There Watching

The United States Federal Government has been collecting a plethora of information about their citizens. They can track where we eat to what we spend our money on. Getting this information would be illegal if the Federal Government conducted these investigations. This is because the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution protects all U.S citizens from the Federal Government eavesdropping or electronic surveillance, however, there lie a loophole.  The U.S Feds can purchase or obtain information about their citizens through third party companies. Facebook, Google, and Microsoft are a few examples of companies that sell information about their customers to the United States Government.

      After the horrific acts that took place on 9/11, the citizens of the U.S were scared. During this time frame, the United States Government passed the “USA Patriot Act.” This bill gave the FBI the ability to send National Security Letters. These letters are sent out to companies inside the United States and request intelligence, such as personal information about their customers. This is the loophole that the federal government uses to obtain a huge amount of data on the citizens of the United States.

 The United States government does not have the right to spy on their citizens, and should not have the right to purchase this information from a third party company. The idea of buying information is almost as worse than the United States conducting their own surveillance. This encourages major corporations to compete to collect the most information. Corporations will do anything that will earn them money, or anything that will help their relationship with the United States Government. The United States loves to buy the information and the corporations love to sell it. The group that is losing out is the consumers. Programs like Siri and Cortana are prime examples of programs that will take your personal information and store it to a database.

The United States Government is using the “USA Patriot Act” to violate our fourth amendment rights. The future is scary in this subject, with private companies being able to film anyone in public; it could lead to constant surveillance in public areas.  This would be a world where everything you do or say will and can be tracked. The only way to prevent this future of happening is to vote for candidates that are against public surveillance.

Sources:

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/04/do-you-want-the-government-buying-your-data-from-corporations/275431/

http://www.alternet.org/story/155628/america%27s_spy_state%3A_how_the_telecoms_sell_out_your_privacy

https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters

Is Sweden Doing it Right?

America is known as the free country and one of the main freedoms is that American citizens have been the right to bear arms. Every state has their interpretation of this amendment. With liberal states like California having very strict gun laws and very conservative states like Texas having but a few gun regulations. 

With the increase in public shootings in the past years, it’s causing more people to question if we should have more gun laws. This is causing the country to be split into two, with one side wanting more gun control laws and the other side interested in maintaining gun freedom.

So will more gun regulations lower the violent crime rate? This is the question everyone is asking. There is research supporting both sides. People who are in favor of gun control look at the Northern European countries like Sweden and Finland and so how they handle guns. These countries are regarded as some of the safest places in the world. The Bureau of diplomatic security  reports that  “The homicide rate in 2014 remained unchanged from the rate in 2013 with 87 cases reported both years. This was up from 68 cases reported in 2013.” (source.) With only 87 homicide reports, a year and Sweden having about 9.59 million citizens, it goes to show how safe the country is.

Obtaining a gun legally in Sweden is a difficult task. With the only way to get a handgun is to participate in a gun club for six months. Getting a rifle requires an individual to pass a gun and hunting test. This is almost the polar opposite than how it is in the United States. To be honest, these kinds of regulations would not sit well with the American people. Many Americans have a huge passion for guns and would not stand for any gun rights being taken away from them.

After taking a look at countries like Sweden, Finland, and Norway, it’s easy to notice how a couple smart laws can help prevent crime. These countries show a good example and countries like American need to how they succeeded in lowering their crime rate.

Sources:

1.       http://www.sweden.org.za/gun-laws-in-sweden.html

2.       https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats

3.       http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/

The Death Sentence

    The death penalty is a tricky topic to talk about and this ad is not changing that notion. Benetton an Italian clothing company released this ad as well with 26 other ads with different inmates that are on death row. This caused Sears to cancel their contract with Benetton and a lot of negative publicity.

     The most capturing part of this ad is the inmate just looking at you dead in the eye. This connects to you on a more personal level and raises the question on how did he get there. It also makes someone think why is he waiting to die and I’m just living my normal everyday life. This is what Benetton exactly wants you to think, they want you to ponder about the reality of the death sentence. With bold, black words saying, “SENTENCED TO DEATH” it really hits home about the brutality of the death sentence. The font used helps the viewer see how simple the punishment is, none of that life in prison with or without chance of parole but just death. In the bottom right corner of the ad, there is the inmate’s name, birthdate, crime, and sentence.  This is another way for the viewers to get a more personal connection with the convict, and maybe you even share a birthdate.  Benetton puts its full companies name on the right side of the ad, in white font and accompanied by a green background. This is to make sure that you notice and can read the companies name, because why would they make these ads if their name was not on it. The contrast of this picture makes the background really dark, and dull. This is to make your eyes go to the inmates face and look directly into those eyes.   Benetton does a good job in making an effective ad that will make everyday people question the fundamental principles of the death penalty.

Do Fries Kill?

Context: This is an advertisement released by the American Heart Association titled “How deadly is your diet?”
    The American Heart Association created this ad with the purpose to raise awareness but not to point fingers.  The first thing I notice was the red french fry container because the bright red really pops out compared to the background. This container is representing McDonalds due to the fact that the color and shape mockingly resembles’ the fast food chain’s fry container. Based off that idea many people would say that this ad is directly attacking McDonalds, I would say that there is more to it. McDonalds is the epitome of fast food, and when some company or individual wants to represent the fast food industry as a whole they use MacDonald’s to represent it. That is why I see the fry container as a symbol to represent the fast food industry and not a direct attack on McDonalds. The second thing that catches my attention is the bullets and how new and shiny they look. This makes me feel that the bullets were just prepared and are ready to be served to the next customer. These bullets main purpose though is to represent French fries, and how harmful fast food is to your body; which is the core concept of this ad. The AHA is trying to make you question what you are eating. This message is made even more evident with the quote on the bottom left saying “How deadly is your diet?” When I first read that, it made me think about my diet and what kind of food I put into my body. Surprisingly my initial reaction was to not blame the fast food companies and to think about all the problems their food causes. This is because the ad uses the word “your” and it really shows that you are the one that decides what food you eat. The contrast definitely plays a big part in the ad. The bright red and the shiny bullets make the middle the first place you look. The background is white and brown which emphasizes the fry container and bullets even more. Overall I see this ad is effective on making an everyday person question what they eat.