Their evs too generic – it says SOME claims of privacy violations are wrong – that’s obviously not true for meta data bulk surveillance – entire 1ac proves – prefer our specific authors and warrant to their generic indict
TS rights not absolute and utilitarianism is good
Privacy rights are absolute – its key to human uniqueness, dignity and respect
Utilitarian impact calc is biased – it artificially inflates the risk of their scenarios and justifies atrocity
No link to their offense – utilitarianism is fine, but privacy is a SIDE CONSTRAINT – the ends don’t justify the means – that’s key to human dignity and value to life
TS alt cause
( ) Government surveillance is far worse – there’s no opt-out and government force carries greater weight.
Brian Fung covers technology for The Washington Post, focusing on telecom, broadband and digital politics. Before joining the Post, he was the technology correspondent for National Journal and an associate editor at the Atlantic. “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.
Extend our inherency contention – safeguards don’t go nearly far enough – only plan solves
TS new freedom act solves –
its not credible, only plan restores credibility – that’s Brinkerhoff, reiss, and HRW – that also answers their alt causes
TS US cred bad
Assumes status quo – plan shifts US policy and promotes internet freedom globally – only US can solve globally but reducing perception of hypocracy is key – that’s Wong
( ) Outside of bulk surveillance, the US would – on balance – be a solid leader on privacy issues.
(internally citing the internet freedom rankings of Freedom House. Freedom House is an independent watchdog organization dedicated to the expansion of freedom around the world - Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a staff editor for Reason.com. Her writing has also appeared places such as Time, The Week, Newsweek, Fox News, and The Dish. Brown has an M.A. in strategic communication from American University, – “Internet Freedom Under Global Attack; Report Finds Governments Around the World Expanded Online Control, Surveillance Last Year” - Reason - Dec. 4, 2014 - http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/04/global-internet-freedom-report-2014)
The United States scored pretty high on the Internet freedom scale. Freedom House considers a score of zero to 30 to represent a "free" Internet, 31-60 "partly free", and 61-100 not free. Scores were determined by considering a set of "21 questions and nearly 100 accompanying subpoints" surrounding things such as obstacles to access (infrastructural barriers, government blocking of specific apps or technologies), limits on content (filtering and blocking websites, censoring online news media), and violations of user rights (surveillance, legal restrictions on online activity). America received a score of 19, coming in just behind Australia (17), Germany (17), Canada (15), Estonia (8), and Iceland (6), and and just ahead of France (20), Italy (22), Japan (22), Hungary (24), the U.K. (24), and South Africa (26).
( ) We control the vital internal link – constant mass surveillance is a much bigger deal than a “kill switch” bill that may never pass or even be used.
( ) Their authors exaggerate – Kill-switch fears are overblown and even privacy advocates are fine with it.
Andrew Keen, currently a columnist. The author holds a master's degree in political science from the University of California, Berkeley. After Berkeley, Keen taught modern history and politics at Tufts University, Northeastern University and the University of Massachusetts Amherst. “The Death Of The Internet Has Been Greatly Exaggerated” - Tech Crunch - Nov 14, 2011 – http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/14/death-internet-exaggerated/
The news, I’m afraid, is dire. The Internet is about to be destroyed by big media. It is about be killed by two Congressional bills – The ProtectIP and The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) – that all-powerful big media lobbyists are now pushing through Congress. These bills will censor the Internet, turn it into China, censor it, destroy its innovation and value. “Big media is going nuclear against the DMCA,” thus writes the author and serial entrepreneur Ashkan Karbasfrooshan, arguing that ProtectIP and COPA will “spell the end of the Internet as we know it.” Techcrunch’s Devin Coldeway, describing SOPA as “possibly unconstitutional” and as a “kill switch”, says it is a “desperate power grab by a diminishing elite”. CNET columnist Molly Wood chimes in that SOPA is “brazen” and “nightmarish” and warns that it will result in a “copyright police state”. The Obama administration is “busy in bed with Hollywood,” she warns, “cheerfully ceding your rights to the MPAA and RIAA.” Even the VCs are worried. Union Square Ventures’ Fred Wilson, argues that “these bills were written by the content industry without any input from the technology industry”. The problem, Wilson explains, is that “the content industry is not creating new jobs right now” and thus, by establishing a destructive legal environment for start-ups, SOPA and ProtectIP will supposedly “kill the golden goose to protect industries in decline.” But there’s a problem with all this bad news. It’s wrong. Almost entirely wrong. No, the Internet isn’t about to be destroyed by either ProtectIP or SOPA. The technology industry has had input into the political process. Neither ProtectIP nor SOPA are “unconstitutional” or “nuclear” options designed to kill the DMCA. The administration isn’t in bed, either literally or metaphorically, with big media and the US government isn’t the “villain” in this story. The technology industry – notably Google, who were invited to the Congressional hearings on the legislation – has had significant input into the political process. Most importantly, this legislation – by fighting the corrosive impact of counterfeiting and piracy on the American marketplace – is designed to make our domestic economy stronger, protect jobs both on and offline and encourage innovation in our digital knowledge economy. So what, exactly, are ProtectIP and SOPA? Rather than being seen as a replacement for the U.S. Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), the genesis of these pieces of legislation – ProtectIP being authored by the Senate and SOPA by the House – is the need for legal tools to fight primarily online criminals who operate outside of the U.S. jurisdiction and U.S. companies who, often unwittingly, sustain them. Rogue sites legislation exists in parallel to the DMCA and is intended to stop criminal enterprises from accessing US markets online in ways that they would never be able to do offline. Whatever one might think of some of the details of these bills (no, they aren’t perfect, especially the sometimes sloppily written and occasionally misguided SOPA), they are designed to address a serious problem of the online economy – foreign criminals and companies which use the Internet to sell or distribute illegal or counterfeit goods to American consumers. These companies extend from those that sell advertising off the back of pirated movies to those selling fake drugs online. It is undeniable that rogue websites – organizations which sell counterfeit goods or peddle stolen intellectual property – are a significant drain on the US economy. Borrowing numbers from various government and private sector experts, it is estimated by one House committee that intellectual property theft alone costs the US economy over $100 billion per year. And as The Guardian reported in September, in its investigation of the impact of fake drugs sales on the UK marketplace, there are almost 13,000 fake pharmacy websites – “most… facilitated by Chinese or Russian criminal organizations”, according to the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Authority (MHRA). Not only, therefore, are SOPA and ProtectIP addressing a set of genuinely costly economic issues, but they’ve also – in the best Madisonian tradition of representative democracy – assembled a broad coalition of supporters for these bills. No, neither SOPA nor ProtectIP reflect the Administration being “in bed with Hollywood.” I talked earlier this week to Steven Tepp, the US Chamber of Commerce’s online piracy and anti-counterfeiting chief, who reminded me that the bipartisan Senate bill had just won its 40th co-sponsor and that 350 organizations – including pharmaceutical giants like Eli Lilly and Johnson & Johnson as well as Nike, Caterpillar and Major League Baseball – signed a September 22 letter to Congress in support of legislation against rogue sites. But this isn’t just a legislative initiative supported by corporations. 43 State Attorney Generals, the US Conference of Mayors, the AFL-CIO and The National Consumer League are also in favor. And so is US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who early this month, in defense of legislation that seeks to make it impossible for American Internet users to access criminal foreign websites, wrote that there “is no contradiction between intellectual property rights protection and enforcement and ensuring freedom of expression on the Internet.”
TS domestic not key
Plans sufficient – that’s above
Domestic surveillance includes meta-data of non-US citizens. US companies keep records on non-US customers.
Kenneth Roth is the executive director of Human Rights Watch, one of the world's leading international human rights organizations, which operates in more than 90 countries. Prior to joining Human Rights Watch in 1987, Roth served as a federal prosecutor in New York and for the Iran-Contra investigation in Washington, DC. A graduate of Yale Law School and Brown University, Roth has conducted numerous human rights investigations and missions around the world. He has written extensively on a wide range of human rights abuses, devoting special attention to issues of international justice, counterterrorism, the foreign policies of the major powers, and the work of the United Nations. “World Report 2014” - World Report 2014 is Human Rights Watch’s 24th annual review of human rights practices around the globe. It summarizes key human rights issues in more than 90 countries and territories worldwide, drawing on events through November 2013. http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014
Because of the disclosures of whistleblower Edward Snowden, the world is now aware of the virtually unchecked mass electronic surveillance that the US government and certain allies, most notably Britain, is conducting. No one questions that national security sometimes requires governments to use targeted surveillance after making an evidentiary showing. But the US government’s mass surveillance without such limits has largely eradicated the right to privacy in a modern world that virtually requires electronic communication. To justify this conduct, the US government has invoked a series of legal assumptions that do not withstand serious scrutiny, even though most have been ratified by a secret and deferential Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that hears only the government’s arguments. For example, the government feels free to collect metadata about potentially all phone calls in the US because, under woefully outdated rules, no one is said to have any legitimate expectation of privacy when it comes to this information because they share it with the phone company. Despite a huge percentage of the world’s Internet and phone communications passing through the United States, the government has adopted the policy that non- Americans outside the country have no recognized privacy interest in even the content of their communications. And the government conveniently claims that the right to privacy is not implicated when it collects communications, only when it examines them—as if it would be okay for the government to collect and store a video stream from peoples’ bedrooms so long as it purports not watch the video until it comes up with some compelling reason.
Their evs a decade old and not specific to internet freedom – prefer wong
TS not key to democracy
Prefer fontaine – its key to cred of OVERALL us democracy promotion – it also empowers citizens in foreign countries ACROSS THE BOARD – and allows successful challenges to authoritarianism
TS democratic peace wrong
Prefer diamond – he’s the worlds foremost expert on democracy
They dropped an independent environment extinction impact