[quote]To the pro group, how do we define when security is more important the privacy? Who sets the standard? How do we define the opposite (when privacy prevails over security)?[/quote]
I don't think that we can define it in an algorithmic sense -- see the response below.
[quote]Doesn't this all boil down to individual preferences, or governing preferences? Won't different groups have different rankings?[/quote]
Yes, I think that it does -- I don't see any reason that to set an absolute ratio of privacy to security.
If you are happy living in a state where the authorities have no power (because they can't positively identify anyone), or living in a state where the authority has real ultimate power (because they know everything about everyone), I can't really argue with that.
So, clearly, a compromise must be made, and our argument is that more security will result in a better overall system than more privacy.
So, to reiterate our main points:
[b]1.[/b]
The security of a society -- including the individuals within -- must be preserved. This responsibility falls on the society's law enforcement agency.
Because digital networks allow criminals to perform crimes with a speed and global reach that traditional law enforcement simply cannot match.
So, to ensure that a law enforcement agency can continue to protect it's populous, it must also make use of digital technology.
This relates to privacy because, for law enforcement to be effective, they must have information about the populous they are defending. Traditionally, they have acquired this information by (to list a few) patrolling the streets, accepting emergency calls, and performing investigations. But now that new mechanisms are available (for example, video cameras, ISP subpoenas and web-based criminal databases), the agencies must decide weather the invasion of privacy they cause is worth the increased security.
And this leaves us with the question: "whom do I trust?" Is it the law enforcement agencies? Or the individuals?
Well, as mentioned in our rebuttal, one of those two classes can be held accountable for its actions, one cannot.
[b]2.[/b]
There are particular professions where it is absolutely essential that privacy be compromised for the sake of security.
As the "con" group notes, these are entirely voluntary, and there are people who chose not to be part of them... But, never the less, they still represent situations where privacy must be trumped by security.
The reason we bring this up, though, is that without these organizations (CSIS, etc), it is very difficult for a society to function.