should the U.S federal government curtail its domestic surveillance

**Regarding my opponent’s case** This website contains Pro’s first argument, almost word for word: http://criminal.findlaw.com... This Google Doc contains my opponent’s following argument: http://tinyurl.com... This search shows where the argument was taken from (first result): http://tinyurl.com... **THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE PLAGIARISM** Instead of providing his own arguments, Pro uses this document to argue for him, as well as an uncited website for his Inherency argument. This is entirely unacceptable and is plagiarism. By this token, I should already win the debate. However, I will still provide a case of my own to fulfill my burden (though Pro’s has not been met). IntroductionFormer Governor of Connecticut Jodi Wells was once quoted for saying, “At the end of the day, the goals are simple: safety and security.” Security and safety are essentials to living a happy, contented life. When individuals feel insecure, problems ensue. A just government should do all they can to ensure a secure and safe life for their citizens. It is because I believe that the goals politician Jodi Wells mentioned are achievable, I negate the resolution which states: “The USFG should significantly curtail domestic surveillance.” To begin, I would like to point out a few terms mentioned in the resolution.Government: This refers the ruling of the US, the federal government.Surveillance: Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "surveillance" as the act of carefully watching someone or something, especially in order to prevent or detect crime. Cameras are obviously going to be a tool used to achieve surveillance. Thus, these cameras' primary purpose will be used as a form of security.FrameworkGovernment exists primarily to govern the people in a way that will maximize societal welfare to the highest possible degree. Real-world benefits, as opposed to theoretical ones (i.e. privacy), should embody the content of the debate because it allows the visualization of actual implications when comparing benefits and costs. If retaining domestic surveillance maximizes the well-being and welfare of society, it should be preferred. As I will demonstrate, negating the resolution and preserving domestic surveillance will yield the best, tangible benefits to society as a whole, being utilitarian and maximizing societal welfare.Benefits of Surveillance Outweigh Supposed HarmsSecurity is inevitably achieved for public places.Recently, the city of Baltimore installed over 600 surveillance cameras all around the city. The reasoning behind this is simple. In a study taken by NeighborhoodScout, they found that Baltimore was one of the top 20 (18 to be exact) most dangerous cities in the United States. Danger comes in all forms, but one is generally of more prominence--crime. Surveillance cameras, being their primary purpose, would assist in dealing with crime. With crime running rampant, people cannot feel secure in simply going to a public place.When individuals are in fear, they definitely aren’t secure in the power or ability of their government. These cameras can also prove what actually happened, rather than unreliable “eyewitness” accounts. The majority of the time, these accounts aren’t the whole truth. Law professor Eugene Volokh of UCLA School of Law explains, “People are notoriously bad at observing and remembering exactly what happened.” Either one of two things is the result of such fallible memory: 1) they can’t remember exactly what happened, so they tell the closest to accurate tale they can, or 2) they have the liberty to blatantly lie to law enforcement. Neither result is beneficial to achieving justice in whatever matter is at hand. With surveillance cameras strategically positioned in public areas, they can accurately display the chain of events and interactions leading to and following the crime. People will be secure in knowing that judgment that is due will be given, and any harm caused will be adequately dealt with.Surveillance cameras also have benefits in school settings. They allow students to be physically, mentally, and emotionally safe. School shootings are becoming distressing problems, and many people are worried about the safety of their students. Security cameras can allow teachers and school guards (which many schools now have) to monitor any intruder that may approach the campus. If a suspect becomes aggressive, the school can monitor the actions of the attacker to prevent students from being in harm's way. If the students can be mentally and emotionally safe, they will be better able to concentrate on their assignments and increase productivity.Surveillance deters crime.The same is applicable to the public. The realization that societal and public activity is monitored would deter initial criminal action. Consequential recognition deters crime. Joerg Platzer details this concept: “Surveillance is a weapon deployed by the government against their biggest enemy – the people. Just like many other weapons, it unfolds most of its power by merely letting people know that one has that weapon by deterrence. I mean what use is the surveillance system for the government if people don’t know about it? I think the biggest benefit out of this leak is going to the US government.” [3] Essentially, any leakage of surveillance is bound to deter crimes, since people don’t want to pay adverse consequences for criminal activity.This is further reiterated by Jack Balkin in the Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository, “Older models of law enforcement have focused on apprehension and prosecution of wrongdoers after the fact and the threat of criminal or civil sanctions to deter future bad behavior. The National Surveillance State supplements this model of prosecution and deterrence with technologies of prediction and prevention.” [4] Instead of punishing people after the fact, surveillance would deter the infraction before it was even committed.Privacy is not a big issueThere are regulations in place to prevent abuse and deflect unnecessary and unethical observation. [5] [6] These policies and explanations of domestic surveillance curb fears of privacy infraction and potential abuse of the system. Regardless, the majority of surveillance takes place in the public, where privacy is forfeited. By entering a public vicinity, rights to visual and audible privacy are subsequently forfeited. Moreover, by the framework of the debate, privacy is theoretical and should be relatively irrelevant to tangible, real-world effects and the maximization of societal welfare.Problems Remain Unsolved Without SurveillanceCourt decisions can only go off of the evidence they have, and from there, their only option would be to trust witness accounts. In practically every case, each witness account contradicts with another in some way, shape, or form. Solvencies for these types of discrepancies are easily discovered by systems of surveillance from the government.Police tickets for running red lights, stop signs, and other traffic related difficulties would be cleared up simply by using surveillance programs. Not only would these unsolved problems be solved, but it would discourage individuals from committing crimes when they feel they have a regulated sense of accountability and punishment for illegal or adverse behavior.ConclusionI've fulfilled the framework by showing tangible benefits by preserving surveillance. The resolution is negated.Sources: [1] http://www.neighborhoodscout.com... [2] http://www2.law.ucla.edu... [3] https://www.rt.com... [4] http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu... [5] http://nypost.com... [6] http://articles.latimes.com...