Question 1: Alang’s use of the telephone sets a precedent on how the Canadian legal institution should react to emerging video surveillance on modern smart phones. On pg. 48, precedents have two compenents: to link and show that the current situation is similar to that of the precents, to convince that reader that the precedent will be beneficial. Alang uses this precedent of telephones affectively as he highlights the problems that arose since it’s creation and the reaction of society as a whole to set new rules based upon it. Moreover, by linking how video surveilance is equally similar and important, he was able to better strengthen his argument.
Question 2: Alang’s argument was well layed out as it appealed to both logic and ethics. In terms of logic, he answered the important questions of what is the problem, why is it important and what has society done in the past for similar situations and what should we then do now. By systematically answering these questions, his argument was clear and convincing. As per ethics, he linked every example to everyday human encounters with the technologies he mentioned so that the legal implications of them would come easily to people once they realize how often they excercise the same norms. In other words, to put themselves into Big Brother’s shoes as well.