[AztecInca]

Debate topic: Is the development of high tech surveillence and other technologies invading our lives?

We are looking for one team to debate the the development of high tech surveillence and other technologies are invading not only our everyday lives but our personal lives. While the other team will be debating that these developments in technologies are in fact protecting us and any loss of privacy is worth the protection it provides.

People can apply individualy or with another as a team.

Bigfoot will take part in the team that is debating that the development of high tech surveillence and other technologies are invading our everyday and personal lives.

This post has been edited by AztecInca: 12 July 2006 - 02:09 AM

[Bigfoot_Is_Real]

I will gladly be on the Invasion team

This post has been edited by Bigfoot_Is_Real: 19 April 2006 - 02:07 AM

[A+Certified]

i will glady debate for the furthering of such technogoly, and that it is not a bad thing.

[A+Certified]

um.........hello?
its been a long time, lol

[AztecInca]

^Yes it has indeed A+certified but we are still waiting for two more participants, so that both you and Bigfoot have a partner. If it does not appear that any others will participate then I may just move this into the 1v1 debates section and allow you and Bigfoot to face off against one another.

[The Skunkard]

I will be on the Invasion team with bigfoot - if that is possible??

Or is it too late..

[AztecInca]

^Nope that is absolutely fine. Now we are just after one participant to join A+certified and debate that these developments in technologies are in fact protecting us and any loss of privacy is worth the protection it provides.

[RamboIII]

I am, for the first time in awhile, debateless. I will gladly join A+Certified.

[AztecInca]

Thanks RamboIII

Bigfoot_Is_Real and The Skunkard will be debating the the development of high tech surveillence and other technologies are invading not only our everyday lives but our personal lives. While A+certified and RamboIII will be debating that these developments in technologies are in fact protecting us and any loss of privacy is worth the protection it provides.

This will be a 2v2 formal debate.
An Introduction, 2 bodily posts and a conclusion from each team. No Flaming, bad manners or profantities will be tolerated.

Please be aware that:

There is a point deduction for debaters who fail to make a post within the 7 day time frame. The deductions will be 2 points for every day the participant fails to post after the 7 days.

This is to ensure that debates continue in a timely fashion. If for any reason you cannot post within the 7 days, please ensure that you let myself or tiddlyjen know to avoid having the points taken off your debate.

If, however the participant does not then attempt to make a post for up to 2 weeks after the 7 day rule has started an immediate disqualification will occur.

Good Luck!

This post has been edited by AztecInca: 28 June 2006 - 03:08 AM

[Bigfoot_Is_Real]

Finally

(pardon me if this post was to short i am tired)

Hello and to introduce my debate side I will begin.

High-Tech Surveillence is invading our privacy because it allows more people to learn more about you than they should ,and if the information falls into the wrong hands it could result in much more than a traffic ticket. Yes ,I belive in catching criminals but their is no reason to make the innocent to be conndemed of being gulity to a crime someone else commited when our countries fathers created this hoping that would never happen. Is it worth the risk to put others lives at sake for catching a criminal. Now some may agrue thats its worth the risk ,is it? Many know their are in fact many people capable of getting data files stored away with good intentions. But I agree some privacy always must be given away if its not life threating information I will not care. And finally if they want to protect us they will gife us privacy.

This post has been edited by Bigfoot_Is_Real: 28 June 2006 - 03:28 AM

[A+Certified]

Hello, first may i say im happy to be debating with rambo on my side, and good luck to bigfoot and skunkard.

Introduction
High Tech Surveillence. Is it a threat to our privacy? i think not.
When you think of surveillence, you have to keep in context what your surveilling. When monitoring a stop-light, like the scenario brought up by Bigfoot, How much personal information can you get?
The cameras at intersections and stop-lights are meant to capture alternating frames, not video, and the quality of said cameras is sub-par for seeing into the car.
The ATM is the most vulnerable place for you concerning cameras. however this line cannot be tapped, becuase it isnt connected to anywhere but internal memory. and i doubt you would get away with literally breaking open an ATM and getting the video from inside
other scenarios can include monitoring internet activity. This sounds intrusive at first, but just who is monitoring you? and for what? the only monitors on the internet are the ISPs, the government, and site that sell to you. getting scammed on ebay would have nothing to do with surveillence, so that scenario is out the window.
another type of surveillence is phone tapping. this is likley the most contraversial form of surveillence. But who exactly is tapping you? the governement is the most obvious choice, but you have to put into context WHY they are tapping you, if they even are. The gov. is not out for your credit card number, they're trying to see if your a criminal. if your not, youve got nothing to worry about, and if you are a criminal, then that tapping just saved someone some money/ a life/ or an Identity.

Rebuttals

Quote

if they want to protect us they will give us privacy.

Not always. if a criminal actively chats to his comrade about murder he commited over the phone, becuase the innocent people wanted privacy, thats one more dead in the name of privacy for those who have nothing to worry about either way.

Quote

their are in fact many people capable of getting data files stored away with good intentions.

yes, but that is not a form of monitoring, or surveillence. thats hacking, which has nothing to do with surveillence.

Quote

their is no reason to make the innocent to be conndemed of being gulity to a crime someone else commited

no their isnt, but how can surveillence of an innocent person land them in jail? i fail to see the relation of that to surveillence.


its my understanding that i will be creating the second bodily post. (we alternate posts right? i do the intro, rambo does the first bodily post, i do the second? he does the conclusion)
Once again thank you aztec, and judges for your time. and i wish the opposition good luck.

This post has been edited by A+certified: 28 June 2006 - 04:42 AM

[Bigfoot_Is_Real]

Actually it depends on who starts their team (is started mine so i am 1A) and i made the introduction for my team and since i am 1A get to do the first bodily post (right?)


Great Introduction A+certified

Now for Team 1's first bodily post

When I said 'their is no reason to make the innocent to be condemed of being guilty to a crime someone else committed' I meant as in being innocent until proven guilty, which with High-Tech surveillance is happening, they are treating us all as if we killed someone.

Now where do you think all of this data goes, police stations ,the FBI, and the CIA, and with the recent hackings of those computers, and us learning that they are not as safe as we think they are. However I see your point in the stoplights and ATM's but its quite obvious someone is going to steal the ATM's data and use it, How? depending on todays technology that person could easily use that data to zoom in on credit card numbers and use it.

Also if you say " I am so gonna kill so and so" and if the Goverment hears that they will arrest you and potentially ruin your live even though you meant no harm.

(i hope i was right in the order this was supposed to go in)

[RamboIII]

Our First Bodily Post:

Of course there are many different types of surveillance whether it is phone tapping, cameras, etc., each of which directly benefits the safety of the communities.

I'll start with phone tapping. The government monitors phones for specific words, when they find words being spoken about such as murder, drugs, robbing, etc. they monitor these people more closely. And, Bigfoot, they will also monitor the context to determine whether or not the words spoken by the subject could really be dangerous.
In this manner, phone tapping is not at all an invasion of privacy because honestly, they don't really care. If it gets to the point where matters may proceed to get dangerous, action must be taken. It may be the privacy of one or two in jeopardy, but it will save many more lives.

Cameras at traffic lights. Well there's obviously nothing wrong with this. Running red lights is one of those most dangerous things that can happen on the road. Cameras can also detect possible drunk-driving suspects and street racing. There are really no negatives to cameras at traffic lights.

Cameras at ATMs. On a late Sunday night one of the most dangerous places to be is an ATM. The furthest invasion of privacy that is more likely to happen would be that a security guard might get to see what a civilian is wearing and I don't know what the problem with that is... Of course another positive to these cameras is to detect robbers. If someone who fits a description of a common purse snatcher in the area shows up at an ATM, police officers can question the suspect and seek a valid license, etc.

Rebuttals:

Quote

depending on todays technology that person could easily use that data to zoom in on credit card numbers and use it.

Well, if someone does this in one of those organizations, we have the technology to find out who did it, and that person will suffer the consequences. Otherwise, photos of ATMs will not be put on the world wide web. Scandals happen, don't get me wrong, but maybe once or twice whereas, again, many more lives will be saved. Besides, what is stopping civilians to just not show their credit card to the camera?

Quote

I belive in catching criminals but their is no reason to make the innocent to be conndemed of being gulity to a crime someone else commited when our countries fathers created this hoping that would never happen

The government doesn't see a person saying, "Ohh I'm going to kill..." and accuse them of murder. The government is a bit smarter than that.

Quote

But I agree some privacy always must be given away [but?]if its not life threating information I will not care.

Correct me if I am wrong revising that statement. It is this attitude that has put off high-tech surveillance for so long. People say things like this, threaten the government with law suits, and risk hundreds of people's potential lives not even knowing the whole truth. People don't realize that phone tapping and camera surveillance saves lives and frankly, they don't care about saving others lives if it jeopardizes their "privacy"- as A+certified and I have already proven that high-tech surveillance does NOT invade privacy, rather it is ignorance that makes people feel this way.

Keep on going, we have a lot of ground left.

[AztecInca]

The Skunkard the 7 day time-limit for you to post has now passed and if you do not either post or pm me regarding your inability to post point deductions will have to be made. Your partner is counting on you, he will also bear the deductions if you fail to post.

[A+Certified]

sorry to hijack, delete if you like, but it hasnt "now" passed, it passed a week and a half ago....lol. should there not be point deductions?
(delete if you like, mods)