NSA Surveillance

I thank Gandalf_123 for a great debate! In this round I will provide a line-by-line rebuttal of round 4 going from Con's Case to Pro's Case. Then, I shall present voting issues. CON's CASE Point 1: Con's core argument here is that the NSA's actions are inefficient, but yet Con concedes that the NSA is only reviewing .00004% of data, and is retaining even LESS. This data is highly selective and not that hard for an agency with such resources as the NSA to manage. Therefore, it is not inefficient. Con DROPS this arguments. His only rebuttal to this was an argument about Redcoats, which has nothing to do with disputing the efficiency of the system. The small amount of information retained means that it is relatively easy to deal with. Extend my argument as it has gone entirely un-rebutted. Don't let Con make new arguments here, or this round, as I will have no chance to respond. Regarding the connecting-the-dots analogy, Cons new argument is a gross oversimplification of the point. There are ways to conduct advanced searches and to narrow information down by criteria. Moreover, the NSA, according to info leaked by Snowden, constructs profiles of terrorists and their associates that act as the "fixed dots" that can be used to ease the intelligence-analysis process. Thus, as I said last round, much of the intel the "NSA is viewing is already linked to terrorists--so, many dots actually need to be connected." This is one reason to reject Con's objection. The next reason to reject Con's objection is that this is a new argument. He had completely dropped this point earlier in the debate, and I extended it. As his point is new, it shouldn't be evaluated. Con DROPS that it is better to centralize intelligence-gathering efforts into one agency in order to avoid repeats of 9/11. This avoids any issues that might arise from a lack of information-sharing. Con also DROPS the Boston Marathon example I rebutted. Don't let Con make new arguments against these points either. Point 2: In his last speech, Con never even attempts to rebut the fact that traditional police and investigative forces FAIL. The following points are all DROPPED: "(1) traditional investigators often rely on intel from the NSA, (2) the NSA has more resources, and (3) traditional forces are confined to U.S. borders." Don't allow Con to make illicit, new arguments against these points. Con's only argument here is that the topic is about "domestic surveillance," but my argument is that terrorists operate across borders, so it is important to cross-reference domestic intel with foreign intel to effectively analyze terrorist groups. Only the NSA has this type of cross-border reach. This argument was TOTALLY UNREBUTTED by Con. Point 3: Con has DROPPED my many arguments about the legality of the NSA's actions. At this point, therefore, Con can no longer contest the constitutionality or legality of the NSA's actions. Con DROPPED that the nun example was non-unique offense. Con cannot offer any new arguments to rebut these points at this time. Regarding CCTV, Con mentions that the NSA's program was exposed by a whistleblower. This misses the point of my example, which was that, if regulated, invasive programs can be used safely and with NET benefit. Moreover, FISA and Congress were reasonably aware of PRISM, even if the general populace was not. So, there was still oversight before PRISM's exposure. Secrecy does not imply a lack of checks. Sources: Con NEVER REBUTS my point that using one source "is risky because if Schneier...has conducted faulty research, or is somehow providing inaccurate evidence, there is little evidence offered by Con to corroborate Schneier's positions." Don't permit him to make new arguments here. Ultimately, no academic or student could present a research paper with only one source because this is a very flimsy evidentiary foundation. Con desperately need, and lacks, supporting sources in his case to verify his, and Schneier's assertions. Prefer my diverse evidence to his narrow, liberally-biased sources. PRO's CASE C1: We agree that intel must be gathered, we differ in how best to gather it. Con conceded the legality of the NSA's actions through dropping my arguments; moreover, this is a debate about the NSA's actions, not the laws governing those actions. Therefore, if Con is concerned about rights violations, he should quarrel with the laws, but the actions themselves maximize benefits and are legal. Finally, he gives us no way to weigh these nebulous rights violations against the benefits I will show. Regarding Reinares, his analysis was not just of European programs but also of the post-9/11 U.S. I quote his example of Italy, but that is hardly the only area of his vast security expertise. Con also NEVER REBUTS that, as shown in Italy, " an intelligence agency surveilling both domestic and foreign targets is a necessary supplement to traditional methods, without which, traditional investigators would be unable to cope." Don't let him make new arguments against this. Regarding Carafano and Alexander, Con DROPS that their independent analyses are mutually reinforcing. Nevertheless, Con offers no competing evidence regarding how many plots the NSA foiled. Thus, as I am the only one presenting evidence about this, you should default to my sources. C2: Con agreed to the numbers, and is now contesting them--that's unfair. As Con said in round three "I was not attacking the numbers" for that analysis. Therefore, KEEP my numbers, because Con originally accepted them. Con DROPPED my CS Monitor evidence showing that surveillance is not "indiscriminate or unreasonable," which beats back Con's arguments about potential rights violations by the NSA. Con also DROPPED the rarity of employee misconduct. This is untouchable Pro offense. As for the need for secrecy with FISA, Con makes a non-argument here. There are legitimate security concerns, an issues Con never disputes, that necessitate secrecy. Moreover, secrecy does not mean a lack of internal and inter-branch oversight. Con DROPPED this, extend it. The Cole evidence was NEVER REBUTTED too. VOTING ISSUES 1 - Traditional Investigators/Police fail. They lack the resources of the NSA, they rely on intel from the NSA, and they lack the ability to cross-reference international information like the NSA. Additionally, the Italy example demonstrates a need for a domestic intelligence agency to supplement normal police forces. Thus, the NSA is NEEDED b/c there is no viable alternative. 2 - It is best to condense intel-gathering into one agency as I showed earlier. 3 - The NSA isn't abusing power. the UNREBUTTED Cole evidence, as well as the utility of the FISA courts, show that oversight is occurring. The CS Monitor's UNCONTESTED evidence shows that the NSA is not acting arbitrarily. Con also concedes the legality of the NSA's actions. For these reasons, the benefits of domestic surveillance surely outweigh the harms. Please VOTE PRO! Thanks!