Nsa negative

NSA Negative

SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16

NSA Negative

NSA Negative 1

No Abuse of Surveillance 2

USA Freedom Act Solved 5

Oversight works now 8

Privacy Losses are Inevitable 11

Corporations Violate Privacy 13

Security Consequences come before Privacy 16

Balancing Interests Good 20

Mass Surveillance Decreases Discrimination 24

Answers to: Privacy is a Right 27

Answers to: Surveillance Violates 4th Amendment 29

Answers to Surveillance hurts Freedom 30

Answer to Surveillance has chilling effect 32

Answers to Surveillance is Tyranny 33

Turn - Surveillance Protects Rights 34

Turn (Econ) - NSA Spying helps Cybersecurity Sector 36

Foreign Business hurt economy more- extension 39

Businesses won’t leave cloud - extension 42

Cloud Sector Growing now 46

Surveillance doesn’t effect business decisions- extensions 48

No Econ Losses – Increased Security 51

Data localization is inevitable- extension 52

Economic Decline Doesn’t Lead to War 55

Internet doesn’t spur Democracy- extensions 61

Profit motive - extensions 64

International Surveillance Matters more 66

The US is not a Model 71

Democracy doesn’t solve war- extension 73

Amount of Surveillance is Limited 77

NSA will Circumvent Restrictions 80

Topicality Domestic Surveillance (1NC – 1/2) (JV/V) 85

Topicality Extensions – Domestic Interpretation 87

Topicality – Domestic Interpretation Good 89

Topicality – Clear Definition Good 91

Topicality – NSA is Foreign Surveillance 92

Terrorism DA Link Extensions 95

Terrorism DA – Answers to “Too much Data” 102

Politics Disad Link Extensions 106

Executive Counterplan Solvency (JV & V Only) 108

No Abuse of Surveillance

(___)

(__) The NSA is not a rogue agency, there has been no abuse of surveillance.

Lowry, Editor, the National Review, 2015
(Rich, , 5-27-2015, "Lowry: NSA data program faces death by bumper sticker," Salt Lake Tribune, http://www.sltrib.com/csp/mediapool/sites/sltrib/pages/printfriendly.csp?id=2557534)

You can listen to orations on the NSA program for hours and be outraged by its violation of our liberties, inspired by the glories of the Fourth Amendment and prepared to mount the barricades to stop the NSA in its tracks — and still have no idea what the program actually does. That’s what the opponents leave out or distort, since their case against the program becomes so much less compelling upon fleeting contact with reality. The program involves so-called metadata, information about phone calls, but not the content of the calls — things like the numbers called, the time of the call, the duration of the call. The phone companies have all this information, which the NSA acquires from them. What happens next probably won’t shock you, and it shouldn’t. As Rachel Brand of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board writes, “It is stored in a database that may be searched only by a handful of trained employees, and even they may search it only after a judge has determined that there is evidence connecting a specific phone number to terrorism.” The charge of domestic spying is redolent of the days when J. Edgar Hoover targeted and harassed Martin Luther King Jr. Not only is there zero evidence of any such abuse, it isn’t even possible based on the NSA database alone. There are no names with the numbers. As former prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy points out, whitepages.com has more personal identifying information. The NSA is hardly a rogue agency. Its program is overseen by a special panel of judges, and it has briefed Congress about its program for years.

(__)The NSA is well-regulated and constrained by judicial oversight.

Cohen, fellow at The Century Foundation, 2015
(Michael A. 6-3-2015, "NSA Surveillance Debate Drowned Out on Both Sides by Fear Tactics," World Politics Review, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/15905/nsa-surveillance-debate-drowned-out-on-both-sides-by-fear-tacticsa)

The arguments of NSA opponents have, for two years, relied on hypothetical, trumped-up fears of the government ransacking our private information. These concerns have been raised even though, from all appearances, the NSA’s domestic surveillance activities are reasonably well-regulated and constrained by judicial oversight. NSA opponents like to point out that a recent court decision determined that the bulk records collection program was illegal, which ignores the many other court decisions that accepted its legality. More important, it ignores the decisions of the secret FISA Court, which ordered the NSA not to scrap collection programs that were determined to be operating unconstitutionally, but rather to make changes to them to get them in line with constitutional constraints.

No Abuse of Surveillance extensions

(___)

(__) There’s no evidence of abuse of surveillance powers.

Simon, fellow at The Century Foundation, 2013,
(David, 7/3/13, "We are shocked, shocked...," http://davidsimon.com/we-are-shocked-shocked/)

I know it’s big and scary that the government wants a data base of all phone calls. And it’s scary that they’re paying attention to the internet. And it’s scary that your cell phones have GPS installed. And it’s scary, too, that the little box that lets you go through the short toll lane on I-95 lets someone, somewhere know that you are on the move. Privacy is in decline around the world, largely because technology and big data have matured to the point where it is easy to create a net that monitors many daily interactions. Sometimes the data is valuable for commerce — witness those facebook ads for Italian shoes that my wife must endure — and sometimes for law enforcement and national security. But be honest, most of us are grudging participants in this dynamic. We want the cell phones. We like the internet. We don’t want to sit in the slow lane at the Harbor Tunnel toll plaza.

The question is not should the resulting data exist. It does. And it forever will, to a greater and greater extent. And therefore, the present-day question can’t seriously be this: Should law enforcement in the legitimate pursuit of criminal activity pretend that such data does not exist. The question is more fundamental: Is government accessing the data for the legitimate public safety needs of the society, or are they accessing it in ways that abuse individual liberties and violate personal privacy — and in a manner that is unsupervised.

And to that, the Guardian and those who are wailing jeremiads about this pretend-discovery of U.S. big data collection are noticeably silent. We don’t know of any actual abuse. No known illegal wiretaps, no indications of FISA-court approved intercepts of innocent Americans that occurred because weak probable cause was acceptable. Mark you, that stuff may be happening. As happens the case with all law enforcement capability, it will certainly happen at some point, if it hasn’t already. Any data asset that can be properly and legally invoked, can also be misused — particularly without careful oversight. But that of course has always been the case with electronic surveillance of any kind.