“Everyone Is Watching You”: a Rhetorical Analysis

“Everyone Is Watching You”: A Rhetorical Analysis Everyone, including inanimate objects is watching you! In the 1998 essay “Everyone Is Watching You,” Nadine Strossen argues that “citizens are increasingly forfeiting their privacy whenever they venture out of their homes- or even for that matter, while we are at home” (Strossen 126). Surveillance cameras aren’t an invasion of my privacy as long as they work to my benefit for safety purposes only. Wanting safety and security does not mean that you are necessarily giving up your privacy. Take for example, the Barbara Katende story in the New York Times. She noticed a camera stationed on a rooftop about 200 yards from her sixth-floor apartment window. This was a rooftop she had seen, but never considered or paid attention to, each time she walked near her window in undergarments or bare. Ms. Katende was in the safety and privacy of her own home. Does this mean that since she walked before her sixth-floor window half naked she was giving up her privacy? No, maybe not the best decision, but she was in her own home. Although I partially agree with Strossen she should have chosen a better example to support her argument. The camera she spotted was said to be so advanced that it could zoom in on just about anything or anyone and could rotate in any direction. To further elaborate on advanced cameras, CNN commented on the “new, chilling, face recognition technology.” With this new technology, it is possible to instantaneously identify people who are caught on camera through facial images that are in government databases. CNN stated that face recognition technology is “a wonderful way for government to spy on its citizens who went to the antigovernment rally” (Strossen 127). CNN could have used a better choice of words rather than “to spy on,” for the simple fact that it’s invading the privacy of the people rather than protecting them. This statement alone could help strengthen Strossen’s weak argument. However,