The United States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance.

[Note: I'm going to cut down the debate to my analytics, the default limit set by debate.org doesn't help. Finding isn't easy, but I tried to paste the highlighted parts] The line between the government and corporations is vanishing " Numerous surveillance policies create further ties between corporations and the government through surveillance independently cause a chilling effect on political participation and dissent. Our primary political task is to open up the doors by which citizen political participation outside of corporate controlled frame is even possible. The status quo guarantees oligarchical policymaking resulting in tyranny, racial violence and makes solving all other problems impossible because corporations influence the flow of data and policymaking. Lehn "15 "Responding to oligarchic corporatism and government surveillance in the 21st Century" http://americablog.com... There are numerous threats that face us... We can"t forget about the institutionalized racism and violence While all of the above pervasive threats , the [crown*]tiara should rightfully go to the threat the encompasses them all: the confluence of wealth, power and information between corporate and government interests. Our private and public sectors have aligned to undermine this concentration of power, information, and wealth in the hands of the privileged few " politicians, government agencies and corporationsImmediately following 9/11, the Bush administration used the emotionally charged political environment to drag us into wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and to push the PATRIOT Act through Congress, granting the US government near unilateral surveillance and wiretapping abilities, while suspending numerous civil liberties. In so doing, Bush set the stage for increased government and corporate cooperation and information sharing . The 2010 Citizens United ruling and the 2014 Hobby Lobby ruling further increased the power and influence of corporations by granting them privileges and protections typically reserved for individual citizens. These two rulings combine to turn corporations into "super-people", Google can instantly change who has access to what information. One study even showed that, if it so desired, Google could influence the outcome of elections by tweaking its search engine algorithm corporations who collect information on consumers (name, credit/debit card information, etc.) can be made to "voluntarily" give that information to the government at any time for any reason and, again, without warrant. the committee results make it seem like only a matter of time. And it isn"t limited to your information; now, a host of benign online choices can be used against you if the government doesn"t like themIt"s already been established that We the People are becoming increasingly powerless against corporate influence, government intrusion or even the local police Surveillance is a key nodal point of corporate and state ties " historical development of the relationships and technologies prove that modern state surveillance is not even possible without the aid of corporate presence and unjustifiable without corporate agenda. This specific tie fuels billions into the military-industrial complex, guaranteeing warfare no matter how unreliable the threat. Ball and Snider 13-*Professor of Organization @ the Open University Business School, director of the Surveillance Studies Network **Professor Sociology @ Queens University [Kirstie, Laureen, The Surveillance-Industrial Complex: A political economy of surveillance, "Introduction: The surveillance-industrial complex: towards a political economy of surveillance?" 2013, pg. 1-5, DKP] The origins of the surveillance- industrial complex [... ] emerged from [...] corporate priorities [...]. Two massive configurations of power " state and corporate " have become the dominant players. Their evolution and growth was dialectical rather than linear; each conglomeration of networks and actors was and is mutually constituted from, by and through the other. This synergy was made possible by the "complementarities" of government and corporate "needs", and their mutual and complementary dependence on " and faith in " the limitless capabilities of "science" " which in turn depended on state and corporate funding, surveillance does not merely react to "crime", it creates "truth regimes and constructs target populations" Surveillance, therefore, is the sociotechnical means through which the logic of juridical concepts articulate with social relations of commodity production, finding its expression in systems of public and private law. In a myriad of ways, what Hardt and Negri term "the republic of property" (2009: 4"21) is facilitated through the institutional goals and biopolitical dimensions of modernity involving surveillance mechanisms. In addition to state"military roots, the surveillance- industrial complex has also been shaped by commerce, the life- blood of the free enterprise capitalist state. Corporations [...] were the go- to players in the military machine, Surveillance ensures a culture of compliance to law and norms. Basic psychology proves that the feeling of being watched influences social and political behavior"the aff is critical for any possible resistance to the dominant order to happen. Zuboff "15 [Shoshana Zuboff Charles Edward Wilson Professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School PhD in social psychology from Harvard "Big other: surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization" http://www.palgrave-journals.com...] Err pro" the threat is treated as "small" by those in power. Ensures the political trajectory of corporatism is intensified. Haggerty, 2015 Kevin D. Professor of Criminology and Sociology at the University of Alberta, "What"s Wrong with Privacy Protections?" in A World Without Privacy: What Law Can and Should Do? Edited by Austin Sarat p. 230 As part of an agenda against corporatismI think that it"s imperative that The United States Federal Government substantially curtail its domestic surveillance by revising the terms of the 3rd Party Doctrine, including a warrant requirement for both corporations and government for purposes of collecting, using, and editing data. Supreme Court has consistently held the third party doctrine to defend surveillance proven by various examples over time Brown 14, Kimberly N. Brown, University of Baltimore - School of Law, "Anonymity, Faceprints, and the Constitution," University of Baltimore School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2014-14, http://papers.ssrn.com... Changing the 3PD is key to prevent total corporate surveillance and spur public opinion against corporate-government ties writ large. Sylvain 14, Olivier Sylvain, Fordham University School of Law, "Failing Expectations: Fourth Amendment Doctrine in the Era of Total Surveillance", 49 Wake Forest Law Review 48, Fordham Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2473101 , July 28, 2014, http://papers.ssrn.com... Our advocacy is neither a stale roleplaying exercise nor abstract idealism but a "concrete utopian" demand. The gap pried open by ending corporate surveillance " the material steps against structural violence " enables and is surrounded by a larger yearning for freedom. This demand is both a goal and a bridge; we keep one foot in the possible and one reaching far beyond. Weeks 2011 [Kathi, prof in women studies at Duke, The Problem with Work, pp. 218-224] Prioritize structural violence above one-shot extinction scenarios, corporate ruling-class protected media minimizes the violence which outweighs all warfare. Abu-Jamal, 98 ( Mumia is an American activist and journalist, 9-19-1998, "Writings by Mumia Abu-Jamal," No Publication, http://www.angelfire.com...) Our impacts outweigh on probability and magnitude " risk assessment is epistemologically biased towards white male elites who discount the severity of everyday localized violence in destroying marginalized populations. Verchick 96 [Robert, Assistant Professor, University of Missouri -- Kansas City School of Law. J.D., Harvard Law School, 1989, "IN A GREENER VOICE: FEMINIST THEORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE" 19 Harv. Women's L.J. 23]