Government

Surveillance
Debate:
Total privacy or
absolute security?

Opening Statement (Pro): Our founding fathers, founded this country with the ideologies
of freedom of press, speech, liberty and personal privacy. They could have never imagined how,
we as a nation, have evolved since their time. Over two centuries we have the weapon capability
to annihilate entire countries within a single push of a button. We have the technology to

assassinate a man half way around the world with robotic technology. We have vehicles that can
get us to our destination within a couple of hours or days instead of weeks and months. We live
in an age of tremendous fear, and threat. Danger lurks around every corner nowadays in this
cruel and deadly world.. Over the past couple of decades terrorism, wars, and domestic shootings
has become the major headliner at newsstands, governmental hearings, and throughout the
world. With the attacks of 9/11, to the Sandy Hook shooting, to even the Paris bombings that
occurred over the past weekend. We live in an extremely dangerous and unstable world. We
could be on our way to school thinking about our next assignment, or thinking about our friends
looking forward to see them in school that day. But danger never crosses our minds on our way
to school, or on our way to work. What if I was to provide a solution to prevent the next
shooting? To prevent the next terrorist attack? To prevent the next 9/11. The solution I suggest is
the idea of government surveillance. Imagine the security of this country preventing horrific
accidents before they even have the chance to happen. Saving countless of innocent lives from
death, heartbreak, and despair. Keeping the safety and security of this country of utmost
importance. With the recent passing of the USA Freedom Act, our government is now regulated
to their searches for searching for the next threat. With this new act, they must now have
reasonable suspicion on their suspect and may request phone, email, and other data from the
suspect's phone company instead of monitoring them themselves. Then the phone companies and
other data services analyze the suspects data and determine if they will allow the government
access. Our government has already created a very complex and sophisticated algorithm that
monitors data and determines if they should be surveillance. In this algorithm it looks at criminal
history, affiliations with foreign/terrorist groups, mental background (mental disorders like
psychopaths), and even what you purchase. In this database, it has key searches, keywords, that
if typed by a suspected person from the algorithm, the government can then begin to grow
suspicious of them. Its all about protecting you as a citizen of this great nation. We want you to
be safe and sound. We dont want you to being afraid to go outside and fear for the next attack.
That is why I believe government surveillance is key to the development of this growing nation.

Opening Statement (Con): As U.S. citizens, we have the right to our privacy. Our
unalienable rights, founded by of founding fathers, help protect us from invasive governments
and dangerous tyrants who want to take away our human rights. The unalienable rights pertain to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our privacy, as trusted U.S. citizens, lies within our
Constitution which I government and country swore to uphold. The U.S. constitution is the law
of the land created by our forefathers, and they believed that every citizen should be able to
pertain their own privacy. With a completely new world nowadays, our government wants to
surveillance us if we seem suspicious or guilty of an impending crime. Just think, the wrong push

of a button on your computer could have the government tapping your phones and monitoring
what you are searching on the computer. They could be following you to work and see who you
are talking to and possibly surveillance them. All because of a key word you either searched in
your internet browser or a call to the wrong person. Its a very invasive system, which we as
American citizens will end up losing to our own government. If we wanted to retaliate or fight
against our oppressive government we would be stopped even before we could take action. Even
if we wanted to retaliate through the courts of law, the most civil way to fight the system. We
would be considered a threat and wed never be able to fight back. Our government has
already made algorithms that search through our internet searches, phone records, emails. This
will end up determining if we will be monitored or closely watched by our government. I
know they are trying to help us and trying to prevent the next bloodshedding. but theyre going at
it the wrong way. We need to reconsider our options and vote for a better system to avoid a
catastrophe. If we do not change and bring forth better ideas, our government will become
invasive, oppressive, and then over time a tyrant! We will truly have a 1984 society. Throughout
the course of human history power under one person or one cabinet ended in death and anarchy.
Wouldnt we want to avoid an impending catastrophe? Sooner or later, our government will soon
take us away if we even consider rebelling against their system and admit us to a rehabilitation
center. Removing us from their perfect society. Proving George Orwell right, that with the
increase in technology and fear,the more oppressive and abusive our government becomes. We
must stand against government surveillance, and find another method of security. There must be
a system out there that has 100% security and privacy at the same time. As a nation, we must ban
together and voice our thoughts, our ideas, to find a different way. Its unavoidable at this point.

Examination questions (Im Con):

1. Do you have quantitative data, charts, polls to support your stance?
2. Where are your resources from? Are they mostly from a database or a simple Google search?
3. Did you know that 53% of Americans feel that government surveillance is either unregulated or
violating their personal rights?
4. Id rather have privacy than security. Wouldnt you?
a. If no, why? Cant you defend yourself? and from what? I dont need the government to protect
me.
5. Our American forefathers believed in freedom of privacy. Do you disagree with the founding
fathers of this great nation?
6. If Im a good citizen, provide for the community, participate in my American duties, no criminal
background.Dont you think I shouldnt be surveillanced by our national government?

7. Do you think the algorithm created and used by the government invades our privacy a little too
extensively?

Examination questions (Im Pro):

1. Where are your resources from? Are they mostly from a database or a simple Google search?
2. Do you have quantitative data, charts, poles to support your stance?
3. Did you know that over the years, the number of Americans who would rather give up their
privacy to protect them from terrorism is drastically increasing by at least 1% a year? Meaning
within a matter of years the majority of the country would rather give up their privacy for
security.
4. Would you personally give up your privacy for security?
a. If not Why?
5. Wouldnt you want to prevent the next massacre or next terrorist attack on this country?
Preventing the loss of thousands possibly millions of lives?
i.
Is your privacy worth the life of your fellow Americans?
6. Our founding fathers found this country with the hopes of freedom of speech, press and privacy.
They never wouldve imagined the inventions used in today's society. They never imagined
automatic guns, gas powered vehicles, nuclear devastation, and terrorism. Dont you believe it's
time to change and prevent the next attack on this country?
7. If a person had a lengthy criminal history of violence, known affiliations with terrorist groups,
searching for weaponry and weapons of mass destruction. Wouldnt you want our national
security monitoring him to prevent possibly another attack on this country?
a. Thousands of lives could be loss with the lack of supervision due to a poor judgement call.
8. Would you rather have security or privacy? You can not have both.

a. You can not have 100% of either or. Its a scale. You either have more security and less privacy
or more privacy and less security.

Evidence:

Notes From source 1: The Surveillance Society

Citation:Von Drehle, David, and Massimo Calabresin. "The Surveillance Society." Time 182.7
(2013): 32. History Reference Center. Web. 14 Nov. 2015.
Pro:
True human privacy is an illusion. Governments, leaders, and people have been surveilling each
other since the time of Ancient Greece.
A surveillance society is taking root. Video cameras peer constantly from lamp poles and
storefronts. Satellites and drones float hawkeyed through the skies. Smartphones relay a dizzying
barrage of information about their owners to sentinel towers dotting cities and punctuating
pastureland. License-plate cameras and fast-pass lanes track the movements of cars, which are
themselves keeping a detailed record of their speed and location. Meanwhile, on the information
superhighway, every stop by every traveler is noted and stored by Internet service providers like
Google, Verizon and Comcast.
A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll stated, a solid majority feel that it's more important to
fully investigate terrorist threats than to protect personal privacy.
Con:
Princeton computer-science professor Edward Felten explained that this tremendous growth in
storage capacity would inevitably spur intelligence agencies to collect all available data-everything--simply because it's cheaper and easier than trying to figure out what to take and what
to ignore. "If storage is free but analysts' time is costly, then the cost-minimizing strategy is to
record everything and sort it out later,"
sophisticated computer algorithms make it possible to sift through and analyze larger and larger
slices of that data
Government agencies, and the private corporations working with them, collect and store billions
of records every day, and they're hungry for more: not just phone records and Web addresses but
e-mails, texts, downloads, medical records, retail receipts, bank balances, credit-card numbers
and travel itineraries.

 Boston Marathon. They found the perpetrators within hours and had their faces shown on every
screen in America. While officers and informers were looking back on the data they had to
record every single suspect's background and data to infer if they were apart of this attack.
Theyre now stored in a computer to monitor their actions because they were their one the same
day of the bombing and may be monitored for any suspicious activity.
In any event, the government assures us that as long as we don't consort with menaces to
national security, our phone calls and Web searches are of no more interest to Uncle Sam.
______________________________________________________________________________
Notes from source 2: National Security Agency Surveillance Overview
Citation: "National Security Agency Surveillance Overview." International Debates 11.6 (2013):
4. MainFile. Web. 14 Nov. 2015.

Pro:
data about Americans in the possession of the U.S. Government can only be accessed under
specific circumstances.
Con:
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is more discriminating in terms of its targets but broader in
terms of the type of information collected. Beyond that, the scope of the intelligence collection,
the type of information collected and companies involved, and the way in which it is collected
remain unclear. Examples cited by the Administration include the email content of
communications with individuals inside the United States, but in those cases the targets of the
intelligence collection appear to have been non-U.S. citizens located outside the United States.
The public and Members of Congress have expressed particular concern about data provided to
NSA in bulk about U.S. citizens. Critics question the importance of the phone records in the
cases identified by the Administration and question whether any value from those records could
have been derived from a more traditional court order. Rather than using a phone number to
query a database at the NSA, they argue the same number could be given to phone companies to
conduct a search of their records.
Note:
For both programs, there is a tension between the speed and convenience with which the
government can access data of possible intelligence value and the mechanisms intended to
safeguard civil liberties. The first program collects and stores in bulk domestic phone records
that some argue could be gathered to equal effect through more focused records requests. The
second program targets the electronic communications of non-U.S. citizens but may incidentally
collect information about Americans.
The program collects "metadata" -- a term used in this context to refer to data about a phone call
but not the phone conversation itself. Intelligence officials have stated that the data are limited to
the number that was dialed from, the number that was dialed to, and the date and duration of the
call. The data must be destroyed within five years of acquisition.

 Stored Communications Act (SCA)

______________________________________________________________________________

Notes from Source 3: Securing our Liberty

Citation: "Securing our liberty." Commonweal 140.12 (2013): 5. Opposing Viewpoints in
Context. Web. 14 Nov. 2015.
Con:
Edward J. Snowden, the thirty-year-old former National Security Agency contractor is a hero to
some and a traitor to others. He claims to have acted out of a sense of outrage over the NSA's
indiscriminate collection of the phone and internet records of Americans, decrying the danger
such intrusive government oversight poses to democracy and privacy.
"You can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero
inconvenience," Obama
uses sophisticated algorithms to trace calling patterns. If a series of related calls seems
suspicious, the NSA or FBI then gets a warrant from the FISA court to investigate further. No
abuse of those procedures has come to light. Still, the mere existence of such records in the
government's hands, information that might easily be exploited for political purposes, should
concern every American.
Notes:
uses sophisticated algorithms to trace calling patterns. If a series of related calls seems
suspicious, the NSA or FBI then gets a warrant from the FISA court to investigate further. No
abuse of those procedures has come to light. Still, the mere existence of such records in the
government's hands, information that might easily be exploited for political purposes, should
concern every American.
__________________________________________________________________________
Notes from Source 4: Tech companies are real winners in the fight over government
surveillance
Citation: Peterson, Andrea. "Tech companies are real winners in the fight over government
surveillance." Washington Post 3 June 2015. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 14 Nov.
2015.

Pro:
A slew of major tech companies were tied to National Security Agency surveillance in some of
the first reports sourced to former government contractor Edward Snowden. Reporting and
documents released in June 2013 revealed that many of the biggest names in tech, including
Google, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft, were part of a program called PRISM that let the spy
agency tap into service_ accessing things like chats, documents and emails.

Con:
It split privacy groups, with some who wanted to see the Patriot Act provisions stay expired
arguing that the bill didn't go far enough - and protected companies complicit in spying.
Notes:
A slew of major tech companies were tied to National Security Agency surveillance in some of
the first reports sourced to former government contractor Edward Snowden. Reporting and
documents released in June 2013 revealed that many of the biggest names in tech, including
Google, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft, were part of a program called PRISM that let the spy
agency tap into service_ accessing things like chats, documents and emails.
______________________________________________________________________________
Notes from source 5: With sections of Patriot Act expired, attention focuses on surveillance
reform bill
Citation: Vijayan, Jaikumar. "With sections of Patriot Act expired, attention focuses on
surveillance reform bill." Christian Science Monitor 1 June 2015. Opposing Viewpoints in
Context. Web. 14 Nov. 2015.
Pro:
The House of Representatives approved USA Freedom Act in a resounding bipartisan 338-88
vote in May.The USA Freedom Act seeks to curtail the National Security Agency's bulk phone
records data collection program and limit searches to specific selections terms. It would
introduce more transparency over the manner in which the government pursues individuals and
groups suspected of terrorism-related activities and put new restrictions on data use by the NSA
According to the bill, the government would not be allowed to store phone records and will only
be permitted to request the data from telephone providers, the entities that will be responsible for
holding the data. The bill is designed to allow the NSA to conduct its surveillance programs but
under more restrictive controls than before.
______________________________________________________________________________
Notes from source 6: 9/11 attacks helped shape new leader of Justice's National Security
Division
Citation: Horwitz, Sari. "9/11 attacks helped shape new leader of Justice's National Security
Division." Washington Post 28 Apr. 2014. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 14 Nov. 2015.

Charts and other visual evidence:

Notes during Debate:

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Works Cited:
Horwitz, Sari. "9/11 attacks helped shape new leader of Justice's National Security Division."
Washington Post 28 Apr. 2014. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 14 Nov. 2015.

"National Security Agency Surveillance Overview." International Debates 11.6 (2013): 4.

MainFile. Web. 14 Nov. 2015.

Peterson, Andrea. "Tech companies are real winners in the fight over government surveillance."
Washington Post 3 June 2015. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 14 Nov. 2015.

"Securing our liberty." Commonweal 140.12 (2013): 5. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web.
14 Nov. 2015.

Von Drehle, David, and Massimo Calabresin. "The Surveillance Society." Time 182.7 (2013):
32. History Reference Center. Web. 14 Nov. 2015.

Vijayan, Jaikumar. "With sections of Patriot Act expired, attention focuses on surveillance
reform bill." Christian Science Monitor 1 June 2015. Opposing Viewpoints in Context.
Web. 14 Nov. 2015.

Resources (Websites):
1. http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=2&sid=44ea8cdd-9c8c-4404-9110399d87a0eb1d
%40sessionmgr120&hid=119&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWNvb2tpZSxpcCxjcGlkJmN1c3
RpZD1zOTM5MTM4MSZzaXRlPWVkcy1saXZl#AN=89499066&db=khh
2. http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=b5253c84-1287-45b9-9a0f5557fc2a7ed2%40sessionmgr4005&hid=4105&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWNvb2tpZSxpc
CxjcGlkJmN1c3RpZD1zOTM5MTM4MSZzaXRlPWVkcy1saXZl#AN=91748698&db=mfi
3. http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/AcademicJournalsDetailsPage/AcademicJournalsDetails
Window?
failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&displayquery=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Journals&limiter=&u=cove19574&currPage=

&disableHighlighting=false&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=
&p=OVIC&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE
%7CA338120396
4. http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/NewsDetailsPage/NewsDetailsWindow?
failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&displayquery=&mode=view&displayGroupName=News&limiter=&u=cove19574&currPage=&di
sableHighlighting=false&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&p=
OVIC&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CA416372039
5. http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/NewsDetailsPage/NewsDetailsWindow?
failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&displayquery=&mode=view&displayGroupName=News&limiter=&u=cove19574&currPage=&di
sableHighlighting=false&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&p=
OVIC&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CA416103910
6. http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/NewsDetailsPage/NewsDetailsWindow?
failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&displayquery=&mode=view&displayGroupName=News&limiter=&u=cove19574&currPage=&di
sableHighlighting=false&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&p=
OVIC&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CA366273844