The concept of privacy is deeply flawed; in fact, it is difficult to define the concept at all. A convenient definition might be 'the ability to conceal information in which one has a personal interest in remaining secret'. Illustrating the concept of privacy is made easier by the introduction of three sorts of privacy through examples:

Mr. Arnolds works with an advertising firm in Texas. As such, he often works with many large, deeply conservative companies. He has two children which he raised himself, and both of them are homosexual. He knows this and they know this, but Mr. Arnolds prefers that it remain private from the outside world, lest his clients be alienated and his business potentially damaged. Information which is irrelevant to Mr. Arnolds's person in this case is suppressed -- information which could be leaked by other means, or deduced without anyone's consent.

Mrs. Barnes is married, and her husband expressly approves of all of her habits except drinking whiskey; say, for instance, that Mr. Barnes's father was run down by a whiskey truck, and as such he has negative feelings toward that particular drink. She tends to take a shot of whiskey each Tuesday, but keeps this information suppressed from Mr. Barnes for fear of damaging their otherwise healthy relationship. Information which is relevant to Mrs. Barnes's person in this case is suppressed -- information which would be difficult for a careful Mrs. Barnes to leak.

Mr. Cobb enters an Amtrak station. A government employee demands that he reveal the contents of his briefcase, and he adamantly refuses, or is allowed to lie without any further investigation. The next day, a train station a hundred miles down the line is destroyed by an explosive device. Many lives and much property are lost; although Mr. Cobb is culpable in this terrible act, it is impossible to apprehend him, as no evidence to do so exists.

Of the three cases, only Mr. Cobb's applies here: while Mrs. Barnes and Mr. Arnolds' secrecy may damage their relationships, they will not have any effect on society as a whole. Mr. Arnolds and Mrs. Barnes would never have their secrets leaked to the world at large in a democratic society, because such an abuse would be viewed as utterly repugnant, having no effect on social welfare. Indeed, such a thing would be outside the scope of the prompt.

The only case in which negating or affirming the resolution make a difference with is that of Mr. Cobb, and that is about as clear-cut as they come.

In that case, a man is allowed to go free in spite of malicious intent in the name of such a nebulous concept as privacy. While I am certain that someone might be using a pound of C4 for contracted demolition or an assault rifle for deer-hunting, these are exceptions to a much stronger rule: that those who insist on privacy when the lives of others are on the line clearly have something to hide.

Negating the resolution would imply consent with privacy as a non-priority ONLY when it conflicts with social welfare; were the government to tap the phone lines of a neighborhood suspected of holding a terrorist cell, for instance, the information Arnolds and Barnes keep secret from anyone except their conversational partners would remain utterly secret. Ideally, any intranational espionage would take place only after the development of a filtration system which makes certain key words a red flag to otherwise dormant listening systems.

The 1984 often portrayed by die-hard proponents of personal privacy is completely inaccurate: it assumes a sadistic, undemocratic government with an interest in beating heterodoxy out of its citizens. The United States will not and cannot become such a state, in spite of restrictions on public privacy. The only interest we could reasonably have would be the preservation of American lives -- a vital aim indeed in this terrible new world in which we have come to live.

Besides terrorism -- something which we must now more than ever cope with -- privacy as a virtue in and of itself has other costs to the public well-being. That of healthcare; people with dangerous diseases are allowed to keep their medical records secret, and may contaminate an entire workplace freely; they are allowed to do so only because of the ideal of privacy.

Women and children are regularly subjected to multifarious foul abuses, and are allowed to continue doing so. Thanks to privacy, we experience more crime, more terrorism, and more intranational strife. It is clearly only a matter of time before a government which gives the right to privacy unregulated to her citizens falls to the tyranny a victimized populace will always demand.

While in a perfect world privacy would be a prime ideal, we do not live in a perfect world. In a perfect world, a debate on this resolution would be unnecessary -- but it isn't. Negate the resolution; it is what must be done to ensure our children a safe and free tomorrow, and costs us nothing but the ability to freely do harm.