illusion. The line between privacy and public space has become fragile as a piece of glass. That is due to the increase of the CCTV cameras, the spies in our midst that monitoring our human behavior. In the article ‘’Big brother is watching you more closely than ever’’, written by John Kampfner in 2012, discusses the issue whether surveillance provides protection or disturbs the individual’s liberty.

The article consists of three components: an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. The article mostly tells about the subject of surveillance and its effect on society. The major topic is presented in the introduction by using these words: ‘’The march of CCTV cameras – which now recognize your face from half a mile away’’. as the author will comply when discussing the theme, are also listed in the introductory section. The body, where the issue has been prepared, cover the crucial evidence, which defends the position of John Kampfner. The Documentation includes specific facts, description, quotes and references to authoritarians. Numerical examples are also used to support the requirements. The following statement provides evidence that: “the average person is likely to be spotted by CCTV 300 times.” The article end with a conclusion. The conclusion tries to persuade the reader to accept the author’s arguments by raising a series of rhetorical questions: “but do we really want to be monitored around the clock, regardless of wherever we are? If the man in charge of the system worried about Big Brother, why shouldn’t we be?

We see the author’s attitude towards monitoring very clear from the text. The views he expresses are mainly characterized by great skepticism. This assumption of his is supported by f.eks: “maybe you forget, say, to pay a parking ticket or your TV license, and your name has been entered in one of the many impenetrable State files. And the worst thing is that you would never know,’’ In addition, John Kampfner expresses a bit lack of trust in the surveillance system by saying that surveillance cameras do not meet their operational function: “the cameras that are meant to make us feel more secure, and to make potential criminals think twice, was not up to the job. If there was ever true, it is certainly not the case now. ” In his opinion, the cameras invade and destroy privacy instead of ensuring safety.

The author’s opinion is in accordance with the opinion of Andrew Rennison, who i