Author: sarahwornow7

National Security Should Take Precedence Over Cyber Privacy


PRO (4 arguments)

Definitions:

national security- any matter or issue that concerns the safety of US citizens at a large scale

cyber privacy- regarding the protection of our online rights

 

Weighing Mechanism: In this debate, whichever side has the best impact to the lives of American citizens should win, since life is more valuable than anything else.

1. Giving national security precedence over cyber privacy saves countless innocent lives by preventing future terrorist actions.
Warrant:

Terrorism is a sad truth in our world, and despite our best efforts to prevent attacks from occurring some still are carried through. However, we can greatly minimize the future probability of terrorist attacks by being able to access the cyber information of suspected or verified terrorists. Planning a terror attack takes a great deal of communication. The terrorist must first contact a weapons supplier to obtain deadly materials, which for the most part, is done through online transactions which can be traced. Then, the terrorist must coordinate with fellow accomplices to ensure their plan is properly carried out, meaning that gaining access to their emails or texts can warn us ahead of time if an attack is going to take place. A terrorist attack takes a great deal of planning, most of which occurs online, so being able to access their online information even if we must violate their cyber privacy, is a small price to pay for countless innocent lives saved.

Impact:

According to CNN in 2013, breaching a few people’s cyber privacy to gain information crucial to stopping potential terrorist attacks has already made real world impacts. CNN finds that prioritizing national security has stopped 54 terrorist attacks from occurring in the span of 5 years, saving hundreds of lives. Furthermore, the National Security Council’s senior director on cybersecurity, Ari Schwartz, stated that “we must be willing to sacrifice a few people’s cyber rights to protect hundreds of citizens rights to live. While it is obviously a lose-lose situation, we must act morally and in some cases national security must take precedence”. Additionally, Professor Omer Tene of Stanford Law School found that it is in fact the duty of the United States government to protect citizens’ right to live over citizens’ right to cyber privacy. Professor Tene furthers that as long as prioritizing national security over cyber privacy saves a single life, it must always take precedence since life is more valuable than cyber privacy in every case. A U.S. intelligence document provided to CNN by a congressional source in 2013 asserts that the dragnet of U.S. phone data and Internet information from overseas users "has contributed to the disruption of dozens of potential terrorist plots here in the homeland and in more than 20 countries around the world."

2. Putting national security over cyber privacy is essential to preventing online hacks and viruses from spreading.
Warrant:

Nations that are not friendly towards the United States routinely use hackers to inflict harms upon American infrastructure. However, the United States can prevent and contain these attacks by tracing the hack back to its origin and creating a solution to end the virus. Furthermore, by violating a few people’s cyber privacy, we can find the origin of the virus and use that information to prevent future cyber attacks from occurring.

Impact:

One specific example of the US preventing a cyber attack from spreading is in the case of the Citibank hack. This virus infected over 5,500 Citibank ATMs nationwide over the course of two weeks in 2008, and stole valuable information. However, the US government gained access to what would have been classified information and were able to trace the virus back to its origin. In fact, they traced the virus to two Russian hackers who worked for a larger hacking ring. Not only was the US able to contain the virus to just those 5,500 computers, but by breaching cyber privacy, the US was able to find the perpetrators of the attack. Subsequently, the US government took action against this specific hacking ring and what used to be an influential and dangerous hacking circle now is defunct. According to the Brookings Institute in 2016, the US has been able to stop an estimated  70,000 potential cyber attacks since last September alone.

3. Putting national security over cyber privacy saves the government and the victims of cyber attacks significant amounts of money which is especially important in hard economic times.
Impact:

Cyber attacks are extremely expensive to its victims.  Economist Jeffrey Mills calculated that the average cyber attack against the US causes around $8,000 in damages. So, since last September, since the US stopped almost 70,000 potential cyber attacks, the US government has saved around $560,000,000 in potential damages caused by cyber criminals  accessing information through breaching cyber privacy.

4. It is our constitutional duty to breach a few people’s cyber privacies to save countless people’s rights to life.
Warrant:

While people are certainly entitled to their rights of digital privacy, their rights take the backseat when violating these rights can save lives. The right to life always takes precedence since life is a prerequisite to any other form of enjoyment, including enjoying the right of cyber privacy. Our government must put the lives of citizens above any other right, since while cyber privacy is important, innocent lives are simply more valuable. That’s why, the government must act in these situations and breach cyber privacy to ensure the protection of hundreds of other citizens.

Impact:

According to the House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner in a report on the constitutionality of violating cyber privacy for national security, he found that the total number of constitutional violations was “zero”. He further stated that “extensive  congressional oversight found no violations. Six reports by the Justice Department's   independent Inspector General, who is required to solicit and investigate any allegations of   abuse, found no violations. Intense public scrutiny has yet to find a single civil liberty abuse.”


CON (3 arguments)

Definitions:

national security- any matter or issue that concerns the safety of US citizens at a large scale

cyber privacy- regarding the protection of our online rights

 

Weighing Mechanism: Since the issues of privacy and security are the responsibilities of the United States government, whichever side best upholds our fundamental beliefs as outlined by the Constitution should win. Therefore, if the Neg sufficiently proves that we best support the Constitution, we should win this debate.

 

1. Prioritizing national security over the right to cyber privacy violates the constitution.
Warrant:

Our constitution grants United States citizens the rights to free speech, due process, and privacy. But, forcibly or covertly accessing the internet information of individual citizens without their consent directly goes against these fundamental rights. As a democracy, our government is only kept in check by our rights as citizens, meaning that our right to privacy must be kept intact to protect against tyranny. However, allowing the government free pass to violate cyber privacy whenever they feel like “national security” is in the balance is an open door to an unjust, illegal big brother state.

Impact:

There are multiple ways in which allowing the the US federal government the ability to put national security over cyber privacy violates the constitution. First off, the American Civil Liberties Union or ACLU found that this prioritization violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the FBI and NSA to search and seize records and personal information under the veil of “national security”. This is because the government can claim anything is a “national security” matter and subsequently investigate people’s cyber activity without a warrant. Second, the ACLU found that putting national security over the right to cyber privacy goes against the First Amendment because it “allows the FBI to obtain information about a person’s reading habits, religious affiliations, Internet searches, and other expressive activities that are constitutionally protected to be private under the First Amendment.”

2. Past precedence proves that the government searches get out of control and investigate anything regardless of relevance to “national security”.
Warrant:

Giving the government and related agencies, such as the FBI and NSA, unlimited power to decide when national security was in the balance and then the ability to choose whatever route of action they want has not worked historically. For example, the Patriot Act, which gave the government the power to circumvent rights, including cyber privacy rights, if our national security was threatened by terrorist threats, was a complete failure and did not benefit national security.

Impact:

According to a report by the House Judiciary Committee Chairman, in the first five years after the government began cyber searches without warrants through the NSA with the Patriot Act, they initiated over 200,000 searches without warrants. And, through all 200,000 of those searches that violated individual privacy rights and put people’s liberties at risk, the US federal government was only able to arrest one terror-related actor. Clearly, even with giving national security precedence over cyber rights, the US government still takes advantage of it and it’s past actions show it is not very reliable or effective. More damning still is an analysis from New America, a nonpartisan think tank, which analyzed the cases of 225 individuals charged with terror-related crimes and found that bulk collection of metadata started only 1.8 percent of the investigations and contributed little to the remainder. The TSA’s no-fly list has over 20,000 people on it. The Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, also known as the watch list, has 680,000, 40% of whom have “no recognized terrorist group affiliation.”  In the years after 9/11, the NSA passed to the FBI thousands of tips per month; every one of them turned out to be a false alarm. The cost was enormous, and ended up frustrating the FBI agents who were obligated to investigate all the tips. We also saw this with the Suspicious Activity Reports —or SAR — database: tens of thousands of reports, and no actual results. Inspector General Michael Horowitz said that between 2004 and 2009, the FBI tripled its use of bulk collection under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows government agents to compel businesses to turn over records and documents, and increasingly scooped up records of Americans who had no ties to official terrorism investigations. Our privacy rights are too important to be sacrificed based on the unverifiable claim that it will make us safer.

Sources:

Washington Times

3. Allowing US agencies like the NSA to have access to our private cyber information puts all of our confidential secrets at risk, since the meta-collection of our data is easily and often hacked.
Warrant:

While giving the US government the right to violate our cyber privacy rights may seem like it will do us good since it could protect us, in fact, the exact opposite occurs. When government agencies like the NSA use meta-collecting techniques to gather a great deal of data, the majority if not all of the collected data is irrelevant. However, in this “irrelevant” data are what normal, individual citizens would deem very important and private, such as bank card numbers, health care information, and sometimes even social security numbers.

Impact:

Just last June, one of the largest mass-data hacks took place and compromised the private information of over 4 million citizens. This breach was only possible as a result of mass-data collection that occurred because of the US government’s insistence that all information is essential for national security. The hack, according to Reuters, was one of the worst in the past five years. "This is deep. The data goes back to 1985. This means that they potentially have information about retirees, and they could know what they did after leaving government. Access to data from OPM's computers, such as birth dates, Social Security numbers and bank information, could help hackers test potential passwords to other sites, including those with information about weapons systems”. Not only were personal security compromised in this hack, but delicate codes and information about our nation’s top weapons programs were also stolen, meaning that in fact as a result of the government’s metadata collection, we ended up giving our enemies all of our secrets. In addition, Electronic Frontiers Executive Officer Jon Lawrence stated that “mandatory data retention was an unnecessary and disproportionate invasion of privacy that could further lead to personal information being compromised. The scope of risk in terms of, for example, systems administrators who manage this information is very high.”