Retaining Privacy Is More Important Than Forfeiting It In The Fight Against Terrorism

A warrant does respect an individuals right to privacy. A judge must grant authorization to another individual before the breach of privacy is committed, and it must be for good reason. Despite the singular breach of privacy, the spirit of privacy is retained as a whole because each incident of this breach will be put up to a review process and requires a good deal of local government involvement. The value of privacy is in how it protects the people from unscrupulous government action. The relevancy of data collection involved in smartphone (for instance,) is that the CISA bill which was passed in December creates a direct pipeline for data from smartphones to become data for the government to quantify, secretly, for their own purposes. The idea of privacy as your right to be left alone, in private, is a singular and naive viewpoint. You're focusing on yourself. Your privacy, your usage habits, control over your life. The privacy of the individual isn't damaged by direct infringement upon the individual's privacy; it's damaged by the social implications of implied privacy infringement on a massive scale. Privacy protects speech, it protects the development of social and political views from government over generations, it protects the the electoral process, and it protects political freedom. If you bothered to look at how privacy was decided upon as a necessary right, by looking at how privacy infringement has been used to destroy great nations throughout history, you'd understand this. We have the talk about what these corporations and (sometimes) what the government is doing to access our personal data. We rarely have the talk about why that privacy matters, and that debate seems to be very necessary because the actual worth of privacy seems to be lost common-knowledge. I'm not concerned that the government somehow has control of my life just because they might or do collect information about my usage habits. The collaborative effort of corporations and government to get this data, along with the generational implications of privacy infringement, is what is concerning. The balances of power between the government and the populace are becoming tipped irrevocably. When the implications of lost privacy effect the majority, it's the minority who lose their voice. Loss of privacy protection is loss of protection for the free speech of politicians, press, and corporate bodies. The strokes get broader as the damage is done, and can eventually effect upstart politicians, the educational process, the individuals. These are the lessons of history. It has nothing to do with your data. It has everything to do with most people's data. Abuse of the tipped scale between government and the people is a generational eventuality, in the absence of a meaningful protection of privacy. Terrorism has accounted for slightly more than 3000 deaths in the US since September 11th, 2001. My opponent considers this grounds to forfeit privacy, if even for the sake of saving a single of these lives. Most American's agree that the threat of terrorism is significant enough to forfeit all of the types of privacy I've listed thus far. Motor vehicles have accounted for roughly 500,000 since september 11th, 2001. Most American's would agree that this is a fact of life in the free world and any significant changes to our freedom to drive vehicles would be unacceptable to prevent these deaths. World War II accounted for 60 to 85 million deaths in just 6 years. Populaces controlled by their government, instead of government's controlled by their populace. I never insuated that all privacy is ultimately taken away. I just speculate that most of the reasons for retaining privacy as outlined by our founding fathers are completely compromised, now. They recorded, in great detail, the methods of subversion that they were attempting to prevent by writing the Constitution. In the modern era, due to technological advancements and the will of our government, these acts of subversion can be much more effectively executed. As long ago as the 60's, during JFK's presidency, our CIA was pushing a plan called operation Northwoods. The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other US government operatives to commit acts of terrorism against American civilians and military targets, blaming it on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war against Cuba. The only person who rejected this proposal was the president. No one was charged for this proposal. This is the level of malevolence we can expect of our secret intelligence agencies. To assume that our secret intelligence of today has any more of a moral compass.. is a matter of faith. When we look at the incredible amount of information that advertising agencies are capable of deriving from personal data such as they get from smartphone usage, are we unable to conceive of how this data might be used to influence the populace as a whole? So long as a pipeline exists for this information to flow from our personal lives to the government and our secret agencies, all of the protections that come along with our right to privacy are lost. Whether we retain that right on paper or not, is moot. Terrorism, in comparison to the continued corruption of the most powerful military force on this planet , seems a bit of a non-issue. The pressing issue seems to be the lost balance of power occurring in this country. This is not the time to accept authoritarianism. The notion that terrorists pose any significant threat to the well being country is laughable. The concept of terrorism, on the other hand, is doing undermining the checks and balances of our government. More and more power is being funneled from the cities to the states, from the states to the executive branch, and from the individuals to the executive branch. If this isn't threatening, I don't know what is. Let's not forget those death toll figures. What's really the bigger threat, here?