National Security[pro] vs Digital Privacy[con]

Before I begin I would like to point out that due to my opponents debate structure he is not allowed to present his case in the following rounds. Because the burden of proof is shared, and he is not allowed to produce any arguments, it will be virtually impossible for him to win. Any arguments presented by pro should be disregarded as they are now a breach of the rules. He can still do his best to rebut my arguments, but even the slightest evidence given by me will be more evidence than presented by Pro giving me the points.Argument 1: Privacy is ConstitutionalThe fourth amendment to the Constitution bans all "unreasonable search and seizure". The government collecting digital information from citizens is a clear version of these banned searches. The founding fathers had good reason when they ensured that Americans would have rights protecting them from government intrusion. The fourth amendment stemmed from numerous incidents involving British General Warrants giving excessive power to the government to search colonials."The Founders believed that freedom from government intrusion into one’s home was a natural right and fundamental to liberty. During the colonial era, lawyer James Otis argued in court against British use of writs of assistance, which were general search warrants allowing British officials to search wherever they wanted without having to say why. His arguments were observed by John Adams, who noted that Otis’s argument against this form of British tyranny marked the beginning of the American Revolution. George Mason wrote in the Virginia Declaration of Rights that general search warrants were 'grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.'" (http://billofrightsinstitute.org...)Argument 2: Increased Digital Surveillance Leads to Misuse of PowerThe use of the Patriot Act is an example how laws can unjustly take the freedoms of Americans. "the FBI has issued hundreds of thousands of national security letters, a majority against U.S. persons, and many without any connection to terrorism at all." The Material Witness Statute has also been misused in order to wrongfully detain and imprison US citizens. (https://www.aclu.org...)(http://www.ccrjustice.org...)The past shows us that the excuse of National Security can lead to the loss of basic human rights. During WW2 Japanese Americans were placed in internment camps and went through severe hardships. "In remembering, it is important to come to grips with the past. No nation can fully understand itself or find its place in the world if it does not look with clear eyes at all the glories and disgraces of its past. We in the United States acknowledge such an injustice in our history. The internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry was a great injustice, and it will never be repeated."- George W. Bush(http://en.wikipedia.org...)What we can take away from this is that personal privacy is a fundamental right, and taking away that right, even in the name of national security, carries a large risk of that power being misused in a potentially very harmful way.Argument 3: The War on Terror is not a Conventional WarThe war we are in that now demands we lose our right to digital privacy is not like WW1 or WW2 or most other regular wars. The war on terror is an open ended war without a clear enemy and it is not clear how victory will be reached. Loss of personal privacy has the potential of lasting many years.SummaryI believe that it is American individualism and personal freedom that makes it stand apart from many countries. Many of the people we fight in this war on terror believe this outlook is fundamentally wrong and is harmful to their traditional way of life. Sacrificing our liberty is now way to stand up to the people we now find ourselves at war with.(http://www.scu.edu...)\http://www.youtube.com...I'm only speaking for myself here but I trust Lucius Fox more than I trust a bunch of NSA workers...