Societies have searched measures in order to ensure security for its people such as the military

force and fenches. Nowadays, the use of cameras for surveillance is an increasing trend to
achieve that goal. As this regard, some people states that such use is inocuos for well-behaved
people just because they do not have anything to hide since they obey the law. I agree that these
sort of people should not be concerned in relation to cameras filming their acts.

One argument put forward in favor of the use of cameras for survillance is that it has brought
advantages to people who demonstrate good behaviour. For instance, the Chinese government
does not only use cameras to keep secure the streets but also uses facial recognition gadgets
(configured in those cameras) to reward people that obey the law. If a citizen does never cross
a red light, he or she will obtain a discount in supermakets, and if a driver does never block a
crossline, he or she will have access to cheaper loans. Consequently, Chinese citizens make
efforts to have exceptional records. Indeed, camera surveillance fosters that citizens show the
best of themselves, so it strikes me that people have anything to be worried about this measure.

A second argument is that cameras will film every act so crimes commited by delinquents will
be recorded, which turns into more evidence and more possibilities to obtain justice in a trial.
For instance, nowadays in my country exist many kidnappings especially of young women adn
no evidence against the criminals is found; if governments implemented cameras along all the
streets, the police would easily identify such criminals and would put them quickly in jail.
´People with good behavior are often victimized, so they might feel secure walking on the streets
rather than feel that the cameras affect their privacy.

However, some people think that surveillance by cameras would be taken is a way to monitor
people who do not agree with the measures implemented by their governments, rather than as
a tool for security. For instance, it is well known that some military governments used to follow
their detractors in order to find some obscure details about their lives so that governments could
extort them. As I mentioned above, meanwhile those detractors commit crimes and pose a
threat to the security of the country, surveillance with cameras in public places should not worry
well-behaved people.

In conclusión, even though some people think that surveillance using cameras is just a way for
governments to control the population, I believe that people with good behavior should not
beconcerned about it given that this kind of measure enables them to be rewarded with benefits
and also to identify the criminals.
In the editorial of the local newspaper, the autor states that the reduction in the public
educational budget at Citrus City will affect its appeal as a good place to live, and therefore
the value of houses. The author has come to this conclusion based on the idea that if potential
families moving see a good educational system on such city, they will move at the end, which
will turn in an increase in the price of the properties. However, before this argument can be
properly evaluated, there exist come assumptions to be discussed.

Firstly, the increase in the number of families living in Citrus City does not necessarily mean a
constant value of houses. Perhaps, the families moving are low-income ones that receive
social aids from the goverment, so this will not have a rising effect on the value. Another
possibility is that the existance of families will decline the price of houses, regarding that Citrus
City might be well-kown as a business city (where kids are barely present), so replacing
childless business men and women by families might cause lower profits in the city, leading to
a lower attraction to stay. If either of these sceneries has merit, the conclusion drawn is
significantly weakened.

Secondly, even though the reduction in the public education budget, the whole education
system might not be completely affected. Perhaps, Citrus City has the strongest private
education system in the country, so families with higher incomes look forward to moving to
such City in order that their kids receive the best private education. Furthermore, public
schools might be suffering of lack of students, considering that a significant part of the
househols are childless. So, reducing the funds allocated to public education might be a
measure to fit the budget to the reality. If either of these sceneries is true, then the conclusion
would hold wáter.

In summary, the conclusion in the way it is set up is considerably flawed due to its reliance on
several unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to strengthen those assupmtions by
presenting evidence that the increase in the number of families keeps the priceof the property
kte, and that the public education is significant for the city, then conclusion might be properly
evaluated.