Privacy is a fundamental right

Background:This is a second attempt at this debate - CON was unaware that round #1 terms were negotiable.This debate originated from this thread on Edward Snowden:http://www.debate.org...CON saw little to no reason to be agitated by the NSA surveillance program PRISM. In order to attempt to understand his perspective, I made several allusions to physical reality, whether it be the government surreptitiously installing cameras into one's home, or government surveillance of public roads.For this specific debate, I want to debate one specific aspect of privacy - video surveillance on public roads. To keep this debate relevant to the debate surrounding PRISM, the situation will be thus - that the government has somehow installed a satellite and on-the-ground surveillance system that monitors the comings and goings of each and every American citizen while they are utilizing public roads for any reason, whether it be as a pedestrian or a motorist (to include cyclists, passengers, etc). This surveillance system has been installed without public knowledge - it is a clandestine surveillance system. Motorists are allowed to tint their rear passenger and rear windows to circumvent surveillance, although no one is sure that this surveillance system actually exists due to its clandestine nature. The government records any and all information resulting from this surveillance system, and is allowed to do so without obtaining a warrant.- Does this include surveillance of the sidewalk? Yes.- Paths within parks that do not border roads? Yes, all public roads.- Does the system have the means to identify pedestrians or does it use number plate analysis to determine the registered owner of the vehicle? It comprises of video surveillance, so faces can be matched through a facial recognition system.Anarchist arguments stemming from a politically nihilistic philosophy are not allowed for this debate - we are to assume the legitimacy of a functioning government for the purposes of this debate.The conditions of this scenario are deemed valid for this debate. CON cannot argue that such a system is not possible to implement - that would violate round #1 rules of behavior for this debate.Resolution:Privacy is a Fundamental RightDefinitions:Privacy - freedom from unadvertised intrusion - for the purposes of this debate, the public roads scenario represents an unadvertised intrusion.Fundamental Right - for the purposes of this debate, a fundamental right will be one that is universally recognized as a just pursuit of any legal system, including the American legal system. Basically, any fundamental right belonging to an individual should be defended by the coercive powers of the state. Common fundamental rights would be the right to live without experiencing theft, rape, or murder.A plain English aim of this debate would be that "the government has no business conducting unadvertised surveillance of public roads."For PRO to win this debate, PRO must demonstrate either that 1) the government has no business conducting this surveillance, or 2) if it did, it must be made public knowledge that such surveillance occurs. CON will argue that both the surveillance itself and unadvertised nature of the surveillance is fully justifiable.Rules:4,000 character round4 roundsRound #1 acceptanceRounds 2/3 argumentsRound #4 closing, no new arguments, no new sourcesThis will be a NO SCORING debate. Readers are free to note who ultimately convinced them of their arguments along with any other observations and constructive criticisms of the debate, however, I ask that readers not score this debate, in order to make more objective the reader's comments.