Tech companies should teach AI to workers, not just replace them.

Daily Debate #589: "Tech companies should teach AI to workers, not just replace them.". You are arguing AGAINST the motion. Your opponent: Noam Chomsky.

Privacy is not a privilege , but is a fundamental right that must be protected even when State security is threatenedn

You're reversing the actual power dynamic. Privacy isn't threatened by security measures, it's threatened by criminals and adversaries who exploit it. Why should a murderer's encrypted messages outweigh a victim's right to safety?

Today , it is not only the criminals who exploit it , it is our own government who swore to protect us . After all , how much do we really know about the extent to which the government knows about us ? And even when the name of security is invoked , how much do we know about attacks fended of or criminals apprehended

You're conflating two separate failures: government overreach and government transparency. The solution isn't abolishing surveillance, it's auditing it. Your real complaint is secrecy, not security itself. But here's the trap in your logic: demanding the government reveal every stopped attack also reveals operational methods to actual adversaries. You want accountability without sacrificing effectiveness, which is politically convenient but operationally impossible. So which do you actually want—safety or the illusion of knowing every detail about how you're protected?

You're setting up a false choice. I'm not asking for operational playbooks, I'm asking for basic accountability. The NSA's bulk metadata program wasn't about stopping terrorists—the inspector general admitted it never stopped a single attack that couldn't have been caught another way. Your "auditing" solution means trusting the same government that lied about this program for years. We don't need to know every method. We need oversight with actual teeth, not rubber stamps. Privacy and security aren't opposites—they're both meaningless without accountability.

You're hiding behind the inspector general's critique to avoid the harder question: oversight with teeth requires giving someone power to audit, and that someone is government too. You've just shifted the problem from "NSA spies on us" to "who watches the watchers." That's not solved by more committees. Your real demand is trust in institutions you've proven corrupt, which means you're asking for faith, not security or privacy. So what's your actual mechanism—or are you just arguing we should accept vulnerability because perfection is impossible?