Privacy should be valued over security

Contention 1Limitations around privacy. While privacy is a great freedom that we all share, it has limitations. As long as their is no need to breach someones privacy, they should under all circumstance be able to maintain that privacy. The issue at hand is you are claiming it should be valued over security. The issue with this is that security falls into the category of the well being of others. So if it were upheld that privacy should always be valued and prioritized over security, it would serve as a catalyst for things that should not need to take place. Think about the context of this resolution. Example A : it could lead to drug trafficking. If it were upheld that someones home privacy is valued over national security, it would and could reduce the chance of being able to catch illegal acts that would occur. Someone could state this rule, and run any type of illegal operation from their home. Example B : Acts of murder : Someone could take the life of another and evidence could be cut short, if that persons privacy was upheld before the security of other. Example C : Sex Trafficking : Just imagine if this was upheld in someones business. That it is their right to hold privacy over security. Take a strip joint. It would almost surely increase prostitution, and even lead to the chance of prostitution of minors because there would be no way to confirm or check it. The essential claim you are making, is that under no circumstances should someones privacy should be breached even if it means the security of others. I will or can not agree with that resolution. I have just listed a few, but there are countless other ways, this could and would be exploited.Contention 2There has to be a balanceShould he have said, that there needs to be a balance between the both that I would agree too. I would never say either that security should be valued over privacy. That would lead to the government having to much authority. Example A : They could tap our phones and few messages or emails that are entitled to usExample B : Just imagine someone reading conversations or looking at image exchanges between your wife/girlfriendThere are also tons of reasons this could be exploited if we said security should be valued over privacy. That is why we need a balance between them both. One should not override the other, and in terms of keeping people safe there has to be limitations to each. Contention 3Issues where security should have came before privacy. (A) A business example of this would have been the Enron scandal. Due to them having to much privacy and no internal operations and limited external regulations, it led to one of the biggest scandals in US history. I am all to familiar with this having studied accounting and went to work as an accountant. Essentially Enron poured billions into trading ventures and a majority of them failed. Here is one way they cheated the system. As posted by a Fox reporter" Enron invested a bunch of money in a joint venture with Blockbuster to rent out movies online. The deal flopped eight months later. But in the meantime Enron had secretly set up a partnership with a Canadian bank. The bank essentially lent Enron $115 million in exchange for Enron's profits from the movie venture over its first 10 years. The Blockbuster deal never made a penny, but Enron counted the Canadian loan as a nice, fat profit."The issue was at that time it was not against the law. Through multiple failures and them eventually facing bankruptcy, it was a detriment to the economy and even share holders at the time. Since them the Sarbanes-Oxley act has been put in place to help catch situations like this. The business can maintain its privacy but within proper regulation. This should be the case in most scenarios. Rebuttal 1The right of privacyI will address this briefly. Privacy should be a basic human right, and should not be breach unless needed as I have stated above. This is probably the best passage I have read regarding the issue."This results in the battle of personal privacy versus national security and everybody agrees that both aspects are incredibly essential. At the same time, the complete existence of one rules out the existence of the other"That is pretty much on point. Both are essential but there has to be a line drawn where they both can coincide to assure us that we can maintain the right to privacy as long as we are doing nothing to hinder the well being of others. In ClosingI agree that privacy is an essential right, but so is the maintaining and upholding the well being of others. If there is anyway to protect others, and prevent bad circumstances for happening it should be pursed and chased. I think there is a line where both need to meet equally and work together. If one were to override the other, it would be a detriment to us as a nation. Therefore we need both privacy and security to guarantee the safety of our nation and the people within it. http://law2.umkc.edu...http://www.soxlaw.com...http://www.journalofaccountancy.com...