CreateDebate


Debate Info

4
4
Yes, it should. No, it should not.
Debate Score:8
Arguments:5
Total Votes:8
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, it should. (3)
 
 No, it should not. (2)

Debate Creator

E271(14) pic



Should all information be accesible by everyone?

Information is often restricted from people for many reasons. But is this OK, or should access to information and knowledge be a right given to everyone?

Yes, it should.

Side Score: 4
VS.

No, it should not.

Side Score: 4
2 points

Ok. Please post all your bank and credit card accounts, pins, DOB, SSN, home address, user names and passwords, mother's maiden name, first pet, high school, and anything else we should know.

Side: Yes, it should.
E271(14) Disputed
1 point

While the concept of a password/pin is a useful way to manage finances etc, with our current technology there are many alternatives such as fingerprints, voice recognition and so on. These alternatives, if implemented instead, would negate the need for such security over a number. Additionally, false purchases etc would be much more easy to recognise/dispute if you could identify whether or not the purchaser was the same person as the owner of the money they were using, which is not viable in the current degree of information restrictions.

Ps I don't have a SSN. :)

Side: Yes, it should.
1 point

Information is the basis for all decisions and control in life. It brings us security, efficiency and without it, we could never improve or learn from our mistakes. So why should such a fundamental asset to progress be withheld?

The restriction of information is key in unbalancing the outcome of an action, often at significant cost to the ignorant party. For example, in many food products people are restricted from learning how the animals are treated, which can result in conflicts of ethics by people who would never support animal cruelty funding it out of unawareness.

Conflicts such as these would be much more easily resolvable if the information was freely avaliable, and with the world wide web now commonplace it would not be difficult to acheive, allowing people to follow their ethics and to ensure people have a say in decisions which affect them, rather than just being used to support an individual at cost to many people.

Side: Yes, it should.
3 points

should access to information and knowledge be a right given to everyone?

The idea that everyone has the right to know what everyone else knows depends on the premise that people's minds are public property.

There are things I take the to learn for myself, and because I put in the effort, they are my property. I may or may not choose to share them. Declaring that the results of my experience automatically belongs to everyone else is theft.

Regardless of whether there is a subpoena, etc., my brain is mine, and I have the right to keep what I know to myself. Freedom of speech, as defended by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, includes the freedom not to speak. The Fourth Amendment likewise limits the access of government to my private spaces, and nothing is more private than my mind. As much to the point, forcing me to share what I know constitutes involuntary servitude, and as such is a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which outlaws slavery in the US.

It may be that I learned or created information during the course of doing my job. In that case, the information is the property of my employer, who may sell or give that information to others, or choose to keep it private. Because my employer paid for the activities that resulted in the information, it would be theft for me to distribute it without license to do so. Were I to share that information, I could be decreasing the ability of my employer to profit from the work I was paid to do, precisely for the end of making a profit for the company.

Information produced by government activities belongs to those who pay the taxes that pay for the production of the information, or the government activities the information is about.

This leads to an interesting question. Do citizens own the information created and stored by their government?

Around 15% of Americans are on public assistance. Almost 50% of working Americans either pay no taxes (other than medicare and social security) or receive larger refunds than what was originally deducted (i.e., they pay a negative net tax).

Because these people are not contributing to pay the expense of government, do they have any right to the information about the government, or that the government produces?

I would tend to say that if someone has ever paid taxes, then that person has a right to any information owned by the US Government, with the caveats and limitations stipulated in the laws governing classification of information.

Side: No, it should not.
1 point

Information is power. If someone knows everything about you they can exploit this knowledge to stalk and kidnap you, for example. Information about you could also be used to manipulate you in various ways.

Side: No, it should not.