- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
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.
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. "
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.
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.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!