Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
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
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
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,
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,
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
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
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
assertiveness supports democracy in a long-running battle to avoid the erosion from within foreseen by both Alexis de Tocqueville and President and
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
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
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.
Technologies: Constitutional Myths and the Case for Caution, Vol. 102, No. 5 (Mar.,
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
before we have a tragedy on our hands, Senator Feinstein said in a statement. While many industry advocates dispute the
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
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
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,
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.
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
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,
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,
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
And in 2008, the law was amended to protect Americans' phones and email overseas too. Leahy should redirect his attention from asking for memoranda
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.
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)
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
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)
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
http://www.gwlr.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/GWN105.pdf , SZ)
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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.
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
achieve that goal is to follow a property centric approach, coupled with limits on pervasive surveillance, enhanced
transparency measures, and data protection procedures.
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
precisely define the scope of landowners' property interests in low-altitude airspace. Unfortunately, as a growing
pressures, principles of microeconomics and property theory call for new laws giving landowners more definite
would create a simple "exclusion" regime for low-altitude airspace that is better suited to handle aerial trespass and
Disads
Generic Impact
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
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
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
seemingly impossible tasks possible -- whether quickly flying flotation devices to people adrift in the ocean or
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
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
outright contraction like that experienced in the first quarter of 2014. But by running a series of statistical
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.
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
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
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,
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
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
inhabitants.
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."
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
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
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
its law regulating drone use was not intended "to prohibit or impede the public and private research, development,
danger in foreign territories. Drones reduce ground troops, yet they have as powerful an impact.
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
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
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
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
time spotting the Great Recession in real time, then rest assured that a garden variety recession is going to be
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,
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
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
that Chinese growth may be slowing faster than the government wishes. If any of these worries causes a downturn
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.
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.
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.
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
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 arent the best actor at curtailing the use of dronesthey are too slow
Farber 13- associate profesor
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
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
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.
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).
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
drone program costs around one percent of the US military budget, compared to ground troops or manned aerial
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 .
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.
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
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
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."
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
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
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
with the developing world accounting for about one-third of trade and GDP at market rates, as well as three-fifths of
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.
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.
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
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
Warrants Bad
Requiring warrants in the instance of drones is non-sense
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
filming with drones as well," Pool said. And he's right - scores of law enforcement agencies are experimenting with
domestic drone technology already.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.