Jump to content
KTownLockingItDown

NSA domestic spying

Recommended Posts

there's a couple problems with this aff

 

first, is i doubt its T, cause there are explicit laws against bush's NSA spying, ie, he didn't have the authority in the first place.

 

second, i don't see what advantages or tricks this case would bring. it'd be the same as any domestic search case, with a diff plan text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

first, is i doubt its T, cause there are explicit laws against bush's NSA spying, ie, he didn't have the authority in the first place.

 

He does have the authority. They are relying on the September 18 2001 Congressional resolution known as "the Authorization to use Military Force."

 

second, i don't see what advantages or tricks this case would bring. it'd be the same as any domestic search case, with a diff plan text

 

so then those would be similar advantages. You could put racism advantages, Softpower advantages, Separation of Powers advantages, and I think European Union doesn't like us doing this shit. None of the advantages link real hard, but if you wait for some better literature to come out the situation you'll find much better advantages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're talking about the issue dealing with the NSA cookie leak, then don't write the case.

 

Reasons:

A. T- 'probable cause': [insert def] The analysis is below, goes in line with B.

B. Non-significant: While significance really isn't attacked much, this warrants an attack. The cookies that the NSA "forgot" to disable aren't dangerous in such a way that it 'searches your computer or internet activities without probable cause'. It acts much like any other cookie does; it places a little tracker in your cache that merely tells the site when and if you revisit it that you indeed have been there. It's formatted differently than other cookies, but lacks key features that need to be present for it to be considered a trojan or even a miner (i.e., some sort of actual command that prompts monitoring). Besides, it is a cookie. It can be deleted with a few clicks (specifically, in Firefox, Tools>Options>Privacy>Clear cookies). Legislation doesn't need to be enacted

C. Non-inherent: NSA disabled the cookies after the news break.

D. No harms: No harms can be claimed until there are actual cases of harm by that specific cookie. At the time of writing this, there hasn't been any sort of case. Any harms scenario off of this would have to come from a 'slippery slope' argument.

 

I think that's it. Tell me if I'm wrong about the cookies thing- I want to know that i look/ed stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you're talking about the issue dealing with the NSA cookie leak, then don't write the case.

 

no they aren't talkin about the cookies. They are talking about President Bush authorizing the surveillance of incoming and outgoing calls to/from known terrorist or terrorist related phone numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you're talking about the issue dealing with the NSA cookie leak, then don't write the case.

 

Reasons:

A. T- 'probable cause': [insert def] The analysis is below, goes in line with B.

B. Non-significant: While significance really isn't attacked much, this warrants an attack. The cookies that the NSA "forgot" to disable aren't dangerous in such a way that it 'searches your computer or internet activities without probable cause'. It acts much like any other cookie does; it places a little tracker in your cache that merely tells the site when and if you revisit it that you indeed have been there. It's formatted differently than other cookies, but lacks key features that need to be present for it to be considered a trojan or even a miner (i.e., some sort of actual command that prompts monitoring). Besides, it is a cookie. It can be deleted with a few clicks (specifically, in Firefox, Tools>Options>Privacy>Clear cookies). Legislation doesn't need to be enacted

C. Non-inherent: NSA disabled the cookies after the news break.

D. No harms: No harms can be claimed until there are actual cases of harm by that specific cookie. At the time of writing this, there hasn't been any sort of case. Any harms scenario off of this would have to come from a 'slippery slope' argument.

 

I think that's it. Tell me if I'm wrong about the cookies thing- I want to know that i look/ed stupid.

Yeah, and plus a website can only access their OWN cookies - webmasters already have the power to see the visitor's IP adress, how long they stayed, who referred them, what pages they looked at, and as you said above, cookies are widely known about and easily turned off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He does have the authority. They are relying on the September 18 2001 Congressional resolution known as "the Authorization to use Military Force."

John Dean wrote a good article on how Bush's NSA thingy is illegal...along with a rather scathing description of why the AUMF didn't give any such authority. It's on FindLaw; check it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T "auth" is the way to go.

 

anybody given any thought about politics links, given how popular repealing this power probably is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anybody given any thought about politics links, given how popular repealing this power probably is?

 

True. This case couldn't even try to spike popularity links.

 

The fact that this illegal wiretap XO has recently been uncovered makes for good n/u's as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the aff is a good idea if you can pull it.

 

1-yes, it's illegal. that doesn't mean you're not T. win the standards predictability debate as well non-voters. with a case as easy to predict as this you'd have to be insane to vote on T.

 

2-the ACLU lawsuit has several supporters quotes which help to solidify the iffy specific harms evidence on this. further, these people actually know (at least some do) what they are talking about. Mainly Diamond and Bamford, both intelligent enough sources to know what they are talking about and not be duped by either right or left nutjobs.

 

3-The terrorism debate. The NYT had an article from the 17th which quoted FBI officials claiming a no link to terrorism, as well as a turn. Also, 90% of the terrorism links i have seen are strictly from Bush, or are mere speculations that the NSA might somehow kind of barely be effective, and the analysis within the card itself is generally quite poor and should easily be beaten.

 

4-The harms to this case have quickly jumped since the ACLU lawsuit. certainly the neg can argue some biased sources, but thats just that same argument. Ever since the ACLU lawsuit there has been several advantage links i have found. different advantages you could probably write up with this include

a)Separation of Powers

b)War on Terrorism

c)Tyranny (Bamford provided a great editorial in the NYT)

d)1st Amendment

e)4th Amendment

f)5th Amendment

g)6th Amendment

h)Attorney-Client Privilege

i)Movements Advantage

j)Privacy

k)Civil Liberties

l)General Constitution

 

i know there are more, but those are just the links i can remember seeing.

 

 

I think this case could really be strong if you got everything pulled out and ready. Just takes prep. Any aff is strong, it just depends on how you debate it and how well you are ready to debate it. Don't get outresearched, and then you just have to avoid getting out debated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...