Drones Affirmative - Michigan7 2015

7/25/2019 Drones Affirmative - Michigan7 2015

1/88

Drones Af University o

Michigan 2015

This fle has two versions o the 1AC one with a beeed up privacy advantage andone with a shorter privacy advantage & a drone warare advantage. I you want tomae arguments about probability! the frst 1AC is or you" i you want to race to bigimpacts! the latter is or you.

The starter set is designed to provide e#uitable ground to both sides! as camp goeson you may be wise to rewrite the plan to mae the $c%eal C not competitive.


2/88

1AC Privacy


3/88

Contention 1 PrivacyThe ederal government is raming ! its !se o drones or

domestic s!rveillance" this harms the #thamendment in

!nrecedented $ays

%ilens 201&'%aomi (AC)* +peech! rivacy and Technology ro,ect-" %ewocuments /eveal *.+. $arshals0 rones 2periment! *nderscoring %eed or3overnment Transparency" https455www.aclu.org5blog5new6documents6reveal6us6marshals6drones6e2periment6underscoring6need6government6transparency" d7

The use o surveillance drones is growing rapidly in the *nited +tates! but we nowlittle about how the ederal government employs this new technology. %ow! newinormation obtained by the AC)* shows or the frst time that the *.+. $arshals +ervice hase2perimented with using drones or domestic s!rveillance' 8e learned this throughdocuments we released today! received in response to a 9reedom o Inormation Act re#uest. The documents areavailable here. '8e also released a short log o drone accidents rom the 9ederal Aviation Administration as well asaccident reports and other documents rom the *.+. Air 9orce.7 This revelation comes a wee ater a bipartisan billto protect Americans0 privacy rom domestic drones was introduced in the :ouse. Although the $arshals +ervicetold us it ound ;< pages about its drones program in response to our 9=IA re#uest! it turned over only two o thosepages>and even they were heavily redacted. :ere0s what we now rom the two short paragraphs o te2t we wereable to see. *nder a header entitled ?*nmanned Aerial @ehicle! $an6ortable '*A@7 rogram! an agency documentoverview begins4 *+$+ Technical =perations 3roupBs *A@ rogram provides a highly portable! rapidly deployableoverhead collection device that will provide a multi6role surveillance platorm to assist in (redacted- detection otargets. Another document reads4 This developmental program is designed to provide (redacted- in support o T=3(presumably the agency0s Technical =perations 3roup- investigations and operations. This surveillance solution canbe deployed during (multiple redactions- to support ongoing tactical operations. These heavily redacted documentsreveal almost no inormation about the nature o the $arshals0 drone program. :owever! the $arshals +ervicee2plained to the )os Angeles Times that they tested two small drones in


4/88

when using them or surveillance'e2cept in emergency situations7! and prohibit the domesticuse o armed drones. 8e believe this bill>and hopeully a uture companion bill in the +enate>will providea strong oundation or uture legislation protecting our privacy rights in the ace o prolierating drone surveillanceand government secrecy.

The c!rrent legal rame$or( is inade)!ate at conronting therivacy concerns osed *y drones

+oth!ss 201#'Ian 9 (3eorge $ason +chool o )aw-" +tudent Comment4 Anconomic erspective on the rivacy Implications o omestic rone +urveillance"1< J.). con. & olBy DD1" d7

Introduction A si2teen6hour standoF with police began ater a suspect too control o si2 cows that wandered on tohis arm and Kchased police oF his land with high powered riLes.K n1 8ithout the suspectBs nowledge! police useda redator drone to locate and apprehend him on his ;!

comment concludes that current law does not ade#uately protect privacy interests romthe widespread surveillance that could result rom the unrestricted domestic use odrones.art II discusses the sources o the right to privacy and e2amines the current state o the law. art IIIapplies an economic perspective to determine the optimal level o domestic drone surveillance that the law shouldallow. This analysis is based upon a general economic model o surveillance developed by Andrew +ong ollowingthe +eptember 11!


5/88


6/88

to observe daily movements o individuals and groups" and to observe data trends. olice departments lieNratton0s aim to use sophisticated technologies to do all three. They will use technologies lie license plate readers!which the lectronic 9rontier 9oundation ound to be disproportionately used in communities o color andcommunities in the process o being gentrifed. They will use acial recognition! biometric scanning sotware! whichthe 9NI has now rolled out as a national system! to be adopted by local police departments or any criminal ,usticepurpose. They intend to use body and dashboard cameras! which have been touted as an eFective step towardaccountability based on the results o one study! yet storage and archiving procedures! among many other issues!remain unclear. They will use +tingray cellphone interceptors. According to the AC)*! +tingray technology is aninvasive cellphone surveillance device that mimics cellphone towers and sends out signals to tric cellphones in thearea into transmitting their locations and identiying inormation. 8hen used to trac a suspect0s cellphone! theyalso gather inormation about the phones o countless bystanders who happen to be nearby. The same is true o

domestic drones! which are in increasing use by *.+. law enorcement to conductroutine aerial surveillance. 8hile drones are currently unarmed! drone manuacturersare considering arming these remote6controlled aircrat with weapons lie rubberbullets! tasers! and tear gas. They will use usion centers. =riginally designed to increase interagencycollaboration or the purposes o counterterrorism! these have instead become the local arm o the intelligencecommunity. According to lectronic 9rontier 9oundation! there are currently seventy6eight on record. They are theclearinghouse or increasingly used ?suspicious activity reports>described as ?oPcial documentation o observedbehavior reasonably indicative o pre6operational planning related to terrorism or other criminal activity. Thesereports and other collected data are oten stored in massive databases lie e6@eriy and rism. As anybody who0sever dealt with gang databases nows! it0s almost impossible to get oF a ederal or state database! even when the

data collected is incorrect or no longer true. redictive policing doesn0t ,ust lead to racial andreligious profling>it relies on it.Just as stop and ris legitimiGed an initial! unwarranted contactbetween police and people o color! almost S< percent o whom turn out to be innocent o any crime! suspiciousactivities reporting and the dragnet approach o usion centers target communitieso color. =ne review o such reports collected in )os Angeles shows appro2imately QE percent were o people ocolor. This is the uture o policing in America! and it should terriy you as much as it terrifes me. *nortunately! it

probably doesn0t! because my lie is at ar greater ris than the lives o white Americans !especially those reporting on the issue in the media or advocating in the halls o power. =ne o the most terriying

aspects o high6tech surveillance is the invisibility o those it disproportionately impacts.The %+A and 9NIhave engaged local law enorcement agencies and electronic surveillancetechnologies to spy on $uslims living in the *nited +tates. According to 9NI training materialsuncovered by 8ired in This is not a broen system! it is a system woring perectly as intended!to the detriment o all.The %+A could not have spied on millions o cellphones i it were not already spying on blac people! $uslims! andmigrants. As surveillance technologies are increasingly adopted and integrated by law enorcement agencies today!

racial disparities are being made invisible by a media environment that has ailed totell the story o surveillance in the conte2t o structural racism.


7/88

,nly reg!lation o domestic drones can revent $arare on

citi-ens and *olster the ind!stry

Ahsan!ddin et al 201#'+adia 6 principal investigator or the report and $ACresearch ellow" omestic rones4 Implications or rivacy and ue rocess in the*nited +tates" +ep R" www.mpac.org5publications5policy6papers5domestic6

drones.php" d7

rones also impact due process rights. rones areperhaps best nown or the role they play inconducting signature striesagainst suspected militants abroad. 8ill civilians on American soil ever besub,ected to drone attacsU +hould civilians ear the weaponiGation o drones or their use indelivering lethal payloadsUAlthough the 9ith and 9ourteenth Amendmentsassure individualso the right to due process beore the deprivation o lie! liberty! or property! these rights have alreadybegun to erode due to the global war on terror and the use o drones to conductsignature stries by virtue o e2ecutive decisions that are devoid o ,udicial review..ith the mass introd!ction o domestic drones! there remains a threat andreal ear that drones may be used to deprive individuals o lie! liberty! or property

with no opportunity to dispute the charges brought against them. Americans o allethnicities and creeds are liely to be aFected by the domestic deployment o drones. American $uslims have aspecial contribution to mae to this discussion. :aving been sub,ected to special lawenorcement attention and scrutiny!American $uslims fnd themselves particularlysusceptible to inractions o civil liberties. As representatives o the American $uslim population andwith the e2pertise to ground our analysis! the $uslim ublic AFairs Council '$AC7 proposes the ollowing guidelinesto address the issues o law enorcement use o drones! data collection! weaponiGation o drones! due process!oversight! and transparency4 V )aw enorcement use o drones should be restricted. V ata collection should bestrictly monitored. V The 9AA should re#uire! not merely recommend! that test sites incorporate the 9air Inormationrinciples into their privacy policies. V The weaponiGation o drones should be prohibited. V The right to due processshould be preserved. V +tates and individuals should have the ability to bring a cause o action against an entitythat! in operating a drone! violates their rights. V rone deployment by ederal agents must be sub,ected toCongressional oversight and local public drone use should be sub,ected to local city council oversight. V The generalpublic should be engaged in the development o policy guidelines by a public body intending to operate drones. V In

eeping with the principle o transparency! the 9AA should mae available to the public the names o droneapplicants! the holders o Certifcates o AuthoriGation! other licensees! and privacy policies o drone6operating

agencies. Ade#uate protection o privacy is necessary to allow the public to taeadvantage o drone technology without becoming a society in which everymovement is monitored by the authorities. +imultaneously! drone developers needregulations so that they can conduct research and development unimpeded byprotests and news reports. Additionally! the weaponiGation o drones on domestic soil poses a threat todue process rights and public saety. This was acnowledged by +en. ianne 9einstein! who called or a totalprohibition on the weaponiGation o domestic drones.1; Indeed! politicians and policymaers representing a broadspectrum o political views advocate regulations or domestic drones.

Domestic drones $ill *ecome $eaoni-ed osing !ni)!e ris(s

to civil li*erties

%reen$ald 201&'3lenn (ormer columnist on civil liberties and *+ nationalsecurity issues or the 3uardian. An e26constitutional lawyer-" The *+ %eeds To8ae *p To Threat = omestic rones" $ar ;


8/88

AC)* 6 while accepting that domestic drones are inevitable 6 have been devoting increasing eForts to publiciGing

their uni#ue dangers and agitating or statutory limits.These eForts are being impeded by thosewho moc the idea that domestic drones pose uni#ue dangers 'oten the same people whomoc concern over their usage on oreign soil7.This dismissive posture is grounded not only insot authoritarianism'a religious6type aith in the 3oodness o *+ political leaders and state powergenerally7 but also ignorance over current drone capabilities! the ways drones are nowbeing developed and mareted or domestic use! and the activities o theincreasingly powerul domestic drone lobby.+o itBs #uite worthwhile to lay out the ey under6discussed acts shaping this issue. IBm going to ocus here most on domestic surveillance drones! but I want to say a

ew words about weaponiGed drones.The belie that weaponiGed drones wonBt be used on *+soil is patently irrational.= course they will be. ItBs not ,ust liely but inevitable . olicedepartments are already speaing openly about how their drones Kcould be e#uipped tocarry nonlethal weapons such as Tasers or a bean6bag gun.KThe drone industry has alreadydeveloped and is now aggressively mareting precisely such weaponiGed drones ordomestic law enorcement use.It liely wonBt bein the orm that has received the most mediaattention4 the type o large redator or /eaper drones that shoot :ellfre missiles which destroy homesand cars in aistan! emen! +omalia! Aghanistan and multiple other countries aimed at $uslims 'although *+ lawenorcement agencies already possess redator drones and have used them over *+ soil or surveillance7. Instead!as I detailed in a


9/88

policing. It would be shocing i these weapons were not imminently used by domestic law enorcement agencies.In contrast to weaponiGed drones! even the most naXve among us do not doubt the imminent prolieration odomestic surveillance drones. 8ith little debate! they have already arrived. As the AC)* put it in their recent report4

K*+ law enorcement is greatly e2panding its use o domestic drones orsurveillance.K An )A Times article rom last month reported that Kederal authorities have steppedup eForts to license surveillance drones or law enorcement and other uses in *+

airspaceK and that Kthe 9ederal Aviation Administration said 9riday it had issued 1!DR permits to domestic droneoperators since

named ater the Kmythical 3ree creature whose unblining eyes turned to stone those who beheld themK.Thatdrone surveillance system is Kable to scan an area the siGe o a small townK and Kthemost sophisticated robotics use artifcial intelligence that (can- see out and recordcertain inds o suspicious activityK. Noasted one *+ 3eneral4 K3orgon +tare will be looing at a wholecity! so there will be no way or the adversary to now what weBre looing at! and we can see everything.K The %+Aalready maintains ubi#uitous surveillance o electronic communications! but the +urveillance +tate aces seriouslimits on its ability to replicate that or physical surveillance. rones easily overcome those barriers. As the AC)*report put it4 IBve spoen previously about why a ubi#uitous +urveillance +tate ushers in uni#ue and deeply harmuleFects on human behavior and a nationBs political culture and wonBt repeat that here 'hereBs the video 'alsoembedded below7 and the transcript o one speech where I ocus on how that wors7. +uPce to say! as the AC)*e2plains in its domestic drone report4 Kroutine aerial surveillance would prooundly change the character o publiclie in AmericaK because only drone technology enables such omnipresent physical surveillance. Neyond that! thetiny siGe o surveillance drones enables them to reach places that helicopters obviously cannot! and to do sowithout detection. They can remain in the sy! hovering over a single place! or up to < hours! a duration that is

always increasing 6 obviously ar more than manned helicopters can achieve. As A@Bs own report put it 'see page117! their hovering capability also means they can surveil a single spot or much longer than many militarysatellites! most o which move with the earthBs rotation 'the ew satellites that remain f2ed Koperate nearly E!


10/88

some limits. =ne bill now pending in Congress would prohibit the use o surveillance drones on *+ soil in the

absence o a specifc search warrant! and has bipartisan support. =nly the most authoritarian amongus will be incapable o understanding the multiple dangers posed by a domesticdrone regime'particularly when their party is in control o the government and they are incapable operceiving threats rom increased state police power7. Nut the prolieration o domestic dronesaFords a real opportunity to orge an enduring coalition in deense o core privacyand other rights that transcends partisan allegiance! by woring toward meaningul limits ontheir use. $aing people aware o e2actly what these uni#ue threats are rom adomestic drone regime is the ey frst step in constructing that coalition.

Anonymity is a vital comonent o American democracy $hich

is !ndermined *y drones" !shering in a totalitarian state

/!ro$ 201&'$atthew ) (Candidate or J Z %ew ngland +chool o )aw-" The+entinel Clouds above the %ameless Crowd4 rosecuting Anonymity rom omesticrones" ;S %ew ng. J. on Crim. & Civ. Confnement DD;" d7

8aling down the street. riving a car. +itting on a par bench. Ny themselves! these actions do not e2hibit an iotao privacy. The individual has no intention to conceal their movements" no confdentiality in their purpose. Theindividual is in the open! en,oying a #uiet day or a peaceul +unday drive. et as Chie Justice /ehn#uist

commented! there is uneasiness i an individual suspected that these innocuous andbenign movements were being recorded and scrutiniGed or uture reerence.11S Ithe KuneasyK reaction to which the Chie Justice reerred is not based on a sense oprivacy invasion! it stems rom something very close to it6a sense that one has aright to public anonymity. 1< Anonymity is the state o *eing !nnamed' 11Theright to public anonymity is the assurance that!when in public! one is unremared andpart o the undiFerentiated crowd as ar as the government is concerned. 1 That rightis usually surrendered only when one does or says something that merits government attention! which most oten

includes criminal activity. 1; Nut when that attention is gained by surreptitiously operated*A+s that are becoming more aFordable or local law enorcement agencies! 1D Kit

evades the ordinary checs that constrain abusive law enorcement practices ... 4Blimited police resources and community hostility.KB 1 E This association o public anonymity and privacy is not new.1M rivacy e2pert and Columbia *niversity )aw proessor Alan 9. 8estin points out that Kanonymity (- occurs whenthe individual is in public places or perorming public acts but still sees! and fnds! reedom rom identifcation andsurveillance.K 1Q 8estin continued by stating that4 (A person- may be riding a subway! attending a ball game! orwaling the streets" he is among people and nows that he is being observed" but unless he is a well6nowncelebrity! he does not e2pect to be personally identifed and held to the ull rules o behavior and role that wouldoperate i he were nown to those observing him. In this state the individual is able to merge into the Ksituationallandscape.K 1R 8hile most people would share the intuition o Chie Justice /ehn#uist and proessor 8estin that

we e2pect some degree o anonymity in public! there is no such right to be ound in the Constitution. Thereore !with a potentially handcuFed ,udiciary! the protection o anonymity alls to thelegislature. Nased on current trends in technology and a een interest taen by lawenorcement in the advancement o *A+ integration into national airspace! it is

clear that drones pose a looming threat to AmericansB anonymity . 1S ven when *A+s areauthoriGed or noble uses such as search and rescue missions! fghting wildfres! and assisting in dangerous tacticalpolice operations! *A+s are liely to be #uicly embraced by law enorcement or morecontroversial purposes. 1;< 8hat ollows are compelling interdisciplinary reasons why the legislatureshould tae up the call to protect the subspecies o privacy that is anonymity. A. hilosophic4 The anopticon :armNetween 1QRS and 1R1! the anopticon prison was the central obsession o the renowned nglish philosopherJeremy NenthamBs lie. 1;1 The anopticon is a circular building with cells occupying the circumerence and theguard tower standing in the center. 1; Ny using blinds to obscure the guards located in the tower! Kthe eeper (is-concealed rom the observation o the prisoners ... the sentiment o an invisible omnipresence.KB1;; The eFect osuch architectural brilliance is simple4 the lone act that there might be a guard watching is enough to eep the


11/88


12/88


13/88

PlanThe United tates ederal government sho!ld re)!ire la$

enorcement agents to receive a ro*a*le ca!se $arrant rior

cond!cting aerial s!rveillance'


14/88

Contention 2 olvencyThe lan is the only $ay to *alance rivacy and sec!rity

concerns

+oth!ss 201#'Ian 9 (3eorge $ason +chool o )aw-" +tudent Comment4 An

conomic erspective on the rivacy Implications o omestic rone +urveillance"1< J.). con. & olBy DD1" d7

I@. )egislative and olicy /ecommendations This section discusses the current policy and legislativerecommendations regarding drone surveillance and applies economic analysis to recommend an optimal way

orward. eveloping new laws and policies to address the privacy threats presented bydomestic drone surveillance will involve the diPcult balancing o many specialinterests and the individual privacy rights o *.+. citiGens. n1DQ Thereore! in drating a legalramewor or domestic drone surveillance! Congress should consider economic actors andestablish a ramewor which allows the use o drones with constraints to protect theprivacy interests o *.+. citiGens. As an ob,ective methodology! these economic perspectivesshould lead lawmaers and policymaers to enact rules that will ePciently

ma2imiGe utility while protecting privacy interests. The new ramewor should address theprivacy concerns arising out o the domestic use o drones! while still allowing society to realiGe the technologicalbenefts. Congress must consider many actors when determining how to bestintegrate drones into *.+. airspace. n1DR In addition! the proposed policies should be compared withthe policies in countries such as the *nited Yingdom! where general surveillance is more commonplace. n1DS In July


15/88

rules can overdeter criminal investigations. n1MD Thereore! unless a compelling case can be made as to why it isnecessary! it would be more ePcient not to include an e2clusionary rule in the legislation. Another consideration iswhether drones operating in the *nited +tates should be allowed to carry weapons lie drones operating overseaswhich (ODM


16/88

ade#uately address the duration o the sur6veillance or the sophistication o thetechnology used by law enorcement to enhance drone capabilities . Thereore! by re#uir6ing a warrant and restricting law enorcement rom conducting drone surveillance or a period lasting longer thantwenty6our hours! the proposed legislation will best address the issues let open by 9ourth Amendment

,urisprudence. (OQ


17/88


18/88

things! and there are many actors behind its rise!K he wrote. KNut they came to be a threat and a power lessbecause o all we didnBt do than because o certain things we did do6oremost among them that massive! orwardintervention! the Ira# 8ar. 'The historical #uestion to which I+I+ is the answer is4 8hat could possibly be worse than

+addam :usseinU7K;1 %ow! once again6and this time as compared to S I 11! when the public was so ill6served with alarmist inormation about the e2tent o the terrorist threat6thepresident was presumably in possession o that vast trove o intelligence data

collected by the %+A and analyGed with the brilliant sotware o the best +ilicon@alley datamining companiessuch as the media6celebrated alantir. And yet there is no evidence thatthis costly and intrusive eFort was the least bit useul in predicting the rise o I+I+. Clearly! there is adisturbing disconnect between the Geal with which big data is collected and the laco scientifc precision in utiliGing that data to mae sound policy decisions and toinorm the public as to the necessity o action . It is also diPcult to see ,ust how that data! based asit is on the minutiae o the lives o much o the worldBs population! is useul to an understanding o this threat. Thisboo e2plains the continued rise o a military6intelligence comple2 that! through the assertion o a pressing dangerto national security ater S I 11! made an unettered and largely unchallenged claim upon the vast amount oprivate data collected in a wired world by government and private enterprises. It is a claim based on theun#uestioned assumption that what passes or military intelligence is suPciently and uni#uely productive o useulinsight to warrant the costs to our democracy as well as our ederal budget! and that less invasive means oresearch such as scholarship! ,ournalism! and traditional shoe6leather spy and detective wor are inherently

inade#uate to the tas o protecting us in a cyberworld. It is a commonly persuasive argument and diPcult tochallenge given that the high6tech surveillance is cloaed in such tight secrecy. In the wae o the +nowdenrevelations! when there was a much6heightened public awareness o the threat to privacy and a willingness! even

on the part o Congress! to address the issue more vigorously! all it too was the appearance o arenewed terrorist threat to develop anew a consensus that privacy needed to besurrendered as an unaFordable ris to the nationBs security. Just the opposite is the case.8hat now passes or military intelligence is a tech 6driven o2ymoron that denies the place o historicalcontemplation! cultural and religious study! political comple2ity! and ethical restraints in assessing dangers to a

nation. %ever has our nationBs oreign policy been so poorly served as in the era othe Internet! with its enormous potential to enlighten us" but the collusions o war6mongering anatics and profteers are beyond the comprehension o even the mostpowerul machines. They must not be beyond the purview o public awareness! however. A ullyinormed public is the best saeguard against the haGardous oreign entanglementsthat our ounders warned were the main threat to the health o the republic. That iswhy they enshrined the constitutional protections against unbridled government power they believed would subvertthe American e2periment in representative governance. 8e must heed the wisdom o the 99Bs senior attorney )eeTien! who as much as any constitutional lawyer has battled on behal o those rights. As he summed up in aninterview4 K8e need to f2 the national security classifcation system that has classifed so much inormation that wedonBt now whatBs going on. ItBs hard to now what we should do! but we should all agree that nowing whatBshappening is the frst step. ItBs dangerous to propose a solution when you donBt now what the e2tent o theproblem is. I you ased me beore the +nowden revelations! my answer would be diFerent. There are no personalsolutions to this" there is nothing we can do individually.K KThis is a systemic problem!K he continued. KItBs aninstitutional problem! itBs a political problem. There can only be collective action. ThatBs it. That means we need to

call on all o them6individuals! Internet companies! politicians! the government6to f2 it! and we need to organiGe.ou canBt have a democracy i you donBt have suPcient inormation. 8eBre fghtingor the soul o this democracy.K

Transarency in data collection is cr!cial

cheer 2015 '/obert (ro Z *+C0s +chool o ,ournalism and communication-"They Ynow verything About ou" %ation Noos" p. 1EQ6R" d7

=*/ 3=@/%$%T! )IY =T:/+ T:/=*3:=*T history! tells us that repressive! invasive! andparanoid national security policies are or our own good ! especially in terms o our saety. etwhere do the prerogatives o a surveillance state driven by ear and governed bysecrecy really tae usU The reality is that these proceduresnot only are unconstitutional but


19/88

all too oten lead to bad government policies! both at home and abroad. =ne needonly review the invasion o Ira# to see the olly o toppling a regime that was animplacable enemy o al Waeda6an invasion driven by a ear o weapons o mass destruction that reeaccess to the available data would have discounted.The direct result! billions o dollars andhundreds o thousands o deaths later! is a ractured Ira# that!at the time o this writing a

decade later! seems to be in a constant state o bloody division. =r as veteran correspondentatric Cocburn summariGed in the )ondon /eview o Noos in


20/88

There is a tendency on the part o security policy advocates to hype security threatsto obtain support or their desired policy outcomes. They are ree to do so in a democratic society! andmost come by their advocacy through genuine conviction that a real security threat is receiving insuPcient attention. Nut thereis now enough evidence o how such advocacy has been distorted or the purposeo overcoming political opposition to policies stemming rom ideology that careul

public e2posure and e2amination o data on claimed threats should be part o anysuch debate. *ntil this happens! the most appropriate attitude toward claimed threats o nuclearterrorism! especially when accompanied by advocacy o policies intruding on individual reedom! should be one osepticism. Interestingly! while all this attention to nuclear terrorism goes on! the *nited +tates and other nuclear nationshave no problem promoting the use o nuclear power and national nuclear programs 'only or riends! o course7 that end upcreating more nuclear materials that can be used or weapons. The use o civilian nuclear programs to disguise national weaponambitions has been a hallmar o prolieration history ever since the Atoms or eace program '+oolsi!


21/88

1AC /ig tic(


22/88

Contention 1 PrivacyThe ederal government is raming ! its !se o drones or

domestic s!rveillance" this harms the #thamendment in

!nrecedented $ays

%ilens 201&'%aomi (AC)* +peech! rivacy and Technology ro,ect-" %ewocuments /eveal *.+. $arshals0 rones 2periment! *nderscoring %eed or3overnment Transparency" https455www.aclu.org5blog5new6documents6reveal6us6marshals6drones6e2periment6underscoring6need6government6transparency" d7

The use o surveillance drones is growing rapidly in the *nited +tates! but we nowlittle about how the ederal government employs this new technology. %ow! newinormation obtained by the AC)* shows or the frst time that the *.+. $arshals +ervice hase2perimented with using drones or domestic s!rveillance' 8e learned this throughdocuments we released today! received in response to a 9reedom o Inormation Act re#uest. The documents areavailable here. '8e also released a short log o drone accidents rom the 9ederal Aviation Administration as well asaccident reports and other documents rom the *.+. Air 9orce.7 This revelation comes a wee ater a bipartisan billto protect Americans0 privacy rom domestic drones was introduced in the :ouse. Although the $arshals +ervicetold us it ound ;< pages about its drones program in response to our 9=IA re#uest! it turned over only two o thosepages>and even they were heavily redacted. :ere0s what we now rom the two short paragraphs o te2t we wereable to see. *nder a header entitled ?*nmanned Aerial @ehicle! $an6ortable '*A@7 rogram! an agency documentoverview begins4 *+$+ Technical =perations 3roupBs *A@ rogram provides a highly portable! rapidly deployableoverhead collection device that will provide a multi6role surveillance platorm to assist in (redacted- detection otargets. Another document reads4 This developmental program is designed to provide (redacted- in support o T=3(presumably the agency0s Technical =perations 3roup- investigations and operations. This surveillance solution canbe deployed during (multiple redactions- to support ongoing tactical operations. These heavily redacted documentsreveal almost no inormation about the nature o the $arshals0 drone program. :owever! the $arshals +ervicee2plained to the )os Angeles Times that they tested two small drones in


23/88


24/88

enorcement locate suspects! monitoring traPc! crop dusting! aerial mapping! media coverage! and many others.

n< (ODDD- rones represent an unprecedented convergence o surveillancetechnologies that could lead to increased security but could also ,eopardiGe theprivacy o *.+. citiGens. rones may be e#uipped with a variety o technologies including high6resolutioncameras! n1 ace6recognition technology! n video6recording capability! n; heat sensors! nD radar systems!nE night vision! nM inrared sensors! nQ thermal6imaging cameras! nR 8i69i and communications interception

devices! nS 3+! n;< license6plate scanners! n;1 and other systems designed to aid in surveillance. roneswill soon be able to recogniGe aces and trac the movement o sub,ects with onlyminimal visual6image data (ODDE- obtained rom aerial surveillance. n; rones have the abilityto brea into wireless networs! monitor cell6phone calls! and monitor entire townswhile Lying at high altitude. n;;These rapid technological advancements presentprivacy challenges that were not contemplated when our e2isting laws weredeveloped.

Anonymity is a vital comonent o American democracy $hich

is !ndermined *y drones" !shering in a totalitarian state

/!ro$ 201&'$atthew ) (Candidate or J Z %ew ngland +chool o )aw-" The

+entinel Clouds above the %ameless Crowd4 rosecuting Anonymity rom omesticrones" ;S %ew ng. J. on Crim. & Civ. Confnement DD;" d7

8aling down the street. riving a car. +itting on a par bench. Ny themselves! these actions do not e2hibit an iotao privacy. The individual has no intention to conceal their movements" no confdentiality in their purpose. Theindividual is in the open! en,oying a #uiet day or a peaceul +unday drive. et as Chie Justice /ehn#uist

commented! there is uneasiness i an individual suspected that these innocuous andbenign movements were being recorded and scrutiniGed or uture reerence.11S Ithe KuneasyK reaction to which the Chie Justice reerred is not based on a sense oprivacy invasion! it stems rom something very close to it6a sense that one has aright to public anonymity. 1< Anonymity is the state o *eing !nnamed' 11Theright to public anonymity is the assurance that!when in public! one is unremared and

part o the undiFerentiated crowd as ar as the government is concerned. 1 That right

is usually surrendered only when one does or says something that merits government attention! which most oten

includes criminal activity. 1; Nut when that attention is gained by surreptitiously operated*A+s that are becoming more aFordable or local law enorcement agencies! 1D Kitevades the ordinary checs that constrain abusive law enorcement practices ... 4Blimited police resources and community hostility.KB 1 E This association o public anonymity and privacy is not new.1M rivacy e2pert and Columbia *niversity )aw proessor Alan 9. 8estin points out that Kanonymity (- occurs whenthe individual is in public places or perorming public acts but still sees! and fnds! reedom rom identifcation andsurveillance.K 1Q 8estin continued by stating that4 (A person- may be riding a subway! attending a ball game! orwaling the streets" he is among people and nows that he is being observed" but unless he is a well6nowncelebrity! he does not e2pect to be personally identifed and held to the ull rules o behavior and role that wouldoperate i he were nown to those observing him. In this state the individual is able to merge into the Ksituationallandscape.K 1R 8hile most people would share the intuition o Chie Justice /ehn#uist and proessor 8estin that

we e2pect some degree o anonymity in public! there is no such right to be ound in the Constitution. Thereore !

with a potentially handcuFed ,udiciary! the protection o anonymity alls to thelegislature. Nased on current trends in technology and a een interest taen by lawenorcement in the advancement o *A+ integration into national airspace! it isclear that drones pose a looming threat to AmericansB anonymity . 1S ven when *A+s areauthoriGed or noble uses such as search and rescue missions! fghting wildfres! and assisting in dangerous tactical

police operations! *A+s are liely to be #uicly embraced by law enorcement or morecontroversial purposes. 1;< 8hat ollows are compelling interdisciplinary reasons why the legislatureshould tae up the call to protect the subspecies o privacy that is anonymity. A. hilosophic4 The anopticon :armNetween 1QRS and 1R1! the anopticon prison was the central obsession o the renowned nglish philosopher


25/88

Jeremy NenthamBs lie. 1;1 The anopticon is a circular building with cells occupying the circumerence and theguard tower standing in the center. 1; Ny using blinds to obscure the guards located in the tower! Kthe eeper (is-concealed rom the observation o the prisoners ... the sentiment o an invisible omnipresence.KB1;; The eFect osuch architectural brilliance is simple4 the lone act that there might be a guard watching is enough to eep theprisoners on their best behavior. 1;D As the twentieth6century 9rench philosopher $ichel 9oucault observed! thema,or eFect o the anopticon is Kto induce in the inmate a state o conscious and permanent visibility that assures

the automatic unctioning o power.KB1;E In NenthamBs vision! there is no need or prison bars!

chains or heavy locs" the person who is sub,ected to the feld o visibility o theomnipresent guard plays both roles and he becomes the sub,ect o his ownsub,ection. 1;M 9or 9oucault! this KpanopticismK was not necessarily bad when compared to other methods oe2ercising control as this sort o Ksubtle coercionK could lead people to be more productive and ePcient members o

society. 1;Q 9ollowing 9oucaultBs reasoning! an omnipresent *A+ circling above a city may besimilar to a anopticon guard tower and an eFective way o eeping the peace.Themere thought o detection may eep streets saer and potential criminals at bay.:owever" the imact on cherished democratic ideals may *e too severe' 9ore2ample! in a case regarding the constitutionally vague city ordinance that prohibited Knightwaling!K Justiceouglas commented on the importance o public vitality and locomotion in America4 The diPculty is that (walingand strolling- are historically part o the amenities o lie as we have nown them. They are not mentioned in theConstitution or in the Nill o /ights. These unwritten amenities have been in part responsible or giving our peoplethe eeling o independence and sel6confdence! the eeling o creativity. These amenities have dignifed the right o

dissent and have honored the right to be nonconormists and the right to dey submissiveness. They haveencouraged lives o high spirits rather than hushed! suFocating silence. 1;R As Justice ouglas understood!

government surveillance stiLes the cherished ideal o an American society thatthrives on ree6spiritedness in public.;S 8ithout the right to wal the streets inpublic! ree rom the ear o high surveillance! o!r American val!es $o!lddissiate into that resem*ling a totalitarian state that attacs the idea oprivacy as immoral! antisocial and part o the dissident cult o individualism. 1D or whether it was armed. Armed or not! *.+. oPcials arewary. ?%o one is turning a blind eye to the growing use o surveillance6only *A@ systems > including by non6state actors > even i

these systems have a host o benefcial civil applications! said the oPcial who spoe with The Times. ?=ne problem isthat countries may perceive these systems as less provocative than armedplatorms and might use them in cross6border operations in a $ay that actuallysto(es regional tension.That aears to *e haening in Asia! where Japanrecently threatened to shoot down Chinese drones Lying near the disputed +enauIslands in the ast China +ea. %ortheast Asian countries are liely to invest heavilyin drone technology! saidatric $. Cronin ! senior director o the Asia6acifc +ecurityrogram at the Center or a %ew American +ecurity in 8ashington. ?Nut even beore theseinvestments are maniested in wider deployments! Japan will be relying on *A@s or wider and better surveillance! particularlyaround its southwest island chain! while China will be using them to variably challenge Japanese administrative control and!indirectly! pressure the *nited +tates to restrain its ally! said $r. Cronin. ?This vital new technology is improving situational

awareness. Nut! parado2ically! i !sed more ofensivelythe same tech nology may alsoaccelerate a maritime crisis in the 7ast or even o!th China ea'6 *.+.precedents =thers say the *.+. and its closest allies have set a precedent with clandestine drone stries in oreign lands. AlthoughNritish orces have carried out hundreds o drone stries in Aghanistan and Israel has used drone6fred missiles to ill suspectedterrorists in gypt0s +inai eninsula! as well as Islamic militants in 3aGa! the most widespread use has been directed by the *.+.military and CIA. In addition to stries in )ibya and +omalia! the *.+. has carried out more than ;QE stries in aistan and as manyas ME in emen over the past nine years! according to the )ondon6based Nureau o Investigative Journalism. The concern! said the

Nrooings Institution0s $r. +inger! is that adversaries will oint to U'' *ehavior as an e2cuse orcarrying out cross6border targeting o ?high6value individuals. ?That0s where youhave the problem! he said. ?Turey carries out a strie in northern Ira# and then cites *.+. precedent in aistan to ,ustiyit. =r Iran carries out a drone strie inside +yria that the +yrian government says it0s fne with because it0s a lawless area where

what they call _terrorists0 are hanging out! and then they thro$ the recedent *ac( at the U''

?That would mae it sticy or us! said$r. +inger. ?That0s not thebroader norm $e

$ant o!t there'6

,nly reg!lation o domestic drones can revent $arare on

citi-ens and *olster the ind!stry

Ahsan!ddin et al 201#'+adia 6 principal investigator or the report and $ACresearch ellow" omestic rones4 Implications or rivacy and ue rocess in the*nited +tates" +ep R" www.mpac.org5publications5policy6papers5domestic6drones.php" d7

rones also impact due process rights. rones areperhaps best nown or the role they play in

conducting signature striesagainst suspected militants abroad. 8ill civilians on American soil ever besub,ected to drone attacsU +hould civilians ear the weaponiGation o drones or their use indelivering lethal payloadsUAlthough the 9ith and 9ourteenth Amendmentsassure individualso the right to due process beore the deprivation o lie! liberty! or property! these rights have alreadybegun to erode due to the global war on terror and the use o drones to conductsignature stries by virtue o e2ecutive decisions that are devoid o ,udicial review..ith the mass introd!ction o domestic drones! there remains a threat andreal ear that drones may be used to deprive individuals o lie! liberty! or property


39/88


40/88

PlanThe United tates ederal government sho!ld re)!ire la$

enorcement agents to receive a ro*a*le ca!se $arrant rior

cond!cting aerial s!rveillance'


41/88

Contention 2 olvencyThe lan is the only $ay to *alance rivacy and sec!rity

concerns

+oth!ss 201#'Ian 9 (3eorge $ason +chool o )aw-" +tudent Comment4 An

conomic erspective on the rivacy Implications o omestic rone +urveillance"1< J.). con. & olBy DD1" d7

I@. )egislative and olicy /ecommendations This section discusses the current policy and legislativerecommendations regarding drone surveillance and applies economic analysis to recommend an optimal way

orward. eveloping new laws and policies to address the privacy threats presented bydomestic drone surveillance will involve the diPcult balancing o many specialinterests and the individual privacy rights o *.+. citiGens. n1DQ Thereore! in drating a legalramewor or domestic drone surveillance! Congress should consider economic actors andestablish a ramewor which allows the use o drones with constraints to protect theprivacy interests o *.+. citiGens. As an ob,ective methodology! these economic perspectivesshould lead lawmaers and policymaers to enact rules that will ePciently

ma2imiGe utility while protecting privacy interests. The new ramewor should address theprivacy concerns arising out o the domestic use o drones! while still allowing society to realiGe the technologicalbenefts. Congress must consider many actors when determining how to bestintegrate drones into *.+. airspace. n1DR In addition! the proposed policies should be compared withthe policies in countries such as the *nited Yingdom! where general surveillance is more commonplace. n1DS In July


42/88


43/88

ade#uately address the duration o the sur6veillance or the sophistication o thetechnology used by law enorcement to enhance drone capabilities . Thereore! by re#uir6ing a warrant and restricting law enorcement rom conducting drone surveillance or a period lasting longer thantwenty6our hours! the proposed legislation will best address the issues let open by 9ourth Amendment

,urisprudence. (OQ


44/88


45/88

things! and there are many actors behind its rise!K he wrote. KNut they came to be a threat and a power lessbecause o all we didnBt do than because o certain things we did do6oremost among them that massive! orwardintervention! the Ira# 8ar. 'The historical #uestion to which I+I+ is the answer is4 8hat could possibly be worse than

+addam :usseinU7K;1 %ow! once again6and this time as compared to S I 11! when the public was so ill6served with alarmist inormation about the e2tent o the terrorist threat6thepresident was presumably in possession o that vast trove o intelligence data

collected by the %+A and analyGed with the brilliant sotware o the best +ilicon@alley datamining companiessuch as the media6celebrated alantir. And yet there is no evidence thatthis costly and intrusive eFort was the least bit useul in predicting the rise o I+I+. Clearly! there is adisturbing disconnect between the Geal with which big data is collected and the laco scientifc precision in utiliGing that data to mae sound policy decisions and toinorm the public as to the necessity o action . It is also diPcult to see ,ust how that data! based asit is on the minutiae o the lives o much o the worldBs population! is useul to an understanding o this threat. Thisboo e2plains the continued rise o a military6intelligence comple2 that! through the assertion o a pressing dangerto national security ater S I 11! made an unettered and largely unchallenged claim upon the vast amount oprivate data collected in a wired world by government and private enterprises. It is a claim based on theun#uestioned assumption that what passes or military intelligence is suPciently and uni#uely productive o useulinsight to warrant the costs to our democracy as well as our ederal budget! and that less invasive means oresearch such as scholarship! ,ournalism! and traditional shoe6leather spy and detective wor are inherently

inade#uate to the tas o protecting us in a cyberworld. It is a commonly persuasive argument and diPcult tochallenge given that the high6tech surveillance is cloaed in such tight secrecy. In the wae o the +nowdenrevelations! when there was a much6heightened public awareness o the threat to privacy and a willingness! even

on the part o Congress! to address the issue more vigorously! all it too was the appearance o arenewed terrorist threat to develop anew a consensus that privacy needed to besurrendered as an unaFordable ris to the nationBs security. Just the opposite is the case.8hat now passes or military intelligence is a tech 6driven o2ymoron that denies the place o historicalcontemplation! cultural and religious study! political comple2ity! and ethical restraints in assessing dangers to a

nation. %ever has our nationBs oreign policy been so poorly served as in the era othe Internet! with its enormous potential to enlighten us" but the collusions o war6mongering anatics and profteers are beyond the comprehension o even the mostpowerul machines. They must not be beyond the purview o public awareness! however. A ullyinormed public is the best saeguard against the haGardous oreign entanglementsthat our ounders warned were the main threat to the health o the republic. That iswhy they enshrined the constitutional protections against unbridled government power they believed would subvertthe American e2periment in representative governance. 8e must heed the wisdom o the 99Bs senior attorney )eeTien! who as much as any constitutional lawyer has battled on behal o those rights. As he summed up in aninterview4 K8e need to f2 the national security classifcation system that has classifed so much inormation that wedonBt now whatBs going on. ItBs hard to now what we should do! but we should all agree that nowing whatBshappening is the frst step. ItBs dangerous to propose a solution when you donBt now what the e2tent o theproblem is. I you ased me beore the +nowden revelations! my answer would be diFerent. There are no personalsolutions to this" there is nothing we can do individually.K KThis is a systemic problem!K he continued. KItBs aninstitutional problem! itBs a political problem. There can only be collective action. ThatBs it. That means we need to

call on all o them6individuals! Internet companies! politicians! the government6to f2 it! and we need to organiGe.ou canBt have a democracy i you donBt have suPcient inormation. 8eBre fghtingor the soul o this democracy.K


46/88


47/88


48/88


49/88


50/88

Privacy Advantage


51/88


52/88

AT = yo! have nothing to hideThe idea that only those $ith something to hide sho!ld $orry

triviali-es the imortance o rivacy concerns

cheer 2015 '/obert (ro Z *+C0s +chool o ,ournalism and communication-"

They Ynow verything About ou" %ation Noos" p. R16R" d7An even darer deense o the end6o6privacy doctrine had been oFered a month earlier by 3oogleBs ric

+chmidt! who impugned the innocence o consumers who worry about snooping by 3oogle and othercompanies. KI you have something that you donBt want anyone to now! maybe youshouldnBt be doing it in the frst place!K +chmidt stated in an interview or a ecember


53/88


54/88


55/88

Drones Advantage


56/88


57/88


58/88


59/88


60/88

that category already! hounding them with the threat o arrest or otherwise creating a sense o alienation can bacfre. In the past!amily and community members have at times been successul in steering returned fghters toward a diFerent path! even gettingthem to inorm on their ormer comrades. Indeed! sending returnees to ,ail or relatively minor crimes such as going abroad to fghtwith a oreign terrorist organiGation against a distant enemy may simply put them in prison or a ew years and e2pose them to theradicaliGing elements present in many uropean prisons! where many minor players become e2posed to hardened ,ihadists andintegrate into broader networs. esired /esults4 V Arrested and ,ailed. V e6radicaliGed and reintegrated. V %o desire to attac athome. lot To disrupt oreign fghters in the fth and fnal stage o plotting terrorist attacs! security services must remain ocusedon the returnee problem and have suPcient resources to monitor the problem as it emerges in their countries. The good news isthat going to +yria and Ira# and returning home usually does bring one to the attention the security services. Nut maintaining

vigilance as the numbers increase will be diPcult purely or reasons o resources. $arc :ecer! a 9rench e2pert on terrorism!commented that 9rance could handle the ?doGens who returned rom Ira# but would be over6whelmed by the ?hundreds who maycome bac rom +yria. Yeeping trac o that many suspects! is e2ceptionally resource intensive! particularly i it involves ull6timesurveillance. 9or intelligence services! oten the problem is not in accessing or gathering the data! but in processing! analyGing! andollowing up on it in a timely manner. At the same time! their own eFectiveness can wor against them4 by reducing the problemconsiderably! they decrease the danger! thereby creating the impression that they need ewer resources. =ne way to mitigate thiseFect is or security services to spread the burden o responsibility around by training and sharing inormation with local police andother law6enorcement and community organiGations. +ecurity cooperation among uropean services and between uropean andAmerican services is absolutely necessary. Intelligence rom the communications o oreign fghters! shared open6source monitoring!and other inormation obtained by one service can prove crucial or discovering transnational networs. As noted earlier!cooperation within urope is critical or stopping travel! as ,ihadists rom one uropean country oten try to travel to Turey and thenon to +yria via another uropean country in order to avoid detection. esired /esults4 V Attac oiled by law enorcement. V Attac

ails due to lac o training or wrong sills. ConclusionThe *nited +tates and urope already haveeFective measures in place to greatly reduce the threat o terrorism rom ,ihadistreturnees and to limit the scale o any attacs that might occur.Those measures can and should

be improved>and! more importantly! ade#uately resourced. Nut the standard o success cannot beperection. I it is! then 8estern governments are doomed to ail!and! worse! doomedto an overreaction which will waste resources and cause dangerous policy mistaes.


61/88

AT Plan doesnt solve oreign dronesThe lan hels shed light on other drone rograms af is a

critical rst ste

elinger and @aag 2015'van and John (Associate pro o philosophy Z * o

$assachusetts )owell-" 8hy domestic drones stir more debate than ones used inwarfghting abroad" $ar S" http455www.csmonitor.com58orld5asscode5asscode6@oices5


62/88


63/88


64/88


65/88

2ACPerm!tation do the lan and co!nterlan

The e;igent circ!mstances lan( o the lan ta(es o!t the lin(

?ang 201#'. ouglas (J Noston *-" NI3 N/=T:/B+ 3/=8% 8I%3+4 T:

=$+TIC /=)I9/ATI=% =9 /=% +*/@I))A%C A% T: )A8B+ /+=%+"; N.*. ub. Int. ).J. ;D;" d7

a. /ule 14 8arrantless rone *se /ule 1 embodies the desire o both ederal and statelegislatures to e2clude certain situations rom the burden o a warrant re#uirement.nR Common e2amples o non6law enorcement operations include! but are not limited to! land surveying! nSweather and climate observation and scientifc research! n;< wildlie management and protection! n;1 and

search and rescue missions. n; In addition to /ule 1Bs e2emption o non6law enorcement uses o drones! /ule1 also e2empts situations where a high ris o terrorist attac or imminent danger tolie or property e2ists. This specifc provision fnds its inspiration in @irginiaBs (O;QQ- warrante2ception that allows drone use or responses to Amber Alerts! n;; +enior Alerts!n;D and search6and6rescue missions.Kn;E 8hile the 9ourth Amendment covers all government

intrusions o privacy! government activity that does not involve criminal investigation tends to involve Ka lesshostile intrusion than the typical policemanBs search or the ruits and instrumentalities o crime.K n;M $oreover!

drones can be a potent tool to assist in searching or missing persons and in policeemergencies! much in the same way that police helicopters and aircrat currentlyprovide aerial support! albeit at a much higher cost and with less Le2ibility. n;Q /ule 1reLects a desire by ederal and state legislative proposals to e2empt e2igent circumstances rom restrictions on

drone use. n;R Thus! where a law enorcement agency believes that a particular area!event!or situation poses a high ris o attac by terrorists" or that there is an imminent andarticulable threat to a specifc personBs lie or property! substantial legal obstacles should nothamper that agency. /ule 1Bs frst paragraph is a compromise measure that allowsthe government to promptly respond to urgent situations! while ensuring that thegovernment! and particularly law enorcement agencies! adhere to the privacy

protections o the /ule by demonstrating that probable cause o a high ris oterrorist attac e2isted or that an imminent danger to lie or property e2isted at thetime and general location o the droneBs operation. n;S

Drones $ill *e !sed to eret!ate racism

Cyril 2015'$alia Amala (under and e2ecutive director o the Center or $ediaJustice 'C$J7 and co6ounder o the $edia Action 3rassroots %etwor-" NlacAmericaBs +tate o +urveillance" $ar ;


66/88


67/88


68/88


69/88


70/88


71/88


72/88

AT 7conomy DA


73/88


74/88


75/88

and source o economic activity the advanced industry sector plays a ma,or role in the *.+. economy. As o such as 3rand /apids! $I" ortland! =/" and 8ichita>ocus heavily on advanced manuacturing pursuits such as automotive! semiconductor! oraerospace manuacturing! respectively! while metros lie Naersfeld and =lahoma City e2hibit strong energy specialiGations. Ny contrast! services such as computer systems design! sotware! and research a nd developmentpredominate in metropolitan areas lie Noston! +an 9rancisco! and 8ashington. 9or their part! +an Jose! etroit! and +eattle e2hibit depth and balance across multiple advanced industry categories. =verall! the number o e2tremelydense concentrations o advanced industry actually has declined. In 1SR

contained such siGable concentrations. ;.The Unitedtates is losing gro!nd to other co!ntries on advancedindustry competitiveness. The *nited +tates has the most productive advanced industries in the world! behind only energy6intensive %orway. :owever! this

cometitiveness aears to *e eroding'The nation0s decliningconcentrationin advanced industries and its negative trade balance in the sector do not *ode $ell. +ince

The U isnt (ey to the glo*al economy

@enny 2015'Charles" 8hy the eveloping 8orld 8onBt Catch the *.+.conomyBs Cold" $ay D" www.bloomberg.com5news5articles5


76/88


77/88

1A+


78/88

AT Canada %oodCanada doesnt solve the af

Miller 201#':ugo" %+A +pying +ends ata Clients %orth o the Norder" Jan S"www.bloomberg.com5news5articles5


79/88


80/88


81/88


82/88


83/88


84/88


85/88

AT tates CP Perm do *othThe erm solves

@amins(i 201&'$argot (2ecutive irector o the Inormation +ociety ro,ect!/esearch +cholar! and )ecturer in )aw at ale )aw +chool-" rone 9ederalism4

Civilian rones and the Things They Carry" D Cali. ). /ev. Circuit EQ" d7/=% /I@AC /3*)ATI=%+ There are! broadly speaing! two sub,ects o drone privacy regulation4 lawenorcement drone use and civilian drone use. nR $ost advocates and academics have ocused on establishingprivacy regulations to govern law enorcement drone use. nS This tas is worthy o immediate attention. The 9AAalready permits law enorcement drone use! where it does not yet permit commercial private drone use. n1< Anumber o state and ederal bills thus propose warrant re#uirements or drone surveillance by law enorcement. n11

The ederal government could regulate law enorcement drone use as it hashistorically regulated other law enorcement behavior! by providing a Loor or statelaws. n1 9ederal legislation already governs law enorcement use o wiretaps andpen registers. n1; rone surveillance is liely to additionally involve videosurveillance! location tracing! and5or acial recognition! among other possibletechnologies.Thus ederal legislation governing law enorcement surveillance could

be e2pandedto govern location tracing! video surveillance! and the use o acial recognition sotware by lawenorcement. n1D (OM


86/88


87/88


88/88

Date post:	28-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	michael-tang
View:	231 times
Download:	0 times

Drones Affirmative - Michigan7 2015

Documents