Economist. (2008, October 23). If looks could kill | The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/node/12465303
