Security cameras are not an invasion of our privacy.
Debate Rounds (3)
Everything that you just said is irrelevant as to whether public security cameras are an invasion of privacy.
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
4th Amendment to 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."
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 8: "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure."
Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, Article 10: "The privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications shall be inviolable."
I could go on.
stuforyou forfeited this round.
"All of these declarations are related to what is considered an invasion of privacy, however they don't address why security cameras ARE an invasion of our privacy."
The why of the matter is irrelevant. This debate is over the what, which, as you've said, is clearly established by these documents. These laws are also clearly being breached, and said breach is a violation of the rights that are laid out in the aforementioned documents. Therefore, your entire argument this round, which is based on why, not what, is rendered moot.
However, because I'm feeling sporting, I'll pick at some of the pieces of your rebuttal.
"If we don't want to be seen going about our daily life by cameras, then why don't we have a problem with humans?"
For one thing, avoiding humans entirely isn't really practical for the vast majority of people. For another, human eyes don't store in perfect condition data on your whereabouts, activities, appearance, etc. for the uses of a potentially malevolent and definitely corrupt and power-hungry government without your consent and against the law.
"If the only reason why people don't like security cameras is that they remember fine details down to the second, I think that those people are very aware and private about their actions, leading the average person to suspect something is up with them, and that it would be a good idea to indeed have that person taped."
I'd like to film you 24/7. Sleeping, eating, on the toilet, everything. If you refuse, according to your logic, something is up with you, and it would be a good idea to have you taped.
Also, it is irrelevant what the "average person suspect[s]." Democratically-based governments exist to see the wishes of the majority realized as long as they do not infringe on human rights, even if the humans in question are the minority. If the average person thinks that I need to be taped, then the average person can go anally fornicate with a cactus.
People being "very aware and private" about their decisions is not a bad thing at all, yet you say it like it is one.
I apologize for the lukewarm arguments, but I really didn't have to put any effort into them because, as I said, your entire point is invalid.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mister_Man 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.