Nsa affirmative

Answers to “Corporations violate privacy ”

(___)

(__) Government surveillance is much more important than private surveillance – it has a greater reach and far more powerful consequences attached.

Heymann, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, 2015,
(Philip B, “An Essay On Domestic Surveillance” Lawfare Research Paper Series Vol 3.2, http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Lawfare-Philip-Heymann-SURVEILLANCE-for-publ-10-May-2015.pdf)

Is Government Surveillance Particularly Important? Why should we care particularly about government surveillance in a world where private surveillance on the internet and the information and predictions that can be derived from a mass of such information are driving much of the economy of the internet as companies seek knowledge useful for developing and selling new products?

Government surveillance has far greater reach. FBI and other law enforcement agents can – without any need of a predicate or judicial warrant – do whatever private individuals are allowed to do to discover information, using one of the “not-a-search” exceptions. But they can do much more. They can demand, with the assistance of a federal prosecutor, any records that “might” be useful to a grand jury – a standard much more far-reaching than probable cause or reasonable suspicion. The government can be, and is, empowered to demand access to any records kept by third parties, including the vast array of electronic records now kept by businesses about their customers. What private businesses can obtain by requiring a waiver of privacy rights as a condition of access to their goods or services, the government can also obtain without even that strained form of consent and without the alerting knowledge that consent gives to the individual being monitored.

Answers to “Corporations violate privacy ”

(__) Government surveillance is worse – there’s no opt-out and government force carries greater weight.

Fung, covers technology for The Washington, 2013

(Brian, “Yes, there actually is a huge difference between government and corporate surveillance” – Washington Post - November 4, 2013 - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/11/04/yes-there-actually-is-a-huge-difference-between-government-and-corporate-surveillance/)

Yes, there actually is a huge difference between government and corporate surveillance When it comes to your online privacy — or what little is left of it — businesses and governments act in some pretty similar ways. They track your credit card purchases. They mine your e-mail for information about you. They may even monitor your movements in the real world. Corporate and government surveillance also diverge in important ways. Companies are looking to make money off of you, while the government aims to prevent attacks that would halt that commercial activity (along with some other things). But the biggest difference between the two has almost no relation to who's doing the surveillance and everything to do with your options in response. Last week, we asked you whether you'd changed your online behavior as a result of this year's extended national conversation about privacy — and if so, which form of snooping annoyed you more. Looking through the responses so far, this one caught my eye: The government because I can't *choose* not to be spied on by them. The government also has the power to kill or imprison me which no private company has. I am a firm believer that our founding fathers created a system that respected individual privacy and to see it eroded by the federal government concerns me deeply. I am a strong believer in the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments. Putting aside the government's power to capture or kill, your inability to refuse the government is what distinguishes the NSA from even the nosiest companies on Earth. In a functioning marketplace, boycotting a company that you dislike — for whatever reason — is fairly easy. Diners who object to eating fake meat can stop frequenting Taco Bell. Internet users that don't like Google collecting their search terms can try duckduckgo, an anonymous search engine. By contrast, it's nearly impossible to simply pick up your belongings and quit the United States. For most people, that would carry some significant costs — quitting your job, for instance, or disrupting your children's education, or leaving friends and family. Those costs can be high enough to outweigh the benefits of recovering some hard-to-measure modicum of privacy. Besides, leaving the country would ironically expose you to even greater risk of surveillance, since you'd no longer be covered by the legal protections granted to people (even foreign terror suspects) that arrive to U.S. shores. There are still some ways to shield yourself from the NSA. To the best of our knowledge, the government has yet to crack the encryption protocols behind Tor, the online traffic anonymizing service. But Tor's users are also inherently the object of greater suspicion precisely because they're making efforts to cover their tracks. In the business world, no single company owns a monopoly over your privacy. The same can't really be said about the government.

Answers to “Corporations violate privacy ”

(___)

(__) Government violations are worse. Even if they’re now - corporate privacy violations shouldn’t condone government violations.

Sklansky, Professor of Law. UCLA, 2002

(David A. “BACK TO THE FUTURE: KYLLO, KATZ, AND COMMON LAW” - University of California, Los Angeles School of Law Research Paper Series. Mississippi Law Journal, Forthcoming Research Paper No. 02-17 - July 27. 2002 - www.isrcl.org/Papers/sklansky.pdf)

There are two relatively straightforward ways out of this dilemma, but both would require the Supreme Court to rethink certain aspects of Fourth Amendment law.252 The first and simplest way out would be to recognize that government surveillance differs from private snooping, and therefore that the latter, no matter how common, should not eliminate protection against the former. This was the approach one lower court took when it found that government agents intruded on a reasonable expectation of privacy by using a telescope to peer into a suspect's apartment. The court expressly rejected the government's claim that any expectation of privacy was rendered unreasonable by the widespread use of telescopes by private citizens to spy on people living in high-rises. Private snooping, the court reasoned, had "no bearing" on the legality of government surveillance, because the government spies "for different purposes than private citizens." and sometimes "with more zeal." Accordingly, a person's "lack of concern about intrusions from private sources has little to do with an expectation of freedom from systematic governmental surveillance," and "[t]he fact that Peeping Toms abound does not license the government to follow suit."253