Recently, In my opinion a patriot by the name of Edward Snowden revealed top secret information about the NSA that involved them spying on citizens that have no affiliations with terrorism and have not agreed to be monitored. I think this is an invasion of privacy and I believe that no citizen should be spied on. Please introduce yourself and start debating , thanks.
Personally i do not have any problem with my privacy being intruded.If peeping into my FB account or twitter account or my cell phone data saves a single american life or helps in catching of terrorists along with averting terror threats then i will be more than okay with spying programmes.
Okay, what you said was fair and reasonable however this is not the case. The NSA don't simply peep into your Facebook account; they monitor you for hours upon end even if you have no threatening background or even if you do, to spy on you is simply immoral. Now what you said about terrorism was a fair argument however then why wasn't recent terrorist attacks stopped such as the Boston bombings? Not only is spying on citizens useless but it is also violating privacy and the 4th amendment. Now according to not only conspiracy's these spying regimes have also used big companies such as Apple and Microsoft to aid there spying through the webcams. Just because they are spying on you online doesn't mean its any different if government agents charged into your house and placed cameras to monitor you overnight.
Agreeing with you totally here , but the scheme adopted by NSA to do monitoring was by using metadata ( a highly complex binary temporary data ) and there is a humongous amount of this metadata available to it and this , according to Edward Snowden would not have been processed even at full capability of whole world's computing power combined.That means they were targeting people with vile desires and terrorist backgrounds.And that helped capturing Indian terrorist involved in mumbai blasts (DAVID HEDLEY).Atleast they are succeeding in catching these terrorists saving many innocent lives.Also NSA was able to give future warning of terror threats in case of many countries(one recently given in case of shoe bombs).And to one law abiding citizen like us these monitoring matters nothing , as long as we are clean !
I agree with you but to a certain extent. What you said about metadata if was implemented correctly would have actually been a decent idea, however this is not the case there have been many instances where innocent citizens have been wrongly spied on even though they have no terrorism or criminal backgrounds. So to simply invade ones privacy and use that as an excuse to capture terrorism is ridiculous. Also the NSA is not just doing this for countries such as the UK,USA, etc. but they are using this to spy on developing countries such as China, no wonder North Korea hate us because they have a right to privacy!
To be honest you should be finding this scary, because your household may be under surveillance. Now don't think i am against surveillance because I love freedom however I think there should be a right, if someone is threatening to tap their phone; however this is not the case, the NSA taps into innocent peoples phone for personal gain.
You are repeating the point made earlier about innocent civilians but let me tell you about metadata that it is just like a log book so they are not listening or hearing you or reading your texts.Its an algorithm that tracks your interaction with other people and possibly terrorists.So there may be some anomalies but ultimately this is in favour of citizens and NSA is not making this data public and only a few 100 people linked with "Project PRISM" are linked to it and that too at superficial level.
About you argument relating freedom: I am too a fan of freedom and proponent of giving freedom to everyone as their right , But what harm can they do by monitoring our cell phones.Until now we were oblivious to this and if it was not for Snowden we could have been in this state of unawareness for many decades ahead.So instead of making this an issue we should think of bigger picture ahead and applaud what NSA did that lead to saving of hundreds of lives !!
Can you provide sources in the comment section or in your next argument about your points? Although you said you're a fan of freedom you don't seem to care about your privacy, which is fine however other people do so to support the NSA's regimes it may not be affecting you however it is affecting most of the people that do care. Let me come to your point about the algorithm's lets take a look at how these ACTUALLY work; these computers search for keywords such as 'Muslim' 'terrorist' 'gun' these keywords will immediately be sent to the computer where they will start monitoring you through e-mails,phones,tv's they are watching your every move. Now think about that do you really want that? do you want to live in a society where there is no freedom and your every move is watched I believe the NSA has betrayed the world's trust.
Freedom according to many is "state of mind" and it is upon us to feel it ! And algorithm you are talking does not work as specified and no terrorist is fool enough to talk using keywords you mentioned . Algo is too complex for us to understand but it works on geographic and potential threat perceived kind of scenario.And i agree that it is affecting many people leaving me but as i told you we have to look at bigger picture may be we are helping save many innocent lives and we do not even know and our society has a fair share of freedom from social to economical to political.Now can you answer one question of mine..Will you be okay if some bomb exploded killing innocent peoples and children near you but could have been averted if NSA was snooping around(In many cases project PRISM did averted this ) ?? I am not okay and every person with civic sense must not be.
About my sources : I read all this in Times of India and Guardian online so no link that i can tag.
First of all i would like to thank my opponent, now to answer your question, I think the answer is obvious in fact I already answered it in a previous argument and my answer is no different I have no problem with the NSA tapping into someones fault who is ACTUALLY a threat. However the question states 'should we be spied on?' where WE means the general public , people who aren't a threat. Unfortunately the NSA's supposed algorithms do not filter these things and they monitor people who are innocent and its not the computers fault, a computer's a computer and we shouldn't blame it we should blame the people who are controlling these computers and telling them what to do and if we don't stop them then who will? I would like to ask you one last question : Do you care about the privacy of yourself and the people around you? if you wanna ask any questions feel free to ask in the comments section.
First of all i would like to thank my opponent for such a healthy discussion.#clap clap .
Now to your argument NSA is not spying on general public and why would they ? Why spend millions of dollars of Tax-Payer's hard earned money do something totally futile.General public was always off the radar .
And to your question i will say : yes i do ! But to me their safety matters more !
Thank you !
Reasons for voting decision: I felt that Pro's arguments of safety could have easily been crushed by arguments exposing the U.S government as corrupt, in breach of constitutional law, guilty of unnecessary violence etc. Con highlighted 4th amendment violation in the first 2nd round, which pertains to privacy. Pro counter-argued with a safety plea, which is cogent enough of an argument to require rebuttal. Con then argues that many people are wrongly spied on, which is the problem here, yet fails to cite examples. Con even made an almost fatal mistake here: "And algorithm you are talking does not work as specified and no terrorist is fool enough to talk using keywords you mentioned." This implies that the spying techniques aren't actually effective at all in providing safety, but Con didn't point this out. I think Con got home in the final round, complaining about someone being a threat and spied on, and someone not being one, yet still being spied on. Con's sources were just good enough to receieve source points.
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.