Aerial Surveillance 1AC

Plan
The Supreme Court of the United States should rule that
deploying domestic drones for surveillance purposes is
unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

Advantage One: The Surveillance State

Federal regulations on data collection from aerial surveillance
is lacking and easily circumvented violation of privacy rights
will only continue to grow as use of drones expand
New York Times 2/19 (The Editorial Board, The editorial board is composed of
19 journalists with many different areas of expertise, who write the Times's
editorials and are part of the Times's editorial department. "Regulating the Drone
Economy", New York Times, February 19, 2015,
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/opinion/regulating-the-drone-economy.html?
_r=0) Padiyar
Mr. Obamas action on drone use by government agencies is much more problematic.
For example, the presidents memorandum says the government should not retain
personally identifiable information collected by drones for more than 180 days. But
agencies can keep the data for longer if it is determined to be necessary to an
authorized mission of the retaining agency a standard that grants officials far too
much latitude. Moreover, the administration says agencies have to provide only a general
summary of how they use drones, and only once a year . Law enforcement agencies
like the F.B.I. and local police departments are already using drones and manned aircraft for
surveillance, often without obtaining warrants , but they have said little publicly about
what they are doing with the information collected. The use of drones is likely to
grow, and the devices could become as common as utility and delivery trucks. At the dawn of this technology ,
its appropriate to set sound safety and privacy rules.

Scenario One: Multilateralism

Codifying the right to data privacy is key to broader
multilateral efforts.
Bygrave 2010. Lee, Professor - Norwegian Research Center for Computers and
Law. Privacy and Data Protection in an International Perspective. Stockholm
Institute for Scandinavian Law.
http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/jus/jus/JUS5630/v13/undervisningsmateriale/privac
y-and-data-protection-in-international-perspective.pdf
5.1 International Instruments
The formal normative basis for data protection laws derives mainly from catalogues
of fundamental human rights set out in certain multilateral instruments, notably the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (U.D.H.R.),82 the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (I.C.C.P.R.)83 along with the main regional human rights
treaties, such as the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms (E.C.H.R.)84 and the American Convention on Human Rights (A.C.H.R.).85
All of these instruments with the exception of the African Charter on Human and
Peoples Rights86 expressly recognise privacy as a fundamental human right.87
The omission of privacy in the African Charter is not repeated in all human rights
catalogues from outside the Western, liberal-democratic sphere. For example, the
Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam88 expressly recognises a right to
privacy for individuals (see Article 18(b) (c)).
The right to privacy in these instruments is closely linked to the ideals and
principles of data protection laws, though other human rights, such as freedom from

discrimination and freedom of expression, are relevant too. The special importance
of the right to privacy in this context is reflected in the fact that data protection
laws frequently single out protection of that right as central to their formal
rationale.89 It is also reflected in case law developed pursuant to I.C.C.P.R. Article
17 and E.C.H.R. Article 8: both provisions have been authoritatively construed as
requiring national implementation of the basic principles of data protection
laws with respect to both the public and private sectors.90 Indeed, these provisions
function, in effect, as data protection instruments in themselves. However, case law
has yet to apply them in ways that add significantly to the principles already found
in other data protection laws, and, in some respects, the protection they are
currently held to offer, falls short of the protection afforded by many of the latter
instruments.91

Rejection of multilateral principles is the worst impact

guarantees massive global wars
Commander Scott 1997 (Judge Advocate Generals Corps, US Navy, Assistant Legal Adviser, US
European Command, Military Law Review, October, 154 Mil. L. Rev. 27)
National self-interest
international commitments generally. Self-interest in the stability of expectations is
the cornerstone of the doctrine of pacta sunt servanda. n60 If treaties were just so many pieces of paper, to be honored when
convenient, foreign investments and property, the global flow of money, access to foreign resources and
foreign markets for our products, status of forces agreements, the protection of embassies and foreign ministers, freedom of navigation, flight
safety, the regulation of transboundary pollution, cultural exchanges--all organized international activity would be
jeopardized. n61 International interests would depend on the whim of the moment and the willingness
of states to enforce their interests with weapons. If the world seems a violent, disorderly place today, it
would be apocalyptic in the return of a "Force as Fact" milieu . The efficacy of a universal commitment to peaceful
Dutiful obedience to the raw authority of rules and regulations, however, is not the chief motivation for compliance with treaties.

motivates the promotion of reciprocal

observance of

relations should not be measured by the number of feeble defectors, but by the greater number of powerful adherents. When discussing defectors, strategists should not

Resort to martial solutions for every brushfire du

jour must be measured against the certain collapse of whatever interstate firebreaks hold back the
real [*38] conflagrations of a future world--a world awash with weapons and yet unforeseen applications of amazing
technology. When the gloves come off, they will come off in all corners, in arenas around the world. Should
the United States trade today's handful of recalcitrant states and networks of petty substate criminals
for a nation-to-nation order where force returns as the norm ? The capacity of nation-states to mobilize resources for dedication to
be too quick to advocate a convenient solution which ignores global consequences.

war far exceeds the capacity of substate threats catalogued by the new alarmists; it is the difference between cockfights and cataclysms. It is tempting to measure the

If the United States could

always prevail under force-based ground rules, why not bend or change the rules to maximize our
advantage? Why dicker with Huck when we can force him to whitewash at gunpoint? This bully perspective overlooks two
consequences of a force-based environment: (1) Force or displays of force would be required with increasing frequency to
obtain international objectives, diverting resources from economically productive peacetime activities. The
result would be similar to British imperial militarism n62 or exhausted isolationism.(2) The United States is not the
only country in the world; a force-based world order would lead to explosive arms buildups
everywhere and regional conflicts such as those that precipitated two World Wars.
risks and rewards of a force-based environment by comparing current U.S. military might to the capabilities of other nations.

Scenario Two: Terrorism

Unchecked surveillance by the state will only exacerbate the
harms that we are trying to prevent it will create increased
resentment which will lead to more violence and terrorism
Bauer 13 [Max ACLU of Massachusetts, Domestic Drone Surveillance Usage:
Threats and Opportunities for Regulation, ACLU, 7/15,
https://privacysos.org/domestic_drones] Zhang
Beyond its technological flaws, surveillance technology is exorbitantly expensive
given its remarkable ineffectiveness. A bipartisan Senate committee report concluded the fusion centers around the
country, implemented to conglomerate federal and local law enforcement resources to fight terrorism, [44] do not provide useful intelligence. [45] In
the words of Senator Tom Coburn, Instead of strengthening our counterterrorism
efforts, they have too often wasted money and stepped on Americans civil
liberties. Even without the presence of drones, the sprawling dimensions of the
surveillance state are vastly unprecedented. Research by John Mueller and Mark G. Stewart noted in 2012 that
homeland security expenditures have exceeded $1 trillion since the September 11 attacks. According to a 2010 report by the Washington Post, every
day the National Security Agency intercepts 1.7 billion emails and other communications. [49] But despite all the costly data surveillance and sharing,

one security
expert wrote: Cameras wont help. They dont prevent terrorist attacks, and their
forensic value after the fact is minimal. In contrast to vast sums of money being
spent on prevention, the actual likelihood of a terrorist attack is exceedingly small.
[52] Followers of American counterterrorism policy have observed that the United
States has overreacted. [53] Constant drone surveillance could be the next symptom
of this panic. Finally, Orwellian measures have the potential to exacerbate the
security problem by provoking resentment against the government. [54] There is
evidence that the worst-case scenario is already happening: in the process of trying
to fight terrorism, the government can exacerbate the terrorism problem by
creating new enemies.
events like the Boston Marathon bombing are still likely to occur. [50] Following the 2010 attempted Times Square bombing,

Terrorism causes extinction.

Nathan Myhrvold '13, Phd in theoretical and mathematical physics from
Princeton, and founded Intellectual Ventures after retiring as chief strategist and
chief technology officer of Microsoft Corporation , July 2013, "Stratgic Terrorism: A
Call to Action," The Lawfare Research Paper Series No.2,
http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Strategic-TerrorismMyhrvold-7-3-2013.pdf
Several powerful trends have aligned to profoundly change the way that the world works.
Technology now allows stateless groups to organize, recruit, and fund themselves
in an unprecedented fashion. That, coupled with the extreme difficulty of finding and
punishing a stateless group, means that stateless groups are positioned to be lead
players on the world stage. They may act on their own, or they may act as proxies for
nation-states that wish to duck responsibility. Either way, stateless groups are forces to be
reckoned with. At the same time, a different set of technology trends means that small numbers
of people can obtain incredibly lethal power. Now, for the first time in human history, a small
group can be as lethal as the largest superpower . Such a group could execute an attack that
could kill millions of people. It is technically feasible for such a group to kill billions of people,
to end modern civilizationperhaps even to drive the human race to extinction . Our defense
establishment was shaped over decades to address what was, for a long time, the only strategic threat our
nation faced: Soviet or Chinese missiles. More recently, it has started retooling to address tactical terror attacks

those launched on the morning of 9/11, but the reform process is incomplete and inconsistent. A real
defense will require rebuilding our military and intelligence capabilities from the ground

like

strategic terrorism has received relatively little attention in defense

agencies, and the efforts that have been launched to combat this existential threat seem
fragmented. History suggests what will happen. The only thing that shakes America
out of complacency is a direct threat from a determined adversary that confronts us
with our shortcomings by repeatedly attacking us or hectoring us for decades.
up. Yet, so far,

Scenario Three: Dehumanization

Creating a state where privacy is non-existent ushers in
totalitarianism, undermining our democratic state
Burow 2013 (Matthew JD candidate @ New England School of Law, The

Sentinel Clouds above the Nameless Crowd: Prosecuting Anonymity from Domestic
Drones, 39 New Eng. J. on Crim. & Civ. Confinement 443] ttate
Walking down the street. Driving a car. Sitting on a park bench. By themselves, these actions do not exhibit an iota
of privacy. The individual has no intention to conceal their movements; no confidentiality in their purpose. The
individual is in the open, enjoying a quiet day or a peaceful Sunday drive. Yet as Chief Justice Rehnquist
commented,

there is uneasiness if an individual suspected that these innocuous and

benign movements were being recorded and scrutinized for future reference. 119 If the
"uneasy" reaction to which the Chief Justice referred is not based on a sense of privacy invasion, it stems
from something very close to it-a sense that one has a right to public anonymity . 120 Anonymity
is the state of being unnamed. 121 The right to public anonymity is the assurance that, when in public, one is unremarked and
part of the undifferentiated crowd as far as the government is concerned. 122 That right is usually surrendered only when one does or says something that

But when that attention is gained by

surreptitiously operated UASs that are becoming more affordable for local law
enforcement agencies, 124 "it evades the ordinary checks that constrain abusive law
enforcement practices ... : 'limited police resources and community hostility."' 12 5 This association of
merits government attention, which most often includes criminal activity. 123

public anonymity and privacy is not new. 126 Privacy expert and Columbia University Law professor Alan F. Westin
points out that "anonymity [] occurs when the individual is in public places or performing public acts but still seeks,
and finds, freedom from identification and surveillance." 127 Westin continued by stating that: [A person] may be
riding a subway, attending a ball game, or walking the streets; he is among people and knows that he is being
observed; but unless he is a well-known celebrity, he does not expect to be personally identified and held to the full
rules of behavior and role that would operate if he were known to those observing him. In this state the individual is
able to merge into the "situational landscape." 128 While most people would share the intuition of Chief Justice
Rehnquist and professor Westin that we expect some degree of anonymity in public, there is no such right to be
found in the Constitution. Therefore,

with a potentially handcuffed judiciary, the protection of

anonymity falls to the legislature. Based on current trends in technology and a keen
interest taken by law enforcement in the advancement of UAS integration into
national airspace, it is clear that drones pose a looming threat to Americans'
anonymity. 129 Even when UASs are authorized for noble uses such as search and rescue missions, fighting
wildfires, and assisting in dangerous tactical police operations, UASs are likely to be quickly
embraced by law enforcement for more controversial purposes . 130 What follows are

compelling interdisciplinary reasons why the legislature should take up the call to protect the subspecies of privacy
that is anonymity. A. Philosophic: The Panopticon Harm Between 1789 and 1812, the Panopticon prison was the
central obsession of the renowned English philosopher Jeremy Bentham's life. 131 The Panopticon is a circular
building with cells occupying the circumference and the guard tower standing in the center. 132 By using blinds to
obscure the guards located in the tower, "the keeper [is] concealed from the observation of the prisoners ... the
sentiment of an invisible omnipresence."'133 The effect of such architectural brilliance is simple: the lone fact that
there might be a guard watching is enough to keep the prisoners on their best behavior. 134 As the twentiethcentury French philosopher Michel Foucault observed, the major effect of the Panopticon is "to induce in the inmate
a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power."'135 In Bentham's
vision,

there is no need for prison bars, chains or heavy locks; the person who is
subjected to the field of visibility of the omnipresent guard plays both roles and he
becomes the subject of his own subjection. 136 For Foucault, this "panopticism" was not
necessarily bad when compared to other methods of exercising control as this sort of "subtle coercion" could lead

an
omnipresent UAS circling above a city may be similar to a Panopticon guard tower
people to be more productive and efficient members of society. 137 Following Foucault's reasoning,

and an effective way of keeping the peace . The mere thought of detection may keep
streets safer and potential criminals at bay. However, the impact on cherished
democratic ideals may be too severe. For example, in a case regarding the constitutionally vague city
ordinance that prohibited "nightwalking," Justice Douglas commented on the importance of public vitality and
locomotion in America: The difficulty is that [walking and strolling] are historically part of the amenities of life as we
have known them. They are not mentioned in the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights. These unwritten amenities
have been in part responsible for giving our people the feeling of independence and self-confidence, the feeling of
creativity. These amenities have dignified the right of dissent and have honored the right to be nonconformists and
the right to defy submissiveness. They have encouraged lives of high spirits rather than hushed, suffocating silence.

government surveillance stifles the cherished ideal of an

American society that thrives on free-spiritedness in public. 39 Without the right to
walk the streets in public, free from the fear of high surveillance, our American
values would dissipate into that resembling a totalitarian state that attacks the idea
of privacy as immoral, antisocial and part of the dissident cult of individualism. 140
138 As Justice Douglas understood,

This form of dehumanization justifies the worst type of

atrocities
Burow 2013 (Matthew JD candidate @ New England School of Law, The

Sentinel Clouds above the Nameless Crowd: Prosecuting Anonymity from Domestic
Drones, 39 New Eng. J. on Crim. & Civ. Confinement 443] ttate
This Note has explored the philosophical and psychological effects of panoptic surveillance and the need for protection.2 29 A
mere suspicion of a UAS flying high in sky can have a chilling effect on democracy
that most Americans would consider intolerable . 230 But what about the psychological changes UASs will
bring about in law enforcement? The following is an excerpt from a news report on the mindset of UAS pilots who operate military

Bugsplat is the official term used by US authorities when

humans are killed by drone missiles .... [I]t is deliberately employed as a psychological
tactic to dehumanise targets so operatives overcome their inhibition to kill .... It was
Hitler who coined this phraseology in Nazi Germany during the Holocaust. In Mein Kampf,
drones in overseas combat missions:

Hitler refers to Jews as vermin (volksungeziefer) or parasites (volksschtidling). In the infamous Nazi film, Der ewige Jude, Jews were
portrayed as harmful pests that deserve to die. Similarly,

in the Rwandan genocide, the Tutsis were

described as "cockroaches." This is not to infer genocidal intent in US drone warfare,
but rather to emphasise the dehumanising effect of this terminology in Nazi
Germany and that the very same terms are used by the US in respect of their Pakistani targets.
231 Will John and Jane Doe-the casual saunterer-become part of the next group of
bugs that must be swatted in the name of effective law enforcement? In answering that
question, we should look to the skies once again and pray to the better angels of our
nature for a worthy answer.

Advantage Two: Judicial Deference

Judicial deference high now due to era of terrorist threats
Court giving Executive Branch carte blanche in areas of
surveillance
Brand and Guiora 15 (Jeffrey S., J.D., Dean Emeritus and Professor of Law,
Director Center for Law and Global Justice, University of San Francisco School of
Law, and Amos N., Ph.D, Professor of Law, S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of
Utah, Co-Director, Center for Global Justice, The Steep Price of Executive Power Post
9/11: Reclaiming Our Past to Insure Our Future, Jan. 27, 2015,
http://www.law.utah.edu/the-steep-price-of-executive-power-post-911-reclaimingour-past-to-insure-our-future/) harshitha
It is no surprise that the September 11th attacks which killed 3000 civilians, reduced the World
Trade Center to molten steel, and left a gaping hole in the Pentagon ushered in an era of relentless
pursuit of suspected terrorists, including ramped up surveillance , detention and
interrogation, and the use of technologically advanced weaponry. What is alarming, if not surprising,
however, is the degree to which 9/11 produced U.S. counterterrorism measures that
include the warrantless monitoring of hundreds of millions of phone calls, systematic use of illegal and
immoral torture, and the conduct of a faceless drone offensive whose legality and
morality are murky, at best. The U.S. governments response to the events of September
11th exposes a fundamental weakness in the state of Americas 21st century
democracy: The unrestrained use of power by the Executive Branch in the name of
national security, and the total absence of any semblance of the separation of
powers or checks and balances that our Founding Fathers deemed critical to the
survival of the Republic. The breathtaking scope of Americas post 9/11 is well documented: 2005:
The New York Times reports the existence of Stellar Wind , a program in which the Bush
Administration monitors millions and millions of phone calls in the United States. 2012: A joint study from NYU
and Stanford concludes that U.S. drone attacks are not surgically precise as claimed; by
2014, the Pentagon launches its own investigation, concerned that nearly one-third
of drone strikes are killing innocent civilians. 2014: The Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence releases its study of the CIAs detention and interrogation programs,
describing in horrifying detail policies that include prisoners subjected to rectal feeding,

waterboarding, hanging by their wrists, confinement in coffins, sleep-deprivation, threatened with death or brutally
beaten. Days after the reports release, in a stunning editorial, the New York Times demands that the United States
come to terms with legal and moral abhorrence by appointing a special prosecutor to investigate a vast criminal

Each of these accounts is

connected by a common thread the exercise of unrestrained Executive Branch
power that ignores the fundamental principle that the President and his
subordinates do not have unilateral authority to surveil any call, to engage in illegal
torture, or to launch attacks almost certain to kill. Each reflects policies that pursue national
security while ignoring a fundamental truth about our democracy: Absent appropriate checks and
balances, the rule of law is undermined and individual liberty is likely to be
sacrificed. Of course, this observation is hardly novel and has been reiterated
constantly throughout the 240 year history of the Republic. James Madison
articulated it in the Federalist Papers: The accumulation of all powers, legislative,
executive, and judiciary, in the same handsmay justly be pronounced the very
definition of tyranny.
conspiracy, under color of law, to commit torture and other serious crimes.

American Jurisprudence is modeled worldwide to maintain the

rule of law
KERSCH-PROF POLITICS PRINCETON-2004 ASSISTANT PROF POLITICS
PRINCETON
THE GLOBALIZED JUDICIARY, THE GOOD SOCEITY, VOLUM 13 NO 3

Scholars of the emerging globalized judiciary have described a process that looks very much like that of
bureaucratic formation at work amongst judges around the world. In charting the development of transnational

Slaughter, Andrew S. Tulumello, and Stepan Wood have

suggested that "a wide range of possibilities exist for strengthening formal and
informal links between international and domestic institutions in ways that blur
judicial networks and support structures, Anne-Marie

the distinction between international and domestic law ...."7 As this process develops, she and her co-authors add,

domestic institutions will become more interested in and receptive to

their counterpart international institutions as they begin to perform the same
functions horizontally rather then vertically." And, indeed, this is precisely what they observe
happening amongst judges. "Domestic judges, at least in the United States," they add, "are
beginning to articulate their responsibility to 'help the world's legal systems work
together, in harmony, rather than at cross purposes.' Such cooperation includes
not only procedural mechanisms of deference and collaboration, but also substantive
evaluation of the degree of convergence between domestic and foreign law."8 This cooperation has been
made possible by "a deep sense of participation in a common global enterprise
of judging." "It [involves]," Slaughter asserts, "a vision of a global community of law,
established not by the World Court in the Hague, but by national courts working
together around the world."9 "Constitutional cross-fertilization," as Slaughter
calls its, is a crucial part of this trend.
"it is possible that

Collapse of rule of law leads to extinction.

NAGAN-Research Scholar Prof U Florida-1 RESEARCH SCHOLAR PROF

U FLORIDA
LAWYER ROLES, IDENTITY, AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, 13 FLA. J. INTL L.
131
Lawyers may be critical "engineers" in the restructuring of command, corrupt and
inefficient economies. This is because governance that honors a minimal rule of
law concept will prescribe rules for transparency, accountability and
responsibility. These "values" are critical for working, effective markets. How are
such economies in fact being reorganized? In other words what exactly will be the
role of lawyers in the new vision of global economic order? The emphasis on lawyer
roles in development should not obscure the challenge for lawyer roles for other
problems inherent in the concept of globalism. These are listed for the sake of
brevity as follows: Law and Global apartheid or global poverty (development,
poverty, income distribution, economic equity, population policy, etc.) Law and the
Global Public Health Crisis (HIV/AIDS) Law, emerging markets and the trend
toward "harmonization" Law and Proliferation and threat of nuclear arsenals
Law and the global war system (arms race, armed conflict, ethnic conflict, etc.)
[*141] Law and basic human rights (the epidemic of gross abuse of human rights
and human atrocity) Law and global constitutional order Law and the crisis of
the rule of law (failed states, corrupt states, drug controlled states,
terrorists states, garrison states, authoritarian states, totalitarian states).
12

Solvency
Federal action requiring warrants key to solving state action
too inconsistent
Candice Bernd, 2/24/15, (Candice Bernd, an assistant editor/reporter with
Truthout, Proposed Rules Regulating Domestic Drone Use Lack Police Warrant
Requirement, Truth-out.org, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/29250-proposedrules-regulating-domestic-drone-use-lack-police-warrant-requirement#, accessed
date: 7/20/15) Salehitezangi
States requiring warrants now- Fed regulation key A crucial element that is missing from the
White House order and proposed FAA rules, according to Guliani: a warrant requirement
for law enforcement officials seeking to deploy domestic drones for surveillance
purposes. "The fact that [the memo] leaves that to the discretion of each agency could be a concern down the
line if the agency decides not to adopt that requirement," Guliani said. Many state, federal agencies
and corporations are already using domestic drones , with more than 80 law enforcement
agencies having applied for a special "Certificate of Authorization" from the FAA to use UAS since 2008. While the
White House directive is aimed at addressing federal agencies,

many states are still grappling with

how to regulate the use of domestic drones.

More than a dozen states have enacted

legislation regulating domestic drone use, while more than half of all states have introduced legislation regarding

legislation requiring law

enforcement agencies to obtain a probable cause warrant before a drone can be
deployed. But in the states that have enacted legislation, the laws vary widely and
establish inconsistent standards. States such as Texas, for example, restrict domestic drone use, but
the legislation contains so many exemptions for law enforcement agencies t he ACLU
domestic drones, with a majority of those bills as well as already-enacted

have called it "an outlier" in terms of protecting privacy. Meanwhile states such as Florida, Oregon, Illinois, Montana
and Tennessee require a warrant for law enforcement use in nearly all cases. " That

there are states that

have looked at, and have adopted that warrant requirement, makes the omission in
the presidential memo even more obvious ," Guliani said. With no national legislation
regulating domestic drone use, inconsistent and varying standards by which law
enforcement agencies and corporations can deploy UAS in states, and the glaring
omission of a warrant requirement at this point in the White House's guidelines, a
dangerous loophole remains present in which law enforcement agencies, and
potentially corporations, in only a couple of years, can deploy UAS in masse to
conduct surveillance on civilians who have not been charged with any crime. But
beyond the immediate concerns about domestic drone use, when we look at how drones may be integrated with
other forms of nascent police surveillance technology, an even more Orwellian picture of the future of domestic
drones begins to emerge.With

loopholes in national and state standards regulating UAS,

law enforcement agencies could potentially be able to use invasive police surveillance
technologies in conjunction with UAS to obtain information on large numbers of
people that they otherwise wouldn't be able to obtain without a warrant. "The fact
that drones now have also been combining with other forms of technology creates
even a larger privacy risk," Guliani says. "Imagine if there was a drone that was also combined
with facial recognition technology. A drone flying overhead could identify large numbers of
people and be tracking their movements." A leading manufacturer of the "StingRay"
surveillance technology, used by federal agencies and municipal police departments
alike to sweep up vast numbers of cell phone records from people who are simply in
the radius of a targeted suspect, has already developed a kit to deploy the technology on aerial
vehicles and unmanned aerial vehicles This type . of deployment may become the next logical step for the industry.
The use of StingRay technology as it currently stands is already incredibly secretive, with police
departments and manufacturers such as Harris Corporation concealing their use of the

phone-tracking equipment from the courts through the use of non-disclosure

agreements. The Department of Homeland Security's US Customs and Border Protection and the FBI already
use planes and drones in areas that are more than 100 miles of the Mexican border to conduct aerial surveillance,
and government agencies have been revealed to have been using Cessna planes outfitted with StingRay technology

The FBI has been resistant to answer even lawmakers' questions about
how many drones it operates and how often they are used . "It is both technologically possible
to track suspects.

and by no means a leap to imagine that once the FAA approves broader use of drones within the US by law
enforcement, [law enforcement officials] may put StingRays on them," said Nathan Freed Wessler, a staff attorney

UAS have also

been outfitted with thermal sensing technologies to produce heat maps of people
inside buildings. Other advocates worry if domestic drones are deployed as a platform for providing
temporary internet service to consumers, it could potentially give corporate drone operators
access to the internet data of those consumers and threaten net neutrality. "If internet
companies were to deliver internet service in hard-to-reach places, which would be a good thing, would they
then be collecting information in large quantities and would that information then be something
with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, and an expert on StingRay technology.

that their contacts would then have access to?" asked Drew Mitnick who is junior policy counsel at Access, an
organization dedicated to issues of internet freedom. It's questions like this that the National Telecommunications
and Information Administration has been ordered by the White House to answer in a collaborative process,
alongside civil society and industry groups, to develop guidelines for commercial drone use

Fourth Amendment ruling key the doctrine requires a set of

rules for the regulation to follow
Solove 2005 [Daniel Fourth Amendment professor, Kerr's Misguided Call for
Judicial Deference
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4113&context=flr] jason

Kerr makes a number of arguments in support of his call for judicial restraint. Kerr's key contentions are that (1) legislatures create rules that are more
comprehensive, balanced, clear, and flexible; (2) legislatures are better able to keep up with technological change; and (3) legislatures are more adept at
understanding complex new technologies. The following sections examine each contention in turn. Creating a Comprehensive and Balanced Set of Rules
Kerr argues that a key goal in drafting criminal procedure rules is to create "a rule-structure that simultaneously respects privacy interests and law
enforcement needs." According to Kerr, unlike courts, "[l]egislatures can enact comprehensive rules based on expert input and can update them
frequently as technology changes."' Moreover, legislative rules "are more nuanced, clear, and . . . optimize the critical balance between privacy and public

, there seems to be no reason why a statutory

regime will inevitably be any more comprehensive, balanced, or clear than a regime
based on Fourth Amendment principles. When the Fourth Amendment covers a
particular law enforcement activity, it provides a set of rules to regulate it. Once a
law enforcement activity falls within the Fourth Amendment's regulatory regime,
courts will examine whether the search or seizure was "reasonable."' A search with a warrant
safety more effectively when technology is in flux." However

supported by probable cause is generally reasonable. Only on very rare occasions are searches pursuant to a valid warrant unreasonable. A search without

Warrants are a judicial

authorization for a particular search. Warrants must be supported by probable
cause, which exists when there is "reasonably trustworthy information" that the
search will turn up evidence of a crime. The purpose of a warrant is to have an independent party (judges or magistrates)
a valid warrant is often deemed unreasonable. This is known as the "per se warrant rule."'

ensure that government officials really do have probable cause to conduct a search. Kerr criticizes the Fourth Amendment rules as inflexible, but in reality

First, the warrant requirement balances privacy interests

and law enforcement needs by allowing searches and seizures to occur only after
law enforcement officials justify them before a judge or magistrate. Second, in
situations where warrants and probable cause do not work well, the Court has made
exceptions. Indeed, there are numerous exceptions to the warrant and probable
cause requirements, such as Terry stops, exigent circumstances, and "special needs" in schools and workplaces. These exceptions
allow the courts to accommodate a wide range of government investigative activity
within the protective framework of the Fourth Amendment. In contrast, the statutory
regime that Kerr extols has many deficiencies that caution against Kerr's enthusiasm for legislative rules. When the statutes are
they show a remarkable degree of flexibility.

examined as a whole-as an alternative regulatory regime to the Fourth Amendment-there are many severe problems that refute Kerr's belief in the
superiority of a legislative regime. In his reply, Kerr contends that I unfairly pit an idealized Fourth Amendment regime against the statutory regime. In
other words, I am comparing a Fourth Amendment regime as if the courts had applied the Fourth Amendment to various new technologies against the
statutory regime as is. But Kerr's contention is normative and proscriptive in that he recommends that going forward, legislatures, and not courts, should

be the primary rulemakers. He criticizes scholars who call for the courts to expand Fourth Amendment applicability. The current status quo reveals areas

First,
Congress's statutes lack effective remedies because the federal statutes often lack
exclusionary rules. For example, there is no exclusionary rule to protect e-mail under the Wiretap Act,' 25 and the Stored Communications
where the courts refused to apply the Fourth Amendment and where legislatures became involved. I aim to ask, are we better off

Act and Pen Register Act both lack an exclusionary rule. Kerr, in fact, wrote an article lamenting exactly this fact. 127 Most of the statutes regulating law

As a result, there is often little

incentive for criminal defendants to challenge violations of these statutes. Second,
there are many gaps in the statutes. Consider electronic surveillance law, for example. The Wiretap Act fails to cover silent
enforcement access to records held by third parties also lack an exclusionary rule. 128

video surveillance. As one court observed, Television surveillance is identical in its indiscriminate character to wiretapping and bugging. It is even more
invasive of privacy, just as a strip search is more invasive than a pat-down search, but it is not more indiscriminate: the microphone is as "dumb" as the
television camera; both devices pick up anything within their electronic reach, however irrelevant to the investigation. As another court observed, "[V]ideo
surveillance can be vastly more intrusive [than audio surveillance], as demonstrated by the surveillance in this case that recorded a person masturbating
before the hidden camera." Beyond video surveillance, there are numerous technologies Congress has failed to regulate. Global positioning systems
enable people's movements to be tracked wherever they go. Facial recognition systems can enable surveillance photos and videos to be scanned to
identify particular people based on their facial features. Satellite technology may be used to examine practically any open area on earth. Radio frequency
identification ("RFID") involves tags placed into products, objects, and with the void as filled by the legislative rules, or would we be better off had the
Fourth Amendment been interpreted to encompass a particular law enforcement activity? I believe in many instances, the latter would be better. even

be read at greater distances,

RFID might be used to track people's movements. Congress has not passed statutes
to address the privacy implications of any of these technologies. Nor has Congress
passed a law to regulate video surveillance of citizens. Ironically, FISA regulates video surveillance, but the
ECPA does not, 136 meaning that the video surveillance of a foreign spy receives more federal statutory protection than that of a U.S. citizen. 137 Nor
has Congress regulated the use of tracking devices, key logging devices, or other
new technologies.
human beings that emit a decipherable signal.135 As this technology develops and tags can

Aff Core

Inherency

Surveillance Increasing
Federal use of aerial surveillance is high and increasing
numerous federal agencies using them
Heller 6/17 [dean, senator for Nevada Heller, Wyden Bill Requires Warrants for

Aerial Surveillance, hellersenate.gov,

June{ 17,http://www.heller.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2015/6/heller-wyden-billrequires-warrants-for-aerial-surveillance] Sheikh
Senator Wyden added, Americans privacy rights shouldnt stop at the treetops. Technology has made it
possible to conduct round-the-clock aerial surveillance. The law needs to keep up.
Wyden continued, Clear rules for when and how the federal government can watch Americans from the sky will
provide critical certainty for the government, and help the unmanned aircraft industry reach its potential as an
economic powerhouse in Oregon and the United States .

Recent press reports have detailed

numerous instances of aerial surveillance by the federal governm ent. Under one program,
the FBI has surveilled people in dozens of American cities without warrants, using a fleet of small airplanes. To
further protect Americans privacy: The bill would apply to both manned- and unmanned-aircraft. Unlawfully
collected information would be inadmissible in court. The government would be prohibited from identifying persons
who show up incidentally in surveillance, unless there is probable cause to believe such persons have committed a
crime. The bill prohibits the government from soliciting to commercial/private operators to conduct surveillance that
the government itself is not authorized to do. The bill includes exceptions for border patrol (within 25 miles of land
border), testing operations, public land surveillance, including surveying for weather-related damage, research,
scoping for environmental dangers and illegal vegetation, as well for as wildlife management. It does not impact
commercial operations or apply to state and local law-enforcement agencies.

The inexpensive cost of drones means they will continue to

expand there are no safeguards in place to protect privacy
and liberties from the mass surveillance coming they will
uniquely spur a surveillance state
Huffington Post 12 [Huffington Post, American online news, Drone Use In
U.S. Could Lead To 'Warrantless Mass Surveillance': ACLU, Huffington Post, 10-19,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/19/drones-in-the-ussurveillance_n_1988540.html] huang
A request for drones from a California sheriff's office prompted the American Civil
Liberties Union to point out, what officials say, are significant dangers posed by the
proliferation and misuse of the aerial surveillance devices. The Alameda County Sheriff's

office in Northern California has requested a grant to purchase unmanned aerial drones for video and infrared
surveillance in police, fire and rescue settings, according to Pleasanton Patch. Sheriff Gregory Ahern insists a drone
deployed by his department would not be used as a "patrol tool." "It would be a mission-specific tool for evaluating
and testing for specific incidents," Ahern said. "If we do this, we have to have permission from the [federal aviation
administration] defined for each specific type of mission such as search and rescue, fires or for explosive ordinances

civil liberties group notes that strong

"safeguards and accountability mechanisms" must be in place to ensure that "law
enforcement does not use drones to engage in warrantless mass surveillance,"
according to an ACLU blogpost. Ahern touted the affordability of drones, noting that
a single drone costs between $50,000 to $100,000, whereas a helicopter costs $3
million and is expensive to operate. But the ACLU sees the cheapness of drones as
another potential danger. "When the police have to mount elaborate and costly foot
and squad patrols to follow a suspect 24/7, the expenditure of resources serves as a
deterrent to abuse; it forces the police to limit their surveillance to instances when it
is actually necessary," the blog post says. "Drones permit the police to surveil
people at all hours of the day and, apparently, at 1/30 the cost of other forms of
teams to take photos of suspicious devices." But the

aerial surveillance. The natural deterrent to abuse goes away, and invites abuse ."
Current Guardian columnist and former Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald echoed those concerns in a December,

drones vest vast new powers that police helicopters and

existing weapons do not vest: and thats true not just for weaponization but for
surveillance. Drones enable a Surveillance State unlike anything weve seen.
Because small drones are so much cheaper than police helicopters, many more of
them can be deployed at once, ensuring far greater surveillance over a much larger
area. Their small size and stealth capability means they can hover without any
detection, and they can remain in the air for far longer than police helicopters . Armed
2011 piece. The fact is that

drones have become a common and controversial tool used in the so called "War on Terror" overseas. Congress
approved the use of unarmed drones in the US earlier this year. Since then, worry over privacy and other civil
rights abuses has inspired legislation in Congress that would put some clamps on law enforcement's ability to use
the unmanned aircrafts. When

it comes to privacy protections for the American people,

drones are flying blind, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in a statement released in
August. Drones are already flying in U.S. airspace with thousands more to come
but with no privacy protections or transparency measures in place."

The next generation of surveillance drones will be nuclearpowered will only continue the path to a militaristic, security
state
Jones, 12 [Alex, journalist at infowars.com, NEXT PHASE OF THE SURVEILLANCE

STATE: NUCLEAR POWERED DRONES, Infowars.com, 4/2,

http://www.infowars.com/next-phase-of-the-surveillance-state-nuclear-powereddrones/] Zhang
The next generation of surveillance drones will be nuclear powered. Instead of flying
for hours, the new drones will be able to stay in the air for months. The
development represents a bonanza for the national security state and its militaryindustrial complex ministries like the Department of Homeland Security. The
blueprints for the new drones, which have been developed by Sandia National
Laboratories the US governments principal nuclear research and development
agency and defense contractor Northrop Grumman, were designed to increase
flying time from days to months while making more power available for operating
equipment, according to a project summary published by Sandia. Using nuclear
power would enable the Reaper [a Northrop Grumman drone] not only to remain
airborne for far longer, but to carry more missiles or surveillance equipment, and to
dispense with the need for ground crews based in remote and dangerous areas.
The bottom line is: domestic drones are potentially extremely powerful surveillance
tools, and that power like all government power needs to be subject to checks
and balances We hope that Congress will carefully consider the privacy implications
that this technology can lead to. Congress has spoken. By 2015 and probably
sooner the surveillance state will take to the air. Its the next phase of a high-tech
surveillance state: 24-7 aerial drones to monitor the masses and prevent collusion
and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and
protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together, as Zbigniew
Brzezinski writes. The bottom line is: domestic drones are potentially extremely
powerful surveillance tools, and that power like all government power needs to
be subject to checks and balances We hope that Congress will carefully consider the
privacy implications that this technology can lead to.

Aerial surveillance drastically expanding federal licensing

Greenwald 2013 (Greenwald, former columnist on civil liberties and US
national security, March, Domestic drones and their unique dangers,
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/29/domesticdrones-unique-dangers)

In contrast to weaponized drones, even the most nave among us do not doubt the imminent proliferation of
domestic surveillance drones. With little debate, they have already arrived. As the ACLU put it in their recent report:

law enforcement is greatly expanding its use of domestic drones for

surveillance." An LA Times article from last month reported that "federal authorities have stepped
up efforts to license surveillance drones for law enforcement and other uses in US
airspace" and that "the Federal Aviation Administration said Friday it had issued 1,428
permits to domestic drone operators since 2007, far more than were previously
known." Moreover, the agency "has estimated 10,000 drones could be aloft five years
later" and "local and state law enforcement agencies are expected to be among the
largest customers."Concerns about the proliferation of domestic surveillance drones are typically dismissed
"US

with the claim that they do nothing more than police helicopters and satellites already do. Such claims are
completely misinformed. As the ACLU's 2011 comprehensive report on domestic drones explained: " Unmanned

aircraft carrying cameras raise the prospect of a significant new avenue for the
surveillance of American life."Multiple attributes of surveillance drones make them
uniquely threatening. Because they are so cheap and getting cheaper, huge
numbers of them can be deployed to create ubiquitous surveillance in a way that
helicopters or satellites never could. How this works can already been seen in Afghanistan, where the

US military has dubbed its drone surveillance system "the Gorgon Stare", named after the "mythical Greek creature
whose unblinking eyes turned to stone those who beheld them". That drone surveillance system is "able to scan an
area the size of a small town" and "the most sophisticated robotics use artificial intelligence that [can] seek out and
record certain kinds of suspicious activity". Boasted one US General: " Gorgon

Stare will be looking at a

whole city, so there will be no way for the adversary to know what we're looking at,
and we can see everything."

AT: Status Quo Solves

Status quo is not enough - Current federal regulations
actually make it easier for drones to fly without privacy
concerns
Candice Bernd, 2/24/15, (Candice Bernd, an assistant editor/reporter with
Truthout, Proposed Rules Regulating Domestic Drone Use Lack Police Warrant
Requirement, Truth-out.org, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/29250-proposedrules-regulating-domestic-drone-use-lack-police-warrant-requirement#, accessed
date: 7/20/15) Salehitezangi
In about two years, the number of municipal police departments and federal agencies
using unmanned aerial systems (UAS) for surveillance purposes is expected to
skyrocket as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) streamlines the process by
which a drone operator can apply for a permit. The FAA released proposed rules
governing the commercial use of UAS on February 15 in a move widely expected to give
thousands of businesses and public agencies the green light to use UAS for work
purposes sometime in 2017, after the rules undergo a lengthy public review process. The White House
simultaneously released an executive order February 15 intended to safeguard privacy and
civil rights by directing federal agencies to publicly disclose information about how they
use UAS in domestic airspace . The proposed rules, which apply to drones that weigh only 55
pounds or less, would make it much easier not only for police departments, but also a
variety of businesses, including journalists, photographers and agricultural workers,
to fly domestic drones for work purposes. The FAA is currently working on a separate set of rules for
larger drones, which the agency is expected to release in a few years. Under the rules, operators will
be required to pass a proficiency exam, and pay about $200 in fees to register their
drone. Operators will have to fly their drones at speeds of less than 100 miles-perhour, at altitudes under 500 feet, during daylight hours only and within either their
own unaided line of sight or within the eyesight of designated observers on the
ground. The White House's executive order directs federal agencies using domestic
drones to draft a policy framework governing oversight and transparency of UAS use
within 90 days. The directive outlines guidelines for data retention and
dissemination of policies, as well as reporting requirements which mandate public
disclosure of how federal agencies use UAS . But the executive order doesn't go far
enough in the eyes of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) , despite being described as
a step in the right direction. Neema Singh Guliani, who is legislative counsel with the ACLU, praised the White
House's directive for its public reporting requirements, saying the requirements will allow greater public discourse
and debate about the appropriate uses of domestic drones by federal agencies. She also celebrated the fact that
federal agencies will be mandated to draft policy frameworks on UAS use, because many of those agencies

However, Guliani said the directive alone isn't sufficient

to protect people's privacy from the particularly invasive surveillance opportunities
that domestic drones represent as used by law enforcement agencies. While federal
agencies will be required to create a basic framework regulating domestic drone u se,
each agency will be developing those guidelines separately, which could lead to
inconsistency or deficient standards within some agencies , according to Guliani. She also
took issue with certain aspects of the directive's information-sharing rules, saying they were vague on the
question of whether or not federal agencies can share information unrelated to the
reason the data was collected by UAS in the first place. The executive order outlines that
agencies can use UAS for any "authorized purpose ," but the order does not outline
exactly what an "authorized purpose" is. The executive order maintains that agencies must
currently have no such policy framework.

purge the data collected from UAS after 180 days, that is, unless an agency decides to
keep the information because, again, it relates to an "authorized purpose." In this instance,
too, Guliani maintains that "purpose" is vague, and could potentially lead to a broad interpretation by federal
agencies. "I think there are certain minimum guidelines that I think should have been put in place by [the executive
order] or should certainly be a part of whatever agency guidelines are produced," Guliani said.

Current privacy laws inadequate at addressing concerns of civil

liberties violations from aerial surveillance
Ahsanuddin 14 [Sadia Ahsanuddin, graduate of Harvard University, Domestic
Drones: Implications for Privacy and Due Process in the United States, MPAC, 9-8,
http://www.mpac.org/publications/policy-papers/domestic-drones.php] Huang
Drones are capable of housing a variety of highly intrusive surveillance
technologies. As such, drones will aid governmental agencies in conducting surveillance with high efficiency. How should drones be regulated
in order to preserve privacy? How will existing privacy law affect domestic drones? As it turns out, existing privacy law is
inadequate in addressing domestic drone operations. Although privacy statutes
exist on the federal and state levels and the Fourth Amendment theoretically
protects individuals from unwarranted surveillance, these measures prove
inadequate because the statutes are out of step with todays technological realities
and the standards set forth in case law may prove tenuous with the mass introduction of drones. Drones also impact due
process rights. Drones are perhaps best known for the role they play in conducting signature strikes against suspected militants abroad. Will
civilians on American soil ever be subjected to drone attacks? Should civilians fear the weaponization of drones or their use in delivering lethal payloads?

Although the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments assure individuals of the right to
due process before the deprivation of life, liberty, or property, these rights have
already begun to erode due to the global war on terror and the use of drones to conduct
signature strikes by virtue of executive decisions that are devoid of judicial review . With the mass introduction of
domestic drones, there remains a threat and real fear that drones may be used to
deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property with no opportunity to dispute the
charges brought against them. Americans of all ethnicities and creeds are likely to
be affected by the domestic deployment of drones. American Muslims have a special contribution to make to
this discussion. Having been subjected to special law enforcement attention and scrutiny, American Muslims find themselves particularly susceptible to
infractions of civil liberties. As representatives of the American Muslim population and with the expertise to ground our analysis, the Muslim Public
Affairs Council (MPAC) proposes the following guidelines to address the issues of law enforcement use of drones, data collection, weaponization of

Adequate protection of privacy is necessary to allow

the public to take advantage of drone technology without becoming a society in
which every movement is monitored by the authorities. Simultaneously, drone developers need regulations
drones, due process, oversight, and transparency:

so that they can conduct research and development unimpeded by protests and news reports. Additionally, the weaponization of drones on
domestic soil poses a threat to due process rights and public safety. This was acknowledged by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who called for a total prohibition
on the weaponization of domestic drones.13 Indeed, politicians and policymakers representing a broad spectrum of political views advocate

Drones pose an unprecedented threat to civil liberties. They can

be utilized to conduct incessant mass surveillance through the mutual coordination
of multiple drones over a given neighborhood. This report presents an overview of the existing law on privacy
regulations for domestic drones.

and due process and an analysis of legislative proposals in order to ascertain whether they will adequately protect civil liberties or whether more is
required. Part I lays out existing law on privacy and due process and addresses the integration of drones into the national airspace from those
vantage points. Part II proposes guidelines for regulations, while Part III describes the various bills and other measures being taken to regulate
drones

Solvency

Fed Action Key

And, federal action chills state and local use of warrantless
aerial surveillance
Kelli Sladick, Feb. 26, 2015, (Kelli Sladick, Journalist and writer, To the

Governors Desk: Virginia Bill Bans Warrantless Drone Surveillance,

tenthamendmentcenter.com http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/02/tothe-governors-desk-virginia-bill-bans-warrantless-drone-surveillance/, accessed
date: 07/15/15) Salehitezangi
Impact on the Federal Surveillance State Although SB1301 focuses exclusively on state and local drone use and
does not apply directly federal agencies, the legislation would throw a high hurdle in front of some federal

Much of the funding for drones at the state and local level comes from the
federal government, in and of itself a constitutional violation. In return, federal
agencies tap into the information gathered by state and local law enforcement
through fusion centers and a federal program known as the information sharing
environment. According to its website, the ISE provides analysts, operators, and investigators with
programs.

information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators have mission needs
to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies. In

The federal
government encourages and funds a network of drones at the state and local level
across the U.S., thereby gaining access to a massive data pool on Americans
without having to expend the resources to collect the information itsel f. By placing
restrictions on drone use, state and local governments limit the data available that
the feds can access. In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds
have a much more difficult time gathering information. This represents a major blow
to the surveillance state and a win for privacy.
other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant.

Courts Key
Court action key judicial interpretations needed to enhance
privacy doctrine to keep pace with new technologies
Rushin 2011 (Stephen - PhD student at the University of California, Berkeley,

Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program; THE JUDICIAL RESPONSE TO MASS POLICE
SURVEILLANCE; 2011 U. Ill. J.L. Tech. & Pol'y 281/ zhang
Under the current Fourth Amendment doctrine, the warrantless use of surveillance technologies probably
does not amount to a search. These technologies do not provide officers with any
extrasensory abilities, but merely improve the efficiency of law enforcement
investigations. Additionally, these technologies do not interfere with any reasonable
expectation of privacy on public thoroughfares. This demonstrates a need for the Court to rethink the current
Fourth Amendment doctrine to account for the possibility of mass surveillance. Such a major doctrinal shift may be imminent, as the Court has already
granted certiorari to a controversial surveillance case, United States v. Jones, 240 involving the warrantless installation of a GPS device. The Courts

Despite
the enormous powers of the digitally efficient investigative state, the courts have
avoided regulating these emerging technological trends, largely for fear of limiting
policing efficiency. In the absence of legislative or judicial regulation, the digitally
efficient investigative state is radically reshaping social conceptions of privacy.
What remains inconclusive, though, is whether the use of these technologies for
mere observational comparison or indiscriminate data retention affects the
technologys usefulness as a criminal deterrent. Since individuals are notoriously bad at risk assessment, there
pending decision in this case could have major implications for the judiciarys future willingness to regulate surveillance technologies.

may be a strong argument that the technologies serve as a psychological deterrent, whether they merely work as observational comparison tools or as

More psychological research would be helpful in

understanding how individuals perceive surveillance technologies, and whether
limiting their uses to mere observational comparison would tangibly affect their
usefulness as criminal deterrents [P]rivacy is not simply an empirical and historical question that measures the collective
sense in any given society of what is and has long been considered private. Without a normative component, a
conception of privacy can only provide a status report on existing privacy norms
rather than guide us toward shaping privacy law and policy in the future. If we focus
simply on peoples current expectation of privacy, our conception of privacy would
continually shrink given the increasing surveillance in the modern world.375 The
judiciary can and should play a fundamental role in protecting a normatively forceful
conception of privacy in all regards. Do we reasonably expect a person to assume the risk that, every time they enter a
true vehicles for widespread data collection.

public space, the state can monitor their every movement with ALPR? Do we reasonably expect a person to assume the risk that the state will keep

should we expect
individuals to completely abandon all anonymity in public? I believe the clear, normative answer to these
questions is a resounding no, and the implications of the digitally efficient investigative state
only add weight to the claims previously made by Professor Solove and others.
extensive, centralized data on their movements indefinitely? Or perhaps the more important question is

Fourth Amendment Key

Plan should rule on Fourth Amendment grounds it is key to
re-establishing boundaries in public/private spheres
Ahsanuddin et al 2014 (Sadia - principal investigator for the report and MPAC
research fellow; Domestic Drones: Implications for Privacy and Due Process in the
United States; Sep 8; www.mpac.org/publications/policy-papers/domesticdrones.php0) Zhang
For Fourth Amendment purposes, a search occurs when the government trespasses upon the areas that are protected by the Fourth
Amendment (including persons, houses, papers, and effects) 92 or otherwise intrudes upon an individuals reasonable
expectation of privacy.93 A reasonable expectation of privacy exists when (1) a
person exhibits an actual, subjective expectation of privacy, and (2) society as a
whole would deem that individuals expectation of privacy reasonable. Reasonable
expectation of privacy standard may provide inadequate protection in the age of
mass surveillance: if the average individual constantly expects to be surveilled, this
standard may be rendered meaningless and ineffective. The courts should re-think this standard. In the
age of mass surveillance, however, the reasonable expectation of privacy standard will have to be
reassessed. Courts will have to address whether individuals have any reasonable expectation of privacy, even when at home. As Professor
Woodrow Hartzog stated, Once youve been put on notice that you can have no expectation of privacy, then its not reasonable to expect any privacy in

The demarcation between the public and private spheres is crucial

when considering an individuals right to privacy. As drones become increasingly
used by law enforcement agencies, it is likely that there will be legal challenges and
a reviewing court will have to determine the location of the individual and whether
they had a reasonable expectation of privacy to determine whether an
unreasonable search took place. Alternatively, courts may decide to determine
whether the surveillance itself is reasonable, regardless of where it took place. Although the Supreme Court has
any area in particular.107

held that warrantless location tracking on public roads is permissible, as in United States v. Knotts, a majority of justices in two concurrences in United

In August
2012, a North Dakota court upheld the use of the drone to arrest the suspects,
denying a request brought by the suspects attorney to dismiss charges for
unwarranted use of an unmanned aircraft. Privacy experts agree. In an article in the Stanford Law
Review Online, Professor Ryan Calo of the University of Washington School of Law states that
drones may be just the visceral jolt society needs to drag privacy law into the
twenty-first century. American privacy law has developed at a slow and uneven
pace, whereas technology has developed at a rapid speed. The need for legislation
is clear. With recent revelations that the federal government has been conducting
surveillance of the American public on an unprecedented level, the threat that
unregulated and immensely capable technologies pose to civil liberties is profound.
The law must catch up with technology.
States v. Jones indicated an awareness that prolonged surveillance of an individual encroaches upon Fourth Amendment rights

AT: Drones Effective

Aerial surveillance not effective high rate of accidents
Bolkcom 04 [Christopher Specialist in National Defense, Foreign Affairs,
Defense, and Trade Division, Homeland Security: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and
Border Surveillance http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a477727.pdf] Naviaux
UAVs are less expensive than manned aircraft used for border security. The unit cost of UAVs varies widely. The Shadow UAV costs
$350,000 while the Predator costs $4.5 million.14 In contrast, the unit cost of a P-3
manned aircraft used by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is $36 million.
Blackhawk helicopters which are frequently used on the borders cost $8.6 million
per unit. However, the benefit of the Blackhawks relative low unit cost is diminished by its lack of endurance. Blackhawks have a maximum
endurance of 2 hours and 18 minutes.15 Consequently, UAVs longer dwell time would allow them to patrol the border longer. Despite potential benefits of

There are
concerns regarding UAVs high accident rate. Currently, the UAV accident rate is 100
times higher than that of manned aircraft.16 Because UAV technology is still evolving there is less redundancy built
using UAVs for homeland security, various problems encountered in the past may hinder UAV implementation on the border.

into the operating system of UAVs than of manned aircraft and until redundant systems are perfected mishap rates are expected to remain high.

a well-trained pilot is better positioned to find the

source of the problem because of his/her physical proximity. If a UAV encountered a
similar system failure, or if a UAV landing was attempted during difficult weather
conditions, the ground control pilot would be at a disadvantage because he or she is removed from the event.
Unlike a manned pilot, the remote pilot would not be able to assess important
sensory information such as wind speed.17The key component of Operation Safeguard was to identify potential threats
Additionally, if control systems fail in a manned aircraft,

crossing the southern border illegally. The surveillance capabilities of UAVs equipped with only an E-O camera and Forward Looking Infrared Radar (FLIR)

Cloudy conditions and high humidity climates

can distort the imagery produced by EO and FLIR equipment. Although the Predator
B is operating in the low-humidity environment of the Southwest, the effects of
extreme climatic or atmospheric conditions on its sensors reportedly can be
mitigated if DHS decides to outfit the Predator B with a synthetic aperture radar
(SAR) system.18 Radars can produce high resolution imagery in inclement weather.
The ability of SAR to function during adverse weather conditions sets it apart from
optical or infrared systems.19 However, its ability to track moving targets is limited.
sensor have been limited in the past by poor weather conditions.

This limitation can be mitigated by accompanying SAR with moving target indicator (MTI) radar technology. Adding SAR and MTI to the Predator Bs
platform could significantly enhance its operational capability for border missions. By adding SAR and MTI to the UAV platform, however, the costs of using
UAVs on the border would increase

Militants can hack drones at a low cost--- we have no

protections
Harvard Law School National Security Journal 2010 (Harvard Law
School National Security Journal, "NSJ Analysis: Increasing Use of Unmanned Drones
Raises Data Security Issues", February 22, 2010, http://harvardnsj.org/2010/02/nsjanalysis-increasing-use-of-unmanned-drones-raises-data-security-issues/)
Drones raise unique security issues as their data streams, and possibly control
streams, must be secured. Unlike a manned airplane controlled from a cockpit and
generally involving a closed system of control, a drone is often remote-controlled
through a two-way data stream carried over sometimes thousands of miles. Such
data streams can be vulnerable to hacking , like any computer network.
According to the Wall Street Journal, in December 2009, militants in Iraq were able
to hack a drones video feed using low cost off-the-shelf software. While there was
no evidence that the militants were able to take control of the drone, they were able
to download and see the drones video feed, perhaps allowing them to evade U.S.
operations. The stark difference between resource requirements between the
militant hackers and the U.S. military is telling. While Reaper drones like the one
hacked can cost over $10 million, the militants used a computer program that cost
around $25. The low cost of the program allows militants to proliferate the software
and thereby increase the danger that drones can be hacked and their video feeds
watched by enemy forces. The ability of militants in Iraq to hack drone video feeds
should be cause for concern, especially as far more advanced military forces such
as Russia and China have extensive cyber-warfare capabilities. While Iraqi militants
relied on cheap software to capture a video feed, other states capabilities could
conceivably allow a foreign force to hijack a drone, either to alter the mission or
crash the drone before the mission can be completed. Increased reliance on drone
warfare will also increase the opportunities for enemy cyber-warfare units to hack or
hijack the unmanned vehicles. U.S. drone vulnerability stems from the fact that
once a drone is far from its base, satellite uplinks are necessary to link the drone to
the base. Such uplinks are vulnerable to hacking, unless the data stream is
encrypted. But the drones data stream is unencrypted, and unless significant
expenditures are made to add encryption to the proprietary satellite technology, the
vulnerability will remain. The unencrypted data stream vulnerability carries over to
other U.S. satellite traffic, as a 2005 CIA report describes. While the control data
stream of drones is encrypted, the ability of enemies to access U.S. drone
intelligence seriously undermines the ability of the United States to use that
intelligence for mission purposes. U.S. drone vulnerabilities have been known to the
U.S. military since at least the 1999 Yugoslav war. Whether it was bureaucratic
indifference or inertia, the problem was not addressed. Most worrying, U.S.
commanders may have seriously underestimated the ingenuity and technical
proficiency of militants. If this is so, it must be hoped that the same commanders
will not continue to underestimate the threat to drone data-gathering and control
posed by a lack of data stream security. Only by addressing this security hole
can the ever-growing drone force be considered a fully functional weapon
of war, useful in all possible conflicts and with a varied mission profile.

AT: Drones Good War on Drugs

Drones not needed for drug war the amount of drugs they are
responsible for finding is less than .01% of our total seizures
Stamey, 14 [Barcley, Navy Lieutenant Commander, Masters of Arts Degree in
Security Studies DOMESTIC AERIAL SURVEILLANCE AND HOMELAND SECURITY
3/2014
http://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/41446/14Mar_Stamey_Barcley.pdf?
sequence=1] Naviaux
According to retired Air Force Major General Michael Kostelnik, who heads CBPs
Office of Air and Marine (OAM), drones are extremely maintenance intensive, cost
more to operate than traditional means, and are often unavailable to assist border
agents because DHS has farmed them out to other entities such as the FBI.11 Since
the beginning of CBPs UAS program in 2005, drones have logged more than 12,000
flight hours in support of border security operations similar to what experts envision
using drones for on a national, counter-terrorism scale. Over that time,
approximately 46,600 pounds of illicit drugs and 7,500 individuals have been seized
or detained during UAS supported operations.12 Although these numbers might
seem high, they are comparatively insignificant when taking into account CBPs
total interception. On average, CBP seizes 3,500 pounds of marijuana every day in
Arizona alone. In 2012, the Border Patrol seized 2.3 million pounds of pot. From
20052011, CBP alone detained 4.1 million immigrants; therefore, the 7,500
individuals apprehended with UAS assistance equates to less than .01 percent
further diminishing the effectiveness of drone use. The single-most destructive
statistic that opponents to drones tout is that in the previously mentioned years, not
a single terrorist, member of the middle or top echelon of Transnational Criminal
Organizations, or drug cartels has been arrested with the help of UAS.13

Drones Bad 4th Amendment

Advanced surveillance capabilities of drones make them
unique offenders of the 4th Amendment it is an abuse of
governmental power
Selinger, 15 3/9/2015, Evan, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Rochester
Institute of Technology, Why domestic drones stir more debate than ones used in
warfighting abroad, csmoniter, March 9,
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/Passcode-Voices/2015/0309/Whydomestic-drones-stir-more-debate-than-ones-used-in-warfighting-abroad, Hsiao
The use of drones domestically has sparked heated debate around the potential
threats to both privacy and safety. The digital rights group Electronic Frontier
Foundation warns that drones "raise significant issues for privacy and civil liberties"
since they are capable of "highly advanced surveillance." In terms of commercial use, the Federal Aviation
Administration has proposed rules to limit where drones can fly. While military drone usage abroad has been opposed by various groups, it hasn't drawn
the same kind of attention stateside as the emergence of commercial drones. The US appears more interested in whether drones will be approved for
package delivery than whether it's acceptable to use drones for targeted killings in Yemen. I recently spoke with John Kaag about that contradiction. Mr.
Kagg is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell. He recently coauthored a book called "Drone Warfare" with

The first reason has

to do with the legal and political origins of the United States. US citizens know
quite rightly that the country was set up in such a way, at least in theory, to
protect its citizens from the abuse of governmental power. Most of us have internalized some version of
the Fourth Amendment that prohibits the government from conducting searches of
citizens without probable cause and requires a court to issue a warrant prior to a
search commencing. The abuse of domestic drone surveillance would violate this
amendment, and so Americans are quick to get their hackles up. Using drones in targeted killings abroad is different. Theres a sense again,
Sarah Kreps, an associate professor in the Department of Government at Cornell University. Edited excerpts follow.

an accurate one that the laws of war are different than the domestic laws that govern a nation.

Lack of regulations on aerial surveillance hurts civil liberties

violates 4th Amendment
Heartland News 2012 Artz Congress Approves Domestic Use of Aerial

Surveillance Drones http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/congressapproves-domestic-use-aerial-surveillance-drones, Feb, 8, 2008, Hsiao

Congress passed and President Obama is expected to sign House Resolution
658, the Federal Aviation Administration Air Transportation Modernization and
Safety Improvement Act, which would, in part, allow domestic use of aerial drone
spy planes. HR 658 was sent to the President on February 8. The resolution has
sparked opposition from privacy advocates who claim employing drones for
domestic surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
According to a poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports, released February 13, 52
percent of voters oppose the use of surveillance drones compared to 30 percent
who favor it and 17 percent who are undecided. Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst
for the American Civil Liberty Unions Speech, Policy and Technology Project, says
that drone deployment is bad from the point of view of the Constitution because
the founding fathers put in place rules to prevent us from being surveilled 24/7.
Theyre bad from a policy perspective because no one wants to be constantly
watched.

Drones Bad War

Reliance on drones will lead to more wars a drone-reliance
state takes little initial risk in their use
Greenwald 2013(Greenwald, former columnist on civil liberties and US national
security, March, Domestic drones and their unique dangers,
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/29/domestic-drones-uniquedangers)
Suffice to say, there is an enormous profit to be made from exploiting the domestic drone market, and as usual,

What is most
often ignored by drone proponents, or those who scoff at anti-drone activism, are
the unique features of drones: the way they enable more warfare, more aggression,
and more surveillance. Drones make war more likely precisely because they entail
so little risk to the war-making country. Similarly, while the propensity of drones to kill innocent
that factor is thus far driving the (basically nonexistent) political response to these threats.

people receives the bulk of media attention, the way in which drones psychologically terrorize the population simply by constantly hovering over them: unseen but heard - is usually ignored, because it's not happening in the
US, so few people care (see this AP report from yesterday on how the increasing use of drone attacks in Afghanistan

It remains to be seen how Americans will react to drones

constantly hovering over their homes and their childrens' schools, though by that
point, their presence will be so institutionalized that it will be likely be too late to
stop. Notably, this may be one area where an actual bipartisan/trans-partisan alliance can meaningfully emerge,
is truly terrorizing local villagers).

as most advocates working on these issues with whom I've spoken say that libertarian-minded GOP state legislators

One bill now

pending in Congress would prohibit the use of surveillance drones on US soil in the
absence of a specific search warrant, and has bipartisan support. Only the most
authoritarian among us will be incapable of understanding the multiple dangers
posed by a domestic drone regime (particularly when their party is in control of the government and
have been as responsive as more left-wing Democratic ones in working to impose some limits.

they are incapable of perceiving threats from increased state police power). But the proliferation of domestic drones
affords a real opportunity to forge an enduring coalition in defense of core privacy and other rights that transcends
partisan allegiance, by working toward meaningful limits on their use. Making people aware of exactly what these
unique threats are from a domestic drone regime is the key first step in constructing that coalition.

Drones Bad Terrorism

Expansion of drones means a weapon of aggression for
terrorist groups
Council on Hemispheric Affairs, Sanchez, 2/2

Sanchez 2/2/2015, Senior Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs,

and Cameron McKibben, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs.
Worst Case Scenario: The Criminal Use of Drones Council on Hemispheric Affairs,
http://www.coha.org/worst-case-scenario-the-criminal-use-of-drones/, Hsiao
In the U.S., the worst possible scenario of how drones can be utilized for violent
outcomes in sensitive locations took a new turn on January 26, when a small drone crashed on the
lawn of the White House. While this incident (involving an inebriated government employee) seems to have just been an accident,
it begins to illuminate just how easily drones can fly into restricted areas. The event
also provokes worries over how destructive these machines can be if they were to be used as terror
drones, and loaded with some sort of explosive. Additionally, it is important to remember that this is not the first
time that drones have entered no-fly zones. Over the past year, unauthorized drones have flown close to other sensitive targets, like nuclear power plants
in France and Belgium. So far, no one has been detained for these incidents, and these could have been staged by some harmless environmental group.
Nevertheless, given the recent attacks against the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine in France and the terrorist attacks in the UK and Spain over the past

The
idea that terrorist movements will begin to utilize drones is no longer a hypothetical scenario, but a
grim reality. For example, the global media has reported that ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria)
has procured a drone and is using it to conduct reconnaissance and aid in launching
ground attacks on the Syrian military.[ iii] Likewise, it is believed that groups like Hamas and Hezbollah also possess
decade, one major concern is that terror drones could be use by an extremist Islamic militant organization for some kind of terrorist operation.

drones. A word of caution is necessary. The drones used by the aforementioned militant movements are generally believed to be very crude models,
nothing more than a small plane or helicopter with a video camera and GPS attached. Such aircraft cannot be compared to the capabilities of US or Israeli
drones like the NightEagle or ScanEagle, much less armed drones like the Predators. Nevertheless, even the most rudimentary drone can serve as an
effective eye in the sky that would provide invaluable intelligence information to a terrorist movement. Moreover, in the case of Israel, one genuine fear
is that Hezbollahs drones can be adapted as suicide drones namely that they can be loaded with explosives so they would cause maximum damage if
they collide against an Israeli military (or civilian) facility.[iv] Even criminals that do not necessarily belong to some major terrorist or criminal network

individuals have already

used small drones to try to smuggle marijuana, cell phones, and other contraband
into prisons in South Carolina and Georgia. These attempts were discovered because the drones failed to cross over the fence line and crashed
can use drones for smuggling. This has already been the case in the U.S. and Australia. [v] For example,

(one likely reason being that they were carrying too much weight for the machine to fly properly), but there could certainly be other instances when
drones were able to fly over a prison fence, were unloaded by prisoners, and then managed to fly back unnoticed. As UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles)
are now coming into the hands of criminals and terrorist movements across the world, either for transportation of contraband or surveillance purposes, it
should come as little surprise that drones are now beginning to be utilized by Latin American DTOs. At this point we must ask ourselves, what are the
implications for the use of drones by these Latin American illicit groups?

Surveillance State Adv

Ext Drones Bad Privacy

Aerial surveillance has the potential for crushing privacy
expectations than any other monitoring technology it could
gather information for days without probable cause
Scott 12 [Austin Scott, Representative for Georgia's 8th Congressional District,
Domestic drones risky?, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 6-22,
http://www.lexisnexis.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/lnacui2api/results/docvie
w/docview.do?
docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T22336192241&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startD
ocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T22336192247&cisb=22_T22336192245&treeMax=true
&treeWidth=0&csi=8379&docNo=6] Huang
For the past few years, unmanned aerial vehicles, or "drones" as they are often called, have become a common tool used by our military overseas. Drone

We've also used drone surveillance

along our southern border to prevent illegal immigration and combat drug
trafficking. Drones are an attractive tool for the military because of their costeffectiveness and operator safety, among other things. Because of these benefits, drones also are being
technology has been an invaluable resource to our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

more widely considered by local, state and federal law enforcement agencies for domestic use in the United States. Naturally, this development has
stirred debate among many Americans. The alarm over domestic drone use does not reflect an anti-drone sentiment; rather, it stems from questions
about the consequences these relatively quiet unmanned aircraft --- some of which are as small as a hummingbird --- will have on Americans' privacy.

drones could present a risk to the protections against "unreasonable searches

and seizures" outlined in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. While highly
effective and certainly an attractive alternative to risking American lives, drone
technology presents a greater risk of being used in a much more intrusive manner
than other aerial surveillance technology. Drones are capable of staying aloft for
days at a time and can be equipped with highly sophisticated camera technology
that can collect a constant stream of surveillance footage. With advances in drone
technology and without a requirement that federal agencies obtain a warrant,
drones could conduct surveillance for days without just cause. To ensure that
drones are not used to violate Americans' Fourth Amendment rights, I recently
introduced HR 5925, Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act. This
bill would require the government to obtain a warrant before conducting drone
surveillance in the United States. Recognizing that there are situations where the use of drones is necessary and appropriate,
Therefore,

such as search and rescue, my bill aims to balance privacy concerns and the ability to harness drone technology for legitimate domestic use.

Drones have proved highly effective in emergency situations requiring swift action
to prevent imminent danger to life --- such as wildfires. For these reasons, my bill
has emergency exceptions and also would permit the federal government to use
drones to patrol the national borders or when they are needed to prevent a terrorist
attack. Beyond these public safety exceptions, the legislation would require law enforcement to acquire a warrant from a judge. This follows the
spirit of current laws regarding surveillance. This technology is evolving rapidly and will soon reach previously unforeseen capabilities. Therefore, we
must be proactive and ensure that our laws address these new technologies and maintain the safeguards enshrined in our Constitution. Without the
ability to foresee where drone technology could lead, it is important that we protect Americans' civil liberties from the outset. This legislation may not be
the last word on the issue, but it is an important start in this effort to ensure that

drones are not used to infringe on

Americans' privacy rights.

Aerial surveillance uniquely impacts privacy rights of US

citizens in ways we have not endured before their technology
eradicates barriers on existing ways to monitor from the air
Greenwald, 13 [Glenn, a fomer columnist on civil liberties and US national
security issues for the Guardian. An ex-constitutional lawyer, he was until 2012 a

contributing writer at Salon. He is the author of How Would a Patriot Act? (May
2006), acritique of the Bush administration's use of executive power; A Tragic
Legacy (June, 2007), which examines the Bush legacy; and With Liberty and Justice
For Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful,
Domestic Drones and their Unique Dangers, theguardian, 5/29,
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/29/domestic-drones-uniquedangers] Zhang
The use of drones by domestic US law enforcement agencies is growing rapidly, both in terms of numbers and types of usage. As a result , civil
liberties and privacy groups led by the ACLU - while accepting that domestic drones are inevitable - have
been devoting increasing efforts to publicizing their unique dangers and agitating
for statutory limits. These efforts are being impeded by those who mock the idea that domestic drones pose unique dangers (often the
same people who mock concern over their usage on foreign soil). This dismissive posture is grounded not only in
soft authoritarianism (a religious-type faith in the Goodness of US political leaders
and state power generally) but also ignorance over current drone capabilities, the
ways drones are now being developed and marketed for domestic use, and the
activities of the increasingly powerful domestic drone lobby. So it's quite worthwhile to lay out the key
under-discussed facts shaping this issue. In contrast to weaponized drones, even the most nave among us do not doubt the imminent proliferation of
domestic surveillance drones. With little debate, they have already arrived. As the ACLU put it in their recent report: "US law enforcement is greatly

"federal authorities have

stepped up efforts to license surveillance drones for law enforcement and other
uses in US airspace" and that "the Federal Aviation Administration said Friday it had
issued 1,428 permits to domestic drone operators since 2007, far more than were
previously known." Moreover, the agency "has estimated 10,000 drones could be aloft five years later" and "local and state law
enforcement agencies are expected to be among the largest customers." Concerns about the proliferation of
domestic surveillance drones are typically dismissed with the claim that they do
nothing more than police helicopters and satellites already do. Such claims are
completely misinformed. As the ACLU's 2011 comprehensive report on domestic
drones explained: "Unmanned aircraft carrying cameras raise the prospect of a
significant new avenue for the surveillance of American life." Multiple attributes of surveillance drones
make them uniquely threatening. Because they are so cheap and getting cheaper, huge numbers of
them can be deployed to create ubiquitous surveillance in a way that helicopters or
satellites never could. How this works can already been seen in Afghanistan, where the US military has dubbed its drone surveillance
expanding its use of domestic drones for surveillance." An LA Times article from last month reported that

system "the Gorgon Stare", named after the "mythical Greek creature whose unblinking eyes turned to stone those who beheld them". That drone
surveillance system is "able to scan an area the size of a small town" and "the most sophisticated robotics use artificial intelligence that [can] seek out
and record certain kinds of suspicious activity". Boasted one US General: "Gorgon Stare will be looking at a whole city, so there will be no way for the

The NSA already maintains ubiquitous

surveillance of electronic communications, but the Surveillance State faces serious
limits on its ability to replicate that for physical surveillance. Drones easily
overcome those barriers. As the ACLU report put it: But manned aircraft are expensive to purchase,
operate and maintain, and this expense has always imposed a natural limit on the governments aerial surveillance capability. Now that
surveillance can be carried out by unmanned aircraft, this natural limit is eroding. The prospect of cheap,
small, portable flying video surveillance machines threatens to eradicate existing
practical limits on aerial monitoring and allow for pervasive surveillance, police
fishing expeditions, and abusive use of these tools in a way that could eventually
eliminate the privacy Americans have traditionally enjoyed in their movements and
activities. What is most often ignored by drone proponents, or those who scoff at
anti-drone activism, are the unique features of drones: the way they enable more
warfare, more aggression, and more surveillance. Drones make war more likely precisely because they entail so
adversary to know what we're looking at, and we can see everything."

little risk to the war-making country. Similarly, while the propensity of drones to kill innocent people receives the bulk of media attention, the way in which

drones psychologically terrorize the population - simply by constantly

hovering over them: unseen but heard - is usually ignored, because it's not happening in the US, so few people
care (see this AP report from yesterday on how the increasing use of drone attacks in Afghanistan is truly terrorizing local villagers). It remains
to be seen how Americans will react to drones constantly hovering over their homes

and their childrens' schools, though by that point, their presence will be so
institutionalized that it will be likely be too late to stop. Only the most authoritarian among us will be
incapable of understanding the multiple dangers posed by a domestic drone regime (particularly when their party is in control of the government and they

the proliferation of domestic drones

affords a real opportunity to forge an enduring coalition in defense of core privacy
and other rights that transcends partisan allegiance, by working toward meaningful
limits on their use. Making people aware of exactly what these unique threats are from a domestic drone regime is the key first step in
are incapable of perceiving threats from increased state police power). But

constructing that coalition.

Drone surveillance is a unique threat to the 4th Amendment

Right to privacy is first priority
Healy 12 [Gene Healy, vice president at the Cato Institute, Drones Pose a
Threat to Americans Privacy, Cato Institute, 5-21,
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/drones-pose-threat-americansprivacy] Huang

Dont drone, me, bro! thats one way to sum up Charles Krauthammers heated reaction to last weeks news
that the Federal Aviation Administration had loosened restrictions on local police departments use of surveillance
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Stop it here, stop it now, Krauthammer exclaimed on Fox Newss Special Report
Monday, I dont want to see it hovering over anybodys home Im not encouraging, but I am predicting that the
first guy who uses a Second Amendment weapon to bring a drone down thats been hovering over his house is
going to be a folk hero in this country. The neoconservative Krauthammer is rarely mistaken for a civil libertarian,
yet here he finds himself to the left of the ACLU. And he has a point. Drones

present a unique threat to

privacy, the Electronic Privacy Information Center explains; theyre designed to
undertake constant, persistent surveillance, and with special equipment, theyre
capable of peering inside high-level windows, perhaps even through solid
barriers, such as fences, trees and even walls. Over the past decade, the creeping
militarization of the homefront has proceeded almost unnoticed In several cases, the Supreme Court
has held that warrantless surveillance by manned aircraft doesnt violate the Fourth
Amendment. But small, cheap, maneuverable, and often undetectable drones may
create cases in which a difference in degree becomes a difference in kind. Pressure
is mounting to normalize the use of drones in the United States . A 2010 Department of

Defense report emphasizes the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Securitys need for routine access to
U.S. airspace in order to execute a wide range of missions including surveillance and tracking operations. The
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, under the aegis of the Department of Homeland Security, has seven nonweaponized Predator drones in operation, one of which it used to assist a North Dakota sheriff with an arrest last
summer, and the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration have used Predators for other domestic
investigations, the Los Angeles Times reported in December. From Miami, Florida, to Arlington, Texas, local police
departments have received federal grants to purchase UAVs. Police in Ogden, Utah, used federal tax dollars for a
surveillance blimp outfitted with night-vision cameras. We believe it will be a deterrent to crime when it is out and
about, says the mayor. In an incident that typifies everything wrong with the growing militarization of U.S. law
enforcement, members of a Houston-area sheriffs department brought some of their coolest gear out to a defense
contractors training facility last September for a drone demonstration-slash-photo op. The $300,000
Shadowhawk UAV they were looking to buy with DHS grant money lost control and crashed into the SWAT Teams
Bearcat armored personnel carrier (also purchased with DHS boodle). Not to worry they bought a Shadowhawk
drone anyway. Chief Deputy Randy McDaniel enthused: I absolutely believe it will become a critical component on
all SWAT callouts and narcotics raids and emergency management operations. Over the past decade, the creeping
militarization of the homefront has proceeded almost unnoticed, with DHS grants subsidizing the proliferation of

Reps. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and

Barton, R-Texas, co-chairs of the Congressional Bipartisan Privacy Caucus, sent a
letter to the head of the FAA urging the adoption of privacy protections, given the
potential for drone technology to enable invasive and pervasive surveillance. But
security cameras and military ordnance for local police departments . On April 19,
Joe

Congress neednt wait on Obamas FAA to start protecting Americans privacy rights.

Use of Surveillance Drones domestically destroys privacy for

all American citizens
Greenwald 2013(Greenwald, former columnist on civil liberties and US
national security, March, Domestic drones and their unique dangers,
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/29/domesticdrones-unique-dangers)
Surveillance drones or unmanned aerial systems (UASs) raise significant issues for privacy and
civil liberties. Drones are capable highly advanced surveillance, and drones already in use by law
enforcement can carry various types of equipment including live-feed video
cameras, infrared cameras, heat sensors, and radar. Some military versions can stay in air the
hours for hours or days at a time, and their high-tech cameras can scan entire cities, or
alternatively, zoom in and read a milk carton from 60,000 feet. They can also carry
wifi crackers and fake cell phone towers that can determine your location or
intercept your texts and phone calls. Drone manufacturers even admit they are made to carry less
lethal weapons such as tasers or rubber bullets . Thanks to a provision in the FAA Modernization
and Reform Act of 2012, drones use in the United States is set to expand rapidly
over the next few years. The Act includes provisions to make the licensing process
easier and quicker for law enforcement, and by 2015, commercial entities will also
be able to apply for a drone authorization . In January 2012, EFF sued the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) under the Freedom of Information Act to determine which public and private entities had
applied for authorization to fly drones.

In response to the lawsuit, the FAA has released lists of

the 60 public entities and 12 private drone manufacturers that have sought
permission to fly drones in the US. The agency has also released several thousand pages of records

related to the entities drone license applications. The FAA has yet to provide information on how these drones will
be used. EFF has also partnered with MuckRock, the open government organization, to conduct a drone census
with the goal of determining just that. We have provided an easy-to-use form that ordinary citizens can use to file a
public records request with their local police agency to ask what type of surveillance the agency plans to conduct
with drones, if any, and what type of privacy protections it is providing its citizens.

Ext Slippery Slope

Persistent surveillance uniquely undermines liberal democracy
it sets us on a slippery slope to lack of privacy in other areas
The Economist, 15 [K., Staff writer for The Economist, Drones and Privacy: A

Looming Threat, The Economist, 5/19,

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/03/drones-and-privacy]
Zhang
At issue is the way some drones can loiter overhead for long stretches, engaging in what is called persistent surveillance . As drones
and other airborne surveillance platforms, such as circling manned aircraft and lighter-than-air craft become cheaper and more
effective, persistent aerial surveillance could become the norm, and no privacy or
transparency measures currently exist in the law. So figuring out how to protect privacy without pre-empting
innovation is as tricky as it is necessary. On February 15th, the same day the FAA announced its new proposed rules for small drones, Barack Obama

The president also called on an agency

in the Commerce Department to examine the privacy implications of drones used by
individuals and corporations. The current state of the lawboth legislation and
court decisionsis poorly suited to deal with persistent surveillance. This is because
privacy law is tailored to questions of whether one is in publican open fieldor in
a space where one has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Supreme Court has, at times,
expanded such spaces, for instance finding in 1967 that the FBI cannot eavesdrop on conversations
in telephone booths without a warrant. But in this era of big data, the line
between public and private can no longer be delimited by physical boundaries. People
published a memorandum calling on government agencies to study the matter.

tend to invoke Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warrens definition of privacy in 1890 as the right to be let alone. But this view does not fully capture the

the liberal
self and the liberal democratic society are symbiotic ideals. So persistent
surveillancewhether through monitoring internet browsing habits or from a drone
overheadundermines the formation of liberal individuals in the way that an overreliance on GPS undermines the formation of a sense of direction. This is because
pervasive surveillance tends to shape the actions, thoughts and personalities of
those being observed. Such changes happen gradually, even imperceptibly. But ultimately excessive surveillance
encourages people to behave predictably. To oversimplify her argument, democracy needs privacy to breathe. Plenty
purpose of privacy in modern society. A better explanation comes from Julie Cohen at the Georgetown Law School, who argues that

of similar information is available from mobile-phone records, which track the physical position of their users. Indeed, many technologies, from mobile
telephony to e-mail, have been widely adopted before their impacts on privacy could be parsed by either consumers or regulators. But therein lies the

drones may serve as a

privacy catalyst. Once regulators assess the ramifications of persistent aerial
surveillance, he argues, they may then turn to the privacy implications of a whole
host of other gadgets and innovations. It is worth noting that not all persistent
drones are a threat to privacyNASAs Global Hawk Earth science missions, for
instance, are exactly what they claim to be: new tools for studying hurricanes and
other natural phenomena. But it is essential that these questions about drones and privacy are being asked now. This is because
the reasonable expectation of privacy test depends on whether technologies are
already widely adopted. If no restrictions are put in place and persistent drones
become more common, then the legal system allows the fait accompli to stand.
value of regulating drones. As Ryan Calo, a University of Washington law professor, optimistically suggests,

Expansion of unregulated aerial surveillance occurring lack of

regulations will spill-over to eroding privacy protections in
other areas
Chow 15 (Eugene K. Chow, former executive editor of Homeland Security
NewsWire, Hello Drones, Goodbye Privacy, Huffingtonpost.com, 5/07/15,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eugene-k-chow/domestic-dronesurveillance_b_1324546.html) Salehitezangi

A future where unmanned surveillance drones zip through the skies keeping tabs on civilians is no longer relegated to dystopic

privacy rights are in danger. In less than three months, the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) will allow law enforcement agencies to operate drones
in U.S. airspace, and by 2015, commercial drones will be permitted as well . More
troublingly, the ink has hardly dried on the new FAA regulations and Pentagon officials are already pushing to fly
the same powerful military drones that track terrorists abroad in the United States. With these aircraft hovering above
our heads, privacy is at risk as drone technology has far outpaced the development of
corresponding regulatory laws. Drones -- as small as hummingbirds and as large as the 116-foot wingspan
Global Hawk -- can hover for hours silently observing individuals with advanced
surveillance tools like thermal sensors, cell-phone eavesdropping devices , Wi-Fi network
novels. The panopticon has arrived and

hacking tools, and sophisticated video technology like the military's Gorgon Stare, which can observe an entire city from multiple

when these high-tech surveillance tools have been challenged

in court, judicial rulings have largely erred on the side of law enforcement agencies over
individual rights. "Citizens do not generally enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy in public ,
angles and track several targets at once. For the most part,

nor even in the portions of their property visible from a public vantage," writes Ryan Calo, the director for Privacy and Robotics at
Stanford University's Center for Internet and Society. "Neither

the Constitution nor common law appears to

prohibit police or the media from routinely operating surveillance drones in urban and
other environments." As evidence, Calo points to a 1986 Supreme Court case which upholds the right of local police to fly
over residents' backyards without a search warrant. In addition, in 1989, the Supreme Court admitted evidence from a police officer
in a helicopter who peeked through two missing panels in a greenhouse and saw a marijuana growing operation. On a brighter note,

the egregious violations of privacy rights that drones represent "could be just
the visceral jolt society needs to drag privacy law into the twenty-first century. " The
growing ubiquity of both government and private drones will inevitably raise difficult questions like how
long can they follow an individual and will it require a warrant, can drones with thermal sensors be
used to detect individuals growing marijuana indoors , and can images taken by
drones be sold to third parties. But before these questions are answered, drones will likely become ubiquitous
Calo believes that

considering the lobbying might of the Congressional "Drone Caucus." The Drone Caucus, a collection of fifty representatives
primarily from districts in Southern California, a major unmanned aerial vehicle manufacturing hub, has proven so effective in
expanding the government's use of drones it allocated $32 million for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to purchase
three new aerial surveillance drones, despite the agency's objections. "We didn't ask for them," and the agency lacks the resources
and manpower to even fly the additional surveillance vehicles, said an anonymous DHS official speaking to the Los Angeles Times. In
just seven years,

drones have come to account for nearly one-third of the military's aircraft. In 2005,

only 5 percent of military airplanes were unmanned, but now the Pentagon owns nearly 7,500 drones . As the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down, much of the military's fleet will be returning to the United States and it is doubtful that the
planes will sit idly in hangars. If recent trends are any indication, military drone flights could be coming sooner than we think. DHS
already flies Predator drones along the border and is entertaining the notion of outfitting its fleet with military-grade visual sensors,

these drones are only deployed at borders and airports, those

are still areas where U.S. citizens live and are protected by the Constitution. Furthermore, with more and more
military technology being sold to local police departments, it is only a matter of time before these
intrusive sensors make their way to our neighborhoods . Drones have their legitimate uses -- they can
which can see as much as four square miles at once. Even if

help first responders search for missing persons, farmers can use them to spot irrigation leaks, and reporters can use them to gather

we must
ensure that our personal freedoms are protected.

news -- but as an emerging technology that is largely unregulated,

to

carefully monitor how and what they are used for

Loss of Privacy Totalitarianism

Lack of privacy chills democracies ushers in totalitarian
states

Dr. Glen T. Martin, 01/03/14

(Dr. Glen T. Martin, Professor of Philosophy and

chair of the program in Peace Studies at Radford University, President of the World
Constitution and Parliament Association (WCPA), the Institute on World
Problems(IOWP), and International Philosophers for Peace, NSA Spying, Secrecy,
and the Totalitarian Threat, Readersupportednews.org,
http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/425-national-security/21795-nsaspying-secrecy-and-the-totalitarian-threat, date accessed: 7/14/15) Salehitezangi
But as American political thinker, Hannah Arendt, and French philosopher, Claude
LeFort, have pointed out, the drift toward totalitarianism, and the nature of
totalitarian societies, have very clear signs , signs which are clearly visible in the U.S.
government. I want to examine why this is so. Much democratic theory since the 18th century has
stated that the people are sovereign, that legitimate governmental authority arises from the
people themselves and is responsible to the people . Both the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the
U.S. Declaration of Independence (written by Thomas Jefferson), claim that the natural and inalienable rights of man are morally
and conceptually prior to the political constitution of society and, therefore, prior to
any specific government. It there is such a thing as human rights, then people (civil society) are prior to
government. All three of these features are indicative of totalitarianism: Hitler,
Mussolini, Stalin, and the Communist regime of East Germany through the end of
the Cold War, all claimed that the Nazi, Fascist, or Communist parties, respectively,
represented (in some mythical or ideological way) the whole meaning and spirit of their respective
societies and that this totalizing ideology gave them the authority to operate in
secret, to spy on their populations, and to repress dissenters as traitor s. This is what is truly
scary about what the U.S. has become. The issue is not whether we the people have anything to hide that would preclude someone watching us. The
issue is that the simple facts of spying and secrecy themselves are both
manifestations of, and further steps in the direction of, totalitarianism. In a
democracy, civil society and the rights of citizens are prior to and constitutive of
government. Government does not and cannot represent the totality. Dissenters and
whistleblowers are not traitors. They are essential to the plurality of civil society. We
know through experience that President Obama, James Clapper, and most of the rest lie to us with every public
statement they make, and yet we keep repeating their propaganda about endless wars and threats. Absolute secrecy
breeds corruption, yet we accept the reassuring face of Obama that speaks to us from the summit of a secretive empire of nuclear
weapons, cruise missiles, torture, murder, and death, encircling the world. Only Snowden, Private Manning, Julian
Assange, and some others have told the truth, and look at the way they are treated
by both government and big media. Totalitarian regimes need enemies. Hitler needed the
Jewish conspiracy, while Stalin needed subversives and decadents. Our secretive, totalized U.S. government
claims that we are under terrorist threat and attack around the world, as assessed by secret
criteria and supported by secret evidence. Many progressive thinkers in the U.S. believe that the CIA and other agencies of the
U.S. government set up or facilitate terror attacks, creating false-flag bombings
and other forms of mass-murder that serve to justify their continuing secrecy, everincreasing power, and totalitarian policies of gulag prisons, assassinations, and disappearances. Many believe they
were instrumental in causing the attacks of 911 in order to provide the new Pearl Harbor called for by their Project for the New American Century

the fact of the chaotic, undemocratic international system of

militarized sovereign nation-states, many of which have their own secret spy and killer organizations, along with the
ungovernable system of international shadowy organizations like al-Qaeda , and the corruption of transnational
declaration. Whatever the truth of the matter is,

corporations with their own systems of bribery, protection, and violence, form the
perfect context for the growth of totalitarianism within the U.S .. Spying, militarism,
secrecy, and authoritarian policies are necessary, we are told , in this dangerous and chaotic world.
Our government is justified, we are told, in protecting us by spying on us from a
position of absolute, unbreachable secrecy . They represent the government and the nationa
secretive, shadowy in-crowd with security clearances and ideological conformity, very
much like Stalins Communist Party. We the people do not. The government set up under the Earth Constitution
would clearly arrest President Obama and put him, along with George W. Bush, in jail where they belong. They are not only totalitarian
violators of our U.S. Constitution, they are war criminals, heading up torture and
murder of people around the world without even the most elementary due process of law. It is surely torture, as well as
unspeakable barbarism, to blow the legs off children in Afghanistan or Yemen with these hideous drone attacks. Yet the reason why they are war criminals
is primarily structural: among militarized sovereign nation-states there is, and can be, no genuine rule of law, and certainly no due process of law that
properly holds individuals accountable for their actions before an impartial court of law. There can only be the rule of power, violence, secrecy, spying,

If we want to establish democracy within the U.S., we have

to examine seriously the chaos of a world disorder that defeats democracy within
nations at every turn. By requiring militarized nation-states, this world disorder wastes more than one trillion U.S. dollars per year that
could be used for jobs, protecting the environment, and global social justice. This world system manifests a chaos that
gives totalitarian elements and totalitarian attitudes a breeding ground for secrecy,
spying, and unrestrained violence. We cannot reverse totalitarianism within the U.S.
by ignoring the rest of the world and the structural elements that breed the
totalitarian attitude. We should be studying and discussing the Earth Constitution on a daily basis if we are serious about democracy.
Not only our future, but the future of our planet and its two billion children, depends on our
willingness to think globally about democracy. The Earth Constitution is by far the most promising and realistic
option that we have before us. Democracy and human rights are inherently universal . They are not for a
privileged few among a fragmented system of sovereign nation-states. Everyone deserves authentic democracy.
Everyone deserves to live with freedom and dignity under the Constitution for the Federation of Earth.
murder, threat, and ideological posturing.

Ext Key to all other rights

Privacy is a prerequisite for all other rights -- a lack of privacy
our ability to be autonomous beings
Sundquist 12 (Matthew Lee, graduate of Harvard college, Privacy Manager at

Inflection, Student Fellow of the Harvard Law School Program, "ONLINE PRIVACY
PROTECTION: PROTECTING PRIVACY, THE SOCIAL CONTRACT, AND THE RULE OF
LAW IN THE VIRTUAL WORLD", Regent University Law Review, July 30, 2012,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2120148) Padiyar
Justice Brandeis considered privacythe right to be let aloneto be the most comprehensive
of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.22 But why is privacy so valuable and important?23 Presumably,
privacy has a political value in deterring government overreach into our lives.
Privacy also seems necessary to ensure citizens can discuss and voice their views in
private without fear of outside intervention, thus ensuring democratic
participation.24 It is, however, difficult to categorize privacy as a value,25 let alone to quantify its risks or benefits. 26 We value some things
as instrumental goods, for example, which provide a means to an end, like money. We also value intrinsic moral goods and virtues, like justice.27 Privacy,
however, is difficult to categorize as either clearly intrinsic or clearly instrumental. Professor Charles Fried notes, [W]e do not feel comfortable about
asserting that privacy is intrinsically valuable, an end in itselfprivacy is always for or in relation to something or someone. On the other hand, to view

28 So what is the value of

privacy? Privacy creates a framework that allows other values to exist and
privacy as simply instrumental, as one way of getting other goods, seems unsatisfactory too.

develop. Where privacy is available, we can have freedom, liberty, and other
intrinsic goods. We can develop friendships, relationships, and love.29 As anyone
who has had a camera pointed at them knows, we act differently when
being recorded . Now consider that everything we do online, over the phone, or
with a credit card can be monitored and recorded. If this information is used
abusively, similar to how we might feel if we were filmed all the time, it
compromises our ability to act naturally and freely . A social dynamic exists
in this as well. In society, when people are around, we must react to external
stimulants and forces. But alone, we can choose and create our stimulants and
environment and react accordingly. Thus, we develop as independent beings
and people when we have privacy .30

Ext Government stability

Maintaining privacy is the lynchpin of maintaining a stable and
credible government
Sundquist 12 (Matthew Lee, graduate of Harvard college, Privacy Manager at
Inflection, Student Fellow of the Harvard Law School Program, "ONLINE PRIVACY
PROTECTION: PROTECTING PRIVACY, THE SOCIAL CONTRACT, AND THE RULE OF
LAW IN THE VIRTUAL WORLD", Regent University Law Review, July 30, 2012,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2120148) Padiyar

Given the value of privacy, I posit we should prioritize privacy threats of three types:
(1) law-breaking ; (2) insufficient enforcement ; and (3) subversion of social
expectations by laws, practices, or frameworks. The first two speak to the role of
government and the social contract . According to the social contract, a pervasive
we trade the state of naturethe world without
governmentto form a society and enjoy protection, security, and property. 32 To
protect our values, we create laws tasked with the goal of secur[ing] a situation
whereby moral goals which, given the current social situation in the country whose
law it is, would be unlikely to be achieved without it . 33 The law should serve the
idea in American society and government,31

common interest and secure values that will be broadly useful to

society .34 Once established, the law (and associated rules) must be
enforced

35

since the government derives authority from creating and

enforcing laws . 36 Thus, there is an immediate, positive benefit when we protect a

valued good like privacy. Additionally, there is a broader benefit, as enforcing the
law gives the government credibility and creates a stable society. 37

Ext Totalitarianism
Privacy rights guard against totalitarianism---evidence proves

Helen Nissenbaum, 04, professor of Media, Culture and Communication and

Computer Science at New York University, PRIVACY AS CONTEXTUAL INTEGRITY
http://www.kentlaw.edu/faculty/rwarner/classes/internetlaw/2011/materials/nissenba
um_norms.pdf

For purpose discussion more relevant than the specific details

about legal restrictions on government agents is the general
source of momentum behind these restrictions
protecting privacy against
government intrusion can be portrayed as an insurance policy
against the emergence of totalitarianism
limiting
government powers can be parlayed into protection of privacy
s of our

, in particular, a principled commitment to limited

government powers in the name of individual autonomy and liberty. To the extent that

, the rhetoric of

. During

the 1950s until the end of the Cold War, when regimes to the East loomed vividly in public consciousness and fictional constructions, like George Orwells Big Brother in 1984, entered

the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfares

Secretarys Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data
Systems found a receptive audience for their seminal 1973 report
The report emphasized this
concern for balancing power, and for limiting the power of state
and large institutions over individuals by warning that the net
effect of computerization is that it is becoming much easier for
recordkeeping systems to affect people than for people to affect
record-keeping systems.
The lasting legacy of the report and its
Code of Fair Information Practices is the need to protect privacy
as one powerful mechanism for leveling the playing field in a
game where participants have unequal starting positions
the public imagination,

on the impacts of computerized record-keeping on individuals, organizations, and society as a whole.

Further, [a]lthough there is nothing inherently unfair in trading some measure of privacy for a benefit, both

parties to the exchange should participate in setting the terms.

, at

least in part,

Ext Multilat
Use of drones by the US extremely unpopular with global
citizenry
Popular resistance 8/21/2014, Acting Against Drones: A Global Movement For All
Popular resistance, https://www.popularresistance.org/acting-against-drones-aglobal-movement-for-all/, Hsiao
On October 4th, 2014 citizens around the world attended demonstrations against the use of drones,
satellites, and ground stations for surveillance and killing. It was a day known as the Global Day of Action
Against Drones, with events that connected the international community by the
palpable threat that lowers the threshold to war and diminishes international
security: drones. On this fall morning I was outside the Air and Space Museum in Washington D.C with a group of activists dedicated to the
anti-drone movement. We held up signs saying, When drones fly, children die! and passed out pamphlets with information about the horrors of drones.
Some people were intrigued, some were confused, and others were in disbelief. All eyes were focused on the animated protestors of killer drones. Taking
turns on the mic, we described to perplexed tourists the raw truth that United States killer drones have killed 2,379 people in Pakistan alone. We explained
that just behind the museum walls was a glorified drone exhibit which failed to reveal that the very same technology was responsible for killing at least
200 children in Pakistan. We illustrated that this number could be represented in the amount of children that entered the doors of the exhibit that very
same day. We spoke about the fear the United States has instilled halfway across the globe where families no longer trust blue skies. We described how

drones fail to make our citizens safer, but rather increase anti-American sentiment. We called for a worldwide ban of
in Germany, multiple actions were occurring from
Fly Kites, Not Drones in Dresden to the Rally Against Drones outside Africa
Command (AFRICOM), where so-called targeted killings in Somalia are coordinated from. At the very same time people were
gathering in London to collect signatures against drones while groups in Jeju Island, South Korean activists held
educational events on how drones violate human rights . The Global Day of Action Against Drones
killer

these weapons that undermine global stability. Meanwhile

exemplified how global citizens embrace the idea that ones identity transcends geographic and political borders. With the awareness of the strong
interdependence of individuals and systems there is a certain sense of accountability. The international community must be held accountable to fuel the
effort needed to stop drone warfare and invasive drone surveillance.

Our rights as human beings depend on it.

Judicial Deference Adv

High Now
The executive branch is in sole control of surveillance
activities-- any appearance of judicial influence is a pretense
Brand and Guiora 15 (Jeffrey S., J.D., Dean Emeritus and Professor of Law,

Director Center for Law and Global Justice, University of San Francisco School of
Law, and Amos N., Ph.D, Professor of Law, S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of
Utah, Co-Director, Center for Global Justice, The Steep Price of Executive Power Post
9/11: Reclaiming Our Past to Insure Our Future, Jan. 27, 2015,
http://www.law.utah.edu/the-steep-price-of-executive-power-post-911-reclaimingour-past-to-insure-our-future/)
The Framers
inherent distrust of governmental power was the driving force behind the
constitutional plan that allocated powers among three independent branches. This
design serves not only to make Government accountable but also to secure
individual liberty. Americas post-9/11 response abandons this foundational
principle, ceding unitary authority to the Executive Branch , despite strong evidence
that its surveillance, interrogation and drone policies have been ineffective, counterproductive, lack transparency, and are devoid of specific standards or oversight for
their implementation. The policies inefficacy bears emphasis. The United States has yet to present
evidence that its massive collection of meta-data thwarted a significant terrorist
plot. The Select Senate Committees report concludes that U.S. engagement in torture has been ineffective, and mercilessly
Justice Kennedy wrote about it in 2004, upholding the right of habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees:

details the lack of reliable information that so-called enhanced interrogation techniques yield, along the way painting a disturbing
portrait of Abu Zubaydah being waterboarded, blowing bubbles through his mouth and being completely unresponsive. The
report also concludes that the information torture tactics did yield could have been obtained by other means. Drones may hit
their targets on occasion, but their efficacy must also be measured by the number of resulting civilian deaths and injuries, and by
the magnitude of the unintended consequences that the drone policy has engendered, including adverse world reaction and

The Executive Branchs

false public assurances about its surveillance, interrogation and drone policies and
the total failure of any branch of government to abide by separation of powers
principles also bear emphasis. With regard to the latter, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC),
created in 1978 as part of the Foreign Intelligence Services Act (FISA) to insure Executive Branch
accountability for its surveillance activities, is Exhibit A. The FISCs structure abandons
any pretense of judicial independence, operating as a tool of the Executive Branch ,
which is solely authorized to appear before it and to determine the evidence that the FISC considers. Is it any wonder
that in the thirty-three years from 1979 to 2012, the FISC granted 33,942 requests
for warrants and denied only eleven, a denial rate of three tenths of one percent of the total warrants
requested? Is it any wonder that the FISC is routinely characterized as a rubber stamp
of the Executive Branch? Similarly, the Executive Branchs iron grip on interrogation policies is a story vividly and
disturbingly told by the Senate Select Committee report. And with respect to drones, the Executive
Branch is totally unrestrained, not even bothering to justify a program begun in
2004. Only in 2013 did the Obama Administration, in a Justice Department White Paper, make bold promises about precision
providing invaluable marketing footage for terrorist recruitment campaigns around the globe.

targeting now belied by mounting civilian casualties, while, at the same time, providing disturbingly loose definitions of what

So what is to be
done? The ingenious scheme of the Framers of our Constitution must be reclaimed
in the realm of national security. No longer should threats to the homeland, no
matter how serious, be an excuse for a power grab by the Executive Branch to
determine unilaterally matters of individual liberty or who shall live and who shall
die.
constitutes a legitimate target or an imminent threat, standards critical to nurturing the rule of law.

Deference Bad Democracy

Judicial Deference destroys democracy
Vermeule 2003 (Bernard - D. Meltzer Professor of Law at the University of Chicago,
Interpretation and Institutions, http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1110&context=public_law_and_legal_theory) chen

striking that democratic failure theorists say little or nothing

about the problem of excessive liberty . No theorist has suggested that courts should
reallocate anti-terrorism appropriations to beef up the security apparatus where it is
most needed, or should second-guess the governments policies for protecting blue
state ports from terrorist attack. The reason, presumably, is that judicial review of this sort would prove
In practice, however, it is

infeasible, and possibly counterproductive. Courts might suspect democratic failure in the under provision of
security to minorities, but would be hard pressed to know what the optimal arrangements would be, and hard-

government might circumvent the

courts decisions by reallocating funding on other margins, or simply by ignoring
them. There are two lessons here, which we draw out in Part IV. First, the same? problems of judicial capacity that
constrain judicial review of inadequate security also constrain judicial review of excessive security. The courts
institutional capacities are the same, whatever the mechanism of democratic
failure. Thus, if critics of judicial deference do not believe courts should scrutinize
laws that enhance liberty during times of emergency such as the provisions of the
Patriot Act that strengthen privacy protections they need to explain what it is
about security-enhancing laws that justifies special judicial scrutiny. Second, systemic
pressed to enforce those arrangements even if they were known;

effects and dynamic governmental responses also undercut judicial review of policies that impose excessive
security. If courts police policies that produce excessive security but not policies that produce excessive liberty,
government may tend to substitute the latter type of exploitation for the former. Here we merely note these
problems of judicial capacities and systemic effects.

2AC Add-Ons

Weaponization Add-On
Continued, unchecked use of aerial surveillance by drones
leads to mission creep the technology will continue to be
used for more and more militaristic and violent purposes
ACLU 2011 (American Civil Liberties Union, Non-profit, nonpartisan national
organization for advocating individual rights, "Protecting Privacy From Aerial
Surveillance: Recommendations for Government Use of Drone Aircraft", ACLU,
December 2011,
https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/protectingprivacyfromaerialsurveillance.pdf)
UAVs and privacy- With the federal government likely to permit more widespread
use of drones, and the technology likely to become ever more powerful, the
question becomes: what role will drones play in American life? Based on current
trendstechnology development, law enforcement interest, political and industry
pressure, and the lack of legal safeguardsit is clear that drones pose a looming
threat to Americans privacy. The reasons for concern reach across a number of
different dimensions: Mission creep. Even where UAVs are being envisioned for
search and rescue, fighting wildfires, and in dangerous tactical police operations,
they are likely to be quickly embraced by law enforcement around the nation for
other, more controversial purposes. The police in Ogden, Utah think that floating a
surveillance blimp above their city will be a deterrent to crime when it is out and
about.58 In Houston, police suggested that drones could possibly be used for
writing traffic tickets.59 The potential result is that they become commonplace in
American life.60 Tracking . The Justice Department currently claims the authority
to monitor Americans comings and goings using GPS tracking deviceswithout a
warrant. Fleets of UAVs, interconnected and augmented with analytics software,
could enable the mass tracking of vehicles and pedestrians around a wide area.
New uses. The use of drones could also be expanded from surveillance to actual
intervention in law enforcement situations on the ground. Airborne technologies
could be developed that could, for example, be used to control or dispel protesters
(perhaps by deploying tear gas or other technologies), stop a fleeing vehicle, or
even deploy weapons.61

And this means a wider acceptance of weaponized drones it

will lead to an expansion of drone violence and a military state
The Guardian 12 12/21/2012, The coming drone attack on America The

Guardian,
http://www.lexisnexis.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/lnacui2api/results/docvie
w/docview.do?
docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T22336187456&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startD
ocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T22336187460&cisb=22_T22336187459&treeMax=tru
e&treeWidth=0&csi=138620&docNo=13, Hsiao
People often ask me, in terms of my argument about "ten steps" that mark the descent
to a police state or closed society, at what stage we are. I am sorry to say that with the importation of what will be
tens of thousands of drones, by both US military and by commercial interests, into US airspace, with a specific

to engage in surveillance and with the capacity for weaponization - which is

due to begin in earnest at the start of the new year - it means that the police state is now officially here. In
February of this year, Congress passed the FAA Reauthorization Act, with its provision to
deploy fleets of drones domestically. Jennifer Lynch, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, notes that this
followed a major lobbying effort, "a huge push by [...] the defense sector" to promote the use of drones in American skies: 30,000 of them
are expected to be in use by 2020, some as small as hummingbirds - meaning that you won't necessarily see them, tracking
mandate

your meeting with your fellow-activists, with your accountant or your congressman, or filming your cruising the bars or your assignation with your lover, as
its video-gathering whirs. Others will be as big as passenger planes. Business-friendly media stress their planned abundant use by corporations: police
in Seattle have already deployed them. An unclassified US air force document reported by CBS (pdf) news expands on this unprecedented and

one that formally brings the military into the role of controlling
domestic populations on US soil, which is the bright line that separates a democracy
from a military oligarchy. (The US constitution allows for the deployment of National Guard units by governors, who are answerable
to the people; but this system is intended, as is posse comitatus, to prevent the military from taking action aimed at US citizens domestically.) The
air force document explains that the air force will be overseeing the deployment of its own military
surveillance drones within the borders of the US; that it may keep video and other
data it collects with these drones for 90 days without a warrant - and will then, retroactively,
unconstitutional step -

determine if the material can be retained - which does away for good with the fourth amendment in these cases. While the drones are not supposed to
specifically "conduct non-consensual surveillance on on specifically identified US persons", according to the document, the wording allows for domestic
military surveillance of non-"specifically identified" people (that is, a group of activists or protesters) and it comes with the important caveat, also

the
Pentagon can now send a domestic drone to hover outside your apartment window,
collecting footage of you and your family , if the secretary of Defense approves it. Or it may track you and your friends
seemingly wholly unconstitutional, that it may not target individuals "unless expressly approved by the secretary of Defense". In other words,

and pick up audio of your conversations, on your way, say, to protest or vote or talk to your representative, if you are not "specifically identified", a
determination that is so vague as to be meaningless. What happens to those images, that audio? "Distribution of domestic imagery" can go to various
other government agencies without your consent, and that imagery can, in that case, be distributed to various government agencies

also include your most private moments and most personal activities .

; it may

The authorized
"collected information may incidentally include US persons or private property without consent". Jennifer Lynch of the Electronic Frontier Foundation told
CBS:

1AR Ext Weaponization

Continued reliance on drones for surveillance will lead to their
inevitable expansion by law enforcement will become a tool
of weaponization
Stanley, 11 [Jay, reporter for ACLU, Catherine Crump, reporter for ACLU,
Protecting Privacy From Aerial Surveillance:
Recommendations for Government Use of Drone Aircraft, ACLU, 12,
https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/protectingprivacyfromaerialsurveillance.pdf] Zhang
The aircraft themselves are steadily improving and, as with so many technologies,
that is likely to continue. They are becoming smaller. The military and law
enforcement are keenly interested in developing small drones, which have the
advantages of being versatile, cheap to buy and maintain, and in some cases so
small and quiet that they will escape notice.16 They are also becoming cheaper.
The surveillance technologies attached to UAVs will become less expensive and yet
more powerfuland with mass production, the aircraft that carry those electronics
will become inexpensive enough for a police department to fill the skies over a town
with them. Drones are also becoming smarter. Artificial intelligence advances will
likely help drones carry out spying missions. Korean researchers, for example, are
working to teach robots how to hide from and sneak up upon a subject.17 They also
will have better staying power, with a greater ability to stay aloft for longer periods
of time. Mechanisms for increasing time aloft could include solar power, or the use
of blimps or gliders.1 Even where UAVs are being envisioned for search and rescue,
fighting wildfires, and in dangerous tactical police operations, they are likely to be
quickly embraced by law enforcement around the nation for other, more
controversial purposes. The potential result is that they become commonplace in
American life. The Justice Department currently claims the authority to monitor
Americans comings and goings using GPS tracking deviceswithout a warrant.
Fleets of UAVs, interconnected and augmented with analytics software, could enable
the mass tracking of vehicles and pedestrians around a wide area. The use of
drones could also be expanded from surveillance to actual intervention in law
enforcement situations on the ground. Airborne technologies could be developed
that could, for example, be used to control or dispel protesters (perhaps by
deploying tear gas or other technologies), stop a fleeing vehicle, or even deploy
weapons. The Supreme Court has never taken a position on whether the Fourth
Amendment places limits on government use of UAV surveillance. However, it
allowed some warrantless aerial surveillance from manned aircraft. California v.
Ciraolo (1986), Dow Chemical Co. v. United States (1986), and Florida v. Riley
(1989).

Surveillance Drones controlled by the police can carry weapons

with destruction killing instead of collecting data
Greenwald 2013(Greenwald, former columnist on civil liberties and US
national security, March, Domestic drones and their unique dangers,
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/29/domesticdrones-unique-dangers)

Like many drone manufacturers, AV is now focused on drone products - such as the "Qube" - that are so small that
they can be "transported in the trunk of a police vehicle or carried in a backpack" and assembled and deployed

within a matter of minutes. One news report AV touts is headlined " Drone

technology could be coming

to a Police Department near you", which focuses on the Qube. Advertisement But another article
prominently touted on AV's website describes the tiny UAS product dubbed the "Switchblade",
which, says the article, is "the leading edge of what is likely to be the broader, even
wholesale, weaponization of unmanned systems. " The article creepily hails the
Switchblade drone as "the ultimate assassin bug" . That's because, as I wrote back in 2011, "it is
controlled by the operator at the scene, and it works its way around buildings and into small
areas, sending its surveillance imagery to an i-Pad held by the operator, who can
then direct the Switchblade to lunge toward and kill the target (hence the name) by
exploding in his face." AV's website right now proudly touts a February, 2013 Defense News article describing how
much the US Army loves the "Switchblade" and how it is preparing to purchase more. Time Magazine heralded this
tiny drone weapon as "one of the best inventions of 2012", gushing: "the Switchblade drone can be carried into
battle in a backpack. It's a kamikaze: the person controlling it uses a real-time video feed from the drone to crash it
into a precise target - say, a sniper. Its tiny warhead detonates on impact." What possible reason could someone
identify as to why these small, portable weaponized UAS products will not imminently be used by federal, state and
local law enforcement agencies in the US? They're designed to protect their users in dangerous situations and to

Police agencies and the increasingly powerful drone

industry will tout their utility in capturing and killing dangerous criminals and their
ability to keep officers safe, and media reports will do the same. The handful of genuinely
enable a target to be more easily killed.

positive uses from drones will be endlessly touted to distract attention away from the dangers they pose.

SOP Add-On
Plan would revitalize Separation of Powers oversight on
Executive Branch needed on broad domestic surveillance
Reynolds 2014 [Glenn Harlan - professor of law @ U of Tennessee, NSA spying
undermines separation of powers, USA TODAY,
www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/02/10/nsa-spying-surveillance-congresscolumn/5340281] chan
Most of the worry about the National Security Agency's bulk interception of telephone
calls, e-mail and the like has centered around threats to privacy . And, in fact, the evidence
suggests that if you've got a particularly steamy phone- or Skype-sex session going on, it just might wind up being
shared by voyeuristic NSA analysts. But most Americans figure, probably rightly, that the NSA isn't likely to be
interested in their stuff. (Anyone who hacks my e-mail is automatically punished, by having to read it.) There is,
however, a class of people who can't take that disinterest for granted :

members of Congress and the

judiciary. What they have to say is likely to be pretty interesting to anyone with a
political ax to grind. And the ability of the executive branch to snoop on the phone calls
of people in the other branches isn't just a threat to privacy, but a threat to the
separation of powers and the Constitution . As the Framers conceived it, our system of government
is divided into three branches -- the executive, legislative and judicial -- each of which is designed to serve as a
check on the others. If the president gets out of control, Congress can defund his efforts, or impeach him, and the
judiciary can declare his acts unconstitutional. If Congress passes unconstitutional laws, the president can veto
them, or refuse to enforce them, and the judiciary, again, can declare them invalid. If the judiciary gets carried

if the
federal government has broad domestic-spying powers, and if those are controlled
by the executive branch without significant oversight, then the president has the
power to snoop on political enemies, getting an advantage in countering their plans,
and gathering material that can be used to blackmail or destroy them . With such power in
away, the president can appoint new judges, and Congress can change the laws, or even impeach. But

the executive, the traditional role of the other branches as checks would be seriously undermined, and our system
of government would veer toward what James Madison in The Federalist No. 47 called "the very definition of
tyranny," that is, "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands." That
such widespread spying power exists, of course, doesn't prove that it has actually been abused. But the temptation
to make use of such a power for self-serving political ends is likely to be very great. And, given the secrecy
surrounding such programs, outsiders might never know. In fact, given the compartmentalization that goes on in
the intelligence world, almost everyone at the NSA might be acting properly, completely unaware that one small
section is devoted to gather political intelligence. We can hope, of course, that such abuses would leak out, but they

Rather than counting on leakers to protect us, we need strong structural

controls that don't depend on people being heroically honest or unusually immune to political
temptation, two characteristics not in oversupply among our political class. That means that the
government shouldn't be able to spy on Americans without a warrant a warrant
that comes from a different branch of government, and requires probable cause. The
might not.

government should also have to keep a clear record of who was spied on, and why, and of exactly who had access
to the information once it was gathered. We need the kind of extensive audit trails for access to information that, as
the Edward Snowden experience clearly illustrates, don't currently exist. In addition, we need civil damages with,
perhaps, a waiver of governmental immunities for abuse of power here. Perhaps we should have bounties for
whistleblowers, too, to help encourage wrongdoing to be aired. Is this strong medicine? Yes. But widespread spying
on Americans is a threat to constitutional government. That is a serious disease, one that demands the strongest of
medicines.

Destruction of separation of powers risks nuclear war

Redish and Cisar 91

(Martin H. and Elizabeth J., Duke University School of Law, If Angels Were to
Govern: The Need for Pragmatic Formalism in Separation of Powers Theory Duke
Law Journal, (41)3, Dec., p. 449-506)

In any event, the political history of which the Framers were aware tends to confirm
that quite often concentration of political power ultimately leads to the loss of
liberty. Indeed, if we have begun to take the value of separation of powers for granted, we
need only look to modern American history to remind ourselves about both the general
vulnerability of representative government, and the direct correlation between the
concentration of political power and the threat to individual liberty . The widespread

violations of individual rights that took place when Pres- ident Lincoln assumed an
inordinate level of power, for example, are well documented.128 Arguably as
egregious were the threats to basic freedoms that arose during the Nixon
administration, when the power of the executive branch reached what are widely
deemed to have been intolerable levels.129 Although in neither instance did the
executive's usurpations of power ultimately degenerate into complete and
irreversible tyranny, the reason for that may well have been the resilience of our
political traditions, among the most important of which is separation of powers
itself. In any event, it would be political folly to be overly smug about the security of either
representative government or individual liberty. Although it would be all but impossible
to create an empirical proof to demonstrate that our constitutional tradition of
separation of powers has been an essential catalyst in the avoidance of tyranny , common
sense should tell us that the simultaneous division of power and the creation of
interbranch checking play important roles toward that end. To underscore the point,
one need imagine only a limited modification of the actual scenario surrounding the
recent Persian Gulf War. In actuality, the war was an extremely popular endeavor,
thought by many to be a politically and morally justified exercise. But imagine a
situation in which a President, concerned about his failure to resolve significant
social and economic problems at home, has callously decided to engage the nation
in war, simply to defer public attention from his domestic failures. To be sure, the
President was presumably elected by a majority of the electorate, and may have to
stand for reelection in the future. However, at this particular point in time, but for
the system established by separation of powers, his authority as Commander in
Chief 130 to en- gage the nation in war would be effectively dictatorial. Because the
Con- stitution reserves to the arguably even more representative and accountable
Congress the authority to declare war,131 the Constitution has attempted to prevent
such misuses of power by the executive.132 It remains unproven whether any
governmental structure other than one based on a system of separation of powers
could avoid such harmful results. In summary, no defender of separation of powers
can prove with certitude that, but for the existence of separation of powers, tyranny
would be the inevitable outcome. But the question is whether we wish to take that risk,
given the obvious severity of the harm that might result. Given both the relatively limited
cost imposed by use of separation of powers and the great severity of the harm sought to be
avoided, one should not demand a great showing of the likelihood that the feared
harm would result. For just as in the case of the threat of nuclear war, no one wants to be
forced into the position of saying, "I told you so."474 [Vol. 41:449]

Independent Judiciary Add-On

Strong judicial model prevents Russian loose nukes
Nagle, Independent Research Consultant Specializing in the Soviet Union, 19 94
(Chad. What America needs to do to help Russia avoid chaos Washington Times,
August 1, Lexis Nexis)
As things stand right now, there is indeed potential for danger and instability in Russia , as Mr.
Criner notes. But this is not because America has failed to act as a "moral compass" in the marketplace. Rather , Russia's
inherent instability at present stems from the fact that in all of its 1,000-year history, it never
had a strong, independent judiciary to act as a check on political power. The overwhelming,
monolithic power of the executive, whether czar or Communist Party, has always been the main guarantor of law and order . Now,
as a fragile multiparty democracy, Russia has no more than an embryo of a
judiciary. The useless Constitutional Court is gone, the Ministry of Justice is weak, and the court system is chaotic and
ineffective. Hence, the executive determined the best safeguard against the recurrence of popular unrest, the kind that occurred in
October 1993, to be the concentration of as much power as possible in its hands at the expense of a troublemaking parliament.
Under a sane and benign president, Russia with a "super presidency" represents the best alternative for America and the West. The
danger lies in something happening to cause Mr. Yeltsin's untimely removal from office. If Russia is ever to develop a respected legal

the United States can

provide a model to Russia of a system in which the judiciary functions magnificently .
America, the world's only remaining superpower, can provide advice and technical
expertise to the Russians as they try to develop a law-based society. We can also send clear
signals to the new Russia instead of the mixed ones emanating from the Clinton administration . Now is the time for America to forge
system, it will need the protracted rule of a non-tyrannical head of state. In the meantime,

ahead with the "new world order," by promoting the alliance of the industrialized democracies of the Northern Hemisphere on American terms, not
Russian. This constitutes the real "historical moment" to which Mr. Criner refers. Russia is not in a position to make threats to or

demands of the United States any more so than when it ruled a totalitarian empire. It should learn to play by new rules as a first
lesson in joining the family of nations. Coddling an aggressive Russia and giving it unconditional economic aid (as Alexander Rutskoi
has called for) would be counterproductive, and might even encourage Russia to "manufacture" crises whenever it wanted another
handout.

Russia is indeed a dangerous and unstable place. The prospect of ordinary

Third World political chaos in an economically marginal country with a huge
stockpile of intercontinental ballistic missiles is a nightmar e. However, Mr. Yeltsin is busily
consolidating power, and the presidential apparatus is growing quickly. With his new team of gray, non-ideological figures intent on
establishing order in the face of economic decline and opposition from demagogues (e.g. Vladimir Zhirinovsky and Mr. Rutskoi), Mr.

Under such circumstances, the best America can do is

stand firm, extend the hand of friendship and pray for Mr. Yeltsin's continued good health.
Yeltsin is already showing signs of success.

Extinction
Helfand and Pastore 9 [Ira Helfand, M.D., and John O. Pastore, M.D., are past presidents of
Physicians for Social Responsibility. March 31, 2009, U.S.-Russia nuclear war still a threat,
http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_pastoreline_03-31-09_EODSCAO_v15.bbdf23.html]

President Obama and Russian President Dimitri Medvedev are scheduled to Wednesday in London during the
G-20 summit. They must not let the current economic crisis keep them from focusing on one of the greatest threats
confronting humanity: the danger of nuclear war. Since the end of the Cold War, many have acted as
though the danger of nuclear war has ended. It has not. There remain in the world more than 20,000 nuclear weapons.
Alarmingly, more than 2,000 of these weapons in the U.S. and Russian arsenals remain on
ready-alert status, commonly known as hair-trigger alert. They can be fired within five minutes
and reach targets in the other country 30 minutes later. Just one of these weapons can destroy a
city. A war involving a substantial number would cause devastation on a scale
unprecedented in human history. A study conducted by Physicians for Social Responsibility in 2002 showed that if
only 500 of the Russian weapons on high alert exploded over our cities, 100 million Americans would die in
the first 30 minutes. An attack of this magnitude also would destroy the entire
economic, communications and transportation infrastructure on which we all
depend. Those who survived the initial attack would inhabit a nightmare landscape

with huge swaths of the country blanketed with radioactive fallout and epidemic
diseases rampant.

They would have no food, no fuel, no electricity, no medicine, and certainly no organized health care.
In the following months it is likely the vast majority of the U.S. population would die. Recent studies by the eminent climatologists

If all of the
warheads in the U.S. and Russian strategic arsenals were drawn into the conflict,
the firestorms they caused would loft 180 million tons of soot and debris into the
upper atmosphere blotting out the sun. Temperatures across the globe would fall
an average of 18 degrees Fahrenheit to levels not seen on earth since the depth of the last ice age,
18,000 years ago. Agriculture would stop, eco-systems would collapse , and many species,
including perhaps our own, would become extinct. It is common to discuss nuclear war as a lowprobabillity event. But is this true? We know of five occcasions during the last 30 years when
either the U.S. or Russia believed it was under attack and prepared a counterattack. The most recent of these near misses occurred after the end of the Cold War on Jan. 25, 1995, when the Russians
Toon and Robock have shown that such a war would have a huge and immediate impact on climate world wide.

mistook a U.S. weather rocket launched from Norway for a possible attack. Jan. 25, 1995, was an ordinary day with no major crisis
involving the U.S. and Russia. But, unknown to almost every inhabitant on the planet, a misunderstanding led to the potential for a
nuclear war. The ready alert status of nuclear weapons that existed in 1995 remains in place today.

Off-Case Answers

Disad Answers

Drone Industry DA No Link

Plan does not eliminate drone use just applies regulations
Galizio 2014 [Gregory JD @ Suffolk University, NOTE: A DIGITAL
ALBATROSS: NAVIGATING THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF DOMESTIC POLICE DRONE
TECHNOLOGY VERSUS PRIVACY RIGHTS IN MASSACHUSETTS AND BEYOND, 20
Suffolk J. Trial & App. Adv. 117] ttate
V. CONCLUSION While law enforcement drones need to be strictly restrained by [*143] statute,
the courts, and government agencies, this emerging technology need not be universally
condemned as the advent of George Orwell's dystopian world. American legislatures and courts should
legally discourage all dragnet surveillance conducted with drones. If sensible
legislation, along with strict judicial review, can be established, domestic drones should be
integrated into American skies. The courts must evolve and confront the rapid pace
of technology with more stringent approaches to protecting privacy rights . On the
practical side, civil libertarians should not unconditionally reject law enforcement's
operation of drones if used in the same manner as existing police technology . The

arrival of domestic drones offers a new battle within the dichotomy of privacy and security interests. Just as drones
may benefit domestic security interests, they burden the right of privacy. As drone and other technologies further
complicate this legal clash of competing interests, it will be up to lawmakers and judges to offer reasonable and

While drones possess benefits to public safety, the failure to adapt

our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to the digital age will create a digital albatross
upon the privacy interests of us all . n156
balanced solutions.

Politics Plan bipartisan

Plan has support from both sides of the aisle GOP even
included regulations on drone surveillance in their 2012
platform
Gilens 12 [Naomi Gilens, Legal Assistant with the ACLUs Speech, Privacy, and

Technology Project, Republican Party Platform Advocates Regulation of Drone

Surveillance, American Civil Liberties Union, 8-31,
https://www.aclu.org/blog/republican-party-platform-advocates-regulation-dronesurveillance] huang
The Republican Partys 2012 platform, unveiled at the RNC Tuesday, includes this
reference to domestic drone surveillance: Affirming the right of the people to be
secure in their houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, we support pending legislation to prevent unwarranted or unreasonable
governmental intrusion through the use of aerial surveillance or flyovers on U.S.
soil, with the exception of patrolling our national borders. All security measures and
police actions should be viewed through the lens of the Fourth Amendment; for if we
trade liberty for security, we shall have neither . The ACLU expressed similar concerns in a report earlier this year,
in which we emphasized that the government should be required to obtain a warrant
based on probable cause when drone surveillance intrudes on reasonable
expectations of privacy. That the Republicans are staking out a stance on aerial surveillance highlights how important this issue has
become. Domestic aerial surveillance by both manned and unmanned aerial vehicles is steadily increasing . Lawmakers from across
the aisle have introduced legislation to regulate drone surveillance, including
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), Representative Austin Scott (R-GA), and Rush Holt (D-NJ).
As new technologies like this become increasingly common, it is essential that both parties fight to protect our
constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties. By invoking the Fourth Amendment in
their party platform and recognizing the threat to privacy posed by this new
technology, the Republicans have taken a small but important step in the right
direction.

Politics Plan popular Senate

Many key Senators opposed to drone surveillance due to
privacy concerns
Cratty 13 [Carol Cratty, CNN Senior Producer, FBI uses drones for surveillance

in U.S, CNN.com, 6-20, http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/19/politics/fbi-drones/] huang

Surveillance fallout Mueller's comments come as the Obama administration
grapples with political and other fallout from the public disclosure of top-secret
surveillance programs, which has triggered new debate over reach of national security vs. privacy rights.
National security and law enforcement officials have defended National Security Agency telephone and e-mail
surveillance of overseas communications as an effective tool in fighting terror. President Barack Obama has

Sen.
Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, asked Mueller whether the FBI had guidelines
for using drones that would consider the "privacy impact on American citizens."
assured Americans the government is not listening to their phone conversations or reading their e-mail. But

Mueller replied the agency was in the initial stages of developing them. "I will tell you that our footprint is very
small," he said. Senate

Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein expressed

concern over drone use domestically. "I think the greatest threat to the privacy of
Americans is the drone and the use of the drone, and the very few regulations that are on
it today and the booming industry of commercial drones," the California Democrat said. Mueller said he would

need to check on the bureau's policy for retaining images from drones and report back to the panel. "It is very
narrowly focused on particularized cases and particularized needs and particularized cases," said Mueller. "And that
is the principal privacy limitations we have." Sen.

Mark Udall, a Colorado Democrat, said he was

concerned the FBI was deploying drone technology and only in the initial stages of
developing guidelines "to protect Americans' privacy rights."

Spending Helpers
Drones expensive government agencies keep
underestimating the costs
BRIAN BENNETT, 15 (BRIAN BENNETT, Reporter for Time magazine, Border

drones are ineffective, badly managed, too expensive, official says, LATIMES.com,
1/07/15, http://www.latimes.com/nation/immigration/la-na-bBRIAN BENNETT contact
the reporter2order-drones-20150107-story.html) Salehitezangi
Drones patrolling the U.S. border are poorly managed and ineffective at stopping
illegal immigration, and the government should abandon a $400-million plan to
expand their use, according to an internal watchdog report released Tuesday. The 8-year-old drone program
has cost more than expected, according to a report by the Department of Homeland
Security's inspector general, John Roth . Rather than spend more on drones, the department
should "put those funds to better use," Roth recommended. He described the Predator B drones flown along
the border by U.S. Customs and Border Protection as "dubious achievers." It's time for Congress to agree on a humane immigration

we see no evidence that the drones contribute to

a more secure border, and there is no reason to invest additional taxpayer funds at this
time," Roth said in a statement. The audit concluded that Customs and Border Protection could better use the funds on manned
solution "Notwithstanding the significant investment,

aircraft and ground surveillance technology. The drones were designed to fly over the border to spot smugglers and illegal border

auditors found that 78% of the time that agents had planned to use the craft,
they were grounded because of bad weather, budget constraints or maintenance problems. Even when aloft, auditors
found, the drones contributed little. Three drones flying around the Tucson area helped apprehend about 2,200
crossers. But

people illegally crossing the border in 2013, fewer than 2% of the 120,939 apprehended that year in the area. Border Patrol
supervisors had planned on using drones to inspect ground-sensor alerts. But a drone was used in that scenario only six times in

officials underestimated the cost of the drones by leaving out operating

costs such as pilot salaries, equipment and overhead . Adding such items increased the flying cost
nearly fivefold, to $12,255 per hour. People think these kinds of surveillance technologies will be a silver bullet. Time after
time, we see the practical realities of these systems don't live up to the hype . - Jay Stanley,
2013. Auditors found that

ACLU privacy expert "It really doesn't feel like [Customs and Border Protection] has a good handle on how it is using its drones, how
much it costs to operate the drones, where that money is coming from or whether it is meeting any of its performance metrics," said
Jennifer Lynch, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based privacy and digital rights group. The report's
conclusions will make it harder for officials to justify further investment in the border surveillance drones, especially at a time when
Homeland Security's budget is at the center of the battle over President Obama's program to give work permits to millions of
immigrants in the country illegally. Each Predator B system costs about $20 million. "People think these kinds of surveillance
technologies will be a silver bullet," said Jay Stanley, a privacy expert at the American Civil Liberties Union. "Time after time, we see
the practical realities of these systems don't live up to the hype." Customs and Border Protection, which is part of
Homeland Security, operates the fleet of nine long-range Predator B drones from bases in Arizona, Texas and North Dakota. The

purchased 11 drones, but one crashed in Arizona in 2006 and another fell into the
Pacific Ocean off San Diego after a mechanical failure last year. Agency officials said in response to the
agency

audit that they had no plans to expand the fleet aside from replacing the Predator that crashed last year. The agency is authorized
to spend an additional $433 million to buy up to 14 more drones. How Obama's immigration plan is expected to roll out How
Obama's immigration plan is expected to roll out The drones unarmed versions of the MQ-9 Reaper drone flown by the Air Force
to hunt targets in Pakistan, Somalia and elsewhere fly the vast majority of their missions in narrowly defined sections of the
Southwest border, the audit found. They spent most of their time along 100 miles of border in Arizona near Tucson and 70 miles of
border in Texas. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) has promoted the use of drones along the border but believes the agency should

Homeland Security "can't prove the program is

effective because they don't have the right measures, " Cuellar said in an interview. "The technology
is good, but how you implement and use it that is another question." The audit also said that drones
improve how it measures their effectiveness.

had been flown to help the FBI, the Texas Department of Public Safety and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Such

Border Patrol agents, who complain that drones and other aircraft
aren't available when they need them, said Shawn Moran, vice president of the Border Patrol agents' union.
"We saw the drones were being lent out to many entities for nonborder-related
operations and we said, 'These drones, if they belong to [Customs and Border Protection], should be used to support [its]
missions have long frustrated

operations primarily,'" Moran said.

Border Security DA
Federal government using aerial surveillance to police the
borders now officials continue to hide details of the program
THOR BENSON, 05.20.15 (Thor Benson, Journalist for the Rolling Stones

Magazine, Wired, and The Verge, 5 Ways We Must Regulate Drones at the US
Border, Wired.com, http://www.wired.com/2015/05/drones-at-the-border/, access
date: 7/13/15) Salehitezangi
THERE HAS BEEN much talk about the use of drones by police within the United States and by the military
abroad, but a subject that gets a lot less play is the use of drones at the US border . As someone who lives near
the border, in sunny Los Angeles, Im ready for a thorough debate. As a city dweller, I find myself with some unlikely bedfellows, too,

cattle ranchers at the border are sick of having government

drones flying over their ranches attempting to find illegal

because a recent Associated Press video showed

cameras on their land and

immigrants. In a country where politicians harp constantly on the need to keep illegals out, a cool new toy is hard for them
to deny. Border patrol agents have Predator drones at their disposal, and using them
has the potential to become a serious breach of privacy but it also could be a terrific tool for other
needs, if its done right. Ive been writing about drones and surveillance for years, and Ive discussed these topics with some of the

federal agencies like the US Customs and Border Protection some Predator
loan its drones to
a state or local agency to assist with some objective, as seen in North Dakota when the border patrol
loaned a Predator B to a sheriff to help him wrangle a few missing cows. It is clear they will lend the drones only to
those truly in dire straits. Drones and cattle are becoming inextricably tied. Legislation like the Secure
Our Borders First Act that recently reared its ugly head in Congress seeks to significantly expand
the use of drone surveillance at the border . The bill would add more drones to the
border patrols fleet and extend radar capabilities . Such legislation can be like steroids for the
surveillance state. If that legislation doesnt pass, it seems likely future legislation will appear. Drones can be equipped
with facial recognition technology, live-feed video cameras, thermal imaging, fake
cell phone towers to intercept phone calls, texts and GPS locations , as well as backend
nations top experts. When it comes to giving

drones for surveillance, one major concern is mission creep. Thats when a federal agency decides to

software tools like license plate recognition, GPS tracking, and facial recognition, as the Electronic Frontier Foundation notes. And
weve seen these technologies used by government agencies in similar situations, like when the US Marshals Service used Stingray
cell phone surveillance equipment in small planes to capture everyones metadata on the ground below. Thats a little concerning, to

Border agencies are becoming known for denying Freedom of Information

Act requests that would reveal more about these programs, preventing citizens from
understanding what these agencies are doing with drones . If you value privacy and have worries
about an expanding drone surveillance program, drones being shared by agencies and the lack of transparency
put it mildly.

are concerning, but thats not to say drone use at the border should be banned.

Data proves that aerial surveillance fails at the border each

flight is 5x more expensive than thought and zero evidence
that they have led to any apprehensions
Eddington 15 - [Patrick G. Eddington, policy analyst in homeland, Border

Surveillance Follies, Cato Institute, 1-28,

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/border-surveillance-follies] Huang
For more than a decade, the Department of Homeland Security has employed some
of the same kinds of drones used by our military. The ostensible purpose of having
unarmed Predator drones was to give U.S. Customs and Border Protection additional
aerial surveillance capabilities along the Southern border. Homeland Security
officials argued the drones were cost-effective and needed. As a cost-savings
measure, the Obama administration proposed major cuts to the DHS drone program
in 2010, but House Appropriations Committee leaders, who supported the program

and felt the expansion should continue, shot that proposal down. They shouldve
thought through that decision far more carefully. On Christmas Eve 2014, the
DHSs inspector general released a report on the departments drone surveillance
program, and it is an indictment of the program. The DHSs inspector general
released a report on the departments drone surveillance program, and it is an
indictment of the program. The DHS IG found that after 8 years, CBP cannot
prove that the program is effective. Worse, the CBP low-balled the per-hour cost of
operating its drones. Instead of the claimed $2,468 per flight hour, the DHS IG found
the cost was $12,255 per hour nearly five times as much as CBP officials have
claimed. Almost no illegal border crossing apprehensions could be attributed to
information from the drones, and the CBP could not show the drones actually
reduced the cost of border surveillance. Despite these findings, the CBP has not
abandoned plans to spend nearly half a billion dollars more to expand its drone
program. These are the kind of audit results that should spur Congress to
terminate a wasteful, ineffective government program. Instead, this week Congress
is poised to pass legislation that would direct the DHS to double-down on the use of
drones for border surveillance. The so-called Secure Our Borders First Act (HR 399),
sponsored by the House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas,
directs on virtually a sector-by-sector basis the employment of drones for aerial
surveillance either the larger drones like Predator for maritime surveillance or
man-portable drones for more overland aerial surveillance.

Drones ineffective for border patrol lack of personnel and

parts plus bad weather means little air time
Whitlock 15 [Craig Whitlock, journalist working for The Washington Post, U.S.
surveillance drones largely ineffective along border, report says, The Washington
Post, 1-6, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-surveillancedrones-largely-ineffective-along-border-report-says/2015/01/06/5243abea-95bc11e4-aabd-d0b93ff613d5_story.html] huang
U.S. drones deployed along the borders are grounded most of the time, cost far
more than initially estimated and help to apprehend only a tiny number of people
trying to cross illegally, according to a federal audit released Tuesday. In a report that could
undermine political support for using more drones to secure the nations borders , the Department of
Homeland Securitys inspector general found little or no evidence that the fleet
had met expectations or was effective in conducting surveillance. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has

has nine of the Predator B model a

modified version of the MQ-9 Reaper drone flown by the Air Force and has plans to more than double the size of
its drone fleet to 24 as part of a $443 million expansion. The inspector general, however, questioned whether
those plans make any sense or would be cost-effective. In an audit of the fleets operations during fiscal 2013, the
been flying surveillance drones for nearly a decade, launching them from bases in Texas, Florida, North Dakota and Arizona. The agency

that it cost $12,255 per flight hour to operate the drones, five
times as much as Customs and Border Protection had estimated. Although the
agency planned to fly four drone patrols a day each for an average of 16 hours
the aircraft were in the air for less than a quarter of that time, the audit showed.
Bad weather and a lack of personnel and spare parts hindered operations, it
concluded. The unmanned aircraft are not meeting flight hour goals, the auditors
wrote, adding more broadly that Customs and Border Protection cannot demonstrate how much the program
has improved border security. As evidence, the report cited statistics showing that of the 120,939
illegal border crossers apprehended in Arizona during 2013, fewer than 2 percent
were caught with the help of drones providing aerial surveillance. In Texas and the
Rio Grande Valley, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of border-crossing
inspector general calculated

apprehensions were attributed to drone detection. The findings echo earlier audits by the
inspector general of the domestic drone program but could carry extra weight as Congress considers whether to
spend more on drone surveillance to secure the borders as part of immigration legislation. In a written response to
the audit, Eugene Schied, an assistant commissioner with Customs and Border Protection, disputed the
characterization in the findings. The drone program, he said, has achieved or exceeded all relevant performance
expectations.

Aerial surveillance does not secure our borders account for

very little of the apprehensions
Peck 15 [Michael Peck, Award-winning writer specializing in defense and

national security, DHS's border drones prove ineffective, Federal Times, 1-13,
http://www.federaltimes.com/story/government/dhs/programs/2015/01/07/dhsborder-drone-cbp/21385613/] huang
Unmanned aerial vehicles have become a mainstay for surveillance operations by
the U.S. military. However, a new audit suggests that for border surveillance, they
are a flop. Customs and Border Patrol drones such as Predator-B, which have been
guarding the U.S. border for eight years, have proven ineffective, according to a
report by DHS's Office of Inspector General. As a result, the IG suggests the
department's request for additional funding for the program is not warranted.
Resource: Read the Report "Drone surveillance was credited with assisting in less
than 2 percent of CBP apprehensions of illegal border crossers," stated a DHS OIG
news release That's not all. The auditors found that the cost of operating the craft
has been understated. For example, CBP's Office of Air and Marine estimated a cost
of $2,468 per hour to operate a UAV. The real price, counting expenses such as
salaries and overhead, is $12,255 per hour, according to the IG. CBP's goal was to
fly UAVs was 16 hours per day, 365 days a year. Actual flight time reached only 22
percent of that goal, mostly because of weather conditions that prevented flights.
Further, instead of covering the entire southwest border as planned, coverage was
limited to just a 100-mile stretch in Arizona and a 70 miles in Texas. CBP's request
for an additional $443 million to acquire 14 more UAVs would bring the total
program cost to $802 million. "Notwithstanding the significant investment, we see
no evidence that the drones contribute to a more secure border, and there is no
reason to invest additional taxpayer funds at this time," said DHS IG John Roth.
"Securing our borders is a crucial mission for CBP and DHS. CBP's drone program
has so far fallen far short of being an asset to that effort."

Counterplan Answers

States CP Answers Federal Action Key

Federal action key response requires large national response
to direct state/local and private entities
Harman 5/1 (Jane Harman, former Democratic Representative of California, "The

undercooked debate on domestic drones", The Hill, May 1, 2015,

http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/240728-the-undercooked-debate-on-domesticdrones) Padiyar
The Federal Aviation Administration unveiled rules this February that would make it
much easier to operate drones in the United States: for law enforcement agencies
conducting surveillance, for commercial firms, and for private individuals. Make no mistake: eventually, the last two groups could
include bad actors, even terrorists . Its hard to overstate how undercooked the debate on this future
is. The stakes are high; our privacy and our security are at risk. The implications for
privacy and surveillance are huge. In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that tracking a car using an attached GPS beacon,
without a warrant, is unconstitutional. But what if police use a roving drone instead? That debate is raging in Virginia now, which two years ago imposed a
two-year moratorium on warrantless drone surveillance. Thats where most of the regulatory action is happening on this issue: in concerned states and

At the federal level, we have a leadership vacuum . With a

technological revolution on its way, Washington is AWOL. How do you square this new world with our
municipalities across the country.

Constitution? As Brookings Institution senior fellow John Villasenor said in 2012, The FAA, I would imagine, has more aviation lawyers than Fourth

there are the new security challenges. Authorities have a

poor track record detecting small aircraft that fly where they shouldnt. In 2010, a Mexican
Amendment constitutional lawyers. Then

government drone went down in an El Paso backyard; though NORAD later said it had been tracking the plane, local officials seem to have been taken
entirely by surprise. This month, a postal employee flew a (manned) gyrocopter to Capitol Hill through some of the most restricted airspace in the country.
Incidents like these severely undermine confidence in our preparedness. One day, one of the craft slipping under our radar will do us harm. Iran has
poured funds into developing a suicide drone essentially a cheap, nimble cruise missile. Its not hard to imagine terrorists building do-it-yourself
versions of the same device, a pipe bomb or pressure cooker strapped to a small UAV. This is a concern others have raised for years, but it took a drone
landing feet from the White House for the Secret Service to start trying out jamming technology an issue they should have been thinking about years

. Many drone countermeasures are still primitive; some of the solutions are worse
than the problem. Popular Science advised the White House, Simple netting, used often at drone trade shows to keep small drones
confident to their exhibitions, could also work, if the President wanted to live inside a net all the time. We need a serious policy
response that engages Congress; federal, state, and local government and the
private sector. This issue is too big for the FAA, too urgent to postpone, and too
important to leave off the national agenda. Lately, Congress has devoted impressive
attention to new risks in cyberspace. It should put at least as much effort into
understanding drones. One option is to encourage commercial firmsthrough either voluntary or mandatory standardsto hardwire
ago

restrictions into the drones they build and sell. Some companies already program their drones to stay out of restricted airspace and away from sensitive
sites. Those efforts need a push and a signal boost from government. Two years ago, a resident of Deer Trail, Colorado, proposed that the town issue
hunting licenses and bounties for downing drones. In Montana last year, one Congressional candidate ran an ad in which he takes aim at a UAV with a
rifle. I have to hope we can do better than that and fast.

We need federal action on drone surveillance state

experimentation and action is too patchwork to solve federal
action provides a key statutory core
Kaminski 2013 (Margot E. Kaminski, Assistant Professor of Law at Ohio State

University, Graduate of Harvard University and Yale Law School, "Drone Federalism:
Civilian Drones and the Things They Carry", California Law Review Circuit, April 26,
2013, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2257080) Padiyar
A federal, or mixed state and federal, approach to law enforcement drone use
makes perfect sense. A federal law governing law enforcement drone use would follow in the well-trodalbeit, outdatedfootsteps of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act (ECPA).44 Like ECPA , federal legislation on law enforcement drone use could
establish a statutory core to be shared by the states, or a statutory floor, permitting

state deviation towards more protection. Additionally, because ECPA already establishes a familiar framework for warrants and court
orders governing law enforcement surveillance, a federal law enforcement drone statute need not wait on
extensive state experimentation. The updates need not be drone-specific, and could cover location tracking, video surveillance, or use of
biometric identification, or other new technologies, if these are the concerns raised by drone surveillance. As noted, legislation governing video or
photographic surveillance by civilian drone users will be far trickier. It will have to
navigate the Scylla and Charybdis of privacy and the First Amendment. And if enacted
federally, it will deviate from how privacy regulation has historically been divided
between the federal government and the states. There is no federal omnibus
privacy law in the United States. Federal privacy law consists of a series of sectoral
regulations, enacted somewhat haphazardly. One federal statute governs privacy in
video watching, one governs drivers license information, one governs health
information, one governs financial privacy, and so on. Drone-specific regulation
would add to this patchwork.

Kritik Answers

Kritik Helpers Plan decreases state control

Aerial surveillance is a key tool by the state to chill freedom of
expression it relocates the power imbalance in the hands of
the state
Dizard 15 [Wilson Dizard, Digital News Producer, Report: FBI aircraft secretly
monitored Baltimore protests, Aljazeera, 5-6,
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/5/6/fbi-aircraft-secretly-monitoredbaltimore-protests.html] Huang
Civil liberties groups are concerned that the FBI may have violated the privacy
rights of West Baltimore residents after it was revealed that the bureau secretly
piloted two unmarked aircraft over the citys skies during public unrest after the death of

a black man in police custody, The Washington Post reported Tuesday. Twitter users spotted and identified the two
aircraft one small jet and one small propeller plane circling above the area where city residents rallied in
support of Freddie Gray and protested, some violently, against alleged police brutality. The FBI on Wednesday
confirmed to the Post that it did provide aircraft to city police for the purpose of providing aerial imagery of
possible criminal activity. Gray, 25, was arrested on April 12 and suffered a spinal injury while in police custody.
His death one week later sparked protests across the city. While most were peaceful, some protesters turned
violent, clashing with police and setting public and private property on fire. Maryland Gov. Lawrence Hogan
responded by declaring a state of emergency and deploying the Maryland National Guard. Baltimore police
helicopters hovered day and night over West Baltimore during the protests. At night, they swept over the streets
with searchlights as officers commanded residents through megaphones to obey a 10 p.m. curfew or face arrest.
The unrest largely subsided on May 1, after state attorney Marilyn Mosby announced that six police officers involved
in Grays arrest would face criminal charges ranging from assault to second-degree murder. Nevertheless, the
malaise exposed deep fissures between the citys police department and black community. With trust in city police
weakened, Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake on Wednesday asked the Department of Justice, which
includes the FBI, to investigate whether the citys police department has a pattern of abuse or discrimination. On
the same day, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the FBI and Federal
Aviation Administration to determine what the aircraft were doing patrolling Baltimores skies. The request asks for
all records regarding surveillance or monitoring equipment carried on such flights, including its capabilities and
description of the data gathered by it. In a statement on Wednesday, ACLU senior policy analyst Jay Stanley said
the group was concerned that law enforcement was using the aircraft to violate residents Fourth Amendment
rights. Today planes can carry new surveillance technologies, like cellphone trackers and high resolution cameras
that can follow the movements of many people at once, he said. These are not the kinds of things that law
enforcement should be using in secret. The public needs to know about the governments use of these powerful
technologies to ensure that peoples rights are protected. In recent years, police departments across the U.S.
have added new, more capable spy equipment to their arsenals, including tools that can track peoples locations
through cellphone data. Civil liberties groups worry such technology puts at risk the privacy of people who are not
suspected of any crimes. The FBI told the Post that it did not employ such surveillance technology during the
Baltimore protests, but the bureau declined to comment on the planes. Electronic Frontier Foundation senior
counsel Jennifer Lynch told Al Jazeera that phone data isnt the only thing protesters have to worry about. Powerful
cameras circling above can record individuals faces and activities. In 2012, she said, the Los Angeles County
Sheriffs Department flew a spy plane over the Compton area of Los Angeles, observing the commission of crimes.
Most of them amounted to petty theft, The Los Angeles Times reported. But the flights went on in secret for nine
days. The people of Compton, a historically impoverished black neighborhood, didnt know about the flights, just

When the
government conducts surveillance on people without telling people what kind of
information theyre collecting, the power balance shifts, Lynch said. Instead of
being in hands of people, its completely in the hands of government. According to
Greg Nojeim, a lawyer focusing on privacy issues at the Center for Democracy and
Technology, that shift could stifle free speech and political activity. Police
monitoring can chill free speech because people dont speak as freely when they
believe that law enforcement or other government entities are recording what they
say, he said.
as the residents of Baltimore didnt know they were being monitored by the FBI last month.

Kritik Helpers Plan is a prerequisite to alt

Aerial surveillance is a crush on civil society, which is a
prerequisite to any government that protects natural rights
plan allows us to have a voice to show outrage against a
governmental norm created that privacy is not necessary

Dr. Glen T. Martin, 01/03/14

(Dr. Glen T. Martin, Professor of Philosophy and

chair of the program in Peace Studies at Radford University, President of the World
Constitution and Parliament Association (WCPA), the Institute on World
Problems(IOWP), and International Philosophers for Peace, NSA Spying, Secrecy,
and the Totalitarian Threat, Readersupportednews.org,
http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/425-national-security/21795-nsaspying-secrecy-and-the-totalitarian-threat, date accessed: 7/14/15) Salehitezangi
Commentators have also reflected on the general lack of outrage by the majority of
American citizens concerning this vast system of spying that reveals their comings
and goings, purchases, medical histories, personal associations, and life-patterns in
great detail. In a recent article, William Reich reflects that people who are struggling from paycheck to paycheck, or
students who are loaded with thousands of dollars in debt, are unwilling to rock the boat by protesting the
corruption and absurdity of U.S. government policies . Others have suggested that the average
citizen feels they have nothing to hide so why not let the government collect their
personal data. It is not necessary to claim a literal belief in the doctrine of natural rights to understand a
principle that is here fundamental to the very foundations of democracy . Government is
constituted by the people to represent them in the performance of certain functions: it is not coextensive with
society itself. Civil society in a democracy, therefore, is prior to and constitutive of,
government. It is not an extension of government and government is certainly not
morally or politically prior to civil society. For John Locke, who was the chief theorist drawn upon by the
founders of the U.S. Constitution, the proper functions of government included promoting the
equality and freedom of all citizens, protecting their natural rights, and ensuring
fairness or impartiality in creating and enforcing the law across all three branches of
government. For Locke, when government failed in any of these functions people retained the right of revolution, or in the
words of the Declaration of Independence, the right to alter or abolish the offending government. Civil society is prior
to government. In a democracy, the idea of a set of human rights based on the
principle of human dignity, and the priority of civil society over government, is
absolutely fundamental. The behavior of the U.S. government, especially since 911, has
been just the opposite. Spying and secrecy violate both our rights and our dignity. The
government has acted as if it were identical or coextensive with the U.S. as a
nation, as if it were an absolute totality that functioned in the mode of the nation
and represented loyalty to the nation. The NSA, the military, the Obama administration, many of the courts,
and much of the legislature manifest the attitude that they represent the whole and the symbolic meaning of U.S. society, an
attitude which is very much a mythical and ideological fantasy. At the same time that they claim to represent the whole and the

they also assert that they have the right to operate in secret
from the rest of society and the right to spy on the rest of society. The government
is not the nation and has no such rights. Yet the reason why they are war criminals is primarily structural:
symbolic meaning of U.S. society,

among militarized sovereign nation-states there is, and can be, no genuine rule of law, and certainly no due process of law that
properly holds individuals accountable for their actions before an impartial court of law. There can only be the rule of power,

If we want to establish democracy within

the U.S., we have to examine seriously the chaos of a world disorder that defeats
democracy within nations at every turn. By requiring militarized nation-states, this world disorder wastes
more than one trillion U.S. dollars per year that could be used for jobs, protecting the environment, and global social justice. This
world system manifests a chaos that gives totalitarian elements and totalitarian
violence, secrecy, spying, murder, threat, and ideological posturing.

attitudes a breeding ground for secrecy, spying, and unrestrained violence . The Earth
Constitution is by far the most promising and realistic option that we have before us. Democracy and human rights
are inherently universal. They are not for a privileged few among a fragmented system of sovereign nation-states.
Everyone deserves authentic democracy. Everyone deserves to live with freedom
and dignity under the Constitution for the Federation of Earth.

Antiblackness Link-turns
Specifically, aerial surveillance targets minority communities
we are living in the New Jim Crow era as the state expands
its ability to control minority populations
Malkia Amala Cyril, 05/15, (Malkia Amala Cyril, founder and executive director of
the Center for Media Justice (CMJ) and co-founder of the Media Action Grassroots
Network, a national network of 175 organizations working to ensure media access,
rights, and representation for marginalized communities, Black America's State of
Surveillance, Progressive.org,
http://www.progressive.org/news/2015/03/188074/black-americas-statesurveillance, accessed date: 07/21/15) Salehitezangi
Ten years ago, on Martin Luther King Jr.s birthday, my mother, a former Black Panther, died from complications of

the FBI came knocking at our door, demanding that

my mother testify in a secret trial proceeding against other former Panthers or face arrest. My mother, unable
to walk, refused. The detectives told my mother as they left that they would be
watching her. They didnt get to do that. My mother died just two weeks later. My mother
was not the only black person to come under the watchful eye of American law
enforcement for perceived and actual dissidence. Nor is dissidence always a requirement for being
subject to spying. Files obtained during a break-in at an FBI office in 1971 revealed that African
Americans, J. Edger Hoovers largest target group, didnt have to be perceived as
dissident to warrant surveillance. They just had to be black. As I write this, the same
philosophy is driving the increasing adoption and use of surveillance technologies by local law
sickle cell anemia. Weeks before she died,

Today, media reporting on government surveillance is laser-focused on the

revelations by Edward Snowden that millions of Americans were being spied on by the NSA. Yet my mothers visit
enforcement agencies across the United States.

from the slave pass system to laws that deputized white

civilians as enforcers of Jim Crow, black people and other people of color have lived for
centuries with surveillance practices aimed at maintaining a racial hierarchy. Its time
from the FBI reminds me that,

for journalists to tell a new story that does not start the clock when privileged classes learn they are targets of
surveillance. We need to understand that data has historically been overused to repress dissidence, monitor

the Internet
has increased the speed and secrecy of data collection. Thanks to new surveillance
technologies, law enforcement agencies are now able to collect massive amounts of
indiscriminate data. Yet legal protections and policies have not caught up to this
technological advance. Concerned advocates see mass surveillance as the problem and protecting privacy as the goal. Targeted
perceived criminality, and perpetually maintain an impoverished underclass. In an era of big data,

surveillance is an obvious answerit may be discriminatory, but it helps protect the privacy perceived as an earned
privilege of the inherently innocent. The trouble is,

targeted surveillance frequently includes the indiscriminate collection of the private

For targeted communities, there is little to no

expectation of privacy from government or corporate surveillance. Instead, we are
watched, either as criminals or as consumers. We do not expect policies to protect us. Instead,
data of people targeted by race but not involved in any crime.

weve birthed a complex and coded culturefrom jazz to spoken dialectsin order to navigate a world in which
spying, from AT&T and Walmart to public benefits programs and beat cops on the block, is as much a part of our
built environment as the streets covered in our blood. In a recent address, New York City Police Commissioner Bill
Bratton made it clear: 2015 will be one of the most significant years in the history of this organization. It will be the
year of technology, in which we literally will give to every member of this department technology that wouldve
been unheard of even a few years ago. Predictive policing, also known as Total Information Awareness, is described as using advanced
technological tools and data analysis to preempt crime. It utilizes trends, patterns, sequences, and affinities found in data to make determinations about

In a racially
discriminatory criminal justice system, surveillance technologies reproduce injustice .
Instead of reducing discrimination, predictive policing is a face o f what author Michelle
Alexander calls the New Jim Crowa de facto system of separate and unequal
application of laws, police practices, conviction rates, sentencing terms, and
when and where crimes will occur. This model is deceptive, however, because it presumes data inputs to be neutral. They arent.

conditions of confinement that operate more as a system of social control by racial

hierarchy than as crime prevention or punishment. In New York City, the predictive policing
approach in use is Broken Windows. This approach to policing places an undue focus on quality of life crimeslike
selling loose cigarettes, the kind of offense for which Eric Garner was choked to death. Without oversight, accountability,

predictive policing is just high-tech racial profilingindiscriminate data

collection that drives discriminatory policing practices.
transparency, or rights,

Federal surveillance is the lynchpin of structural racism in

this century leads to a system of detention of minority
communities
Malkia Amala Cyril, 05/15, (Malkia Amala Cyril, founder and executive director of
the Center for Media Justice (CMJ) and co-founder of the Media Action Grassroots
Network, a national network of 175 organizations working to ensure media access,
rights, and representation for marginalized communities, Black America's State of
Surveillance, Progressive.org,
http://www.progressive.org/news/2015/03/188074/black-americas-statesurveillance, accessed date: 07/21/15) Salehitezangi
Predictive policing doesnt just lead to racial and religious profilingit relies on it.
Just as stop and frisk legitimized an initial, unwarranted contact between police and
people of color, almost 90 percent of whom turn out to be innocent of any crime,
suspicious activities reporting and the dragnet approach of fusion centers target
communities of color. One review of such reports collected in Los Angeles shows
approximately 75 percent were of people of color. This is the future of policing in America, and it

should terrify you as much as it terrifies me. Unfortunately, it probably doesnt, because my life is at far greater risk
than the lives of white Americans, especially those reporting on the issue in the media or advocating in the halls of
power. One of the most terrifying aspects of high-tech surveillance is the invisibility of those it disproportionately
impacts. The

NSA and FBI have engaged local law enforcement agencies and
electronic surveillance technologies to spy on Muslims living in the United States .
According to FBI training materials uncovered by Wired in 2011, the bureau taught
agents to treat mainstream Muslims as supporters of terrorism, to view charitable
donations by Muslims as a funding mechanism for combat, and to view Islam itself
as a Death Star that must be destroyed if terrorism is to be contained. From New York City to Chicago and
beyond, local law enforcement agencies have expanded unlawful and covert racial and religious profiling against
Muslims not suspected of any crime. There is no national security reason to profile all Muslims. At the same time,

almost 450,000 migrants are in detention facilities throughout the United States,
including survivors of torture, asylum seekers, families with small children, and the
elderly. Undocumented migrant communities enjoy few legal protections, and are
therefore subject to brutal policing practices, including illegal surveillance practices .
According to the Sentencing Project, of the more than 2 million people incarcerated in the United States,
more than 60 percent are racial and ethnic minorities. But by far, the widest net is cast
over black communities. Black people alone represent 40 percent of those
incarcerated. More black men are incarcerated than were held in slavery in 1850, on
the eve of the Civil War. Lest some misinterpret that statistic as evidence of greater criminality, a 2012 study
confirms that black defendants are at least 30 percent more likely to be imprisoned
than whites for the same crime. This is not a broken system, it is a system working
perfectly as intended, to the detriment of all. The NSA could not have spied on
millions of cellphones if it were not already spying on black people, Muslims, and
migrants. As surveillance technologies are increasingly adopted and integrated by law enforcement agencies
today, racial disparities are being made invisible by a media environment that has
failed to tell the story of surveillance in the context of structural racism. Reporters love

to tell the technology story. For some, its a sexier read. To me, freedom from repression and racism is far sexier
than the newest gadget used to reinforce racial hierarchy. As civil rights protections catch up with the technological

Many journalists still focus their reporting on the

technological trends and not the racial hierarchies that these trends are enforcing.
terrain, reporting needs to catch up, too.

Martin Luther King Jr. once said, Everything we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see. Journalists have
an obligation to tell the stories that are hidden from view. We are living in an incredible time, when migrant activists
have blocked deportation buses, and a movement for black lives has emerged, and when women, queer, and trans
experiences have been placed right at the center. The decentralized power of the Internet makes that possible. But

high-tech surveillance that threatens to drive structural racism in

the twenty-first century. We can help black lives matter by ensuring that technology
is not used to cement a racial hierarchy that leaves too many people like me dead or
in jail. Our communities need partners, not gatekeepers. Together, we can change the cultural terrain that makes
killing black people routine. We can counter inequality by ensuring that both the technology
and the police departments that use it are democratized. We can change the story on
the Internet also makes possible the

surveillance to raise the voices of those who have been left out. There are no voiceless people, only those that aint

Lets birth a new norm in which the technological tools of the twentyfirst century create equity and justice for allso all bodies enjoy full and equal
protection, and the Jim Crow surveillance state exists no more.
been heard yet.

Communities of color uniquely targeted by federal aerial

surveillance expands abusive power of police state
Candice Bernd, 2/24/15, (Candice Bernd, an assistant editor/reporter with
Truthout, Proposed Rules Regulating Domestic Drone Use Lack Police Warrant
Requirement, Truth-out.org, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/29250-proposedrules-regulating-domestic-drone-use-lack-police-warrant-requirement#, accessed
date: 7/20/15) Salehitezangi
The ACLU's Guliani pointed out, however, that invasive forms of surveillance, especially
police surveillance, often impact communities of color disproportionately, pointing
to US Customs and Border Protections' ubiquitous use of drone surveillance in vast
border regions impacting huge swaths of the populations that live in those areas.
"You're not just talking about the physical border, you're talking about an area that encompasses
many major cities that have large minority populations, and the idea that these
drones can be flown with little or no privacy protections really mean that, people,
just by virtue of living in that region are somehow accepting that they have a right
to less privacy," she said. African-American communities could well feel the
disproportionate impacts of the integrated use of domestic drones and other
surveillance in the coming years, as technologies such as StingRay are already
being used mostly in the ongoing war on drugs to track those suspected of selling
and buying drugs. The drug war has long negatively impacted communities of color,
based on racialized drug policies and racial discrimination by law enforcement; twothirds of all those convicted of drug crimes are people of color, despite similar rates
of drug use among whites and people of color. These already-existing racial
disparities in intrusive policing tactics and deployment of surveillance technologies
are one of the primary reasons civil liberties experts are saying the government
often gets it backward when thinking about privacy issues : deploying intrusive technologies
first, and coming up with privacy policies governing their use afterward (when they may already be violating many
people's civil rights). "What we see with StingRays is the same phenomenon that we're seeing with [UAS], where
federal agencies are using them," Guliani said. "State and local agencies are using them. There's federal dollars
that are going to buy them, and we're kind of having the privacy debate after the fact with very little information."