Aerial Surveillance Negative

Aerial Surveillance Negative
Wave 2
Counterplans
Congress CP
1NC
The United States federal government should [do the plan].
The CP has congress do the plan, it solves drones best
Rothfuss 2014 (Ian F [George Mason School of Law]; Student Comment: An
Economic Perspective on the Privacy Implications of Domestic Drone Surveillance;
10 J.L. Econ. & Pol'y 441; kdf)
IV. Legislative and Policy Recommendations This section discusses the current policy and legislative
recommendations regarding drone surveillance and applies economic analysis to recommend an optimal way
Developing new laws and policies to address the privacy threats presented by
domestic drone surveillance will involve the difficult balancing of many special
interests and the individual privacy rights of U.S. citizens . n147 Therefore, in drafting a legal
framework for domestic drone surveillance, Congress should consider economic factors and
establish a framework which allows the use of drones with constraints to protect the
privacy interests of U.S. citizens. As an objective methodology, these economic perspectives
should lead lawmakers and policymakers to enact rules that will efficiently
maximize utility while protecting privacy interests. The new framework should address the
forward.
privacy concerns arising out of the domestic use of drones, while still allowing society to realize the technological
Congress must consider many factors when determining how to best

integrate drones into U.S. airspace . n148 In addition, the proposed policies should be compared with
benefits.
the policies in countries such as the United Kingdom, where general surveillance is more commonplace. n149 In July
2012, the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) issued a code of conduct that attempted
to address concerns associated with the deployment of drones. n150 Among other elements, the code of conduct
requires industry members to "respect the privacy of individuals" and "comply with all federal, state, and local laws,
ordinances, covenants, and restrictions." n151 The code of conduct has been viewed as insufficient since it only
lists broad topics, does not discuss specific privacy concerns, and does not elaborate on how the provisions will be
enforced. n152 Current recommendations address a number of concerns regarding the widespread deployment of
drones in the United States. Among these are recommendations from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
n153 and legislation currently pending in both houses of Congress. n154 The first group of recommendations to
consider is usage restrictions. It is generally accepted that drones and other means of surveillance may be used
when a warrant has been issued because probable cause exists. Therefore, the focus of [*459] pending legislation
and policy recommendations is on when the use of drones should be allowed without a warrant, if at all. The ACLU
proposes that drone
use should be limited to three purposes: (1) "where there are

specific and articulable grounds to believe that the drone will collect evidence
relating to a specific instance of criminal wrongdoing or, if the drone will intrude upon
reasonable expectations of privacy, where the government has obtained a warrant based on
probable cause;" n155 (2) "where there is a geographically confined, time-limited
emergency situation in which particular individuals' lives are at risk;" n156 or (3) "for reasonable nonlaw enforcement purposes . . . where privacy will not be substantially affected ." n157
Similarly, both the House and Senate versions of the Preserving Freedom from Unwanted Surveillance Act of 2013
provide for three exceptions to the warrant requirement: (1) "patrol of borders"; (2) "exigent circumstances"; and
(3) "high risk" of terrorist attack, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security. n158 The definition of
exigent circumstances differs in the two bills. The Senate bill defines exigent circumstances to only include action
necessary to "prevent imminent danger to life," n159 while the House bill uses a broader definition that also
includes "serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence."
The broader definition of exigent circumstances in the House of Representatives

version of the bill n161 is appropriate since it will give law enforcement more
latitude to protect the American people in addition to providing for civil liability n162
as a check against improper use of this authority. The next recommendation is to consider
n160
whether there should be an exclusionary rule that would make any evidence gathered without a warrant or other
legal authorization inadmissible in a criminal proceeding. The Senate bill also includes an exclusionary rule that
would prohibit evidence collected in violation of the Act from being used in criminal prosecution. n163 Exclusionary
rules can overdeter criminal investigations. n164 Therefore, unless a compelling case can be made as to why it is
necessary, it would be more efficient not to include an exclusionary rule in the legislation. Another consideration is
whether drones operating in the United States should be allowed to carry weapons like drones operating overseas
which [*460] are used to target enemy combatants. One recommendation is to prohibit law enforcement from
arming drones. n165 Drones have the ability to conduct remote precision strikes on suspects, but due process
concerns and the dangers resulting from armed unmanned aircraft preclude the viability of this option within the
domestic drones should be prohibited from carrying weapons of

any kind. Congress should enact rules to govern domestic drone use . One
United States. Therefore,
recommendation is that Congress should require the Department of Transportation to conduct a Privacy Impact
Assessment of the operation of drones domestically. n166 Pending legislation proposes amending the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 to address drone privacy concerns. n167 With the proper focus on privacy
concerns, drones may be deployed domestically while still protecting the privacy of American citizens. In addition,
Congress should require a warrant for "extended surveillance of a particular target."

n168 As discussed earlier, the Fourth Amendment would not necessarily require a warrant in these situations. Even
such a requirement extending warrant protections makes sense and will provide a
valuable check against law enforcement abuse of the new technology . Congress
should require authorization from an independent official for generalized
surveillance that collects personally identifiable information such as facial features
and license plate numbers. n169 This recommendation would apply to situations where a warrant was not
so,
required but personally identifiable information was still being gathered, such as surveillance at a public event. This
recommendation should be enacted as a safeguard of the public's privacy interests. To adequately protect privacy
interests, Congress should direct that the independent official, vested with decision-making power on applications
for general surveillance, be a neutral and detached magistrate who is completely separated from any law
enforcement or intelligence agency. As discussed in the previous section, legislation should be crafted to maximize
the social utility from the domestic use of drones. The legislation should be structured according to the three levels
of scrutiny proposed by Song to ensure that the governmental interest in the surveillance outweighs the disutility or
social cost that will result from the loss of privacy. n170 The neutral and detached magistrate discussed above
could determine when a sufficient government interest exists to warrant allowing generalized drone surveillance.
[*461] Additional policy recommendations include an image retention restriction n171 and a requirement to file a
data collection statement to obtain a FAA license to operate a drone. n172 These recommendations should be
incorporated into the legislation. Congress should require a data collection statement with applications for a FAA
license to operate a drone. A key element of the required data collection statement should address the retention of
images and other data obtained. n173 Such a restriction would mandate that all images and other sensory data
gathered through surveillance be deleted unless the information serves a valid, legal purpose that requires
retention. n174 This restriction is necessary to prevent the government or any other entity from amassing an
essentially limitless database of information on the activities of U.S. citizens without a valid and specified purpose.
Collectively,
enacting these recommendations would prevent widespread, general

drone surveillance while allowing drones to be utilized domestically when
reasonably warranted to maintain security or protect the interests of American
citizens. Therefore, these recommendations would adequately protect the privacy
interests of American citizens while allowing law enforcement and other entities to
utilize drones to protect our country and serve other worthwhile endeavors.
Congressional leadership good

Expiration of section 215 proves congress is poised to take
leadership in limiting executive powers in domestic
surveillance
Buttar 15
(Shahid Buttar is a constitutional lawyer, electronic musician, grassroots

organizer and executive director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee. 5/26/15,
"Senate Moves to Check Executive Spying Power" pg. online @ www.truthout.org/news/item/30976-senate-starts-to-rethink-mass-surveillance-checkingexecutive-spying-power//DM)
Congressional allies of the intelligence agencies failed to muster enough

votes to extend Section 215 in the face of opposition , including a dramatic bipartisan filibuster initiated by
What Happened?
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky). The Freedom Act, proposed as a compromise after negotiation with the administration (which launched a failed 11th-hour
blitz to ram it through) fell three votes short of the required minimum to force a vote. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) then tried to
While the
Freedom Act would have imposed some limits on domestic spying, the compromise
it embodied was profoundly unambitious. The bill was built in relative secret,
without nearly enough public input, and ignored most of the issues raised by the
Snowden disclosures two years ago. Having failed to sustain either the proposed compromise or several short-term
force votes on a short-term reauthorization without proposed reforms, which several senators from both parties flatly rejected.
reauthorization attempts proposed by the Senate majority leader, Congress need not waste further time considering whether to resuscitate Section 215.
A federal appellate court recently ruled that its prior incarnation was illegal,
anyway, reducing another potential vote to bickering over "yesterday's news." The
political shift indicates a direction for future reform . Who Wins and Who Loses? The most
obvious losers are the NSA and FBI. After 15 years of breaking already permissive
laws, yet not congressional blank checks, the agencies must finally start complying
with constitutional limits. Within the agencies, senior leaders of the intelligence establishment also emerge looking like clowns.
Section 215 survived this long only because agency officials - including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former NSA Director Michael
Hayden - lied under oath to evade oversight. The Senate's decision to end a program that senators learned about from whistleblowers, instead of those
Even if they remain above the law by evading the prosecution

for perjury sought by multiple members of Congress, their careers will be defined by
congressional and judicial rejection of illegal programs they built in secret. To the extent
officials, further discredits their legacies.
intelligence officials are clowns, the many congressional leaders from both parties who supported them are stooges. Establishment Democrats and
Republicans alike uncritically accepted lies, deferred to them and went along with the Beltway consensus - in sharp contrast to their populist colleagues
who proved willing to uphold their oath of office to "defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Several winners also emerged
Congressional rejection of mass spying vindicates several principles at

once, including transparency, oversight, checks and balances, the
separation of powers and constitutional rights enshrined in the First and
Fourth Amendments. Each of those values is cherished across the political continuum, making them especially powerful during a
from this drama.
presidential election year. Senator Paul is another clear winner. He demonstrated leadership, surged among the crowded GOP field of 2016 presidential
hopefuls and effectively seized control of the Senate from the majority leader. With its senators leading both the surveillance/secrecy/corruption caucus,
as well as the competing constitutional/privacy/accountability caucus, Kentucky could also claim victory. The US Constitution may be the most important
winner. By proxy, "We the People of the United States" actually scored two victories at once. Narrowly, the expiration of Patriot Act Section 215 advances
Fourth Amendment privacy interests. Even though mass surveillance will continue for now under other legal authorities, one program through which our
, this vote begins a

long-overdue process of limiting executive powers, expanded during a period of
seeming emergency, which grew entrenched despite proving ineffective as well as constitutionally offensive. In this sense, congressional
government monitors phone calls and tracks everyone's behavior, regardless of wrongdoing, will end. More broadly
assertiveness supports democracy in a long-running battle to avoid the erosion from within foreseen by both Alexis de Tocqueville and President and
, the debate over

surveillance reform must expand. Further reforms are necessary to enable an
adversarial process and greater transparency at the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and also to limit
Supreme Allied Commander Dwight Eisenhower. What Comes Next? With reformers having triumphed in Congress
other legal authorities - like Executive Order 12333 and FISA Section 702 - used to justify unconstitutional domestic surveillance. It's a good thing that a
bipartisan measure, the Surveillance State Repeal Act (HR 1466), is poised to do
exactly that. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wisconsin) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky) introduced the SSRA to force the agencies
to justify the expansion of any powers from a constitutional baseline , rather than one contrived
by a decade of executive lies. Congress has long abandoned its role of checking and balancing runaway executive power, but the Senate's recent vote
Members should heed the political wind, and embrace bipartisan

calls for aggressive limits as the starting point for comprehensive surveillance
reform.
suggests an overdue awakening.
Congress Solves
Congress best to regulate drones previous experience
Farber 14 (Hillary B., J.D., Associate Professor of Law at the University of
Massachusetts School of Law, Eyes in the Sky: Constitutional and Regulatory
Approaches to Domestic Drone Development, 64 Syracuse L. Rev. 1, pg. 27-30,
2014)
IV. Efforts to Regulate on the Federal Level The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of
2012 directs the FAA to promulgate regulations so airways can accommodate
drones by 2015. n156 It is estimated that, by end of this decade, 30,000 drones will
be operating in national airspace. n157 The FAA has selected six test sites to
conduct research on how to safely integrate drones into the airspace. The six public
entities include Griffiss International Airport in New York, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), the University of Alaska, the State of
Nevada, the North Dakota Department of Commerce, and Texas A&M University Corpus Christi. n158Drone flights from these test sites are expected to begin by
[*28] June 2014 and end in 2017. n159 The public and some members of Congress
have called upon the FAA to establish a privacy policy as part of its mission to
integrate drones into domestic airspace. n160 While the FAA maintains its chief
mission is to ensure safety and efficiency of all aviation systems, it has responded in
part by instituting privacy requirements for all test sites. n161 Regulation is
imperative if there is any promise of curtailing the slow demise of a citizen's right to
privacy in the face of these powerful, aerial observers. In light of inadequate Fourth
Amendment protections, privacy violations could occur without redress if Congress
does not act soon. Congressional regulation in the face of technological
advancement is not without precedent. Congress has preemptively acted to address
privacy issues in response to government surveillance of communication in transit
(wiretapping), n162 communications in storage such as emails, n163 bank records,
n164 and health records. n165 As one scholar commented, "with the Electronic
Communication Privacy Act of 1986, Congress was protecting people's emails before
most people knew what email was". n166 Possibly the most comprehensive and
promising piece of legislation in Congress is the Drone Aircraft Privacy and
Transparency [*29] Act, introduced in March 2013 by Senator Edward Markey. n167
The bill proposes strict guidelines for the collection and retention of information
gathered by drones. The legislation would prohibit the FAA from issuing drones
licenses unless the application includes a data collection statement disclosing who
will operate the drone, where thedrone will be flown, the flight path, the type of
data to be collected, how the data will be used, how long the data will be retained,
and whether information will be shared with third parties. n168 Moreover, all this
information will be available in a publicly searchable database, along with
disclosures of any data security breaches suffered by a licensee and the times and
locations of all drone flights. n169 The act further requires law enforcement
agencies to file a data minimization statement that explains how the agency will
minimize the collection and retention of data unrelated to the criminal investigation.
n170 This adds a layer of transparency to the certification process, which has been
veiled in a shroud of secrecy. It also elevates the privacy concerns beyond those of
ordinary citizens to a federal regulatory agency. Privacy rights groups support this
legislation as a significant step toward safeguarding privacy threatened by
pervasive aerial surveillance. n171 At present, law enforcement agencies are
deploying drones without any established privacy guidelines in place, and
information pertaining to drone data has been virtually impossible to obtain despite
Freedom of Information Act lawsuits filed by privacy rights groups. n172 The Drone
Aircraft and Transparency Act is not the only attempt to regulate drone deployment
at the federal level. In 2012, Senator Rand Paul introduced the Preserving Freedom
from Unwanted SurveillanceAct, which called for a sweeping prohibition of drone
usage for surveillance by any person or entity affiliated with the U.S. government.
n173 Paul reintroduced the bill in May 2013. n174 The [*30] legislation currently
resides in the Senate Judiciary Committee. n175
Congress oversight on wiretapping in the past indicates its

expertise in regulating surveillance
Kerr 04, professor of law at George Washington Law (Orin, professor of law
at the George Washington University Law School, scholar in the subjects of
computer crime law and internet surveillance, The Fourth Amendment and New
Technologies: Constitutional Myths and the Case for Caution, Vol. 102, No. 5 (Mar.,
2004), pp. 801-888, cl)
This Part explores the history of wiretapping law and concludes that this account
overstates the impact of the Fourth Amendment and understates the role of
legislative privacy protections. To be sure, Katz and Berger remain good law, and
modern wiretapping law reflects their influence. But from its inception in the midnineteenth century through the present, wiretapping law has remained a primarily
statutory field governed by statutory commands. Indeed, it turns out that very few
cases in the history of wiretapping law have ruled that a wiretapping practice
violated the Fourth Amendment. Despite the big splash of Berger and Katz, later
courts generally have declined to extend privacy against wiretapping beyond
statutory commands. Fourth Amendment decisions may have affected the shape
of legislation in important ways, but legislation rather than the Fourth
Amendment has provided the primary protection against invasions of
privacy from wiretapping. To some extent, this is not exactly news: pick up any
practitioners treatise on wiretapping law and you will find that it is concerned
primarily with statutory law.224 At the same time, the extent to which courts have
refused to regulate wiretapping practices via judicial standards post-Katz is quite
surprising. Wiretapping law is more legislative and less constitutional than most
people realize. This Part examines the history of wiretapping law, with a focus on the source of legal protections. I divide the
history of wiretapping law into four periods: first, pre-1934, including the period before and during the National Prohibition Act;225
second, from 1934 until 1967; third, from 1967 to 1968, involving the critical period of Berger v. New York, 226 Katz v. United States,
I
argue that within each period, statutory protections rather than constitutional limits
have been the primary regulators of wiretapping law and practice. I conclude by
suggesting that the statutory regulation of wiretapping may be more the rule
than the exception. While commentators have focused their attention on
constitutional decisions, Congress has passed dozens of statutory laws that regulate
law enforcement practices implicating new technologies. If wiretapping law
provides a case study of whether courts or legislatures take the lead role
in regulating privacy in new technologies, that case study suggests that
Congress plays the lead, not the courts.
227 and the enactment of the federal Wiretap Act; and fourth, the period post-1968, which is the modern era following Katz.
Legislative rule creation ensures up to date rules that the

courts cannot provide in regards to privacy
2004), pp. 801-888, cl)
In this part, I will argue that such enthusiasm for judicial solutions overlooks
significant institutional limitations of judicial rulemaking. Courts tend to be poorly
suited to generate effective rules regulating criminal investigations involving new
technologies. In contrast, legislatures possess a significant institutional advantage
in this area over courts. While courts have successfully created rules that establish
important privacy rights in many areas, it is difficult for judges to fashion
lasting guidance when technologies are new and rapidly changing . Th e
context of judicial decisionmaking often leaves the law surprisingly unclear. Courts
lack the institutional capacity to easily grasp the privacy implications of
new technologies they encounter. Judges cannot readily understand how the
technologies may develop, cannot easily appreciate context, and often cannot even
recognize whether the facts of the case before them raise privacy implications that
happen to be typical or atypical. Judicially created rules also lack necessary
flexibility; they cannot change quickly and cannot test various regulatory
approaches. As a result, judicially created rules regulating government
investigations tend to become quickly outdated or uncertain as technology changes.
The context of legislative rule-creation offers significantly better prospects for the
generation of balanced, nuanced, and effective investigative rules involving new
technologies. In light of these institutional realities, courts should place a thumb
on the scale in favor of judicial deference to legislative privacy protections
AT: Congress Fails

Congress already has expertise in dronesThe Consumer
Drone Safety Act is regulating drones now
Dillow 6/23
(Clay Dillow [contributing to Fortune since 2013, writing frequently about
technology, aerospace, and defense], 6/23/15, "Is Congress' new drone safety act
an innovation killer?," Fortune, fortune.com/2015/06/23/congress-drone-safety/, MX)
The proposed Consumer Drone Safety Act calls for more guidelines about when and
where drones can fly in the U.S. With a wealth of aerospace engineering talent located in the south and Silicon Valleys
software programming talent up north, California has quietly grown into a hub for the growing U.S. drone industry. But, some in the
industry are worried that a bill forth by Californias own Sen. Dianne Feinstein could push the brakes on innovation by placing
put
the FAA recently released

data showing 190 incidents during a nine-month period in 2014 where unauthorized drones were
sighted by members of the general aviation community operating in areas where they were not authorized. Of those, some
two dozen were reportedly described as close shav es, where a mid-air collision was narrowly avoided.
In response, Sen. Feinstein has introduced the Consumer Drone Safety Act, which would create
stricter federal laws governing consumer drone operations and require safety
features to be incorporated into new consumer drones . If we dont act now, its only a matter of time
onerous restrictions on consumer drone technologies. Under pressure from Feinstein,
before we have a tragedy on our hands, Senator Feinstein said in a statement. While many industry advocates dispute the
theyre more concerned about the fallout from what they

see as legislative overkill. Theres potential for this to turn into a rather draconian
set of limits on both the user and the manufacturer, says Brendan Schulman, head of the Unmanned
meaningfulness of the FAAs incident data,
Aircraft Systems practice at New York City-based law firm Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel. At issue for Feinstein, it seems, is the fact
the FAA has moved to heavily restrict and regulate drones flown for
commercial purposes, drones flown recreationally are governed more or less by a set of non-regulatory best practices,
rather than by federal law. The Consumer Drone Safety Act aims to create federal regulations
regarding when, where, and how consumer drones can be operated, as well as
require that new safety technologies be built into all new drones. These include collisionthat while
avoidance technology, transponders that signal a drones location to air traffic controllers and other aircraft, and geo-fencing
technology that creates a GPS virtual fence around no-fly zones that would prevent the drone from entering areas near airports or
other restricted airspace. The bill also calls for anti-tampering safeguards that would prevent users from modifying consumer
drones after they are purchased. However, some of
these technologies are already emerging from
within the industry. Geo-fencing technology is already built into the latest iteration of Shenzhen, China-based DJIs
popular consumer drones, which make up more than half of the consumer drone marketplace. Startups like AirMap provide
consumer and commercial drone operators alike with a bevy of information about restricted airspaces and other localized
regulations based on where an aircraft is flying. Still
other technologieslike collision avoidance or so-called sense and
avoid technologiesare still being developed by drone manufacturers, creating something of a cart-before-the-horse
problem for manufacturers and regulators should the Consumer Drone Safety Act be passed into law. Besides questions about
technological feasibility, industry advocates also worry that such a policy would kill innovation in a new industry thats predicted to
be worth tens of billions to American companies over the next decade. If you were to incorporate all of these technologies on
consumer drones, I dont know if they would be affordable anymore, Schulman says. And thats going to put a lot of these new
startups out of business. These startups range from any number of small, crowdfunded drone makers to growing commercial
ventures with millions in venture backing and revenues like DJI, France-based Parrot, or Silicon Valleys own 3D Robotics (3DR). For a
company like 3DR that has staked its business model on an open platform that encourages users to tinker with its products software
and hardware, the bills anti-tampering provisions are doubly damaging. Such restrictions would drive up development and
manufacturing costs as well as stifle innovation among the companys users. The onus to create safe consumer drones does fall on
the industry, says Jesse Kallman, director of business development and regulatory affairs for Airware, a San Francisco-based startup
focused on the software side of commercial drones. But, in many respects, the industry is already doing many of the things the bill
mandates without subjecting itself to burdensomeand somewhat misguidedtechnology imperatives. I think a lot of the
responsibility does fall on the manufacturers, and we do need to think about safety from the very beginning and bake it into the
product, Kallman says. So, I think there are benefits to this bill in terms of creating a safety mentality. But, he adds, there are
several aspects of the bill that are going to be tough to implement and enforce, especially for the FAA whose budget and manpower
are already stretched very thin. The larger problem, he says, is the wide availability of the technology and the relatively narrow
scope of opportunities for new users to educate themselves. Its a new market, its really easy to get your hands on this stuff, and
users arent educated, Kallman says. Education is the biggest thing we can do for the industry. Imposing a bunch of technology
restrictions doesnt make sense in a lot of cases. Some of the technologies that the bill would require manufacturers include in their
products are still in their infancy, says Lisa Ellman, Co-Chair of the Global UAS Practice at the Washington, D.C. office of law firm
Hogan Lovells. The legal expert, who also was a one-time policy advisor to the Obama administration says, that the bill, if passed,
This type of disconnect

between government officials and the industry, perhaps, best embodies the ongoing
regulatory conflict thats taking place in the drone industry these days. The drone
industry has formed its own lobbying group , the Small UAV Coalition, which includes such deeppocketed backers as Amazon and Google (Airware, Airmap, DJI, and 3DR are all also members) to represent
could derail the development of the very technologies its pressing the industry for.
its side of the argument on Capitol Hill. How effective the industry is at pushing pro-regulation legislators like Sen. Feinstein toward a
middle ground will have a lot of impact on what the future U.S. drone industry looks like.
AT: Courts best

Empirics provestare decisis prevents the judicial branch from
making resolute decisions
2004), pp. 801-888, cl)
A second difference between judicial and legislative rulemaking concerns their
operative constraints. Judicial rulemaking is limited by strong stare decisis
norms that limit the ability of judicial rules to change quickly; in contrast,
legislatures enjoy wide-ranging discretion to enact new rules. The difference
favors legislatures when technology is in flux because the privacy implications of
particular rules can fluctuate as technology advances. To ensure that the law
maintains its intended balance, it needs mechanisms that can adapt to
technological change. Legislatures are up to the task; courts generally are not.
Legislatures can experiment with different rules and make frequent amendments;
they can place restrictions on both public and private actors; and they can even
sunset rules so that they apply only for a particular period of time. The courts
cannot. As a result, Fourth Amendment rules will tend to lack the flexibility that a
regulatory response to new technologies may require. The statutory framework that
governs Internet privacy demonstrates the flexibility and creative potential of
legislative approaches. Congress enacted the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act (ECPA) in 1986 to regulate the privacy of Internet communication s.424 Since
that time, Congress has amended the framework no less than eleven times: once in
1988, 425 twice in 1994,426 three times in 1996,427 once 1998, 428 twice in 2001,
429 and twice in 2002. 430 Some of those changes were only minor technical
amendments, while others were more significant alterations to the statutory
scheme. Moreover, the structure of Congresss statutory Internet privacy laws
demonstrates how legislative rules can impose creative and flexible regulatory
regimes involving new technologies. For example, Congress opted to regulate both
public and private parties to best protect privacy. This would be difficult if not
impossible under the Fourth Amendment, which regulates only the
government and private parties acting on the governments behalf.431 But
ECPA recognizes that private parties acting on their own can pose a serious threat
to Internet privacy: if America Online can look through the e-mails of its 30 million
subscribers and disclose the evidence to the police without restriction, this would
gut Internet privacy protections. The Fourth Amendment does not restrict this
disclosure, but ECPA does:432 in addition to restricting the ability of law
enforcement to order private ISPs to disclose communications to law
enforcement,433 the law also restricts the ability of private ISPs to disclose
communications to law enforcement voluntarily.
AT: Court Sets precedent

Legislative processes generate more informed rules than the
courts closed environment
2004), pp. 801-888, cl)
The limitations of judicial rulemaking in the Fourth Amendment context are
illustrated by two recent cases applying the Fourth Amendment to computers. Lets
start with United States v. Bach. 465 Bach raised a constitutional challenge to the
law enforcement practice of faxing search warrants to ISPs for information on their
servers.466 Rather than execute the search at the ISP, the police in Bach ordered
the ISP that possessed the information to collect the evidence on its own and send it
to law enforcement.467 The defendant argued that the Fourth Amendment required
law enforcement to be physically present at the ISP (in this case, the Californiabased ISP Yahoo!) to execute the warrant themselves, or at least to oversee the
process. According to the defendant, merely faxing the warrant to Yahoo!
threatened privacy because it granted too much discretion to Yahoo! employees
who could easily exceed the scope of the warrant To be sure, legislative
rulemaking is not a panacea. At the same time, the information environment of
legislative rulemaking is superior to that of judicial rulemaking in the
context of developing technologies. Legislatures can receive input from a wide
range of sources, and can use these inputs to generate well-informed rules. The
open legislative process and the accompanying public scrutiny tend to ferret out
rules that are particularly unbalanced, and often lead to amendments that temper
proposed rules that go too far in either direction. For example, Congress generally
legislates in the area of high-tech privacy only after holding extensive hearings in
which experts testify and comment on various technologies and regulatory
strategies.483 Legislators typically ask both the Justice Department and civil
liberties groups for comment, and consider objections from both sources before
voting on legislation. The legislature can also amend proposed rules in response to
concerns of the public, media coverage, or any experts the legislature wishes to
consult. 484 Given this environment, the legislative process tends to
generate more informed rules governing developing technologies than is
likely to result from the closed environment of the judicial process.
AT: CP Doesnt solve 4th Amend

Establishing limits on drones is the only method to revitalize
the fourth amendment
San Pedro 2014 (Victoria [J.D. Candidate, Stetson University College of Law];
STUDENT WORK: DRONE LEGISLATION: KEEPING AN EYE ON LAW ENFORCEMENT'S
LATEST SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY; 43 Stetson L. Rev. 679; kdf)
V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS With the ubiquity of drone licenses among American law enforcement
While
state statutes and proposed federal legislation attempt to limit law enforcement's
ability to use drones in surveillance efforts, those proposals and statutes do not
adequately address the duration of the sur-veillance or the sophistication of the
technology used by law enforcement to enhance drone capabilities . Therefore, by requiragencies, n288 the drag-net surveillance that was once a laughable concept n289 is now a reality. n290
ing a warrant and restricting law enforcement from conducting drone surveillance for a period lasting longer than
twenty-four hours, the proposed legislation will best address the issues left open by Fourth Amendment
including the exigent circumstances language into the

legislation will allow law enforcement agencies to better understand the
circumstances that would permit the use of a drone . Because the courts have addressed exigent
circumstances on numerous occasions, n291 law enforcement agencies may already have
protocols and officer training dealing with exigent cir-cumstances. R ather than drafting
jurisprudence. [*720] Further,
legislation that attempts to describe a circumstance meriting the use of a drone, n292 using the exigent
circumstances language will allow law enforcement agen-cies to comply with Fourth Amendment jurisprudence
already defined by the Court. Similarly,
legislation imposing a time restriction on the dura-tion

of the surveillance will provide law enforcement agencies with a bright-line rule that
facilitates application across the board. Since the current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence provides
that one does not have a reasonable expectation of pri-vacy from all observations of one's property, n293 this
statutory lan-guage will provide a reasonable expectation of privacy from prolonged observations of one's property.
This proposal would comply with current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence

regarding fly-over aerial observations and would also be consistent with the mosaic
theory. n294 Further, this proposal limits law enforcement's ability to use any form of drone technology. Given
that the technological advancements in this field will likely continue to progress at a rapid pace, any proposed
legislation should incorporate an objective standard defining the permissible level of technology or an outright
prohibition on the use of all drone surveillance. In this way, we can align the use of this form of technology with
Fourth Amendment protections. Rather than providing vague standards, such as technology that is not in general
this
proposal would allow law enforcement to be exempt from the warrant requirement
for exigent circumstances, while also allowing them to obtain a warrant from a
neutral and detached magistrate when law enforcement intends to conduct longterm surveillance, thereby ensuring that law enforcement agencies comply with the
warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment and respect citizens' privacy rights.
public use, the general restriction provides a bright-line rule to law enforcement agencies. [*721] Therefore,
AT: SOP Add on

Legislative reform is key to ensure effective jurisdiction over
the executive congress is a pre-requisite to court action
Divoll 12
(Vicki Divoll is a lawyer and national security expert based in Washington D.C.
Until 2012, Divoll taught United States Government and Constitutional Develo,
3/25/12, "Targeted killings: Who's checking the executive branch?" pg. online @
articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/25/opinion/la-oe-divoll-congress-and-targetedassassinations-20120325//DM)
The courts have recognized repeatedly that in order to perform its basic
constitutional responsibilities, Congress can and must acquire information
from the president and the departments and agencies of the executive branch. The fact that the memo is highly classified is
no excuse, nor is it likely to fit within the very narrow doctrine of executive privilege, as enunciated by the Supreme Court. So Leahy would be within his
But is Congress getting or not getting this memo really the point here?
rights to be piqued.
Holder has publicly outlined the memo's bottom line, and he has likely given more detail in closed session committee briefings. But shouldn't Leahy ask his
own legion of lawyers, who are at least as competent as those in the executive branch, to assess the state of the law for him? Here, in a nutshell, is what
they would probably find: First, the Supreme Court has not ruled (yet) that the due process clause of the Constitution prohibits the executive branch,
without judicial review, from targeting and killing an American outside a war zone. Second, there are no statutes on the books that prevent the president
from ordering such an action. Third, any executive orders or other policy statements that might be interpreted to preclude such a killing do not bind the
president. Finally, it may be that the justification of self-defense is sufficiently strong to answer the moral and ethical questions, (although we do not know
the details of the administration's position). So, Sen. Leahy, now you can stop asking for memos that you neither need nor are likely to obtain, and get to
In the 1970s, Congress did just that, taking a hard look at the excessive intelligence
activities of agencies within the executive branch . It did not like what it found, nor did the
American people. Months of hearings by select committees of the House and the Senate
resulted in new laws limiting, most notably, the power of the executive branch to
target American citizens. Back then we were outraged that our phones could be tapped without a judge's order, so Congress enacted
work.
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to require judicial oversight. Regarding targeted killing, pressure from Congress got President Ford to
So now we are
targeting not just the phones but the lives of Americans , and there is no constitutional doctrine, statute or
executive order addressing the issue. This is where the framers would have expected the legislature
to take a good, hard look. The framers political realists one and all would not be surprised, however, by the deafening silence
issue an executive order prohibiting assassinations altogether, though we were killing only foreigners in those days.
on this issue from Capitol Hill. Presumably, the Republican majority in the House is in favor of the aggressive policy, and the Democratic majority in the
Senate may be reluctant to lead the charge against a policy embraced by one of its own in the White House. But Leahy wants to do something, so he is
once again, we may

need legislation to curb executive branch excesses . In the 1970s, Congress enacted
the safeguard of judicial review before the executive could conduct electronic
surveillance of Americans, and noncitizens, inside the United States, not trusting the executive to make those decisions on its own.
checking the oversight box by publicly asking for memos, rather than holding hearings to examine whether,
And in 2008, the law was amended to protect Americans' phones and email overseas too. Leahy should redirect his attention from asking for memoranda
the real issue facing Congress: Should the

president of the United States be able to order the killing of an American citizen
with no review outside his own executive branch advisors? Even if Leahy trusts this president to tread
from the Justice Department to focus his committee's energy on
cautiously with such enormous, unchecked power, what about the next one, or the one after that?
FAA CP
1NC CP
Counterplan- The United States federal government should
amend the FAA Modernization and Reform Act by mandating
interagency cooperation to create a Memorandum of
Understanding that clarifies responsibilities, recommends
permissible use guidelines, and creates accountability for the
privacy implications of drone use.
Counterplan key to solve privacy
Hendriksen 13 (Patrice Hendriksen is an associate at Goodwin Proctor LLP and an executive editor for
The George Washington Law Review, Unmanned and Unchecked: Confronting the Unmanned Aircraft System
Privacy Threat Through Interagency Coordination, Published December 2013, George Washington Law Review,
Volume 82:207,
http://www.gwlr.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/GWN105.pdf , SZ)
To address the UAS privacy gap, Congress should amend the FAA Modernization and
Reform Act of 2012 to require creation of an MOU addressing the privacy issues
implicated by rapid UAS integration in the national airspace system. The proposed
amendment requires participation of three primary stakeholdersthe FAA, DOJ, and
DHSand permits their discretionary consultation with other interested
agencies.223 The FAA is well versed as the primary actor in UAS integration already.
Of the remaining interested agencies, the DOJ has the closest connection to the
crux of the issue: the use of UASs by law enforcement.224 DHS has demonstrated a
vested interest in and developing expertise regarding the privacy implications of
government UAS operations.225 Interagency coordination preserves the current
lead status of the FAA while bringing in additional interested agencies to offer their
expertise on the issue. A congressionally mandated MOU provides an appropriate
vehicle to accomplish this goal: it is flexible enough to respond to the constantly
evolving status of UASs and can be structured to create accountability among
involved agencies. Substantively, the mandated MOU should clarify jurisdictional
lines among agencies, require interagency communication, and recommend
substantive guidelines for permissible UAS operations. Further, the amendment
should call for the MOUs timely revision, defined to reflect the FAAs timeline for
integration. Stakeholders agree that developing guidelines for permissible UAS uses
ahead of their widespread adoption may preclude abuse.226 This proposal ensures
that privacy constraints develop in step with the problem itself by evolving in
response to the FAAs already established integration timeline.227 Finally, to further
promote the accountability of member agencies under this amendment, the
agencies should publish the MOU and submit a report of the resulting plan to
relevant congressional committees for consideration.
Plan cant solve- tech is too sophisticated- Counterplan

provides only way to solve
Volume 82:207,
As law enforcement
surveillance missions increase, so does the threat to citizens Fourth Amendment
and related privacy rights. However, sophisticated UAS technology can be
constrained by neither existing Fourth Amendment jurisprudence nor the current
statutory scheme. Additionally, legislative and single-agency solutions fail to address
the complex nature of UAS use. Congress should revise the FAA Modernization and
Reform Act of 2012 to require coordination between the FAA and other agencies
invested in UAS privacy issues though an MOU that clarifies jurisdictional bounds,
assigns responsibilities, and creates accountability for the privacy gap in UAS
integration. Such an amendment would respond to the complex and changing nature of
the UAS privacy issue and take the much-needed initial step of assigning responsibility for its resolution.
Complete UAS integration into the domestic airspace is a steadily approaching reality.
Overview
The counterplan solves for the entirety of the plan. Solves for
privacy concerns without linking to the <insert net benefit>.
Solves best by mandating interagency cooperation to create a
Memorandum of Understanding. This creates an efficient
guaranteed way to solve clarifying responsibilities,
recommends permissible use guidelines, and creates
accountability for the privacy implications of drone use. The CP
would change the FAA Modernization and Reform Act to solve
for privacy concerns. The FAA is key to solve because it is the
primary agency regulating drone use.
Ext. CP Solvency
Ext. 1NC Hendriksen evidence- Counterplan key to solve
privacy. By mandating cooperation, a Memorandum of
Understanding will be formed that solves for all concerns
about drone use
Privacy is an increasing concern- Counterplan is only way to
solve
Volume 82:207,
Unmanned aircraft systems (UASs), popularly known as drones,
are an evolving technology that

Their presence in
the national airspace is a quickly approaching reality . The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) is the primary agency regulating UAS use , but its reach extends to safety, not
privacy. The FAA must integrate UASs into the national airspace by 2015. UAS technology and its market are also
changing. Models are becoming smaller, faster, and less expensive to build and operate. There will likely be
30,000 UASs in our skies by 2030, with law enforcement agencies representing their most significant
future users. Domestic UAS surveillance operations implicate the Fourth Amendment
right to freedom from unreasonable searches and other privacy interests . UASs have
great potential to violate citizens reasonable expectations of privacy as explained
by the Supreme Court in aerial surveillance and sense-enhancing technology cases because the
technology lacks certain practical boundaries that formerly constrained traditional surveillance.
This Note proposes that Congress amend the FAA Modernization and Reform Act to
provides a tempting alternative to more traditional law enforcement surveillance methods.
mandate interagency coordination among UAS federal stake-holders. Congress should require these stakeholders to
create a Memorandum of Understanding that clarifies responsibilities, recommends permissible use guidelines, and
Such an amendment will

effectively address the complexity of UAS operations and close the privacy gap that
exists under the law today.
creates accountability for the privacy implications of UAS integration.
AT: Plan solves better/AT: Courts key

Warrants are insufficient to solve- the FAA has the greatest
authority over drones
Volume 82:207,
The proposed statutory amendment is necessary because neither existing case law
nor the current statutory regime places adequate limitations on domestic UAS
surveillance by law enforcement. Courts have not yet applied the Fourth
Amendment to UAS surveillance,166 and when they do, the degree to which UAS use
will be circumscribed is difficult to predict .167 Moreover, even if the courts that ultimately
confront this issue do provide meaningful protections from UAS abuse, those protections will come
too late, after UASs have become more prevalent . UAS stakeholders agree that developing usage
guidelines before UASs become more popular may prevent abuses by law enforcement and a negative public
perception of UASs.168 Waiting for courts to speak on the issue opens the door for such abuses to occur in the
legislative or regulatory
action may better safeguard privacy interests from new technology than courts of
law.169 Legislatures can respond to public attitudes, draw appropriately detailed lines, and balance
meantime. Legislative guidance is also lacking. As Justice Alito suggested in Jones,
comprehensive public interests.170 Congress has not yet spoken directly on UAS privacy issues. Under the current
the FAA apparently has the greatest authority over UASs due to its
general responsibility to regulate the national airspace , and its specific charge to facilitate the
statutory regime,
safe integration of UASs into the airspace under the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.171 Some UAS
stakeholders have already urged the FAA to incorporate privacy concerns into its
UAS rulemaking procedures.172 FAA officials have rejected the call to address privacy, explaining that it
is outside the FAAs mission of aviation safety.173 Despite the FAAs earlier protest, however, in November 2013,
the agency released Final Privacy Requirements for its six UAS test sites.174 Rather than prescribing substantive
privacy policies for test site operators, the requirements mandate that operators develop their own privacy and
data retention policies and comply with applicable privacy law.175
AT: Perm do both

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 the impacts of the DA.
The plan and CP are incompatible the perm would include the
warrants which would link to <insert net benefit> OR they
sever the plan and makes going for the counterplan
impossible, unique reason to vote negative
McNeal 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
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
that require careful and sometimes creative solutions.
airplane was invasive modern technology and upholding the search of Ciraolos yard would alter societys 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 persons privacy, unless it has
a reason to believe that he or she is involved in wrongdoing. [74] Reactionary claims such as
these get the publics attention and are easy to make, but have the predicted harms come true? Is the sky truly
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
falling?
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 CP
Perm do the CP is illegitimate- they are severing out of the
warrants of the plan. This is a voting issue for fairness and
education.
The plan links to the net benefit whereas the counterplan
avoids the link. Proves the Counterplan is competitive.
Policy precision is unique in the instance of drones- proves
competition
Yang 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
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
Court's guidance,
to gauge changing public attitudes, to draw detailed lines, and to balance privacy and public safety in a
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,
comprehensive way." n315
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
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
restrictive. n317
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.
McNeal CP
1NC
The 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 aff
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
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 autoredaction, may make aerial surveillance by drones more protective of privacy than
human surveillance.
manned and unmanned aircraft.
Overview
We 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 Both

1. 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 negative
Conclusion The emergence of unmanned aerial vehicles in domestic skies raises understandable privacy concerns
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
that require careful and sometimes creative solutions.
airplane was invasive modern technology and upholding the search of Ciraolos yard would alter societys 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 persons privacy, unless it has
a reason to believe that he or she is involved in wrongdoing. [74] Reactionary claims such as
these get the publics attention and are easy to make, but have the predicted harms come true? Is the sky truly
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
falling?
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 CP

Policy 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 fairness
Yang 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
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
Court's guidance,
to gauge changing public attitudes, to draw detailed lines, and to balance privacy and public safety in a
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,
comprehensive way." n315
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
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
restrictive. n317
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 CP
Exigent circumstances dont solve the net-benefit, prefer our
evidence because it cites the same sources as the 1AC authors
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
Sheriffs 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, its an exception that
the ACLUs position in their December 2011 white paper where

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
swallows the rule.[54] Her points mirror
they state that
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 ACLUs secondary law enforcement purposes
Suppressing secondarily gathered evidence doesnt

protect privacy (as inadvertent discovery cant 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.
standard would need to be suppressed.[57]
AT: CP doesnt solve 4th Amendment

They say that the counterplan doesnt 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 thats 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 them
Reid 2014 (Melanie [Associate Professor of Law, Lincoln Memorial UniversityDuncan School of Law]; GROUNDING DRONES: BIG BROTHER'S TOOL BOX NEEDS
REGULATION NOT ELIMINATION; 20 Rich. J.L. & Tech. 9; kdf)
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
VI. THE REAL FEAR BEHIND DRONE USE: GOVERNMENT ABUSE P77
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
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,
range of individuals unrelated to a specific investigation. P78
if known, of the person who is the subject of the criminal investigation and whom law enforcement would like to
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
surveil and describe the particularized need for the information that can be gathered with the drone. n244
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
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
P82
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.
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
P83
no realistic expectation of privacy when a drone passes over one's house or car or observes our activity in public.
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
We gave up the luxury of privacy in public places long ago. P84
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: Doesnt 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: Doesnt Solve Econ

The cps limits on where drones can fly stimulates the industry
Rule 2015 (Troy A [Associate prof of law @ Sandra Day O'Connor college of law];
Airspace in the age of drones; 95 B.U.L. Rev. 155; kdf)
Conclusion Innovations in the domestic drone industry are making it possible for citizens to access
low-altitude airspace like never before. Although these technological advances have the potential to greatly benefit
are also creating new and unprecedented conflicts involving the

space through which they fly. Prior to the advent of modern drones, there was no pressing need to
humankind, they [*208]
precisely define the scope of landowners' property interests in low-altitude airspace. Unfortunately, as a growing
ambiguous airspace rights laws are now

threatening to impede the growth of an important new industry. In the midst of these
flock of domestic drones stands ready for takeoff,
pressures, principles of microeconomics and property theory call for new laws giving landowners more definite
These exclusion rights would be

most effective if they were treated as equivalent to rights that landowners have
long enjoyed in surface land and if they extended all the way up to the navigable
airspace line where the public highway for air travel begins. Laws establishing such rights
rights to exclude drones from the airspace directly above their land.
would create a simple "exclusion" regime for low-altitude airspace that is better suited to handle aerial trespass and
They could also be an integral part of a broader

system of new federal, state, and local laws tailored to drones' unique
characteristics. By enacting clear and efficient drone laws, policymakers can help to
ensure that the sky is the limit for the domestic drone industry in the twenty-first
century.
takings questions involving domestic drones.
AT: CP Links to the terror DA

There 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 thats
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 isnt an issue of Separation of Powers
Lener 2014 (Mark [leads the Constitutional Alliance]; The Chilling Effect of
Domestic Spying; Aug 5; americanpolicy.org/2014/08/05/the-chilling-effect-ofdomestic-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
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
officials.
spying is an equal opportunity offender.
Disads
Generic Impact
Politics - AT Courts Shield

President gets blamed for Courts decisions
Toobin 15- staffwriteratTheNewYorkersince1993andtheseniorlegalanalystforCNNsince2002(ObamasGameofChicken
withtheSupremeCourt,May2015,http://www.newyorker.com/news/dailycomment/obamasgameofchickenwiththesupremecourt)VD
No, its not. If
the Obama Administration loses in the Supreme Court, the political pain
will fall almost exclusively on the President and his Party. To paraphrase Colin Powell and the Pottery Barn
rule, President Obama will have broken health care, so he owns it. To the vast mass of Americans who follow
politics casually or not at all, Obamacare and the American system of health care have become virtually synonymous. This may not
be exactly right or fair, but its a reasonable perception on the part of most people. The scope of the Affordable Care Act is so vast,
and its effects so pervasive, that there is scarcely a corner of health care, especially with regard to insurance, that is unaffected by
it. So if
millions lose insurance, they will hold it against Obamacare, and against
Obama. Blaming the President in these circumstances may be unfair, but its the
way American politics works. Republicans, of course, will encourage this sentiment. The precise legal
claim in King v. Burwell is an esoteric one . It is not based on a claim that Obamacare
is unconstitutional. (The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law three years ago.) Rather, the
central assertion by the plaintiffs is that the Obama Administration violated the law
itself. In any event, the subtlety of the issue at the heart of the case will surely be
lost in its aftermath. The headlines will read, correctly, Court rules against
Obamacare, and this will be all that matters. The Republicans will argue that the Supreme Court showed
that the law was flawed from the start, that the Obama Administration is lawless, that a full repeal of the law is the only appropriate
response to the Courts decisionand that the millions who lose their subsides should blame the sponsor of the law. Watch for
references to a failed Presidency. Therell be plenty of them. Understandably, perhaps, the Administration has courted this kind of
reaction. Better than anyone, Administration officials know the scale of the problems that would be created by a loss in
the Supreme Court. Advertising this possibility makes sense as a litigation strategy; Obama officials dont want to make it easy for
the Supreme Court to rule against them. In testimony before Congress and elsewhere, Sylvia Burwell, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services (and the defendant in the case), said that the Administration has no contingency plan for an adverse ruling in the
Supreme Court. But playing chicken with the Justices only works if it works. If the Supreme Court strikes down the subsidies, the
For many people, the President

of the United States is the government of the United States . Its why he gets the
credit and blame for so many things, like the economy, where his influence can be
hard to discern. This is particularly true for a subject in which the President has invested so much of his personal and
political capital. If the Supreme Court rules against him, the President can blame the
Justices or the Republicans or anyone he likes, and he may even be correct. But the
buck will stop with him.
Administration will also have to answer for why it didnt prepare for this possibility.
Court Rulings cause political backlash

Mangan 15- health care reporter for CNBC news (Dan M., GOP risks political
backlash from Obamacare case: Poll, March 2015, http://www.cnbc.com/id/102469283) VD
It might be a bittersweet victory for Republican leaders if the Supreme Court rules
the way their party wants it to in a huge legal challenge to Obamacare that
threatens financial aid to people in two-thirds of the United States, a new poll
suggests. The survey, commissioned by a major labor union that supports
Obamacare, shows that even as the Affordable Care Act continues to be
viewed unfavorably by many people, a majority of them would strongly
disapprove of eliminating federal tax credits that help more than 6 million
HealthCare.gov customers pay their insurance premiums. And the Service
Employees International Union survey released Monday also reveals that a
strong majority of registered voters likely to vote in next year's presidential and
congressional elections would view Republicans less favorably if they did nothing to
replace those billions of dollars of lost subsidies , and used such a Supreme Court
decision as leverage to completely repeal Obamacare.
Supreme Court decisions require legislative and executive

action -- ensures controversial decisions are perceived by the
public
Mondak and Smithey 97(Jeffery J., Florida State University, Shannon
Ishiyama, University of Pittsburgh, The Dynamics of Public Support for the Supreme
Court The Journal of Politics, Nov., (59)4 , p. 1114-1142)
The Supreme Court is an inherently weak institution. To give impact to its

decisions, the Court depends on legislators for funding, the executive for
enforcement, and the public for compliance. This last relationship-between the
Supreme Court and the public provides the Court with its most daunting obstacles. A
disgruntled public may not only refuse to cooperate with a Supreme Court decision,
but may also pressure elected officials to resist implementation of judicial orders. As
such, despite the Supreme Court's nominal insulation from the American
people, the Court's justices have strong incentives to be concerned with their
public standing. The Supreme Court would seem to be in a perilous strategic
position: if the Court acts as a policy leader, it risks loss of critical public esteem;
conversely, if the Court's justices attend too closely to their standing in the
polls, they may avoid addressing the thorny social and political questions for
which a judicial decision is most needed.
AT: Privacy outweighs

Drones are key to first amendment rights, turns the aff
Berry 2014 (Michael [partner in the Philadelphia office of Levine Sullivan Koch &
Schulz LLP]; THE DRONES ARE COMING: ... AND FOR NOW WE SHOULD GET OUT OF
THEIR WAY; 36 Pennsylvania Lawyer 50; kdf)
Drones. When most Americans hear the word, they think of one thing -- flying machines that kill people in far-off
lands. Yet, as 2013 came to a close and 2014 got under way, Americans began to hear more about drones flying
domestically, right here, over U.S. soil. Last year brought a spate of drone-related headlines: A Colorado town
considered an ordinance allowing its residents to shoot down government drones. In Manhattan a small drone
caromed off a skyscraper and crashed onto a busy sidewalk. On "60 Minutes," Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos announced
people began
to realize that drones are not simply massive bomb-dropping, foreign-spying
airplanes. They come in all shapes and sizes and have countless uses. Some drones look like airplanes. Others
that his company hopes one day to use drones to deliver packages. As we saw these headlines,
look like small, high-tech helicopters. And still others look like nothing you've ever seen before and can even fit in
your hand. People can put drones to work in many ways . They can do seemingly obvious things,
like check traffic conditions, film thrilling action scenes for movies or provide aerial photographs for real estate
Drones can also do more complicated work that currently

requires great effort or puts people in harm's way: They can help farmers monitor
their crops. They can take measurements to track environmental conditions . And,
following natural disasters, they can survey damage and look for survivors. Drones can also make
agents seeking to show off houses.
seemingly impossible tasks possible -- whether quickly flying flotation devices to people adrift in the ocean or
And drones can serve a significant public interest by

providing a new tool for journalists to use in gathering and disseminating
information. They already have been filling this role internationally, capturing dramatic images of government
delivering a pizza in 30 minutes or less.
protests in Kiev, chronicling the devastation wrought by a typhoon in the Philippines and providing eye-popping
sports footage in Australia. These are just some of the things we know that drones can do today. Their potential use
is being [*52] explored by academics and industries around the country, including right here in Pennsylvania.
Indeed, the University of Pennsylvania and Carnegie Mellon University are home to several of the country's leading
While this technology is developing rapidly, the legal landscape

governing the use of drones is far from clear. The Federal Aviation Administration has long had
drone researchers.
voluntary guidelines for people who fly model airplanes. In 2007, the FAA issued a policy statement providing that
those guidelines permit only hobbyists to fly drones and that drones cannot be flown for commercial purposes.
the FAA has staked out the position that government entities can fly drones
if specifically approved by the FAA and private citizens can fly drones only if they
are hobbyists or if the FAA grants them a waiver to experiment under limited
circumstances.
Essentially
Economy DA
1NC
The economy is strongbut 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-gdpidUSKBN0O31T520150518; 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
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
interest rates sooner rather than later.
outright contraction like that experienced in the first quarter of 2014. But by running a series of statistical
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
corrections for the way the government accounts for seasonal variations in output,
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 jobs

Wolfgang 2013 (Ben; Drone industry predicts explosive economic boost; Mar
12; www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/12/drone-industry-predictsexplosive-economic-boost/?page=all; kdf)
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 industrys leading trade group.
Drones as weapons and
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. Theres 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
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 isnt 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,
winners.
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
Drone expansion means the creation of quality, high-paying American

jobs, Mr. Toscano continued. But the motivation behind Tuesdays report arguably the most sweeping look ever at the
only recently.
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 arent always clear. Tuesdays 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
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
as police and fire departments are expected to be one of the largest markets for UAVs.
environments for the industry and the technology will likely siphon jobs away from states that do not, said Mr. Jenkins, the reports
lead author who used to head George Washington Universitys 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,
Every year that

we delay integration, the U.S. will lose more than $10 billion in total economic
impact, Mr. Jenkins said.
but its unclear when it will be fully established; further delays put the 2015 date in even greater jeopardy.
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-betterpaying/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
"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.
been engines of payroll gains through most of the U.S. employment upswing since 2010.
Economic decline causes extinction

Richard N. Haass 13, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, 4/30/13, The
World Without America, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/repairingthe-roots-of-american-power-by-richard-n--haass
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
Let me posit a radical idea:
other countries may be tempted to react to this judgment with a dose of schadenfreude, finding more than a little satisfaction in Americas 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 Americas 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 Americas imperfections and struggles ought to be resisted. People around the globe should be careful what they wish for.
Americas failure to deal with its internal challenges would come at a steep price .
Indeed, the rest of the worlds stake in American success is nearly as large as that of the US itself. Part of the reason is economic. The US economy still
If US growth accelerates, Americas 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.
accounts for about one-quarter of global output.
Most of the worlds 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
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 weapons of mass destruction, fight climate change, and maintain a functioning world
economic order that promotes trade and investment to regulating practices in
world leaders. More fundamentally,
cyberspace, improving global health, and preventing armed conflicts. These

problems will not simply go away or sort themselves out . While Adam Smiths 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. Dont get me wrong: None of this is meant to suggest that the US can deal effectively with the worlds 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
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 planets
responses stand a good chance of succeeding. But
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/droneindustry-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 dronestentatively set by the Federal Aviation Administration to occur in 2015and 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 group s
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: Regs Bad

Current laws on drones are sufficient, the plan destroys the
industry
In the meantime state and local governments around the country have begun to consider drone legislation. By the
end of 2013, 43 states, including Pennsylvania, had considered drone legislation, with nine passing laws. All nine of
Most of those laws regulate

law enforcement, permitting drones to be used only in limited circumstances such
as when the police have a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement
applies. Three states have placed limits on the private use of drones. Oregon allows private property owners to
those states have placed restrictions on the government's use of drones.
file suit against drone operators under certain circumstances if the drones are flown less than 400 feet above their
property. Texas allows people and companies to use drones to capture images in some circumstances (such as for
scholarly research, mapping land or monitoring gas utilities). But Texas law makes it a crime to use a drone to
capture an image of a person or private property "with the intent to conduct surveillance." Idaho has gone even
farther, banning people from using drones to photograph or film others without their consent for the purpose of
publication. Pennsylvania should not rush to follow these states' examples of restricting private drone use. The
Texas and Idaho laws pose serious constitutional questions. People can take photographs of others in places where
there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, whether their subjects consent or not. This principle is deeply etched
into the law and has proven essential to newsgathering and reporting on matters of public concern. Legislators
these laws are unnecessary here.

Pennsylvania already has a number of laws in place to protect people against the
harms those other states are seeking to prevent . For example, our stalking, harassment and
"Peeping Tom" laws already make it illegal for people to use drones in potentially
nefarious ways. If someone believes he or she has been victimized by a drone,
Pennsylvania already provides an array of remedies . Some examples: If a person claims that a
should not trample this fundamental legal principle. Second,
drone operator invaded his or her privacy by filming the person in a private place, the person would have a remedy
through a claim for an intrusion. If that private footage were then tortiously broadcast, the person could file a claim
for publication of private facts. Similarly, if a person were physically injured by someone's drone, that person could
file a claim for battery. And if a person claims that drones are interfering with enjoyment of his or her property, that
When it comes to private use of drones, there is

simply no need to rush to pass new state laws. Finally, rushing to enact new laws
could threaten to extinguish the nascent drone industry before it gets off
the ground and before we fully understand drones' potential uses and benefits . We
should see how drones develop, what we learn from the FAA test sites and what
rules the FAA proposes and implements. We should not act before we have a more
complete record. In the meantime, if problems arise, we should allow existing laws to do
their job. Drones are coming. As they begin to arrive, let's monitor their progress
and get out of their way for now.
[*54] person can file a claim for nuisance.
Link: Drones k2 Economy

Drones 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
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
are currently in operation (or, in the parlance of the FAA, all six are now "standing up"). n111
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
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
committees n116 to study drones.
its law regulating drone use was not intended "to prohibit or impede the public and private research, development,
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
or manufacture of unmanned aerial vehicles." n117
Link: California Economy

Drones are key to Californias economy
Weiner and Sherman 2014 (Robert and Tom; Drones spare troops, have
powerful impact; Oct 9; www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/oct/09/drones-troopsimpact/; 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.
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, DGardena, 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
Currently,
danger in foreign territories. Drones reduce ground troops, yet they have as powerful an impact.
California key to US and global econ

Navarro, 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-theglobal-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 secondworst budget gap in the nation for fiscal year 2009, has a gap of about $5 billion, which represents less than 10
California has acted more like the federal

government rather than merely one of 50 states. Indeed, unlike the federal government (or
percent of its budget. In closing its past budgetary gaps,
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
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
new bonds every time that it has spent far beyond its means.
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
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
already reeling from a housing market meltdown and punishing gas prices.
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 taxand-spend policies. At this juncture, California is nowhere close to that - and
perhaps
the world, may soon pay the Golden State's piper.
the rest of the country, and
Internal Shocks crash economy

Any 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 wasnt 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.
everyone seems to believe that the housing bubble and

ensuing recession were widely foreseen, but they simply werent. Despite all that weve
been through, economists seem to be as clueless as ever. Whats more, the next recession
isnt likely to be as bad as the last one (at least in the United States). So, if economists had a hard
In a display of revisionist history,
time spotting the Great Recession in real time, then rest assured that a garden variety recession is going to be
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,
completely unanticipated.
the Atlanta Feds 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 hasnt happened. Whats 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. GDPNows forecast for the second-quarter growth is running at just +0.7%.
some components of GDP such as net exports (trade) and changes in private inventory levels
are extremely difficult to forecast, so the model isnt going to appear prophetic
every quarter. Nonetheless, its 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.
Granted,
Internal Economy on the brink

Sustained 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-anotherrecession.html/?a=viewall; kdf)
While were 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 were slipping back
into a recession? If we are, its not one similar to what we saw in 2008 because the unemployment rate isnt soaring
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 Feds GDPNow model, its only
bumped up to 0.9% since. And the Washington Post suspects that any positive growth in the first quarter
up.
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
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
record rates, while demand for petroleum dropped.
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: Checks
Governments are out of safety-valves the next recession will
spiral out of control
The Economist 2015 (Watch out: It is only a matter of time before the next
recession strikes. The rich world is not ready; Jun 13;
www.economist.com/news/leaders/21654053-it-only-matter-time-next-recessionstrikes-rich-world-not-ready-watch?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/watch_out; kdf)
THE struggle has been long and arduous. But gazing across the battered economies of
the rich world it is time to declare that the fight against financial chaos and deflation is
won. In 2015, the IMF says, for the first time since 2007 every advanced economy will
expand. Rich-world growth should exceed 2% for the first time since 2010 and Americas central bank is likely to
raise its rock-bottom interest rates. However, the global economy still faces all manner of
hazards, from the Greek debt saga to Chinas shaky markets. Few economies have ever gone as
long as a decade without tipping into recessionAmericas started growing in 2009. Sods law decrees that, sooner
policymakers will face another downturn. The danger is that , having used up their
governments and central banks will not have the ammunition to fight the next
recession. Paradoxically, reducing that risk requires a willingness to keep policy looser for longer today. The
or later,
arsenal,
smoke is clearing The good news comes mainly from America, which leads the rich-world pack. Its unexpected
contraction in the first quarter looks like a blip, owing a lot to factors like the weather (see article). The most recent
data, including surging vehicle sales and another round of robust employment figures, show that the pace of growth
is rebounding. American firms took on 280,000 new workers last month. Bosses are at last having to pay more to
find the workers they need. In other parts of the rich world things are also looking up. In the euro zone
unemployment is falling and prices are rising again. Britains recovery has lost a bit of puff, but strong employment
growth suggests that expansion will continue. Japan roared ahead in the first quarter, growing by 3.9% at an
Inevitably fragilities remain.

Europe is deep in debt and dependent on exports. Japan cannot get inflation to take
hold. Wage growth could quickly dent corporate earnings and valuations in America .
Emerging economies, which accounted for the bulk of growth in the post-crisis years, have seen
better days. The economies of both Brazil and Russia are expected to shrink this year. Poor trade data suggest
annualised rate. A recovery so broad-based and persistent is no fluke.
that Chinese growth may be slowing faster than the government wishes. If any of these worries causes a downturn
Rarely have so many large economies

been so ill-equipped to manage a recession, whatever its provenance, as our
wriggle-room ranking makes clear (see article). Rich countries average debt-to-GDP ratio has risen
by about 50% since 2007. In Britain and Spain debt has more than doubled. Nobody knows where the
ceiling is, but governments that want to splurge will have to win over jumpy
electorates as well as nervous creditors. Countries with only tenuous access to bond
markets, as in the euro zones periphery, may be unable to launch a big fiscal stimulus.
Monetary policy is yet more cramped. The last time the Federal Reserve raised
interest rates was in 2006. The Bank of Englands base rate sits at 0.5%. Records dating back to the 17th
the world will be in a rotten position to do much about it.
century show that, before 2009, it had never fallen below 2%; and futures prices suggest that in early 2018 it will
still be only around 1.5%.
That is healthy compared with the euro area and Japan, where
rates in 2018 are expected to remain stuck near zero. When central banks face their
next recession, in other words, they risk having almost no room to boost their
economies by cutting interest rates. That would make the next downturn even harder to escape.
AT: Drones inevitable

Economic growth will only happen if the industry isnt
burdened by regs
Wolfgang 2013 (Ben; Drone industry predicts explosive economic boost; Mar
12; www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/12/drone-industry-predictsexplosive-economic-boost/?page=all; kdf)
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 industrys 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
Drones as weapons and
calls for full drone integration into U.S. airspace by September 2015, but many key privacy questions surrounding
UAVs have yet to be answered. Theres also growing doubt that the Federal Aviation Administration can meet the
congressionally mandated timetable.
AT: Industry report exaggerates economic impact

There is consensus on the economic impact of drones
Drugan 2015 (John; Drones a source of debate-and economic impact; Feb 5;
www.uschamberfoundation.org/blog/post/drones-source-debate-and-economicimpact/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
FAAs 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 FAAs 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.
AT: Other drones solve

Law enforcement drones underpin the entire industry
Reid 2014 (Melanie [Associate Professor of Law, Lincoln Memorial UniversityDuncan 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
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
reconnaissance tool. n57 Today,
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.
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
n59 P15
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: Advantages
AT: Courts Advantage
Fourth Amendment doctrine bad

The Fourth Amendment doctrine is unfit to govern modern
surveillance outdated reasoning and privacy expectations
Rushin 11(Stephen, Ph.D in Jurisprudence and Social Policy, Assistant Professor
at The University of Alabamas School of Law, THE JUDICIAL RESPONSE TO MASS
POLICE SURVEILLANCE, University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology & Policy, Vol.
2011, No. 2, pg. 282-283, 2011)
Law enforcement technology has become ubiquitous in the urban landscape. Closed
circuit surveillance cameras indiscriminately record individuals physical
movements.1 Facial recognition software compares images of passing pedestrians
with extensive databases of suspected criminals.2 Red light cameras capture
photographs of traffic violations. The National Security Agency (NSA) logs phone
calls made by millions of citizens across the country in hopes of identifying
suspected terrorist activity.3 And automatic license plate recognition (ALPR)
systems, already in use in various jurisdictions across the country, digitally read and
record the license plates of passing automobiles into expansive databases.4 Indeed,
we live today in an increasingly digitally efficient investigative statea state where
law enforcement can both observe and record information about our whereabouts in
an unprecedentedly efficient manner. The retention of surveillance data raises many
serious constitutional concerns. But Fourth Amendment doctrine on search and
seizures reflects outdated assumptions about the once-limited capabilities of public
surveillance technologies and is, therefore, ill-equipped to deal with the challenges
posed by the digitally efficient investigative state. The existing Fourth Amendment
doctrine on surveillance technologies focuses primarily on three issues: (1) whether
a person had a subjective expectation of privacy; (2) the socially objective
reasonableness of that expectation of privacy; and (3) the relative intrusiveness of
the supposed privacy violation.5 The Supreme Court has also drawn a distinction
between presumptively constitutional technologies that merely improve the
efficiency of legitimate law enforcement, like digital tracking devices, and
unconstitutional technologies that give law enforcement an intrusive extrasensory
ability, like heat sensors.6 Under this framework, the warrantless use of most
surveillance technologies and the collection of personal data fits comfortably within
constitutional doctrineafter all, a person does not have an objectively reasonable
expectation to privacy when driving her car or walking on a public sidewalk. The
recording of a persons movements in public is not especially intrusive and certainly
does not provide police with any intrusive, extrasensory abilities beyond mere
observation. A recent Seventh Circuit case engaged in just this type of analysis
when it found that the warrantless use of global position system (GPS) surveillance
by law enforcement did not violate the Fourth Amendment.7 There, Judge Posner
and the Seventh Circuit concluded that GPS monitoring of a single suspect without a
warrant does not amount to wholesale surveillance. 8
Courts Cant Solve

Courts cant solve highly conservative and submissive to the
security state post 9/11
Greenwald 14
(Glenn Greenwald is an American lawyer, journalist and author. He was a
columnist for Guardian US from August 2012 to October 2013, 11/19/14,
"CONGRESS IS IRRELEVANT ON MASS SURVEILLANCE. HERES WHAT MATTERS
INSTEAD," pg. online @ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/19/irrelevanceu-s-congress-stopping-nsas-mass-surveillance//DM)
A U.S. federal judge already ruled that the NSAs domestic bulk collection program
likely violates the 4th Amendment, and in doing so, obliterated many of the governments underlying
justifications. Multiple cases are now on appeal, almost certainly headed to the Supreme
Court. None of this was possible in the absence of Snowden disclosures. For a variety of reasons, when it comes to
placing real limits on the NSA, I place almost as little faith in the judiciary
as I do in the Congress and executive branch. To begin with, the Supreme Court is
dominated by five right-wing justices on whom the Obama Justice Department has
repeatedly relied to endorse their most extreme civil-liberties-destroying theories. For
another, of all the U.S. institutions that have completely abdicated their role in the post-9/11 era, the federal judiciary
has probably been the worst, the most consistently subservient to the
National Security State. Still, there is some chance that one of these cases will result in a favorable outcome that
restores some 4th Amendment protections inside the U.S. The effect is likely to be marginal, but not entirely insignificant.
Courts are structurally incapable of regulation

Thompson 15 (Richard, legislative attorney, Mar. 30, Domestic Drones and
Privacy: A Primer, http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43965.pdf, cl)
This issue of the law keeping up with technology is a constantly recurring theme in
Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Some have argued that the judiciary is not the
ideal forum for creating adequate privacy rules when fast-moving technology is
involved.99 Courts tend to be backward lookingresolving past factual
scenarios between two discrete parties. This characteristic makes courts reactive
rather than proactive, leading to privacy rules that might fall behind the particular
technology in question. For instance, the Supreme Court has yet to resolve whether
individuals are entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy in their emails, a
technology that has been around for decades. Part of the problem is that the Court
has been unsure of its role in developing privacy rules when technology is in
flux,101 with some Justices preferring that legislatures, rather than the
courts, take the lead role.102 This is not to say that this approach is ineffective:
this case-by-case approach allows the courts to formulate rules more cautiously
based on concrete facts in an adversarial setting, and reduces the risk of creating
rules with potentially unintended consequences.
Courts arent the best actor at curtailing the use of dronesthey are too slow
Farber 13- associate profesor
(Hillary, EYES IN THE SKY: CONSTITUTIONAL AND REGULATORY APPROACHES TO

DOMESTIC DRONE DEPLOYMENT, 64 Syracuse Law Review 1) JB
Fourth Amendment privacy jurisprudence has yet to grapple with drones
and their unprecedented surveillance capabilities. Courts are slow to respond
when it comes to evaluating the constitutional implications of new
technology. n11 Supreme Court case law on aerial surveillance has only considered
manned aircraft flying at relatively low altitudes, which is not equivalent to the
characteristics and capabilities of drones. n12 At least in the short term, legislative [*5] regulation
Meanwhile,
will likely provide more substantive protection for individual privacy interests in the face of the ever-increasing
presence of unmanned aerial surveillance. n13 Congress has held a series of hearings to investigate the future of
There is bipartisan concern over how

and by whom drones will be used. n15 Yet, progress has been slow. On the other
hand, states are moving rapidly to regulate or ban the commercial use of drones, as
well as place restrictions on government use without a warrant . n16 In 2013, forty-three
drones and the privacy and safety issues they present. n14
states considered more than 130 bills or resolutions on drone use, addressing a range of issues including privacy
implications, economic impact, and utilization. n17 Eight states have enacted laws regulating drone use. n18
Judicial Activism Bad-Emergencies

President must have control to enforce and modify the law in
emergencies
Posner 11
(Eric Andrew Posner is an American law professor and son of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit judge Richard Posner. He is an expert in
law and economics, international law, contract law, and bankruptcy, September
2011, "DEFERENCE TO THE EXECUTIVE IN THE UNITED STATES AFTER 9/11:
CONGRESS, THE COURTS AND THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL," pgs. 20//DM)
Rules are valuable in

many settings, including emergencies; but it does not follow from that observation
that courts and legislatures rather than the executive should create and enforce the
rules. Each institution has specific advantages; the executives advantages are salient during emergencies. The notion
that the executive can be constrained by its own components is a paradoxical idea,
and has little to recommend it. In the end, someone must have discretion to
respond to unforeseen events, and in the U.S. system that role has been given to
the president. The theory that OLC or some similar office within the executive branch could constrain the president rests on
The medical protocol analogy does not provide any reason for doubting the deference thesis.
a confusion between rational self-binding, which presidents may (albeit with difficulty) engage in, and external constraint, which
OLC may serve as a device for rational self-binding, which extends the
executive power; it is highly unlikely, however, that it can serve as a constraint.
presidents resist.
Judicial Activism Bad-Executive Checks Self

Judicial activism is unnecessary executive checks itself
Michaels 11 (Jon D., J.D., professor at UCLAs School of Law, The (Willingly)
Fettered Executive: Presidential Spinoffs in National Security Domains and Beyond,
97 Va. L. Rev. 801, pg. 804-808, 2011)
n3 This Article presents two apparent counterexamples. The case studies depict a
very different Executive. This Executive does not appear singularly focused on
becoming unshackled, unconstrained, and unfettered. To the contrary, the Executive
appears to expend [*805] considerable energy to disempower itself. n4 It does so
to dramatic effect, and in innovative, far-reaching, yet subtle ways. In one case, the
Executive shackles itself to the market. The privatization of government
responsibilities is frequently a means of evading constraints such as the
Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") and judicial review. n5 Yet in this particular
context already shorn of law, government outsourcing seems to cut in the opposite
direction. It serves as a disciplining agent, introducing constraints where unfettered
presidential discretion is apt to be disruptive and counterproductive. In the other
case, the Executive employs one of the worst forms of institutional design, a surefire recipe for bureaucratic dysfunction. Indeed, versions of it are often advanced by
those seeking to undermine a President or her regulatory agenda. n6 Yet in this
particular and similarly unregulated domain, the recipe seems to work, likewise in
imaginative and salutary ways. Here, too, the result is a harmonious cabining of
discretion where presidential autonomy appears problematic if not self-defeating.
Consider first In-Q-Tel, the CIA's shiny new venture capital ("VC") outfit. A private
non-profit organization, In-Q-Tel is entrusted to be the Intelligence Community's
gateway to the future, investing in and incubating new technologies that will give
our spies a leg up on the bad guys for years to come. Heralded in the [*806]
popular press as hip and edgy, n7 In-Q-Tel is a curiosity beyond its novelty. The CIA
is as free from administrative law constraints as a government agency can be. Its
budget is classified n8 and highly discretionary, its operations are beyond public
(and often judicial and congressional) scrutiny, n9 and it can fire employees for any
reason short of discrimination based on unconstitutional considerations. n10 The
Agency further enjoys incomparable discretion to wheel and deal on the private
market. n11 The CIA can establish shady front operations, n12 procure goods and
services unburdened by the onerous Federal Acquisition Regulation ("FAR"), n13 and
enter into secret personnel contracts that are unenforceable in court. n14 So, why,
then, did the already unencumbered CIA create In-Q-Tel and [*807] thereby
introduce a host of constraints on the presidentially appointed Director's discretion?
After all, In-Q-Tel is a private corporation, legally insulated from the Agency in terms
of day-to-day decisions regarding personnel, investment priorities, and resource
allocation. Moreover, as a private entity and as a registered 501(c)(3) tax-exempt
organization, In-Q-Tel is subject to greater legal restrictions - in terms of mandatory
public disclosures, limitations on executive compensation, and anti-discrimination
and labor laws - than would be the case were the investment and incubation
responsibilities housed within the Agency. n15 Consider second the Committee on
Foreign Investment in the United States ("CFIUS"). In 1988, Congress vested in the
President the authority to review and block proposed foreign investments deemed
detrimental to national security. n16 This is a sensitive and significant responsibility,
perhaps most closely identified with the now-infamous 2006 Dubai Ports deal. n17
Other than some broad guidelines and reporting requirements, Congress imposed
almost no limitations or checks on the President's power. n18 Yet, notwithstanding
the President possessing essentially unfettered control and discretion as to whether
to block foreign firms from acquiring controlling stakes of American firms, President
Reagan voluntarily reassigned the bulk of the responsibilities. Pursuant to an
Executive Order, Reagan empowered CFIUS, an inter-agency committee of officials
from various Executive departments. n19 That is to say, rather than Reagan keeping
the authority for himself or engaging [*808] in the usual practice of assigning
responsibility to one agency, he charged CFIUS with primary responsibility for
investigating proposed investments, and did so in a manner that significantly
reduced presidential control. n20 These are revealing case studies, weighty in their
own right and interesting complements to one another. They give us insight into
how these strategically important, but largely unknown, responsibilities are
administered. They show how the Executive, rather than the Executive's usual rivals
- Congress and the courts - can constrain public administration, through
mechanisms within the administrative state and outside of it. And, they suggest
why the Executive might welcome those constraints (and possibly others as well).
Judicial Activism Bad-Judicial Fails

Administrative power shouldnt be checked by judicial review
speed, secrecy, and popular accountability
Michaels 11 (Jon D., J.D., professor at UCLAs School of Law, The (Willingly)
Fettered Executive: Presidential Spinoffs in National Security Domains and Beyond,
97 Va. L. Rev. 801, pg. 829-831, 2011)
When it comes to the CIA, most everything that the spy agency does is largely free
from legal control. Professional spies, intelligence analysts, and R&D gurus need
flexibility. The imposition of legal constraints such as judicial review, civil service
protections, and the APA could jeopardize the twin imperatives of speed and
secrecy. n120 For these reasons, Congress has insulated the Agency [*830] from
the range of legal checks that attach to most other agencies. Moreover, even where
the legislature has failed to ensure sufficiently robust insulation, the courts have
typically pro-vided minimal scrutiny and generally looked unfavorably on lawsuits
seeking to hold the CIA legally accountable. n121 Political accountability, where it
exists, n122 can supplement legal constraints or compensate for the absence of
such legal checks. n123 The electorate's mindfulness - and capacity to discipline the
President - encourages reasoned, prudent agency action. n124 Accordingly, even if
Congress has not imposed strong procedural or substantive constraints on Executive agencies, an administration still cannot abuse its discretion lest it jeopardize
the President's popular support. Political accountability no doubt helps legitimate
Executive primacy in military and foreign affairs n125 and justifies in large part the
judiciary's deference to agency action. n126 Yet political accountability might have
perverse effects when it comes to intelligence incubation. Political pressure from the
electorate might result in the shortchanging of long-term investments in order to
devote maximum resources to current and near-future needs. This is a pervasive
problem for political officials responsible [*831] for long-term planning yet
dependent on short-term popular approval. And, it is especially acute in this context
because the fruits of long-term intelligence planning cannot, for secrecy reasons, be
announced ex ante to the public - and thus the incum-bent administration will not
receive immediate credit for its foresight. n127 By contrast, the costs of failing
today to de-vote (or be seen as devoting) maximal resources to the present task
could be politically disastrous in the event an intel-ligence failure paves the way to
another attack. n128 Hence, there appears to be a tension between the
responsibility to pursue long-term technology incubation and political accountability.
With respect to scrutinizing foreign investments, a similar accountability deficit to
the one just described would arise were the responsibility conventionally assigned
to a single line agency or kept within the White House. Here, too, legal
accountability is ratcheted down on the assumption that national security and
diplomacy would be endangered by such safeguards as procedural transparency
and judicial review. n129
AT: Drone Strikes Bad Advantage
1NC AT: Aff solves international drone violence

Norms 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 themour 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 were 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,
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
who has called for tougher export controls on American drone technology. The
suggested the U.S. should abjure the first use of nuclear weaponsand cut down our own arsenalto encourage similar restraint from
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 questionbut 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 havent 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 disarmamentwhich 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 Russias case already includes the suspected assassination of Chechen leaders abroad. Whats 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
Iran.
only effective weapon we have to combat terrorist groups in places like Pakistan or Yemen where we dont 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.
1NCImpact Inevitable
Inevitably, all countries will have drones by 2024 because of
China
Russia 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 its 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,
to Chinas
prowess in building knockoff drones, which are expected to flood the market very
soon. Once countries like China start exporting these, theyre going to be
everywhere really quickly. Within the next 10 years, every country will have these, Noel Sharkey, a
however, another 23 countries are developing or have developed armed drones. Experts point
robotics and artificial intelligence professor from the University of Sheffield, UK, told Defense One. Theres 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.
xtDrone Prolif Inevitable

India 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-nations50428.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 i ndicates 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 now

Cabural 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
The state-owned
defense corporation will build the drones domestically in collaboration with JSC Vegas Radio
for short ranges, the most needed in [Russian] armed forces, according to the source.
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
Russias
Defense Ministry already ordered the tactical and technical characteristics of the
new drones, which are currently under development. Weve done all necessary R&D work and
Company, a subsidiary United Industrial Defense Corporation Oboronprom recently stated that the
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
Russia is
expected to approve a prototype of the two-ton drone after conducting a series of
tests this summer.
to transport personnel, supplies, reconnaissance equipment, and onboard weapons systems.
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/lawjournals/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
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
one at that. Therefore,
pursues its drone policy.
the misconceptions concerning drones are not limited to the practical effects of U.S.
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.
But
drone policy.
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
Outside of situations in which the host state consents to the strike,
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
Drones Solve Terror

Drones stop terrorism
Johnson and Sarbahi, April 21, 2015

(Patrick Johnson, a Political Scientist at the RAND Corporation. He specializes in terrorism, counterterrorism, and threat finance, with particular expertise on
Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Philippines. In addition to his RAND research, Johnston's research and commentary has been published or is forthcoming in a
range of peer-reviewed journals, media outlets, and policy venues, including American Economic Review, International Security, The New York Times,
Newsday, Security Studies, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Civil Wars, U.S. News & World Report, and congressional testimony on the Islamic State's
financing. Before coming to RAND, Johnston completed his Ph.D. in Political Science at Northwestern University and held fellowships at the Harvard
Kennedy School, Stanford University, and the United States Institute of Peace, and Anoop K. Sarbahi, a visiting scholar in the Department of Political
Science at Stanford. Previously, in addition to being a postdoctoral scholar at Stanford, Anoop has also held pre- and post-doctoral positions at Harvard
University and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). He received his PhD in Political Science from UCLA in December 2011. He also holds an
MPhil degree in Development Studies from the Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai, The Impact of U.S. Drone Strikes on Terrorism in
Pakistan, Rand Corporation and University of Minnesota, http://patrickjohnston.info/materials/drones.pdf, Accessed: June 24, 2015, YDEL)
The first mechanism involves the disruption of militant operations. This disruption
mechanism suggests drone strikes reduce militants ability to operate in a cohesive,
efficient, manner and limit their ability to control local areas. Even if an insurgent or terrorist
organization is the only armed actor in an area, as is often the case in FATA localities, the greater the threat
drones pose, the harder it is for the militants to exercise direct control in that area. This runs
counter to Kalyvas (2006), whose logic of violence predicts that when insurgents are the sovereign in an area,
insurgent violence will be absent, since betraying an areas sovereign carries prohibitive risks for civilians. This
equilibrium makes violence against civilians unnecessary for the sovereign. In this case, government or U.S.
forces seeking to root out militants from an area they control lack the necessary information to target militants
selectively. Kalyvas logic of violence suggests counterterrorist operations would thus be likely to rely on
indiscriminate force. Drones novel intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities change these
dynamics 10 in contemporary Pakistan vis-a-vis the earlier conflicts that Kalyvas seeks to explain. Not only do
drones enable the U.S. to collect information in denied areas where they have no ground
presenceas is currently the case for the U.S. in Pakistan but they can also credibly
threaten to punish militants from afar, with lethal and discriminate force. Our argument is
that, in this scenario, militant violence should decrease, both in terms of its frequency and
its lethality. The reason is that drone strikes in an area represent a meaningful indication of
an increased security risk to militants operating in that area. The increased risk associated
with continuing to operate in the targeted areas should apply to any type of militant activity
that is vulnerable to drone capabilities, including conducting terror attacks , regardless of
whether militants would otherwise conduct operations at their average rate and level of lethality (the null
hypothesis), or if they would otherwise escalate the frequency and lethality of their operations to deter potential
defectors (the alternative) logic of violence hypothesis. We thus advance the following hypothesis: H2: All else
equal, drone strikes decrease terrorist violence . We should note that there are a couple of
other mechanisms that would be consistent with this observable implication. First, there is a possibility that drone
strikes make the population more reticent to inform, and therefore reduce the need for terrorist violence in
retribution. If this were the case, we would expect to see a relatively small number of drone strikes drying up the
pool of available informers and making additional drone strikes based on multi-source intelligence difficult. This is
not what we seethere have been over 350 drone strikes conducted in Pakistans tribal areas since 2004which is
The disruption mechanisms implication is

that semi-frequent drone strikes are used to pursue persistent disruption of terrorist
operations. This is consistent with the empirical record. Second, it can be argued that recent
consistent with the disruption mechanism described above.
technological advancement, 11 including the use of drones and tracking of cellular and satellite phones, has
enabled counterinsurgents to reduce their reliance on human intelligence. This not only implies that there are
fewer potential targets for insurgents, and that civilians have more credible basis for deniability, but it also
implies that if insurgents kill more civilians, they are more likely to make mistakes, which would be
counterproductive
Turn: Drone expansion good ISIS

Drone sales key to crush ISIS
Tucker 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-morecountries/105495/; kdf)
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,
The State Department on Tuesday announced that
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 Tuesdays 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 years 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 droneseither armed or outfitted with laser targeting systems for smart bombsto 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, its absolutely critical that we provide Jordan the support needed
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
to defeat the Islamic State, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., wrote to President Obama in a Feb. 5 letter.
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 wouldnt be a game-changer, but would help them with tactical reconnaissance and would be a sensible
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
move, said Scharre.
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 weapons

Cirincione 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-nukesallowed-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.
if ISIS consolidates its control over the land it

occupies, We will see the worlds 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,
British Home Secretary Theresa May warned that
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 Detention

The alternative to drones is boots on the ground, results in
indefinite detentionturns the aff
Byman 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)
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
Of course, it was a Navy SEAL team and not a drone strike that finally got bin Laden, but
because often the intelligence against terrorists is inadmissible or using it risks jeopardizing sources and methods.
given the fact that the United States is trying to close, rather than expand, the
detention facility at Guantnamo 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.
And
AT: Drones kill civilians

Drones 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-troopsimpact/; 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 enemys 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, DGardena, 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
Hillary Clinton points out, in her recent memoir Hard

drone programs were one of the most
effective and controversial elements of the Obama administrations strategy against
Al Qaeda and like-minded terrorists bin Laden himself worried about the heavy losses that drones
ground troops, yet they have as powerful an impact.
Choices, that during her tenure as secretary of state,
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
it is a myth that drones disproportionately kill civilians .

the Pakistani Defense Ministry
concluded that citizen fatalities occurred at a rate of 3 percent of total kills a total of
States. They are just wrong. In fact,
After a review of the deaths inflicted by American drones since 2004,

67 innocent civilians.
Drones strikes are necessary in the war on terror- they are

cost-effective, efficient, and reduce civilian deaths
Badway and BILODEAU 14- contributors at SAIS Europe
(Aaron, Cloe, US Drone Strikes: Beneficial to US Security,
http://saisobserver.org/2014/04/14/us-drone-strikes-beneficial-to-us-security/) JB
First, drone strikes are necessary. The US faces a real threat from terrorist groups
like al al-Qaida, which actively recruit individuals in remote areas to attack US citizens. These groups currently kill
civilians whom they perceive to be threats to their ideology, while promoting the notion that the US is an enemy of
Islam. Further, while the US funds development and capacity building programs in both Pakistan and Yemen, drone
They are therefore necessary to US security

and complementary to development initiatives aiming to stem terrorism . Second,
drone strikes are effective. Drone attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia have
strikes ensure these programs can be implemented.
killed approximately 3500 militants, including top leaders, and reduced these
groups communication networks and recruitment mechanisms. Bin Laden himself stated
that al-Qaida would not be able to fight repeated drone strikes against their leadership. In Pakistan, strikes have
disrupted threats to the US and reduced the violence of the Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaida. There is no evidence
that drone strikes create more terrorism against the US, but a lot of data suggests that drone strikes dismantle
Additionally, drone strikes are cost-efficient. The US can now

sustain a longer-term presence in remote areas than was not possible using
conventional warfare tactics. This poses a blow to terrorists long-term strategy. The
militant networks.
drone program costs around one percent of the US military budget, compared to ground troops or manned aerial
Drone strikes also reduce civilian

deaths. Drones kill fewer foreign civilians as a percentage of total fatalities than
any other military weapon. The New America Foundation estimates civilian casualties caused by drones
vehicles which can cost between six to 42 times more.
are around six to 17 percent. This low number has decreased as drones become more precise. Further, drones have
reduced terrorist groups ability to kill civilians in their home countries .
Drone strikes are also more
humane than relying on the Pakistani or Yemeni militaries, which have a history of unprofessionalism and of
human rights violations. Civilians do not flee from drones en masse, but whenever the Yemeni military launches an
offensive against terrorist strongholds, civilians leave by the thousands.
Drones are very effective in combatting terrorism and dont kill

many civilians
WSJ 10
(WSJ, The Drone Wars,
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704130904574644632368664254)
JB
The Obama Administration has with good reason taken flak for its approach to terrorism since the Christmas Day
near-bombing over Detroit. So permit us to laud an antiterror success in the Commander in Chief's first year in
Obama has embraced and ramped up the

use of unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones. As tactic and as a technology,
drones are one of the main U.S. advantages that have emerged from this long war. (IEDs
are one of the enemy's.) Yet their use isn't without controversy , and it took nerve for the White House
office. Though you won't hear him brag about it, President
to approve some 50 strikes last year, exceeding the total in the last three years of the Bush Administration.
Supporters of Pakistani Labour Party rally against the United States and drone attacks on militants in Pakistani tribal
From Pakistan to Yemen, Islamic terrorists now fear the

Predator and its cousin, the better-armed Reaper. So do critics on the left in the academy,
media and United Nations; they're calling drones an unaccountable tool of "targeted
assassination" that inflames anti-American passions and kills civilians. At some point, the President may
areas along the Afghanistan border.
have to defend the drone campaign on military and legal grounds. The case is easy. Not even the critics deny its
success against terrorists. Able to go where American soldiers can't, the Predator and Reaper have since 9/11 killed
more than half of the 20 most wanted al Qaeda suspects, the Uzbek, Yemeni and Pakistani heads of allied groups
and hundreds of militants. Most of those hits were in the last four years. "Very frankly, it's the only game in town in
terms of confronting or trying to disrupt the al Qaeda leadership," CIA Director Leon Panetta noted last May. The
agency's own troubles with gathering human intelligence were exposed by last week's deadly bombing attack on
the CIA station near Khost, Afghanistan. Critics such as counterinsurgency writers David Kilcullen and Andrew Exum
allege that drones have killed hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians. The U.N. Human Rights Council's investigator
on extrajudicial executions, Philip Alston, has warned the Administration that the attacks could fall afoul of
Civilian casualties are hard to verify, since

independent observers often can't access the bombing sites, and estimates vary
widely. But Pakistani government as well as independent studies have shown the
Taliban claims are wild exaggerations. The civilian toll is relatively low,
especially if compared with previous conflicts .
"international humanitarian law principles."
AT: Economy Advantage
Link Turn
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/droneindustry-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 dronestentatively set by the Federal Aviation Administration to occur in 2015and 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 group s
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."
Current laws on drones are sufficient, the plan destroys the

industry
In the meantime state and local governments around the country have begun to consider drone legislation. By the
end of 2013, 43 states, including Pennsylvania, had considered drone legislation, with nine passing laws. All nine of
Most of those laws regulate

law enforcement, permitting drones to be used only in limited circumstances such
as when the police have a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement
applies. Three states have placed limits on the private use of drones. Oregon allows private property owners to
those states have placed restrictions on the government's use of drones.
file suit against drone operators under certain circumstances if the drones are flown less than 400 feet above their
property. Texas allows people and companies to use drones to capture images in some circumstances (such as for
scholarly research, mapping land or monitoring gas utilities). But Texas law makes it a crime to use a drone to
capture an image of a person or private property "with the intent to conduct surveillance." Idaho has gone even
farther, banning people from using drones to photograph or film others without their consent for the purpose of
publication. Pennsylvania should not rush to follow these states' examples of restricting private drone use. The
Texas and Idaho laws pose serious constitutional questions. People can take photographs of others in places where
there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, whether their subjects consent or not. This principle is deeply etched
into the law and has proven essential to newsgathering and reporting on matters of public concern. Legislators
these laws are unnecessary here.

Pennsylvania already has a number of laws in place to protect people against the
harms those other states are seeking to prevent . For example, our stalking, harassment and
"Peeping Tom" laws already make it illegal for people to use drones in potentially
nefarious ways. If someone believes he or she has been victimized by a drone,
should not trample this fundamental legal principle. Second,
Pennsylvania already provides an array of remedies . Some examples: If a person claims that a
drone operator invaded his or her privacy by filming the person in a private place, the person would have a remedy
through a claim for an intrusion. If that private footage were then tortiously broadcast, the person could file a claim
for publication of private facts. Similarly, if a person were physically injured by someone's drone, that person could
file a claim for battery. And if a person claims that drones are interfering with enjoyment of his or her property, that
When it comes to private use of drones, there is

simply no need to rush to pass new state laws. Finally, rushing to enact new laws
could threaten to extinguish the nascent drone industry before it gets off
the ground and before we fully understand drones' potential uses and benefits . We
should see how drones develop, what we learn from the FAA test sites and what
rules the FAA proposes and implements. We should not act before we have a more
complete record. In the meantime, if problems arise, we should allow existing laws to do
their job. Drones are coming. As they begin to arrive, let's monitor their progress
and get out of their way for now.
[*54] person can file a claim for nuisance.
Impact D
The US isnt key to the global economy
Kenny 2015 (Charles; Why the Developing World Won't Catch the U.S.
Economy's Cold; May 4; www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-04/why-thedeveloping-world-won-t-catch-the-u-s-economy-s-cold; kdf)
first-quarter GDP growth for 2015 was an
anemic 0.2 percent. This immediately sparked fears that a U.S. slowdown could lead to a
global recession. But the clich about America sneezing and the rest of the world
catching the cold doesnt hold like it used to . The U.S. isnt as contagious as it was, and
developing countries in particular are far more robust to economic shocks. Thats good
news for everyone. It means less volatility in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, which contributes to happier
Last week the U.S. Commerce Department announced that
people, greater political stability, and stronger long-term growthall of which should help lift the U.S. out of its own
A team of IMF researchers has looked at the long-term record of the worlds
economies when it comes to growth and recession . They measured how long economies
doldrums.
expanded without interruption, as well as the depth and length of downturns. Over the past two decades, low and
middle-income economies have spent more time in expansions, while downturns and recoveries have become
shallower and shorter. This suggests countries have become more resilient to shocks. In the 1970s and '80s, the
median developing economy took more than 10 years after a downturn to recover to the GDP per capita it had prior
to that slump. By the early 2000s, that recovery time had dropped to two years. In the 1970s and '80s, countries of
the developing world spent more than a third of their time in downturns, but by the 2000s they spent 80 percent of
their time in expansions. The first decade of the 21st century was the first time that developing economies saw
more expansion and shorter downturns than did advanced economies: Median growth in the developing world was
at its highest since 1950 and volatility at its lowest. Developing countries still face a larger risk of deeper recession
when terms of trade turn against them, capital flows dry up, or advanced economies enter recessions themselves.
But the scale of that risk has diminished. Thats because low and middle-income economies have introduced policy
reforms that increase resilience: flexible exchange rates, inflation targeting, and lower debt. Economies with
inflation-targeting regimes see recovery periods less than a third as long as economies without targeting, for
example. Larger reserves are associated with longer expansions. And median reserves in developing countries more
than doubled as a percentage of GDP between the 1990s and 2010. Median external debt has dropped from 60
percent to 35 percent of GDP over that same period. Such policy changes account for two-thirds of the increased
recession-resilience of developing countries since the turn of the century, suggest the IMF researchersleaving
external factors, such as positive terms of trade, accounting for just one-third. Thats good news for the developing
worldnot least because volatile growth is particularly bad for poorer people, who are most at risk of falling into
malnutrition or being forced to take children out of school, which has long-term consequences for future earnings.
That might help explain the relationship between growth volatility, slower reductions in poverty, and rising
inequality. Sudden negative income shocks can also be a factor in sparking violence: When rains fail, the risk of civil
war in Africa spikes, and when coffee prices in Colombia fall, municipalities cultivating more coffee see increased
drug-related conflict. The African analysis suggests that a five percentage-point drop in income growth is associated
with a 10 percent increase in the risk of civil conflict in the following year. Finally ,
because volatility
increases the uncertainty attached to investments, it can also be a drag on overall
long-term economic performance. Viktoria Hnatkovska and Norman Loayza of the World Bank
estimated that moving from a comparatively stable to a relatively volatile growth trajectory is associated with a
Lower volatility in the developing

world and its associated long-term growth performance is also good news for the
U.S. A strong global economy is still a positive force for growth in every country, including developed nations. And
drop in average annual growth of as much as 2 percent of GDP.
with the developing world accounting for about one-third of trade and GDP at market rates, as well as three-fifths of
Those hoping for

a recovery in U.S. output should be grateful for stronger economic immune systems
in the rest of the world.
U.S. exports, its role in supporting American economic performance has never been greater.
AT: Privacy Advantage
1NC No Impact No Right to Privacy

There is no engrained right to privacy
Gallington 2014 (Daniel J; Uncle Sam's Right to Know The right to privacy has
never been unconditional; Oct 20; www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/worldreport/2014/10/20/you-have-no-absolute-right-to-privacy-including-in-your-dataencryption; 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
we dont 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 todays information-focused age with its
heightened awareness of individual privacy. Ironically perhaps, but especially in discussions such as these, Im
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 dont think the government should be listening to anyones 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
this principle would simply be an exercise of that right. However,
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 Im sure most thoughtful people would be.
1NCNo Impact Nothing To Hide

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about
Huffington 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
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
admitting to "spying" abilities that would "shock" and "confuse" customers. A CNBC interview with
treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they?" Schmidt's reply hints that if there's scandalous
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
information out there about you, it's your problem, not Google's. Schmidt tells Baritoromo:
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.
1NC - Drones solve the aff

Drone expansion results in broader 4th amendment rights and
solves all crime
Morrison 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)
universal drone surveillance might simply be
overlaid upon current discriminatory practices . Even if the (mostly) white and middle class started
B. What Universal Surveillance Might Bring Of course,
to get a taste of being constantly scrutinized, there is no assurance that empathy and reform would necessarily
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
follow.
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
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
allowed "race-dependent decision making to become a normal part of police practice." n96
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
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.
nothing to attract the unwanted attention." n98
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
If there is a seductive quality to the seamless surveillance of the future, it is

that we wouldn't make these mistakes again.
know.
Warrants Bad
Requiring warrants in the instance of drones is non-sense
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
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
pervasive surveillance of the population by the government, an understandable fear. But
pollution pouring from a factory, or if the police flying in a helicopter can see a cartels drug operations or human
trafficking ring --- and such observations can be admitted as evidence in a criminal trial, shouldnt citizens and the
police be able to make the same observations and expect that the evidence wont 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
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
a crime. Lets further assume that her dash camera recorded the entire incident. Nonetheless, that
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 Courts 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
Such examples highlight the requiring warrants for

evidence gathered by drones, when other methods of gathering the same evidence
would not require a warrant.
home would be admissible in court.
Drones good laundry list

Drones are necessary to protect the border, stop trafficking,
and find missing persons
Whitlock 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-beingborrowed-by-other-agencies-more-often-than-previouslyknown/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 countrys 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
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
General Atomics, a major drone producer based in Southern California.
using its drones in the United States for law enforcement
Drones Good- War on Drugs

Drones 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)
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
Drones come in a variety of shapes and sizes, and with varying abilities and configurations. n21
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-horizonsall-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
The chaos has spread southward, engulfing Guatemala,

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
anyone else unlucky enough to get caught in the crossfire.
Honduras and Belize.
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 groups ambition. Now the Zetas are tapping a very different, much larger, but less disciplined pool of
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 dont appear directly responsible for large numbers of killings in the United States, but as
recruits in U.S. prisons and street gangs. This is an ominous turn of events.
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
Mexicos 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
bombs inside the United States to be unlikely but not impossible. A second way that
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 Washingtons response. If the Zetas, another Mexican cartel or someone acting in
their stead launched a campaign of assassinations or bombings in the U nited 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 difficultunderstandably 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 Americas 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
using the U.S. military against the cartels on

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 relationship s 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 narcotraffickingmassive demand for drugs in the U nited States
combined with their prohibitionpersists, 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.
United States undisturbed foreign sanctuary does not work. But
Mexican soil
AT: Racism Advantage
Drones Solve Racism

Drone expansion provides a check against police violence
Bernd 2013 (Candice [assistant editor/reporter with Truthout]; The Coming
Domestic Drone Wars; Sep 19; www.truth-out.org/news/item/18951-the-comingdomestic-drone-wars#; kdf)
Private Citizens and Domestic Drone Technology But in addition to major corporations, media activists also are
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
beginning to look at the possibilities of
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
"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
afterward. He expects the same thing could happen in the US.
filming with drones as well," Pool said. And he's right - scores of law enforcement agencies are experimenting with
domestic drone technology already.
AT: Racial Bias

Technology prevents police bias r/c of racial prejudice
Rushin 11(Stephen, Ph.D in Jurisprudence and Social Policy (acquired after
writing), Assistant Professor at The University of Alabamas School of Law, THE
JUDICIAL RESPONSE TO MASS POLICE SURVEILLANCE, University of Illinois Journal of
Law, Technology & Policy, Vol. 2011, No. 2, p. 298-299, 2011)
Second, the use of surveillance technologies like ALPR limits police discretion, which
may reduce racial or ethnic profiling. At least one study analyzed computer traffic
from police cruisers in a predominantly white suburban town and found that the
officers were more likely to run license-plate checks on cars with black drivers than
on cars with white drivers . . . .127 Even more disturbing, the likelihood an officer
would run the license plate of a black driver increased the farther they were from
the border of the neighboring, black-dominated metropolis. 128 The use of ALPR
for broad and undifferentiated observational comparison could, conceivably, correct
for this kind of implicit bias. Previously police officers had to exercise a significant
amount of discretion in deciding which license plates to run through a computerized
database. ALPR, by contrast, is efficient enough to run the plates of all nearby
automobiles through a computerized database, without making any potentially
biased choices. Facial recognition could potentially provide this same benefit as well
rather than relying on officers to make unbiased investigative choices, facial
recognition systems of the future may be efficient enough to engage in
undifferentiated observational comparison of all surrounding individuals.
State Checks Solve

States will check police drone use
Heverly 15 (Robert. A. [Associate proffessor of law, Albany Law School]; The
Uses and Potential Abuses of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in the U.S. and Abroad;
2015;
http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/results/docview/docview.d
o?
docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T22258911519&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startD
oc
No=26&resultsUrlKey=29_T22258911523&cisb=22_T22258911522&treeMax=true
&treeWidth=0&csi=338787&docNo=31)//AJ
States have the authority to regulate their own affairs. Authority not provided to the
federal government by the Constitution remains with the states. n154 That
authority allows states to set restrictions on actions taken on their behalf. So long as
state laws and policies are not in conflict with Constitutional guarantees or relevant
federal policies, states can restrict or otherwise place limitations on the actions of
those who act on their behalf. n155
For our purposes here, a number of states have provided for limited uses or
imposed requirements on public uses of drones, especially for law enforcement
purposes. n156 These laws do not conflict with any federally recognized rights or
laws, and as such, are within the power of the states to enact and enforce. n157
They are matters of local control. Even the requirement that public drone operators
have a state issued operator's license, after undergoing required training, is
squarely within a state's authority to regulate its own affairs.
Police will limit their use of drones

Johnson 12 (Kevin [Reporter for USA Today]; Police chiefs urge limits on use of
drones; September 7; http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-0906/cop-drones/57639048/1)//AJ
The nation's largest consortium of police officials is calling for the limited use of
unmanned drones in local law enforcement operations and urging that the
controversial aircraft now popular weapons on international battlefields not be
armed. The first national advisory for the use of unmanned aircraft issued by the
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) comes as federal lawmakers and
civil rights advocates have expressed deep concerns about the vehicles' use in
domestic law enforcement, especially in aerial surveillance. Only a handful of police
agencies, including the Mesa County, Colo., Sheriff's Department, are currently
using unmanned aircraft. But Don Roby, chairman of the IACP's aviation committee,
said an increasing number of departments are considering unmanned aircraft for
such things as search and rescue operations, traffic accident scene mapping and
some surveillance activities. In July, federal lawmakers, including Mississippi Rep.
Bennie Thompson, the ranking Democrat on the House Homeland Security
Committee, expressed concerns about the potential risk of arming the vehicles as
they are being increasingly considered for use. Some of the vehicles, Thompson
said, have the capacity to "shoot (stun-gun) projectiles, tear gas and rubber balls
from 300 feet above ground." Roby said the guidelines represent an "urgent"
attempt to redefine the value of aerial drones away from the battlefields of
Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen. "It's very important that people understand that we
won't be up there with armed predator drones firing away," said Roby, who also is a
Baltimore Police Department captain. "Everytime you hear someone talking about
the use of these vehicles, it's always in the context of a military operation. That's
not what we're talking about." In cases in which a drone is to be used to collect
evidence that would likely "intrude upon reasonable expectations of privacy," the
IACP's new guidelines recommend that police secure search warrants prior to
launching the vehicle. On the question of arming drones, however, the IACP issued
its most emphatic recommendation: "Equipping the aircraft with weapons of any
type is strongly discouraged. Given the current state of the technology, the ability
to effectively deploy weapons from a small UA (un-manned aircraft) is doubtful
(and) public acceptance of airborne use of force is likewise doubtful and could result
in unnecessary community resistance to the program." The American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) said in a statement that it "applauded" the police group for "issuing
recommendations that are quite strong in some areas." "At the same time, we don't think these recommendations go
far enough to ensure true protection of privacy from drones," the ACLU said, adding that privacy protections need to be enshrined in law, "not merely promulgated by the police
themselves." Some legislative proposals, including a bill by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., call for authorities to secure warrants before all uses, except in cases when the aircraft is being used to
patrol the borders, when there is a threat of terrorist attack or in cases when life is threatened. "Like other tools used to collect information in law enforcement, in order to use drones a
warrant needs to be issued," Paul said when introducing the legislation in June. "Americans going about their everyday lives should not be treated like criminals or terrorists and have
their rights infringed upon by military tactics." Steve Ingley, executive director of the Airborne Law Enforcement Association, which promotes the use of aviation in public-safety missions,
said it is necessary for police to respond quickly to the civil liberties concerns outlined in proposed legislation and by civil rights advocates. "This (drone use) is a good potential tool for
law enforcement but it's important for people to know that this is not the Predator. This is very different." Ben Gielow, general counsel of Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
International, which represents manufacturers, said the aircraft used by police would be miniature counterparts to the drones used by the military and CIA. The police drones, he said,
would likely weigh as little as five pounds and could represent a more affordable aviation option at a cost of $30,000 to $50,000, rather than a $3 million helicopter. "There is still a lot of
education that needs to take place to determine how this can be used domestically," Gielow said.
State drone statutes check drone use

Matiteyahu 15 (Taly [J.D. candidate, Columbia Law School]; Drone Regulations
and Fourth Amendment Rights: The Interaction of State Drone Statutes and the
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy; Winter 2015;
http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/results/docview/docview.d
o?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T22257901627&format=G
NBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T22257901631&cisb=22
_T22257901630&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&selRCNodeID=2&nodeStateId=411e
n_US,1&docs InCategory=56&csi=148378&docNo=25)//AJ
Current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence would seem to allow unmanned aerial
vehicles operating in legally navigable airspace to observe curtilage and open fields
of a home. As drone use proliferates domestically and the FAA regulates drone
operation, Fourth Amendment privacy issues are sure to emerge. In response to the
increasing use of drones and technological developments, states are regulating
drone use. The resulting state drone laws may inform the Court's "reasonable
expectation of privacy" analysis, which is used to determine when an unreasonable
search in violation of the Fourth Amendment has occurred.
After reviewing Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and providing a survey of existing
state laws and their practical effects, this Note addresses how the two may interact
and inform the Court's understanding of reasonable expectations of privacy.
Ultimately, although the Court may never make reference to state drone statutes
and may even expressly decline to give them weight while ruling on privacy issues
in drone cases, this Note predicts that the novelty of drones leaves societal
expectations susceptible [*307] to the influence of state statutes. State statutes
can inform social norms with regard to drone use and influence the type of
information discoverable by law enforcement and the likelihood that information will
be discovered. Furthermore, drone laws provide a notable source of protection for
privacy interests outside the Fourth Amendment. Finally, state drone statutes will
provide a foundation for policy arguments and inform judges' perceptions of the
types of police practices that should be regulated by the Fourth Amendment. Thus,
despite the Court's inconsistent approach to determining whether an individual's
subjective expectation of privacy is one that society is prepared to recognize as
reasonable, state drone statutes will likely influence the Court's interpretations of
the reasonable expectation of privacy, whether explicitly or implicitly, as drones and
their capabilities develop and are regulated.
AT: SOP Advantage
SOP High
The Zivotofsky decision crushes presidential powers
Glennon 2015 (Michael J [Prof of International Law at the Fletcher School of Law
and Diplomacy, Tufts University]; Recognizable power: The Supreme Court Deals a
Blow to Executive Authority; Jun 23; https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/unitedstates/2015-06-23/recognizable-power; kdf)
On its face, the Supreme Courts landmark decision this month in Zivotofsky v. Kerry looks like an ode to
presidential power. In it, the Court, for the first time, struck down an act of Congress in the field of foreign affairs.
The law had required the State Department to designate Israel as the nation of birth of certain Americans born in
Jerusalem. For 60 years, though, the United States has recognized no country as having sovereignty over Jerusalem.
When the Court invalidated the act, it affirmed that it is the exclusive power of the president to recognize foreign
governments, stressing the need for the nation to speak with one voice. It is easy to think that, with this decision,
the Supreme Court handed the president an epic victory in its perpetual struggle with Congress to control the
the Courts opinion took

nothing from Congressand may actually have enhanced its power. That the Court
nations foreign policy. That conclusion would be tempting but wrong. In fact,
affirmed the presidents exclusive power to recognize foreign governments is unsurprising. Since President George
Washington recognized the revolutionary government of France by receiving Citizen Genet as its representative, few
have seriously believed that Congress could ever second-guess a presidents decision to recognize a foreign
government. During the dispute following President Jimmy Carters recognition of the Peoples Republic of China in
1979, congressional opponents challenged his authority to unilaterally terminate the United States mutual security
treaty with Taiwan, but no one doubted that he had sole power to decide whether to derecognize Taiwan or
recognize the PRC. It is true that the Courts opinion rests in part on the need for the United States to speak with
one voice. The Court lifted the so-called one-voice doctrine from recent federalism cases in which it found states to
have interfered impermissibly in the federal governments foreign policy prerogatives. In one, for example, it struck
down a Massachusetts law barring state entities from buying goods or services from any person doing business with
Myanmar (also called Burma). In another, it struck down a California law that required any insurer doing business in
that state to disclose information about all policies it sold in Europe between 1920 and 1945. But the Courts
references to the doctrine in Zivotofsky relate only to the presidents recognition power. Nothing in the opinion
implies that the one-voice doctrine narrows any of the long-established powers that Congress exercises in other
areas. The Court referred to the one-voice doctrine as a functional considerationa practical concern relating to a
branchs particular institutional advantages in exercising a given power. Unlike Congress, the Court noted, the
President is capable of engaging in the delicate and often secret diplomatic contacts that may lead to a
recognition decision. Some suggest that this approach could be a formula for justifying across-the-boards
presidential unilateralism. But functionalism cuts both ways. In future disputes, institutional attributes could easily
point toward predominant congressional power. Unlike the executive, Congress can ask pointed questions, bring
diverse viewpoints to bear, build a consensus, and sell a policy to the public. Absent a national emergency, such
decisive functional advantages would counsel in favor of including the legislative branch in a decision to introduce
troops into combat, impose economic sanctions, or enter into a mutual security commitment. The opinions greatest
significance lies in its treatment of two earlier, conflicting precedents. The Court deflated the executives perennial
favorite, the 1936 Curtiss-Wright case, and resurrected an all-but-forgotten opinion of Chief Justice John Marshall
that tightly circumscribed presidential power, Little v. Barreme (1804). For its part, Curtiss-Wright implied that the
president, as the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, has exclusive authority over foreign policy
generally; no wonder, then, that the Obama administration cited Curtiss-Wright no fewer than ten times in its
Zivotofsky pleadings, claiming broad, undefined foreign affairs powers. But Curtiss-Wrights sweeping language, the
Court said in Zivotofsky, was merely dictait was not necessitated by the facts of that case, in which President
Franklin Roosevelt initiated an arms embargo that Congress had authorized, not prohibited. The Court proceeded to
reject the Obama administrations claim of unbounded power in relying upon Curtiss-Wright. It is Congress that
makes laws, the Court said, and in countless ways its laws will and should shape the Nations course. The more
important precedent, the Zivotofsky Court suggested, is Little v. Barreme. The 1804 case is significant because it
involved the exercise of the presidents commander-in-chief powers during the undeclared naval war with France in
the 1790s. In it, the Marshall Court held that an act of Congress prohibiting the seizure of a certain ship trumped a
The Executive is not free from the ordinary controls and checks
of Congress merely because foreign affairs are at issue, the Zivotofsky Court said ,
citing Little. It is not for the President alone to determine the whole content of the
Nations foreign policy. These are not words, or citations, in which an imperial president
could take much comfort. It remains to be seen how much Little will influence the resolution of future
military order requiring it.
foreign affairs controversies, such as the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution or the validity of a nuclear
Judicial decisions resolving foreign policy disputes are heavily factdependent. Precedents inevitably are elastic. But beyond the narrow confines of recognition, nothing in
Zivotofsky makes a future presidential victory more likely.
deal with Iran.
No Link Surveillance not an SOP

Domestic spying isnt an issue of Separation of Powers
Lener 2014 (Mark [leads the Constitutional Alliance]; The Chilling Effect of
Domestic Spying; Aug 5; americanpolicy.org/2014/08/05/the-chilling-effect-ofdomestic-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
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
officials.
spying is an equal opportunity offender.
AT: Spy Planes Advantage
Spy Planes Good

Spy planes ensure police safety, solves crime and drug
trafficking
Ybarra 15 (Maggie, FBI keeps tabs on cellphones with aircraft despite Patriot Act
expirations, The Washington Times, 6-2-15,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/2/fbi-keeping-tabs-cellphonesaircraft/?page=all)//BPS
spy planes are sometimes used to collect evidence and, at other times, to ensure the
safety of those police officers who have been sent to disrupt a criminal operation in
a remote area, said Jon Adler, president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.
The
FBI agents and police typically work together in a task force when they crack down
on large-scale drug trafficking operations or terrorist threats , which means that when
they do opt to conduct a pricey surveillance flight, they use federal funds to pay for
that service, Mr. Adler said.
FBI has single- and multi-engine fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters which its 56
domestic field offices can access at any given time , according to a 2012 Department of Justice
The
Office of the Inspector General audit of the FBIs aviation operations.

The
FBIs aviation program is not secret; specific aircraft and their capabilities are protected for
operational security purposes, FBI spokesman Christopher Allen said in a statement. FBI routinely uses
aviation assets in support of predicated investigations targeting specific individuals .
The aircraft are not equipped, designed, or used for bulk collection activities or mass surveillance. The FBI uses all
tools and equipment, and conducts all investigations, in accordance with the Attorney General Guidelines and the
FBIs Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide.
Additionally, the federal agencys resources are
Legal Defense Fund and the FBIs former assistant director.
finite , said Ron Hosko, president of Law Enforcement
Theres a limited number of planes, he said. Most field offices have a Cessna, a high-wing surveillance plane, and
their regional resources can always call Quantico and say, Hey, we need more help.
Quantico is a U.S. Marine Corps base in Virginia where the FBI has a training academy and other operational
facilities.
Spy Planes Dont Violate Privacy

Spy planes dont violate privacy operations are transparent
Smith 15 (Chris, The FBI is making it too easy for us to track down its spy
planes, BGR, 6-3-15, http://bgr.com/2015/06/03/fbi-spy-planes-onlinetracking/)//BPS
The Associated Press revealed earlier this week that the FBI appears to be the intelligence agency thats flying spy
planes in America for surveillance operations. Even though the FBI tried to keep its spy planes a secret by using
anyone can use a few readily

available tools to track FBI planes in real-time and find out whos operating them .
dummy companies set up solely to hide them, it turns out that
people were able to identify suspected spy planes, track them

while they were flying overhead, and even find out information about the companies
they supposedly belong to.
A report on Fusion details how
The FBI used dummy companies to hide its spy operations and protect the identities of pilots, asking AP not to
publish the names of those companies. But as it turns out, that request was pointless.
John Wiseman, a technologist in Los Angeles, used public records to discover FBI plans, and he used a
device he programmed to intercept airplane transmissions, identifying several spy
operations in the process.
public record containing flight
details for each spy plane flight exists , and Internet users who know where to look can easily find it.
Because theres plenty of paperwork needed to fly a plane in the U.S., a
It seems the FBI is uncreative when it comes to spy craft; the fake companies tracked down by the AP and by
Wiseman mainly had three-letter names, including FVX Research, KQM Aviation, NBR Aviation and PXW Services.
Because flight records in the U.S. are public, and planes are trackable on radar, the AP was able to track
down where these planes flew, Fusion notes. Furthermore, it looks like the FBI uses special transmission codes
(squawk) and callsigns, for its spy planes.
Wiseman got his data even before the AP published its extensive report on the matter.
I decided to check my database for planes that have squawked 4414/4415 or used one of the suspicious callsigns:
I found 8 aircraft in the past 2 months, several of which exhibit suspicious behavior, he said in a post on Hacker
News last month. Flying for hours at a time without going anywhere in particular (I dont have position information
for them, but I know theyre in the air and not leaving the LA area), flying almost every day for months at a time.
I call what Im doing persistent surveillance': using historical sensor data to retroactively identify and track new
subjects, its just that my subjects are the government, Wiseman said. One of the surprising things Ive found is
that all you need to do is look: the weird stuff jumps out
sounding companies that loiter overhead for hours every day.
right away , e.g. Cessnas registered to fake-
Spy planes rarely violate privacy mainly used in

investigations, tech isnt powerful and rarely used
Ngan 15 (Mandel, FBI defends secret surveillance flights as Senate threatens to
down them, RT, 6-18-15, http://rt.com/usa/268216-fbi-spy-planes-law/)//BPS
Spy flights are legal, and only rarely use cellphone snooping technology, the FBI told
the Senate in a confidential briefing, defending a program that has been around for
30 years, but only recently attracted the attention of lawmakers and activists.
Agents told Senators that most of their spy fleet uses commercially available still
and video, infrared cameras, while 15 percent of the planes rely only on binoculars,
according to Senate staffers talking to Associated Press on the condition of
anonymity. Only eight planes have high-definition cameras, though the agency said
it would like to have more.
The controversial dirtbox (DRT) technology, which simulates a cell-tower signal
and tricks mobile phones into revealing their identification numbers, has only been
used five times over the past five years, the FBI agents said. Close to two thirds of
all spy flights were reportedly conducted as part of national security investigations.

Aerial Surveillance Negative - Michigan7 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aerial Surveillance Negative - Michigan7 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Congress must consider many factors when determining how to best

use should be limited to three purposes: (1) "where there are

The broader definition of exigent circumstances in the House of Representatives

domestic drones should be prohibited from carrying weapons of

Congress should require a warrant for "extended surveillance of a particular target."

enacting these recommendations would prevent widespread, general

Congressional leadership good

(Shahid Buttar is a constitutional lawyer, electronic musician, grassroots

Congressional allies of the intelligence agencies failed to muster enough

Even if they remain above the law by evading the prosecution

Congressional rejection of mass spying vindicates several principles at

, this vote begins a

, the debate over

Members should heed the political wind, and embrace bipartisan

Congress oversight on wiretapping in the past indicates its

Legislative rule creation ensures up to date rules that the

AT: Congress Fails

the FAA recently released

theyre more concerned about the fallout from what they

these technologies are already emerging from

other technologieslike collision avoidance or so-called sense and

This type of disconnect

AT: Courts best

AT: Court Sets precedent

AT: CP Doesnt solve 4th Amend

including the exigent circumstances language into the

legislation imposing a time restriction on the dura-tion

This proposal would comply with current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence

AT: SOP Add on

once again, we may

the real issue facing Congress: Should the

Plan cant solve- tech is too sophisticated- Counterplan

Unmanned aircraft systems (UASs), popularly known as drones,

are an evolving technology that

Such an amendment will

AT: Plan solves better/AT: Courts key

AT: Perm do both

The smartest and most effective solution is

We should be careful to not craft hasty legislation based on emotionally

The near-ubiquitous warrant requirements among both the

To effectively address the privacy issues that surround drone

Legislators should adopt data retention procedures that

AT: Perm Do Both

The smartest and most effective solution is

We should be careful to not craft hasty legislation based on emotionally

AT: Perm do the CP

The near-ubiquitous warrant requirements among both the

To effectively address the privacy issues that surround drone

AT: Exigent circumstances solve the NB /AT: Perm

the ACLUs position in their December 2011 white paper where

Suppressing secondarily gathered evidence doesnt

AT: CP doesnt solve 4th Amendment

The answer lies not in requiring a

Drone use by law enforcement must

AT: Doesnt solve Drone Warfare advantage

AT: Doesnt Solve Econ

are also creating new and unprecedented conflicts involving the

ambiguous airspace rights laws are now

These exclusion rights would be

They could also be an integral part of a broader

AT: CP Links to the terror DA

AT: Separation of Powers Add-on

Whether a Democrat or Republican occupied the White House or regardless of