**Case Neg

Having a topicality Its argument might be helpful.

Drones good offense

Drones solve the affDrone expansion results in broader 4th amendment rights and solves all crimeMorrison 2015 (Caren Myers [Associate Professor, Georgia State University College of Law]; DR. PANOPTICON, OR, HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE DRONE; 27 J. Civ. Rts. & Econ. Dev. 747; kdf)

B. What Universal Surveillance Might Bring Of course, universal drone surveillance might simply be overlaid upon current discriminatory practices. Even if the (mostly) white and middle class started to get a taste of being constantly scrutinized,

there is no assurance that empathy and reform would necessarily follow. Those with political power would probably be more likely to complain of the encroachment on their own privacy than to use it as an opportunity to reconsider all the ways in which the Fourth Amendment, as interpreted, has failed others. As a historical moment, we've been somewhere like this before: with the advent of wiretapping technology. n88 At the time, the middle class was outraged at the idea that the government might be able to listen to their private telephone calls. n89 The year after the passage of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968, which allowed for and regulated wiretaps, one commentator asked, "can one fairly characterize the idea of law enforcement officers secretly and pervasively monitoring the homes, offices, and meeting places of the citizenry in search of proof of crime as

anything less than deeply offensive to the values of a decent society?" n90 In [*763] much the same way, at the oral argument in United States v. Jones, the Justices were appalled by the thought that the police could potentially attach GPS trackers to the Justices' own cars. n91 The outrage against Title III did not translate into reform of many police practices that violated the privacy of the politically and economically disadvantaged. But Title III was passed before the ramifications of Terry v. Ohio, which approved stop and frisk practices, n92 were fully felt. It was before the Court decided Michigan v. Chesternut, which held that people on the street have no expectation of privacy against police inquiries, even if those inquiries include chasing someone down the street in a police cruiser, n93 and Whren v. United States, which held that if the police have probable cause for a traffic stop, that stop is lawful even if motivated by other, possibly discriminatory reasons, n94 and Illinois v. Wardlow, which held that flight from the police in a "high crime area" is enough to justify a stop, n95 and all the other cases that allowed

"race-dependent decision making to become a normal part of police practice." n96 It could be that we are more aware of the differential impact of police practices today than we were in 1968. The short-lived district court case holding that New York City's stop and frisk practices violated the Fourth Amendment may reflect this. n97 "No one should live in fear of being stopped whenever he leaves his home to go about the activities of daily life," wrote Judge Scheindlin. "Those who are routinely subjected to stops are overwhelmingly people of color, and they are justifiably troubled to be singled out when many of them have done nothing to attract the

unwanted attention." n98 We obviously need a new way of policing the streets, investigating crime, and keeping the public safe. If we turned to the universal surveillance that drones could technically provide, could the very omniscience of such a system make the entire enterprise more egalitarian? [*764] There is

something else too. Unlike wiretapping, which focuses only on specific suspects, drones and their capacity for universal surveillance evoke what one commentator called "the idolatrous dream of omniperception embodied in the panopticon." n99 In simpler terms, drones contain the promise that somehow, with the right tools, we could achieve perfect knowledge. If there were a record of everything that ever happened, we could know the truth. We could know what really happened between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman

on that night in February 2012. n100 We would be able to solve all the unsolved shootings and disappearances and faulty eyewitness identifications. n101 So much of what happens out in the world is a mystery. People are abducted, raped, shot. Other people are accused of these misdeeds, sometimes convicted and executed for them, sometimes wrongfully. We never really know.

If there is a seductive quality to the seamless surveillance of the future, it is that we wouldn't make these mistakes again.

Drones good – laundry list Drones are necessary to protect the border, stop trafficking, and find missing personsWhitlock and Timberg 2014 (Craig [covers the Pentagon and national security] and Craig [National tech reporter]; Border-patrol drones being borrowed by other agencies more often than previously known; Jan 14; www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/border-patrol-drones-being-borrowed-by-other-agencies-more-often-than-previously-known/2014/01/14/5f987af0-7d49-11e3-9556-4a4bf7bcbd84_story.html; kdf)

Federal, state and local law enforcement agencies are increasingly borrowing border-patrol drones for domestic surveillance operations, newly released records show, a harbinger of what is expected to become the commonplace use

of unmanned aircraft by police. Customs and Border Protection, which has the largest U.S. drone fleet of its kind outside the

Defense Department, flew nearly 700 such surveillance missions on behalf of other agencies from 2010 to 2012, according to flight logs released recently in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Electronic Frontier

Foundation, a civil-liberties group. The records show that the border- patrol drones are being commissioned by other agencies more often than previously known. Most of the missions are performed for the Coast Guard, the Drug Enforcement Administration and immigration authorities. But they also aid in disaster relief and in the search for marijuana crops, methamphetamine labs and missing persons, among other missions not directly related to border protection. Because they have sophisticated cameras and can remain in flight for many hours at a time, drones create novel privacy challenges. Civil libertarians have argued that these aircraft could lead to persistent visual surveillance of Americans on private property. Government lawyers have argued, however, that there is no meaningful legal distinction between the use of unmanned and piloted aircraft for surveillance. Hundreds of missions The issue has become a hot topic in Congress; the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on the subject Wednesday. For now, drone flights in the United States are tightly restricted for safety reasons. Other than the military, Customs and Border Protection is one of the few agencies permitted by the Federal Aviation Administration to fly unmanned aircraft on a daily basis within the country’s borders. As a result, Customs and Border Protection is facing heavy demand to fly its unarmed drones to benefit other law enforcement agencies that lack their own. In 2010, for example, Customs and Border Protection conducted 76 drone missions for other agencies. The next year, that number quadrupled, and it remained at nearly the same level in 2012. Although the border agency has acknowledged that it flies drones for other law-enforcement departments, it has revealed little about the number and precise nature of the missions. All told, Customs and Border Protection flew 687 drone missions for other agencies from 2010 to 2012, according to the records provided to the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation. Last summer, the border agency released a batch of records indicating that it had flown fewer than 500 missions during that period. Officials offered no explanation for why the earlier release of documents was incomplete. Congress has directed the FAA to gradually open the national airspace to public and commercial drone traffic in the coming years. In the meantime, however, there is a huge, unfed appetite among police agencies for drones and their powerful surveillance tools, which include infrared cameras and specialized radar. Customs and Border Protection has a fleet of 10 unarmed Predator B drones. They are virtually identical to an Air Force drone known as the Reaper. Both are manufactured by General Atomics, a major drone

producer based in Southern California. The FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies have their own drones, but they are more rudimentary than those operated by Customs and Border Protection. The Defense Department is prohibited from using its drones in the United States for law enforcement

Drones Good- War on DrugsDrones are critical to fighting the war on drugs Heverly 2015 (Robert A [Associate Professor of Law, Albany Law School]; Game of Drones: The Uses and Potential Abuses of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in the U.S. and Abroad: ARTICLE: THE STATE OF DRONES: STATE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE DRONES; 8 Alb. Gov't L. Rev. 29; kdf)

Drones come in a variety of shapes and sizes, and with varying abilities and configurations. n21 Some of the best known drone technologies are the military drones used in foreign countries to seek out and kill terrorists. n22 It is these drones that people react to most negatively, especially when non-combatants and innocent civilians die either as collateral damage in a successful drone attack, or by mistake when either drone technology or human intelligence kill people not intentionally targeted. n23 Military drones of this type are often fixed wing aircraft, relatively large, with the ability to carry heavy payloads. n24 Payloads may include rockets and other weapons, as well as electronics and surveillance technologies. n25 With names like "Predator" and "Reaper," these drones can be found in the skies in a number of foreign countries and are now being deployed to strategic missions within the United States. n26

Domestic missions are said to be primarily surveillance missions, including patrolling the U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada, and also tracking drug traffickers attempting to bring illicit drugs into the United States. n27

Unchecked violence causes nuclear terror AND collapses the economy

Metz 2014(Stephen, Strategic Horizons: All Options Bad If Mexico's Drug Violence Expands to U.S., February 19, www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/13576/strategic-horizons-all-options-bad-if-mexico-s-drug-violence-expands-to-u-s)

Over the past few decades, violence in Mexico has reached horrific levels, claiming the lives of 70,000 as criminal organizations fight each other for control of the drug trade and wage war on the Mexican police, military, government officials and anyone else unlucky enough to get caught in the crossfire.

The chaos has spread southward, engulfing Guatemala, Honduras and Belize. Americans must face the possibility that the conflict may also expand northward, with intergang warfare, assassinations of government officials and outright terrorism in the United States. If so, this will force Americans to undertake a fundamental reassessment of the threat, possibly redefining it as a

security issue demanding the use of U.S. military power. One way that large-scale drug violence might move to the United States is if the cartels miscalculate and think they can intimidate the U.S. government or strike at American targets safely from a Mexican sanctuary. The most likely candidate would be the group known as the Zetas. They were created when elite government anti-drug commandos switched sides in the drug war, first serving as mercenaries for the Gulf Cartel and then becoming a powerful cartel in their own right. The Zetas used to recruit mostly ex-military and ex-law enforcement members in large part to maintain discipline and control. But the pool of soldiers and policemen willing to join the narcotraffickers was inadequate to fuel the group’s ambition. Now the Zetas are tapping a very different,

much larger, but less disciplined pool of recruits in U.S. prisons and street gangs. This is an ominous turn of events. Since intimidation through extreme violence is a trademark of the Zetas, its spread to the United States raises the possibility of large-scale violence on American soil. As George Grayson of the College of William and Mary put it, “The Zetas are determined to gain the reputation of being the most sadistic, cruel and beastly organization that ever existed.” And without concern for extradition,

which helped break the back of the Colombian drug cartels, the Zetas show little fear of the United States government, already having ordered direct violence against American law enforcement. Like the Zetas, most of the other Mexican cartels are expanding their operations inside the United States. Only a handful of U.S. states are free of them today. So far the cartels don’t appear

directly responsible for large numbers of killings in the United States, but as expansion and reliance on undisciplined recruits looking to make a name for themselves through ferocity continue, the chances of miscalculation or violent freelancing by a cartel affiliate mount. This could potentially move beyond intergang warfare to the killing of U.S. officials or outright terrorism like the car bombs that drug cartels used in Mexico and Colombia. In an assessment for the U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, Robert Bunker and John Sullivan considered narcotrafficker car bombs inside the United States to be unlikely but not impossible. A second way that

Mexico’s violence could spread north is via the partnership between the narcotraffickers and ideologically

motivated terrorist groups. The Zetas already have a substantial connection to Hezbollah , based on collaborative narcotrafficking and arms smuggling. Hezbollah has relied on terrorism since its founding and has few qualms about conducting attacks far from its home turf in southern Lebanon. Since Hezbollah is a close ally or proxy of Iran, it might some day attempt to strike the United States in retribution for American action against Tehran. If so, it would likely attempt to exploit its connection with the Zetas , pulling the narcotraffickers

into a transnational proxy war. The foundation for this scenario is already in place: Security analysts like Douglas Farah have warned of a “tier-one security threat for the United States” from an “improbable alliance” between narcotraffickers and anti-American states like Iran and the “Bolivarian”

regime in Venezuela. The longer this relationship continues and the more it expands, the greater the chances of dangerous miscalculation. ¶ No matter how violence from the Mexican cartels came to the United States, the key issue would be Washington’s

response. If the Zetas, another Mexican cartel or someone acting in their stead launched a campaign of assassinations or bombings in the United States or helped Hezbollah or some other transnational terrorist organization with a mass casualty attack, and the Mexican government proved unwilling or unable to respond in a way that Washington considered adequate, the United States

would have to consider military action. ¶ While the United States has deep cultural and economic ties to Mexico and works closely with Mexican law enforcement on the narcotrafficking problem, the security relationship between the two has always been difficult—understandably so given the long

history of U.S. military intervention in Mexico. Mexico would be unlikely to allow the U.S. military or other government agencies free rein to strike at narcotrafficking cartels in its territory, even if those organizations were tied to assassinations, bombings or terrorism

in the United States. But any U.S. president would face immense political pressure to strike at America’s enemies if the Mexican government could not or would not do so itself. Failing to act firmly and decisively would weaken the president and encourage the Mexican cartels to believe that they could attack U.S. targets with impunity. After all, the primary lesson from Sept. 11 was that playing only defense and allowing

groups that attack the United States undisturbed foreign sanctuary does not work. But using the U.S. military against the cartels on Mexican

soil could weaken the Mexican government or even cause its collapse, end further security cooperation between Mexico and the United States and damage one of the most important and intimate bilateral economic relationships in the world. Quite simply, every available strategic option would be disastrous.¶ Hopefully, cooperation between Mexican and U.S.

security and intelligence services will be able to forestall such a crisis. No one wants to see U.S. drones over Mexico. But so long as the core dynamic of narcotrafficking—massive demand for drugs in the United States combined with their prohibition—persists, the utter ruthlessness, lack of restraint and unlimited ambition of the narcotraffickers raises the possibility of violent miscalculation and the political and economic calamity that would follow.

AT: Privacy Advantage

1NC – No Impact – No Right to PrivacyThere is no engrained right to privacyGallington 2014 (Daniel J; Uncle Sam's Right to Know The right to privacy has never been unconditional; Oct 20; www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2014/10/20/you-have-no-absolute-right-to-privacy-including-in-your-data-encryption; kdf)

Technically, such a capability is not all that difficult – however, the policy and legal aspects of such technologies are the most perplexing. To begin with, do we have the right to keep any information we choose private from everybody, including the government? If we do, then the

technologies – and private companies that implemented this principle – would simply be an exercise of that right. However, we don’t have and never have had, even in our unique democratic society, that broad and unconditional right of privacy. Nevertheless, we sometimes forget this, especially in today’s information-focused age with its heightened awareness of individual

privacy. Ironically perhaps, but especially in discussions such as these, I’m always reminded of the wisdom of my late mother: One day she and I were watching a report on privacy and so-called government snooping. And

my mom said, “I don’t think the government should be listening to anyone’s telephone conversations.” I

responded, “OK, mom, but what about terrorists, spies and kidnappers?” She thought about it for a second and said, “Well, those kind of people … for sure." Sounds like my mom and the FBI director, who also was the former deputy attorney general in the George W. Bush administration, are in basic agreement on this issue – as I’m sure most thoughtful people would be.

1NC—No Impact – Nothing To HideIf you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry aboutHuffington Post 2011 (Google CEO On Privacy (VIDEO): 'If You Have Something You Don't Want Anyone To Know, Maybe You Shouldn't Be Doing It'; May 25; www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/07/google-ceo-on-privacy-if_n_383105.html; kdf)

Yahoo, Verizon, Sprint, and others have recently come under fire for sharing customer data with the authorities, and admitting to "spying"

abilities that would "shock" and "confuse" customers. A CNBC interview with Google CEO Eric Schmidt suggests the search giant Google shouldn't get off easy, and users should be wary of what Google knows about them -- and with whom they can share that information. CNBC's Mario Bartiromo asked CEO Schmidt in her December 3, 2009 interview: "People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they?" Schmidt's reply hints that if there's scandalous information out there

about you, it's your problem, not Google's. Schmidt tells Baritoromo: If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. He expands on his answer, adding that the your information could be made available not only to curious searchers or prying friends, but also to the authorities, and that there's little recourse for people worried about unintentionally "oversharing" online: But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time. And [...] we're all subject, in the US, to the Patriot Act, and it is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities. Leaked documents revealing Yahoo's guide for law enforcement officials, which explains how they can obtain consumer data, highlights the type of information internet companies may have about their users -- and can share with the authorities. Silicon Alley Insider notes, For example, Yahoo's document helpfully alerts law enforcement that if they'd like to read a user's instant messanger logs, they better ask within 45 days and come bearing a 2703(d) order. That is, unless there's "imminent danger of death or serious physical injury." If that's the case, there's another letter to fax entirely See a video clip of Schmidt's below.

Warrants BadRequiring warrants in the instance of drones is non-senseMcNeal 2014 (Gregory [prof at Pepperdine University]; Drones and Aerial surveillance: Considerations for Legislators; Nov; www.brookings.edu/research/reports2/2014/11/drones-and-aerial-surveillance; kdf)

Legislators should reject calls for a blanket requirement that all drone use be accompanied by a warrant. If legislators forgo the property rights approach detailed in Part A. above, they should eschew proposals that require warrants for the use of

drones. Such prohibitions are overbroad and ill-advised.[50] Legislation that requires warrants for drones treats the information from a drone differently than information gathered from a manned aircraft,

differently than that gathered by a police officer in a patrol car, or even from an officer on foot patrol. Under current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, police are not required to shield their eyes from wrongdoing until they have a warrant. Why impose such a requirement on the collection of information by drones? Much of the anti-drone activists efforts are aimed at

the threat of persistent and pervasive surveillance of the population by the government, an understandable fear. But what is an unreasonable fear, and should not work its way into legislation, is a ban on ordinary aerial observations that are only controversial because they take place with a remote controlled helicopter rather than a manned one. If anybody in a Cessna can see the pollution pouring from a factory, or if the police flying in a helicopter can see a cartel’s drug operations or human trafficking ring --- and such observations can be admitted as evidence in a criminal trial, shouldn’t citizens and the police be able to make the same observations and expect that the evidence won’t be excluded merely because it is collected with a remote control aircraft? For example, imagine a police officer was on patrol in her patrol car. While driving, she witnesses the car in front of her strike a pedestrian and speed off. Until witnessing the crime she did not have probable cause (the predicate level of suspicion for a warrant), or even reasonable suspicion (the predicate level of suspicion for a brief investigatory stop) to believe the vehicle in front of her would be involved in a

crime. Let’s further assume that her dash camera recorded the entire incident. Nonetheless, that dashcam video may be used as evidence against the driver in a subsequent criminal proceeding. However, under broadly worded proposals that have been introduced in many state legislatures and the U.S. Congress, the same piece of evidence if gathered by a drone would be inadmissible in court because police did not have a warrant. Consider another example. Police receive an anonymous tip that someone is growing marijuana in their backyard. A police officer attempts to view the backyard from the ground but his view is blocked by a 10 foot tall fence. The officer next decides to fly a commercially available remote controlled helicopter[51] over the backyard and from a vantage point that does not violate FAA regulations observes marijuana plants growing in the yard. This observation would be unlawful under proposals that require a warrant for observations from a drone. However, these facts are nearly identical to the facts in the Supreme Court’s 1986 California v. Ciraolo[52] decision which upheld aerial surveillance (discussed above). The only difference is that in Ciraolo, the officer flew over the backyard in an airplane, rather than using a drone. In fact, in Ciraolo the Court noted that not only would observation of the marijuana plants from the air (as described above) be lawful, police officers peering over the fence from the top of a police truck would also be behaving lawfully, and by extension, observation of the marijuana plants by police from the third floor of a neighboring home would also be lawful. But under proposals requiring a warrant for observations by a drone, this evidence would be inadmissible. The examples above raise questions about what public policy goals are advanced by the suppression of evidence of a crime when documented by a drone, when the same evidence if recorded by a dashcam, observed from an airplane, or viewed from a

neighboring home would be admissible in court. Such examples highlight the requiring warrants for evidence gathered by drones, when other methods of gathering the same evidence would not require a warrant.

AT: Racism Drone expansion provides a check against police violenceBernd 2013 (Candice [assistant editor/reporter with Truthout]; The Coming Domestic Drone Wars; Sep 19; www.truth-out.org/news/item/18951-the-coming-domestic-drone-wars#; kdf)

Private Citizens and Domestic Drone Technology But in addition to major corporations, media activists also are beginning to look at the

possibilities of domestic drones to broadcast live streaming coverage of protests and other actions in such a way that could provide greater transparency of police activity during political clashes, such as those that

occurred in 2011 during the height of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Occupy live-streamer Tim Pool, now a producer with Vice

Media, has been experimenting with a small radio-controlled quadcopter drone called the Parrot AR.Drone, which can be controlled from a tablet or smartphone. Pool hopes to lower the cost of media production for the individual by using drone technology to gather audio and visual content from the air. "These things make it a lot easier for the average person to pick up the control and say, 'OK, I can do this,' whereas with something like the more expensive drones that have proprietary controllers, you have to learn how to fly those. The AR.Drone is an iPhone app. It looks like a video game," Pool told Truthout. But he admits that in moments when events are breaking it becomes harder to fly a drone. "It's difficult with all the ruckus, the police, with people running. There's no way to predict what's going to happen. It's hard to take your focus away." Pool was on the ground in Turkey during the Occupy Gezi Park demonstrations, which protested an urban development plan to replace the park with a shopping mall. During the demonstrations, Pool witnessed the police forces there shoot down a DJI Phantom drone used by an accompanying journalist, whom he said was detained by police for hours afterward. He expects the same

thing could happen in the US. "Governments will be a bit behind in adopting drones for surveillance or quad-roters like this. I think we'll see the private sector first. We'll see private individuals filming major breaking news with their drones, hobbyists and eventually I know a lot of news organizations are researching drone potential. Once that gets legal they'll start flying drones all over the place, and eventually the police will start filming with drones as well," Pool said. And he's right - scores of law enforcement agencies are experimenting with domestic drone technology already.

AT: Drone Warfare

1NC – AT: Aff solves international drone violenceNorms fail and US can't create them

Boot, Fellow in National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, 2011(Max; We Cannot Afford to Stop Drone Strikes,” Commentary Magazine; http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/10/09/drone-arms-race/)

The New York Times engages in some scare-mongering today about a drone ams race. Scott Shane notes correctly other

nations such as China are building their own drones and in the future U.S. forces could be attacked by them–our forces will not have a

monopoly on their use forever. Fair enough, but he goes further, suggesting our current use of drones to target terrorists will backfire: If China, for instance, sends killer drones into Kazakhstan to hunt minority Uighur Muslims it accuses of plotting terrorism,

what will the United States say? What if India uses remotely controlled craft to hit terrorism suspects in Kashmir, or Russia sends drones after militants in the Caucasus? American officials who protest will likely find their own example thrown back at them. “The problem is that we’re creating an international norm” — asserting the right to strike preemptively against those we suspect of planning attacks, argues Dennis M. Gormley, a senior research fellow at the University of

Pittsburgh and author of Missile Contagion, who has called for tougher export controls on American drone technology. “The copycatting is what I worry about

most.” This is a familiar trope of liberal critics who are always claiming we should forego “X” weapons system or capability, otherwise our enemies will adopt it too. We have heard this with regard to ballistic missile defense, ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons, land mines, exploding bullets, and other fearsome weapons. Some have even suggested the U.S. should abjure the first use of nuclear weapons–and cut down our own arsenal–to

encourage similar restraint from Iran. The argument falls apart rather quickly because it is founded on a false premise: that

other nations will follow our example. In point of fact, Iran is hell-bent on getting nuclear weapons no matter what we do; China is hell-bent on getting drones; and so forth. Whether and under what circumstances they will use those weapons remains an open question–but there is little reason to think self-restraint on our part will be matched by equal self-restraint on theirs. Is Pakistan avoiding nuking India because we haven’t used nuclear weapons since 1945? Hardly. The reason is that India has a powerful nuclear deterrent to use against Pakistan. If there is one lesson of history it is a strong deterrent is a

better upholder of peace than is unilateral disarmament–which is what the New York Times implicitly suggests. Imagine if we did refrain from drone strikes against al-Qaeda–what would be the consequence? If we were to stop the strikes, would China really decide to take a softer line on Uighurs or Russia on Chechen separatists? That seems unlikely given the viciousness those states already employ in their battles against ethnic separatists–which

at least in Russia’s case already includes the suspected assassination of Chechen leaders abroad. What’s the difference between sending a hit team and sending a drone? While a decision on our part to stop drone strikes would be unlikely to alter Russian or Chinese thinking, it would have one immediate consequence: al-Qaeda would be strengthened and could regenerate the ability to attack our homeland. Drone strikes are the only effective weapon we have to combat terrorist groups in places like Pakistan or Yemen where we don’t have a lot of boots on the ground or a lot of cooperation from local authorities. We cannot afford to give them up in the vain hope it will encourage disarmament on the part of dictatorial states.

1NC—Impact Inevitable Inevitably, all countries will have drones by 2024 because of ChinaRussia Times 2014 (All countries will have drone kill technology in 10 years - report; May 7; rt.com/news/157340-us-drones-military-defense/; kdf)

In just one decade, just about every country in the world will have the means to either build or buy unmanned

aerial vehicles (UAV) capable of launching missiles at enemy targets, thus dramatically changing the face of warfare. Despite a

track record that is stained with the blood of innocent victims, drone technology is quickly becoming the weapon of choice for militaries around the globe , and it’s too late for the United States – presently the leader in UAV

technologies – to stop the rush, according to Defense One, a site devoted to security issues. Just a few countries now hold membership in the elite drone club, including the US, United Kingdom, Russia, Israel, Iran, Pakistan and China. Other countries, such as South Africa and India, are actively seeking to join. According to the RAND organization, however, another 23 countries “are developing or have developed” armed

drones. Experts point to China’s prowess in building knockoff drones, which are expected to flood the market very soon. “Once countries like China start exporting these, they’re going to be everywhere really quickly. Within the next 10 years, every country will have these,” Noel Sharkey, a robotics and artificial intelligence professor from the University of Sheffield, UK, told Defense One. “There’s nothing illegal about these unless you use them to attack other countries. Anything you can [legally] do with a fighter jet, you can do with a drone.”

xt—Drone Prolif InevitableIndia is ramping up its program now- importing from Israel Mallapur 2015 (Chaitanya; India tops list of drone-importing nations; May 4; www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/india-considered-top-as-drone-importing-nations-50428.html; kdf)

The decision by India's National Disaster Response Force to use drones to help Nepal map the scale of devastation

caused by last month's earthquake indicates how India has enthusiastically taken to these pilot-less aircraft -the so-called eyes in the sky. With 22.5 percent the world's unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) imports, between 1985 and

2014, India ranks first among drone-importing nations, followed by United Kingdom and France. UAVs, or drones as they are commonly known, are pilotless aerial vehicles used for reconnaissance, surveillance, intelligence gathering and aerial combat missions. The advantage of UAVs is that they come at a fraction of the cost of manned aircraft with no risk to human lives. The data here relate to drone/UAV transfers (imports/exports) between countries. There are also drones that have been indigenously developed, so the actual number of UAVs possessed by each nation may be different. A total of 1,574 UAV transfers have taken place across the world between 1985 and 2014. Of these, 16 are armed UAVs, according to data provided by Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), an independent global conflict-research institute. UAV trade recorded an increase of 137 percent between 1985 and 2014. The period between 1985 and 1990 saw sales of 185 UAVs globally, which increased to 439 between 2010 and 2014. Egypt and Italy are among the other large importers. The last decade also registered sales of 16 armed UAVs. India's first UAV delivery came from Israel in 1998. The UK, on the other hand, imported its first UAV in 1972

from Canada. But Japan was the first country in the world to import a UAV, it got one from the US in 1968. India's UAV imports, have almost all been from Israel , according to SIPRI data. Of 176 UAVs, 108 are Searcher UAVs and 68 are Heron UAVs. Israel is the leading exporter of drones, accounting for 60.7 percent 1985 and 2014. The US, with a 23.9 percent of UAV exports, ranks second, followed by Canada with 6.4 percent. Israel shipped has shipped 783 drones since 1980.

Russian drone prolif nowCabural 2015 (Marie; Russia to build hundreds of drones for it's military by 2025; www.valuewalk.com/2015/05/russia-military-drones-2025/; kdf)

Russia is planning to build hundreds of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drones for its military by 2025, according to RIA Novosti based on information from a representative from United Industrial Defense Corporation Oboronprom. The source said Russia plans to integrate the drones in its military to perform different functions. “By 2025, as a result of the implementation of [new] measures, the government will get several hundred modern, Russian-made unmanned aerial vehicles [UAVs] of various types. Most of them will be drones

used for short ranges, the most needed in [Russian] armed forces,” according to the source. The state-owned defense corporation will build the drones domestically in collaboration with JSC Vegas Radio Engineering, a company expert in surveillance devices. It is still uncertain as to when Russia plans to deploy its first batch of drones. Russia already completed R&D on drones Andrei Shibitov, deputy head of Russian Helicopters Company, a subsidiary United Industrial Defense Corporation Oboronprom recently stated

that the Russia’s Defense Ministry already ordered the tactical and technical characteristics of the new drones, which are currently under development. We’ve done all necessary R&D work and together with the Defense Ministry, we are going to work on UAVs weighing over 750 kilograms,” said Shibitov. He added that they were working on heavier types of drones. Earlier this year, the engineers at United Instrument Corporation, a unit of Rostec State Corporation developed a new concept for a two-ton drone,

which has the ability to transport personnel, supplies, reconnaissance equipment, and onboard weapons systems. Russia is expected to approve a prototype of the two-ton drone after conducting a series of tests this summer.

xt - No Escalation No risk of runaway drone norms

Lewis and Crawford 2013 “DRONES AND DISTINCTION: HOW IHL ENCOURAGED THE RISE OF DRONES”, http://www.law.georgetown.edu/academics/law-journals/gjil/recent/upload/zsx00313001127.PDF)

Before discussing the legal merits of the norms that the United States is shaping through its present conduct of drone warfare, it is

first necessary to dispel a pervasive misconception about drones that Alston and many other commentators have promulgated. That misconception is that the current manner in which the United States is using drones broadly justifies any use of drones by other countries against the United States and that drones represent a serious threat to the United States. 159 This misconception has spread so easily because the reciprocity theme is intuitively appealing and, to a point, legally correct . It is true that whatever legal basis the United

States offers for utilizing drones in Yemen, Pakistan, or Somalia must also be available to any other nation wishing to use drones

as well. However, that does not mean that drones will be appearing over New York City anytime soon, in

large part because drones are very vulnerable to air defense systems and signal interruption and because they are particularly unsuited to use by terror groups. 160 Even the most advanced drones that the United States possesses are relatively slow and vulnerable to fighters or surface-to-air missiles, meaning that, as conventional weapons, drones would have limited utility in a traditional state-on-state armed conflict. 161 Perhaps more importantly,

the physical realities associated with using drones makes them of limited usefulness to terrorists. Drones that are capable of carrying any significant payload need hard surfaced runways and significant maintenance support. Any drone returning to such facilities would be closely followed by U.S. forces, meaning that any drone used by terrorists would be a single strike proposition, and

quite an expensive one at that. Therefore, from a practical standpoint, car bombs, suicide bombs, and attacks on airliners remain by far the most credible threat to the United States, regardless of how it pursues its drone policy.

But the misconceptions concerning drones are not limited to the practical effects of U.S. drone policy. Legally, the United States’ position is not one of “ever-expanding entitlement for itself to target individuals across the globe.” 162

The “entitlement” to use drones, just like the entitlement to engage in any other action on the sovereign territory of another state, is largely based upon the consent of the nation in which drones are being used. It is clear that Yemen consented to the strikes undertaken on its territory. 163 This is supported by the WikiLeaks release of cables indicating

Yemeni government consent for the actions taken there. 164 Likewise, there is evidence that the Pakistani government has privately consented to most of the strikes that the States had conducted on its territory. 165 To the extent that the norm being shaped by U.S. behavior is limited to cases of consent, it is hard to see how the United States will one day be disadvantaged by that norm .

Outside of situations in which the host state consents to the strike, the United States has only asserted an “entitlement” to target al Qaeda in situations where the host state has proven itself to be unable or unwilling to incapacitate or expel al Qaeda from its territory. 166 It has long been established that states not involved in armed conflicts have a responsibility not to aid

either belligerent. 167 The United States’ position that the law of armed conflict allows it to conduct proportional strikes against al Qaeda targets within states that have proven themselves to be unable or unwilling to incapacitate or expel those targets cannot be fairly characterized as creating an “ever-expanding entitlement for itself to target individuals across the globe.” 168

Turn: Drone expansion good – ISISDrone sales key to crush ISISTucker and Weisgerber 2015 (Patrick and Marcus; Obama to Sell Armed Drones to More Countries; Feb 17; www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/02/obama-sell-armed-drones-more-countries/105495/; kdf)

The State Department on Tuesday announced that the United States would be expanding the sale of armed unmanned aerial

vehicles, or UAVs, to carefully selected allied countries. The announcement suggests that strategic partners – especially

in the Middle East — could acquire American-made armed drones before the year is out. Some of those could go toward the

international campaign against the Islamic State, or ISIS. Battlefield commanders and the intelligence community are hungry for large, armed drones as they could loiter over targets for hours. The footage captured by high-powered cameras attached to these unmanned aircraft has been critical in determining the locations for airstrikes against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria, U.S. officials say. State Department officials maintained that every export request would meet “a strong presumption of denial,” according to Tuesday’s release, but U.S. officials will allow exports on “’rare occasions’ that are justified in terms of the nonproliferation and export control factors specified in the [Missile Technology Control Regime Guidelines.]” The Missile Technology Control Regime, or MTCR, is a voluntary partnership that the United States and 33 other countries established in 1987 to curb the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Officials who spoke to the Washington Post said that new export applications would be approved or denied within months of receipt, clearing the way for armed drones and armed drone technology to potentially arrive in other countries by year’s end. The new policy affects drones that are capable of flying a distance of 300 kilometers and carrying a payload of 500 kilograms. Those specifications come from the MTCR but apply to drones like the Reaper, which

are capable of carrying laser-guided bombs and Hellfire missiles. Exporting more drones—either armed or outfitted with laser targeting

systems for smart bombs—to key allies and partners in the Middle East like Jordan would help them strike Islamic State, according to experts. “Transferring drones, particularly those that had laser designators so they could designate targets for strikes from manned fighter aircraft, to coalition partners such as Jordan participating in strikes against ISIL could be a significant advantage to them,” Paul Scharre, fellow and director of the 20YY Warfare Initiative at the Center for a New American Security, told Defense One. Earlier this year, a member of the House Armed Services Committee disclosed to the Washington Times that the Obama administration had denied a request from Jordan for unarmed Predator spy drones. But that was before Jordan stepped up its F-16-led air assault to retaliate against Islamic State for the brutal burning alive of First Lt. Moaz al-Kasasbeh, the Jordanian pilot captured by the terrorist group. “Given our mutual interests, and our strong relationship, it’s absolutely critical that we provide Jordan the support needed to defeat the Islamic State,” Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.,

wrote to President Obama in a Feb. 5 letter. The loosened export rules do not mean that every ally in a pinch will be fast-tracked for the most lethal drones that America produces. Ukraine is reportedly seeking unarmed drones to bolster its campaign against Russian-supported separatists. “I find it hard to imagine that this would lead to transferring large-scale armed drones to Ukraine, not to mention the fact that they would likely have difficulty operating them effectively. This might help pave the way for transferring small, tactical drones to Ukrainian forces, which wouldn’t be a game-changer, but would help them with tactical reconnaissance and would be a

sensible move,” said Scharre. “The new drone export policy is unlikely to lead to the transfer of armed drones to Ukraine,” Michael Horowitz, associate professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, told Defense One. Horowitz and other experts argue that the policy change could allow the U.S. to regain some control if not over armed proliferation at least over how proliferation occurs. Last May, the Chinese Times reported that China would be selling their Wing Loong armed UAV, sometime called a Predator knockoff, to U.S. ally Saudi Arabia.

ISIS will get nuclear and chemical weaponsCirincione 2014 (Joe [president of Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation]; ISIS will be in position to get nuclear weapons if allowed to consolidate power, resources, says expert; www.nydailynews.com/news/world/isis-nukes-allowed-consolidate-expert-article-1.1958855; kdf)

The risk of a terrorist attack using nuclear or chemical weapons has just gone up . ISIS is willing to kill large numbers of innocents, and it has added three capabilities that catapult the threat beyond anything seen before: control of large, urban

territories, huge amounts of cash, and a global network of recruits. British Home Secretary Theresa May warned that if ISIS consolidates its control over the land it occupies, “We will see the world’s first truly terrorist state” with “the space to plot attacks against us.” Its seizure of banks and oil fields gave it more than $2 billion in assets. If ISIS could make the right connection to corrupt officials in Russia or Pakistan, the group might be able to buy enough highly enriched uranium (about 50 pounds) and the technical help to build a crude nuclear device. Militants recruited from

Europe or America could help smuggle it into their home nations. Or ISIS could try to build a “dirty bomb,” conventional explosives like dynamite laced with highly radioactive materials. The blast would not kill

many directly, but it would force the evacuation of tens of square blocks contaminated with radioactive particles. The terror and economic consequences of a bomb detonated in the financial districts of London or New York would be enormous. ISIS could also try to get chemical weapons, such as deadly nerve gases or mustard gas. Fortunately, the most likely source of these terror weapons was just eliminated. The Obama administration struck a deal with Syrian President Bashar Assad that has now destroyed the 1,300 tons of chemical bombs Assad built. Without this deal, ISIS would likely already have these weapons. There are two good answers to these threats. First, drain the swamp: Secure or eliminate the materials ISIS would need to build terror bombs. Second, deter any attack by making sure ISIS knows our retribution would be swift, certain and devastating.

Turn: Indefinite DetentionThe alternative to drones is boots on the ground, results in indefinite detention—turns the affByman 2013 (Daniel [Professor in the Security Studies Program at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and a Senior Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution]; Why Drones Work; July/ August; kdf)

Of course, it was a Navy SEAL team and not a drone strike that finally got bin Laden, but in many cases in which the United States needs to capture or eliminate an enemy, raids are too risky and costly. And even if a raid results in a successful capture, it begets another problem: what to do with the detainee. Prosecuting detainees in a federal or military court is difficult because often the intelligence against terrorists is inadmissible or using it risks jeopardizing sources and

methods. And given the fact that the United States is trying to close, rather than expand, the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, it has become much harder to justify holding suspects indefinitely. It has become more politically palatable for the United States to kill rather than detain suspected terrorists.

AT: Drones kill civiliansDrones save more lives than they harm Weiner and Sherman 2014 (Robert and Tom; Drones spare troops, have powerful impact; Oct 9; www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/oct/09/drones-troops-impact/; kdf)

A note from Osama bin Laden discovered at his Abbottabad residence by U.S. Seal Team Six during the U.S. raid on May 2, 2011, revealed, “Brothers said they were frankly exhausted from the enemy’s air bombardments.” Osama bin Laden hated drones, because they work. Drones save American troops from risk of death, kill far fewer civilians than ground troops operations, and make our military more effective against enemy combatants. Regardless, drones are often decried by many liberals as too invasive, too impersonal and too deadly to innocent civilians. Southern California has been a national leader of the drone industry, ever since the San Diego-based General Atomics pioneered the first Predator drone development more than two decades ago. Currently, 13 California drone manufacturers operate across the state, including 3D Robotics of San Diego and Datron Communication Systems of Vista. Pentagon officials initially purchased 10 drones from General Atomics — that number has now swelled to over 10,000 drones currently under Pentagon control, according to The Washington Post, and unknown numbers in CIA hands; a Defense News report estimates at least 80. “The defense industry has been a huge incubator of jobs in California, especially Southern California,” said Assemblyman Steven Bradford, D-Gardena, last year. “We want these well-paying, high-tech manufacturing jobs to continue to grow here in California.” Californians, whether liberal or conservative, should champion drone programs that save American troops from having a larger footprint and having to put their lives in danger in foreign territories. Drones reduce ground troops, yet they have as powerful an

impact. Hillary Clinton points out, in her recent memoir “Hard Choices,” that during her tenure as secretary of state, drone programs were “one of the most effective and controversial elements of the Obama administration’s strategy against Al Qaeda and like-minded terrorists … bin Laden himself worried about the heavy losses that drones were inflicting.” It is a key plus for drones that U.S. troops are three times safer from friendly fire attacks when deployed in war zones covered by drones compared with traditional warfare. During the Gulf War, American casualties totaled 382 in-theater deaths, of which nearly 62 percent were due to either friendly fire or other accidents, according to Navy research. However, during the current age of drones, only 21.5 percent of casualties are classified as “non-hostile,” according to Pentagon stats. America and our allies are sometimes literally our own worst enemy on the battlefield. Drones protect our troops from their own traditional battlefield errors. In a letter to President Obama in 2012, 25 congressmen stated, “We are concerned that the use of such “signature” strikes could raise the risk of killing innocent civilians or individuals who may have

no relationship to attacks on the United States.” They are just wrong. In fact, it is a myth that drones disproportionately kill civilians. After a review of the deaths inflicted by American drones since 2004, the Pakistani Defense Ministry concluded that citizen fatalities occurred at a rate of 3 percent of total kills — a total of 67 innocent civilians.

**Offcase

Economy DA

1NCThe economy is strong—but can easily be reversed Saphir 2015 (Ann; U.S. economy isn't as weak as estimates suggest, Fed paper says; www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/18/us-usa-fed-gdp-idUSKBN0O31T520150518; kdf)

The U.S. economy is probably not as weak as current estimates suggest, a paper published Monday by the Federal

Reserve Bank of San Francisco said, potentially adding to arguments for raising interest rates sooner rather than later. A government report late last month put first-quarter growth at a mere 0.2 percent, far below economists' expectations and uncomfortably close to an outright contraction like that experienced in the first quarter of 2014. But by running a series of statistical corrections

for the way the government accounts for seasonal variations in output, the paper's authors found "a good chance that underlying economic growth so far this year was substantially stronger than reported." A chart in the paper suggested first-quarter growth may have been closer to 1.8 percent. That's still below the economy's potential but not dramatically so. A

stronger economy suggests a lower hurdle for the Fed to raise interest rates that have been near zero since December 2008. San Francisco Fed President John Williams, whose chief research economist co-authored Monday's paper, has said he believes the economy will bounce back this quarter and may be strong enough for the Fed to begin raising interest rates even as soon as June. The paper's conclusions are at odds with the findings published last week by economists at the Washington-based Federal Reserve Board. They argued that the recent pattern of first-quarter economic slowdowns isn't a reflection of a statistical fluke in the way U.S. gross domestic product is measured.

The plan guts tens of thousands of good paying jobsWolfgang 2013 (Ben; Drone industry predicts explosive economic boost; Mar 12; www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/12/drone-industry-predicts-explosive-economic-boost/?page=all; kdf)

Drones as weapons and drones as spies remain matters of intense debate across the country, but the controversial aircraft are poised to make an impact as something else: economic engines. Private-sector drones — also called unmanned aerial

systems or UAVs — will create more than 70,000 jobs within three years and will pump more than $82 billion into the U.S. economy by 2025, according to a major new study commissioned by the industry’s leading trade group. But the report, authored by aerospace specialist and former George Washington University professor Darryl Jenkins, assumes that the White House and Congress stick to the current schedule and have in place the necessary legal and regulatory frameworks. Current law calls for full drone integration into U.S. airspace by September 2015, but many key privacy questions surrounding UAVs have yet to be answered. There’s also growing doubt that the Federal Aviation Administration can meet the congressionally mandated timetable. If deadlines are met and drones become commonplace in American skies, some states will be especially big

winners. Virginia, for example, stands to gain nearly 2,500 jobs by 2017. It also could take in $4.4 million in tax revenue and see more than $460 million in overall economic activity by 2017, the report says. Virginia would gain the

eighth-most jobs of any state as a result of drone integration. Maryland isn’t far behind, with projections of more than 1,700 new jobs by 2017. California would be by far the biggest winner in terms of jobs, with more than 12,000 expected. Florida, Texas, New York,

Washington, Connecticut, Kansas, Arizona and Pennsylvania are also expected to be benefit greatly from the coming drone economy. “This is an incredibly exciting time for an industry developing technology that will benefit society, as well as the economy,” said Michael Toscano, president and CEO of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, a trade group that has existed for more

than 40 years but has come into the public eye only recently. Drone expansion “means the creation of quality, high-paying American jobs,” Mr. Toscano continued. But the motivation behind Tuesday’s report — arguably the most sweeping look ever at the economic potential of drones — runs deeper than just dollars and cents. The industry faces an uncertain future in light of growing public paranoia surrounding the craft — paranoia that has only been heightened by the debate over whether the Obama administration would ever consider using a drone to kill an American on U.S. soil. While the drones that will be employed by U.S. companies or law enforcement agencies are far different than the military-style UAVs equipped with Hellfire missiles, those distinctions aren’t always clear. Tuesday’s report not only offered the industry a chance to shine the spotlight on drones’ positive uses and economic potential, but also served as an opportunity — or, perhaps a warning — to lawmakers seeking to limit UAVs. More than 20 states are considering bills to establish strict guidelines for what drones can do. Virginia is mulling a measure that would put a two-year moratorium on all government use of drones. Such a measure would be especially

harsh because first-responders such as police and fire departments are expected to be one of the largest markets for UAVs. Like other growing and thriving sectors of the economy, the drone business likely will set up shop in friendly environments. “While we project more than 100,000 new jobs by 2025, states that create favorable regulatory and business environments for the industry and the technology will likely siphon jobs away from states that do not,” said Mr. Jenkins, the report’s lead author who used to head George Washington University’s Aviation Institute and also is a former professor at Embry-Riddle University. On another front, the FAA appears to be in danger of missing the congressionally mandated 2015 deadline for drone integration. The agency just recently began taking applications for its test-site program, where drones will be studied to see how they respond in different climate conditions and at different altitudes. More than 30 states have expressed interest in the program, but it’s unclear when it will be fully established; further delays put

the 2015 date in even greater jeopardy. “Every year that we delay integration, the U.S. will lose more than $10 billion in total economic impact,” Mr. Jenkins said.

New jobs underpin current economic growth Davidson 2015 (Paul; Rise in higher-paying jobs lighting US economy; May 11; www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/05/10/april-job-gains-better-paying/27008875/; kdf)

Job growth last month shifted to higher-paying positions in a sign of a broadening labor market recovery. Professional and business services, construction and health care led the solid 223,000 job gains reported by the Labor Department on Friday. Retail and leisure and hospitality lagged. Both have been engines of payroll gains through most of the U.S. employment upswing

since 2010. "We're seeing more quality jobs," says Diane Swonk, chief economist of Mesirow Financial. The trend, she says, partly

reflects a widening recovery that includes a pickup in full-time positions. Professional and business services added 62,000 jobs in April, with strong advances in computer systems design, management and technical consulting, and architectural

and engineering services.

Economic decline causes extinctionRichard N. Haass 13, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, 4/30/13, “The World Without America,” http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/repairing-the-roots-of-american-power-by-richard-n--haass

Let me posit a radical idea: The most critical threat facing the United States now and for the foreseeable future is not a rising

China, a reckless North Korea, a nuclear Iran, modern terrorism, or climate change. Although all of these constitute potential or actual threats, the biggest challenges facing the US are its burgeoning debt, crumbling infrastructure, second-rate primary and secondary schools, outdated immigration

system, and slow economic growth – in short, the domestic foundations of American power. Readers in other countries may be tempted to react to this judgment with a dose of schadenfreude, finding more than a little satisfaction in America’s difficulties. Such a response should not be surprising. The US and those representing it have been guilty of hubris (the US may often be the indispensable nation, but it would be better if others pointed this out), and examples of inconsistency between America’s practices and its principles understandably provoke charges of hypocrisy. When America does not adhere to the principles that it preaches to others, it breeds resentment. But, like most

temptations, the urge to gloat at America’s imperfections and struggles ought to be resisted. People around the globe should be careful what they wish for. America’s failure to deal with its internal challenges would come at a steep price. Indeed, the rest of the world’s stake in American success is nearly as large as

that of the US itself. Part of the reason is economic. The US economy still accounts for about one-quarter of global output. If US growth accelerates, America’s capacity to consume other countries’ goods and services will increase, thereby boosting growth around the world. At a time when Europe is drifting and Asia is slowing, only the US (or, more broadly, North America) has the potential to drive global economic recovery . The US remains a unique source of innovation. Most of the world’s citizens communicate with mobile devices based on

technology developed in Silicon Valley; likewise, the Internet was made in America. More recently, new technologies developed in the US greatly increase the ability to extract oil and natural gas from underground formations. This technology is now making its way around the globe, allowing other societies to increase their energy production and decrease both their reliance on costly imports and their carbon emissions. The US is also an invaluable source of ideas. Its world-class universities educate a significant percentage of future world leaders. More

fundamentally, the US has long been a leading example of what market economies and democratic politics can accomplish. People and governments around the world are far more likely to become more open if the American model is perceived to be succeeding. Finally, the world faces many serious challenges, ranging from the need

to halt the spread of w eapons of m ass d estruction , fight climate change , and maintain a functioning world economic order that promotes trade and investment to regulating practices in cyber space , improving global

health, and preventing armed conflicts . These problems will not simply go away or sort themselves out . While Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” may ensure the success of free markets, it is powerless in the world of geopolitics . Order

requires the visible hand of leadership to formulate and realize global responses to global challenges . Don’t get me wrong: None of this is meant to suggest that the US can deal effectively with the world’s problems on its own. Unilateralism rarely works. It is not just that the US lacks the means; the

very nature of contemporary global problems suggests that only collective responses stand a good chance of succeeding. But multilateralism is much easier to advocate than to design and implement. Right now there is only one candidate for this role: the US. No other country has the necessary combination of capability and outlook. This brings me back to the argument that the US must put its house in order – economically , physically, socially, and politically – if it is to have the resources needed to promote order in the world . Everyone should hope that it does: The alternative to a world led by the US is not a world led by China, Europe, Russia, Japan, India, or any other country, but rather a world that is not led at all . Such a world would almost certainly be

characterized by chronic crisis and conflict. That would be bad not just for Americans, but for the vast majority of the planet’s inhabitants.

2NC Link: Must read The plan creates uncertainty within the industry -- derails growth Koebler 2013 (Jason; Drone Industry: Privacy 'Distractions' Could Have Major Economic Impacts; Mar 13; http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/13/drone-industry-privacy-distractions-could-have-major-economic-impacts; kdf)

A new report released by a drone industry trade group suggests that using unmanned planes in the United States could create more than 70,000 jobs and $82 billion in economic impact over the next few years. But the head of the

organization warns that "privacy distractions" could derail the industry. The report, released Tuesday by the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, suggests that most of the impact will come within the first three years of commercial integration of drones—tentatively set by the Federal Aviation Administration to occur in 2015—and that drones will most commonly be used in agricultural settings and for public safety reasons. [READ: Hagel Orders Review of 'Drone Medal'] So far, at least 31 states are considering legislation that would limit the use of drones, and a bill in Virginia that would put a two-year moratorium on drone use is waiting to be signed by governor Bob

McDonnell. Many of the bills being considered have been championed by civil liberties groups such as the ACLU

and would put severe limits on the commercial use of drones in those states. Some proposed bills would require police to get a search warrant before operating a drone. Most of the proposed bills, according to

Michael Toscano, president and CEO of AUVSI, would delay or diminish the positive economic impacts that the drone industry can have in a state. "This privacy stuff is a distraction," he says. "Look how much energy we're spending on that. It has the ability to affect things going forward."

Link: Drones k2 EconomyDrones are a vital component of the economy Heverly 2015 (Robert A [Associate Professor of Law, Albany Law School]; Game of Drones: The Uses and Potential Abuses of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in the U.S. and Abroad: ARTICLE: THE STATE OF DRONES: STATE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE DRONES; 8 Alb. Gov't L. Rev. 29; kdf)

Supporting Drones: Economic Incentives Domestic use of drones has been on the federal radar for some time. Predicted to have an economic impact of over $ 82 billion between 2015 and 2025, n102 with total job creation during that period estimated to be in excess of 100,000 jobs and tax revenue to the states totaling $ 635 billion, n103

states are understandably interested in ensuring they receive a portion of the drone economy's benefits. This shows not only in official statements from state and local leaders regarding drones and drone development n104 and funds allocated to drone development, n105 but $=P49 also in state responses to the Federal Aviation Administration's Test Site competition, a competition required by two different Congressional Acts. n106 The competition sought applications from those interested in and capable of setting up drone test ranges. n107 The legislation required that the FAA award operational status to six such ranges. n108 At the first stage of the competition, fifty applications for test range status were received, and states and local governments were involved as partners and supporters in a number of these applications. n109 The initial group of applicants was reduced to twenty-five by the FAA, which ultimately awarded six

sites with test range status. n110 All six sites are currently in operation (or, in the parlance of the FAA, all six are now "standing up"). n111 The number of filed applications, including those at the initial stage, show state and local interest in ensuring their role in the drone economy. n112 In addition, state and local governments in the $=P50 areas covered by the "losing" applications have stated their intent to pursue alternative paths to drone development within their jurisdictions. n113 Other states are studying drone issues,

n114 or creating task forces, n115 and committees n116 to study drones. Even when regulating drones, states are careful at times not to overlook the economic benefits of drone development, as was Utah when it noted that its law regulating drone use was not intended "to prohibit or impede the public and private research, development, or manufacture of unmanned aerial

vehicles." n117 Regardless of their concerns about privacy, surveillance and potential invasiveness of use, states are keenly aware of the economic stakes involved in the game of drones. n118

Link: California Economy Drones are key to California’s economyWeiner and Sherman 2014 (Robert and Tom; Drones spare troops, have powerful impact; Oct 9; www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/oct/09/drones-troops-impact/; kdf)

Southern California has been a national leader of the drone industry, ever since the San Diego-based General Atomics

pioneered the first Predator drone development more than two decades ago. Currently, 13 California drone manufacturers operate across the state, including 3D Robotics of San Diego and Datron Communication Systems of Vista. Pentagon officials initially purchased 10 drones from General Atomics — that number has now swelled to over 10,000 drones currently under Pentagon control, according to The Washington Post, and unknown numbers in CIA hands; a Defense

News report estimates at least 80. “The defense industry has been a huge incubator of jobs in California, especially

Southern California,” said Assemblyman Steven Bradford, D-Gardena, last year. “We want these well-paying, high-tech manufacturing jobs to continue to grow here in California.” Californians, whether liberal or conservative, should champion drone programs that save American troops from having a larger footprint and having to put their lives in danger in foreign territories. Drones reduce ground troops, yet they have as powerful an impact.

California key to US and global econNavarro, ‘8 Professor of Economics and Public Policy at the Paul Merage School of Business, University of California, Irvine and holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University (Peter Navarro, SFGate, 15 August 2008, “California nightmare for the global economy?” http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/California-nightmare-for-the-global-economy-3273234.php)//CC

Will the California budget crisis tip the United States into recession? The California economy is certainly

large enough to inflict such damage. It's the seventh-largest economy in the world and home to close to 38 million Americans. California's budget deficit is by any reasonable measure enormous. This budget deficit is estimated at $17.2 billion and represents more than 17 percent of the state's general fund expenditures (about $101 billion). In contrast, New York, which faces the second-worst budget gap in the nation for fiscal year 2009, has a gap of about $5 billion, which represents less than 10 percent of its budget. In closing

its past budgetary gaps, California has acted more like the federal government rather than merely one of 50 states. Indeed, unlike the federal government (or sovereign nations), each state is required to balance its budget each year; and no state, at least in principle, has the authority to engage in the kind of discretionary deficit spending both the federal government and nations around the world routinely use to stimulate their economies. In the past, a profligate California has gotten around this balanced-budget requirement by using a technique that effectively allows the Golden State to administer its own fiscal stimulus. In particular, California - under both Democratic

and Republican governors - has simply issued new bonds every time that it has spent far beyond its means. California's problem this

time, however, is that its deficit is so big, its balance sheet is so bad, and world credit markets are so tight that issuing new bonds alone is no longer a viable option. Instead, California's politicians are inexorably being forced toward a solution that will prominently feature both a large tax increase and significant spending cuts. Indeed, this is not a partisan matter of choosing one's poison. The budget deficit is so large that it cannot be eliminated without raising taxes, anathema to the state's Republicans, and spending cuts, equally unpalatable to California Democrats. Of course, the faster the state Legislature accepts this harsh reality, the faster the deadlock can be broken. Viewed from a macroeconomic perspective, there is an even harsher reality. Increased taxes and reduced spending will send a very nasty contractionary shock through a California economy that is already reeling from a housing market meltdown and punishing

gas prices. Should Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's budgetary medicine - including firing many state employees - trigger a recession, this may well serve as a tipping point for a national recession and , in the worst case scenario, even a global recession. In considering these dangers, it is worth noting that California provides close to 13 percent of America's real GDP growth. In contrast, the second-largest contributor to U.S. gross domestic product is Texas, and it provides only half that stimulus. It also worth noting that California is an important destination for both U.S. manufactured goods and world imports, particularly from Asia. Already, California's unemployment rate is more than 6.8 percent and well above the national average of 5.7 percent. At least some economists believe California may already be experiencing negative growth. The economy is likely to get a lot worse before its gets better. If there is any one civics lesson to be learned from this fine mess, it is that the state's politicians must learn to resist overspending in good times so that the state won't face bankruptcy when bad times hit. It should be equally clear that any damn fool can issue bonds to balance a budget. However, it takes real political courage and economic foresight to put a state budget on an even keel through fiscally conservative

tax-and-spend policies. At this juncture, California is nowhere close to that - and the rest of the country, and perhaps the world, may soon pay the Golden State's piper.

Internal – Shocks crash economyAny shock to the economy can cause a recession Gula 2015 (Alan [Chief Income Analyst @ Wall St Daily]; U.S. Economy Edges Closer to Recession; www.wallstreetdaily.com/2015/05/18/u-s-economy-recession/; kdf)

“It is hard to imagine any time in history when such rampant pessimism about the economy has existed with so little evidence of serious trouble,” said a prominent economist. No, he wasn’t referring to our current situation. This statement was made in January 2008, and the worst

U.S. recession since the Great Depression had already started. In a display of revisionist history, everyone seems to believe that the housing bubble and ensuing recession were widely foreseen, but they simply weren’t. Despite all that

we’ve been through, economists seem to be as clueless as ever. What’s more, the next recession isn’t likely to be as bad as the last one (at least in the United States). So, if economists had a hard time spotting the Great Recession in real time, then

rest assured that a garden variety recession is going to be completely unanticipated. And we may be witnessing the start of a recession right now… In late April, we learned that preliminary U.S. real GDP growth for the first quarter of 2015 was just 0.2% – lower than 82 of the 86 estimates from economists polled by Bloomberg. Interestingly, the Atlanta Fed’s

GDPNow forecasting model actually nailed the number by predicting 0.1% growth. However, information released in May indicates that growth actually contracted quarter over quarter. Barclays Capital and JPMorgan (JPM) both lowered U.S. Q1 GDP estimates to negative 1.1% after disappointing factory order data revisions last Thursday. Now, it even looks as if the second quarter is imperiled. Retail sales for April were disappointing. Again, economists had expected that a decline in gasoline prices would boost consumption, which hasn’t happened. What’s truly amazing is that retail sales and food services (excluding motor vehicles and parts dealers) contracted versus the year-ago figure. As can be seen in the chart below, retail sales growth is actually lower than it was at any point during the recession in 2001! On Friday, we learned that industrial production contracted in April. GDPNow’s forecast for the second-quarter growth is running at

just +0.7%. Granted, some components of GDP – such as net exports (trade) and changes in private inventory levels – are extremely difficult to forecast, so the model isn’t going to appear prophetic every quarter. Nonetheless, it’s a good approximation. All of this points to a grim conclusion: The probability of a U.S. recession is increasing. Ironically, the Federal Reserve is supposed to be raising short-term interest rates sometime this year.

Internal – Economy on the brinkSustained growth is necessary to stave off a recession Schweppe 2015 (Sarah; Is the US economy slipping into another recession; May 10; www.cheatsheet.com/politics/is-the-u-s-economy-slipping-into-another-recession.html/?a=viewall; kdf)

While we’re supposed to be in a period of recovery from the Great Recession, the economy has been lagging more than expected lately. Does this lack of growth mean we’re slipping back into a recession? If we are, it’s not one similar to what

we saw in 2008 because the unemployment rate isn’t soaring up. Rather growth has been stalling this year, enough to make the Federal Reserve question whether to hike interest rates in June as it has said it wants to. Growth stalled a lot in the winter, dropping to 0.2%, and according to the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model, it’s only bumped up to 0.9% since. And the Washington Post suspects that any positive growth in the first quarter could be revised now that we know the U.S. trade deficit grew to the highest level in more than six years in March. The gap increased 43.1% to $51.4 billion, according to the Commerce Department, exceeding the estimates of 70 economists surveyed by Bloomberg. Foreign goods, capital goods, and consumer products were purchased at

record rates, while demand for petroleum dropped. Those facts are what make economists nervous, but the jobs growth may be keeping us from falling into a real recession. How is this affecting jobs? Despite adding 591,000 jobs this year, the unemployment rate remained unchanged at 5.4%, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. In April, the number of unemployed persons (8.5 million) stayed about the same as the previous month. Overall, the unemployment rate went down by 0.8 percentage point for the month, and the number of unemployed dropped by 1.1 million for the month.

AT: Drones inevitableEconomic growth will only happen if the industry isn’t burdened by regsWolfgang 2013 (Ben; Drone industry predicts explosive economic boost; Mar 12; www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/12/drone-industry-predicts-explosive-economic-boost/?page=all; kdf)

Drones as weapons and drones as spies remain matters of intense debate across the country, but the controversial aircraft are poised to make an impact as something else: economic engines. Private-sector drones — also called

unmanned aerial systems or UAVs — will create more than 70,000 jobs within three years and will pump more than $82 billion into the U.S. economy by 2025, according to a major new study commissioned by the industry’s

leading trade group. But the report, authored by aerospace specialist and former George Washington University professor Darryl Jenkins,

assumes that the White House and Congress stick to the current schedule and have in place the necessary legal and regulatory frameworks. Current law calls for full drone integration into U.S. airspace by September 2015, but many key privacy questions surrounding UAVs have yet to be answered. There’s also growing doubt that the Federal Aviation Administration can meet the congressionally mandated timetable.

AT: Other drones solveLaw enforcement drones underpin the entire industryReid 2014 (Melanie [Associate Professor of Law, Lincoln Memorial University-Duncan School of Law]; GROUNDING DRONES: BIG BROTHER'S TOOL BOX NEEDS REGULATION NOT ELIMINATION; 20 Rich. J.L. & Tech. 9; kdf)

The Pentagon cut spending on military drones from $ 4.8 billion in 2012 to $ 3.8 billion in 2013 with further reductions anticipated. n53 Initially, drones were used by the military as a reconnaissance tool, with the D-21 drone making its first reconnaissance mission over China in 1969. n54 In 1995, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) sent drones on more than 600 reconnaissance missions in the Bosnian conflict, and the drones also provided intelligence for NATO forces in the 1999 Kosovo air campaign by "searching for targets" and "keeping an eye on Kosovar-Albanian refugee camps." n55 In January 2001, the CIA considered assassinating Osama bin Laden with the Predator drone, but the Predator had only been used for reconnaissance missions. n56 This was the first occasion that the

military considered using drones as a weapon rather than as a reconnaissance tool. n57 Today, with significant military budget cuts looming, drone manufacturers need to find a new market for their creations. P14 Therefore, aerospace manufacturers are looking to create a lucrative civilian market. The chief operating officer of a Los Angeles-based company that makes operating systems for drones, Denis Clements, remarked that the drone industry is transitioning "from all-military on a relatively small scale to international and commercial on a large scale." n58 The AUVSI estimates that the industry will be worth $ 82 billion and

employ 100,000 people by 2025. n59 P15 Law enforcement, in particular, is interested in using drones as they are typically smaller than traditional aircraft, less likely to be detected, create less noise and vibrations, and less expensive than aircraft and helicopters so they can afford to purchase and use more of them. n60 Of course, the cost depends upon the size and sophistication of the drone, and law enforcement need also worry about collisions and tort liability if one of their drones collides with other aircraft or destroys personal property on the ground.

AT: Industry report exaggerates economic impactThere is consensus on the economic impact of dronesDrugan 2015 (John; Drones a source of debate-and economic impact; Feb 5; www.uschamberfoundation.org/blog/post/drones-source-debate-and-economic-impact/42600; kdf)

At a recent hearing held by the House Science Space and Technology Committee, lawmakers and business leaders cited studies predicting as many as 200,000 new jobs and an $82 million economic impact from this new technology. A majority of the hearing was a dialogue between witnesses and Congress to discuss how the FAA should shape regulation to introduce them into the National Airspace System in a manner that will best foster growth within the industry. The regulatory debate surrounding the FAA’s UAV policies will no doubt be intensified and expedited, given the recent alarming incident of a UAV drone landing on the White House lawn.

Surprisingly, despite disagreement on the FAA’s regulation, Congress and industry experts were in complete agreement on the potentially massive economic impact that UAV technology could have on the American economy and the necessity to act as soon as possible. What may be even more surprising than the impact UAV technology may have are the different sectors of American industry that will be influenced by it.

Counterplan: PIC out of Warrants

1NCThe United States federal government should limit the persistent use of aerial surveillance, require law enforcement agents to delete impertinent information after 48 hours, and mandate that aerial surveillance occur at least 350 feet above the ground.

The CP is preferable to the warrant-based logic of the affMcNeal 2014 (Gregory [prof at Pepperdine University]; Drones and Aerial surveillance: Considerations for Legislators; Nov; www.brookings.edu/research/reports2/2014/11/drones-and-aerial-surveillance; kdf)

While warrants are appealing to privacy advocates, the enactment of overly broad restrictions on drone use can curtail non-invasive, beneficial uses of drones. Legislators should reject a warrant-based,

technology centric approach as it is unworkable and counterproductive. Instead, legislators should follow a property rights centric approach, coupled with limits on persistent surveillance, data retention procedures, transparency and accountability measures and a recognition of the possibility that technology may make unmanned aerial surveillance more protective of privacy than manned surveillance. This paper makes five core recommendations: Legislators should follow a property rights approach to aerial surveillance. This approach provides landowners with the right to exclude aircraft, persons, and other objects from a column of airspace extending from the surface of their land up to 350 feet above ground level. Such an approach may solve most public and private harms associated with drones.

Legislators should craft simple, duration-based surveillance legislation that will limit the aggregate amount of time the government may surveil a specific individual. Such legislation can address the potential harm of

persistent surveillance, a harm that is capable of being committed by manned and unmanned aircraft. Legislators should adopt data retention procedures that require heightened levels of suspicion and increased procedural protections for accessing stored data gathered by aerial surveillance. After a legislatively determined period of time, all stored data

should be deleted. Legislators should enact transparency and accountability measures, requiring government agencies to publish on a regular basis information about the use of aerial surveillance devices (both manned

and unmanned). Legislators should recognize that technology such as geofencing and auto-redaction, may make aerial surveillance by drones more protective of privacy than human surveillance.

OverviewWe are counterplanning out of the affirmatives warrant requirements because those provisions uniquely make it difficult to prevent terror attacks. Our McNeal evidence says that the best approach to drones is to require transparency on data collection, erasing impertinent information, and making to so drones have to fly in higher airspace. This solves the privacy advantage because it ensures that only information pertinent to investigations is kept and puts drones under the same laws as helicopter surveillance. We solve the drone warfare advantage because the counterplan would send the same signal internationally as the plan by not allowing for the weaponization of domestic drones. Lastly, we avoid the link to the terrorism disad because instead of grounding drones, we allow for the constant collection of evidence that could be vital in preventing a looming attack.

AT: Perm Do Both1. If we prove that the counterplan solves the aff and avoids the net-benefit, we only need to win a risk of the DA to prove the perm would cause terrorism

2. The aff and CP are incompatible – the perm would include the baggage of warrants OR they sever the plan and makes going negative impossible, unique reason to vote negativeMcNeal 2014 (Gregory [prof at Pepperdine University]; Drones and Aerial surveillance: Considerations for Legislators; Nov; www.brookings.edu/research/reports2/2014/11/drones-and-aerial-surveillance; kdf)

Conclusion The emergence of unmanned aerial vehicles in domestic skies raises understandable privacy concerns that require careful and

sometimes creative solutions. The smartest and most effective solution is to adopt a property rights approach that does not disrupt the status quo. Such an approach, coupled with time-based prohibitions on persistent surveillance,

transparency, and data retention procedures will create the most effective and clear legislative package . Legislators should reject alarmist calls that suggest we are on the verge of an Orwellian police state .[ 73] In 1985, the ACLU argued in an amicus brief filed in California v. Ciraolo that police observation from an airplane was “invasive modern technology” and upholding the search of Ciraolo’s yard would “alter society’s very concept of privacy.” Later, in 1988, the ACLU argued in Florida v. Riley that allowing police surveillance by helicopter was “Orwellian” and “would expose all Americans, their homes and effects, to highly intrusive snooping by government agents...” In a different context in 2004 (before the advent of the iPhone) police in Boston were going to use

Blackberry phones to access public databases (the equivalent of Googling). Privacy advocates decried the use of these handheld phones as “ mass scrutiny of the lives and activities of innocent people,” and “ a violation of the core democratic principle that the government should not be permitted to violate a person’s privacy, unless it has a reason to believe that he or she is involved in wrongdoing.”[74] Reactionary claims such as these get

the public’s attention and are easy to make, but have the predicted harms come true? Is the sky truly falling? We should be careful to not craft hasty legislation based on emotionally charged rhetoric . Outright bans on the use of drones and broadly worded warrant requirements that function as the equivalent of an outright ban do little to protect privacy or public safety and in some instances will only serve to protect criminal wrongdoing.

Legislators should instead enact legislation that maintains the current balance between legitimate surveillance and individuals’ privacy rights. The best way to achieve that goal is to follow a property centric approach, coupled with limits on pervasive surveillance, enhanced transparency measures, and data protection procedures.

AT: Perm do the CPPolicy precision is unique in the instance of drones – the perm would sever out of the warrant provision of the 1ac, voting issues for education and fairnessYang 2014 (Y. Douglas [JD Boston U]; BIG BROTHER'S GROWN WINGS: THE DOMESTIC PROLIFERATION OF DRONE SURVEILLANCE AND THE LAW'S RESPONSE; 23 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J. 343; kdf)

IV. Conclusion Drones present a revolutionary problem that requires both the Judiciary and legislatures to modify their approaches to regulating and controlling government surveillance. n309 Upholding the spirit of the Fourth Amendment, a spirit that embodies notions of privacy and security from unwarranted government intervention, n310 requires that society at least attempt to maintain a similar degree of privacy with drones that people enjoyed without drones. The Supreme Court's framework for analyzing Fourth Amendment questions underlines the difficulty and sheer magnitude of this task, however. n311 Over the course numerous terms, the Supreme Court has oscillated between the rigid interpretations of Olmstead, to practical yet indeterminate constructions of privacy in Katz, and back to a mixture of both in Jones. n312 Even when discussing narrowly tailored issues such as aerial surveillance, the Court struggles to maintain a firm footing as to what constitutes a "search," and what does not. n313 Nonetheless, the Supreme Court's framework provides useful guidance for forming a solution that answers how society can successfully assimilate drone surveillance into the American landscape without further deteriorating individual

privacy rights and expectations. Beyond the Supreme Court's guidance, the various federal and state legislative responses to the rise of drone surveillance provide yet another insight into how drone surveillance should be treated.

n314 Analyzing legislative responses generally yields a much closer view of how the general public views drone use, [*388] simply because "[a] legislative body is well situated to gauge changing public attitudes, to draw detailed lines, and to

balance privacy and public safety in a comprehensive way." n315 The near-ubiquitous warrant requirements among both the federal and state proposals clearly indicate that the legislatures intend to restrict drone use above and beyond the Supreme Court's baseline rules. n316 Nevertheless, neither the Supreme Court nor the various legislative proposals properly address how to define and restrict drone surveillance; the Court simply has not addressed the limits of drone use as of yet, and the legislatures have misapplied warrant requirements to drones when such requirements are too broad, too blunt, and unreasonably

restrictive. n317 To effectively address the privacy issues that surround drone surveillance, one needs to apply a new approach that is founded on legal precedent and embraces a balance between society's interest in effective law enforcement and the individual's interest in personal privacy. Instead of applying a near-universal warrant requirement, courts and legislatures should look to bright-line rules that are more precise, attuned, and reasonable, while affording a similar level of protection that an ordinary person enjoys today. n318 This Note presents six bright-line rules to assist legislatures and courts in their determinations of how drone surveillance should be regulated. n319 Each of the six rules restates the Supreme Court's understanding of the Fourth Amendment, yet simultaneously incorporate suggestions from various federal and state legislative proposals that addressed the public's concerns. n320 As the world of privacy law and the Fourth Amendment wander into the uncertain caverns of drone surveillance, this Note aims to shed some light

onto the right path forward. While society may currently see drones as an unknown entity, society may soon find a path that preserves its fundamental values and security, while enabling genuine law enforcement work to carry out its duty to protect us all.

AT: Exigent circumstances solve the NB /AT: Perm do the CPExigent circumstances don’t solve the net-benefit, prefer our evidence because it cites the same sources as the 1AC authorsMcNeal 2014 (Gregory [prof at Pepperdine University]; Drones and Aerial surveillance: Considerations for Legislators; Nov; www.brookings.edu/research/reports2/2014/11/drones-and-aerial-surveillance; kdf)

Legislators should reject broadly worded use restrictions. Some jurisdictions have enacted limitations on how information

gathered from drones may be used. Legislators should reject these broadly worded use restrictions that prohibit the use of any evidence gathered by drones in nearly any proceeding. Such restrictions exceed the parameters of the Fourth Amendment and in some circumstances may only serve to protect criminals while not deterring governmental wrongdoing. For example, the Alameda County California Sheriff’s Department proposed the use of small drones for: crime scene documentation, EOD missions, HAZMAT response, search and rescue, public safety and life preservation missions, disaster response, fire prevention, and documentation of a felony when such documentation is premised upon probable cause.[53] Linda Lyle, a privacy advocate with the ACLU criticized the proposal, stating: “If the sheriff wants a drone for search and rescue then the policy should say he can only use it for search and rescue...Unfortunately under his policy he can deploy a drone for search and rescue, but

then use the data for untold other purposes. That is a huge loophole, it’s an exception that swallows the rule.”[54] Her points mirror the ACLU’s position in their December 2011 white paper where they state that drone use is acceptable so long as “the surveillance will not be used for secondary law enforcement purposes.”[55] It is also similar to the language used in other proposals prohibiting the use of information gathered by a drone “as evidence against an individual in any trial, hearing or other proceeding....”[56] A simple hypothetical can help to illustrate the

problem with this approach. Imagine that law enforcement uses a drone to search for a lost hiker in a state park. This is a search and rescue mission that fits within the public safety, emergency, or exigency exceptions in most legislative proposals

aimed at controlling drone usage. However, imagine that during the course of the search the drone observed a man stabbing a woman to death in the park. That collection was entirely inadvertent, and as such suppressing the videotape of the stabbing would not serve to deter the police from using drones in the future as they were not searching for an unrelated stabbing crime, they were searching for a lost hiker. Yet, that evidence under the blanket use restrictions found in various proposals circulating in state legislatures, Congress, and under the ACLU’s “secondary law enforcement

purposes” standard would need to be suppressed.[57] Suppressing secondarily gathered evidence doesn’t protect privacy (as inadvertent discovery can’t be deterred); it merely protects a criminal who if observed from a helicopter, an airplane, or from the ground would face evidence of his crime, but under broadly worded drone focused privacy bills

may be more difficult to prosecute. It is difficult to see what public policy goal is furthered by suppressing evidence of a crime merely because the evidence was gathered from a drone instead of a helicopter. Do legislators

really want to be in the position of making it harder to punish perpetrators of violent crime? If the discovery were genuinely inadvertent, there is little to no deterrent value that justifies suppressing such evidence.

AT: CP doesn’t solve 4 th Amendment They say that the counterplan doesn’t solve the privacy advantage, but McNeal disagrees – by mandating drones to be at least 350 feet off the ground there is no reason they can look into bedroom windows and by requiring law enforcement agencies to delete impertinent data every 48 hours ensures that they cannot aggregate data about our lives. Furthermore, the counterplan requires law enforcement agencies to report on a regular basis how they are using drones providing the counterplan with verification.

Beyond all of this – they simply over-hype how drone surveillance occurs – that’s the McNeal evidence I read on the perm and on the case debate.

Police abuse, not privacy concerns, are the real issue – the CP resolves themReid 2014 (Melanie [Associate Professor of Law, Lincoln Memorial University-Duncan School of Law]; GROUNDING DRONES: BIG BROTHER'S TOOL BOX NEEDS REGULATION NOT ELIMINATION; 20 Rich. J.L. & Tech. 9; kdf)

VI. THE REAL FEAR BEHIND DRONE USE: GOVERNMENT ABUSE P77 If privacy is not the real concern behind drone use, perhaps it is the fear of law enforcement abuse. If law enforcement uses drone technology to target particular areas of the community and randomly "search for crime," is there another way to keep law enforcement in check than to say drone use automatically triggers the Fourth Amendment and requires a warrant? General crime monitoring has never been considered an acceptable practice by the Court. n242 Drones should be used only for investigations of specific targets, not merely to "look for crime." Citizens of the United States do not want to become citizens of the next Soviet Union where agents and drones randomly patrol for criminal or anti-state activity. Citizens fear that regular drone flights might inadvertently

collect data from a whole range of individuals unrelated to a specific investigation. P78 The answer lies not in requiring a warrant or a particular exception to the warrant requirement, but in requiring law enforcement to seek a court order similar to that required for a pen register under 18 U.S.C § 2703. n243 To obtain such a court order, law enforcement officials would need to demonstrate specific and articulable facts indicating that the data is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. This would prevent law enforcement from using drones to randomly search for crime in a particular area. The order would specify the identity, if known, of the person who is the subject of the criminal investigation and whom law enforcement would like to surveil and describe the particularized need for the information that can

be gathered with the drone. n244 P79 The order also should contain language requiring law enforcement to discard any information collected by the drone that is not relevant to the scope of the investigation within twenty-four to forty-eighty hours. This requirement would alleviate any concerns that the government would collect this information for other nefarious purposes in the future. Being that it is a court order, this requirement would have teeth as long as magistrates signing these orders follow up and demand that law enforcement demonstrate that they in fact have complied with the order and destroyed any irrelevant information. If a law enforcement officer fails to comply, a variety of sanctions could be used to demand compliance. Sanctions

even as severe as jail time would cause any law enforcement agent to comply fully. P80 The court order also should include a penalty for disclosing to unauthorized persons data obtained from a drone, thereby limiting exposure of the information to government personnel working on the particular case, similar to grand jury secrecy requirements under the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). n245 Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(7), "[a] knowing violation of Rule 6 . . . may be punished as a contempt of court." n246 Moreover, if the drone is flown outside the FAA regulated navigable airspace and views activity not within the public's vantage point, penalties should also be in place to punish those individuals in violation of strict flight guidelines provided in the court order. Punishing individual agents with contempt of court holds both law enforcement and judges accountable and likely will serve

as a more effective means to prevent government abuse than requiring warrants prior to drone flights. P81 The requirement of a court order similar to that found pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2703 eliminates the charade of fitting drone use within the Fourth Amendment context. Instead, it mandates a standard similar to that required for any information the government requests via a court order, such as a request for a pen register. n247 While the Supreme Court deemed a pen register to be outside the Fourth Amendment, Congress later passed 18 U.S.C. § 2703 to provide some protections against governmental abuse. n248 Drone use does not give rise to privacy issues; it gives rise to concerns of

government abuse and should follow the pen register precedent. n249 P82 The U.S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy, but the Fourth Amendment provides certain guarantees for the privacy of the person and possessions. n250 The "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment has been broadly interpreted to guarantee a fairly broad right of

privacy and privacy issues. n251 The Court can address the possible infringement on these undefined privacy issues by focusing on the legality of drone surveillance through the prism of "reasonable" use. If law enforcement utilizes the drone to collect data that is relevant to a particular, ongoing investigation, then the drone use is reasonable. n252 The greater the intrusiveness of the investigatory tool, the greater the possibility that tool will move into the "search" category of the Fourth Amendment, at which point the tool becomes unreasonable without a warrant. n253 Therefore, a drone that hovers around bedroom windows and takes photographs of the lady of the house taking her daily sauna would be intrusive and unreasonable and would constitute a "search" under the Fourth Amendment (as would a drone with thermal imaging or x-ray capabilities), and a warrant is required. However, if the lady of the house chooses to walk outside and tend to her garden in her front yard, she must come to terms with the fact that prying eyes may be watching--whether it be realtors, Hollywood filmmakers, or law enforcement. The tool used in public areas is reasonable and can be utilized without a warrant. It would be reasonable for any of these actors to come across the gardener in the process of conducting their own drone projects. If law enforcement requested the utilization of a drone via a § 2703 court order to assist them in the surveillance of a real-time drug transaction and happen upon the lady of the house tending her marijuana garden, then it would be reasonable for the government to use that evidence against her in a criminal prosecution. n254 Language in the court order should allow for the subsequent use of this type of information. Once outside, the lady of the house takes the risk that her actions will be seen; our zones of privacy where a warrant is required

have traditionally been reserved for our indoor activities. P83 Our right to privacy stems from our desire to be free from governmental interference in our daily lives. In the Fourth Amendment context, we have a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and a right to be free from governmental abuse. However, these protections do not extend to any limitation on law enforcement's use of drone surveillance in public areas for a specific purpose. There is no realistic expectation of privacy when a drone passes over one's house or car or observes our

activity in public. We gave up the luxury of privacy in public places long ago. P84 Drone use by law enforcement must be limited but not unduly subjected to Fourth Amendment scrutiny, as drones should not constitute a "search." To limit the temptation to use drones to "look for crime," law enforcement could be subject to the court order process prior to utilizing a drone in an investigation. P85 In my opinion, in the following scenarios drone use by law enforcement might fall closer towards a "search" under the Fourth Amendment and a warrant would most likely be required: (1) The drone is flown outside FAA navigable airspace for aircraft and helicopters (below 400 feet); (2) The drone collects information emanating from within the home (similar to thermal imaging or infrared sensors that detect movement); (3) Law enforcement uses highly sophisticated technology that is not commercially available (e.g., automated license plate readers or facial recognition technology); (4) The drone hovers around a particular area which may constitute a long-term sustained monitoring as mentioned in Jones, and a reasonable expectation of privacy is triggered; or (5) The drone hovers and creates an undue amount of wind, noise, dust, or threat of injury that could constitute a "trespass." P86 Fourth Amendment cases invoking the Katz or Jones doctrines all touch upon the nature of the technology used (does it permit the government to "see" what would otherwise be invisible to the naked eye, even in daylight, from a lawful vantage point) and the nature of the place being observed (is it an open field, the curtilage of a home, commercial property as in Dow Chemical, or the interior of a home?). n255 The more a drone operates outside of FAA guidelines and the more a drone causes undue dust, noise, and wind, the more the drone operation will constitute a trespass and the Fourth Amendment is triggered. The more a drone uses highly sophisticated technology not available for public use or collects information from inside the home, the more the drone operation will constitute a "search" under the Fourth Amendment as citizens will have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area and activities being observed. P87 Therefore, drones that fly within FAA navigable airspace, observing private property below that can be seen by the public in an aircraft, and using commercially available cameras or enhanced sensory technology, would fall outside Fourth Amendment protections and should be regulated via court order as previously suggested.

AT: Doesn’t solve Drone Warfare advantage There is nothing intrinsic about requiring the cops to get warrants in the US being key to get other countries to reign in their drone use. To whatever extend the aff solves for drones abroad, the restrictions that the counterplan mandates would do the same because we prevent domestic drone weaponization too.

AT: CP Links to the terror DAThere is a key distinction between the aff and the counterplan – they make it more onerous for drones to collect data that will prevent a terror attack. The CP allows for constant surveillance but only keeps the data that is useful in solving terror – that’s multiple pieces of McNeal evidence. At worse for us, the CP links to the NB less than the aff does.

AT: Separation of Powers Add-on Domestic spying isn’t an issue of Separation of PowersLener 2014 (Mark [leads the Constitutional Alliance]; The Chilling Effect of Domestic Spying; Aug 5; americanpolicy.org/2014/08/05/the-chilling-effect-of-domestic-spying/; kdf)

Congress has its share of the blame for the domestic spying that has and even to this day is taking place.

After all it is congress that has the responsibility of oversight over agencies and departments of the federal government. All too often congress has failed to do what it has been tasked with doing; performing oversight. In fact, not too long ago congress gave retroactive immunity to telecom companies for the roles telecom companies played in illegally collecting information for the NSA at the request of former President Bush. When it comes down to it, there is plenty of “blame” to go around. Some are guilty: All are

responsible including the public for not demanding better of our elected and appointed officials. Whether a Democrat or Republican occupied the White House or regardless of which party controlled the Senate and/or the House of Representatives, domestic spying took place and is still taking place. Domestic spying is not a “Right” or “Left” issue. Domestic spying is an equal opportunity offender.