Resolved: Mass surveillance is not a justified method of governmental intelligence gathering.
As CON.we negate the resolution in order to keep us all safe and secure from possible
terrorist annihilation
Due to the obvious need for national security secrecy, it is difficult to fully quantify proof that
MS IS justifiable,
Therefore,
OBSERVATION 1
in this debate, the framework for a judge to decide which side is
wiser and wins is not to see whose evidence is greatest, but whose logic makes the most sense
in today’s world where terrorists lurk among us.
And OBSERVATION 2 By Mass surveillance we define it to mean what it logically implies:
not just looking at data, but collecting it for later probing.
CONTENTION
1
USG Mass Surveillance deters terrorism
Even if there are fewer terrorist threats in the homeland security now, denying the NSA the
tool of metadata collection highly increases our danger by two main ways.
Subpoint A We will be perceived as being weak—which will encourage attacks
Subpoint B In the face of the inevitable attack, we are hobbled by having less information
John Bolton, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute makes both these points clear.
last modified 2013 [“3 views on NSA reform after Snowden leaks,” John, senior fellow at the
American Enterprise Institute, Christian Science Monitor.]
“We must prevent hype and anger over specific abuses from harming the NSA's actual
capabilities and the secrecy needed to protect them. Intelligence exists not for its own sake
but to support executive decisionmaking. Accordingly, President Obama is principally
responsible for explaining and advocating clandestine activities. This, he appallingly failed to
do. Mr. Obama must act like a president, leading the defense of our embattled capabilities.
The inevitable congressional proceedings must not repeat the irreparable damage that the
1970s-era congressional investigative committees caused the CIA. Deficiencies there were,
but our enemies were the principal beneficiaries of the committees' destructive
investigations. Most important, whatever fixes are made today must not deny
America the tools to protect itself from terrorists, their state sponsors, and foreign
adversaries, many of which are developing massive cyberwarfare programs. Moreover, the
largely preventable or imaginary invasions of privacy pale before security breakdowns that
have allowed serious intelligence leaks. The NSA's opponents should be put on notice: If you
materially restrict surveillance capabilities, you risk having American blood on your hands.
Resolved: Mass surveillance is not a justified method of governmental intelligence gathering.
Pro affirms the resolution on the framework grounds that while some forms of Mass
Surveillance---street cameras, drone surveillance of the enemy—may be justifiable, we cannot
allow all Mass Surveillance to go unquestioned. If we show that metadata collection of
private citizens is unjustified, we will have achieved our obligation to win the round and
make the world a safer place for liberty and free thought.
Therefore,
OBSERVATION 1
In line with this fair framework, keep in mind that while we have and
can survive a terrorist attack, the loss of checks on government, the creation of a surveillance
state is extremely hard to turn back once those in power have gained that ground.
CONTENTION 1
Cost of Potential Govt. Abuse of Privacy doesn’t justify MS
TO lose our ability to over see and regulate the vast power of USG collecting our metadata is
too dangerous. Elizabeth Goitein, codirector of the Liberty and National Security program at
the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law explains.
2013 Christian Science Monitor.]
“A police state would be worse for our safety and security. The concept of security does not
only imply that one is safe from attack by terrorists or outside entities. To be truly secure, one
must be confident that they are safe from abuse at the hands of their government. We tend to
assume that the only sources of danger are external because, in many of our lifetimes, they
have been. That said, a police state is nothing to take lightly – absolute power in the hands of
authorities is dangerous and allows them to use force to harm political enemies, to force
citizens to do things that are dangerous or unseemly, and to take money or property from
citizens. “
The USG has a history of using domestic surveillance to harass political enemies (Martin Luther
King Jr.) and to disrupt social justice movements (anti-Vietnam war protesters)., points out
debate professor Stefan Bauschard and many others. Legal limits on the government's
ability to spy on Americans were established after Watergate to stem such practices. These
limits are being eroded.
Goitein, goes on: “It is disingenuous for officials to characterize the “metadata”
being collected as mere phone numbers. Sophisticated computer programs can glean volumes
of sensitive information from this metadata about people’s relationships, activities, and even
beliefs. The government knows very well how revealing call records can be; that is why it
considers the program so valuable.and they have forced or coerced companies like google to
slip in encryption loopholes for the government to get a secret peek at citizens.
government to get a secret peek at citizens.