Jump to content
downward747

Passive Millimeter Aff

Recommended Posts

I hate to keep doing this...and this isn't to say there isn't a case to be made on SOME surveilance...but neither of your links is about passive millimeter...or even about anything all that ground breaking. I believe both of the technologies referenced came into use a couple (or few) decades ago.

 

The first one (magnetic signature analysis) is basically a big metal detector (no more intrusive than the ones you already walk through...just better at what it does). The "anytime, anywhere" concerns its deployment...like, say, at the Pope's funeral or the doors to your highschool. The upgrade to it doesn't make any more detailed an image (since it doesn't image to begin with). It eliminates false positives from things like belts and cell phones.

 

The second (thermal infrared imaging) is about equipping low-budget departments with the same thing large cities have. They can't see through your clothes or deep into your apartment. They see heat signatures...which any jackass with $10,000 to spare can do.

 

EDIT: Incidentally, as the court has found many times, said heat is "waste heat". Just like you forfeit your privacy when you place your belongings in public view (say your back yard...or, extending the "waste" example, in a landfill), the waste heat is also public unless you act to conceal it (which isn't all that hard, if you so choose). Basically, they can only see hot objects, and if you insulate them, they can't see them at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

naw, you're mistaken homie. the devices that have been out since around 2000 can aparently measure the outline and diameter of a womyn's nipple or determine whether or not the dude walking in front of the device is circumcised.

 

i have a bunch of cards that indicate that it's just a matter of time until these things are used on a wide scale. That's what the security industry is all about: marketing their products. They're trying to make this shit it the streets and it can be used to conduct searches without you knowing about it. This is a problem. espicially in terms of the panopticon.

 

xxx

spurlock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I went back to edit...so I'll post again.

 

First, the nipple and crotch are from hot objects imaged through clothing, not through walls...and they can be done with off-the-shelf digital cameras, btw. That is pretty wide usage without the security industry even being involved. Most companies turned down the feature for fear of boycotts, but you can turn it back up with a little work.

 

Second, as in the "waste heat" description above...your privacy is basically "opt-out" (and rightfully so unless you want to be arrested for glancing in the wrong direction). If you don't bother to shield something from view, then it is public. This is quite obvious in the visible spectrum (if you walk around nude in public, you can't complain about people seeing your naked form)...if it is important to you, you can also shield your body and other hot belongings in the infrared spectrum (which, by definition, is lower resolution, by the way). If/When this actually becomes an issue, I'm sure you'll find the market working its magic so that clothing will naturally thermally scatter your heat.

 

Fundamentally, the only difference between visible and IR is a few nanometers. The government stepping in to ban (or even restrict) thermal imaging is as ludicrous as them arbitrarily dictating that "blue" is officially of limits, and so you must have a warrant or "reasonable likelihood" in order to image anything blue.

 

From the edit above:

EDIT: Incidentally, as the court has found many times, said heat is "waste heat". Just like you forfeit your privacy when you place your belongings in public view (say your back yard...or, extending the "waste" example, in a landfill), the waste heat is also public unless you act to conceal it (which isn't all that hard, if you so choose). Basically, they can only see hot objects, and if you insulate them, they can't see them at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't want to wait until a time until they can see me naked through walls, even though that is not even my primary concern. My primary concern are the effects of the panopticon and being socially docile. Nothing will distinguish me from the next persyn when I think that they could see what I am doing through walls. This is not banning something like a color...this is banning something that is primarily going to be used by either military, law enforcement and rent-a-cop alike. These are the groups that this certain thing is aimed at appealing to. If we wait until this is widespread, we will have no active mode of resistance because none of us will want to differ from the next so that we do not draw the attention of the observer. My fellow comraddes will do the same. It is also awful to assume that the market will just protect us from thermal imaging and it's like technologies. It seems that they've invested a fuck of a lot of stock into getting us this surveilled. I think that it is likely that the market can be qwelled in the name of "TERRORISM!" <gasp> or political lobbying or the most likely option is both together. Although the difference between visual and Ir may be a few nanometers, the distinction is pretty damn clear that you can/can't see through walls. that's a fair brightline and distinction to be made there.

 

xxx

spurlock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i don't want to wait until a time until they can see me naked through walls, even though that is not even my primary concern.

 

So, I suppose I should freak out about every fringe possibility, no matter how slight or improbable? You know that one day they'll be able to read your brainwaves from 100m away and be able to construct a model of your thoughts that will predict your every move (past and present), right? Better start doing something.

 

My primary concern are the effects of the panopticon and being socially docile. Nothing will distinguish me from the next persyn when I think that they could see what I am doing through walls. This is not banning something like a color...this is banning something that is primarily going to be used by either military, law enforcement and rent-a-cop alike.

 

Actually, it is exactly the same as banning something like a color. That is all IR is...A COLOR. It is a color that even low grade retail digital cameras can see in.

 

If we wait until this is widespread, we will have no active mode of resistance because none of us will want to differ from the next so that we do not draw the attention of the observer.

 

If that was true, the only protests would be private. I'm fairly certain public protest was and still is a staple among those in la revolucion (may it continue to viva).

 

It is also awful to assume that the market will just protect us from thermal imaging and it's like technologies. It seems that they've invested a fuck of a lot of stock into getting us this surveilled. I think that it is likely that the market can be qwelled in the name of "TERRORISM!" <gasp> or political lobbying or the most likely option is both together.

 

You know, the government invested alot into developing technologies that allowed them to HEAR you from far away as well. People that valued the privacy of their conversations did the obvious thing: they spoke softly in crowded or otherwise loud places. The government didn't protect their precious technology by banning radios, washing machines, and restaurants, did it?

 

It isn't an assumption. If you don't want to rely on "the market", rely on yourself. This is technology that everyone with a digital camera has. It is technology that is so marginally useful (under normal circumstances) that people aren't all that worried. It is technology that is easily countered and WILL be countered as soon as the threshold is crossed and people start to worry. Unless the government plans on banning things like aluminum, they can't really quell the market's ability to shield if there was demand.

 

Although the difference between visual and Ir may be a few nanometers, the distinction is pretty damn clear that you can/can't see through walls. that's a fair brightline and distinction to be made there.

 

Depends on what your wall is made out of. There will always be barriers that are transparent to some parts of the EM spectrum and opaque to others. Hell, there are barriers that don't block the red end of the spectrum. I suppose that is a bright line the government shouldn't cross as well.

 

Similarly you can see through glass in the visible spectrum, and not through glass in IR. Now how hard would it be to put up some low-grade glass to shield something? You would rather set an arbitrary and bad legal precedent than go through the trouble of protecting yourself. Kind of takes the "active" out of "activist", doesn't it?

 

We aren't talking about you hiding something and them looking at it anyway. We are talking about you leaving something out to be seen and them seeing it. Please take some time to read and understand the law AND the science surrounding this before you go off on paranoid tangents.

 

Let me put this in terms that may be more obvious...let us take what you are saying and go into the past about a century. Electric lights began to bathe everything in <gasp> 400nm-700nm photons (the scientists called it "visible imaging"). Those photons made it significantly easier for law enforcement to see in the dark (a previous refuge for those that didn't want to be seen). This made it possible for the government to see what was going on in the dark ANYTIME, ANYWHERE. Of course, people could take relatively simple steps to shield themselves from this "visible imaging"...but why should they have to? Fortunately, a group of astute activists clued into the government's master plan and took action before it was too late (becuase the lord knows that were these electric lights to become common, there would be no one willing to stand up and resist the all-seeing eye). As a result, we all thankfully live in a colder, darker world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

okay all the examples above are extreme. what our affirmative will say is that the use of passive millimeter technology is wrong because it is in illegal search. Like in your lightbulb example: no lightbulb affs popped up because light can't make out genitalia, buttocks, and breasts which is an intrusion of privacy. we are merely going to explain that this technology can be used without our permission and show parts of our body which we do not intend to be seen. In order to abide by previous supreme court rulings we must not allow the use of passive millimeter technology in field by the police. We will argue that this is the creation of a penoptic state because the government will always be watching and we will know it. The fact is the 4th ammendment protects us from this technology clearly.

 

Anyways i was thinking of this aff more and more and im trying to think of our plan text action first

 

I was thinking maybe the supreme court will declare the use of passive millimeter technology a violation of the fourth amendment. Thus not allowing police to use evidence gathered from passive millimeter technology.

 

which leads me to how our aff will be constructed....

I've read evidence saying police use this tech and I've also read evidence saying that the police might use this tech.

 

So if its never been used before then we will have to go on assumptions. such as the way to prevent panoptocism and paranoia and big brother is to vote on aff......

 

argh im now confused.

 

anyways you guys should look into "legal and ethical constraints on terrorism prevention technologies: slippery slopes, balancing acts, and constitutional values. by Mariano-Florentino Cuellar stanford law school

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No...I am naked when it is dark. If someone shines a light on me, they see my breast, buttocks, and genitalia. I had reasonable certainty of my privacy prior to there being electric light. By virtue of electric light becoming common, I take on the responsibility of shielding myself from it in places I don't want seen.

 

Similarly, as "thermal imagining" and "passive millimeter" become common, I take on the responsibility of shielding myself from it in places I don't want seen. It isn't unshieldable, you know. People are just lazy and irresponsible. They would rather bitch about rights than take on responsibility...anyone hear a rights talk kritik coming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, in your example you were in plain sight. Technically a police officer could see you with his naked eye. The fact that I put on clothing in order to shield myself is an unreasonable search. Thats what the 9 justices have been saying for years. In your light example you were naked. In our example we are not, yet still seen... this is an invasion of privacy. If we are to continue with previous supreme court rulings then this is a search without probable cause, which under the fourth amendment is illigit. Since:

 

1. Because the target of the gun detector is the body. which unclothed parts are not in plain view and are understood by society as private. this is consistent with the Katz vs. United States ruling. If i put on clothes i have the intention to cover my body and my contents will be kept private.

 

2. The information revealed by these sensors are not visible to the naked eye, it doesn't matter where the device is used (like your lightbulb street arguement) again this is consistent with the Katz case where the justices ruled that a telephone detecting bug was a search despite the fact that it was on a public telephone booth

 

3. These technologies display intimate detail. Which in contrast to other sensors that do not. We would have no problem with this tech if it didn't produce a picture of our genitals, buttocks, and breasts. BUT IT DOES!

 

4. The use of these sensors are overkill. With the intent of finding guns they are also viewing private parts. This constitutes that the use of these technologies are a search because it is going fully beyond the scope of searching for just guns it is searching for skin detail.

 

5. There is no practical way to prevent the dissipation of heat from our bodies. In the light example, i can just put on clothing (which i should be wearing in the first place). But these sensors go through metal, walls, clothing, plastic, etc... So what do you suggest? create a synethetic material that somehow has tight enough atoms to shield the heat of our bodies? Why do we as citizens have to change our situation in life for the use of something that clearly violates the fourth amendment anyways.

 

finally we arn't argueing that this technology can never be used. But in the scope that it is intended for is simply wrong. In hostage situations or other high risk scenarios then its fine to use because then the USFG can obtain a search warrent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. You'll notice in the first post on this page I say that there certainly ARE privacy issues here. What I stated is that the two technologies spurlock chose to highlight in his post (standard metal detectors and standard thermal imaging devices) are not within those privacy issues.

 

The governement's position (which is yours as well) is clear in Kyllo v US. But I think you misunderstand what it is these imaging devices do. They operate on DIFFERENCES in temperature. You don't have to shield heat...if so your clothing would be a furnace. You have to spread heat (which, actually, is something you WANT your clothing to do)...this isn't all that hard.

 

Also, the court's reliance on "reasonable expectation of privacy" is not strong. What is reasonable and unreasonable is arbitrary and dynamic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed. You'll notice in the first post on this page I say that there certainly ARE privacy issues here. What I stated is that the two technologies spurlock chose to highlight in his post (standard metal detectors and standard thermal imaging devices) are not within those privacy issues.

 

The governement's position (which is yours as well) is clear in Kyllo v US. But I think you misunderstand what it is these imaging devices do. They operate on DIFFERENCES in temperature. You don't have to shield heat...if so your clothing would be a furnace. You have to spread heat (which, actually, is something you WANT your clothing to do)...this isn't all that hard.

 

Also, the court's reliance on "reasonable expectation of privacy" is not strong. What is reasonable and unreasonable is arbitrary and dynamic.

 

although what is reasonable and unreasonable is subjective, there is certainly a lot of evidence that speaks to not being seen though walls by passive millimeter.

 

I may just be way confused about this issue, however - i think that's why you'd have a tough time trying to sell that to a judge. I think that the debaters running this will find themselves in one of two positions:

 

1) inexperienced judge - this judge would likely not believe that the government should see through his or her wall reguardless of what kind of heat it's picking up on.

 

2) K judge - this is the completion of the panopticon and we don't give a fuck about what government standards are - we must stop this evil machine before it's too late and all dissent is crushed and we're normalized.

 

i think i'm confused about this issue, but I think that the aff will work based on these two premesis. I'll get back more to the specifics of your issues you brought up a little later. i've been having mad comp issues.

 

xxx

spurlock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the questions raised by nonunique...isn't there room to just overturn the idea that "body heat" is a waste product? I mean, come on, most people aren't cognizant of it at all, and if that is part of the precedent being used to justify this technology (and others) it seems to me that's a pretty good, broad, case. It gets a huge link to the panopticon advantage, and eliminates the concerns raised above, which I can see are valid, but I think miss the point of the larger kritikal aff., a broader standard in plan would avoid those types of criticisms.

 

(apologies that this isn't the most coherent, am on pain meds...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm not sure if it would completely be able to access the spirit of the panopticon argument completely...espicially since foucault critiques using the supreme court. But I do think that this is an interesting idea but it seems that it would probably have some disads implicit to it, non-unique could probably define those a hell of a lot better than I could, though.

 

It's totally something to look into, though. but i haven't seen any literature that speaks to that argument in my research.

 

xxx

spurlock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The topic area is Civil Liberties. The rez calls for detainment without charge or search without probable cause. Again, the cops have cause to search your apartment when they use this, from what I saw. The TSA has cause to scrutinize stuff because of terrorism. (As a plus if I see this, I get to run Terrorism DAs with easy links.)

 

i have not yet read the links, so i might be wrong about this, but where does it say once that the police have searched through a persons apartment w/teh ownage x-ray device while they were in it?

 

 

i think that this would be a post-detaining type of thing, something with a warrrant, other wise quite a few ppl are being unlawful and its not the victim...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't get this aff

 

what advantages do you get to claim besides regular civil liberties advantages? doesn't some form of the "ban patriot act" affirmative accomplish the same thing?

 

what arguments does this specific affirmative get you out of?

 

i just don't see the strategic value in this affirmative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i don't get this aff

 

what advantages do you get to claim besides regular civil liberties advantages? doesn't some form of the "ban patriot act" affirmative accomplish the same thing?

 

what arguments does this specific affirmative get you out of?

 

i just don't see the strategic value in this affirmative

 

The advantages you gain are mentioned since the beginning of the thread. The panopticism advantage has impacts (to answer the other post above) of social control and disiplinary power. (disipliinary power worse than physical violence, ect.)

 

The affirmative also has a framework of challenging the status quo assumptions about security and the politics of fear of the bush administration. This allows a huge terror talk/threat construction advantage or strategy to go for when they run a "terrorism disad" that links straight into your criticism and framework.

 

i hope this helps to clarify

 

xxx

spurlock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this plan is mediocre at best; while it has its advantages with biopower and what not, this is just another clone aff for next year, if you want to make it better get creative seriously foucualt is overrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eh, wait 'till you see the aff on the evazon. expect it in the next month...finals week coming up and all...

 

but then you can all see how it functions. megan and I have got it pretty blocked out at this point. We also have some sweet ideas for a performance for the 1AC that will blow your ass out. (well, maybe not your whole ass).

 

 

xxx

spurlock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eh, wait 'till you see the aff on the evazon. expect it in the next month...finals week coming up and all...

 

but then you can all see how it functions. megan and I have got it pretty blocked out at this point. We also have some sweet ideas for a performance for the 1AC that will blow your ass out. (well, maybe not your whole ass).

 

 

xxx

spurlock

yeah i'm going to need to see this to believe it, i think it sounds pretty run of the mill to me as i stated previously and i still don't like foucualt but who knows, you could suprise me how much is giong to be, roughly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or read the thread to believe it. i don't think you've been paying attention. unless you have things to contribute besidies "i don't think so" kind of comments without reading the thread, please refrain from posting further in this thread. i'd rather this be a place for discussion about possibilities with the aff which has already occured and will continue as long as it doesn't devolve into what you're trying to do. i've explaiined what you've been talking about too many times for you to keep claiming that it's a "clone" whatever the fuck that means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and the aff will be priced depending on how big the file is. it will likely be around 8 dollars for a (at least) 40 page initial aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Detainees? What Detainees?

 

Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:05:39 -0500

 

 

Summary:

 

“I don’t care about international law. I don’t want to hear the words ‘international law’ again. We are not concerned with international law.” – US Military Tribunal President speaking to Guantanamo prisoner Feroz Ali Abbasi

[Posted By ShiftShapers]

 

By William Fisher

Republished from Inter Press Service

 

The new memorandum, now in final draft, would give the military authority to classify as an enemy combatant anyone whose name appears on a government watchlist.

 

 

 

NEW YORK—The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, the military’s most senior leaders, want Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to approve new guidelines that will formalize the George W. Bush administration’s policy of imprisoning so-called enemy combatants without the protections of the Geneva Conventions and enable the Pentagon to legally hold ”ghost detainees”, a human rights group is charging.

 

 

In a letter to Rumsfeld, advocacy group Human Rights Watch (HRW) said, ”Denying the protections of the Geneva Conventions to persons apprehended in the global war on terror is unsupported as a matter of law, represents a radical deviation from the standards that have traditionally guided U.S. military operations, and places U.S. service members and civilians detained by enemy forces at greater risk of mistreatment.”

 

 

The new memorandum, now in final draft, is known as the ”Joint Doctrine for Detainee Operations: Joint Publication 3-63”, and is dated Mar. 23, 2005.

 

 

”If the draft memorandum is approved, it will formalize ‘enemy combatant’ as a class of prisoner that the Bush administration says has no protections under the Geneva Conventions,” HRW attorney John Sifton told IPS. ”There are no categories of prisoners unprotected by one or another of the Geneva Convention.”

 

 

An additional concern, he said, is that the draft memorandum would give the military authority to classify as an enemy combatant anyone whose name appears on a government watchlist.

 

 

”The proposed watchlist includes a wide variety of groups from Sikhs to followers of Peru’s Shining Path, and potentially hundreds of thousands of people named Ahmed or Mohamed. This is a huge and radical departure that could further erode the rule of law.”

 

 

The letter to Rumsfeld, signed by HRW Executive Director Kenneth Roth, says if the Defense Department acts on the new guidelines, ”U.S. military personnel may be committing grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and placing themselves at risk of prosecution for war crimes.”

 

 

The organization argues that the U.S. government’s decision in January 2002 to ”disavow the applicability of the Geneva Conventions in the global war on terror” has been at the root of detainee abuse scandals in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay.

 

 

HRW says the new rules ”will send a message to the world that the Geneva Conventions are not law, but mere policies that can be changed according to tastes of a particular government.”

 

 

This in turn would have ”a profound impact on future armed conflicts between states and the soldiers and civilians affected by them, including Americans.” The new policies include a directive that would allow the military to hold enemy combatants as ”ghost detainees” by denying them access to the International Committee of the Red Cross, HRW says.

 

 

They also contain overly broad criteria for designating as an enemy combatant anyone who appears on a government list that contains common names and aliases shared by tens of thousands of persons worldwide.

 

 

The Pentagon document has not yet been publicly released, and is to be submitted to Rumsfeld for approval on Apr. 16.

 

 

The Defense Department declined to comment on the draft memorandum or the HRW letter to Rumsfeld. Last June, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down two decisions related to the detention of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In the first case, the justices ruled that detainees had the right to due process and must be allowed to contest their imprisonment before a ”neutral decision-maker”.

 

 

The second case confirmed that U.S. courts have jurisdiction to hear such challenges. The Defense Department then created special military tribunals to determine which Guantanamo prisoners posed threats to the U.S. These bodies have been criticized for denying detainees the most basic due process, including attorney-client confidentiality.

 

 

Little information about those held at Guantánamo has been released through official government channels. But stories of 60 or more of the prisoners are spelled out in detail in thousands of pages of transcripts filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, where detainees have filed lawsuits challenging their detentions.

 

 

Court documents publicized last week are giving dozens of Guantánamo detainees what the Bush administration had sought to keep from public view: identities and voices. The government is holding about 550 terrorist suspects at its naval base in Cuba. An additional 214 have been released since the facility opened in January 2002—some into the custody of their native governments, others freed outright.

 

 

The detainees appeared last year before the three-officer military tribunals which, after quick reviews, confirmed their status as ”enemy combatants” who could be held indefinitely.

 

 

In the transcripts, one terror suspect asked his U.S. military judge: ‘’Is it possible to see the evidence in order to refute it?”

 

 

In another case, Guantanamo prisoner Feroz Ali Abbasi was ejected from his hearing for repeatedly challenging the legality of his detention.

 

 

‘’I have the right to speak,” Abbasi insisted in transcripts reviewed by the Associated Press.

 

 

‘’No, you don’t,” the tribunal president replied.

 

 

‘’I don’t care about international law,” the tribunal president told Abbasi just before he was taken from the room. ‘’I don’t want to hear the words ‘international law’ again. We are not concerned with international law.”

 

 

Copyright © 2005 IPS-Inter Press Service

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey folks, its been hectic around here. Sorry, I havn't been able to work on this too much lately. Anyways, downward747 would you like any help cutting cards or at least finding evidence. I wanted to be apart of this aff but seem to have missed the train. I'm not in this for profits, just want this aff to be awesome.

And to the person who disliked foucault, could you give me reasons why you don't like him? Personally, I thought his philosophy on government social control were brilliant. But thats another chat....

 

so lets brainstorm some Advantages to case:

 

1. Panopticism

2. Paranoia

3. net widening (?)

4. possibly some heidegger stuff on technology

5. Orwelian 1984----ties into paranoia

 

elaborating on paranoia....

http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles/paranoid_paranoia.html

 

Despite these shortcomings, the media seem to take pride in dismissing people as “paranoid” who believe in conspiracy theories of any kind.

According to Webster’s Dictionary, paranoia is a serious psychiatric diagnosis: a psychosis characterised by systematised delusions or persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations. Paranoia can also be defined as a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive and irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others. People who exhibit such psychiatric traits are paranoid.

A definite diagnosis of paranoia requires the expertise of a psychiatric health professional. A diagnosis is made after a careful history and physical examination of the patient, and must include a detailed drug history and psychiatric observation.

All this is ignored by journalists who indiscriminately label people as paranoid. Their purpose is to discredit a person’s mind and reasoning ability. Unfairly labelling people as paranoid is malicious and evil; and the word can be as hateful as words like nigger, kike, and faggot. When terms like paranoia and paranoid are tossed around in the media, rational communication is no longer possible.

A paranoid person is not normal because paranoia indicates a diseased mind.

In their quest for power, politicians often portray their perceived enemies as diseased. Hitler was a master of this. After securing the cooperation of the German physicians, he rid the Third Reich of thousands of mental and physical defectives by murdering them. When this was accomplished, he turned on the Jews. He labelled the Jews as a cancer that needed to be cut out of a diseased Germany. Thus, the roots of the Holocaust were planted.

Labelling people as diseased is an effective way of discrediting and silencing them.

Anyways....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to put out a file shortly and my girlfriend/debate partner Megan Hertneky is helping me with it. To stick with the standards of the Evazon, it'll just be us working on it. This will be used to fund our trip backpacking through Europe this summer. So you should all buy it!!!

 

I think that the panopticisim/biopower/disiplinary power/net-widening are all in the same kind of advantage.

 

The other advantage that i'd like to tack onto the 1AC version is a terror talk/ securitization framework and advantage...but we'll see how it turns out.

 

This file is planned to be done Friday May 13th, watch for it on the evazon.

 

xxx

spurlock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright - I don't understand your use of the panopticon compared to airport security devices - isn't the panopticon only used when somebody has been deemed guilty of a crime already, and they are in detention for an amount of time? If you are going to the airport, you aren't guilty. Thanks for the clarification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...