Privacy is undervalued

Thank you Con for starting this debate. I agree with Cons round structure, definitions, and rules. Con never gave us direction to which country or brand of privacy we are debating. Therefore, I assume it means all countries and privacy's for the individual. Resolution- Privacy is undervalued BOP: In this debate it is upon Pro to show that privacy is undervalued and why it is. Con must show that privacy is not undervalued and why it is not. The most convincing argument should prevail. Pros Argument In this debate I will offer three contentions why I think Privacy is undervalued. As mentioned in my opening, I will address all facets of privacy. So, I will focus my contentions on Political, Personnel, and Technological privacy's. C1) Political There are many countries where individuals have a fear of their governments. Some governments prohibit any freedom and make citizens criminals who would be innocent in other nations. Privacy is a fundamental value but at the same time, it is undervalued by the state and government.[1] Almost every law infringes on the personnel privacy in some way. The problem is governments are suspicious of personal privacy, they distrust the individual, they think privacy's are out to harm the way of life or they think people are acting as criminals and therefore, seek their privacy's to be invaded. Most governments do not want a society where people will have full privacy to engage in their own personnel choices. Governments will oppose privacy as long as it continues to be seen as a screen for illegal, disruptive, and anti political behavior. Our government expresses more value for voting, expression, equality, than privacy of the people. For us to rely on governments to protect privacy is like asking a peeping tom to install our windows. Federal web sites use unauthorized software that tracks Internet users despite policy rules that ban such information-gathering, according to a report to Congress..[2] Justice Black: "I like my privacy as much as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has the right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision." C2) Personnel The idea of a right for privacy in ones own personal life was not conceived until recently. There is no explicit right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution. There is no general right of privacy in the United Kingdom. It is not that people know things about us that bothers us, but that based on this knowledge, they discriminate. The most straightforward informational intrusions of your privacy might involve music, social functions, searches of your property, or even polygraph examinations. A bunch of foreign students in the United States are monitored more closely to try and identify potential terrorist. This follows the American citizen as they are harassed inside airports and many other public domains.[3] Every day people must deal with regular citizens invading our personnel space. At home we have to deal with people messing with our personnel belongings. We have neighbors who like to invade our space or use property that does not belong to them. The media have gone too far to find information about people. The right to privacy is a rapidly diminishing commodity. When a person achieves any kind of status, his or her right to privacy is immediately revoked. Invasion of privacy cannot only be used within the context of just media but also when speaking about a specific person. The public disclosure of private facts is a huge concern. You know that when you read in a magazine about people it sometimes lists that "close sources" gave the information away. The disclosure of private facts is defined as giving one who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of an individual.[3][4] You have little or no right of privacy from the media if you are in a public place. The Bill of Rights protects citizens against unreasonable search, seizure, and privacy violation. But that is a protection from government intrusion not media corporations. Many suits against the media now claim invasion of privacy. Technology gives the media powerful new tools for intrusion into private lives. C3) Technological We can wake up and get online post a couple of status's and all the while spy ware tracks your information. We can get into our cars which have global tracking systems. While we commute we have RFID technology relaying our information and car position by a government agency. We can use our cell-phones which also have tracking systems. All the while the government is being hacked and our information is passed out by cyber stalkers. We go to work and while we park we are watched by surveillance cameras. We go to work where we are overseen by our employer. We can go to numerous places that scans and tracks our face and voice. We can go to places to eat or drink and there they have digital cameras and our transactions are monitored by third parties. The Data Protection agency has recorded millions of complaints of privacy intrusion. Most were of a general nature, the most common specific queries related to the right to access personal data and the credit reference system. The Data Protection noted that enquiries were increasing, as individuals became more concerned with their privacy rights.[5] We have drones watching us. President Obama's secretary of the Air Force stated the purpose of these drones are for, "balancing ... obtaining intelligence information for rights." However, flying over our homes, farms, ranches and businesses and spying on us while we conduct our everyday lives is not an example of protecting our rights. It is an example of violating them.[6] Personal information is gathered from a host of both public and private sources. DHS also maintains the Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) that has the fingerprints, photographs and biographical information on 126 million people. The Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) keeps fingerprint records of some 62 million people. Computers and the Internet provide the ability to rummage through the closets of your life in ways that have never before been possible. Summation As we can see the privacy of the person is always being took for granted. The citizens themselves have lack of concern for their fellow citizens privacy, much less the government or media. Privacy appears to have value amongst people but that value is undervalued. Until we look to increase the value of privacy into its rightful place then we can look for our basic right for privacy to be invaded. Thank you and I send it back to Con. Sources [1] https://people.eou.edu... [2] http://abcnews.go.com... [3] http://www.library.gatech.edu... [4] http://www.winning-newsedia.com... [5] http://www.pointparkglobe.com... [6] http://www.dataprotection.ie... [7] http://www.cnn.com...