Privacy is a fundamental right

Only Fundamental Rights Matter For This DebateCON's arguments regarding primary and secondary rights continue to obfuscate the topic for discussion - Fundamental Rights.CON states: "...given that there is another secondary right in opposition to each secondary right, the protection of each cannot be universal," but he does not make a case that secondary rights are in opposition to each other. How is privacy opposed to freedom of speech, for example? CON discusses the two without putting them in opposition to each other.He also states that "[CON] asserts the primacy of freedom of speech, and then caveats this by protections against slander, libel and hate speech." This is not an argument for the opposition of freedom of speech...it merely refines that definition to a more precise form. Freedom of speech without libel and hate speech is not in opposition to privacy, for example, nor is it opposed to itself. CON's arguments to this effect are non-sensical and illogical.CON may think that freedom of speech with caveats is opposed to freedom of speech...however, I am not discussing freedom of speech as a fundamental right, but freedom of speech with caveats as a fundamental right. Regardless, this discussion is inapplicable to the fundamental right to privacy and is a gigantic strawman.Accountability is STILL ParamountOn accountability, CON states: "the gathering of information alone does nothing to damage the individual. It is only in cases where this information is actually used that harm is done to the individual." However, simply gathering information does not imply monitoring, and it is MONITORING that makes this system a surveillance system. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) If you create this surveillance system without the intent of surveillance, what is the point of creating the system? This is a non-sequitor argument from CON - per round #1, we are talking about a clandestine surveillance system.CON is correct that "...even suppressing information from the trial still leaves a trace, there will still be information left behind. Every time the information is used, there will be traces left and this will eventually lead to the 'critical mass' my opponent mentions." This is where this unadvertised intrusion, where this violation of privacy becomes most glaring and most inexcusable. To keep this system clandestine, and given that the government is not accountable to anyone other than itself with such a system, the government would then be unobliged to disclose ANY information about the program, to include reporting evidence in a trial or even active suppression. Due to the program's clandestine nature, unaccountability would also grant the government any and every opportunity to spread misinformation about the program. It could try and convict suspects without any form of scrutiny except for what it gives itself, and claim immunity from examination due to the necessarily clandestine nature of this program (i.e., how PRISM works). The year is 1984.Even excluding discussion of the 4th amendment, the government could still imprison citizens without any disclosable cause under this program, and habeas corpus would still not apply.Closing- CON has made a non-sequitor distinction between fundamental, primary, and secondary rights.- CON is not talking about a surveillance system, but an information-gathering system, the information not being subject to any analysis, i.e. no monitoring, i.e. no surveillance...another non-sequitor.- Again, privacy is a fundamental right:1) It is vital for private sector performance in a competitive environment (dropped by CON)2) It is vital for the existence of laws in general, as without an individual's right to privacy, the government can surreptitiously collect evidence against individuals and prosecute them without disclosure, rendering a nation's laws irrelevant to criminal proceedings. Thanks to CON for engaging in and to you for reading this debate.