Privacy is a fundamental right

I am glad I persevered in getting this debate going. I expected my opponent to give a formidable argument and am not disappointed. However formidable it may be, I will deconstruct it and show it to be invalid.RebuttalThis debate is about Fundamental RightsMy opponent has made some interesting distinctions between primary and secondary rights, but such distinctions are only relevant to the debate if they relate to fundamental rights, i.e. "universally recognized as a just pursuit of any legal system," and "should be defended by the coercive powers of the state." Using this definition, I would simply say that my opponent's use of "secondary rights" are also fundamental, and that he has not challenged the resolution with this approach.For example, I find it odd that CON thinks that the freedom of speech is not a "primary" right. "The pen is mightier than the sword;" ideology throughout history has proven to be quite potent. From holy wars to pivotal figures like Hitler and Gandhi, ideology has motivated people to perform incredible acts of kindness as well as heinous acts of violence. It is through freedom of speech that such ideas promulgate...it is a fundamental right (with exceptions of course, like slander, libel, hate speech, etc) parallel to the right to self-defense. If this "secondary right" is fundamental, then privacy is as well.Accountability is ParamountIMHO, my opponent's arguments fail the hardest here. He argues three points:1) Disclosure is allowable, as long as it is accompanied by a promise of non-disclosure2) Means of collecting evidence need not be disclosed3) Means of collecting evidence can be disclosed locally without disclosing the actual programI will address #1 in detail and #2/#3 briefly due to space concerns.1) Selective disclosure sets up the stage for unfair advantage. Anyone fortuitous to have an altercation involving this clandestine security system, brought to trial where it was disclosed, and was subsequently exonerated, would become aware of this security system. On the surface this may look harmless enough, but two arguments suggest otherwise:a) If this system became a bedrock of the legal system, a critical mass of people would become aware of the system, thereby violating the round #1 stipulation that this system remain clandestine. That would render CON's entire line of reasoning irrelevant to this debate.b) Unfair advantages directly translate to the government inadvertently picking winners and losers in the marketplace. Example: FedEx and UPS are competitors, and their activity is monitored by the US government under this program. The CEO of FedEx, on a routine traffic stop, challenges his ticket in court, where he discovers the existence of this clandestine security system. His high-powered lawyers exonerate him from his traffic violation, but the CEO is still left with full knowledge of this system. He desires to know how his opponent's logistics system works, so he engineers a diabolically specific civil lawsuit against UPS that would force the government to disclose the security system and thereby submit as evidence any and all relevant data on UPS's logistic systems. Now armed with his opponent's proprietary trade secrets, he proceeds to dismantle and circumvent UPS's logistic systems, perhaps by building low-cost/high-effect barrier systems that would screw with the timing of UPS's delivery service. This would erode UPS's advantage and destroy the company.This argument also addresses the need for privacy. All businesses have trade secrets, and all trade secrets require privacy. Privacy is a fundamental right.2/3) Any good defense lawyer will question the means by which the evidence was collected in order to prove reasonable doubt and to attempt to discredit the methodology. If the government chooses not to disclose the program, then the government has ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY, i.e. police state, martial law. If it does, then my rebuttal to CON's point #1 applies.