RESOLVED: The United States ought to prioritize the pursuit of national security objectives above the digital privacy of its citizens.

RESOLVED: The United States ought to prioritize the pursuit of national security objectives above the digital privacy of its citizens.

Status quo
In September 11, 2001, the United States was struck by Al Qaeda, in the most devastating attack on American soil since the Pearl Harbor in the WWII. Nearly 3000 American lives were lost, more than 10 billion dollars in infrastructure damage occurred, and the incident left an indelible mark on the American psyche. Such an attack must never be repeated ever again, and therefore, we propose the resolution that the United States ought to prioritize the pursuit of national security objectives above the digital privacy of its citizens. We define the resolution as including such programs as the US Patriot Act, and other programs that more recently came under fire as a result of Edward Snowden’s information leakage, such as the PRISM program, which allows the US government court-approved, front-door access to American citizen’s Google and Yahoo accounts, and the NSA’s surveillance program which includes the searching of millions of email and instant messaging contact lists, tracking and mapping the location of cell phones, and tapping into Google and Yahoo data centers to collect information. Therefore, I propose on this side of the house that such programs will allow the government valuable insight regarding people’s financial records, internet surfing habits and search histories, which will help it pinpoint and track down suspicious movement and eventually curtail potential loss of lives. My value is national security and my criterion is how do we best prevent terrorism and ensure peace. We have two arguments on our side of the house, 

1. The Importance of National Security and the Threat of Terrorism
On the first level, we think that national security is the paramount national interest for any state. All democratic governments have the fundamental responsibility to protect its peoples, but it cannot do that very basic job if the state in and of itself doesn’t exist. In fact, for the state to perish would be ultimate failure of its responsibility to protect its citizens, because invasion is war and war entails mass destruction and loss of lives. Therefore, national security, which is to ensure the survival of the state, is a fundamental precondition to the state doing its primary job. On the second level, terrorism is a grave threat to national security, because first, it is more likely to occur than war, and second, it is by definition a greater threat to civilians. First, of the types of threats faced by states, terrorism is the most relevant today. Threats to peace can be either from other states, through war, or from hostile individuals and organizations, through terrorism. However, terrorism is the much more relevant and dangerous threat for this particular period in time, for the reason that war is less likely in the age of globalization than is terrorism. War is less likely in the age of globalization, because states are less likely to go to war the more that that are economically liberalized. The more states trade with each other, the more they have to lose should any conflict happen to jeopardize their trade relations. However, terrorism is committed by individuals and organizations who are not bound by such disincentives, and therefore more likely to occur than war. Second, terrorism is more dangerous, because terrorism is a greater threat to civilians than is war, by its very definition that terrorism is an attack on civilians. States have learned throughout history the hard way, that where possible, war and conflict should be limited to military personnel and targets, and the Geneva Convention forbids torture and hard to civilians. However, terrorism is by definition, the attack of civilian populations by individuals and groups with a political motivation. Finally, the threat of terrorism is a constant and unlikely to go away any time soon, because terrorism is a relatively inexpensive proposition for organizations. The minimal cost of orchestrating an operation means that foreign terrorist groups will likely continue to regard U.S. homeland operations as both desirable and a financially feasible option. Therefore, because terrorism is more likely to occur than war, is more dangerous to civilian populations, and because the threat of terrorism will always continue to exist, the state should do anything and everything it can to prevent such activities from coming to pass.

  2. Why sacrificing security in this situation will be effective Because of the nature of homegrown terrorism and the information age, access to the private digital information of people would be invaluable in uncovering potential terrorist threats. Homegrown terrorism are attacks that originate from within the nation, for example when American citizens become radicalized by coming into contact with international organizations. Homegrown terrorists are dangerous, because they are already living amongst us as one of us. They are hiding in plain sight, and therefore have fewer logistical problems, such as figuring out how to enter into the target nation (in this case the USA), become familiar with the society and their customs, and identify targets more easily, which means that they have higher chances of success. Furthermore, statistics prove that they are very real and on the rise. According to an FBI report in 2009, there were roughly 15,000 websites and web forums that supported terrorist activities around the world, with around 10,000 of them actively maintained, and 80% of these on US-based servers. Homegrown terrorism is very present. What’s more, the internet is particularly important in the radicalization process for many domestic (homegrown) terrorists, breeding the extremist ideology that sows the seeds for future terrorists. One example of this is the online English language magazine, Inspire, which is published by the Al Qaeda and purportedly created by the American cyber-jihadist Samir Khan. The magazine is intended to help acquaint English-speaking individuals with what to expect when traveling to jihadist-training camps in the Middle East. Given the way that society operates in the Information Age, because every piece of information is digitized, and every individual is connected to the Internet, accessing people’s digital data is an effective and most surefire way to detect suspicious activities that could potentially lead to terrorism. Finally, in the Age of Information, people’s online footsteps are highly likely to reveal terrorist tendencies. Because most people are highly connected to the web, and because their digital footsteps are an excellent indicator of any behavior that could be suspect. As of January 2014, 87% of US adults use the Internet, according to the Pew Research Center. This means that most people use the web for various purposes throughout their lives, and this means that there’s a lot of information that could be potentially useful. A person's browser history can be a very revealing thing indeed, and the perfect source of information to determine whether that person could be a threat to society or not. For example, search queries such as “how to make a bomb,” or “how to travel to countries forbidden from travel,” would be highly suggestive of suspicious behavior, and the state should rightly have access to such information and thereby track them down.