Topic #3: Should we give up our individual privacy for the safety of the nation?
Yes, we should give it up.
Side Score: 8
Winning Side! |
 |
No, we should not give it up.
Side Score: 7
|
|
|
|
|
Argument #1: Crime rates would reduce. “In Baltimore, officials installed 500 cameras mostly in a 50-block downtown area, monitored by retired police officers in a control room, and saw crime rates drop steadily.” "If the government find out the criminals plan they will be able to stop it before it even happens. They use keywords linked to attack preparations to monitor peoples texts who are potential terrorists." If we gave up our privacy then crime rates would reduce. We would be able to prevent certain things right before they occurred or gather evidence. For example surveillance cameras.This study that they conducted shows that crime rates decreased and people, now that they know they are being surveillanced in public, they will be less likely to commit a crime. Also although their privacy is given up, it shows that it is controlled. Government officials only have the power to monitor the feed of the cameras and they won’t do anything wrong with it as they are trained and informed. So they are now safer but the footage is with trusted people. Crime rates would also reduce because Police would be able to stop crimes before they even occur by looking up keywords. This means only people who use those keywords will be the one will actually be searched even though you are looked upon for the keywords. They can prevent certain attacks. They also use phone texts to finds drug dealers or those in possessions of drugs. Thye look at keywords for transactions or actual possesion of drugs and so they will be able to reduce the number of drug dealers and addicts and therefore less crime. https://gcn.com/articles/2011/09/20/ https://www.wired.com/story/ Side: Yes, we should give it up.
You said that our privacy privacy is controlled, but there is a research that proves that people feel like they are losing control of their own informtaion. A Pew Research Center survey in December found that 47% of people agreed on that anti-terror programs had gone too far in restricting civil liberties, while only 35% said that it is not far enough in protecting the country
Supporting Evidence:
Americans feel the tensions between privacy and security concerns
(www.pewresearch.org)
Side: No, we should not give it up.
As you said, people only FEEL like they are loosing control but they are not as only government people will have access its just that they need the consent. Counter-arguing your statistic on how people feel about, I found a statistic that shows that people actually agree that safety should be above privacy. "two-thirds of Americans say it's fitting to sacrifice some privacy and freedoms in the fight against terrorism, according to a poll by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. " Side: Yes, we should give it up.
Some people have attempted to bomb places by hiding the explosives in their underwear. Does that mean we should now have mandatory crotch scanning before boarding planes? No, because it is an invasion of privacy. Please explain how that is different from people's private calls - sometimes touching on sensitive or private topics. Side: Yes, we should give it up.
Argument #2: Less Criminals would get away. Criminals use the amendment as an advantage. Even the police have not really invaded their privacy, the criminal can still manipulate the amendment so that the police somehow look guilty. Take the Fourth Circuit case. A man was a mail fraud and federal wire fraud but the files were on his computer and when the police came, his wife Michelle “had told the police to "take whatever [they] needed" and that "she wanted] to be as cooperative as she could be." To the police, the consent was given however he pleaded that it was against the fourth amendment because his wife did not have enough authority to say yes to the warrant. This meant that the judge had to dismiss all the evidence found from the computer files which was the only way that they could prove he is was a fraud. The fourth amendment means that if any evidence is found on an unapproved warrant then it should be dismissed. This example shows that all evidence found should be dismissed if the criminal decides to plead that it was an “invasion of privacy” and then the criminal would get away even though the evidence was right there. This right would let criminals get away even when there is concrete proof of a murder. However, if there was no constraint from the fourth amendment then he would be rightfully punished by the evidence found from the warrant. "The length of time it takes to get a warrant can vary a great deal depending on the jurisdiction, the severity of the offense and the priority given to the matter by the DA, etc. An arrest warrant might take as little as one or two business days (very rare) or as long as a few months.” In the time that a warrant takes to be issued, the criminal would get away. After a crime, the criminal has time to escape to another country or go into hiding because police work under a time constraint and often it takes a very long time to get a warrant approved. This would mean that so many criminals get away because the police need time to process a warrant and then only can they arrest them after they gather enough evidence.
Side: Yes, we should give it up.
For this arguement, I agree with you because the criminal could be caught if only 4th amendment, which is that unreasonable searches of goverenment are not acceptable. It was made to protect citizen's privacy, but it is more important for people's safety to get rid of this amendment. Side: Yes, we should give it up.
Although many people would be caught and punished for their crimes, many innocent people would also be monitored, and that alone is a little creepy. Many people can't take rejection or failure well, and will pin the blame on anyone other than them. If they were in control of any sort of government security, they could call you a "high-risk candidate" for terrorist attacks and have you jailed or put in a psyche ward. Side: No, we should not give it up.
|
Arguement 1: Own internet activities or phone calls being monitored has gone too much. Since the phone calls and internet activities are mostly containing private information, being watched by unknown people is the huge concerns of citizens. The personal information is opened for government agencies and corporations, therefore there is more possibility for the hackers to use people’s information for identity theft. https://www.creditkarma.com/id-theft/i/ Side: No, we should not give it up.
Also, this source will prove that people's personal information is being monitored. https://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/ Side: Yes, we should give it up.
Travelers claim data shows that 44 percent of identity fraud happens after losing a wallet or purse, but you can help prevent ID theft. Most identity theft comes from not just online. A lot of it happens when people physically displace something. That 44% is just one of the reasons against online identity theft. Side: Yes, we should give it up.
Opening statement #1:We shouldn't give up privacy for safety, mostly because we don't have to. Safety and privacy are not on a spectrum, they are on completely different scales. Instead of monitoring everything someone says, we can restrict certain materials more - like guns. You shouldn't be able to waltz down the street and buy an AK-47. Many guns should require special training to buy, and some should only be able to be used at gun ranges. Side: No, we should not give it up.
Argument #2: Many sites are already collecting and violating our privacy, and although they say that it helps prevent terrorist attacks, they need to give the general public proof of that. If they don’t, it just becomes them violating our privacy for no reason. Besides, many warning signs are already overlooked. Side: No, we should not give it up.
My links aren't actually working, but I think that they will if I post them in the place where the argument is supposed to go. so here: http://wjla.com/news/nation-world/ Side: Yes, we should give it up.
Closing statement: We should not give up our privacy for the safety of nation. People don't feel safe since their private information is being monitored. Therefore, even though it was made to protect the citizens, it only makes them to feel like their in danger. So how would it be helpful? Side: No, we should not give it up.
|
