Government Surveilance

I'll first examine my opponent's answers, then look at my own case. 1. I don't remember the government ever accusing every single United States citizen of a crime. .. I'd like my opponent to show me how that actually happens in the status quo. 2. How does the government control the news? What news is controlled? What is not being told to us? All of these questions are completely implausible to answer because then my opponent has no ACTUAL evidence to show for. His entire case is based on hypothetical situations that can be disregarded. Not fact. Answer how the government controls the news. Answer what we don't know about the government. Answer how they control marriage. Answer how the control where you can or cannot smoke. Answer where you can and cannot have a gun. How much women get paid. How taxes work. Oh wait. .. you can't. Yes please go on. You waste your time with things that have literally NOTHING to do with the resolution. But I'm amused. .. 3. Your answer here is laughable. It still doesn't show why a breach in privacy is actually a BAD thing. I'd put national safety in front of my privacy any day. Prove to me why that's wrong. 4. You didn't answer the question. Forensic and police departments don't always stop crime. Most of the time, they intervene AFTER crimes happen. Only surveillance solves for this. NOW TO MY CASE: According to Business Insider, "Online surveillance has been effective and is an important tool in the fight against terrorism. Lawmakers have said that data mining stopped attacks in the United States and overseas. The programs also provide U. S. authorities with leads on potential and existing terrorists. One NSA official told the Washington Post that PRISM provided a "field of dots" which allowed authorities to connect the relevant ones. " We literally didn't know about government surveillance until Snowden blew the whistle. In fact, it had been going on since the Bush administration, even without a warrant. So what's the big deal? It happened and your life wasn't affected. So. .. I see no problem with it then, so there is no problem with it now. Not to mention, the government isn't the only one collecting your information. Every time you input personal information into the internet, private businesses collect it for advertising and profit. So, which is worse? Profit, or national security? I can, just by going on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat or Twitter, either explicitly know the information about a person, or deduce it from posts. The American public is literally practically compliant with the status quo, which further proves that there is nothing wrong with what's going on. Nothing socially is going wrong, and since my opponent admitted during cross-examination that surveillance is legally admissible (judges sign off on it), then there is also nothing legally wrong with it either. Roughly 56 percent of (the 319 million) Americans (that the Pro believes hate surveillance) believe it is "acceptable" for the spy agency to secretly collect the telephone call records of millions of Americans, according to a new Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll. More than half of the US thinks that it is admissible for this to happen. So. .. Further proof in favor of surveillance. --- The Con literally can't prevent crimes in his world. The Pro can.