Third Proposing Speech
In this closing speech, I will both expose my point of view on this debate, proving that security cannot be established without some erosion of privacy and also show how ALL the arguments given in the second opposing speech are irrelevant in this debate and often ridiculous! […]
Third Opposing Speech
As the last opposing speaker, it’s my turn to be a little confused about the second proposing speech, written by DD. He said he had the feeling that the first opposing speaker was struggling to demonstrate the contrary of the thesis he was supposed to advocate. I now have the same feeling. […]
Third Proposing Speech
In this closing speech, I will both expose my point of view on this debate, proving that security cannot be established without some erosion of privacy and also show how ALL the arguments given in the second opposing speech are irrelevant in this debate and often ridiculous!
In our modern societies, security and privacy are undeniably linked. Necessarily ensuring security implies a certain erosion of individual privacy since it is all a question of surveillance. Anticipating a terrorist attack or having the ability to quickly respond to a threat is performed by monitoring people’s activities and controlling communications. This monitoring can take various forms: policemen in the streets for instance but above all electronic surveillance (cameras and more rarely wiretaps). Also the Internet makes it easier to communicate, exchange data, gather information. Thus authorities have been created especially in the United States to monitor the traffic on the web and detect suspicious communications.
This systematic control has developed because new kinds of threats have appeared. And especially terrorism is a tricky issue: terrorists use sophisticated weapons and do not hesitate to blow themselves up in public places. Moreover it is quite difficult to identify them before they attack and the randomness of the attacks makes the predictions delicate. The opposing speeches pretend that cameras in public places are useless and a waste of money! They cite the story of a woman that was murdered in the Paris underground by someone who has not yet been arrested. Of course you cannot expect such security systems to solve 100% of the crimes! This does not mean that cameras are inefficient. For example the Closed-Circuit TV in London enabled to identify the terrorists involved in the British transport bombing in 2005. Besides cameras can also play a role in deterring potential attackers from acting. The Internet is also used by terrorists to communicate, exchange data on how to build a bomb for instance and more generally to prepare bombings. The terrible events that occurred on the 11th September 2001 led America to take drastic measures to prevent such events from happening again. Thus it is necessary to control communications on the web not to let the Internet become a tool in the service of malicious people.
Now we can consider the extent to which people’s privacy is affected by such security measures. In our western societies, privacy is defined as the state of being free from intrusion or disturbance in one’s private life or affairs. In a world in which people are self-sufficient and have very few contacts with each other, these people can claim total privacy. But our world, the real world, is totally different: people travel, gather, communicate, and can exchange data faster and faster thanks to the Internet,... In other words, people live together and in such a case, there should be rules and laws applicable to everyone in order to ensure security, well being and enable people to live together in harmony. The role of the government is thus to protect citizenry and defend common interests. Even if privacy is a fundamental right in our modern societies, security prevails over privacy and life is the preeminent value. Citizens can indeed accept to lose a small part of their privacy in the name of security but no one would accept to have his family endangered by a certain menace. Moreover some people consider privacy as a crucial part of their freedom and argue that a loss of privacy is a loss of liberty. This may be true but in a very limited extent. Indeed the aim of the controlling authorities is not to unveil the daily activities of each of us and make them public. This is not the point. Therefore the debate here does not concern people in their intimate life at home but rather the surveillance of strategic public places.
Of course individual privacy is an important issue in the modern age and none of the proposing speeches has told the contrary. Simply, facebook proves that a certain part of the population likes showing elements of their life and that privacy does not seem to be a big deal for them. But in the context of our debate, facebook is not an appropriate example since people who do not want to release private information just do not get a facebook account. Also the second opposing speech cites the example of a website on which some people say that they are away from their place which reveals that their houses can be easily robbed. Again this is TOTALLY out of the debate ! These people are not compelled to unveil such information and all this is not part of governmental security measures.
Also there is an unfortunate confusion in the second opposing speech, the purpose of the debate has not been well understood! The point is not to discuss if erosion of privacy necessarily implies security but to discuss if ensuring security necessarily implies some erosion of individual privacy. Then the example of a house with transparent walls which is taken to show that a loss of privacy does not lead to better security makes me laugh!!! This is totally irrelevant and pointless in this debate! Of course violating privacy or unveiling personal information do not automatically create security! But here we are discussing ways that are used to ensure security and their links with individual privacy.
Now that everyone is convinced that ensuring security necessarily implies a certain loss of individual privacy, another interesting part of the debate concerns the popular acceptance of a degree of erosion of individual privacy. I will give a few examples showing that this degree of erosion is quite well accepted by most citizens. First, let us cite the case of all the controls that we and our luggage have to undergo before boarding an aircraft. This procedure is time-consuming and may seem annoying and inconvenient but at the same time, few people complain about it and I would never board an aircraft if the passengers were not submitted to these checks. Second, all the cameras that I see in the underground in Paris at night make me feel reassured. And I have no problem with the fact of being filmed in a public place so long as the video tracks are only accessible to the authorities.
Of course all this supposes that the citizens trust in their government whose primary role is to ensure security, freedom and citizenry’s welfare. That’s why there are laws preventing drifts or abuses of people who collect the data and ensuring that the government does not abuse its power.
To conclude, we can say that in our societies and with our way of life, people cannot only focus on individual values but each of us has to think about his life as a member of a community and not just be attached to individual interests. Common interest and security are greater values. Nevertheless, privacy is fundamental for personal development and happiness. So it has to be preserved as far as possible. All is thus a question of finding a compromise between security and privacy and this is not unreasonable to have one’s privacy a bit eroded in order to ensure security.
by ML
Third Opposing Speech
As the last opposing speaker, it’s my turn to be a little confused about the second proposing speech, written by DD. He said he had the feeling that the first opposing speaker was struggling to demonstrate the contrary of the thesis he was supposed to advocate.
I now have the same feeling.
It seems to me that the second proposing speaker has demonstrated how modern security technologies will evolve so that it WON’T affect privacy. I totally agree, and I thank him for helping me with my closing speech, because this is exactly what I intend to demonstrate.
By now, I think the reader may be confused about which thesis is advocating which side, and it could be a good thing to remind everyone what exactly we are trying to say. The proposing side wants to convince people that saying “Security in the modern age cannot be established without eroding privacy” is wrong. Because the negative form of this sentence may have lead to some misunderstanding, I suggest modifying it. The proposing thesis can be simplified with the following proposition: “More security implies less privacy”, where the word “implies” holds a mathematical meaning. Then, I’m going to show how the opposing side has demonstrated ad absurdum, the inconsistency of this proposition.
In his opposing speech, the first speaker explained that security improvements shouldn’t be established with privacy cuts. First, because privacy is a part of freedom and eroding it to improve security is like robbing Peter to pay Paul. And second, because no organization or government is reliable enough for us to grant them access to our sensitive data, like recent history has shown [1].
The second opposing speech went further. It demonstrated that not only privacy shouldn’t be eroded for more security, but furthermore, that less privacy implies less security. Recording and gathering personal data for security purposes inevitably generates a risk for this data to be stolen, with a major security issue. The more personal data is stored, the more security is threatened, which means that the more security is supposed to be improved, the more security is actually eroded.
Here stands the reductio ad absurdum.
Therefore, if a security system needs to erode privacy to run, this system generates in another way as many problems it solves. I don’t think that in the long run, any city or any country could reasonably use such a lame system. This assumption could sound naïve, because every citizen can easily name plenty of non-working systems that are still in use. But if we go further, how many of these systems are frozen in their inefficiency? They are all subject to major internal changes, because their managers know they have to improve to survive, or eventually disappear. Darwin Law also applies in there: people don’t pay for lame systems on the long run. The non-working systems we experience are actually transitory state issues.
So, in the future, either security systems will be able to work without eroding privacy, or they will disappear. Let’s see what will happen to London CCTV in ten years: we can assume it will have dramatically changed, or just been dismantled.
I hope the reader is convinced at this point. If not, let’s see what lies on the proposing side. The thesis they have to support is so far from reality that instead of advocating for it, the second proposing speaker explained, and actually stole the points I wanted to conclude with. Indeed, I don’t think security systems will disappear. They are too useful, and like the first proposing speaker said, people don’t want to accept risks any more, and demand security. So, I think that these security systems – which are actually really new and in the early steps of their development – will evolve toward more automation, less human intervention and less data stored, to achieve security without eroding privacy.
by PGC
No comments:
Post a Comment