CreateDebate


Debate Info

72
77
YES NO
Debate Score:149
Arguments:119
Total Votes:152
Ended:04/26/18
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 YES (52)
 
 NO (67)

Debate Creator

Lynete(5) pic



This debate has ended. You can no longer add arguments or vote in this debate.

Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?

There are two schools of thought on this. We have those who feel that in order to guarantee our security, we need to give up some of our liberties like privacy. On the other hand, we have those who argue that too much surveillance infringes on our rights and is detrimental to our privacy. 

YES

Side Score: 72
VS.

NO

Side Score: 77
Winning Side!
4 points

When we use the internet, we are giving up our data and privacy willingly. We might as well let the government use it for something protective.

Side: YES
2 points

Singing up for any social media platform is practically signing away all your privacy.

Side: YES
anon-m(1) Disputed
1 point

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

Living in the UK with high levels of surveillance I feel more safe and protected compared to living in America. When in the UK I don't necessarily feel my privacy has been compromised.

Side: YES
2 points

If you aren't doing anything wrong on the internet or in your daily life, you shouldn't have to worry. So with the fact that you know you aren't doing anything wrong and with surveillance you have more privacy I feel like pros out weigh the cons.

Side: YES
laurafuentes(10) Disputed
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

Security everywhere could help to protect those who are innocent. There are many people in jail now who never committed a crime and just were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Having video evidence would help a jury convict those who are truly guilty.

Side: YES
connorkane(4) Disputed
2 points

Security cameras do not usually have the best quality, and these cameras could potentially misidentify somebody as a criminal, and the camera evidence would be used to convict an innocent person.

Side: NO
2 points

In the case of Trayvon Martin, in which the eyewitness accounts were conflicting with one another, video evidence of the altercation could have made it easier for the jury to make a decision.

Side: YES
2 points

While privacy is valued, it is more important for the population of the whole country to be safe rather than individual people feeling comfortable.

Side: YES
2 points

National security guarantees all citizens of a country safety however privacy only warrants a few of their safety. National security is for the most vulnerable while privacy is for the privileged.

Side: YES
cvanhouten(4) Disputed
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

Surveillance of social media and Internet activity can prevent shootings and bombings from occurring if certain keywords and searches were red flagged, potentially protecting the lives of many people.

Side: YES
connorkane(4) Disputed
2 points

Algorithms that track search results are not aware of everyones' situations, and they could potentially be flagging people who are no threat, and are simply looking up something considered "dangerous" for informational purposes.

Side: NO
sheaconboy(4) Disputed
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
2 points

When someone commits a crime, sometimes the first thing police turn to is "surveillance". Take this surveillance away, and there is potential for less evidence in regards to trying to solve crimes.

Side: YES
cvanhouten(4) Disputed
1 point

What is having surveillance makes terrorists and criminals smarter? because they are aware that they are being watched people will come prepared and will learn more about how to hack into a system to shut it down.

Side: NO
ff660342(3) Disputed
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
sheaconboy(4) Disputed
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
2 points

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

Security is what keeps this country going. Even though it seems a little much at times, when things go wrong we realize how much we appreciate it.

Side: YES
2 points

Without privacy, many violent acts or even terror attacks could have been prevented. In the case of school shooters, many are searching and plotting on their home computers and are able to carry them out because they have so much privacy

Side: YES
2 points

i think yes. i want to live in a country which is very safe.

Side: YES
1 point

If you have nothing to hide, you don't have to worry about being watched and should be able to give up your privacy.

Side: YES
connorkane(4) Disputed
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
jtoczylowski(2) Disputed
2 points

If having cameras would trouble everyone, why do we all have cameras on our phones? Why is that when something is happening, people pull their phones out and record? This is the equivalent to having cameras everywhere.

Side: YES
smhampt(5) Disputed
1 point

Yes this is true however do you really want people recording your every move. Often people make mistakes and when they do many times they don't want them recorded or for others to even know so how would you get around this if you've been recorded and watched.

Side: NO
colive(4) Disputed
1 point

Just because you aren't doing anything wrong, doesn't mean you should be okay releasing all of your personal information.

Side: NO
natalieochs(6) Disputed
2 points

It's not really about releasing your personal information as much as it is about being monitored. You release a lot of personal information every day by choice on social media.

Side: YES
1 point

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
CKLARICH(6) Disputed
1 point

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 agree. I think that the government would protect the footage and only use it if they needed evidence. It does not seem like they would just be putting it out there for everyone to watch in their free time.

Side: YES
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
1 point

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
colive(4) Disputed
1 point

With the government having all of our personal information, it gives terrorists the chance to hack into the government and access everything in one place. There is no "luxury" of privacy. Privacy should be a given and guaranteed at all times.

Side: NO
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

Without cameras and people monitoring over the internet checking to see what people are doing. There would be many more attacks, which could potentially hurt or kills many people in the world

Side: YES
smhampt(5) Disputed
1 point

Yes but don't you think that there should be a separation between common everyday people and terrorists with this case? There should be surveillance on people who are potentially going to danger our country not on normal people grocery shopping.

Side: NO
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

Having an internet that is a full free for all gives those who are behaving the same credibility as those who are not. With national security, justice is served based on how you acted online which is fair

Side: YES
1 point

Surveillance of the internet and online activity could be beneficial to us because it could flag suspicious activity and potentially prevent a terrorist act. The safety of all is of greater importance.

Side: YES
1 point

Everyone has an obligation to help law enforcement, and under certain circumstances, that entails that one gives up some of their privacy (personal information, social media, etc.) to help them with a problem or case that they need to solve.

Side: YES

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
cacciamani(7) Disputed
1 point

And you can guarantee that being completely out in the open, vulnerable to hackers and our personal lives and information infiltrated, will keep us safer than before?

Side: NO
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
1 point

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
cvanhouten(4) Disputed
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
1 point

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

We already know that our information is stored by websites and seen by companies. We all still use these websites and do business with these companies, so unless you are doing something about protecting your data, your privacy is already compromised.

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
1 point

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

Safety is needed so that people do not feel like they can show up and do something illegal and think thy can get away with it.

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
3 points

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

Maybe cameras can be hacked and abused, but then again who would you blackmail if everyone knows everything about you? If nothing's truly private, then there's nothing to be blackmailed with.

Side: YES
leilei(3) Disputed
1 point

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
3 points

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

I support your argument. You have made some great points here.

Side: NO
jtoczylowski(2) Disputed
1 point

Yet you do have the freedom to do whatever you want. You walked into a store that you may not normally go into. This may be recorded not to track you, but for the security of the store. You aren't being watched unless you performed a crime.

Side: YES
1 point

Why shouldn't we be watched? If you aren't doing anything illegal or even anything immoral, why would you worry about people watching you? I wouldn't care less. I believe it would make us much safer than we currently are.

Side: YES
ebendock(3) Disputed
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
2 points

No, I don't want to give up my privacy for national security. Ensuring national security not only takes away our privacy, but gives hackers more of an opportunity to figure out ways to hack the national security. This leaves us with no privacy and no safety.

Side: NO
ewall(4) Disputed
1 point

There is no need for privacy or concern about hackers if everyone does what they are supposed to do and has nothing to hide.

Side: YES
laurafuentes(10) Disputed
1 point

We live in the real world, everyone has done SOMETHING they want to hide and having the government know ANYTHING about me that they already don't know honest to God terrifies me. We're already supposed to do so many things and now we have to be perfect?

Side: NO
ebendock(3) Disputed
1 point

How do we really have privacy if its so easy for hackers to hack into our information and for the government to watch what we are doing?

Side: YES
2 points

Having no privacy doesn't guarantee national security. It does guarantee that we become more vulnerable to hackers and outside sources. We would live in a world where all eyes are on us and we can't feel comfortable anywhere.

Side: NO
2 points

Even if we have nothing to hide people act differently when we are being monitored and watched. This in itself promotes inauthenticity and causes people to act differently than they normally would. Allowing no privacy.

Side: NO
natalieochs(6) Disputed
1 point

If people are acting differently when monitored or watched, and are being watched at all times, wouldn't this mean they wouldn't commit crimes because they know they'd be caught?

Side: YES
2 points

I do not think we should be giving up our privacy. They say we are ensured national security yet hackers and terrorists are able to so easily access our information. I am not willing to give up my personal information for something that is not guaranteed.

Side: NO
natalieochs(6) Disputed
1 point

The CIA already has a lot of data on the average person, just from their social media accounts and using the web. We're already vulnerable to hackers, and this is with our privacy. Giving it up or being monitored isn't really going to change that.

Side: YES
Drewrhoades(2) Disputed
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
leilei(3) Disputed
1 point

your opinion is neutral. you should to stand an absolute position.

Side: YES
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

There is no way to ensure National Security ever. In that this argument is irrelevant. Nothing in life can be 100%.

Side: NO

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

Keeping in mind the government or corporate men that run alongside the government, there is nothing telling us they won't find a way to make profit out of the situation, which I personally believe will completely be the case.

Side: NO
1 point

if there was no privacy, a persons freewill is compromised. people will start making decisions based of being recorded instead of what they want to do.

Side: NO
1 point

This was a really good argument that I didn't think of before. People would change how they act due to the constant surveillance.

Side: NO

There is always a way around any situation and terrorists or potential threats to national security will find a way to get around the surveillance or the system they out in place to take our privacy away. We lose privacy only to get attacked anyways.

Side: NO
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
1 point

Personally, I don't believe that we can ensure national security. Therefore, how could we just give up our freedom of privacy to someone that cannot guarantee that absolutely NOTHING will happen to our country?

Side: NO
1 point

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
1 point

Very good point. Why would we give up the way we live when everything and anything is extremely uncertain these days. Hackers and attackers are skilled and just because surveillance would be put on them doesn't mean they will stop and will be caught

Side: NO
1 point

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
1 point

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
hanoreilly(4) Disputed
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
1 point

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
1 point

Oops can't erase comment fully.....just ignore. :D

Side: NO
1 point

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.

Supporting Evidence: Lifelock Article (www.wired.com)
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

Many would argue that we shouldn't be against having no privacy if we have nothing to hide, but anyone that says they literally have NOTHING to hide is lying.

Side: NO

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
1 point

The minimum argument length is 50 characters.I need free but pricvacy.I don't want quit the real world,And no matter how worse the world is, I will working on build a better world.

Side: NO
1 point

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
1 point

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

Even if we don't do anything wrong in our daily lives, it's still our lives, our business and we have a right to keep it private. So, even if I don't commit wrongdoings it's still my life and I don't think anyone has the right to infiltrate it without my saying so.

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

No one in the world is truly safe, and if anyone wants to truly believe that for a second they can trust the US government, of all governments, to protect them by giving up their privacy they are naive.

Side: NO

There is no real protection when you give up a ig piece of your life and privacy is about as big as it gets

Side: NO

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

Privacy is necessary to live a normal life, and out government taking that away with the promise of national security would be ludicrous. Technically I'm not even a part of this nation so I'd get my privacy taken away when I'm not even a state (Puerto Rico).

Side: NO
1 point

She is completely right... Puerto Rican people don't have the same rights as the other U.S. Citizens meaning why should we expose ourselves completely for a government who doesn't see us as equals and treats our country like garbage.

Side: NO

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

Privacy is extremely important, we need to understand it. For us to live in a world where there is freedom and trust, we cannot be watched all the time

Side: NO

I understand the point of wanting national security, although it has nothing to do with me, but privacy is just too important.

Side: NO
1 point

I believe that a surveillance society is detrimental to our privacy. Adding to this, we have seen countless examples of school shooters etc that have posted their plans online, just to have nothing done to stop them.

Side: NO
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
1 point

He who gives up liberty for security deserves neither............................................................................................................................................................................................

Side: NO