Impromptu, with rebuttal

I'm separating my rebuttal into three sections which, roughly speaking, correspond to how the arguments appeared in my opponent's case. === THE DEFINITION OF "PRIVATE" === On dictionary. com, my opponent's dictionary reference, there are various different definitions of "private". [1] He chose number 4, "personal and not publicly expressed". I challenge this definition, and instead believe that number 8, namely "not open or accessible to the general public", is a better definition. Why does this matter? It matters because my opponent drew the word "publicly" out of his definition to present a dichotomy between "private" and "publicly expressed". The conclusion drawn from this is that one's right to privacy is breached whenever information is made public. But this surely does not tell the whole story, for there is a difference between "rights" and "duties". A right is "a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral" [2] A duty is "something that one is expected or required to do by moral or legal obligation. " [3] The difference is that rights can be voluntarily given away, whereas one has no such choice with a duty - the former is an entitlement which one can reject, whereas the latter is an obligation by which one must stand. And clearly, privacy is a right, not a duty. For example, I can invite whomever I want into my private life - in a relationship or marriage, for instance - and this is clearly not seen as a detriment to me. It is only a detriment if this happens against my will, or without my consent. My opponent cannot successfully, therefore, claim the argument already won in saying that we give personal information to Facebook. He also has to show that this is done without people's consent, which he has not - and which, as the next section of my rebuttal shows, is simply not the case. === PEOPLE CONSENT TO A DEGREE OF INFORMATION-SHARING ON FACEBOOK === Facebook is a social networking site. That is the very point of its existence. Therefore, people are being incredibly naive if they expect absolute privacy on the site. The question must be to what extent they are allowed to control their privacy. There are four pieces of information which always remains public on a user's Facebook account: their name, profile picture, gender and networks joined. Facebook successfully justifies this thus: knowledge about one's name and profile picture are vital for real-life friends to find you on Facebook and differentiate you from other people of the same name; your gender allows Facebook to refer to you correctly ("Write on his wall"); and knowing who is in which network allows people to know who is in a given network before setting their privacy settings to "Friends and Networks Only", which is a good privacy option precisely because people in a network (by virtue of the company or location in question) are more likely to know each other, thus facilitating real-life friends to find each other on Facebook. All of these compulsory public details - which, by the way, could be forged if the user wanted even more privacy - are therefore not detrimental to their right to privacy. [4] Every other detail about oneself can be made totally private. In his listing of privacy options, my opponent missed out the "customisation" where one can make any piece of information available "Only to Me. " [5] In this way, it is very easy for Facebook users to maintain an extremely high level of privacy. Furthermore, when someone starts a Facebook account - and before they put any sensitive information on Facebook - they are prominently informed both of the existence of the privacy policy, and of the initial privacy settings that can be changed by them. This happens when an account is created [6], and when someone first starts on their newly created account [7] [8]. A user of Facebook has therefore directly allowed Facebook to show their shared information in accordance with their own privacy settings. Their right to privacy is therefore upheld. === Alleged violations of privacy === There are three alleged violations given by my opponent. These are: 1. Advertisements My opponent needed to show that these have a detrimental effect. It could conceivably be "alarming how much information Facebook gathers from its user", but it only if they actually used this information in a detrimental fashion. Or, indeed, if Facebook hadn't asked permission before taking this information. There is no evidence that it has been used in such a way, and as shown above, they do get permission by virtue of an account's creation and continued use. 2. Change in privacy policy This is due to Facebook's change in usage. It began as a Harvard-only dorm-to-dorm site, developing into a worldwide social networking website. For the reasons already given, the information made public is not detrimental in any way. My opponent also says: "a name alone carries a lot of weight. A name on a college degree gives a very positive reputation. That same name on a porn website destroys the former reputation. This example, though admittedly somewhat intense, is possible and is a violation of the right to protection against interference with honour and reputation. " Yes, that example is intense. It is also irrelevant to this debate. Facebook is not a porn site. Nor, for that matter, is it a college degree. It is Facebook, a social networking site. What conceivable damage could be done to someone about whom it is known that they frequent Facebook? Assuming we live in a democratic state, or we are using a reliable proxy server, surely none. I fail to see my opponent's point here. 3. On the Facebook Beacon system As my opponent pointed out, this was shut down in 2009 and so not part of Facebook as currently constituted. However, he mentions "like" buttons across the internet, which if clicked result in instant updates on Facebook. Now, I have never seen this continuing feature, and my opponent provided no evidence of it. I can't see how these external websites would end up knowing about a user's Facebook account without the user actively combining the two accounts, or giving explicit consent in some other way. I am thus reluctant to accept my opponent's implication that this information transfer to Facebook is ever done without the user's consent. But even if we assume that it is, I'd point out that everything that is put onto your Facebook profile can be deleted - including former profile pictures, posts (both on your own wall and on other people's walls), and activities as well. Therefore, if you really have messed up by accidentally moving the mouse onto a "like" button and pressing it, and you want to reverse it, you can go to Facebook and do so. Immediately. I don't understand where the alleged violation of privacy is supposed to happen here, especially given my earlier comments about how the website would know about the Facebook account in the first place. In conclusion, as a social networking website, Facebook users expect and want information to be shared. They can decide who accesses this information - from everyone to no-one - and none of my opponent's allegations of privacy violations hold up. For this reason, his motion should be negated. Thank you. Sources: [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] . http://www.facebook.com... [5] . http://img42.imageshack.us... [6] . http://img62.imageshack.us... after the "Sign Up" button. [7] . http://img9.imageshack.us... in the top-right, when someone moves over the Account button - as would be expected of someone exploring Facebook. [8] . http://img9.imageshack.us... - Number 6.