Privacy is a fundamental right

I hope this debate proves useful in exposing our two obviously quite different points of view on the subject of privacy. My Position on the Resolution as StatedPrivacy is not a fundamental right. Privacy for its own sake has the potential to protect those acting against the interests of others and gives little to no benefit to those acting for the benefit of others. It is a hinderance to the legitimate pursuit of law enforcement and as such does not deserve the same protections given to such rights as security of the person and freedoms of belief, travel and association. Privacy should instead be classed with what I will call 'secondary rights'. These are rights which are often protected as a means of protecting other rights for the sole reason that they are easier to enforce. Such rights include freedom of speech and the right to privacy. Secondary rights often come in pairs, each protecting opposing rights which are each beneficial in moderation. Primary rights do not have this quality, as the opposing rights are held in reserve by the state. Only the state may prevent someone from travelling, only the state may incarcerate someone or in some places execute them. The right to privacy is balanced by an obligation to disclose (or for the entity to which information is provided, a right to require disclosure). There are many examples where the individual is expected to disclose information not just to the government but to other individuals or organisations. Loans require disclosure of assets and debts, STDs require disclosure to sexual partners (whether the law actually requires it or not). Information flow is a crucial part of the social transactions that make society run. It is for this reason that the right to privacy cannot be regarded as either fundamental or universal. AccountabilityMy opponent expresses concern that the government would not be held accountable for the use of the information obtained through a clandestine surveillance network. In particular, he asserts that in order to maintain the secret nature of the programme, any evidence obtained would not be shown to the defendant and this would undermine his ability to mount a defence. There are three problems with this argument. Firstly, the defence lawyer could be provided with the information and required to agree to non-disclosure. This does not widen the loop considerably but allows the defence to plan an appropriate response. Secondly, and in keeping with the intentions behind PRISM, the information would not necessarily need to be entered into the trial at all. On time sensitive cases, it may be necessary to use such a mechanism to for example, trace the path of a vehicle suspected of carrying explosives. If such explosives are found, this would be sufficient evidence of the crime, without knowing how this information was obtained. Thirdly, in public trials where the evidence is actually required, a video could be shown which provides the required evidence but does not outline how extensive the network is. Video surveillance networks already exist, the public does not have to know how extensive they are. I will discuss evidence tampering in my next round, I'm running short of words. NeedI will now address what I consider to be the most important facet of this discussion. What need is there for privacy? Privacy is designed to protect individuals from malicious attacks. The more information that is held by others about you, the more chance that someone will figure out how to do something untoward with it. Information is secured because it helps prevent targeted crime (opportunistic crime is still an issue). I would advocate instead of a right to privacy, a right to obscurity. One should be permitted to obscure whatever information they choose. Many methods of doing this are publicly and cheaply available.