Privacy is undervalued

I am resolved that privacy is not undervalued. For, as we will see, the value of unity is being harmed by the current high valuing of privacy. Let’s begin with a brief resolutional analysis. RA 1: Determining value.The resolution states “privacy is undervalued.” Yet in order for us to prove that privacy is undervalued, we must first discover the value of privacy. However, pro has failed to do this as demonstrated in analysis point two. RA 2: Privacy is amoral.Privacy is not intrinsically valuable. Instead, its value depends on its results. Thus, in order to determine the value of privacy, we must determine the value of its results. Unfortunately, pro has failed to do this and thus, we cannot know that privacy is undervalued since we have no idea of how it ought to be valued. RA 3: Value Hierarchy.When two values come into conflict, a decision must be made as to which is more valuable, demonstrating that one is in fact more valuable than another. From this we can see that values are hierarchical by nature. RA 4: Moving up the hierarchy.When the resolution states that privacy is undervalued, it claims that privacy is valued too low within this hierarchy, also implying that it ought to be moved up the hierarchy. What pro must demonstrate then is that a specific value in the hierarchy is currently being wrongfully valued above privacy. Otherwise, privacy is not undervalued. However, pro has not done this and therefore has not proven that privacy is undervalued. I, on the other hand, will prove that privacy ought to move down the hierarchy. Now let’s examine pro’s case, in which were brought up a host of privacy violations. The problem is that violations do not equal undervalued. Using violations of privacy as proof that privacy is undervalued assumes that violation of privacy is a bad thing. Yet violation of privacy is only bad if privacy is undervalued. Thus, pro is using circular reasoning to prove to you that privacy is undervalued. In addition, it is often the case in privacy violations that privacy is not being undervalued, but rather that something else is being valued above privacy, which is not the same thing. Let’s look at some of these examples pro brought up. Of course, I can't in any way respond to all of them, but I will try to cover as many as possible by lumping them into three main groups. Application 1: Governments One of the main examples brought up in each of pro’s three contentions was governments’ violations of people’s privacy. Yet pro said something very interesting: that governments oppose privacy because it is seen as a screen for illegal and disruptive behavior. Now why would privacy be seen as a screen for illegal or disruptive behavior? I believe that it is because privacy often is used as a screen for illegal behavior. Consider the TSA. Just two weeks ago, 40 firearms were discovered, 31 of which were loaded.[1] The government, rather than undervaluing privacy, is simply valuing our lives above privacy. Application 2: Media Two arguments were brought up here. First, the media undervalues the privacy of public figures. However, we need to realize that the livelihood of many of these depend upon this publicity. Second, we have no privacy in a public place. I would disagree. By going out in public, we have in essence authorized anyone to view us. Thus, this is not privacy based on the accepted definition of privacy. Application 3:cyber-criminals The problem with accusing any criminals (cyber or otherwise) of undervaluing privacy is that this actually demonstrates a proper valuing of privacy by the rest of society, since society recognizes that undervaluing privacy is criminal. I will now proceed to prove that privacy is in fact overvalued. We will see this through my value of unity, which we will define as “concord, harmony, or agreement.” My criterion, or the way in which we will achieve my value is communication, which is defined as, “The art of expressing ideas.” We will see that the current high valuing of privacy has lead to a loss of unity. Contention 1: Unity in the family. Pro mentioned people messing with our belongings as well as invading our space and using our property. However, on the individual level, we find that privacy is actually overvalued.Application 1: Privacy of the ChildWriter James Tower once wrote, “Today’s families are more disconnected than ever. Even in a world that has more means of communication than at any other point in history, we struggle to connect with each other.” I believe that this lack of communication and subsequent disunity is the result of an overvaluing of privacy. The movement commonly called “privacy of the child” has so effected families that they consider it a protection of each individual’s rights to keep matters private from the rest of the family through lack of communication, which in turn leads to a lack of unity. Pro talked about addressing all issues of privacy, and yet he narrowed it down to privacy of the individual. While I agree that this is a fundamental part of privacy, I do not believe that the resolution implies this limitation. In the next two contentions, we will see two aspects which were unaddressed: society to government, and nation to nation. Contention 2: National unity Privacy harms unity within a nation. Application 2: Executive Privilege.For this application, we will need to define one key term: Executive Privilege, defined by Webster’s Dictionary as, “the discretionary right claimed by certain U.S. presidents to withhold information from Congress or the judiciary.” After a failed operation planned by the Bureau for Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, suspicious politicians requested more information concerning the operation. However, in June of 2012, President Obama appealed to executive privilege in order to keep certain information from Congress. This protection of privacy resulted in a storm of discord, with blame cast on the ATF, the Justice Department, and the President for the failed operation. This storm of accusation from the Republicans led to an equally hot response from the Democrats as they criticized the Republicans for making a mountain out of a molehill. All this discord simply because of an overvaluing of the Executive Branch’s privacy. Discord among the various governmental branches is all too common because of such privacy protecting privileges as executive privilege. Contention 3: International Unity.Privacy also harms unity internationally.Application two: operation fast and furious. When the Bureau for Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives formed a plan to capture certain high-up drug-dealers, many of the guns they had intended to use as bait escaped, crossing the border into Mexico. Unfortunately, the ATF kept the knowledge of what was occurring from the Mexican Government as well as from ATF agents in Mexico. According to political analyst Ray Walser, “ATF officials remained unresponsive to queries from Mexico.” Unfortunately, as the plan began to backfire, this protection of privacy fostered distrust and discord between Mexico and the U.S. As Darren D. Gil, former ATF attaché to Mexico, lamented, “why were ATF personnel in Mexico kept in the dark on this operation [OFF], which has now imperiled trust and cooperation between U.S. and Mexican law enforcement at a time when that trust and cooperation is more essential than ever?”I reserve the right to defend the value of unity in subsequent rounds.Clearly, privacy is overvalued, for it is being wrongfully valued above the value of unity. Thus, I am resolved that privacy is overvalued and ought to move down the hierarchy of values.