Cole Berge, Colton Gardner, Nick Martinez

Professor Carey
Globalization
6 May 2015
Electronic Surveillance and Privacy Rights
First Negative Constructive Speech (Colton):
-By carrying out unlawful warrantless surveillance of foreign and local individuals abroad that
are neither proportionate nor necessary, they are depriving United States citizens of their right to
maintain privacy through the use of electronic technology.
-The nature of security is evolving ~ we arent dealing with your grandmothers NSA
-The rate at which intelligence-gathering technology is developed far outpaces the creation of
legal safeguards that protect citizens privacy
-ARGUS technology

The ARGUS generates a detailed map (imagine a more detailed Google map), but
the map is moving, interactive, and in real time.The operating technician can zoom in to
any object on the map in a pop-up window, while maintaining the wider context. The
processor automatically tracks all moving objects and up to sixty-five independent
surveillance windows can be opened at once. The operator can see objects as small as six
inches from the groundanything from birds to the clothes a person is wearing (Andrew
Talai,Cali law review)
-Access to these sorts of technologies allows law enforcement agencies to abuse their
discretionary power

-providing law enforcement with a swift, efficient, invisible, and cheap way of tracking
the movements of virtually anyone and everyone they choose. Police, through legislative
encouragement and judicial acquiescence, now have powerunmatched in historyon
the streets of this country: a form of paramilitarized violence found in a rapidly
expanding criminal justice-industrial complex, with both ideological and material
connections to the military industrial complex(talai)
-Many acts of surveillance are unwarranted searches and totally do not jive with the
standing interpretation of the 4th amendment of the constitution If the opposition doesnt
think this is the case, theyre just lying to themselves.
First Negative Rebuttal Speech: Cole
-Terrorism
the NSA has little effect on stopping or preventing terrorist attacks in the United States. An
analysis of 225 terrorism cases inside the United States since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has
concluded that the bulk collection of phone records by the National Security Agency has had no
discernible impact on preventing acts of terrorism.(WashingtonPost). So with that NSA mass
collections doesn't have a significant effect on stopping terror attacks. The majority of cases of
stopping terrorism the traditional law enforcement and investigative methods provided the tip or
evidence to initiate the cases investigation (New America Foundation). To go along with that
there is a quote from the White House-appointed review group talked about NSA program and
was not essential to preventing attacks and that the information could readily have been
obtained in a timely manner using conventional [court] orders (WashingtonPost). So we do not

need a mass data collections to prevent terror attacks in the United States. The more traditional
ways of stopping terror attacks works just as well and in most of the time works better.
-Cell Phones
On May 7 a federal appeals court ruled that the NSA program on bulk collection of millions of
Americans phone records was ruled unconstitutional. The three federal judges said that the
section 215 of the patriot act exceeds the scope of what the congress has authorized. therefore,
with this ruling it violates the fourth Amendment of the Constitution. (TheHill) (ACLU)

First Negative Rebuttal Speech: (Nick)

-

Necessary and proper clause - A law often used to verify the actions of the National
Security Agency that allows them to surpass our right to privacy, specifically the fourth
amendment. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18, of the U.S. Constitution states, Congress
has the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into

execution the foregoing powers.

Federal Communications Act of 1934 - An outdated law that permits the National
Security Agency to perform wiretaps and record conversations through microphone

technology.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 - Allows the National Security Agency to

legally perform wiretaps and collect phone metadata.

Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board - The Executive Branch of the United States
Government issued a report calling an end to the National Security Agencys mass
collection of data. This statement claimed that, The bulk collection program was built on
a murky legal foundation that raises many constitutional questions and has been proven
to be an ineffective tool for collecting unique intelligence information (T. Leithauser).

Expenses - FY 02 Intelligence Authorization Act - Granted the National Security Agency

permission to access $30 billion worth of funding to strengthen their program according

to CNN Money.
Patriot Act - In a 97-Page ruling, the United States Court of Appeals held that a
provision of the U.S.A. Patriot Act, known as Section 215, cannot be legitimately
interpreted to allow the bulk collection of domestic calling records (NY Times, May 7)