# data[].attributes.body
Le présent parfait (en anglais, "present perfect") est un temps verbal qui est couramment utilisé pour exprimer une action ou une situation qui a un lien avec le présent, généralement parce qu'elle a commencé dans le passé et continue à avoir une pertinence ou une influence sur le présent. Il se compose de l'auxiliaire "have/has" suivi du participe passé du verbe.

Voici des exemples d'utilisation du présent parfait à la voix active :

Active Voice - Action complétée : "I have finished my homework."
(J'ai terminé mes devoirs.)

Active Voice - Action récente : "She has just eaten lunch."
(Elle vient de déjeuner.)

Ces phrases peuvent être transformées à la voix passive, le sujet de ma phrase devient alors le complément d'agent.

Ex : The cat has eaten the mouse (VOIX ACTIVE : sujet le chat, COD = la souris)
VOIX PASSIVE : The mouse has been eaten by the cat (sujet : the mouse/ The cat devient alors "complément d'agent")

Voici des exemples d'utilisation courant du present perfect à la voix passive :

"The report has been submitted by the team."
(Le rapport a été soumis par l'équipe.)

"The cake has just been baked by the chef."
(Le gâteau vient d'être cuit par le chef.)

"Many books have been written on this topic."
(De nombreux livres ont été écrits sur ce sujet.)

Le choix de la voix active ou la voix passive dépend de ce sur quoi je veux mettre l'accent. = The cat has eaten the mouse = je mets l'accent sur le chat. The mouse has been eaten by the cat = je mets l'accent sur la souris.

# data[].attributes.body
What is Ring, and what is the video about?

Ring is a company that makes security products like cameras.
The video is about Ring's partnership with the police and privacy concerns.

What is the "Ring App"?

The "Ring" app lets people control their Ring cameras.
In the video, it's used for real-time video access and alerts from Ring devices.
What are the main worries about privacy in the video regarding Ring's partnership with the police, and who talks about these worries?

What are the main concerns raised by Andrew Ferguson ?

The main concern is that people's privacy and freedom might be at risk.
Andrew Ferguson, who wrote a book, mentions these concerns.

What does Jamie S. claim to defend the ueser's privacy ?

Ring says customers can decide if the police can see their videos.
Customers can say yes or no to police requests without the police knowing.

What is the "Neighbors App" ?

The "Neighbors App" sends crime alerts to users.
It's used with Ring to share real-time info about nearby incidents with the community.

What is the "Neighbors Portal"?

The "Neighbors' Portal" is a tool for police to request Ring videos from users.
Police use it with the "Neighbors App" to help with their investigations.
What concerns are mentioned by Andrew Ferguson in the video, and why are they troubling?

More on privacy concerns raised by privacy advocates ?

Andrew Ferguson talks about potential issues with targeting people in neighborhood apps.
These problems are concerning because they might lead to unnecessary police actions that affect people's freedom.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ring security system program with law enforcement raises privacy concerns

# data[].attributes.subject
Ring security system program with law enforcement raises privacy concerns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ring security system program with law enforcement raises privacy concerns

# data[].attributes.body
Ring Inc. is a smart home company owned by Amazon. Their products are motion-detecting cameras, including a video doorbell. The application that goes along with it, “Neighbors,” is a way of sharing footage that has been captured by the cameras to alert neighbors to any threats. This is also the app that law enforcement agencies can gain access to on request. This video created by CBS shows the varying opinions concerning this technology

# data[].attributes.body
Anchor: Word of a growing partnership between police and the popular doorbell company, Ring, is raising privacy concerns nationwide. Amazon-owned Ring sells low-cost home security systems. Ring said yesterday more than 400 law enforcement agencies use its neighborhood watch program, that gives police potential access to customer’s videos. Jamie Yuccas shows us how guarding your home could compromise your privacy. Video footage: Somebody’s there and they’re breaking into my house. Jamie Yuccas: Ring’s home surveillance cameras have captured crooks in the act. Video footage: “Hey man, don’t do it!” Jamie Yuccas: Everything from home break-ins to stolen packages. Ring commercial: You can stay informed with alerts from your community. Jamie Yuccas: Ring also offers the neighbor’s app, which lets customers know when and where a crime happens in their area. It works in conjunction with the so-called “neighbors’ portal” now used by some 400 law enforcement agencies to request customer video that might help their investigations. Ring’s CEO Jamie Siminoff. Jamie Siminoff: My goal would be to have every law enforcement agency on the police portal. That helps all communities to come together to make things safer. Andrew Ferguson: We’re gonna see a growing sense of people sort of becoming kind-of informants on our neighbors and our neighborhoods. J

# data[].attributes.body
Jamie Yuccas: Andrew Ferguson is author of The Rise of Big Data Policing. Andrew Ferguson: There’s obviously going to be potential problems with who gets targeted in those neighborhood apps and that can be very troubling because what can happen of course is that there could be a police response. And that could impact someone’s liberty, someone’s lives. Jamie Yuccas: Ring says its customers have complete control over their videos and can choose to give consent to a law enforcement request for access. Jamie Siminoff: The Ring customer will see a request come up, they can either accept the request or they can opt out of that request and all future requests and the police will never see if they have done that. Jamie Yuccas: But privacy advocates worry that customers might not always have the final say. Andrew Ferguson: Yes, we have a choice sometimes, but it’s very easy for police to get a search warrant for that same footage if they believe a crime has occurred. Jamie Siminoff: I can tell you we’ll always follow the laws, but we will always fight for our customers’ rights, their control and their privacy. Video footage: You know we got security cameras on this house, don’t you? Jamie Yuccas: For CBS morning Jamie Yuccas, Los Angeles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Privacy concerns over Ring doorbell cameras

# data[].attributes.body
May (Pouvoir): Quand nous utilisons "may," nous indiquons que quelque chose est possible, mais nous ne sommes pas totalement sûrs que cela se produira. C'est comme dire : "Il y a une chance." Par exemple, "It may rain tomorrow" signifie qu'il y a une possibilité de pluie, mais nous ne sommes pas certains.

Must (Devoir) : "Must" suggère un haut degré de certitude. Lorsque nous disons "must," nous sommes assez sûrs que quelque chose va se produire. C'est comme dire : "C'est presque certain." Par exemple, "She must be at home" signifie que nous sommes assez sûrs qu'elle est à la maison.

Could (Pouvoir) : "Could" indique que quelque chose est possible, mais qu'il existe également une possibilité que cela ne se produise pas. C'est comme dire : "C'est possible, mais ce n'est pas garanti." Par exemple, "He could pass the test" signifie qu'il a une chance de réussir, mais ce n'est pas certain.

Might (Pourrait) : "Might" est similaire à "could" et suggère également la possibilité, mais elle implique un peu moins de certitude. C'est comme dire : "Il y a une petite chance." Par exemple, "I might go to the party" signifie qu'il y a une petite chance que vous y participiez.

# data[].attributes.body
Voici un récapitulatif en français des types de phrases conditionnelles avec les exemples en anglais correspondants :

1. Zéro Conditionnel (Fait ou Vérité Générale) : Dans ce type de phrase, on utilise le présent de l'indicatif dans la clause « si » et dans la conséquence.

Exemple en anglais : "If you heat water to 100 degrees Celsius, it boils."

Exemple en français : "Si vous chauffez de l'eau à 100 degrés Celsius, elle bout."

2. Premier Conditionnel (Conditionnel Réel) : Dans ce type de phrase, on utilise généralement « will » ou « shall » dans la conséquence lorsque la clause « si » est au présent de l'indicatif.

Exemple en anglais : "If it rains tomorrow, I will stay at home."

Exemple en français : "Si il pleut demain, je resterai à la maison."

3. Deuxième Conditionnel (Conditionnel Hypothétique ou Iréel) : Dans ce type de phrase, on utilise généralement « would » ou « could » dans la conséquence lorsque la clause « si » est au passé simple.

Exemple en anglais : "If I won the lottery, I would buy a house."

Exemple en français : "Si je gagnais à la loterie, j'achèterais une maison."

4. Troisième Conditionnel (Conditionnel Passé ou Iréel dans le Passé) : Dans ce type de phrase, on utilise généralement « would have » suivi du participe passé dans la conséquence lorsque les deux clauses, « si » et conséquence, sont au plus-que-parfait.

Exemple en anglais : "If I had known, I would have come to the party."

Exemple en français : "Si j'avais su, je serais venu à la fête."

# data[].attributes.body
1. Zero Conditional (Factual or General Truth): In this type, you use the present simple tense in both the "if" clause and the result clause. For example: "If you heat water to 100 degrees Celsius, it boils."

2. First Conditional (Real Conditional): In this type, you typically use "will" or "shall" in the result clause when the "if" clause is in the present simple tense. For example: "If it rains tomorrow, I will stay at home."

3. Second Conditional (Unreal or Hypothetical Conditional): In this type, you typically use "would" or "could" in the result clause when the "if" clause is in the past simple tense. For example: "If I won the lottery, I would buy a house."

4. Third Conditional (Unreal Past Conditional): In this type, you typically use "would have" + past participle in the result clause when both the "if" clause and the result clause are in the past perfect or pluperfect tense. For example: "If I had known, I would have come to the party."

# data[].attributes.body
1. Zéro Conditionnel (Fait ou Vérité Générale) : Dans ce type de phrase, on utilise le présent de l'indicatif dans la clause « si » et dans la conséquence.

Exemple en anglais : "If you heat water to 100 degrees Celsius, it boils."

Exemple en français : "Si vous chauffez de l'eau à 100 degrés Celsius, elle bout."

2. Premier Conditionnel (Conditionnel Réel) : Dans ce type de phrase, on utilise généralement « will » ou « shall » dans la conséquence lorsque la clause « si » est au présent de l'indicatif.

Exemple en anglais : "If it rains tomorrow, I will stay at home."

Exemple en français : "Si il pleut demain, je resterai à la maison."

3. Deuxième Conditionnel (Conditionnel Hypothétique ou Iréel) : Dans ce type de phrase, on utilise généralement « would » ou « could » dans la conséquence lorsque la clause « si » est au passé simple.

Exemple en anglais : "If I won the lottery, I would buy a house."

Exemple en français : "Si je gagnais à la loterie, j'achèterais une maison."

4. Troisième Conditionnel (Conditionnel Passé ou Iréel dans le Passé) : Dans ce type de phrase, on utilise généralement « would have » suivi du participe passé dans la conséquence lorsque les deux clauses, « si » et conséquence, sont au plus-que-parfait.

Exemple en anglais : "If I had known, I would have come to the party."

Exemple en français : "Si j'avais su, je serais venu à la fête."

Donc, le choix entre « will » et « would » dépend du type spécifique de phrase conditionnelle que vous construisez et du temps utilisé dans la clause « si ».

# data[].attributes.body
How are new technologies helping to solve crime?

# data[].attributes.headline
REPONSES A LA GRILLE D'ANALYSE DE LA VIDEO INTERVIEW CBS 

# data[].attributes.subject
REPONSES A LA GRILLE D'ANALYSE DE LA VIDEO INTERVIEW CBS 

# data[].attributes.body
1. Who are the main participants in the debate?

In the CBS interview, the main participants are the two anchors (one man and one woman) and their guest, Nicholas Thompson, who is the editor in chief of Wired magazine.

2. What is the central topic of the debate?
The central topic of the debate is the use of technology in law enforcement, including the discussion of body cameras, facial recognition software, image analysis, tattoo recognition, and the use of drones by police departments. The interview explores the benefits, concerns, and ethical questions surrounding these technological advancements.

1. Where does the debate take place?
The debate takes place in a television studio, likely at a CBS studio where the anchors and guest are seated and discussing the topic on air. The show is called "CBS MORNING".

1. Why was the debate conducted? What is its purpose or message?

2. The debate was conducted to inform the audience, particularly the viewers of CBS, about the emerging technologies being used by police departments and the potential implications and ethical dilemmas associated with these technologies. Its purpose is to raise awareness and encourage discussion on the topic.

3. How is the information presented in the debate? Is Nicholas Thompson biased ?

As a tech-savvy, Nicholas Thompson's point of view could be considered as biased. Indeed, he highlights the technological advancements and their potential benefits, such as reducing violent interactions and enhancing public safety. This emphasis on the positive aspects of technology might be seen as a bias in favor of these advancements.

At the same time, he sounds like downplaying concerns regarding those new technologies. While Nicholas Thompson briefly mentions the ethical concerns and potential infringements on civil liberties, he does not delve deeply into these issues. This may be seen as downplaying the negative aspects of technology in law enforcement.

To conclude, the interview script doesn't include opposing viewpoints or counterarguments to provide a balanced perspective on the topic.

# data[].attributes.body
Who are the main participants in the debate?

What is the central topic of the debate?

Where does the debate take place?

When was the debate aired?

Why was the debate conducted? What is its purpose or message?

How is the information presented in the debate?

Describe any visuals used during the debate.

# data[].attributes.body
Image : Crime in the Digital Age ("One Nation Under CCTV"
VIDÉO : BEFORE CLASS! : CBS "High-Tech Crime-Fighting"
How has the iconic detective Sherlock Holmes adapted his investigative techniques ?

Doc1. Article /CE Sherlock and the smartphone : (Jimmy Stamp, smithsonianmag.com, 2012

How are new technologies being used by citizens and the police to solve crime?

DOC 1 Video/CO : Citizens fighting crime
Doc 2 : Article + image/CE : CCTV and facial recognition in the UK
Doc 3 : Article /CE Police in the USA use Google to find criminal (the NYTimes, 2019)
Doc 4 : Cartoon/EO : Apple vs the FBI

How can someone’s online personal data be used against them?

Doc 1 : Text/CE : The internet and police investigations

# data[].attributes.headline
CBS THIS MORNING : HIGH-TECH CRIME FIGHTING ?

# data[].attributes.subject
CBS THIS MORNING : HIGH-TECH CRIME FIGHTING ?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How police are using high tech to fight crime

# data[].attributes.body
Anchor #1: Technology has been transforming every aspect of society and that includes revolutionary new capabilities for police departments.
Anchor #2: From tattoo recognition technology to the growing use of drones, these hi-tech innovations are highlighted in the June edition of Wired magazine. Here to tell us about it, is their editor in chief, Nicholas Thompson. Nick, good morning.
Nicholas Thompson: Good morning.
Anchor #2: So, let’s start with the technology a lot of people are becoming more familiar with, that’s body cameras ("bodycams"). How good is that technology now and where do you see the future with that heading?
Nicholas Thompson: Well, the technology is good and it has been good at possibly reducing violent interactions between police and innocent people. What’s very interesting, and what will come next is facial recognition software embedded in body cameras. So, computers are getting much better at identifying faces, and you can imagine police will be able to just put it on, scan the streets and say, “oh, that’s a suspect! That’s someone I need to go talk to right now.”
Anchor #1: There are also now… I mean there are systems now to store all the images from being collected on body cams, is that right?
Nicholas Thompson: Right, so we’re much better not only at collecting lots of images but also analyzing them all, so you can imagine a sort of a mesh network of all of the images taken by all the policemen looking at them and looking at patterns and looking for people.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ring, privacy & the police : what you need to know

# data[].attributes.subject
Ring, privacy & the police : what you need to know

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ring, Privacy, and the Police | What You Need to Know about Amazon Ring

# data[].attributes.body
Anchor #2: And it’s not just faces, right?
Nicholas Thompson: Well, it’s also tattoos! And it’s all kinds of things, you can look for all kinds of patterns in images.
Anchor #1: The tattoo thing is interesting, why do I care about tattoos?
Nicholas Thompson: Well, because I mean, there are kind of signatures in tattoos, the tattoos can signify certain things perhaps a gang membership but remember all of this is tied into a big question. We have a 4th Amendment in this country against unreasonable searches and seizures. And we have that at the same time, we have this technology where we can gather massive amounts of new information and look for very specific things in it. So, there is going to be huge tension over this, as there is on tattoos. Is a tattoo a form of expression that should be exempt from all of this, or is it a signal that can be used to keep the public safe? That’s a really interesting and complicated debate that we’re heading right into.
Anchor #2: Yeah, well that is a really interesting question. Well, what about drones, we keep hearing more and more about this, is there this increasing concern about the number of eyes in the sky?
Nicholas Thompson: Yeah, so drones are going to be great for police departments. They’re starting to roll them out. Right, you can imagine tracking suspects, you can imagine helping in search and rescue, in hostage situations, you can also imagine flying a whole bunch of them above a crowd and either looking for a specific person or just looking at everybody and seeing who’s there. That could be great, it could help keep us safe. It could identify terrorists, it could prevent bad things from happening, or it could be Orwellian, and you know, unreasonable government searches.

# data[].attributes.body
OFFICIAL TEXT FROM THE U.S CONSTITUTION :

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

WHAT IS THE FOURTH AMENDMENT ?

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by the government. It requires that law enforcement officials have a valid warrant based on probable cause (a good reason) before they can search a person's property or belongings. The warrant must also specify the exact location to be searched and the items or individuals to be seized. This amendment ensures the protection of an individual's privacy and property rights, balancing them against the government's need to investigate and enforce the law.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When criminals are plotting, so are vigilant police departments. Officers are increasingly turning to software and predictive analytics to anticipate when and where misdeeds are likely to occur. But big data is just one component in a growing arsenal of high-tech policing tools. As agencies around the country push for faster, savvier law enforcement, they're looking more and more like the precrime unit in Minority Report.

The Louisville, Kentucky, police department recently unveiled a proposal to send self-guided drones to investigate alerts from gunshot-detecting sensors, transmitting video footage back to HQ. But privacy groups are perturbed by drone monitoring-already used elsewhere in searches and surveillance. In May, the International Association of Chiefs of Police technology conference included a seminar on "developing public approbation" for drones.

Researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology are developing tattoo recognition technology to identify persons of interest-and those sporting similar ink. Proponents say the FBI-supported program automates the process of analyzing tattoos for potential gang affiliations; privacy advocates argue it infringes on First Amendment rights.

Policing-tech giant Axon (manufacturer of Tasers) made an offer to US law enforcement agencies last spring: one year of free access to the company's body cameras and storage software. Axon then has access to the resulting data sets, which it could use to develop AI capabilities, such as automatically analyzing video to generate incident reports.

Cameras at intersections nationwide already upload images of vehicles and license plates to databases, allowing officers to monitor the movements of suspects and identify cars near crime scenes. ICE recently teamed up with a company called Vigilant Solutions, gaining access to its directory of more than 2 billion vehicles.

New York is the first state studying the "textalyzer," a device that reveals whether phone apps were being used and if messages were sent or received at the time of a car crash. The forensics firm behind the tech says it will tailor the software to local laws.

Software by Palantir can synthesize disparate data sets-social media feeds, federal crime databases, foreclosure lists-to create detailed profiles of people designed to enable faster crime fighting. The discovery of a years-long contract with the New Orleans PD in February revealed that Palantir's software has already been used to predict likely offenders.
This article appears in the June issue. Subscribe now.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Beyond big data, officers are increasingly turning to software and ­predictive analytics from companies like Palantir to anticipate when and where misdeeds are likely to occur.

# data[].attributes.headline
"HOW TO AVOID THOSE TOOLS TO TURN OUR SOCIETY INTO A ORWELLIAN NIGHTMARE?"

# data[].attributes.subject
"HOW TO AVOID THOSE TOOLS TO TURN OUR SOCIETY INTO A ORWELLIAN NIGHTMARE?"

# data[].attributes.body
To avoid these tools turning our society into an Orwellian nightmare, we must prioritize checks and balances. First and foremost, robust legislative measures are necessary to define the limits of surveillance technology use, ensuring it aligns with constitutional principles. Public awareness and engagement are equally vital; citizens should be informed about the extent and purpose of these technologies and be actively involved in the decision-making processes regarding their deployment. Independent oversight bodies should be established to scrutinize law enforcement practices, guaranteeing accountability and transparency. Moreover, continuous judicial review of cases involving these technologies can help set legal precedents and reinforce our constitutional rights. In essence, an informed and vigilant public, supported by a strong legal framework and oversight mechanisms, can prevent these tools from infringing upon our privacy and transforming our society into an Orwellian dystopia.

# data[].attributes.headline
HOW TO BALANCE HIGH-TECH INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES WITH THE 4TH AMENDMENT ? 

# data[].attributes.subject
HOW TO BALANCE HIGH-TECH INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES WITH THE 4TH AMENDMENT ? 

# data[].attributes.body
Balancing the Fourth Amendment with high-tech police investigation techniques is essential for protecting both individual rights and public safety. The Fourth Amendment guarantees our right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. To strike the right balance, law enforcement agencies should use technology responsibly and within legal boundaries. Drones, body cameras, predictive software like Palantir, and profiling can be valuable tools when used judiciously, respecting privacy and minimizing unwarranted intrusion. Transparency, strict oversight, and clear guidelines on when and how these tools can be used are crucial. Additionally, regular training for law enforcement officers to ensure that they respect constitutional limits is essential. This balance ensures that we can enjoy the benefits of advanced policing methods while safeguarding our civil liberties.

# data[].attributes.headline
CORRIGE COMPREHENSION ORALE TERMINALE : RING APP RAISES PRIVACY CONCERNS

# data[].attributes.subject
CORRIGE COMPREHENSION ORALE TERMINALE : RING APP RAISES PRIVACY CONCERNS

# data[].attributes.headline
EXPRIMER SON OPINION AUTREMENT QUE PAR "I THINK"

# data[].attributes.subject
EXPRIMER SON OPINION AUTREMENT QUE PAR "I THINK"

# data[].attributes.body
Here is a list of the simplest variants to "I think" "I think" "I think" :  USE THEM IN YOUR ESSAYS !

In my opinion,
In my view,
Personally,
To my mind,
To me,
From my perspective,
It seems (that),
It appears (that),
As I see it,