Privacy is a Fundamental Right

Background:This debate originated from this thread on Edward Snowden:http://www.debate.org...My esteemed opponent saw little to no reason to be agitated by the NSA surveillance program PRISM. In order to attempt to understand his perspective, I made several allusions to physical reality, whether it be the government surreptitiously installing cameras into one's home, or government surveillance of public roads.For this specific debate, I want to debate one specific aspect of privacy - surveillance on public roads. To keep this debate relevant to the debate surrounding PRISM, the situation will be thus - that the government has somehow installed a satellite and on-the-ground surveillance system that can monitor the comings and goings of each and every American citizen while they are utilizing public roads for any reason, whether it be as a pedestrian or a motorist (to include cyclists, passengers, etc). This surveillance system has been installed without public knowledge - it is a clandestine surveillance system. Motorists are allowed to tint their rear passenger and rear windows to circumvent surveillance, although no one is sure that this surveillance system actually exists due to its clandestine nature. The government records any and all information resulting from this surveillance system, and is allowed to do so without obtaining a warrant.PRO will argue that this scenario violates fundamental rights to privacy.CON will argue that this scenario does not violate fundamental rights to privacy, either because the scenario does not violate one's privacy, or because privacy is not a fundamental right inherent to citizens of a country whose government acknowledges and accepts the responsibility of upholding the fundamental rights of its citizenry.Anarchist arguments stemming from a politically nihilistic philosophy are not allowed for this debate - we are to assume the legitimacy of a functioning government for the purposes of this debate.Resolution:Privacy is a Fundamental RightDefinitions:Privacy - freedom from unauthorized intrusion - for the purposes of this debate, the public roads scenario represents an unauthorized intrusion, as it was done without public knowledge.Fundamental Right - for the purposes of this debate, a fundamental right will be one that is universally recognized as a just pursuit of any legal system, including the American legal system. Basically, any fundamental right belonging to an individual should be defended by the coercive powers of the state. Common fundamental rights would be the right to live without experiencing theft, rape, or murder.A plain English aim of this debate would be that "the government has no business conducting unauthorized surveillance of public roads."For PRO to win this debate, PRO must demonstrate either that 1) the government has no business conducting this surveillance, or 2) if it did, it must be made public knowledge that such surveillance occurs. CON will argue that both the surveillance itself and unauthorized nature of the surveillance is fully justifiable.Rules:4,000 character round4 roundsRound #1 acceptanceRounds 2/3 argumentsRound #4 closing, no new arguments, no new sourcesThis will be a NO SCORING debate. Readers are free to note who ultimately convinced them of their arguments along with any other observations and constructive criticisms of the debate, however, I ask that readers not score this debate, in order to make more objective the reader's comments.