broader perspectives 2013 08 compre answers

8/11/2019 Broader Perspectives 2013 08 Compre Answers

1/10


2/10


3/10

COMPREHENSION2013 BROADER PERSPECTIVES The America Issue

But there is another kind of potential abuse that is more likely to happen. This is when liberties

of a certain section of the population may be compromised more than others. Take the mostprominent example of such potential abuse: proling, which is implicit in the very notion of

systematic surveillance. Analysing massive amounts of data requires the choice of factors thatwill ag certain behavioural patterns for greater scrutiny, and particular individuals for further

investigation. Historically, proling has meant the use of ethnicity as a key factor in determiningwhether to deploy investigative resources against a particular group or individual. Proling raiseslegitimate concerns about explicit or implicit racism and other forms of bigotry, such as when

African-American men are more frequently stopped by US trafc police for random searches.Though it has barely been mentioned in the current furore over surveillance, proling shouldbe front and centre of the debate - and shows how a search for balance can be misleading.Proling is clearly a part of the investigative method currently used by police and intelligence

ofcers. The debate often sets the civil liberties of the proled group against the security interestsof the population as a whole. This is sometimes presented in hyperbolic terms, such as that the

choice is between proling and lost lives.

A better analysis is that the use of ethnicity or religion as a basis for proling imposes a coston innocent members of the targeted group. It might be preferable to distribute that cost moreequitably, perhaps by excluding the factor perceived as relevant but offensive, and increasing the

scrutiny of the population as a whole. This is where the balance metaphor - that gains for libertynecessarily entail a loss of security and vice versa - leads to bad policies. For it obscures the factthat liberty may in fact contribute to security. In the case of proling, for example, pre-selecting all

young men of a particular faith or ethnicity might well offend public sensitivities. But it may alsoexacerbate the problem that it is intended to solve. During the Bush administration, reference toa global war on terror - a term now rightly abandoned - falsely implied that groups with diverse

aims and widely varied capacities were in fact part of a worldwide conspiracy pitted against theUS. Similarly, putting all individuals of one ethnicity or religion in a category labelled dangerousmay in fact undermine identication with the larger community and encourage radicalisation.

As systematic surveillance and the capacity for data retention and analysis expand, an alternativeto proling may emerge. Rather than targeting a specic group for closer examination, it may bepossible to gather information on the entire population in such depth that human intervention -with the subjectivity and potential for bias that this brings - is signicantly reduced. Bias may still

affect the manner in which data is organised and analysis prioritised, but it should at least be moreevident than the personal choices of individual analysts. It will leave a trail - and the possibility ofaccountability.

Mr Edward Shils, a sociologist writing soon after the McCarthy hearings had shaken the US halfa century ago, argued that liberal democracy depended on protecting privacy for individualsand denying it to government. The following decades have seen precisely the opposite happen:

Individual privacy has been eviscerated while governments have become ever more secretive.This trend increased under the Bush administration after Sept 11 and, if anything, has acceleratedunder President Barack Obama. In such an environment, it seems naive to seek a balance

between liberty and security. Far better to be clear about who has access to the data that isalready being collected, and to have a little transparency for the coming debate about how thisdata is to be used.

4

5

6

7

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Adapted from simonchesterman.com/blog/2013/06/19/surveillance-society,

for the purposes of the A level General Paper


4/10

PERSONAL LIBERTY AND COLLECTIVE SECURITY IN 21ST CENTURY MODERN SOCIETIES2013 BROADER PERSPECTIVES The America Issue

Comprehension Questions

1 Why is the metaphor in line 2 an attractive way to view the current debate? [1]

2 Why are the words us and them (lines 16) in inverted commas? [2]

3 Why are the days of surveillance limited to individual targeting of known terrorist agents long

gone (line 17)? [1]

4 Why does the author use a rhetorical question in line 26-27? [1]


5/10


5 Explain what the author means by fair game (line 31)? [1]

6 How is proling implicit (line 41) in systematic surveillance? [2]

7 Proling should be front and centre of the debate (line 48-49).

Explain what the author means by front and centre (line 48-49) and why the phrase is being

used here. [2]

8 How does the author propose to distribute the cost of proling more equitably (line 56)?

Use your own words as far as possible. [2]


6/10


9 What is this alternative to proling (line 66-67)? Use your own words as far as possible. [3]

10 What does the phrase it should at least be in line 70 tell you about the authors claims

regarding the alternative to proling? [2]

11 Summarise the challenges of trying to ensure security in a country. [8]

Using material from paragraph 2-4, write your summary in no morethan 120 words, not counting the

opening words which are given below. Use your own words as far as possible.

Ensuring security in a country has become more challenging because

13 In the nal paragraph, Chesterman writes that In such an environment, it seems naive to

seek a balance between liberty and security. (line 78-79) How far do you agree with his

assessment? How much would you be willing to give up to be safe? In giving your views,

explain where and why you agree or disagree with the author. [10]


7/10


Comprehension Answers

1 Why is the metaphor in line 2 an attractive way to view the current debate? [1]

It is an attractive way to view the current debate because it offers a convenient method (1/2) to frameliberty and security in a zero-sum game / it necessitates the decrease of the former in order for an

increase in the latter and vice versa (1/2).

Or any other plausible answer.

2 Why are the words us and them (lines 16) in inverted commas? [2]

The words are placed in inverted commas rstly to express the conventional perspective (1/2) that

excludes those who are different and who are thus seen as threatening (1/2) as opposed to those who

are familiar and hence included in the community (1/2), whilst also highlighting the authors suggestion

that such distinctions are false/simplistic/inaccurate (1/2).

3 Why are the days of surveillance limited to individual targeting of known terrorist agents long

gone (line 17)? [1]

Times have changed quite radically from the past (1/2) in that the governments can no longer be

certain who the terrorists are as they can also emerge from within the community (1/2).

4 Why does the author use a rhetorical question in line 26-27? [1]

He uses the rhetorical question to suggest that since we do allow our information to be collected

by our devices to begin with (1/2), that it only makes sense to allow the agents trying to protect our

welfare and security to access that same information (1/2).

Or any other plausible answer

5 Explain what the author means by fair game (line 31)? [1]

The author means that non-US citizens and those outside the US are considered a reasonable target

(1/2) for no-holds-barred surveillance (1/2).

6 How is proling implicit (line 41) in systematic surveillance? [2] Systematic surveillance involves breaking down an immense volume of information (1/2) which in

turn necessitates the selection of certain elements/components (1/2) that will result in proling, the

highlighting of certain persons (1/2) for greater scrutiny (1/2), and hence proling will inevitably be

implicit in systematic surveillance.


8/10


7 Proling should be front and centre of the debate (line 48-49).

Explain what the author means by front and centre (line 48-49) and why the phrase is being

used here. [2]

The author means that proling should be the rst thing to be studied/given attention (1/2), and kept

as the main focus (1/2) of the debate as a closer study of it will reveal (1/2) the futility of our search for

balance (1/2) between privacy and security/surveillance.

8 How does the author propose to distribute the cost of proling more equitably (line 56)?

Use your own words as far as possible. [2]

Line Lifted Paraphrased

55-57 It might be preferable to distribute that cost

more equitably, perhaps by excluding

the factor perceived as relevant but

offensive, and increasing the scrutinyof the population as a whole.

One can achieve that by omitting

the component (1/2) regarded as

pertinent but disrespectful (1/2) to

peoples sensibilities, and stepping upsurveillance (1/2) of all the citizens of the

entire country (1/2).

9 What is this alternative to proling (line 66-67)? Use your own words as far as possible. [3]


67-69 Rather than targeting a specic group

for closer examination, it may be

possible to gather information on the

entire population in such depth that

human intervention- with the subjectivity

and potential for bias that this brings - is

signicantly reduced.

This alternative to profling means rather

than singling out (1/2) a certain group

(1/2) for more intense scrutiny (1/2), one

could collect data on all the citizens in

a country (1/2) in such great detail (1/2)

so that interference and prejudice by

humans is enormously curtailed (1/2).

10 What does the phrase it should at least be in line 70 tell you about the authors claims

regarding the alternative to proling? [2]

It tells us that the author is predicting/anticipating (1/2) that the alternative to proling will at the

minimum (1/2) provide clarity (1/2) about individual analysts bias in the organization and analysis of

data (1/2).

11 Summarise the challenges of trying to ensure security in a country. [8]

Using material from paragraph 2-4, write your summary in no morethan 120 words, not counting the

opening words which are given below. Use your own words as far as possible.

Ensuring security in a country has become more challenging because


9/10



13-20 From para 2:

.since Sept 11, 2001 that the main threat

of politically motivated violence today

comes not from an outside aggressor

state, but from a terrorist operating within

our borders.

From para 2:

Terrorism today originates not from external

states, but from within.

Yet the days of surveillance limited to

individual targeting of known terrorist

agents are long gone.

Hence, scrutinising identied single

terrorists no longer works,

When security agencies no longer know

who they are, it is far more rational to

gather data on everyone

And governments need instead to

monitor everyone.

21-23 From para 3:

In the past, liberty was protected by

reducing the acquisition of data,

From para 3:

Previously, liberty was protected by

collecting less information,

limiting its retention, and constraining

its dissemination.

curbing the keeping of information, and

controlling its distribution.

Given the proliferation of data and However, these limitationsno longer apply

due to the rapid increase of information,

the speed and ease of retaining,

retrieving and sending information,

these constraints are no longer

workable.

and how fast and simple it is to keep,

nd and transmit them.

25-26 In part this is because our technology

has far outpaced our laws.

This is caused by our laws inability to

keep up with our technology.

39-42 From para 4:

This is when liberties of a certain section

of the population may be compromised

more than others.

From para 4:

Ensuring security inevitably involves

proling, which infringes the freedom

Take the most prominent example of

such potential abuse: proling, which is

implicit in the very notion of systematic

surveillance.

of a particular segment of citizens more

than the rest.

51-53 The debate often sets the civil liberties

of the proled group against the

security interests of the population as a

whole.

It is also problematic that people tend to

view personal rights of the segment

This is sometimes presented in hyperbolic

terms, such as that the choice is betweenproling and lost lives.

as detrimental to the safety of the rest.

(120 Words) Award full marks for 8-11 key phrases.


10/10


13 In the nal paragraph, Chesterman writes that In such an environment, it seems naive to

seek a balance between liberty and security. (line 78-79) How far do you agree with his

assessment? How much would you be willing to give up to be safe? In giving your views,

explain where and why you agree or disagree with the author. [10]

This passage is about the authors views on how the debate concerning personal liberty and collective

security in 21st century modern societies is wrongly framed as a balancing game of liberty and

security. He argues that we have long lost liberty and privacy over our data, and that we should

instead focus on how data about us is being used by those in authorities, and ensure that there is no

abuse in the process. In particular, he highlighted proling as a problem of greater signicance that

bears greater attention over the perceived problem of our data being used at all.

Key arguments/threads of thoughts that students can consider are:

a) Should we revisit the issue of whether the government can be given such broad and easy accessto information on the pretext of national security whenever it needs to? How stringent should the

guidelines be to oversee how such information is being accessed?

b) How convincing is Chestermans argument that labeling a certain ethnicity or religion in a category

as dangerous may in fact undermine identication with the larger community and encourage

radicalisation? Evaluate the issues pertaining to proling.

c) Although Chesterman has made a strong case for the collection of citizens data when he set the

issue against proling, are these arguments still tenable when one evaluates them in the larger contextof the principles of a liberal democracy, which is supposedly based on protecting privacy for individuals

and denying it to the government?

d) What is unique or different about the Singapore context that makes personal liberty easier to give

up in order to obtain security? Perhaps Singaporean citizens understanding and appreciation of

individual civil rights and liberties as well as penchant for stability and safety vary signicantly from

Western ideals?

e) How important do Singaporeans regard security and its ramications for our context? Are the

challenges or difculties highlighted intensied or heightened by Singapores context of porous

borders?

broader perspectives 2013 08 compre answers

Documents