If you need a warrant for things, then that takes out the drone internals because they can’t use drones anymore.

Answer: Yes we can still use them because we only ban the ones used to surveil people

What states have the farming problems/which ones would reverse the bans? California, Nebraska, Kansas --- if they’ve banned drones already, there’s nothing about the AFF that saves.

Look up the list of the 20 countries and see how they affect

Drone leadership bad

No states CP---states

Persuaded by “there is no reason why the plan is necessary; states that like drones will keep liking drones---states that hate them will still hate them---places that are concerned about privacy (Mountain West, for example)---ban drones

Fuck this srocher card it goes neg

1AC

PlanThe United States Federal Government should ban warrantless use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles surveillance on US persons within the United States.

BacklashContention one is Backlash

Public backlash against drones causes state bans on the techSorcher ’13, National Journal’s national security correspondent, won the National Press Club’s Michael A. Dornheim Award in 2014; graduated from Tufts University 2/21/13, Sara, National Journal, “The Backlash Against Drones”, http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-backlash-against-drones-20130221

February 21, 2013 The Seattle Police Department’s planned demonstration of its small surveillance drones quickly devolved into a noisy protest. Angry residents attending the community meeting in October chanted “No drones !” drowning out officers’ attempts to explain how the unmanned aerial vehicles would support certain criminal investigations, help out during natural disasters, and assist in search-and-rescue operations. Now it’s clear that Seattle’s drones, purchased with federal grants, won’t be flying over the metro area anytime soon. Amid backlash from civil-liberties advocates and citizens worried about government invasion of their privacy , the mayor earlier this month tabled any drone ambitions —for now. Public concerns are not limited to Seattle. Lawmakers in at least 11 states want to restrict the use of drones because of fears they will spy on Americans, and some are pushing to require warrants before the robots collect evidence in investigations. Just this month, the Virginia General Assembly passed a two-year moratorium on drones. The outcry comes after the Electronic Frontier Foundation sued last year for a list of drone applicants within the U.S. When that information went public, staff attorney Jennifer Lynch says, “it really got people up in arms about how drones are being used, and got people to question their city councils and local law-enforcement agencies to ask for appropriate policies to be put in place to regulate drone usage.” Drones change the game: Nearly continuous surveillance could be possible without a physical intrusion such as a property search or an implanted listening device. The flying robots can carry high-powered cameras, even facial-recognition software or thermal imaging to “see” through walls. They can hover, potentially undetected, for hours or days at a time. As of yet, however, there are no laws governing the use of domestic drones when it comes to privacy. Unless Congress or the executive branch moves to regulate the robots’ use before they take to the skies en masse, states will likely continue to try to limit or ban drone use altogether , which could stymie their potential for other, beneficial uses. And failing to enact privacy limits only increases the likelihood of an incident in which the public perceives that the tech nology is being misused . The Federal Aviation Administration, which is charged with overseeing drone implementation in the U.S., says its focus is “totally on safety,” not privacy worries. “We are concerned about how it’s being used only to the extent it would affect the safety of the operation,” says FAA spokesman Les Dorr. GAO recommends that the FAA, along with the Justice and Homeland Security departments, discuss privacy parameters. “If we wait until there’s a crisis, oftentimes the rules and regulations

that are made in crisis aren’t our best showing ,” Dillingham says . Congress can also act; Reps. Ted Poe, R-Texas, and Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., introduced a bill last week requiring warrants for the use of drones in criminal investigations.

Scenario 1 is FarmingFood Insecurity is occurring globally and is a national concern

Forman and Maxey 15 (Johanna Mendelson Forman, scholar in residence at American University's School of International Service, Levi Maxey, part of the Managing Across Boundaries Initiative at the Stimson Center,” Should Food Security be a National Security Issue?”, 4/9/2015, Stimson, http://www.stimson.org/spotlight/should-food-security-be-a-national-security-issue/, DJE)

Food security as a policy issue has evolved to reflect the dynamism of global events . The increasing attention paid to food’s impact on poverty, humanitarian crises, conflicts and climate change all suggest that food security is a national security concern . Since the term was first used at the 1974 World Food Conference the United Nations Food and Agriculture Program has recognized that food security is multidimensional. It includes food availability, food access (i.e., having adequate resources for a nutritious diet), utilization (inputs to food like water and sanitation) and stability. To be a secure population , household or individual must have access to adequate food at all times. In 2015 we can see that this is often not the case in fragile states but also in many parts of the developed world. The food price crisis of 2008 reverberated globally. From the food riots that accompanied the Arab Spring, to the upheavals in Haiti due to the increases in the price of rice, to the corn riots in Mexico because of the high costs of a staple like tortillas, one thing was clear: food had entered the security space . Much like climate change is now considered a national security concern, food security has recently moved from the realm of development economists and humanitarian organizations into the halls of the Pentagon where analysts began recognizing the linkages between food insecurity, climate change, and natural and man-made disasters . In the United States, food is a much more complicated subject than it used to be.

Today, policymakers must consider not only nutrition but also access to locally grown commodities, management of food waste, and the impact of commodity prices on the daily cost of food. Food security both affects and is vulnerable to changes in economic

stability, climate change, education and national health. Debate over “food deserts,” or places without access to fresh fruits and vegetables, remain important when it comes to socio-economic indicators, and addressing the “double burden” of malnutrition and obesity in the United States sparks conversations about access, education, and nutrition regulations in the food industry. When striving for the physical wellbeing of the public within an interdependent system, these kinds of issues surrounding food security rest at the foundation of any national security strategy.

U.S. is a key leader in world food production Gayle Tzemach, 8-2-2012, "U.S. Drought and Rising Global Food Prices," Council on Foreign Relations, http://www.cfr.org/food-security/us-drought-rising-global-food-prices/p28777

This is the hottest summer on record in the United States since 1895, and people are beginning to wonder whether this type of drought that we're experiencing could become a new normal. The United States is a pivotal player in world food production and has the most sophisticated ag ricultural sector in terms of seeds, technology, irrigation, deep commodity markets, and future markets. If the United States crop is so devastated by drought, what is going to happen to the rest of the world? How do rising U.S. food prices affect global food prices down the world's food supply chain? Which areas of the globe are most at risk? There are many large food producers in the world. China is the largest wheat producer, but it is also the largest wheat consumer. What makes the United States unique is that we are the largest exporter, so we produce about 35 percent of the world's corn and soybean supply. Those two commodities are crucial in the food chain, because they are used for feed stock for animals. Around the world you have rising middle classes, a growing demand for meat and protein in the diet, and countries around the world are becoming increasingly dependent on relatively inexpensive food stocks from the United States. When you see a crop failure of the magnitude you have seen this summer, it flows through the whole food chain. Right now you have American livestock producers taking their pigs and cattle to the slaughter house because they simply don't have the food to be feeding them. So you're going to see meat prices in the short term in the United States go down, but over the longer term you're going to see rising meat prices; [experts] are predicting already 4 to 5 percent price increases in meat for the next year. That flows through the whole food chain , [to] big-population countries that import a lot of food, such as the Philippines, Afghanistan, Egypt. And when you see rapidly rising food prices , of course it leads to instability. We've seen [this] in the last five years across many of those countries, and you see rising food prices translate almost directly into street protests. You're going to see the continuation of [political] instability driven in part by rapidly rising food prices. In 2008, we had food protests across much of the Middle East, so governments are going to be very much on the alert for unrest and very sensitive to it . Egypt is already spending about one-third of its subsidies on food, and it is draining the Egyptian foreign exchange reserve to continue those subsidies. This combination of an already mobilized population out on the streets demanding lots of different changes [in Egypt], and rising food prices is going to create a very unstable atmosphere. What are some policy responses for alleviating the pressures being felt in the United States and other countries because of rising food prices? In the United States, we have to look at our own policies that are part of the problem, [including] our mandated use of ethanol in gasoline. This is something that is a mandated [10] percent that is not flexible, and when you have rising food prices and a problem

with the failing crop, you would think that maybe we could lighten up on

the ethanol mandate. Because right now so much of our food production is going into ethanol. So you've already seen governors across the United States in some of the hard-hit states saying, "Shouldn't we review our ethanol policies?" That's not a short-term fix, but it is potentially longer-term and something we should be looking at carefully. In terms of policy, we have a rising global population . We have more mouths to feed every year , and food security for the world is a critical issue . We should be looking at how to build in more resilience into the global food system. Africa, which has the highest population growth rates of any continent in the world, used to feed itself and used to export food, but [its] agriculture has suffered tremendously over the last half century. Only 4 percent of the land in Africa is even irrigated, and you've seen a green revolution occur in many parts of the world that has really passed Africa by. And so building in greater resilience and improving the agricultural capacity of Africa is a critical part of this equation, so that Africa has more of an ability to feed itself and become more a part of the global supply chain and not be so dependent on it. Unfortunately, governments have not made the investments in the agricultural sector that they needed to over the past half century, which is why you have this situation in Africa today.

Current ag unsustainable, drones are key to solveLarson 15 (Sarah Larson, March 30, 2015, ARE DRONES THE FUTURE OF FARMING?, Escoffier,

, http://www.escoffieronline.com/are-drones-the-future-of-farming/, AZ)

Many people imagine farming as a quaint, rural enterprise that requires a tremendous amount of manual labor. While agriculture indeed requires a lot of work and dedication, the country myth certainly no longer exists in the traditional sense. Though farmers may be surrounded by miles of crops, agricultural technology is increasingly becoming the norm, and modern advancements are making farming more efficient and environmentally friendly. For chefs of various international culinary schools, such technology may someday lead to new ingredients in the kitchen and produce with optimized nutritional value. Drones and other automatons are essential to this process and are changing the course of a farmer's daily work . How drones can help Drone technology is used for everything from military applications to novel ventures such as delivering packages. Yet one of the biggest industries these unmanned vessels may alter is farming. According to Mashable, unmanned aerial vehicles can be used to monitor crop health and assists in finding areas where conditions need to be improved. Imagine if these machines could be used to identify plots of land that are in need of fertilizer , don't get enough sunlight or are being damaged by insects or disease . While the legislation regarding the use of drones is still a work in progress, it likely won't be long before UAVs play a pivotal role in managing the health of our food supply. Precision Drone, a commercial producer of agricultural UAVs, states that these devices can increase crop yield while minimizing costs for farmers . The company notes that its drones are easy to use, can follow field borders and come with a failsafe button that commands the craft to return to its point of takeoff immediately. As these devices become increasingly user-friendly, it's possible more

farmers will adopt them in order to save costs and improve sustainability practices . From an environmental standpoint, if drones can demonstrably increase crop yield, then these machines may play a big role in benefiting the global food supply . Food is in increasingly high demand as the population increases and the middle class grows worldwide . According to Oregon Live, the world's middle class is expected to triple by 2050, making current agricultural practices unsustainable. Embracing the juxtaposing ideas of environmental tech nology and farm-to-table practices may potentially lead to long-term ecological benefits and change the way our food is produced on a mass scale.

Drones are key to precision farming Griekspoor 13 – P.J. Griekspoor, 3-21-2013, "Precision Agriculture Seen as Big Winner in Drone Technology," No Publication, http://farmprogress.com/story-precision-agriculture-seen-big-winner-drone-technology-9-96113

The biggest thing on the horizon in precision agriculture is Unmanned Aerial Vehicle flights, according to a new report from the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International.¶ Kansas, already a leader in research on the vehicles that are expected to see explosive growth when integration into national airspace begins in 2015 , ranks No. 7 among states likely to see economic benefits the report says , with the state expected to see a $2.9 billion impact and 3,700 new jobs between 2015 and 2025.¶ The greatest area of growth indicated by the report will be in precision agriculture, which is slated to grow 10 times that of the public safety market for UAS. Precision agriculture use of UAS refers to two segments of the farm market: remote sensing used to scan plants for health problems, growth rates and hydration; and precision application of needed pesticides or nutrients in order to save money and reduce environmental impact.¶ Aerial sensing with the hexacopter, can provide mapping of an entire section of land at 1-inch resolution in about 18 minutes – a task that would take hours if not days on a tractor.¶ Aerial sensing with the hexacopter, can provide mapping of an entire section of land at 1-inch resolution in about 18 minutes – a task that would take hours if not days on a tractor.¶ Members of the Kansas Ag Research and Technology Association got an upclose look at the work that is being done at Kansas State University by agronomy professor Kevin Price, who is working closely with Deon van der Merwe, head of the toxicology section at the K-State Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory.¶ UAVs can help monitor crop conditions¶ Van der Merwe is a remote-controlled aircraft enthusiast who is excited about the prospect of using UAVs, commonly referred to as drones, to detect blue-green algae blooms in bodies of water.¶ Price brought two aircraft to the KARTA conference, a flying wing by RiteWingRC called the Zephyr II and a DJI S800 Spreading Wings hexacopter.¶ Price said the promise of using the aircraft to do remote sensing to monitor crop condition, detect diseases and map fields for variable rate application of nutrients or pinpoint areas for fungicide or pesticide application, is huge.¶ Aerial sensing with the hexacopter, for example, can provide map ping of an entire section of land at 1-inch resolution in about 18 minutes – a task that would take hours if not days on a tractor. ¶

Precision farming key to prevent agricultural collapse Gonzalez 13 – Sarah Gonzalez, 2-27-2013, "Data analysis, biotech are key in agriculture's future sustainability," No Publication, http://www.agri-pulse.com/ag-issues-biotech-future-22613.asp

Bayer's forum, which began on Tuesday in Orlando, Florida, included a futuristic look at agriculture in the year 2025 , just 25 years before the world population is expected to reach nine billion and agriculture is required to increase productivity by 70 percent. “We've been able to convince consumers that biotechnology is the core of sustainability” by 2025, Kottmeyer said, adding that convincing and educating consumers is more important than convincing regulators. During the shift of focus from regulator to consumer he predicts, Kottmeyer said it is important to appeal to the emotional sentiments on which the consumer bases decisions. Furthermore, the organic customer is attracted to simpler agriculture, social justice, sustainability and good stewardship, which he says are all things biotechnology can provide. “The approach that they're rejecting has a clear benefit to the very things most important to them,” he said. The benefits of seed technology will be realized, particularly because of the increased global population in 2050, as well as the prediction that more than half the world population will be in the middle class by that date. He said this huge middle class, particularly in China and India, will create a new consumer. While the European Union currently blocks all U.S. biotechnology products, Kottmeyer is optimistic the consumer will drive a change. He noted that data analytics, which allowed him to make his 2025 predictions, show that finding ways to influence consumers is much simpler than normally anticipated. “ You just have to crunch the data ,” he said. In fact, the entire agriculture industry is currently moving into a “data-centric” era, said David Nicholson, head of Bayer's Research and Development, during the forum. Using the info rmation gained from technology in a way that helps agriculture achieve the required 70 percent increase in productivity is the key to success or failure, he said. Precision agriculture, in particular, is the focus of this data-driven era allowing the farmer to know what to grow and where to grow it for the best results. “When we think of the farmer of the future we see a grower as CEO,” said David Hollinrake, Bayer's Vice President of Agriculture Commercial Operations Marketing, adding that farming will increasingly become a business investment instead of a lifestyle or family choice. “We want to be able to participate as an enabler of using data as precision tools.”

The impact is food warsLugar 2000 (Richard Lugar, US Senator from Indiana, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and a member and former chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, 2000)

In a world confronted by global terrorism, turmoil in the Middle East, burgeoning nuclear threats and other crises, it is easy to lose sight of the long-range challenges. But we do so at our peril. One of the most daunting of them is meeting the world’s need for food and energy in this century. At stake is not

only preventing starvation and saving the environment, but also world peace and security. History tells us that states may go to war over access to resources, and that poverty and famine have often bred fanaticism and terrorism . Working to feed the world will minimize factors that contribute to global instability and the proliferation of [WMDs] weapons of mass destruction. With the world population expected to grow from 6 billion people today to 9 billion by mid-century, the demand for affordable food will increase well beyond current international production levels . People in rapidly developing nations will have the means greatly to improve their standard of living and caloric intake. Inevitably, that means eating more meat. This will raise demand for feed grain at the same time that the growing world population will need vastly more basic food to eat. Complicating a solution to this

problem is a dynamic that must be better understood in the West: developing countries often use limited arable land to expand cities to house their growing populations. As good land disappears , people destroy timber resources and even rainforests as they try to create more arable land to feed themselves. The long-term environmental consequences could be disastrous for the entire globe. Productivity revolution To meet the expected demand for food over the next 50 years, we in the U nited S tates will have to grow roughly three times more food on the land we have. That’s a tall order. My farm in Marion County, Indiana, for example, yields on average 8.3 to 8.6 tonnes of corn per hectare – typical for a farm in central Indiana. To triple our production by 2050, we will have to produce an annual average of 25 tonnes per hectare. Can we possibly boost output that much? Well, it’s been done before. Advances in the use of fertilizer and water, improved machinery and better tilling techniques combined to generate a threefold increase in yields since 1935 – on our farm back then, my dad produced 2.8 to 3 tonnes per hectare. Much US agriculture has seen similar increases. But of course there is no guarantee that we can achieve those results again. Given the urgency of expanding food production to meet world demand, we must invest much more in scientific research and target that money toward projects that promise to have significant national and global impact. For the United States, that will mean a major shift in the way we conduct and fund agricultural science. Fundamental research will generate the innovations that will be necessary to feed the world. The United S tates can take a leading position in a productivity revolution. And our success at increasing food production may play a decisive humanitarian role in the survival of billions of people and the health of our planet.

Best studies prove it goes nuclearGary Kleyn, 25 May 2012, WA State Director at Australian Christians, Research Manager at Future Directions International “International Conflict Triggers and Potential Conflict Points Resulting from Food and Water Insecurity,” http://www.futuredirections.org.au/files/Workshop_Report_-_Intl_Conflict_Triggers_-_May_25.pdf

A study by the International P eace R esearch I nstitute indicates that where food security is an issue, it is more likely to result in some form of conflict. Darfur, Rwanda, Eritrea and the Balkans experienced such wars . Governments , especially in developed countries, are increasingly aware of this phenomenon. The UK Ministry of Defence, the CIA, the US Center for Strategic and International Studies ¶ and the Oslo Peace Research

Institute, all identify famine as a potential trigger for conflicts and possibly even nuclear war.

Scenario 2 is the economy

US economy is experiencing slowed growthKoesterich 15 (Russ Koesterich, Global Chief Investment Strategist for BlackRock , “Is the US Economy Treading Water?”, 7/22/2015, http://marketrealist.com/2015/07/us-economy-treading-water/, DJE)

Though the US economy is showing signs of life, Russ explains why US consumers aren’t opening their wallets . Last week, investors digested the latest round of mixed economic data about the US economy. While housing numbers came in strong, the disappointing June retail sales report showed that consumer activity remains soft. The mixed data illustrate a basic contradiction for 2015: Despite continued improvement in the labor market and lower gasoline prices, consumers aren’t responding with open wallets. At 1.4 percent year-over-year, adjusted retail sales growth is close to its lowest level since 20 09. The above graph shows the month-over-month growth in retail (XRT) sales, which slumped by 0.3% in June. Households cut back on purchases of automobiles as well as other goods. This raises concerns that the economy is slowing again and tempers expectations of a September rate hike. Monthly retail sales have now fallen four times in the last seven months. Retail trends show that consumption has not quite picked up as much as expected. While poor economic data mean recovery remains weak, they support equities (IVV) and bonds (AGG), which could potentially delay a rate hike. That said, the rate hike is likely to be gradual and from extraordinarily low levels. On the other hand, housing (IYR) (VNQ) numbers remain robust. Recently, new home sales reached a seven-year peak. Another strong indicator is housing starts, as you can see in the above graph. Housing starts in the United States surged 9.8%

to 1,174 thousand units in June, compared to the previous month. This is the highest level in almost eight years. Building permits also picked up to multi-year highs. This indicates strength in the economy, as consumers are investing in big-ticket items like houses. This fits well in the theme of the year so far, which has been a mixed bag of macro data. In the next part of this series, we’ll delve into the state of the labor market, which is seeing a similar pattern.

Drones improve the efficiency of every sector of the economyDubravac 14 – Chief economist of the Consumer Electronics Association (9-2-2014, Shawn Dubravac, Richmond Times-Dispatch, "How commercial drones can drive economic growth", http://www.richmond.com/opinion/their-opinion/guest-columnists/article_a849638c-bf53-514d-a793-51255162a0bf.html)

Drones are an exceptional example of how emerging technologies can increase the productivity of myriad diverse businesses . Whether monitoring valuable infrastructure , quickly and inexpensively surveying an area , or delivering rich video in real time, drones will change the way businesses do what they do. The CEA estimates the costs related to using a drone may be one-tenth the cost of other alternatives of certain business activities. Because drones are such efficient cost-reducers for various use-cases, entirely new services and consumer benefits are now on their way to market. In some ways, the marketplace for commercial drones is limited only by our imaginations . Drones have already helped catch cattle rustlers, capture wedding memories and monitor national borders. In the agricultural sector alone, drones are farming crops, weeding fields and applying fertilizers. Eventually, this technology will be integral to media outlets, real estate professionals and emergency first responders. In July, a three-day search for a missing senior in Wisconsin ended when an amateur drone pilot joined the effort and spotted the man after only 20 minutes. As in most nascent markets, companies are experimenting with drones across numerous business applications. In July, Amazon petitioned the FAA for an exemption to allow the company to test drones in the U.S., an effort to implement same-day package delivery. Such experimentation can lead to lasting innovation, new business models and economic growth. Without the exemptions, Amazon may have to move its research and development operations abroad, resulting in fewer domestic jobs and less national investment. In the absence of federal guidelines from the FAA, states are instead crafting their own drone laws , creating a patchwork of different and diverse state laws. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 16 states including Virginia have enacted 20 laws regarding drone use — the latest laws, in Tennessee and Indiana, went into effect July 1. This maze of regulations will make compliance much more complicated for companies that want to incorporate drones into their commercial operations. We shouldn’t delay any longer in opening our skies to new economic growth. While we’re waiting for the government to provide clarity, the projected jobs, economic activity and $4.4 million in added tax revenue the drone sector will provide in Virginia over the coming years are drifting that

much further out of reach. We need to feed tomorrow’s economic engine today , but the absence of forward thinking is hindering our potential .

It transforms every industry—clear regulation is keyHash-Hoff ’13 President, Electrofab Sales, (7-19-2013, Michele Nash-Hoff, Industry Week, "What is the Importance of Unmanned Vehicles to our Economy?", http://www.industryweek.com/emerging-technologies/what-importance-unmanned-vehicles-our-economy)

The report states that “the main inhibitor of U.S. commercial and civil development of the UAS is the lack of a regulatory structure.” Non-defense use of UAS has been extremely limited because of current airspace restrictions. The combination of greater flexibility, lower capital and lower operating costs could

allow u nmanned vehicles to transform fields as diverse as urban

infrastructure management, farming and oil and gas exploration, to name a few. The use of UAS in the future could be” a more responsible approach to certain airspace operations from an environmental , ecological and human risk perspective .” Present-day unmanned vehicles have longer operational duration and require less maintenance than earlier models and are more fuel-efficient. These aircraft can be deployed in a variety of terrains and may not require prepared runways.

Economic collapse causes competition for resources and instability that escalates and goes nuclear Harris and Burrows 09 – [counselor in the National Intelligence Council, the principal drafter of Global Trends 2025, **member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis”, Washington Quarterly, http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_burrows.pdf]

Increased Potential for Global Conflict

Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic

environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times , and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge , particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo- mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.

China

Contention two is China

Drones are critical to the economy/competitiveness but status quo backlash will push the market out and stifle innovationGruber 4-25-15 – [Robert H. – litigation associate @ Greenberg Traurig] [COMMERCIAL DRONES AND PRIVACY: CAN WE TRUST STATES WITH “DRONE FEDERALISM”?] (http://tinyurl.com/pgpsp64) [Richmond Journal of Law & Technology Volume XXI, Issue 4] (accessed 7-13-15) //MC

At this stage, it is impossible to accurately predict the scope of the future UAS industry . Its potential

benefits are vast and varied : beyond mere job creation, drones will contribute to efficiency in various industries and aspects of society. This is particularly true in the commercial sphere, where competition and innovation can drive progress towards

functions far removed from the individual surveillance people fear. UAS have already proven useful in functions from crop monitoring 9 to gathering atmospheric data.10 Domino’s Pizza made headlines when it announced the development of delivery UAS systems, as have other companies—and while some skeptics

dismissed the press releases as “publicity stunts,”11 it is not too difficult to imagine a future in which packages appear on our doorstep out of the sky. 12 Recently, Facebook announced a plan that epitomizes the benevolent possibilities of commercial UAS. 13 It has purchased the U.K.-based company Ascenta, which manufactures solarpowered aircraft that can stay aloft at high altitudes for years at a time. Facebook’s goal? Providing Internet access in areas where traditional connections are impractical or impossible.

14 Even though commercial UAS flight is still largely prohibited in the United States, the battle over drone regulation has already begun, fixated largely on imagined harms to people’s privacy .15 And the privacy advocates are winning: more than twenty states have passed laws restricting UAS operations.16 Many of these address law

enforcement surveillance, but an increasing number of states are proposing—and enacting—restrictions on private and commercial aircraft . For example, a bill proposed and enrolled in Texas makes it a misdemeanor to collect an image of a person’s land without consent.17 Other states are considering similar legislation.18 One town in Colorado must have gotten Napolitano’s memo—it considered issuing “drone hunting

licenses” that would authorize its citizens to shoot any unpiloted aircraft.19 [5] This sort of legislation is both premature and problematic, particularly with respect to the kind of drones that will be used for commercial or civil purposes (as opposed to law enforcement purposes). It is

premature because legislators cannot foresee —and therefore cannot balance —all of the potential benefits and harms of commercial drone use. Many of the privacy interests purportedly advanced by restrictive legislation are already protected by other areas of the law. 20 It is problematic because

inconsistent and overly-restrictive regulations (1) potentially violate the First Amendment right

to gather information and (2) threaten to chill industry growth.21 The harms such legislation causes are analogous, in a sense, to those that would have arisen if states had created a patchwork of Internet privacy

laws several years before the development of the World Wide Web.22 Right now, the United States leads the pack in UAS technology. If the current legislative pattern continues , the U.S . might very well drive a market with incredible potential overseas , to more open-minded nations.23 [6] Is restrictive legislation nevertheless justified, as a means of vindicating legitimate privacy interests?24 Perhaps not, particularly where commercial UAS use is concerned. There are few cognizable circumstances in which using drones to monitor individual people will be profitable for non-government actors and entities. 25 First, a primary advantage of unmanned aircraft is that they can go swiftly and easily where

people cannot. UAS could be used profitably to survey mines , monitor power lines in

remote areas, collect traffic -flow information , spray and monitor crops, and so forth. Some

predict that eighty-percent of commercial drones will be used for agricultural purposes 26 —so the majority will seldom even accidentally interfere with individual privacy interests. As one person put it, “corn doesn’t mind if you watch it.”27 Second, even if a particular commercial drone’s images could be processed and linked to individuals’ identities, what would justify the cost of such directed monitoring? Demographic information may be valuable,

but our phones and Internet activity paint a cheaper and more accurate picture of consumer activities—where individuals go, where they shop, and what they buy. [7] The global market for UAS is growing fast.28 At the moment, the best available UAS technology belongs to the United States and

Israel.29 Developed for military purposes, this technology nevertheless has massive export potential for civil and commercial uses. [8] However, the United States’ monopoly on UAS technology may already be eroding. In 2013 Israel surpassed the U.S. as the chief exporter of UAS technology—although Israel remains second to the U.S. in production.30 What accounts for this discrepancy? A regulatory barrier: the companies that develop our military drones are restricted from

marketing their technology elsewhere.31 China and other countries are now entering the ring.32 By competing in the global market, the U.S. can realize all the benefits of a multi-billion dollar industry once the FAA opens up the national airspace 33—which it is poised

to begin doing soon— but only if the U.S. avoids establishing a draconian regulatory framework for commercial UAS. [9] This Article focuses on commercial UAS, and on the legal frameworks—both current and potentially forthcoming—surrounding them. 34 Part I provides a brief background of the politically-charged context within which UAS regulation is being developed. Part II examines two critical issues in the UAS regulatory debate: (1) the extent to which the “third-party doctrine” will apply to information captured by commercial UAS; and (2) the boundaries of First Amendment protection of “information gathering.” Part II also outlines existing state and federal laws governing civil drone use. Part III examines approaches the United States

could take in regulating commercial drone use. Ultimately, the article concludes that the federalism model will stifle the market for UAS aircraft and technology, unless Congress acts to create a baseline federal scheme that assuages privacy concerns without hindering industry growth.

Declining military drone capability necessitates commercial innovationFung 13 (Brian Fung, reporter, “The next 25 years in military drone technology, in 1 chart”, 12/27/2013, The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/12/27/the-next-25-years-in-military-drone-technology-in-1-chart/, DJE)

With so much attention being devoted to commercial drones these days, it's easy to forget that the military's long-term strategy for unmanned systems is still a work in progress. A lot of the funding for drone operations comes from the special budget for the war in Afghanistan — and as the drawdown begins, that money is going to dry up. That's a big problem for the military. It now has to transform what was originally a stopgap solution into a sustainable function of the armed services. That process is also going to grant drones a more important place in combat, according to the latest revision to a 25-year roadmap the Pentagon released this week. Depending on the kind of drone we're talking about — unmanned aerial systems (UAS), unmanned ground systems (UGS) or unmanned maritime systems (UMS) — the Pentagon foresees an array of different problems that all need to be tackled over the next quarter century. The near-term will mostly involve making sure the

technology works at all. As we move into the next decade, that will give way to exploiting the real potential of unmanned systems. That's when a lot of the changes to doctrine and strategy will begin to take effect. Advances in commercial technology will help speed that process. So will research being done by the Pentagon itself. But the biggest challenges aren't necessarily technical. Take how humans will be expected to interact with their machines in the field. While it's tempting to think about whole fleets of unmanned ships steaming across the ocean as one, the reality is that people are going to be right alongside them for the foreseeable future. There may be fewer humans than drones in a unit. But you might have, for instance, a human pilot being aided by a set of unmanned wingmen in the air. The military already has a name for this: Manned-Unmanned System Teaming, or MUM-T. Figuring out how much interaction will be needed is going to be an ongoing process.

US drone leadership is key to stop Chinese territorial expansion into the Senkakus and SCS – maintaining the industry is critical to maintain the leadZhou 12 – [Dillon – former research assistant @ Cyber Conflict Studies Association in Vienna, graduated w/ a degree in IR @ University of Massachusetts Boston]

It’s evident that China intends to take full advantage of using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)

to achieve its national interests – including their territorial disputes over the Senkaku Islands and South China Sea. The U.S. and the World should, therefore, be concerned with

this development given that this may lead to a drone race between the top two producers of drones

– the U.S. and China . In a world whose militaries and governments are buzzing about the potential of the

drones, it is no surprise that China is working to bring their drone program up to speed to compete with America just as President Obama is executing his "Asia Pivot" through strengthening U.S. military, political and economic presence in Asia. China is rising – as evident in its growing

economic and military power – but the U.S. should not treat the Chinese drone program as a cause for panic. If the U.S. works towards countermeasures against drones from rival states – like China – the risk posed by the development of competing drone programs can be minimized allowing the U.S. to implement its "Asia Pivot" with one less impediment. The Rise of the Drones Drones are the strategic tools of the future, especially when it comes to the political contests between the major

players in global affairs. The Department of Defense’s Defense Science Board (DSB)

released a report on the future of drones as a potent tool of great powers like the U.S. and China. The report notes that drones are fast becoming a “tipping point” in global affairs because: “Armed forces in the United States and around the world have actively embraced unmanned systems. The advantages of these systems in terms of persistence, endurance and generally lower costs

and deployment footprint have been highlighted in recent conflicts ... Unmanned systems have become an established part of military operations and will play an increasing role in the modern military machine.” The value of the drone lies in its capacity to radically expand a military’s ability to gather intelligence and expand its ability to project its power beyond limits faced by frontline personnel. It can also carry out the unpleasant business of neutralizing enemies, including Anwar al-Awlaki and Abu Yahya al-Libi, Al Qaeda’s last number two leaders, with some civilian casualties. However, the drone is not as precise or accurate as described by the defense industry – as shown by a joint study published by Stanford Law School and NYU School of Law, which detailed the considerable toll taken on civilians in Pakistan – and causes

unintended consequences in its search and kill operations in multiple areas of U.S. intelligence operations. The U.S. remains the leading market for drones, but other powers like China , Russia,

Europe and the Middle East are also working to develop their own drone capabilities. Unlike

the other powers, China is the most prolific developer of a rival drone program to America's

program. The DSB report said “[i]n a worrisome trend, China has ramped up research in recent years faster than any other country.” China’s New “Dragons” in the Sky Like the U.S., China has given its new fleet of UAVs unique code names – which often include the character for “dragon” or "long" – and designed them with comparable capabilities as their U.S. counterparts. Many of its newer models – including the CH-4, the Wing Loong and Xianglong – appears to be copies of the U.S. Reaper, Predator and Global

Hawk designs. The drone program has had a profound effect on China’s defense industry. The DSB report notes that “[China] displayed its first unmanned system model at the Zhuhai air show five years ago, and now every major manufacturer for the Chinese military has a research center devoted to unmanned systems.” One

unique aspect of the Chinese drone program is that the cost of the drones are significantly cheaper than those made by the U.S. and Israel. For example, according to Wired, "[t]he Wing Loong [the Chinese equivalent of the U.S. Reaper] reportedly comes at a rather incredible bargain price of $1

million (£625,000), compared to the Reaper's varying price tags in the $30 million (£18.7 million) range." For China, their nascent drone program provides a valuable tool for projecting its power in Asia, especially in a time when it’s engaged in territorial disputes with its neighbors. More importantly, China feels a need to meet the threat in perceives in President Obama’s so-

called “Asia Pivot.” The drones could act as the ideal surveillance tool in tracking U.S. and its Asian allies'

military movements in the event of a crisis or international spat and act as a proxy weapon to deter assertive behavior over the South China Sea and Senkaku Islands. At the same time, the cheaper Chinese drones are a hot export product line for the Chinese defense industry. Many African and Asian states have placed orders for the economic Chinese drones. "We've been contacting many countries, especially from Africa and Asia," Guo Qian, a director at a division of the state-owned China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation. The geostrategic impact of the advent of these new "dragons" is to stoke fears of a drone race between the U.S. and China, which have already manifested at the Pentagon. Worried About the Dragons’ Reach The U.S. is deeply concerned with the speed of the Chinese drone program and the growing resources being devoted to the program. The main concern, according to the DSB report, is as follows: “The military significance of China’s move into unmanned systems is alarming. [China] has a great deal of technology, seemingly unlimited resources and clearly is leveraging all available information on Western unmanned systems

development. China might easily match or outpace U.S. spending on unmanned systems, rapidly close the technology gaps and become a formidable global competitor in unmanned systems.” Basically, the U.S. is afraid that it won't be able to keep up with a China that has invested itself in a intensive government-sponsored effort to compete with the U.S. drone program

in terms of technical quality, quantity, and as a export product to clients in the developing world. On a strategic level, the Chinese drones could be the "tipping point" for giving the Chinese the edge in possible future disputes in Asia with the U.S. as it attempts to create

regional security as part of its "Asia Pivot." There are several facts that provide some solace to the U.S. as China's drones are far from being a real challenge to the American drone program. First, the Chinese drones are nowhere as sophisticated as U.S. drones in their range and proper hardware for optic systems and motors to power the "dragons." The DSB

report notes that the U.S. technical systems are almost unrivaled at present. Second,

China lacks the manpower to properly support their new fleet of drones . Whereas the U.S. has been training and honing a large force of UAV pilots, technicians and operation managers for 15 years.

Finally, the U.S. drone program is about 20 years ahead of the Chinese program . The current models on show are considered to be prototypes and not finished products.

The Chinese also have not had a chance to gain real experience with their drones during real operation.

It will escalate – accidents, unwillingness to back down, 2 biggest armies – destabilizes the whole region Auslin 13 – [Michael – Scholar @ American Enterprise Institute] [The Sino-Japanese Standoff] (http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/338852)

What was more dangerous, however, was a game of chicken that began in the waters off the Senkakus . Beijing dispatched private fishing boats and maritime patrol vessels on a near-daily basis

to the islands, and Japan responded with its coast guard. The two countries have now face d off regularly in the waters around the Senkakus, sometimes with a dozen ships or more. ¶ Beijing’s goal seems to be to undercut Tokyo’s claim of administrative control over the islands. That would then invalidate Japan’s right to expel ships from the exclusive economic zone around the Senkakus. In recent weeks, though, the Chinese have become more aggressive, and very visibly escalated tensions . For the first time ever, they have flown maritime patrol planes into Japanese airspace around the islands. A predictable cycle thus emerged: The Japan ese responded by scrambling F-15s, and last week, the Chinese sent two J-10 fighter jets to “monitor” Japanese military aircraft, according to the South China Morning Post. Now, the new Japanese government of Prime

Minister Shinzo Abe is preparing to go one step further: giving Japanese pilots the authority to

fire warning shots with tracer bullets across the nose of any Chinese aircraft that doesn’t heed warnings to leave Japanese-controlled airspace.¶ It was barely a dozen years ago that the U.S. and China faced a crisis when a hotshot Chinese pilot collided with a U.S. electronic-surveillance plane over the South China

Sea, crashing both aircraft. Japan and China are now on a metaphorical collision course , too, and any accident when tensions are so high could be the spark in a tinderbox .

It’s not difficult to see Beijing issuing orders for Chinese fighters to fire their own warning shots if Japanese jets start doing so. Even though leaders from both countries promise to meet and keep things cool, a faceoff at 20,000 feet is much harder to control than one done more slowly and clearly on the ocean’s surface. ¶ This Sino–Japanese standoff also is a problem for the U nited States, which has a defense treaty with Tokyo and is pledged to come to the aid of Japan ese forces under attack. There are also mechanisms for U.S.–Japanese consultations during a crisis, and if Tokyo requests such military talks, Washington would be forced into a difficult spot, since Beijing would undoubtedly perceive the holding of such talks as a serious provocation. The Obama administration has so far taken pains to stay neutral in the dispute; despite its rhetoric of “pivoting” to the Pacific, it has urged both sides to resolve the issue peacefully. Washington also has avoided any stance on the sovereignty of the Senkakus, supporting instead the status quo of Japanese

administration of the islands. That may no longer suffice for Japan, however, since its government saw China’s taking to the air over the Senkakus as a significant escalation and proof that Beijing is in no mind to back down from its claims. ¶ One does not have to be an alarmist to see real dangers in play here. As Barbara Tuchman showed in her classic The Guns

of August, events have a way of tak ing on a life of their own (and one doesn’t need a Schlieffen

Plan to feel trapped into acting). The enmity between Japan and China is deep and pervasive; there is little good will to try and avert conflict . Indeed, the people of both countries have abysmally low perceptions of the other . Since they are the two most

advanced militaries in Asia , any tension-driven military jockeying between them is inherently destabilizing to the entire region. ¶ Perhaps of even greater concern, neither government has shied away from its hardline tactics over the Senkakus, despite the fact that trade between the two has dropped nearly 4 percent since the crisis began in September. Most worrying, if the two sides don’t agree to return to the status quo ante, there are only one or two more rungs on the ladder of military escalation before someone has to back down or decide to initiate hostilities when challenged.

Whoever does back down will lose an enormous amount of credibility in Asia, and the possibility of major domestic demonstrations in response.¶ The prospect of an armed clash between Asia’s two largest countries is one that should bring both sides to their senses, but instead the two seem to be maneuvering themselves into a corner from which it will be difficult to escape. One trigger-happy or nervous pilot, and Asia could face its gravest crisis perhaps since World War II.

Draws in the US and goes nuclear Blaxland and Kersten 13 – [John – Senior Fellow @ Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, the Australian National University. Rikki – Professor of modern Japanese political history in the School of International, political and Strategic Studies @ College of Asia and the Pacific, Australian National University] [Escalating territorial tension in East Asia echoes Europe’s descent into world war] (http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/02/13/escalating-territorial-tension-in-east-asia-echoes-europes-descent-into-world-war/)

The recent activation of Chinese weapons radars aimed at Japan ese military platforms around the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands is the latest in a series of incident s in which China has

asserted its power and authority at the expense of its neighbours. The radars cue supersonic missile systems

and give those on the receiving end only a split second to respond. With Japanese law empowering local military commanders with increased discretion to respond (thanks to North

Korea’s earlier provocations), such incidents could easily escalate. In an era of well-established UN-related adjudication bodies like the International Court of Justice (ICJ), how has it come to this? These incidents

disconcertingly echo past events. In the early years of the 20th century, most pundits considered a major war between the great powers a remote possibility . Several incidents prior to 1914 were handled locally or successfully defused by diplomats from countries with alliances that appeared to guarantee the peace. After all, never before had the world been so interconnected — thanks to advanced

communications technology and burgeoning trade. But alliance ties and perceived national interests meant that once a major war was triggered there was little hope of avoiding the conflict . Germany’s dissatisfaction with the constraints under which it operated arguably was a principal cause of war in 1914. Similarly, Japan’s dissatisfaction helped trigger massive conflict a generation

later. A century on, many of the same observations can be made in East Asia. China’s rise is coupled with a disturbing surge in jingoism across East and Southeast Asia. China resents the territorial resolution of World War II, in which the United States handed responsibility for the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands to Japan while large chunks of the South China Sea were claimed and occupied by countries that emerged in Southeast Asia’s post-colonial order. Oil and gas reserves are attractive reasons for China to assert itself, but challenging the US place in East Asian waters is the main objective. China resents American ‘re-balancing ‘as an attempt at ‘containment’, even though US dependence on Chinese trade and finance makes that notion implausible. China is pushing the boundaries of the accepted post-Second World War order championed by the United States and embodied by the UN. China’s rapid rise and long-held grievances mean its powerbrokers are

reluctant to use institutions like the ICJ. But China’s assertiveness is driving regional states closer into the arms of the United States. Intimidation and assertive maritime acts have been carried out, ostensibly by elements not linked to China’s armed forces. China’s white-painted Chinese Maritime Services and Fisheries Law Enforcement Command vessels operating in the South China Sea and

around the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands have evoked strong reactions. But Japan’s recent allegation that China used active radars is a significant escalation. Assuming it happened, this latest move could trigger a stronger reaction from Japan. China looks increasingly as if it is not prepared to abide by UN-related conventions. International law has been established mostly by powers China sees as having exploited it during its ‘century of humiliation’. Yet arguably, it is in the defence of these international

institutions that the peaceful rise of China is most likely to be assured. China’s refusal to submit to such

mechanisms as the ICJ increases the prospect of conflict. For the moment, Japan’s conservative

p rime m inister will need to exercise great skill and restraint in managing domestic fear and

resentment over China’s assertiveness and the military’s hair-trigger defence powers. A near-term escalation cannot be ruled out. After all, Japan recognises that China is not yet ready to inflict a major military defeat on Japan without resorting to nuc lear weapon s and

without triggering a damaging response from the U nited States. And Japan does not want to enter into such a conflict without strong US support, at least akin to the discreet support given to Britain in the Falklands War in 1982. Consequently, Japan may see an escalation sooner rather than later as being in its

interests, particularly if China appears the aggressor. China’s domestic environment has nurtured

jingoism. The Chinese state has built up the public’s appetite for vengeance against Japan by manipulating films and history textbooks. On the other hand, Chinese authorities recognise that the peaceful rise advocated by

Deng Xiaoping is not yet complete (militarily at least). In the meantime it is prudent to exercise some

restraint to avoid an overwhelming and catastrophic response . If the 1914–18 war taught

us anything, it is that the outcome of wars is rarely as proponents conceived at the outset.

SolvencyContention three is Solvency

The FAA regulations don’t pose a serious threat to the commercial drone industry – this card assumes your limitations warrantsWhitlock 15 (Craig Whitlock, covers the Pentagon and national security for The Post, “FAA rules might allow thousands of business drones”, 2/15/2015, The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/faa-releases-proposed-rules-for-domestic-drone-use/2015/02/15/6787bdce-b51b-11e4-a200-c008a01a6692_story.html, DJE)

Thousands of businesses could receive clearance to fly drones two years from now under proposed rules that the F ederal A viation A dministration unveiled Sunday, a landmark step that will make automated flight more commonplace in the nation’s skies. Meanwhile, the White House on Sunday issued presidential directive that will require federal agencies for the first time to publicly disclose where they fly drones in the United States and what they do with the torrents of data collected from aerial surveillance. Together, the FAA regulations and the White House order provide some basic rules of the sky that will govern who can fly drones in the United States and under what conditions, while attempting to prevent aviation disasters and unrestrained government surveillance. The FAA’s draft rules would make it relatively simple for real estate agents, aerial photographers, police departments, farmers and anyone else to fly small drones for work purposes . Operator s would need to pass a written proficiency test, register the drone and pay about $200 in fees — but would not have to obtain a regular pilot’s license or demonstrate their flying skills. The long-awaited regulations — the FAA had been drawing them up for several years — are expected to lead to a revolution in commercial aviation. But they must first undergo a lengthy period of public review and comment that is projected to take at least until early 2017. Once the rules are finalized, the FAA estimates that more than 7,000 businesses will obtain drone permits within three years . “We’re putting forward what we believe to be the safest possible approach at the moment, but of course we look forward to hearing back from the public,” Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx told reporters Sunday on a conference call. The proposed regulations carry some significant limitations . Businesses would be allowed to fly drones only during daylight hours. And drones would have to remain within eyesight of the operator or observers posted on the ground. The drones could fly no more than 100 mph and would have to stay below an altitude of 500 feet to avoid the risk of colliding with other aircraft. They would also be prohibited from flying over bystanders not directly involved in their operation. As a result, companies would not be permitted to fly drones over long distances. That would effectively preclude companies such as pizza makers, Amazon.com and newspaper companies from delivering goods to customers’ doorsteps via drone (Amazon’s chief executive, Jeffrey P. Bezos, also owns The Washington Post). The rules, however, are expected to be modified and

loosened over the coming decade as drone technology advances . Unlike with regular aircraft, the FAA would not require drone operators or manufacturers to certify in advance that the drones are safe to fly. Michael Huerta, head of the FAA, said such a requirement is unnecessary because small drones “pose the least amount of risk to our airspace.” The regulations would apply only to drones weighing 55 pounds or less. The FAA is still drafting rules for larger drones, and those are expected to take several more years to sort out. In addition, FAA officials said they are considering a separate set of rules for “micro-drones” that weigh less than 4.4 pounds. Under those rules, operators would not have to pass any kind of test; they would only have to submit a written statement to the FAA promising that they were familiar with basic aviation safety measures.

No circumvention – congress can leverage decreased funding for infractionsMichaels ‘8, Acting Professor, UCLA School of Law. Law Clerk to the Hon. David H. Souter, U.S. Supreme Court, 2005-06. Law Clerk to the Hon. Guido Calabresi, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2004-05. J.D., Yale Law School, 2003. (August 2008, Jon D. Michaels, CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW, “All the President's Spies: Private-Public Intelligence Partnerships in the War on Terror”, 96 Calif. L. Rev. 901, Lexis)

Armed with data far more detailed and more timely than what it currently receives, n227 Congress could decide to hold hearings (in camera, if necessary to preserve classified information) to investigate programs that it suspects are misguided, insufficiently attentive to privacy concerns , overly burdensome to the corporations, or exploitative of the status differentials that make it legally easier for the private sector to collect information and give it to the government than for the intelligence agencies to obtain the data in the first place. n228 Congress could also hold up confirmation votes on nominees as leverage to force the Executive to make concessions . n229 Or, it could de-fund a given [*954] program, which it has previously done when it disapproved of an intelligence or national-security operation. n230 (It should be underscored, of course, that even a minority within Congress can wield tremendous influence, by insisting on various amendments to critical bills, by itself trying to hold up nominees, or, at least in the Senate, by filibustering.) The appropriations power n231 may be particularly potent in the intelligence budgetary arena. Intelligence budgets are treated differently from much of the rest of the overall federal budget, n232and to the extent intelligence line appropriations can remain classified yet be subject to programmatic-level revisions, Congress would have both the dexterity and political cover to exercise aggressively its co-ordinate powers over intelligence policy. That is, the ability to tinker with funding streams on a regular basis gives the legislature a means of acting promptly upon its concerns.n233 What is more, the concomitant opportunity to appropriate in a manner largely occluded from the public gives lawmakers the political freedom to challenge imprudent intelligence policies with less fear of being harshly punished at election time for their so-called "soft-on-terrorism" vote -

a fear that routinely prevents many a member from voting against (publicly recorded) military-spending bills. When a vote to deny military appropriations is taken as an article of disloyalty, as it often is, representatives lose perhaps the most straightforward and valuable means of influencing foreign policy. n234 None of this is, of course, to say that Congress [*955] will need to scrutinize every penny spent on intelligence matters. Most operations, like most expenditures in the larger budget or, say, most military promotions requiring Senate confirmation, will be approved as a matter of course. n235 But the option to affect funding when necessary to redirect misguided policy is not an inconsequential one.

Warranted drone use could be obtained for emergencies or public safety purposesZabel 13 (Kylee Zabel, Bothell Reporter WNPA Olympia News Bureau, “Drones’ surveillance of farmlands ignites debate on privacy invasion”, 2/27/2013, Bothell-Reporter, http://www.bothell-reporter.com/news/192575561.html, DJE)

***HB 1771 is no longer a thing – the plan is still unique

In a quest to defend the rights of Americans outlined in the Fourth Amendment, a seemingly unlikely partnership between a Republican representative and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) geared up bipartisan support to pass a bill that would limit the acquisition and use of surveillance drones by state and local public agencies. As policy bills’ cut-off loomed, the House Public Safety committee was able to hear public testimony on and vote 9-1 the proposed legislation out of committee and onto House Rules Committee Thursday. What sparked the House bill was a policy adopted by the Washington State Farm Bureau(WSFB) in November last year to regulate the use of drones to survey farmland without the express consent of the landowner. As early as August 2012, several national law enforcement agencies had requested that states adopt drone acquisition and usage guidelines as the technology becomes more and more mainstream. Rep. David Taylor (R-15th District, Moxee), prime sponsor of HB 1771, said that the unregulated, unwarranted surveillance by drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), flies in the face of constitutional freedoms. “[The bill] attempts to address and establish clear guidelines and sideboards to protect public safety, protect our Constitutional rights and limit the liability on taxpayers,” he said. The bill calls for public agencies, such as state departments or local law enforcement, that wish to employ drones for public safety use must receive legislative approval, be that either the state Legislature or local government officials . There is one major exception, however. UAVs may be used without explicit permission in the event of an emergency, such as the use of drones during search and rescue efforts, in the pursuit of dangerous criminals or finding missing children. In order to gain access to information collected by UAVs, an agency must issue either a criminal, administrative or inspection warrant , depending on the nature of the case. Data collected that was not significant to an ongoing case would need to be destroyed, following specific timelines delineated in the bill. The use of UAVs for training purposes over an existing military installation in the state would also be permitted.

A clear national framework prevents patchwork state regulationsAIA ’13 Aerospace Industries Association, the premier trade association representing major aerospace and defense manufacturers and suppliers in the United States. (5/6/13, Aerospace Industries Association, “Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Perceptions & Potential”, http://www.aia-aerospace.org/assets/AIA_UAS_Report_small.pdf)

One of the greatest threats to UAS airspace integration is a growing number of states and communities that have passed laws – the majority of which appear to be focused on personal privacy concerns – banning or restricting the use of UAS. A national framework must be identified to address the concerns of these communities while avoiding the creation of a national patchwork of conflicting rules that may ultimately limit UAS use for public service missions. An appropriate first step would be the creation of national privacy objectives and guidelines.

FBI surveillance is a huge concern for privacy — means the CP can’t solve anythingGuliani 15 — Neema Singh Guliani, American Civil Liberties Union Washington Legislative Office, focusing on surveillance, privacy, and national security issues. Prior to joining the ACLU, she worked in the Chief of Staff’s Office at DHS, concentrating on national security and civil rights issues. She has also worked as an adjudicator in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in the Department of Agriculture and was an investigative counsel with House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, where she conducted investigations related to the BP oil spill, contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Recovery Act. Neema is a graduate of Brown University where she earned a BA in International Relations with a focus on global security and received her JD from Harvard Law School in 2008, 2015 (“Unchecked government drones? Not over my backyard,” The Hill, March 24th, Available online at http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/civil-rights/236701-unchecked-government-drones-not-over-my-backyard, accessed on 7-13-15) GIE

Right now, the federal government doesn’t have a clear picture of how it’s using drone technology across agencies and departments, nor does it have clear, consistent standards in place to protect Americans’ privacy. For example, at a hearing last June, then-FBI Director Robert Mueller III acknowledged that the bureau was using drones for surveillance. When asked about policy and procedures to regulate this use, he confessed that the agency was only in the initial stages of creating them. If the federal government doesn’t have clear rules in place for drone use, how can citizens be sure that their privacy is being protected? Hopefully this will begin to change with the new presidential memorandum. Mandating that agencies describe their drone use is a necessary

first step, and the Obama administration deserves credit for taking it, but this is not a sufficient protection for Americans’ privacy . Given the potential invasiveness of this technology and how frequently it is used, letting government agencies set their own drone use guidelines, is a recipe for failure. Instead, Obama should require all federal agencies to meet strong minimum privacy standards, and close the following privacy loopholes in his existing guidance. First and foremost, absent an emergency, law enforcement agencies should only use drones to conduct surveillance or gather information with a warrant. This is not a rule that should be left to the discretion of individual agencies. Second, the federal government should restrict the purposes for which drones can be used by agencies . The guidelines allow drones to be used for any “authorized purpose,” which is not strictly defined. Drones should only be used in emergencies, by law enforcement with a warrant, or in situations where they are unlikely to substantially intrude on people’s privacy , such as environmental surveys. Third, information collected by drones for one purpose shouldn’t be used for other purposes. In other words, if the government uses drones to help identify forest fires, this information shouldn’t be passed on to the FBI for law enforcement. The guidelines should make clear that information can only be shared between agencies if it specifically relates to the original purpose for which it was collected. Finally, the government should put in place more stringent restrictions on the retention and use of information collected by drones. Under the president’s memorandum, information collected by drones must be destroyed within 180 days, unless it is necessary to the mission of the agency. Safeguards should be put in place to ensure that this exception is not used to allow the government to store vast amounts of information on citizens.