The Instigator
GJCorban
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bsh1
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Resolved: When in conflict, the right to Individual Privacy is more important than National Security

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
bsh1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/23/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,418 times Debate No: 78046
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

GJCorban

Con

I"d like to open up with a quote from Scott McNealy, who, quite elegantly, summed up the entire Negative philosophy in six words. *Clear Throat* "Privacy is dead, get over it." (http://moreintelligentlife.com...)
I know, shocking right? But Privacy wasn"t taken away from us by the Government or anything, as Charles Nevin says, "This is an age which happily invades its own privacy" (http://moreintelligentlife.com...)
You see, no one "stole" our Privacy... we surrendered it. But I"m getting ahead of myself, so let"s cover some other key bits of information what is important to this debate. First I"d like to present a Resolutional Analysis, or my opinion on how we should approach the resolution.

Debate Theory: The Negative"s Job
I promise it"s not as scary as you might think. All I want to mention is my job as the Negative. The Affirmative"s Job is to state that the Resolution, which I"m sure you are familiar with at this point, is true. So in this instance [Affirmative"s Name] must say that Privacy is more important, when in conflict of course. But my job as the Negative is to stop the Affirmative. I have to claim that Privacy is NOT more important than National Security. So I don"t have to praise National Security, just make sure you think it"s better than Privacy.

Resolutional Analysis: Concept, not Excuses
A lot of stories and evidence against National Security comprise of the Government doing something bad, and then claiming it was for the cause of National Security. However, in this round we are going to deal with the concept, not the excuse. For the sake of clarity, we are only going to call something part of National Security if it actually benefits the security of the nation. But the Government claiming something is National Security doesn"t mean it is actually that. Even if I"m an expert on clouds, I can"t claim that your ballot is a cloud. Just like even if the Government claims that Obesity is a National Security threat, doesn"t mean it actually is. So when dealing with National Security, if it wasn"t done for the sincere intent to preserve or strengthen National Security, then it isn"t National Security, regardless of who claims otherwise.

Value:
My Value today, or what I believe is the best way to measure the effectiveness of either concept is the fundamental Human Right of Life.

Definitions:

National Security: "The protection or the safety of a country"s secrets and its citizens" this definition comes from Macmillandictionary.com

Individual Privacy: "The ability to keep personal information or opinions secret" this definition comes from GJdictionary.me

Contention 1: Privacy is Dead
Now back to that radical statement I opened up with, "Privacy is Dead." What does this quote mean? Look at the society around you, nearly everyone posts their location and activities on Twitter, use Facebook as their diaries, and give us an up-to-date image of their face on Instagram. The public doesn"t care about their own Privacy.
But we American"s don"t just not care about our own Privacy, we crave and feed of off other people"s lack of Privacy. Tell me, how much do you know about Kim Kardashian? Did you know that she"s pregnant with a boy? How about the fact that she"s severely depressed and is only pretending to be happy to please the media? There are people whose jobs, their literal jobs, are to expose and remove the Privacy of celebrities for the entertainment of the public. And we celebrate that, people scour the latest Tabloids for the private information of celebrities. British Royalty Princess Margaret said, "I have as much privacy as a goldfish in a bowl." (http://www.brainyquote.com...)

So Privacy isn"t wanted, and the lack of it is celebrated by the general public. But what about those of us that aren"t as stupid as the rest of the public? What about those of us that wish to keep our Privacy, those of us that still value it? Is it possible in this day and age to retain our Privacy? Scott Mcnealy would say it"s hopeless, as he"s said before, "You all have zero privacy anyway," (http://moreintelligentlife.com...) a little brash, yes, but it really does hone in on that point. That Privacy is impossible. You sign in to Gmail, it tells you that the Terms and Conditions have been updated, you accept without reading, who has the time for that? But, now Google can now read your emails, or at least search it for keywords. So out of fear, the next day you stay huddled inside. No one will you what you do today! So you lie and the couch and marathon F.R.I.E.N.D.S on Netflix. But now Netflix knows exactly where you are, because your account, from your IP address is using their services. Privacy nowadays is impossible.

So what are the ramifications of lack of Privacy? Well, let"s look at Kim Kardashian... is she dead? Well, to quote Shakespeare"s Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 3, Line 9, "No." Ok, how about the North Korea"s? Are they dying? Well, not due to lack of Privacy, more like lack of food. Privacy doesn"t impact life as nearly as National Security does.

Contention 2: National Security protects Life
Alright, whew, now that we have that out of the way we can discuss National Security. The very purpose of National Security is to preserve the Life of it"s citizens. Terrorism can kill lots of people, so National Security tries to stop it. Cyber attacks can ruin the infrastructure, and possibly kill a bunch of people, so National Security works to prevent that. It is the inherent nature of National Security to protect and preserve our Human Right of Life.

Conclusion:
So, what does all this information mean to you? How should you interpret this information? First of all, Privacy will always remain in some form. I highly doubt we'll ever lose enough Privacy that our passwords will ever be taken. So Privacy isn"t actually "dead" per say, rather a zombie of what Privacy used to be. The Privacy of today, is a shell of what Privacy meant in the past. Society, coupled with technology, has eroded the value of Privacy. So when in conflict you have to choose between Privacy and National Security, choose the latter. Because while Privacy is still a nice thing, in no way is it even close to the act of preserving our fundamental right of Life.
Any right cannot exist until safety, and Life, is guaranteed.
bsh1

Pro

Thanks to Con for this debate. I will present my case at this time, and I will offer some definitions. Next round I will rebut Con's case. I also apologize in advance for any formatting errors due to C/Ping from Word.

Contention One: Individuals are Self-owners

Sub-point A: People are ends in themselves.

Prof. Edward Feser writes, "Nozick takes his position to follow from a basic moral principle"enshrined in Kant"s second formulation of the famous Categorical Imperative: "Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only." The idea here is that a human being, as a rational agent endowed with self-awareness, free will, and the possibility of formulating a plan of life, has an inherent dignity and cannot properly be treated as a mere thing, or used against his will as an instrument or resource in the way an inanimate object might be. In line with this, Nozick also describes individual human beings as self-owners. The thesis of self-ownership, a notion that goes back in political philosophy at least to John Locke, is just the claim that individuals own themselves--their bodies, talents and abilities, labor, and by extension the fruits or products of their exercise of their talents, abilities and labor." Prof. Dale Murray adds, "Nozick understood individuals as having absolute property rights over themselves."

Sub-point B: Self-ownership requires the Minimalist State.

Feser Two posits, "the only sort of state that can be morally justified is what Nozick calls a minimal state or "night-watchman" state, a government which protects individuals, via police and military forces, from force, fraud, and theft, and administers courts of law, but does nothing else. In particular, such a state cannot regulate what citizens eat, drink, or smoke (since this would interfere with their right to use their self-owned bodies as they see fit), cannot control what they publish or read (since this would interfere with their right to use the property they"ve acquired with their self-owned labor--e.g. printing presses and paper), cannot administer mandatory social insurance schemes...(since this would interfere with citizens" rights to use the fruits of their labor as they desire)...and cannot regulate economic life in general..." Prof. Dale Murray adds, Nozick is "vehemently opposed to...intrusion of the state into private lives. He was opposed to any sort of paternalistic legislation. For example, Nozick would have criticized laws prohibiting or restricting the riding of motorcycles without helmets"[because the] state should not have the right to interfere with an individual"s choice to [take risks]."

Contention Two: Privacy is essential to self-ownership.

Sub-point A: Surveillance threatens one"s control over one"s property.

Take, for instance, Prof. Judith Jarvis Thomson"s argument, where she posits that, "the illicit viewing of another"s diary involves a breach of his right to dispose of his property as he sees fit." Suppose, for instance, that it was police, without a warrant, reading your diary in search of evidence of possible wrongdoing. Modernity is replete with opportunities for actors to infringe on your private property, particularly in the context of national security. Macnish notes: "Wireless networks transmit vast quantities of information on systems vulnerable to intercept. The Internet has seen the creation...of "data doubles" which are vulnerable to abuse and theft; online storing of medical, banking and other personal data which may be hacked or simply lost by the institution responsible; and the increased commodification of personal information by web sites which sell that data to advertising companies or governments"Technology means that almost limitless information can be collected, stored indefinitely and returned to or searched at will."

Sub-point B: An emphasis on national security threatens one"s control over oneself.

Macnish 2 states, "Privacy affords us the space to be ourselves and to define ourselves through giving us a degree of autonomy and protecting our dignity...Privacy is thus important in the social context of democracy...Thanks to a level of anonymity I [am able] to speak out publicly against corruption or injustice, or simply to be more creative in self-expression. Many of these benefits can be seen through the contrast with states employing high levels of surveillance, such as the former [East Germany]. Here the surveillance carried out by"STASI was instrumental in quashing open dissent and enforcing the behavioral uniformity foreseen by Orwell." In this way, a lack of privacy can be used to manipulate and coerce individuals into taking actions they may not wish to take.

Contention Two: The Panopticon

Sub-point A: The Panopticon is freedom-limiting, using surveillance to enforce control

Stanford Encyclopedia writes, "At the core of Foucault's picture of modern "disciplinary" society are three primary techniques of control: observation, normalizing judgment, and the examination. To a great extent, control over people---power--can be achieved merely by observing them...A perfect system of observation would allow one"to see everything, a situation approximated...in Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon...Foucault's point is that...the goals of power and the goals of knowledge cannot be separated: in knowing we control and in controlling we know. The examination situates individuals in a "field of documentation." The results of exams are recorded in documents that provide detailed information about the individuals examined and allow power systems to control them, e.g., absentee records for schools, patients' charts in hospitals, [and government databases]. On the basis of these records, those in control can formulate categories, averages, and norms that are in turn a basis for knowledge. The examination turns the individual into a "case"--in both senses of the term: a scientific example and an object of care. Caring is always also an opportunity for control. Bentham's Panopticon is, for Foucault, an ideal architectural model of modern disciplinary power. It is a design for a prison, built so that each inmate is separated from and invisible to all the others (in separate "cells")...Monitors will not always see each inmate; the point is that they could at any time. Since inmates never know whether they are being observed, they must act as if they are always objects of observation. As a result, control is achieved more by the internal monitoring of those controlled than by heavy physical constraints." Invasions of privacy, particularly pervasive and invasive surveillance and cyber-monitoring of individuals are creating a modern-day panopitcon where no individual is free from the threat of surveillance and observation. This is gradually morphing society into the prison which Foucault describes.

Sub-point B: The Panopticon Now

According to Kyle Chayka of Newsweek, "from 2008 to 2010...the NSA collaborated with the British GCHQ to intercept the webcam footage of over 1.8 million Yahoo users. The agencies were analyzing the images they downloaded from webcams and scanning them...with the help of a new technology called face recognition. The outcome was pure Kafka, with innocent people being caught in the surveillance dragnet...The U.S. government is in the process of building the world"s largest cache of face recognition data, with the goal of identifying every person in the country. The creation of such a database would mean that anyone could be tracked wherever his or her face appears." Prof. Daniel Byman and Benjamin Wittes of the Brookings Institute add, "In the 1960s and 1970s...U.S. intelligence agencies conducted abusive surveillance of journalists; members of Congress; Martin Luther King, Jr.; and prominent opponents of the War in Vietnam...[We can also cite] President George W. Bush"s warrantless wiretapping...circumventing FISA procedures...[Currently] the NSA estimates that is "touches" the equivalent of 580 million file cabinets of documents every single day...The NSA can access people"s Facebook messages, Skype feeds, financial documents, e-mails, and stored computer documents [as well.]" Moreover, administrations have even lied about the scope of this surveillance to oversight bodies: "the director of national intelligence told the Senate in March 2013 that the NSA does "not wittingly" collect data of U.S. citizens. But less than three months later, the massive metadata collection program was revealed, leaving [him] to lamely claim that his original statement had been the "least untruthful" one he could give." As Chayka summarized, with all of these invasive surveillance tools, "it will become impossible to be anonymous in society...That means every person in the U.S. would be passively tracked at all times. In the future, the government could know when you use your computer, which building you enter on a daily basis, where you shop and where you drive. It"s the ultimate fulfillment of Big Brother paranoia." And, since the U.S. has shared many of its surveillance technologies with allies, this threat to privacy is spreading.

===================

Feser - http://www.iep.utm.edu...
Murray - http://www.iep.utm.edu...
Thomson + Macnish - http://www.iep.utm.edu...
Stanford - http://plato.stanford.edu...
Chakya - http://www.newsweek.com...
Byman + Wittes - https://www.foreignaffairs.com...
Debate Round No. 1
GJCorban

Con

GJCorban forfeited this round.
bsh1

Pro

For the sake of thoroughness, I will address Con's case. I apologize for the brevity of my remarks...I am under a time crunch.

VALUE

Con values life. This implies that, ultimately, life is his most important end-goal.

We would not say that a blank canvas is worth much money, yet we would probably agree that a Vermeer painting is worth more than I can possibly pay. The point here is that the canvas is not what is valuable, it is the painting that matters. Life is simply a canvas--it is what we do with it that adds meaning and color. If a person we locked in a 10x10 cell with no light or other human interaction, that is not a life worth living. Life therefore has instrumental good--and that is not to undermine that importance of that instrumental good. If used wrongly or abused outright, the instrument can lose its utility. But, ultimately, it is only an instrument just as the canvas is--the "painting" is what matters. The painting represents a human's dignity and their ability to self-actualize; i.e. a human's ability to fill their life with meaning and their canvas with paint. The conclusion I would like to draw here, therefore, is that this capacity for self-actualization/human dignity outweighs the value of life.

Privacy is essential to this core value of self-actualization/human dignity. "Friendship and intimacy would be impossible...without the ability to [privately] reveal oneself more fully to some people than to others. Wider social interactions are also seen as dependent on people’s ability to include some and exclude others from their inner circle...[Also] by protecting the ability to have moments 'off-stage' when one can 'be oneself ,' privacy facilitates emotional release and promotes liberty of thought and action. This is in turn viewed as a vital precondition for meaningful participation in democratic society. Freedoms such as the right to vote and freedom of expression lose much of their value if people do not first have the chance to learn to think for themselves." All of this means that, "when one person interferes with the privacy of another, ‘[t]he injury is to our individuality, to our dignity as individuals, and the legal remedy represents a social vindication of the human spirit thus threatened rather than a recompense for the loss suffered." [1]

DEFINITIONS

Just a quick quibble here. Privacy clearly encompasses more than just keeping secrets. It is also about having private space and about having control of data. While I may not want to keep item X secret, I may only want to share this data with some close friends. If one of the friends revealed the information to others, I would still feel as if my privacy was violated. So, it's also about control. Privacy should thus be understood as encompassing six categories: "(1) the right to be let alone; (2) limited access to the self; (3) secrecy; (4) control of personal information; (5) personhood; and (6) intimacy." [2]

CONTENTION 1

1. The resolution is asking a question of values. Which do we value more? This requires a theoretical analysis of that proximate moral, psychological, and social value of the principles in question. Even if privacy no longer exists, that doesn't negate the resolution. It can still theoretically be more valuable than national security. For example, Greek mythology is no longer practiced as a religion, but if I asked the question "is greek paganism better than Christianity" you could not answer that question simply by stating "greek paganism no longer exists" because its non-existance does not prove it is not better than Christianity. One requires a value judgement, the other a fact judgement. Similarly, you cannot negate the topic "privacy is more important than national security" by saying that privacy no longer exists. Privacy can still be more important. In fact, privacy's non-existence seems like a very bad thing. If my opponent insists that privacy is dead, my response is equally simple: let's bring it back.

2. Clearly, privacy isn't dead. Privacy norms are being enforced now. "Google has been fined millions of dollars for violating its users' privacy and their own privacy policies. PATH, a purported privacy centric photo-sharing app, was just fined $800,000 by the FTC for violating their own privacy policies (for the second time) and the law. Instagram (Facebook-owned) recently attempted to change their privacy policy and claim ownership over the pictures in their members' accounts. The uproar was palpable and the company quickly reversed course, but trust was broken...Law abiding citizens are entitled to the right of privacy regardless of how electronic this world gets. Governments in the USA, Canada, as well as the European Commission, are lining up and saying 'Wait a minute. Privacy is a fundamental right of the citizens of our nations and we must protect it.'" [3] The recent EU ruling about the right to be forgotten is another great example, whereby users can force websites to remove old data about them, thereby making that data far more private.

3. If privacy is dead or dying, then all my harms re: privacy are imminent and thus it's all the more crucial we assert the value of privacy now.

4. This contention has absolutely no link to his value.

5. Obviously, people want privacy: "90 percent of us worry about online privacy." [3] "Meanwhile, 86 percent of people surveyed have tried at least one technique to hide their activity online or avoid being tracked, such as clearing cookies or their browser history or using encryption." [4]

CONTENTION 2

Right, Con is making it seem that with privacy, there would be no national security. That's just false. Certainly, national security exists in both worlds. Ultimately, Con needs to show that the loss of national security in Pro's world is significant enough to outweigh the gains in privacy. Unless he can do that, he cannot negate the evidence and impacts I have. Sure, invading people's privacy might save a few more lives, but that impact is never quantified, so it's impossible to really measure against my impacts. My impacts have priority because they're clearer and more easily weighed than Con's.

SOURCES

1 - http://www.victoria.ac.nz...
2 - http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu...
3 - http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
4- http://www.nbcnews.com...
Debate Round No. 2
GJCorban

Con

GJCorban forfeited this round.
bsh1

Pro

Please Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by bsh1 1 year ago
bsh1
Tej, this debate wasn't worth the effort.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@bsh - Why don't you use Rich Text? It removes much of the formatting errors when you C/P from Word
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
GJCorbanbsh1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff several times, so conduct to Pro.
Vote Placed by sadolite 1 year ago
sadolite
GJCorbanbsh1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: 2 forfeits is all that needs to be said. Wasting peoples time.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
GJCorbanbsh1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
GJCorbanbsh1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
GJCorbanbsh1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit grants loss of conduct point, as it's rude and disrespectful of your opponent's time.