Privacy should be valued over security

I have no idea what pro wanted to debate but lets look at the topic at hand, and perhaps he should have worded it better. Privacy -the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people.Valued - prioritized or put above, as my adversary defines itSecurity - the state of being free from danger or threat.Combine those sentences , and we can see what we are discussingThe state of being free from or disrupted by other people should be prioritized or put above the state of being free from danger. Right off the start, that should already bring up red flags. Rebuttal 1" I just cant t seem to understand how if someones home privacy would be of threat to national security. If there was evidence that they were a terrorist, then of course the police would be able to intervene. But the EVIDENCE has to exist, and if probable cause was there, then it is no longer a matter of privacy vs. security, it becomes a matter of justice being served."It doesn't have to be terrorism in itself. The ability the government has to tap our phones, or even through satellite surveillance can help them stop crimes from happening. That is essentially an invasion of privacy, but thanks to modern technology it helps prevent some major crimes from happening. Just take surveillance cameras and all the crimes they prevent. This is considered an invasion of privacy, but it is also a severe deterrent for crime in itself.A recent study says this"Surveillance cameras have a great potential to reduce and act as a deterrent for crime. In locations where they have been installed, attempts at robbery have dropped nearly 65 percent in some cases"That is just with cameras not to mention how randomly doing checks of cars, can help prevent and catch criminals as well. http://www.washingtontimes.com...http://www.usatoday.com...http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com...Rebuttal 2"Police will still be empowered with those powers, its the personal privacy of people who are innocent that we need to protect; innocent people who are having their phone calls monitored, their search history checked, their personal lives invaded for no reason at all"That is all in perception, if they had suspicion that something was wrong and wanted to get a warrant that would be invading their privacy. It is a slippery slope when you say privacy should be valued over security because then it begs, when is it plausible to breach the privacy. You say when there are facts, or you possibly meant to say when it is a neccessity. If the government is to define what is a neccessity, then the argument is counter productive. If you were to value this over security, it could and would be abused in multiple situatons. Rebuttal 3"Another excellent example that demonstrates how security measures are getting out of hand ""Strangely, Contention has said that without a balance, the government would have too much authority, and I absolutely agree with this. Privacy needs to be valued over security and ONLY if this is done, will discrimination at discretion and abuse of power end. If we do not put privacy first, then we put too much power in the hands of law enforcers"This is where I state that it should work together, and one should not be valued over the other. It works both ways, and both could be exploited. My adversary clearly wants to say that privacy should always come first, and I submit there are cases that have, can, and will happen that will prevent it from being prioritized. That does not mean they both can not be equally valued. I gave an example also what happens when a company has to much privacy, this is proven and shown with Enron. While it may be less likely in home scenarios it is still plausible, but the main situation where it would be exploited would be giving a company to much privacy. It is almost a requirement to breach their privacy. If you look at it by the definitions we are discussing, external auditing is a breach of that companies privacy. It is allowing an outside person access to files and records, with no plausible reason or desire from that company. This is necessary however to prevent scandals like Enron from occurring. In this situation it is a breach of that companies privacy and right to privacy, but also a necessity. Therefore you have both privacy and security working together in a reasonable and acceptable way. Rebuttal 4We’re not given these rights just so that lazy and ignorant governments can then steal it away from usI would also contest that there is no where in the constitution that even mentioned or says the word privacy. We are afforded this right because of the context within the Constitution itself. It is a way for us to be free without repression. Privacy is considered to fall under those rights that are promised to us. No where in the constitution does it state that we have the right to privacy but we can use inference to assume privacy should be allotted to us. I have also agreed that giving the government to much control is a bad thing as well, which is why I still hold to the fact that they can work together. Examples such as cameras and random audit checks demonstrates that they can.In closingWhile con has chose not to address or could not address many statements that I have made, we can conclude that there are situations in which security should be valued over privacy. Also that there are cases where privacy should be valued over security. to shift the burden in one direction, is to lead to drastic abuse of the system in either way. I have shown and demonstrated how these two factors can plausibly work together, and offer benefit and progression in a positive way.I believe we are afforded the right to privacy and that should be upheld, but we are also promised the right to be free. Without cherishing security as well as privacy, we risk that freedom.