Page 1 / 5 ÉVALUATIONS COMMUNES CLASSE : Terminale EC : ☐ EC1 ☐ EC2 ☒ EC3 VOIE

Page 1 / 5 ÉVALUATIONS COMMUNES CLASSE : Terminale EC : ☐ EC1 ☐ EC2 ☒ EC3 VOIE : ☐ Générale ☐ Technologique ☒ Toutes voies (LV) ENSEIGNEMENT : ANGLAIS DURÉE DE L’ÉVALUATION : 1h30 Niveaux visés (LV) : LVA B2 LVB B1 CALCULATRICE AUTORISÉE : ☐Oui ☒ Non DICTIONNAIRE AUTORISÉ : ☐Oui ☒ Non ☐ Ce sujet contient des parties à rendre par le candidat avec sa copie. De ce fait, il ne peut être dupliqué et doit être imprimé pour chaque candidat afin d’assurer ensuite sa bonne numérisation. ☐ Ce sujet intègre des éléments en couleur. S’il est choisi par l’équipe pédagogique, il est nécessaire que chaque élève dispose d’une impression en couleur. ☒ Ce sujet contient des pièces jointes de type audio ou vidéo qu’il faudra télécharger et jouer le jour de l’épreuve. Nombre total de pages : 5 CTCANGL06540 CTCANGL06540 Page 2 / 5 ANGLAIS – ÉVALUATION 3 Compréhension de l’oral, de l’écrit et expression écrite L’ensemble du sujet porte sur l’axe 2 du programme : Espace privé et espace public. Il s’organise en trois parties : 1. Compréhension de l’oral 2. Compréhension de l’écrit 3. Expression écrite Afin de respecter l’anonymat de votre copie, vous ne devez pas signer votre composition, ni citer votre nom, celui d’un camarade ou celui de votre établissement. Vous disposez tout d’abord de cinq minutes pour prendre connaissance de la composition de l’ensemble du dossier et des consignes qui vous sont données. Vous allez entendre trois fois le document de la partie 1 (compréhension de l’oral). Les écoutes seront espacées d’une minute. Vous pouvez prendre des notes pendant les écoutes. À l’issue de la troisième écoute, vous organiserez votre temps (1h30) comme vous le souhaitez pour rendre compte en français du document oral et pour traiter en anglais la compréhension de l’écrit (partie 2) et le sujet d’expression écrite (partie 3). Les documents Document vidéo Titre : Is Big Brother watching you ? (extract) Source : BBC Click, 13 May 2019 CTCANGL06540 CTCANGL06540 Page 3 / 5 Texte How London became a test case for using facial recognition in democracies The police hope the software can solve and prevent crime, but can citizens ever give their consent? On the last day of January, few of the shoppers and office workers who hurried through Romford town centre in east London, scarves pulled tight against the chill, realised they were guinea pigs in a police experiment. 5 The officers sitting inside a parked van nearby were watching them on screens, using a new technology that the police hope will radically reduce crime in London — live facial recognition. Cameras stationed near Romford train station picked up every face walking past, and matched it to a police watchlist of wanted criminals. Successful matches would result in immediate arrest. 10 For all the potential to fight crime, however, the trial quickly stumbled into the thorny issues that surround the technology. A bearded man in a blue baseball cap approached the surveilled area, with his grey jumper pulled up to cover his face. He had just been informed by a bystander that the police were testing facial recognition in the area and did not want to participate. The police demanded that he comply and 15 scanned his face with a facial recognition tool on a mobile phone. Although his face did not match that of any known criminals, a verbal altercation ensued, which resulted in the man being fined £90 for telling an officer to “piss off”. The entire incident was caught on camera by journalists. “The fact that he’s walked past clearly masking his face from recognition. It gives us 20 grounds to stop him,” an officer says, defending his actions. “People shouldn’t oppose this experiment, it’s an act of protection!” The incident — one of four arrests of people avoiding the cameras in Romford that day — is one of the reasons that live facial recognition is causing such acute concern among observers and civil rights activists. Given that the technology is such an overt 25 form of surveillance, many believe that explicit consent of citizens is fundamental — something the Romford man never gave. “When people get stopped and searched in the street, or fined for avoiding cameras, when they don’t consent to being observed by cameras, that is a problem,” says CTCANGL06540 CTCANGL06540 Page 4 / 5 Peter Fussey, a criminologist at the University of Essex who was present in Romford, 30 as an independent police-appointed monitor. “The most important thing in research ethics, above all else is . . . to be absolutely sure people consent to being part of that research . . . Yet what happened in these trials is that if people did not engage with it, police would intervene, stop them and search them.” London is now at the forefront of a battle over the use of facial recognition by the 35 authorities that is escalating across many democratic countries. As the technology has become commercially available in recent years, via companies like Apple and Facebook, the biggest uptake has been in countries with authoritarian political systems — most notably in China, which uses facial recognition as part of its extensive and highly intrusive surveillance of Muslim Uighurs in Xinjiang province 40 that has been denounced by human rights groups. As police departments in democratic countries begin to investigate the technology, London has become one of the main test grounds because of the large network of CCTV cameras that already operate in the city. The Romford operation was one of 10 such events around London carried out by the Met police over a period of three 45 years, including twice at Notting Hill Carnival. […] “We are not aware of anywhere live facial recognition is being used for general public surveillance, except in China,” says Silkie Carlo, executive director of Big Brother Watch, a civil rights campaign organisation […]. “It’s really alarming for Britain to go down this path and set this precedent not only for other democracies, but certainly for 50 less liberal states. It’s being used to track ethnic minorities in China, the possibilities are chilling.” Madhumita Murgia, Financial Times, August 1, 2019 CTCANGL06540 CTCANGL06540 Page 5 / 5 1. Compréhension de l’oral (10 points) Vous rendrez compte, en français, de ce que vous avez compris du document. 2. Compréhension de l’écrit (10 points) Give an account of the text, in English and in your own words, taking into consideration the main topic, the main device presented and how it works, the people involved and their reactions. After your account of the text, answer the following questions: a) Explain in your own words why “the bearded man in the blue baseball cap” (line 12) was fined. b) According to Peter Fussey, what is the condition for the system to work? 3. Expression écrite (10 points) Vous traiterez, en anglais et en 120 mots au moins, l’un des deux sujets suivants, au choix. Sujet A You are the mayor of a town. You want to implement public facial recognition. Write a speech to convince your citizens that it is essential to acquire this software. Sujet B Is observing a citizen an act of oppression or an act of protection? CTCANGL06540 CTCANGL06540 uploads/s3/ bac-21-ax-2-sujet199.pdf

  • 15
  • 0
  • 0
Afficher les détails des licences
Licence et utilisation
Gratuit pour un usage personnel Attribution requise
Partager