Privacy should be valued over security

Opening RemarksBasically all that’s happened in this debate so far is that the Contender has completely misconstrued the facts and arguments presented, and it’s no coincidence that this misconstruction is in his favour. I am not saying that privacy should be upheld under all circumstances, I am saying that the privacy of the general public, innocent citizens, should be valued, whenever possible and practical, over security, which are unconfirmed threats. Furthermore, I see no way in which this could be exploited like Contention has ludicrously suggested.Let me remind Contention that the topic of this debate is Then, he’s gone on to say that he believes in a “balance of the both”, between privacy and security, which is absolutely ridiculous because the topic of this debate is that Privacy should be valued OVER security, not balanced, but valued OVER. At the same time, this does not mean that under no circumstances can somebody’s privacy be breached and it would be counter-intuitive of the contender to think so, and with this comes my rebuttal, and there are three very misleading arguments have been put forward so far, but only two I will have time to rectify. Flaw 1 So I’ve been told that there are “limitations to privacy”. What the contender has said is that more illegal acts would occur, but this just doesn’t seem plausible at all. A breakdown of Contention Example A: I just can’t seem to understand how if someone’s 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’s no longer a matter of privacy vs. security, it becomes a matter of justice being served. The thing is that there would be no circumstances where protecting privacy would result in murder, just because somebody’s privacy was upheld or we would have more prostitutes simply because there is no way to confirm identity. Police will still be empowered with those powers, it’s 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, but to ‘prevent a terrorist attack’. Why would you spy on a stay-at-home mom or some grandfather who in a million years not do anything to harm greater society? But for the sake of argument, let’s put forth a counterexample anyway. Counterexample A: Everybody is required to pass through TSA screening if they want to board a flight. This involves either a full body scanner or a cavity search, no choice about either. So, we’re told that this is in the name of security and it’s bad enough that this is a violation of our constitutional rights, but you would at least hope that it worked. But according to Economist.Com, even with the TSA’s invasive and degrading procedures, IT DOESN’T EVEN WORK. Their failure rate still stands at 70% when it comes to detecting hazards whilst boarding for a plane. So, every time you’re at the airport, you’ll be set back half an hour in the name of fighting terrorism, but your only inches safer, had no one been screened. Another excellent example that demonstrates how security measures are getting out of hand nowadays is a recent New York Times Article. An excerpt from the article reads: “A federal judge ruled on Monday that the stop-and-frisk tactics of the New York Police Department violated the constitutional rights”, of course, I can’t put it all here as I don’t have enough characters to finish refuting all the ridiculous arguments put forward today. Flaw 2 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. Even a balance of the two wouldn’t work. It is only when our country, and our government respects the privacy, the basic human rights of its citizens, will this so mentioned ‘authority’ be properly distributed. 3. Abuse of power and discrimination Seeing as space allows, I am going to put forward one final and brief argument. As an extension of my previous rebuttal, I would like to note that in a post-911 world, where we’ve passively given away our rights, abuse of power has grown and racial stereotypes have risen. I mean, do you really want some fat, middle aged, perverted TSA agent looking at you naked, scrutinising your body every time you simply want to board a plane and go somewhere? But thanks to the prioritisation of security, these TSA agents now have the pleasure of looking at you naked whenever they please so. Think about how many negative racial stereotypes have also come up. Naturally, when we think of terrorism, we think of the Islamic Middle Eastern counties. When we see people of Middle Eastern descent, we immediately relate them to being terrorists. Yes, maybe a very small number of them are, but almost all of them and bar a tiny amount of ‘bad apples’, are very nice, generous and honest people, especially if you get to know them well. I fail to comprehend how we can live in a developed country, respected by all others, the source of inspiration of many. Yet, we allow this kind of extreme negativity, abuse and racism to go on, and on our own soil. Let’s take a look at what would happen if our privacy was upheld like it should be… Unless there is probable cause that you’ve done something wrong, then you remain the innocent citizen that you are and are constitutionally entitled to be. There will be no hacking, no tapping, no ‘in the name of security’ fiasco because in the modern day, we put all that stupidity behind us and behave like the distinguished citizens of the lucky country we’re in. That, ladies and gentlemen, is why it is absolutely essential for us to value our privacy over security.We’re not given these rights just so that lazy and ignorant governments can then steal it away from us. We’re given these rights to keep, because we, as humans, deserve them, depend on them and live in a society that recognises them. And, with that said, let me conclude. Concluding Remarks Now, unfortunately, I am going to run out of characters before I can adequately label all the gaping holes in Contention’s case. It’s a case that has no backbone, largely based on loose hypotheticals that don’t make sense and hypotheticals that would not even stand a chance at holding up in the real world. The topic has been completely misinterpreted, and this has become a debate about balancing privacy and security, which clearly, Contention sees as the easy, but very incorrect way to go. What I’ve told you today is that we must put privacy before security because when we talk about our privacy, we talk about our freedom. Our civil liberties, our human rights, even the foundation of our democracy. On the other hand, when we talk about security, essentially, we are talking about mistakes made upon mistakes, great abuse of power and no real outcome in the end. Although Contention has tried to scare you with hypotheticals and erratic scandals, once all this shaky ground is eroded away, what we see remaining are the strong pillars that our great democracy is built upon. Privacy, freedom, equality; they are things that we cannot take foregranted and that we must fight for, but we can only fight for this, if we put privacy before security. Regardless of the tattered state Contention’s case remains in, I must nevertheless thank him for accepting the challenge that is this debate, but in the end, I believe it is my side that puts forward the more compelling case, for all the hardworking citizens of this country who deserve to have their rights heard.For your further reading:http://nyti.ms...http://econ.st...http://bit.ly...;