For all people who are living in America, you know at least some information about the Great Depression. The period that made our country went crazy after the rash of stock market. From that day, America improved and changed a lot to be one of the top richest country; however, when we are all live in a strong country, and never stop expanding every day, do we really live under the protective of government or we are being watch by them? For the answer, there are one person and a group of people started writing an article to suppose whether we are living in a safe country or we are being watch without privacy, Wendy Kaminer and The Economist group. In the article, “Trading Liberty for Illusions” (2002) by Wendy Kaminer who is a lawyer and a social
…show more content…
She also gave her readers some of the background that came from the history, and the information about the error that came from the security systems (Kaminer 337-338). In the Economist’s article, “If Looks Could Kill” (2010), the article published in England where is the magazine located. In their article, they argue that whether people live under the using of advance surveillance systems will be great for their life or will be worse for their life, and they bring up so many beliefs that come from expert for the future improvement advance system. In their article, they also gave some points how the outside come can impact the failing of systems (The Economist 400-402). In this comparative essay, I will contrast the two articles how Kaminer point out the failing of surveillance system, while the Economist seem to agree with the improvement of the system in the future and ignore the error from the system. Moreover, I will talk about the similarity between two articles when they are both state the failing of security systems, and later on I’ll discus how the different way of each author use their evidences to convince their readers’ …show more content…
People are all believe in the liberty came from the policy even though the liberty was just a mystery by their government, while they ignored to improve the security system (337-338). According to Kaminer’s article, she states that “… [The facial-recognition system] never identified even a single individual contained in the department’s database of photographs… [The facial-recognition system] made many false positives, including such errors as confusing what were to a human easily identifiable male and female images.” (338). Which mean that when the systems began to apply in human’s life, they gave some opposite results. Before polices used the facial-recognition system in the streets, the promise of the system would be able to recognize the criminal, and whether if that person is male or female; however, there are a failing of it, when it could not give the right results as the promise, it gave the error that it could not determine the gender, and the criminal. In the other hand, the Economist gave different point by giving readers examples that came from experts whose had experiences by working with the surveillance system and how did they say about it. According to the Economist’s article, they gave a name of an expert
She also gave her readers some of the background that came from the history, and the information about the error that came from the security systems (Kaminer 337-338). In the Economist’s article, “If Looks Could Kill” (2010), the article published in England where is the magazine located. In their article, they argue that whether people live under the using of advance surveillance systems will be great for their life or will be worse for their life, and they bring up so many beliefs that come from expert for the future improvement advance system. In their article, they also gave some points how the outside come can impact the failing of systems (The Economist 400-402). In this comparative essay, I will contrast the two articles how Kaminer point out the failing of surveillance system, while the Economist seem to agree with the improvement of the system in the future and ignore the error from the system. Moreover, I will talk about the similarity between two articles when they are both state the failing of security systems, and later on I’ll discus how the different way of each author use their evidences to convince their readers’ …show more content…
People are all believe in the liberty came from the policy even though the liberty was just a mystery by their government, while they ignored to improve the security system (337-338). According to Kaminer’s article, she states that “… [The facial-recognition system] never identified even a single individual contained in the department’s database of photographs… [The facial-recognition system] made many false positives, including such errors as confusing what were to a human easily identifiable male and female images.” (338). Which mean that when the systems began to apply in human’s life, they gave some opposite results. Before polices used the facial-recognition system in the streets, the promise of the system would be able to recognize the criminal, and whether if that person is male or female; however, there are a failing of it, when it could not give the right results as the promise, it gave the error that it could not determine the gender, and the criminal. In the other hand, the Economist gave different point by giving readers examples that came from experts whose had experiences by working with the surveillance system and how did they say about it. According to the Economist’s article, they gave a name of an expert