Resolved: The benefits of domestic surveillance by the NSA outweigh the harms.

I will utilize this round to present my case. I will rebut Pro next round. Thank you in advance for an enjoyable debate.CON's CASEThe writer Marvin Cooley once said “that the only true security is liberty.” The goal of the NSA’s domestic surveillance programs are ostensibly to keep us safe, yet what safety is it when our privacy is being infringed and due process is being skirted? We are only ever safe when our rights are being upheld; yet, the NSA has flagrantly ignored this idea, preferring instead to pursue a pathway towards the Orwellian State, where Big Brother watches our every move, and the thought-police are a constant threat. In short, because I believe that the NSA’s actions endanger our rights, I Negate that the benefits of the NSA’s domestic surveillance program outweigh the harms.I will present some definitions from Oxford American Dictionary, and then offer four contentions in support of my position: A “benefit” means an “advantage or profit gained by something,” and a “harm” is an adverse effect. “Domestic” is “existing or occurring within a country,” and “surveillance” means “close observation, especially of a suspect spy or criminal.” Ultimately, because the topic demands a comparison of harms and benefits, the resolution must be analyzed from a cost-benefit standpoint.My Thesis is that the danger posed to both governmental legitimacy and to citizens’ rights outweighs potential benefits of the NSA’s intrusive domestic surveillance program.Contention One: The NSA’s domestic surveillance program is huge, broad, and invasive.According to I.T. analyst Sean Gallagher, “Regardless how much data flows through the NSA's tap points, all of it is getting checked. While the NSA may ‘touch’ only 29.21 petabytes of data a day, it runs its digital fingers through everything that flows through the tap points to do so.” Additionally, the amount of information the NSA not only views, but interacts with, is huge. Gallagher writes, “That's 7.47 terabytes a day of connection metadata…Of course, that doesn't cover the fact that the NSA is, in effect, collecting 10.411 exabytes of short-term searchable content.” [5] Ultimately, this means that the NSA is processing 50% more information per day than Google. Reuters adds, “The National Security Agency's surveillance network has the capacity to reach around 75 percent of all U.S. Internet communications…the system's broad reach makes it more likely that purely domestic communications will be incidentally intercepted.” [8] Contention Two: The NSA’s program is totalitarian and illegal.Domestic surveillance is unjustified, as Professors Macht, Grey, and Citron, “by ‘making available at a relatively low cost such a substantial quantum of intimate information about any person whom the Government, in its unfettered discretion, chooses to track,’ programs of broad and indiscriminate surveillance will ‘chill associational and expressive freedoms,’ and ‘alter the relationship between citizen and government in a way that is inimical to a democratic society.’” [3] Moreover, the Christian Science Monitor reports, “these programs may be illegal. The government admits it obtains Americans' telephone records in bulk, but claims officials do not examine them unless there is reason to suspect a terrorist link. Section 215 of the Patriot Act, however, requires the government to establish a record's investigative relevance before obtaining it—not after. The PRISM program…tolerates extensive ‘inadvertent and ‘incidental’ collection of Americans' information--including information the government needs a warrant to obtain under the Fourth Amendment.” [4]Contention Three: Oversight fails.The Portland Press Herald writes, “Some National Security Agency analysts deliberately ignored restrictions on their authority to spy on Americans multiple times in the past decade, contradicting…officials' and lawmakers' statements that no willful violations occurred…The incidents, chronicled in a new report by the NSA's inspector general, provide more evidence that U.S. agencies…have violated legal and administrative restrictions on domestic spying.” [7] Additionally, an administration has the power to collude with the NSA to ignore regulations. As the BBC reports: “the Bush administration secretly gave the NSA permission to bypass the court and carry out warrantless surveillance of al-Qaeda suspects among others.” [1] In a separate report from last month, the BBC adds, “accountability is not strong enough, especially when access to metadata about communications and interactions only requires internal authorization within an intelligence agency—and not the warrant that is required to intercept the actual content of communications.” [2]Contention Four: Surveillance does not prevent terrorism.Professors Bergen and Hoffman write, “that few…[terror] plots involved attacks within the United States, because traditional law enforcement methods have overwhelmingly played the most significant role in foiling terrorist attacks…jihadist extremists based in the United States have mounted 47 plots to conduct attacks within the United States since 2001. Of those plots, nine involved an actual terrorist act that was not prevented by any type of government action…Of the remaining 38 plots, the public record shows that at least 33 were uncovered by using standard policing practices such as informants, undercover officers, and tips to law enforcement.” [3]SUMMARYIt seems, in light of the aforesaid analysis, that not only is the NSA's current program of domestic surveillance unnecessary and illegal, but it violates our right to privacy. So, we are weighing no tangible benefits against a clear harm, and from this we can conclude that the NSA's domestic surveillance program is certainly not worth it. Therefore, a Con ballot is in order. Thank you!SOURCES1 - BBC 1: http://www.bbc.co.uk...2 - BBC 2: http://www.bbc.co.uk...3 - Bergen and Hoffman: http://bipartisanpolicy.org...4 - CS Monitor: http://www.csmonitor.com...5 - Gallagher: http://arstechnica.com...6 - Macht, Citron, and Grey: Danielle Keats Citron, Lois K. Macht Research Professor of Law, University of Maryland School of Law; Affiliate Scholar, Stanford Center on Internet and Society; Affiliate Fellow, Yale Information Society Project., David Gray, Associate Professor of Law, University of Maryland School of Law. The Harvard Law Review Symposium on Privacy, “ADDRESSING THE HARM OF TOTAL SURVEILLANCE: A REPLY TO PROFESSOR NEIL RICHARDS,” May, p. 268-97 - Portland Press Herald/Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com...8 - Reuters: http://news.yahoo.com... Please VOTE CON! Thanks!