Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
YES
Side Score: 72
|
NO
Side Score: 77
Winning Side! |
|
|
|
4
points
Except where are all the instances where mass surveillance has worked? In 2013, the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies did an analysis on NSA's bulk collection of phone records and found that it's barely even working. Out of the millions of data collected only 24 criminals were found using the bulk collection of phone records. It's the same that goes for the internet. Why give up all your data and privacy to a government that is yet to prove the successfulness of its idea when you can settle for not doing that. For example, after the 2015 Paris Terror Attacks, authorities called for a crackdown on mass surveillance. Except all of the terrorists had been monitored prior to the attack. They also used encryption to communicate with each other, which is impossible to crack. So what's the use of mass surveillance? Side: NO
2
points
1
point
How does anybody have more privacy with surveillance? Not only do you get your privacy completely taken away, but you also loose control of your life in a way. The government knows where you are every second of every day, even if you choose to do something it's because the government essentially allowed you to do it because they didn't stop you while they where watching you. Side: NO
2
points
1
point
But how safe is watching our every move? These systems could easily be hacked and some footage of us could get leaked or used against our own will. That is not the definition of security. Even if we don't think we are doing anything wrong, the government might take an action out of context and flag us as "dangerous". Side: NO
2
points
1
point
It can potentially, but there are also millions of trolling accounts who do not plan on actually committing a crime, but often talk about it online. As well, so far we have this kind of technology and yet, the crimes are still coming. People will just NOT talk about them online, thus making any keywording useless. Side: NO
1
point
Surveillance does not always solve the crime. Just because you know what someone looks like does not mean you can find them. The cameras are not always accurate in showing what someone looks like exactly, and sometimes part of the crime could be missing if it is not visible from any of the camera angles. Side: NO
1
point
The debate isn't about taking surveillance away completely, it is about not increasing surveillance to the point that there is no privacy for anyone. Before surveillance existed, criminals were still captured and prosecuted. However, the amount of surveillance we have now is PLENTY, and an increase will harm more people than it will help. Side: NO
Living in a society where there are surveillances all around protects us and can serve as evidence in a potential case where someone is found guilty of committing something. As long as you never committed a crime or have nothing to hide you should not be concerned about being watched. Side: YES
2
points
2
points
2
points
1
point
Everyone says that they have nothing to hide, but having cameras everywhere would trouble anyone, regardless of whether they have nothing to hide or not. If everything you are doing is being watched, that is going to make you feel as if you are on display, and lead to a dystopian, Black Mirror-like conclusion. Side: NO
2
points
2
points
I've never committed a crime, and I hope to never be caught in a situation that puts me in a bad position with the government. Therefore, I would be more comfortable being watched and safe than the opposite. As long as the government could ensure the respect of my footage, I would be okay with it. Side: YES
Nobody can ensure anything, I am sure there are hackers out there that could probably obtain that information. Although that could still happen by giving up security, we would have the access to abilities that could protect ourselves. With no privacy whatsoever we have no protection even if we aren't doing something wrong. Also, how could the government even ensure our safety? Although they may say it's safer, there are no guarantees for anything. Side: NO
1
point
I also believe moderate forms of torture such as waterboarding in order to ensure national security, because I think terrorists lose their natural rights as soon as they threaten millions of people. The point of trying to extract the information, peacefully or with force, is to get rid of any privacy there and make things clear. Side: YES
No privacy it's not a bad thing for many Chinese parents. Here is a statistical data of a missing person in the United States and a missing person in China. In America, Citing the NCIC report, taking 2016 as an example, the number of reported missing persons in the year reached 647,435. But also in this year, the number of previous reports deleted for various reasons (such as finding missing persons) also reached 644294. In other words, there were only 3,141 missing persons who could not be identified in the actual increase in 2016. However, according to Voice of China’s report, according to different statistics, every year, the number of missing children in China is incompletely estimated at about 200,000, and only about 0.1% of the missing children are found. why there is a huge gap between China and America, I have to say, even China's GDP ranked second in the world, the level of urban integration is not so. That means, most of rural area in china no monitors and no surveillance system, when you say you want to get absolute freedom, this first thing is to make sure the surrounding is safe. Side: YES
1
point
With terrorists becoming smarter, our government has the obligation to do everything in its power to protect against potential attacks. If this requires them to surveillance society, we should let them do it. We shouldn't expect the luxury of privacy when we don't have the luxury of total security. Side: YES
1
point
National security ensures that users are safe. When a situation happens where a potential criminal posts online about hurting other individuals, we want national security. This is a good way to prove the innocence of certain people while also targeting those who are not Side: YES
1
point
I think that living in a society that ensures national security is better than living with complete privacy because if you aren't trying to hide something you shouldn't be worried. Obviously privacy is very important and there should be some restrictions, like for example the government should only look into your data if an issue arises that you are involved in. There are multiple crime cases that could of been solved if surveillance security was greater developed. The issue with hacking can be solved because there are many security companies that can protect your information. Personally I don't do anything illegal on the internet so I wouldn't mind be watched to insure my safety. I think the world needs more safety especially in todays society. Side: YES
1
point
If we think about our future kids, we would want to know that they are using an internet that has national security to protect them from the harmful content that could be posted. We would also want this security to know that our future child isn't doing anything bad Side: YES
1
point
When we're using the internet, we're essentially signing away our right to privacy because we have to remember that nothing we post is private. However, in the way that this works now, we aren't ensured national security. It would be better if we had this along with our already prevalent lack of privacy Side: YES
1
point
1
point
1
point
My position on this is similar to a few other issues, in that you can't have your cake and eat it too. By this, I mean that one can't expect to be safe in their country and enjoy all of the liberties granted to them at the same time. If we want to be safer, we have to give up some personal freedoms. Side: YES
1
point
1
point
If there's no information to be compromised, there's no blackmailing to be done. What do you mean "personal lives"? If no privacy exists, you don't have a personal life, per se. Sure, you'll know people and have friends and a family, but you won't have anything to risk information-wise. Everything would be known by almost everyone, including hackers. Side: YES
We are actually living in this type of society were all the information searched by us on Internet is collected and stored as data. I am from India and there is always a risk of data leaks and our Privacy is not more than a word. We actually live in this type of society with no privacy. Side: YES
1
point
Yes, the Internet does track everything we do basically giving us no privacy. The government needs to somehow find a balance between providing us a safe and secure place to live and watching our every move. Instead of tracking our data on he Internet, one step forward would be to stop targeted ads that follow you once you look something up. This isn't really a matter of "privacy" but it still freaks people out and is a constant reminder that we are being watched more often than we need to be. Side: NO
While I understand that people may be concerned about privacy, surveillance has yielded positive results. For example, if not for wire tapping, there would still be a much higher amount of organized crime that threatens national security. People's comfort is important, but safety is vital. Side: YES
1
point
People claim that it would be best if only terrorists and dangerous people were monitored. But how will it be decided who has malicious intent? This is flawed because those people will be very careful and strategic to avoid suspicion. Then by acting innocent they will never be flagged down, will avoid surveillance, and will be able to carry out malicious acts. It is best to monitor all people. Trying to pick out who is dangerous is not dependable, as seen in the disproportionate mistreatment of minorities in the incarceration system and in police brutality. Or another example is the arrest of two African American men in a Starbucks last week even though they didn't break any laws. They were waiting for someone, didn't buy anything (which is not uncommon) by were seen as a threat by the owner. It is unrealistic to pick out who is dangerous and only monitor them. Side: YES
Establishing effective national security at this time in which we aren't actively at war on our own soil is important. Many times in the past, individual freedoms, like security, have been sacrificed in times of war. But if we are able to set up a good system of national security before a time of panic, it will be much safer. Things done in a rush are not done as well, and we cannot be unrealistic and say that we will not get into wars in the future. And if these are put into practice now, they are less likely to be changed in extreme manners during war times. Side: YES
1
point
You cannot expect the government to ensure national security without invading or without the capability of accessing the privacy of somebody when it is neccessary. Through privacy invasion by the government it is easier to tell the where abouts of a suspected terrorist hence making it easier to protect the nation against terror attacks. So I totally agree that i can surely live in a society where privacy is invaded for the sake of protecting the society. Side: YES
1
point
Yes, security takes priority over privacy. I myself would rather live in a world where I wouldn't have to worry about a terrorist attack occurring at any moment, rather than a world where I don't have to worry about anyone seeing my personal messages. While privacy does hold high value, at the end of the day, a citizen's protection is what's at stake here. Side: YES
|
Nothing can be truly private today. Having security cameras trained on all of us every day does nothing to help. These cameras can be easily manipulated or abused or hacked. If gotten into the wrong hands the information and footage can be used to blackmail and does the exact opposite of its original intention. Side: NO
2
points
everything has two sides, if we have CCTV cameras we can track this hack too and on the other hand, we can utilize the surveillance system prevent criminal happen again. There is an other question, When everyone is using electronic devices, does the privacy protection you seek and the privacy protection you think could disappear due to lack of monitoring? Side: YES
I feel as though we do need privacy because in no way should it be allowed for people to constantly be watching what you are doing. If you want to walk down the street and go into a store you don't normally go into then this shouldn't be recorded and you shouldn't feel as though you are being watched. It is important for everyone in our society to feel like they have freedom in all things they do. Side: NO
1
point
1
point
Stores usually have security cameras just incase anyone decides to shoplift or if something else happens, not necessarily to watch what you are doing. If people see that retail stores have surveillance systems individuals would be less tempted to steal or engage in unauthorized activities Side: YES
1
point
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
How do you know that for certain? I certainly don't know how much data the government holds, and I'm very certain most of our social media accounts are somewhat private. I think the bigger thing here is text messages on our phones is some of the privacy we would give up in a scenario like this. Side: NO
1
point
There has to be an in-between solution that protects national security without violating our civil liberties. Having cameras watch our every move will ensure absolutely no privacy, and access to this footage could potentially get into the wrong hands. Also, what would cameras do to thwart an attack if it is happening in real time? We need solutions to protect our security before something happens. Side: NO
1
point
Video footage can be hacked and accessed by people who would abuse it. Even if video footage were present, I agree that it would not do much to help the attack in real time and may not even provide much evidence for later. With excess amounts of cameras and an abundance of footage, authorities may react more quickly at warning signs that may not lead to anything at all. Side: NO
1
point
With the number of corrupt members of the government, which is quite a lot, there is no guarantee that they will not take control over the surveillance or whatever they're using to give us no privacy and "protect us" for their own gain or use the content gathered to their benefit. Side: NO
1
point
1
point
1
point
I have a problem with the government intercepting my communications. I should be able to trust the government to protect me against the evils of the world such as terrorists, for example, but instead they take their spying to the next level and monitor the people of its own country. This is happening by the CIA spying through peoples televisions, cellphones and laptop cameras. Our daily lives are being monitored and watched. There should only be cameras in stores or restaurants to help catch criminals. Not for the CIA to watch "live action sitcoms." Side: NO
1
point
I disagree with the notion that a nation needs to get rid of privacy in favor of security, because security should not come before individual rights. By giving up privacy in favor of security, we are in effect giving up our individual in favor of a community, this translates to an authoritarian government which can oppress. Side: NO
True, for national security to know everything about me does not mean that I will be safe and protected from everything. There is no need for my information to be exposed. It is important for me to expose what I think is necessary and keep my private life private, this will keep me safest. If I did do something wrong, then I have to give up my privacy. Side: NO
1
point
This is a great point. Even if we give up all of our rights as a society and allow this kind of hyper surveillance, there is NO guarantee that anything at all will change. Terrorists will still find a way to attack if they want to, rapists and murderers will find away around this technology, the only true thing that will change is that average citizens will have no right to privacy and increased information on them in the hands of the government. Side: NO
Just because we have full security does not mean we are safe. There are very good hackers out there and bad things still happen even with security cameras everywhere. It is possible for people to disguise themselves and even steal identity if they can hack a security system. It is important to keep whatever information we can private so we can prevent our information from being stolen. Side: NO
I agree with you, no matter what we could always potentially be unsafe due to technology and people who are extremely skilled in this field. There is always going to be a sense on uncertainty and a lack of safety but we can't let this dictate how we govern our societies. Side: NO
1
point
National security does not guarantee 100% safety, but it stills makes the statistic for safety higher than it would be without this security which is important when considering potential criminals actions. We want to know that at least some of these harmful individuals could be stopped even if its not guaranteed that they all can be. Side: YES
1
point
The government should not be allowed to watch our every move. With the notion of supporting national security, this means we will handing over our entire lives to the government. They will be able to watch us every second of the day and learn about our every day whereabouts. Even if you are someone who does not tend to do anything wrong, I would not feel comfortable being watched and knowing that my every move is being analyzed. Side: NO
1
point
As it is now, we see the issues increases surveillance by the government and other companies, in WikiLeaks and the current Facebook scandal. If we increase surveillance even more, these problems will only get more and more visable in society. Do we want to become "1984" where there's no escape from the government's eyes? Do we want to take ideas from communist countries where people who violate the slightest, strictest rules (like talking bad about the government) and get sent away, taken from their families and friends? While these are extremes, increased surveillance will only give more power to the government and less to the citizens under the guise of 'safety'. Side: NO
Privacy is a basic right that we all deserve. By having privacy, we are able to live our lives. We shouldn't be under the watchful eye of a "Big Brother" type because that hinders our abilities to be our true selves. Although there may be some bad people in the world, I'm sure we can still find ways to stop them. Side: NO
The Constitution, thought the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 9th, amendment protects and ensures Americans a constitutional right to privacy. Privacy, going hand and hand with personal freedom, is a guaranteed American right. Removing privacy prohibits people from living their full and best lives. In a world without privacy, discretion and discreetness is long gone, which is harmful to us all. On a personal level, the more of your data and life is exposed to the internet leaves all of us more vulnerable to digital attacks. It's hard to protect against these kinds of attacks as well. Todd Davis, founder of ID theft protection company LifeLock put his Social Security number and his personal data out there for people to steal, betting that his security was good enough that people couldn't get it. Turns out, he bet wrong and his ID was stolen 13 times before he withheld some of his data. While all of us aren't putting our social security numbers on billboards, we are willingly handing our SS numbers (and infinitely more data) to any company that requires us to sign terms and conditions. A lack of privacy does not necessarily equate to more security for us on a personal level. Looking in a more broad sense, removing privacy doesn't move society forward by much either. Corporations have a lot to lose if privacy is on the line. There are trade secrets and insider information that is only valuable so long as its secret. If they lose their ability to keep their data safe from hackers, what can drive the economy forward? Lack of privacy also does not ensure perfect security for everybody. Yes, Treyvon Martin's death is a devastating tragedy, and a security camera may have produced more justice. However, it wouldn't have necessarily saved his life. A lack of privacy is more dangerous than the alternative option of having privacy and discretion. Side: NO
1
point
we need privacy, how would you feel if you knew that the government could watch you through your television and record you. To have someone, who you don't even know, know everything about you by watching you. What happens if one day the government takes the wrong turn, we couldn't be safe because they would have infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Side: NO
1
point
1
point
No one wants their privacy invaded by anyone they know, so what's the difference if it's the government? Imagine you're walking down the street one day and one of the men that watches the footage of your day to day life goes "Hey I know you, how was the Taco Bell you had yesterday?" I mean no one would want that, even if they don't say it, someone out would know about every single thing you did. Side: NO
We shouldn't have to give up our privacy for something that cannot be ensured. There is no definite way for the entire country to be safe, therefore, I would rather keep as much privacy as I can. Even though I may have nothing to hide, it's nice to think I can keep things to myself without having someone watching me all the time. If someone was watching me all the time I feel like I may not be my true self. Side: NO
By giving up our privacy, this could potentially make terrorist and anyone who may be a danger to our country smarter in the way they act. Personally, I don't believe that it will stop anyone from hurting us because they will continue to find even sneakier ways around it and since the government would assure us that there will be national security, they may not be on-guard as they should be for terrorists, due to the fact that they think they will be seeing EVERYTHING since we would have no privacy. Side: NO
1
point
For a moment, imagine that you are in a reality tv show and your whole lives are being watched basically all the time. Would you like it? Do you want someone watching you all the time, knowing your every move? I'm going to go ahead and say no. Most people don't want that. So, with all of our technology nowadays that can be easily infiltrated either by the government or hackers, we are being watched all the time. Imagine you can't even sit down to watch television without worrying that the government can see you through your tv. It's the same with your computers, phones, toys, and more. Side: NO
1
point
We need privacy because as people there are things that we do that we do not want other people to know. Ensuring national security is a hard thing to do. Plus there is more or less a way to find privacy and anonymity if that happens without national security then who are we being protected from? ourselves? Side: NO
1
point
To answer your question, we are being protected from blackmailers and hackers. Ensuring national security is definitely difficult, but it isn't impossible. There are plenty of ways to make sure people our safe, like increasing the police population and increasing the number of cameras in cities. Side: YES
1
point
1
point
1
point
Privacy is THE fundamental right, it's not even free speech because that one doesn't even mean what most people think it means, but privacy means just that, privacy. If we give that up not only are we not safe from attacks, but we're not safe from our own government. Side: NO
1
point
1
point
1
point
Puerto Rico isn't even a state, and by the history of how the US Government has basically strung us along they're not going to protect us and we're certainly not going to give up privacy because we'd be doing that for a government that isn't ours and a security that isn't ours. Side: NO
1
point
1
point
The little privacy we give through use of social media is already a threat to our lives,so guess what will happen when we willingly offer all our privacy to the government. What am saying is the government is made of people who just like any other human, are not perfect. Some may want to use the privilege of accessing our privacy for their own malicious use. And what happens when one government hands on to another? Won't the outgoing use what information they have about the incoming government to pull them down. Side: NO
|