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 is Britain’s first surveillance Commissioner. This establishes ethos and improves the quality of his arguments. In the main part of the article, the effectiveness of Big Brother technology is identified. Thus the author’s position is made even more explicit: “thanks to the State’s extensive collection of personal information, you can go along a crowded street and the camera could home in on you, zooms up, forwards and backward, keep track of you.” A female figure from BBC news clip is in accordance with John Kampfner, an opponent of CCTV cameras. It is clear from the following quote: “cameras don’t fix the human behavior. The monitor just it. ”

At one point in the text, it appears that the author has a positive approach to the advanced technology, “even if the camera does not prevent crime, his pictures helped police find the two boys, who later was convicted of murder.” With the author’s recognition of the oppositely directed point is appealing to credibility strengthened. In addition, his ability to treat the subject fairly established. The quoted passage is followed by a personal anecdote. This tells a criminal offense, that made him even more uncertain about the purpose of investing millions of pounds in security cameras. By including an own experience is pathos brought into action. Pathetic appeal puts the audience in a suitable atmosphere to cope with their feelings on the subject. It can be assumed that John Kampfner has written the article with the aim to persuade readers to confirm their exciting feel about close monitoring. The appliance of different appeal forms, quotes, and references to experts contribute to a compelling argument. It is also conceivable that the author wants to create political awareness, so that mass surveillance can be controlled in an appropriate manner.