In Mangu-Ward’s essay she claims that “more cameras and records, not fewer, may be the best guarantee against abuse of police power in the age of zero privacy.” She supports the increase in survalliance cameras because she believes that can only benefit citizens and their safety. Mangu-Ward uses countless credible sources like: the New York Civil Liberties Union, the New York City police. She also make references to events in history that support her claim and if more survillence had been present, if certain crimes and serious violations could have been stopped before they started. She mentioned the Sean Bell incident in New York City, when three men were shot over fifty time by plain clothed and under cover policemen resulting in the death of Sean Bell. She also mentioned the bombing in the subway in London and had they had increased security cameras they could not only have captured the culprits(which they did), but also possibly prevented the tragedy all together. Mangu Ward manages to use primary and secondary research to give the reader a full view of surveillance usage in the United States. She uses secondary research in the first sentence of her paper and begins with a long quote from the New York Civil Liberties Union, but immediately following she uses her own words to emphasize the central claim of many citizens. It is not until later in the paper that Mangu-Ward reveals her central idea. Mangu-Ward used many outside sources to support her claims, therefore the information she provides throughout the essay influences me in a way that I believe Mangu-Ward is a credible person and writer. She makes her stand on one side of the argument very clearly, which a reader might not agree with but she doesn’t let her personal opinion overtake the facts and evidence she has provided.
The central claim in Joh’s essay is extremely clear. In the fourth paragraph at the very beginning of her essay she clearly states “ this essay discusses why the government’s collect of ‘abandoned DNA’ is a problem worthy of serious attention.” Unlike Mangu-Ward, Joh feels the government is violating the rights of citizens as well she accuses private investors as being unethical in their collection of “abandoned” DNA. Joh begins her essay with a quote from the popular TV show The Simpsons. With this one and the following quote, Joh sets up her paper to generate paranoia immediately. Unlike Mangu-Ward’s essay, Joh takes a stand against the police and their actions and does not feel that their actions are increasing the safety of our citizens but are simply violating our god-given rights. Joh exclusively uses secondary research in her essay, discussing police cases, quoting research done by the National Institutes of Health, and even the Fourth Amendment. Primary research is difficult to obtain with this topic of national security because of confidentiality of police records, ect. The secondary research in Joh’s essay supports her claims by providing evidence of abuse in the collection of DNA. In Joh’s essay she uses a lot of secondary research, but her own views prevail in her essay, definitely more so than Mangu-Ward. I think if Joh had toned down her own voice in the essay she could possibly appeal to a broader audience and influence more people with the issue of DNA collection.
In Quaramby’s essay, he is virtually neutral in his claim. Although his essay is clearly about the talk of a national DNA identification card, his personal bias and support for either side does not prevail in his essay. Although his personal choice does not shine through in the essay, he uses multiple counts of secondary research to provide plenty of opinion in the essay. The information, research and evidence in Quaramby’s essay bring out paranoia in me. Carrying a card that has every little thing about me on it? That’s intense! Quaramby’s topic is very influencing because it is something that I have actually heard hearsay about, and although I’m not sure where I stand on the issue, Quaramby definitely reveals some reality in the possibly of having this national identification cards.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think your reading response is very well written. You give specific examples of evidence and research from the readings and you analyze them well. I especially liked the part where you brought up the normal dressed, undercover cop who shot a man fifty times. That alone is great evidence from Mangu-Ward's paper. You did a great job.
What you said about Joh setting up her essay in such a way that the reader is set up for paranoia. This was very assertive. I didn't think about that in particular until I read your reading reasoinse.
Post a Comment