Dear Sir or Madam,
I've read the article "This surveillance onslaught is draconian and creepy," published in The Guardian on 28th June, 2008 by Mrs. Hyde and I'd like to give my statement for that matter. I definitely don't agree with the indications made by Mrs. Hyde. It is a common fact that CCTV surveillance has made our country much saver than it has been without it. Mrs. Hyde's article implies that surveillance is a big thread to people in the UK but I think that the presence of cameras prevents many crimes. There have always been security cameras in banks and arount governmental buildings to protect people and facilities from harm. So why not extent savety aspects over whole cities or even the country? It would be quite expensive to increase the number of policemen whereas security cameras are much cheaper to get and install. They even don't need a rest and work 24 hours a day to keep us save. One single policeman in his office can do the work of a whole hundred by just monitoring what's going on in the streets and it's important that we always be aware what happens around us. From January till March 2008 over 100 persons, even kids and teenagers, were stabbed in Londons streets and sadly the number will increase nearly every single day. But we cannot tell people to stay at home persistantly to avoid all the threads; this would definitely be a severe restriction of their freedom. That is why I think that we even need more cameras and surveillance technology to protect people and their given right to walk their cities savely - without constantly being scared to become a victim of a crime. Policemen can't be in every place all the time, but cameras can. As one last aspect I'd mention that CCTV is good for the British economy. Remember all the companies and their employees which work on new technological upgrades and sell these devices. Not to mention all the workers who install and maintain them, or the virtuous men and women doing the monitoring.
I hope my statement shows you that CCTV is not as bad as Mrs. Hyde wrote in her article and I would be pleased if you could mention these aspects in one of the Guardian's next releases.
Yours sincerely,
J. Kögler
Tuesday, 9 December 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
made our country much saver than it has been without it
(made our country much safer that it would have been without it.)
is a big thread to people
(big threaT to people)
in the UK but I think
(in the UK, but i think)
and arount governmental buildings
(and arounD government buildings)
So why not extent savety aspects over whole cities or even the country?
(so why not extenD saFety aspects over entire cities or even the country)
number of policemen whereas
(police officers) [political correctiness]
It would be quite expensive to increase the number of policemen whereas security cameras are much cheaper to get and install
(fine, but this is better:
It would be quite expensive to increase the number of policemen compared to an increase in security cameras, which are significantly cheaper and much easier to get a hold of and install).
They even don't need a rest and work 24 hours a day to keep us save.
(thet don't even need to rest, and work 24 hours a day to keep us saFe)
One single policeman in his office can do the work of a whole hundred by just monitoring what's going on in the streets and it's important that we always be aware what happens around us.
(One single policeofficer in his/her office can do the work of a hundred by just monitoring what's going on in the streets, and it's important that we always be aware what is happing around us.)
From January till March 2008 over 100 persons, even kids and teenagers, were stabbed in Londons streets and sadly the number will increase nearly every single day.
(From January to March 2008, over 100 people, even kids and teenagers, were stabbed in the streets of London, and sadly, this number will rise nearly every day.)
But we cannot tell people to stay at home persistantly to avoid all the threads; this would definitely be a severe restriction of their freedom.
(But we can not persistantly tell people to stay in their homes to avoid the threats; this would most certainly (or definately) be a severe restriciton of their freedom)
That is why I think that
(That is why I have come to the conclusion that)
we even need more cameras and surveillance technology to protect people
(we need even more cameras and surveillance technology to protect people)
and their given right to walk their cities savely - without constantly being scared to become a victim of a crime.
(and their given right to walk in their city saFely, without constantly being scared of becoming a victim of a crime.)
Policemen can't be in every place all the time, but cameras can.
(Police officers can't be everywhere, all time. But a camera can.)
As one last aspect I'd mention that CCTV is good for the British economy
(There is one last aspect I'd like to mention, and that is that CCTV is CCTV is good for the British economy.)
Post a Comment