Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

State Surveillance: Pros vs. Cons


TheSecretIsMe

Are you pro or con, prior to watching the debate?  

18 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Hello everybody, below I have posted a video and link. The video is a debate in regards to state surveillance involving four participants, 2 for pro and 2 for con.The link provides a summary of the debate and its debaters. I came across the video some time ago and was very intrigued by the debate and believe it had some very valid points brought up. It is an interesting watch, entertaining actually, as the rebuttals are fantastic.

https://www.munkdebates.com/debates/State-Surveillance

The link provides a detailed description of the debaters.

Pro: Michael Hayden and Alan Dershowitz
Con: Glen Greenwald and Alexis Ohanian

There is a bio on each provided via the link. I will, however, paste the first paragraph of each participants bio below:

Michael Hayden: General Michael Hayden is a retired four-star general who served as director of the CIA and principal deputy director of National Intelligence at a time when the course of world events was changing at an accelerating rate. As the director of the country’s keystone intelligence-gathering agency, he was on the frontline of geopolitical strife and the war on terrorism. He understands the dangers, risks, and potential rewards of the political, economic, and security situations facing the planet.

Alan Dershowitz: Professor Alan M. Dershowitz is a Brooklyn native who has been called “the nation’s most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer” by Newsweek. He is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Dershowitz, a graduate of Brooklyn College and Yale Law School, joined the Harvard Law School faculty at age 25 after clerking for Judge David Bazelon and Justice Arthur Goldberg.

Glen Greenwald: Glenn Greenwald is an investigative journalist and columnist for First Look Media. Formerly a constitutional and civil rights lawyer, he is the author of the three New York Times bestselling books, including How Would a Patriot Act? in 2006 and With Liberty and Justice for Some in 2011. The Atlanticnamed him one of the “25 Most Influential Political Commentators” and Foreign Policy called him one of the “Top 100 Global Thinkers” of 2013. His latest book, No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State, will be released on April 29th.

Alexis Ohanian:Alexis Ohanian is a serial Internet entrepreneur and co-founder of reddit, the social news website used by over 100 million people each month. Named to the Forbes “30 Under 30 in Technology” list two years in a row, he has been lauded as the “Mayor of the Internet” for rallying public opposition to the U.S. Congress’s Stop Online Piracy Act. Ohanian is the author of the national bestseller Without Their Permission: How the 21st Century Will Be Made Not Managed.

Now for the video link:

The purpose of posting this was to inspire a discussion of the topic. Pick a side prior to watching the video and see if you change your stance upon hearing the arguments. I was undecided before watching the debate and after watching I took the side of the cons. Although, I can still see some pros for the surveillance I believe it can be done in a more efficient and effective manner. Most of all, I urge everyone to watch as much of the video as possible as it is worthwhile.

Feel free to discuss!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if they are going to talk about London and their football hooligans...

For me, it depends how far they go.... CCTV in public areas (how much would we have loved that in downtown vancouver in 2011) seems pretty justifiable.... 1984 doesn't.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I felt the same way. There are no and, ifs, or buts about it, it all depends on how far they go.

I agree with this, spying is justified in legitimate cases which must be proven to the court. I believe surveillance as it is now has gone to far (at least in the US, which is what this debate applies to). The NSA phone spying is ridiculous and the "special court" which the surveillance requests go through (FISC) is much too secretive and too much of a "rubber stamp" to be considered a legitimate court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I've noticed over the past years, the younger generation is much more open to constant surveillance being put in place. I hear many say all the time that privacy doesn't exist anymore or if you're doing nothing wrong, who cares if you're being watched.

I can only see it getting worse over time. Part of me is glad I'll be dead in 30-40 years or so. It's bad enough with the technology that is out there now to try and watch our every move and it's only going to get worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm in a building, they have signs saying video surveillance, I'm fine with it. It's their property, it's a part of their security.

If the NSA in the US can hack into those feeds, now I have a problem with it.

Just I like I have a problem with drones.

There has to be a logical line somewhere between privacy and safety.

That's why the Patriot Act (how's that for an Orwellian title?) is garbage.

Due process is about making sure people's rights are respected. The idea is if a judge agrees on a wiretap, and it makes sense (Busting a criminal organization, etc) I'm ok with it.

But being able to just randomly investigate people without due cause? No.

Besides, intelligence agencies have failed more often trying to find terrorist threats, than actually stopping them. Maybe the real issue is we don't need intelligence agencies that operate without any control?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm in a building, they have signs saying video surveillance, I'm fine with it. It's their property, it's a part of their security.

If the NSA in the US can hack into those feeds, now I have a problem with it.

Just I like I have a problem with drones.

There has to be a logical line somewhere between privacy and safety.

That's why the Patriot Act (how's that for an Orwellian title?) is garbage.

Due process is about making sure people's rights are respected. The idea is if a judge agrees on a wiretap, and it makes sense (Busting a criminal organization, etc) I'm ok with it.

But being able to just randomly investigate people without due cause? No.

Besides, intelligence agencies have failed more often trying to find terrorist threats, than actually stopping them. Maybe the real issue is we don't need intelligence agencies that operate without any control?

It's terrible though, there's only so much of what goes on in surveillance that is discussed openly or brought to attention.

For instance, I wouldn't have known about what gets passed and what doesn't if I hadn't gone out of my way to find out. It's the shadowy effect of all the surveillance that makes it so hard understand, let alone trust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I've noticed over the past years, the younger generation is much more open to constant surveillance being put in place. I hear many say all the time that privacy doesn't exist anymore or if you're doing nothing wrong, who cares if you're being watched.

I can only see it getting worse over time. Part of me is glad I'll be dead in 30-40 years or so. It's bad enough with the technology that is out there now to try and watch our every move and it's only going to get worse.

I'm in my early 20's and I agree with your perspective. I don't know if we're open to constant surveillance, or if we're simply just accustomed to it.

Growing up in the time I have, it's very difficult to imagine what the world was truly like before the internet era. I mean, even school-wise, when I think about it, I feel like we have it a lot easier in terms of effort. I could't imagine sitting in a library all day and having to actually put in an effort to find information. We have Google for basically everything, there's no need for me to sit in a library and put in tedious time.

For instance, if I have the need to find information on what Thomas Edison accomplished in his life, I don't have to drive out to a library and pick up a book, I could be sitting on the toilet and take out a phone the size of my palm to find an abundance of information on him in approximately 5 seconds.

Just like I've become accustomed to instant information, I've become accustomed to the idea of being tracked, Heck FB, Google. Hotmail, and basically every large website I visit has the ability to track what I've searched. Even more, I bet some of these corporations are corporate partners and share the information, legally. Kind of funny isn't it haha.

But yeah, I may not open to the idea but I have become accustomed to it more than some of my older friends and family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...