Drones Aff/Neg Supplement--BRRC 2015

Neg Warrants PIC/Transparency CP

Transparency CP Solvency
Transparency and accountability deter unlawful surveillance better than warrants
Gregory McNeal 14, Associate Professor of Law at Pepperdine University, November 2014,
Drones and Aerial Surveillance: Considerations for Legislation,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports2/2014/11/drones-and-aerial-surveillance
Transparency and accountability measures should be required regardless of whether legislators follow the core recommendations or
the warrant-based principles (Part B. below). Transparency

and accountability measures may be more

effective than suppression rules or warrants for controlling and deterring wrongful
government surveillance . To hold law enforcement accountable, legislators should mandate
that the use of all aerial surveillance devices (manned or unmanned) be published on a regular
basis (perhaps quarterly) on the website of the agency operating the system.
These usage logs should detail who operated the system, when it was operated, where it was
operated (including GPS coordinates), and what the law enforcement purpose for the operation
was. Legislators may even mandate that unmanned systems operated in their jurisdictions come
equipped with software that allows for the easy export of flight logs that contain this information. Such logs
will allow privacy advocates and concerned citizens to closely monitor how aerial
surveillance devices are being used, enabling the political process as a mechanism to
hold operators accountable .
In circumstances where publishing usage logs may reveal information that is law enforcement
sensitive (such as an ongoing investigation) the agency operating the drone may keep their usage logs
confidential until the investigation is closed. The agency should be required to make the logs public within 30 days
of the close of an investigation. To facilitate public accountability legislators should mandate that all logs be published in an open
and machine-readable format consistent with the Presidents Executive Order of May 9, 2013.[44]
For evidence that this flight log approach works, one need only look across the Atlantic to the

United Kingdom where many police departments publish their helicopter flight
logs on their webpage; in fact some even live tweet their helicopters activities. While there is no law within the United
Kingdom that specifically requires police departments or law enforcement agencies to publish the flight logs of their helicopters,
their version of the Freedom of Information Act appears to be the legislative authority
prompting publication of police helicopter logs.

Like the United States, there are a number of public watchdog groups in the United Kingdom that monitor police activity, including
groups whose sole purpose is to monitor the activity (and related noise complaints) of police helicopters.[45] These groups, and
their respective websites, act as a forum for noise and privacy complaints from various individuals across the Kingdom, and several
of these groups organize and lobby Members of Parliament (MPs) to pass legislation restricting helicopter flyovers.[46] These
groups, and the advocacy which they generate, appear to be largely responsible for the recent trend of many UK police departments
publishing their helicopters flight logs, or even creating Twitter accounts for their helicopters that publish real-time or delayed-time
updates of the aircrafts activity.[47]
These helicopter Twitter accounts, which have become a growing trend amongst British police departments, have had an immediate
and powerful effect on public relations in their respective jurisdictions. In Islington, the police department went from struggling to
handle the overload of noise complaints relating to the departments use of its helicopter to receiving no complaints after the
creation of its Helicopter Twitter feed.[48] The Twitter account gained over 7,000 followers after its first few weeks, and the public
criticism of police helicopter activity ceased entirely. The department reflected on the effectivenessas well as future potentialof
the Twitter feed by issuing this statement:
Maybe that is all people wanted just to know and understand what we were doing. We dont update people in real time, but my
vision is that soon we will be able to let people know about an operation as soon as it is over. In some cases we could get them to help
imagine if an elderly person with Alzheimers was missing in Islington, we could Tweet our followers to keep an eye out.
The Suffolk Police Department launched its Twitter feed with the hope of shedding some light on police practices. Roger Lewis, an
observer with the Suffolk Police, described the departments intentions in the following way:
We hope to use the Twitter feed to highlight the positive work being done by the Air Operations Unit and to keep members of the
public informed as to why the helicopter has been deployed. We hope people will enjoy finding out more about the Unit and
hopefully our tweets will give some explanation as to why we have been deployed and give some interesting insights into a very
important policing tool.[49]

It is not difficult to see how the practice of disclosing non-sensitive flight logs through a public
channelsuch as a department web page or through Twittercan be a useful tool in reassuring the

public that law enforcements helicopter does not represent Big Brothers eye in the sky, but
rather embodies a part of the departments lawful policing practices . Just as a police helicopter high
overhead can be ominous to those on the ground who are unaware of its purposes, the very idea of dronesof any kind
flying above American cities and towns might be foreboding to many lay persons. By requiring
law enforcement to publish data or logs, legislators can add a citizen-centric political
check that will help quell the fears of a society

that is not yet certain how it should react to the

increasing presence of aerial surveillance devices over the skies of America.

The CP solves better

Gregory McNeal 14, Associate Professor of Law at Pepperdine University, November 2014,
Drones and Aerial Surveillance: Considerations for Legislation,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports2/2014/11/drones-and-aerial-surveillance
While warrants are appealing to privacy advocates, the enactment of overly broad restrictions on drone use
can curtail non-invasive, beneficial uses of drones . Legislators should reject a
warrant-based, technology centric approach as it is unworkable and
counterproductive . Instead, legislators should follow a property rights centric approach,
coupled with limits on persistent surveillance, data retention procedures, transparency and
accountability measures and a recognition of the possibility that technology may make
unmanned aerial surveillance more protective of privacy than manned surveillance . This paper
makes five core recommendations:

Legislators should follow a property rights approach to aerial surveillance. This approach
provides landowners with the right to exclude aircraft , persons, and other objects from a column
of airspace extending from the surface of their land up to 350 feet above ground level. Such an
approach may solve most public and private harms associated with drones.
Legislators should craft simple, duration-based surveillance legislation that will limit the aggregate amount of time the government
may surveil a specific individual. Such legislation

can address the potential harm of persistent

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

a legislatively determined period of time, all

stored data should be deleted .

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

Warrants No Solve
Warrants dont address the privacy I/L of the affturns the case
Y. Douglas Yang 14, J.D., Boston University School of Law, Summer 2014, NOTE: BIG
BROTHER'S GROWN WINGS: THE DOMESTIC PROLIFERATION OF DRONE
SURVEILLANCE AND THE LAW'S RESPONSE, The Boston University Public Interest Law
Journal 23 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J. 343
Any new standard that courts and legislatures could reasonably be expected to apply must be
grounded in law, reality, and logic. For the purposes of this Note's analysis, this Note will lay out
a general proposition that using a warrant-focused scheme incorrectly addresses the privacy
problem that drones present. Following this proposition, this Note will then recommend an
alternative to the blanket warrant requirement for drone surveillance missions.
While popular among both state and federal legislative responses, n220 compelling a
government entity or agent to obtain a warrant before allowing most drone surveillances
mission to take off prohibitively disadvantages government [*374] drone use because such a
broad requirement imprecisely applies the blunt force of a warrant's power. Here, the inexact
application of a broad restriction inevitably leads to an odd and unreasonable result: under a
blanket warrant requirement scheme drones would be unable to perform, without a warrant,
some of the same surveillance tasks from the same locations that helicopters and airplanes have
been authorized to execute without warrants for decades. n221 Society should not simply
hamstring drone use because of its "fear that rapidly advancing science and technology is
making [surveillance] more and more effective." n222 Rather, there should balance a between
legitimate government needs and society's privacy interest.
Instead of employing a blanket warrant requirement that overly burdens drone use, legislatures
should focus on bringing drones into parity with traditional forms of aerial surveillance, such as
airplanes and helicopters. Rather than focus almost exclusively on methods applied, legislatures
should also look to results attained: "what information does the government acquire as a result
of making the observations?" n223 This conception of privacy runs in tandem with the Supreme
Court's line of opinions that look to the functional result of government action, including Justice
Brandeis's dissent in Olmstead and the majority opinion in Katz. n224 However, abandoning a
blanket warrant requirement does not necessary entail abandoning warrants altogether; the
following Six Rules for Drone Usage ("Rules") apply warrant requirements in certain situations
and scenarios.

Warrants Comparatively Worse

Warrants cut down the benefits of drone law enforcement
Gregory McNeal 14, Associate Professor of Law at Pepperdine University, November 2014,
Drones and Aerial Surveillance: Considerations for Legislation,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports2/2014/11/drones-and-aerial-surveillance
To counter the threat of surveillance, privacy advocates have focused solely on requiring
warrants before the use of drones by law enforcement . Such a mandate oftentimes will result
in the grounding of drone technology in circumstances where law enforcement use of
drones would be beneficial and largely non-controversial . For example, in light of the Boston
Marathon bombing, police may want to fly a drone above a marathon to ensure the safety of the public. Under many bills,
police would not be allowed to use a drone unless they had a warrant, premised upon
probable cause to believe a crime had been or was about to be committed. This requirement
exceeds current Fourth Amendment protections with regard to the reasonableness of
observing activities in public places. What this means is that the police would need to put together a warrant
application with sufficient facts to prove to a judge that they had probable cause. That application would need to define with
particularity the place to be searched or the persons to be surveilled. All of this would be required to observe people gathered in a
public place, merely because the observation was taking place from a drone, rather than from an officer on a rooftop or in a
helicopter. In a circumstance like a marathon, this probable cause showing will be difficult for the

police to satisfy. After all, if the police knew who in the crowd was a potential bomber, they
would arrest those individuals. Rather, a marathon is the type of event where the police would
want to use a drone to monitor for unknown attackers , and in the unfortunate event of an attack,
use the footage to identify the perpetrators. This is precisely the type of circumstance where the
use of drone could be helpful, but unfortunately it has been outlawed in many states . To make
matters worse, this type of drone surveillance would pose little to no harms to privacy . A marathon is a highly
public event, the event is televised, it takes place on streets where there are surveillance cameras and spectators are photographing
the event. Moreover, in the states where drones have been banned (unless accompanied by a warrant), the police have not

been prohibited from using any other type of surveillance equipment --- just drones . This
technology centric approach has done little to protect privacy, but will certainly harm public safety,
depriving law enforcement of a tool that they could use to protect people.
The Supreme Court mandates warrantless drone use is constitutional--Unnecessary privacy concerns kill the lucrative drone industry
Peter Sachs 14, publisher of DroneLawJournal.com and founder of the Drone Pilots
Association, Testimony of Peter Sachs,
Esq.,http://www.cga.ct.gov/2014/pridata/tmy/2014ZZ-00000-R001008-Drone%20Use
%20Regulation%20Study%20-%20Peter%20Sachs,%20Esq.-TMY.PDF
I realize our concentration today is on whether a warrant should be required for law enforcement
drone use. The answer is absolutely not .
There is no logical need to require a warrant . A full-size helicopter equipped with a zoom
camera, flying at 1500 feet can see far more than a drone with a simple fixed-focus lens could ever see at
100 feet. That makes drones less invasive. The more invasive helicopter needs no warrant, yet privacy
advocates are demanding a warrant requirement for less invasive drones.
There is also no legal need for a warrant . The Supreme Court has held that aircraft using
ordinary cameras need no warrant to patrol the skies . Drones see nothing more than
any person in an aircraft can see. I would suggest this Committee read the Supreme Court cases cited in my written
testimony that make it clear that observations conducted in navigable airspace using ordinary cameras require no warrant.

As far as other legislation is concerned, none is needed and none should be passed. Some states have already passed drone laws, all
of which are unconstitutional or preempted by federal law. Last week, North Carolina, which claims to be first in flight, made
commercial drone photography a criminal act.
Moreover, local and state governments are very limited in what they can do to regulate drones. They can limit agency drone use, and
can restrict the grounds from which drones can be launched, landed or operated. But they cannot regulate flight by private parties.
Only the FAA can do that.

If the concern is privacy, harassment, stalking or trespassing, there are already adequate
remedies at law . Those acts are illegal regardless of the means used . There is no logical need to insert
the phrase with a drone into our existing statutes.

The drone industry will represent billions of dollars , thousands of jobs and hundreds
of uses, many of which will benefit this State. If you interfere with drones, you constrain
economic growth , you kill potential jobs , you obstruct law enforcement, you hinder emergency
services and you infringe upon the very constitutional guarantees you have sworn to uphold.
Drones are novel, useful, and permit anyone to fly. The public is not used to everyone being allowed to fly and
doesnt understand drones. So it fears the worst . Privacy advocates absurdly claim that one
has an expectation of privacy when visible in plain sight from a public place. Hiding in plain
sight is not a civil liberty.

Aff Warrants PIC/Transparency CP

Warrants Key
Warrants are key to appeasing privacy lobbies the states cant solve
Ben Jenkins 14, University of Kentucky College of Law Student, 102 Ky. L.J. 161 2013-2014,
Watching the Watchmen:
Drone Privacy and the Need for Oversight
The rapid expansion of drone technology and use renders Fourth Amendment privacy safeguards
inadequate, necessitating federal legislative action. Congress has previously passed preemptive legislation
to address potential privacy issues in the face of technological advances . If proper privacy
protections are not in place when the drone boom occurs, the legislature may not be able to
respond fast enough to address infractions and civil rights concern s. If Congress does not act, privacy
violations could occur without redress, privacy norms could be diminished, and society could become complacent. As one scholar
noted, now is the time to establish a proper regulatory framework to address privacy concerns associated with domestic drone use.'
Additionally, such legislation might be a sufficient safeguard to appease the privacy advocates and

the general public alike, so that the expansion of drone technology and the economic benefits
associated with it can move forward unhindered. Currently, drone industry experts worry that
legislative intervention will delay or possibly stifle economic and technological growth in the
U.S. drone industry,'32 citing such privacy concerns as "a distraction." 33 Unless the industry gets serious
about privacy, however, federal legislation might be the only way for industry experts and privacy enthusiasts to find common
ground.
Some have argued for state and local, rather than federal, regulation of drones , 13 4 opining these

recent state
drone legislation failures suggest otherwise. 3 s Recently, many state drone regulation bills have
been struck down as legislators vie to secure their states as FAA drone-testing sites . It is estimated
that within the next few years domestic drone use will create over 70,000 jobs and generate $82 billion."' One of the factors
considered by the FAA when choosing test sites is the presence of "drone-restrictive" laws and
state legislators have been hesitant to jeopardize their states' chances at being selected.' 7 After a
North Dakota bill that would have banned police from warrantless use of drones was struck
down, a state senator remarked, "Now that we've defeated that bill in the Senate, it sends a clear
message to the FAA that North Dakota's open for business . "13 Attitudes and remarks like this
suggest that state and local governments cannot be counted on to protect privacy interests in the
face of competing economic opportunity. Baseline federal privacy safeguards would sufficiently
protect privacy interests and still allow for technological and economic growth in the drone
industry
governmental bodies are better equipped to handle and react to the nuances of an emerging technology, but

Both the industry and privacy advocates are in favor of requiring warrants
previous legislation proves
Bryan Koenig 6/17, General assignment reporter at law360, 6/17/15, Law 360, Senate Bill
Would Require Feds To Get Warrants For Drones
http://www.law360.com/articles/669101/senate-bill-would-require-feds-to-get-warrants-fordrones
The Protecting Individuals From Mass Aerial Surveillance Act from Nevada Republican Sen. Dean Heller and Oregon Democrat
Sen. Ron Wyden would make any unlawfully collected information inadmissible in court and would
prohibit the government from identifying individuals who show up in surveillance incidentally unless they have probable cause to
suspect those people are guilty of a crime.
Americans privacy rights shouldnt stop at the treetops , Wyden said in a statement. Technology has made it
possible to conduct round-the-clock aerial surveillance. The
Wyden argued that

law needs to keep up.

the government needs unambiguous rules governing aerial

surveillance, which he said would also help the drone industry reach its full
potential.

Wyden and Heller argued that modern

surveillance technology, from drones, cameras and other

improvements, have made monitoring Americans from the air far easier and far more in need of
control. They never specifically referred to drones, preferring instead to use the more technical designation of unmanned aerial
systems.
As technological advancements continue to impact the daily lives of Americans, the civil liberties of the nations citizens must not be
infringed upon by the federal government, Heller said in a statement. This legislation protects those inherent

rights from being trampled by the governments intrusion from above and provides much
needed clarity on what authority the federal government has related to aerial surveillance.
The bill would also prohibit federal agencies from soliciting commercial or private entities to perform aerial surveillance that they
are not authorized to perform themselves. It does however come with exceptions, allowing for warrantless surveillance for border
patrol within 25 miles of a land border, along with testing and research, surveillance of public land for things like weather damage,
and environmental and wildlife management. Additionally, the bill would only apply to federal agencies, not state or local aerial
surveillance, or commercial operations.
Wyden and Heller have both made names for themselves as privacy advocates. Wyden has been an outspoken critic of the NSA's
data collection practices and Heller was a co-sponsor of the USA Freedom Act of 2015.
Wyden's announcement also included praise from SOAR Oregon, which represents the state's

UAV industry, and from civil liberties advocate the Center for Democracy and Technology.
SOAR argued the bill codifies aspects of surveillance where the use of UAS will have more and
more relevance and value in the very near term, the group said in a statement. Because of the
significantly greater capabilities of UAS in certain types of surveillance compared to manned
aircraft, it is important to put in place safeguards that will ensure the information collected is
not misused.
The Center for Democracy and Technology in turn said in a statement that the bill would
establish meaningful protections from overbroad government aerial surveillance while
preserving beneficial uses with less impact on civil liberties , such as government research and disaster relief."
Warrants are key to resolve public outcry
Max Bauer 13, Writer for the American Civil Liberties Union, June 2013, Domestic Drone
Surveillance Usage: Threats and Opportunities for Regulation, American Civil Liberties Union,
https://privacysos.org/domestic_drones
History shows that our response to threats to our physical safety mustn't involve programs or
policies that diminish our core rights. Two centuries ago, during a time of great national
insecurity, the War of 1812, the Constitutions primary author, President James Madison, took
virtually no steps to diminish civil liberties. Madison's approach did not lead to the nations
demise. [56]
With the rise of domestic drones as a cherry on top of an already sprawling surveillance state,
America is headed in the opposite direction. But there is time yet to ensure the technology
doesn't trample all over our rights.
If mass drone surveillance is inescapable, warrant and data collection reporting requirements
will provide a critical check against government abuses. Justice Brandeis has written, Publicity
is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the
best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman. [57]
Domestic drones can monitor individuals almost constantly; its therefore essential to have
sunlight shine upon their operators, to monitor their actions. The publicity necessary to hold
their operations accountable to the public requires transparency and accountability. [58]
Drone usage will continue to expand and may not stop even at infrared camera surveillance and
biometric data acquisition. The Guardians Glenn Greenwald has cautioned that although
domestic drones may currently be limited to those outfitted only with surveillance equipment,
given the increasing militarization of domestic law enforcement, the time may come soon when
domestic drones are weaponized. [59]
But even short of that futuristic nightmare, drone surveillance already poses a new threat to
liberty at home. As our Fourth Amendment search protection diminishes with the progress of
technology, [60] legislative initiatives and public outcry may be the only way to protect the right
to privacy in the age of domestic drones.

Warrants should be required for drone surveillance

Jay Stanley 11, Senior Policy Analyst with the ACLUs Speech, Privacy and Technology
Project, 12/11, Protecting Privacy from Aerial Surveillance: Recommendations for Government
Use of Drone Aircraft, ACLU,
https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/protectingprivacyfromaerialsurveillance.pdf
UAVs are potentially extremely powerful surveillance tools, and that power , like all government power,
needs to be subject to checks and balances. Like any tool, UAVs have the potential to be used for good or ill. If we
can set some good privacy ground rules, our society can enjoy the benefits of this tech nology
without having to worry about its darker potentials. We impose regulations on what law enforcement can do all
the time, for example allowing law enforcement to take a thermal image of someones home only when they get a warrant. We
need to impose rules, limits and regulations on UAVs as well in order to preserve the privacy
Americans have always expected and enjoyed. The ACLU recommends at a minimum the following core measures be enacted to
ensure that this happens: Usage restrictions. UAVs should be subject to strict regulation to ensure that their

use does not eviscerate the privacy that Americans have traditionally enjoyed and rightly expect. Innocent Americans
should not have to worry that their activities will be scrutinized by drones. To this end, the use of drones should be
prohibited for indiscriminate mass surveillance, for example, or for spying based on First Amendment-protected
activities. In general, drones should not be deployed except: where there are specific and articulable grounds to believe
that the drone will collect evidence relating to a specific instance of criminal wrongdoing or, if the drone will intrude upon
reasonable expectations of privacy, where the government has obtained a warrant based on probable

cause; or where there is a geographically confined, time-limited emergency situation in which particular individuals lives are at
risk, such as a fire, hostage crisis, or person lost in the wilderness; or for reasonable non-law enforcement purposes by non-law
enforcement agencies, where privacy will not be substantially affected, such as geological inspections or environmental surveys, and
where the surveillance will not be used for secondary law enforcement purposes.

Legislation Key
Warrants key to resolve fourth amendment uncertainties of Arial information
gathering
Jennifer O'Brien 13, J.D. Candidate 2014 from The John Marshall Law School,
WARRANTLESS GOVERNMENT DRONE SURVEILLANCE: A CHALLENGE TO THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT, The John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy
Law Volume 30 Issue 1 2013, 2013, Pg. 222
A final option to ensure government drone use is limited is through legislation. There are several
uncertainties in Fourth Amendment protection over the warrantless governmental use of drones
that would be adequately addressed by legislation. There are multiple situations that permit the
warrantless use of less invasive law enforcement tools. Permitting the warrantless use of a drone
in similar situations would be dangerous when considering the broad scope of information that
a drone can collect. For example, the automobile exception of the Fourth Amendment permits
the warrantless search of an individuals vehicle when there is probable cause that the vehicle
contains contraband.625 Even with the probable cause requirement, an infrared scan with a
drone is far more invasive than a tactile examination of a vehicle. The Supreme Court has held
that overly invasive devices or search techniques require a warrant,626 but it is uncertain what
level of intrusiveness would violate the Fourth Amendment. Legislation that clearly defines
whether or not a warrant is needed for a drone search of a vehicle aids law enforcement and puts
the public on notice of its rights. Similarly, the open fields doctrine becomes distorted when
applied to drones. Protection against unwarranted governmental intrusions into the home is
extended to curtilage areas but there is no Fourth Amendment protection to open fields.627
However, the analysis on the designation between curtilage of the home and open fields has not
been consistent.628 The conflict between curtilage and open fields in using drones is magnified
because drones have expansive, detailed views of areas. Additionally, by sending these images to
cell phones, computers, or even to its own DVR, the drone can retain these images for a
significant period of time.629 Officers using drones to determine whether or not a suspect is
growing marijuana in a literal open fields area does not require a warrant. However, officers run
the risk of infringing privacy rights if the warrantless use of the drone results in obtaining
information or images of an individuals curtilage. While it would be impracticable to develop a
strict rule designating protected areas, a broader legislative rule is necessary. For example, a
strict rule allowing drone use on any area more than 100 feet from a house is inadequate
because individual areas host different activities. Whereas 100 feet from person As home is an
empty field, the same area at person Bs property could host a swimming pool. However, a broad
rule prohibiting warrantless use of a drone on property that contains any inhabited buildings
would best protect the interests of both the public and law enforcement.

State Laws Coming Now/Bad

State laws destroy the industry
Robert H. Gruber, 15, litigation associate at Greenberg Traurig, LLP, April 24, 2015,
COMMERCIAL DRONES AND PRIVACY: CAN WE TRUST STATES WITH "DRONE
FEDERALISM"?, Richmond Journal of Law & Technology, LexisNexis, 21 Rich. J.L. & Tech. 14
However, a number of states have already begun to consider private and commercial restrictions. A
proposed bill in Missouri would ban using a drone to conduct video surveillance on any individual,
or over private property, without consent. n146 In Washington, the House passed Bill 2178, which
similarly prohibits persons from flying UAVs over private property without consent ; n147 the Bill
stalled in the Senate, but several of its policies were incorporated into another bill that was passed.
n148 Wisconsin has approved a bill that would make it a misdemeanor to photograph, record, or
otherwise observe an individual in any location in which the individual has a reasonable
expectation of privacy. n149 A recent California bill would make it a trespass to fly a drone,
without consent, over private property and "below the navigable airspace. " n150 The Texas Privacy Act
creates two separate misdemeanors: (1) non-consensual UAV imaging of private property, and (2) possessing or distributing an
image so obtained. n151 And these are only some examples of legislation targeted at private or commercial UAS. P48 Localities have
also begun to restrict UAV flight, with much more peculiar results. Both St. Bonaficius, Minnesota and Evanston, Illinois have
banned UAV flight within city limits. n152 Evanston's resolution exempts hobbyists from the ban, but St. Bonaficius's does not. n153
Of course, the most alarming solution proposed at the local level arises in Deer Trail, Colorado--the town that considered issuing
"drone hunting" licenses. n154 P49 So far, attempts to address commercial UAS at the state and local level

have probably overreached at times. First, some likely run afoul of the First Amendment . Even if
that is not the case, they fail to reflect a reasonable balance between privacy protections and the
economic and social benefits of UAS. P50 All the above examples have the potential, in their
overreaching, to restrict the growth of the UAS industry, for several reasons . The first is simply that
outlawing a technology, by definition, eliminates buyers from its market. But there's more to it. UAVs,
by nature, will roam. They may pass through the airspace over multiple cities, or even multiple
states. They may retrieve images of other jurisdictions without actually crossing overhead. n155
Operators will have to be aware of every law they might bump against; if those laws are unclear
or too varied, they will be unable to calculate potential liability, and far less likely to invest in
purchasing a drone. n156 P51 Operators will also want insurance from legal liability for their UAV
operations. This could wind up being very expensive, and not just because uncertainty in the law
will raise costs. Insurers are nothing if not cognizant of risk. The potential liability exposure of
operating a UAV in some of the jurisdictions listed above would be massive . A commercial drone
hovering in a single location could conceivably capture images of hundreds of individuals' private property. Neither an operator nor
an insurer would want to take that risk in, say, Texas or Wisconsin.

AT: Modeling Advantage

International Drones Alt Cause

The plan doesnt get modeled---their evidence concedes US drone policy abroad is
causing Latin American drone militarization
Diego Cupolo 14, Latin American policy writer for Occupy, 1/8/2014, Why Widely
Unregulated Drone Use Is Soaring in Latin America, Occupy,
http://www.occupy.com/article/why-widely-unregulated-drone-use-soaring-latin-america
The same could happen with UAVs, Sanchez said. Once drones become widely established as tools for law
enforcement and military operations , the probability of such incidents will only increase. The matter
would be further complicated if and when Latin American governments begin deploying armed domestic drones. Drone
technology is regarded as useful to find these guerrilla fighters and, given

the controversial success of armed

drones by countries like the U.S., it is only a matter of time before Latin American militaries
decide to follow suit and utilize drones for search-and-destroy missions in the name of national security,
Sanchez wrote in a COHA report titled Latin America Puts Forward Mixed Picture On Use of Drones in Region. The US has been
selling drones as this revolutionary technology that will make life easier, so its obvious that Latin American countries will

be interested after seeing the hellfire missiles in Pakistan , he added in a phone interview. With
surveillance drones, governments can only locate a target. They must still send helicopters full of armed soldiers to capture or
eliminate the threat and this may require a high-risk military operation. Such deployments take time and planning, which may allow
targets to get away. Sanchez said there is an obvious advantage to armed drones , but raises concerns over the
prospect of such technology in the hands of dictatorial governments. Theres definitely a need for a technology thats both cheap
and can have some really positive results, but obviously theres a possibility this technology can be used for all the

wrong reasons and, unfortunately, throughout Latin Americas history, the abuse of power [has] tend[ed] to
happen quite often, Sanchez said. The Future is Now Approximately 7,500 UAVs are expected to begin operating in U.S.
airspace within the next five years following the introduction of new regulations, said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta at news
conference in November. He added the ultimate goal of the American drone industry is to establish a global leadership that will
enable the U.S. market to set standards for the industry worldwide. Meanwhile, most Latin American countries are

enjoying economic growth, which means militaries have larger budgets at their disposal to build
new weapons or buy them from abroad. Security and military operations in Latin America are currently pushing
global demand for drones. Countries like Brazil want to be known as a military power and they
want to show they have a vibrant domestic military industry and they can build their own
weapons and produce drone technology for sale to other countries, Sanchez said. Still, the proliferation of drone
technology throughout the Americas is advancing more rapidly than regulations. After analyzing the future and present uses of
UAVs in Latin American, the IACHR hearing convened with three recommendations to the international community. The first two
called on the U.S. to comply with international human rights principles in their use and development of armed drones around the
world. The third recommendation set forth the need to clarify and articulate the legal obligations of states in regard to drone use,
both armed and unarmed, and called for the drafting of legislation on the matter. As time passes and falling price tags encourage
more governments to employ surveillance drones, the

use of armed drones will only represent the next step

in the integration process , Stanley said in his closing statements.

This is specifically true in Latin America---US drone policy in Latin American
countries associated with the War on Drugs is driving Latin American drone use
Rafa Fernandez de Castro 7/6, Fusion consultant for Mexico and Latin America, How Mexico
is becoming the drone capital of Latin America, 7/6/15, http://fusion.net/story/160643/howmexico-is-becoming-the-drone-capital-of-latin-america/
Now the U.S. could spoil some of the fun if it continues to militarize drone use in Latin
America . The United States Southern Command or SOUTHCOM has already deployed unarmed drones
on joint military exercises and missions in Central and South America. The war on drugs also
appears to be prompting Latin America to ramp up the use of U.S.- and Israeli-manufactured
drones against traffickers. With regard to Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), it is hard to predict the extent to which
theyll be employed to counter transnational organized crime in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility in the long-term, Southern

Commander spokesman Jose Ruiz told Fusion. Ruiz said SOUTHCOM

has been able to periodically employ a

model known as the RQ-4 Global Hawk, but wouldnt offer details about the mission. Operational security precludes
us from discussing specifics, but when utilized by SOUTHCOM to support detection and monitoring operations, the RQ-4 is
configured with non-lethal, surveillance capabilities; and missions that include time over the sovereign
airspace of a partner nation are closely coordinated with the host-nation government through the U.S. embassy
before being approved and scheduled. Alejandro Sanchez, a drone expert at the Council of Hemispheric Affairs, told Fusion there
have been occasions when unarmed U.S. drones have entered Mexican airspace . A U.S. drone
helped triangulate the cellular network of drug lord Joaquin El Chapo Guzman, pinpointing his whereabouts for Mexican
authorities, he said. So far, no U.S. drones flown over Latin American airspace have been known to be weaponized. But experts say
it might be only a matter of time before there are armed drones circling the region. Sanchez says
based on the U.S. experience, Latin American militaries are realizing drones can change the tide of war.
He thinks the lack of technological know-how might be the only binding constraint preventing Latin American countries from
developing their own weaponized drones. I think security
he said.

forces in Latin America see drones favorably ,

The US is literally exporting drones to Latin America

Michael Pelzer 15, PanAm Post intern currently living in Honduras, primarily focusing on
security and defense issues in Latin America and the United States, Latin America: A
Burgeoning Market for US Drones, 3/30/15, http://blog.panampost.com/michaelpelzer/2015/03/30/latin-america-a-burgeoning-market-for-us-drones/
The passage of a new Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) export policy in February will enable US defense
companies to begin exporting drone technology to nations approved by the United States government.
This new initiative has been welcomed by the defense industry, but also by numerous US allies who have
long coveted the enhanced capabilities that come with drones. Unmanned reconnaissance technology is an
incredibly valuable tool, especially considering that many modern security threats come from non-state actors. Drones have been
operating in both kinetic (or combat) and ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) roles for over a decade proving their
value time and time again. The image we have of drone operations largely consists of a few grainy frames of Department of Defense
footage, 5,000 miles away in a desert war zone. Soon, however, the same images could have a tropical backdrop. A New Market
Latin Americas security concerns could benefit greatly from the use of UAVs, as recognized by defense
experts inside and outside of the region. With

a drug war that shows no sign of stopping after half a

century, narco-terrorist groups abound, and violent cartels are operating across international borders. Its no
surprise that Latin-American militaries are seeking UAV technology to give them an edge over their
rivals. Its therefore only a matter of time before drones take to the skies of Latin America in
significant numbers, but questions remain over who will be providing them. Currently, Israel has the market cornered with
over $500 million in sales to Latin America between 2005 and 2012. The recent revision of US drone export policy
could change the picture. Defense manufacturers like General Atomics have been looking South for some time, but were
hitherto restricted to case by case approval by the State Department no sales were ever approved to Latin America. Regional
manufacturers have also been making strides in drone technology over the past few years. Latin-American defense manufacturers
like Embraer, Avibras, and Avanza have begun pushing their products in the market. Furthermore, these companies arent limiting
their sales to domestic markets: they have global objectives. With all this competition, will US manufacturers be able to gain a
foothold in the Latin-American drone market? The short answer is yes. Although drones produced domestically and in Israel are
relatively cheap (compared to their North American counterparts) and readily available, they simply cant be compared to US
technologies. Drones, like the General Atomics MQ 1 Predator, have logged thousands of hours of combat operations across
multiple theaters around the world; there is a reason that when someone says drone the first image in your mind is a Predator
loitering overhead. US drone technology is years ahead of its competitors , a result of bigger defense budgets
and greater experience in the field. Moreover, US manufacturers pride themselves on their end-user support defense speak for the
vendors willingness to train foreign personnel extensively in all aspects of operation and maintenance. US defense

manufacturers will find no shortage of buyers in Latin America . With insecurity raging and
economies expanding, the market is set to increase for the foreseeable future . Drones for Everyone Even
though this type of advanced technology comes with a hefty price tag, it may be worth it if it gives regional governments the decisive
advantage needed to establish security and prevent crime. Furthermore, this money doesnt necessarily have to come from state
coffers. Washington

provides billions of dollars in security aid to nations throughout Latin

America; its not unthinkable that some of this money could be put towards unmanned aerial
systems. In fact, the Pentagon did just this in 2013 when it donated an unspecified number of Boeing Scan Eagle surveillance

drones to the Colombian government. Its in US interests to encourage these types of transactions .
Washington provides the initial aid package, then sits back and benefits from the inflow of capital to US companies
simultaneously strengthening military and diplomatic ties in the region. Of course, drones arent a silver bullet for security failures.
Strengthening defense capability is only part of a picture that includes strengthened institutions, respect for the rule of law, and
greater economic opportunities to help individuals choose alternative routes to organized crime and terrorist organizations.
Nevertheless, UAV technology will be a welcome acquisition for those nations seeking to enforce

peace within their borders and negate the advantages of hard-to-track guerrilla groups and narco-trafficking cartels. We
should expect to see US drones in Latin-American skies sooner rather than later.

International Agreement Key

Their evidence says international standards need to be developed---heres more
evidence that an international code of conduct is what Latin American leaders
want
Nacha Cattan 11, correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor, Spread of drone programs
in Latin America sparks calls for code of conduct, 4/20/11,
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2011/0420/Spread-of-drone-programs-in-LatinAmerica-sparks-calls-for-code-of-conduct
Drones are here to stay , experts say, and the time is past for debate. At this point in the game, Latin
America should collaborate to develop a code of conduct that will prevent the arming of drones
and assuage civilian concerns, says Johanna Mendelson Forman, a Latin America specialist at the Center for Strategic
and International Studies, in Washington. "I think it's the maturation of Latin American defense systems," she
says, while cautioning that the potential to arm drones could turn the project into a "double-edged sword." Latin American
politicians are also raising calls for an international pact that defines the scope of drone
missions. "Regulations should be established," says Mexican Sen. Fernando Baeza, who advocates a limit on data
collection. "The great precision of satellite information could be put to good use, or could be used for spying."

Chile Solves Modeling

Chile solves---theyre instituting regulations now
AFP 15, Agence-France Presse, Chile first Latin America country to allow drones, 4/10/15,
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/chile-first-latin-america-country-allow-drones-213751513.html
Chile introduced regulations Friday making it the first country in Latin America to
officially allow drone flights. The measure regulates both the public and private use of drones,
remote-controlled aircraft whose use has skyrocketed in recent years for uses ranging from military airstrikes to
delivering mail. "Drones are aircraft that were operating outside the law. With these rules, unique in Latin
America , their use will be regulated," said Maximiliano Larraechea, the head of Chile's civil aviation authority.
Drones for public use, such as in the realm of businesses and the media, are required to weigh less than six
kilograms (13 pounds) and have parachutes, according to the regulations. Larraechea said that a seven-kilogram drone
falling 10 meters (33 feet) could be lethal, "so we're calling for the parachute and weight limit." Under the regulations, drone
operators are required to obtain a license and register their drone with the civil aviation
authority.

AT: Drones Good Advantage

No Backlash
No drone backlash now---programs sustainable
Anthony L. Kimery 13, Homeland Security Today Drones: Force Multipliers For Law
Enforcement, Other First Responders July 28, 2013 http://www.hstoday.us/columns/thekimery-report/blog/drones-force-multipliers-for-law-enforcement-other-firstresponders/06bfa4d1a8afea68ce724424cb7679f6.html
Yet, despite civil rights concerns and other misconceptions, opponents of drone useage have foisted on an uninformed public,
coupled to what seems to be a lot of congressional hullabaloo over civilian use of drones for public safety purposes, public

opinion polls have continued to indicate that theres a much broader public acceptance of
deploying unmanned aerial systems for public safety reasons than has been widely reported . Polls
show public support for drones A March Gallup poll, for example, found about half of those surveyed were actually closely
following news about the use of drones and that of those who are following drone news more closely, [they

are] likely to support their use. Misconceptions about drones are perpetuated by activities such as an ordinance that
encourages hunters to shoot down drones in the small community of Deer Trail, CO. The FAA recently respond with a statement
warning its a federal crime to shoot at drones. Then there was the appearance of professionally made bogus signs depicting a drone
firing a missile erected along Bay Area, CA. highways warning motorists drones are used to enforce speed limits. The reality is that
unmanned aerial systems provide a less costly, easy way to learn and quickly deploy multiple surveillance capability that can be sent
into dangerous situations potentially too dangerous for human first responders, DHS has said. The result of another poll that

by the Aerospace
percent of Americans favor the use of drones for civilian
purposes, including border patrol, weather prediction and disaster response. Similarly, another
recent poll conducted by the Institute for Homeland Security Solutions (IHSS) and RTI International found 57
percent of the general public supports the use of unmanned aircraft systems for any application.
An overwhelming majority of Americans support the use of unmanned aircraft for homeland
security, search and rescue and fighting crime, IHSS said, pointing out that the majority of the general public
contradicts the conventional wisdom that the public is leery of a domestic role for drones was released in June
Industries Association (AIA). It showed 54

supports the use of unmanned aircraft in the United States for a wide array of uses. When asked about specific uses of the
technology, support was significantly higher, with 88 percent of respondents supporting [drones] for search

and rescue operations," it added. Two-thirds of surveyed Americans said they also support the use
of drones in homeland security missions. The study of 2,000 respondents, conducted in March, was designed to
gauge the publics perceptions about unmanned aircraft in the US. The survey found: 88 percent of the general public supports their
use in search and rescue operations; 67 percent support their use in homeland security missions ; 63 percent support their

use in fighting crime; and 61 percent support their use in commercial applications Law enforcement uninformed about
drones Despite claims that employment of drones by police departments is exploding in a virtually uncontrolled manner, the study
found awareness of domestic, remotely controlled aircraft use is not widely known among law enforcement officers -- however,
police officials were quick to see the potential benefits of the technology to enhance law enforcement. Among the findings of

law enforcement officials: 93 percent thought they would be a useful tool for search and rescue
operations; 81 percent thought they would be useful to photograph crime scenes; 73 percent
thought they would be useful for drug interdiction; 72 percent thought they would be useful for
surveillance; and 66 percent thought they would be useful for emergency response Despite the
concerns associated with unmanned systems, this study shows the majority of law enforcement
officers find the potential advantages outweigh the risks and barriers, said Joe Eyerman, Ph.D., director
of the Center for Security, Defense and Safety at RTI and co-director of IHSS and the studys lead author. RTI International began a
research program in 2012 that was dedicated to understanding the social, behavioral and policy factors associated with domestic
drone technology. The research brief includes preliminary findings of the first two pilot surveys of a non-representative group of
police chiefs in Ohio and the general population of the United States, the group said. Its important to understand the societal
implications when new technologies are introduced, Eyerman said, noting that If we dont take the time to do this, it is likely that
governments and industry will make a number of costly missteps while implementing this technology and the regulations that
govern its use. "We feel like there's been too much rhetoric about privacy concerns and things that aren't relevant to domestic use of
unmanned aerial systems," former FAA Administrator and AIA chief executive, Marion Blakey, recently told Reuters. But while
Blakey said Nobody's talking about using militarized drones in US civil airspace, she said the domestic drone industry needs to do
a better job to dispel public misperceptions about drones, despite the recent surveys indicating favorable public attitudes toward the
use of drones for public safety. The benefits for first responders The tremendous support that Americans have for the use of
unmanned aerial systems in the US underscores the publics understanding of the widespread benefits, said Michael Toscano,
president & CEO of AUVSI. Unmanned aircraft have the potential to be beneficial in a wide range of applications, from helping to
search for lost children and missing hikers to helping homeland security keep our borders safe. This public support shows the
importance of safely integrating [drones] into the national airspace in a timely manner. Unmanned aircraft increase human

potential, allowing us to execute dangerous or difficult tasks safely and efficiently, said Toscano, who stressed that Whether it is
helping first responders, advancing scientific research or making business more efficient, unmanned aerial systems are capable of
saving time, saving money and most importantly, saving lives. AUVSI Vice President Gretchen West also has said that a lot of the
public that doesnt understand much about drone technology consequently dont understand that for first responders, drones

are being used to do the same thing theyve used manned aircraft for years . The Gallup poll in March
found that on a relative basis, Americans are not paying a particularly high-level of attention to the controversy surrounding
governments use of drones. The poll found 49 percent, or about half of the persons surveyed, are following news about drones very
or somewhat closely. AUVSI's West echoed other authorities by saying its just that [drones] are more affordable and usually a
more efficient option. In response to outgoing FBI Director Robert Mueller telling lawmakers during a congressional hearing in
June that the Bureau has a few drones that it uses in a very minimal way and very seldom, Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo) said
unmanned aerial systems [do] have the potential to more efficiently and effectively perform law

enforcement duties Evan Baldwin Carr, a National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) research associate further
underscored that drones are being developed to aid agriculture and wildlife, monitor and fertilize crops and track wild animals, as
well as take scientific measurements for earth science research." They have also "aided the Department of Homeland Security with
monitoring the border and drug interdiction and could help domestic law enforcement with search and rescue, traffic monitoring
and surveillance. An earlier poll conducted by New Jersey-based Monmouth University Polling Institute in June, 2012, found An
overwhelming majority of Americans support the idea of using drones to help with search and rescue missions (80 percent), while
two-thirds of the public also support using drones to track down runaway criminals (67 percent) and control illegal immigration on
the nations border (64 percent). One area where Americans say that drones should not be used is to issue speeding tickets, the
Monmouth poll found. Only 23 percent support using drones for this routine police activity while a large majority of 67 percent
oppose the idea entirely. Americans clearly support using drone technology in special circumstances, but they are a bit leery of more
routine use by local law enforcement agencies, said Patrick Murray, director of Monmouth University Polling Institute. AUVSIs
Gielow said the poll showed citizens understand the vital benefits of using less costly drones for dangerous missions like first
responder search and rescue, fires and catastrophic disasters . An earlier poll, conducted last September by the

Associated Press-National Constitution Center, found that nearly half of the public, 44 percent,
support the use of drones by police, such as searching for missing children, surveillance of a
location ahead of a SWAT operation and other high risk policing activities . The use of small, remotely
controlled multi-sensor drone platforms are expected to become critical tools to aide and assist first responders, especially in high
risk law enforcement, fire and search and rescue circumstances. Their value certainly would be recognized in the event of a
widespread catastrophic disaster requiring identification of locations where immediate emergency or medical resources are needed.
In an effort to assist the nations first responders, DHSs Science & Technology (S&T) Directorate is testing a wide variety of SUAS
sensor platforms, including one that can determine whether individuals are armed or unarmed. They are evaluating whether they
are suitability for use by first responders and frontline homeland security professionals. Robotic aircraft tested for safety, reliability
Homeland Security Today first exclusively reported on S&Ts Borders and Maritime Security Divisions Robotic Aircraft for Public
Safety (RAPS) testing program being conducted in Oklahoma in conjunction with the University of Oklahoma. As the RAPS program
plan obtained by Homeland Security Today stated, the initiative involves testing sensor suites as part of testing small drones using
key performance measures in a variety of simulated but realistic, real-world operational scenarios that focus on the use of SUAS
technology in response to situations where human lives are in imminent danger. RAPS is designed to enhance the search and
rescue capabilities of first responders by increasing [their] situational awareness. SUAS sensors, for example, are being tested for
their ability to locate and provide the position of targets of interest satisfactorily for search and rescue personnel in a variety of
terrain and day conditions. To enhance fire and disaster response capabilities of first responders by increasing their situational
awareness, sensors mounted on both fixed- and rotary-wing drones weighing 25 pounds or less are being tested for their ability to
locate and provide the position of fire or hot spots despite the presence of objects that obscure their line-of-site; locate and provide
the position and concentration of chemical agents; and locate and provide the position and concentration of radiological agents. The
RAPS Test Plan explained Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems may soon become valuable tools for first and emergency responders
and for those responsible for US border security. It emphasized that SUAS can provide tactical, rapid-response capabilities and
much better situational awareness before field officers and agents respond to and engage in potentially dangerous operations. Many
so-called drones are already in use for military and homeland security purposes, and are quickly being developed for transition to
public safety, first responder and commercial applications, according to the new IHSS research paper, Unmanned Aircraft and the
Human Element: Public Perceptions and First Responder Concerns.

Err neg---theres huge public support for domestic drone surveillance despite
media negativity
Micah Zenko 12, Douglas Dillon fellow with the Center for Preventative Action at the CFR,
"Drone, Sweet Drone", June 21, foreignpolicy.com/2012/06/21/drone-sweet-drone/
The good news about domestic drones is that, unlike the "covert" missions conducted abroad by the
Pentagon and CIA, there is a great deal of publicly available information detailing their
bases, operational command and control, missions, and costs. And, in contrast to media
portrayals , domestic drones used for CBP missions enjoy measured support among
U.S. citizens . In a recent poll, 64 percent of respondents approved of the use of drones "to control
illegal immigration on the nations border," and 80 percent "to help with search and rescue

missions." (Sixty-seven percent were opposed to drones enforcing speed limits even though manned aircraft already perform
this function in 19 states across the country.)

No backlash on privacy now---strong safety restrictions already work

Kaveh Waddell 15, National Journal, "Few Privacy Limitations Exist on How Police Use
Drones", February 5, www.nationaljournal.com/tech/few-privacy-limitations-exist-on-howpolice-use-drones-20150205
The California state assembly passed a bill last year that would have required police to obtain a
warrant to fly drones in any event other than an "emergency situation." But Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed it
in September, because he said the exceptions the bill allowed "appear to be too narrow." While
advocates are worried that law enforcement could use drones in ways that violate citizens'
privacy, there's little fear that they're being abused yet . "Safety restrictions are so
strict that most police departments are still using them in quite limited ways ," the
ACLU's Stanley said. "This is still an issue of looking down the road to what we know is coming." The technology is new
enough that police groups are still grappling with its implications and limitations. "We're doing
some research right now to come up with some model policy," said John Thompson, deputy executive director
of the National Sheriffs' Association. "We don't have a statement or opinion on it at this point ."

Russia Impact D
No Russia war---no motive or capability
Betts 13 Richard is the Arnold A. Saltzman Professor of War and Peace Studies @ Columbia.
The Lost Logic of Deterrence, Foreign Affairs, March/April, Vol. 92, Issue 2, Online
These continuities with the Cold War would make sense only between intense adversaries. Washington and Moscow remain in an adversarial
relationship, but not an intense one. If the Cold War is really over, and the West really won, then continuing implicit deterrence does less to protect

it is now hard
to make the case that Russia is more a threat to NATO than the reverse. First, the East-West
balance of military capabilities, which at the height of the Cold War was favorable to the Warsaw Pact or at best even, has not
only shifted to NATO's advantage; it has become utterly lopsided . Russia is now a lonely
fraction of what the old Warsaw Pact was. It not only lost its old eastern European allies; those allies are now arrayed on the
other side, as members of NATO. By every significant measure of power -- military spending, men under
arms, population, economic strength, control of territory -- NATO enjoys massive advantages
over Russia. The only capability that keeps Russia militarily potent is its nuclear arsenal. There is no plausible way , however,
that Moscow's nuclear weapons could be used for aggression, except as a backstop for a
conventional offensive -- for which NATO's capabilities are now far greater. Russia's intentions
constitute no more of a threat than its capabilities. Although Moscow's ruling elites push
distasteful policies, there is no plausible way they could think a military attack on the West
would serve their interests. During the twentieth century, there were intense territorial conflicts between the two sides and a titanic
struggle between them over whose ideology would dominate the world. Vladimir Putin's Russia is authoritarian, but unlike the Soviet Union, it
is not the vanguard of a globe-spanning revolutionary ideal.
against a negligible threat from Russia than to feed suspicions that aggravate political friction. In contrast to during the Cold War,

Cold war calculations no longer apply neither side would consider war
Cartwright et al 12 [Gen (Ret) James Cartwright, former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff; Amb. Richard Burt, former ambassador to Germany and chief negotiator of START; Sen.
Chuck Hagel; Amb. Thomas Pickering, former ambassador to the UN; Gen. (Ret.) Jack Sheehan,
former Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic for NATO and Commander-in-Chief for the U.S.
Atlantic Command; GLOBAL ZERO U.S. NUcLEAR POLicy cOMMiSSiON REPORT,
http://orepa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/cartwright-report.pdf]
These illustrative next steps are possible and desirable for five basic reasons. First, mutual nuclear deterrence based
on the threat of nuclear retaliation to attack is no longer a cornerstone of the U.S.Russian security relationship. Security is mainly a state of mind, not a physical condition, and mutual assured
destruction (MAD) no longer occupies a central psychological or political space in the U.S.Russian relationship. To be sure, there remains a physical-technical side of MAD in our relations, but it is
increasingly peripheral. Nuclear planning for Cold War-style nuclear conflict between our
countries, driven largely by inertia and vested interests left over from the Cold War, functions on the margins using
outdated scenarios that are implausible today. There is no conceivable situation in the
contemporary world in which it would be in either countrys national security interest to
initiate a nuclear attack against the other side. Their current stockpiles (roughly 5,000 nuclear weapons each in
their active deployed and reserve arsenals) vastly exceed what is needed to satisfy reasonable requirements of deterrence
between the two countries as well as vis--vis third countries whose nuclear arsenals pale in comparison quantitatively.

Even a nuclear exchange would de-escalate

Quinlan 9 [Michael Quinlan, former British Permanent Under Secretary of State for Defence,
former Director of the Ditchley Foundation, Visiting Professor at King's College London,
Thinking About Nuclear Weapons: Principles, Problems, Prospects, Oxford University Press,
p. 63-4]
Even if initial nuclear use did not quickly end the fighting, the supposition of inexorable momentum in a
developing exchange, with each side rushing to overreaction amid confusion and uncertainty, is implausible.

It fails to consider what the situation of the decisionmakers would really be. Neither side
could want escalation. Both would be appalled at what was going on. Both would be desperately looking
for signs that the other was ready to call a halt . Both, given the capacity for evasion or concealment which
modern delivery platforms and vehicles can possess, could have in reserve significant forces invulnerable
enough not to entail use-or-lose pressures. (It may be more open to question, as noted earlier, whether newer
nuclear weapon possessors can be immediately in that position; but it is within reach of any substantial state
with advanced technological capabilities, and attaining it is certain to be a high priority in the development of
forces.) As a result, neither side can have any predisposition to suppose, in an ambiguous situation
of fearful risk, that the right course when in doubt is to go on copiously launching weapons.
And none of this analysis rests on any presumption of highly subtle or pre-concerted
rationality. The rationality required is plain.

Neg Offense

Terror DA 1NC Link

The plans regulations on drones wreck CT operations
Gregory McNeal 14, is a professor at Pepperdine University School of Law and a contributor to
Forbes. He is an expert in law and public policy with a specific focus on security, technology and
crime. Drones and Aerial Surveillance: Considerations For Legislators, November,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2014/10/drones-aerialsurveillance-legislators/Drones_Aerial_Surveillance_McNeal_FINAL.pdf?la=en
To counter the threat of surveillance, privacy advocates have focused solely on requiring warrants before
the use of drones by law enforcement. Such a mandate oftentimes will result in the
grounding of drone technology in circumstances where law enforcement use of drones
would be beneficial and largely non-controversial. For example, in light of the Boston
Marathon bombing, police may want to fly a drone above a marathon to ensure the safety of the public. Under many
bills, police would not be allowed to use a drone unless they had a warrant, premised upon
probable cause to believe a crime had been or was about to be committed. This requirement
exceeds current Fourth Amendment protections with regard to the reasonableness of observing
activities in public places. What this means is that the police would need to put together a warrant
application with sufficient facts to prove to a judge that they had probable cause. That application
would need to define with particularity the place to be searched or the persons to be surveilled. All of this would be required to
observe people gathered in a public place, merely because the observation was taking place from a drone, rather than from an officer
on a rooftop or in a helicopter. In a circumstance like a marathon, this probable cause showing will be difficult for the police to
satisfy. After all, if the police knew who in the crowd was a potential bomber, they would arrest those individuals. Rather, a

marathon is the type of event where the police would want to use a drone to monitor for
unknown attackers, and in the unfortunate event of an attack, use the footage to identify the
perpetrators. This is precisely the type of circumstance where the use of drone could be helpful ,
but unfortunately it has been outlawed in many states. To make matters worse, this type of
drone surveillance would pose little to no harms to privacy.

Terror DA AT: Impact D

Err neg---the risk of terrorism is latent and non-apparent---surveillance is key to
prevent attacks even if the risk doesnt seem high
James Andrew Lewis 14, senior fellow and director of the Strategic Technologies Program at
the Center for Strategic and International Studies, December 2014, Underestimating Risk in
the Surveillance Debate,
http://csis.org/files/publication/141209_Lewis_UnderestimatingRisk_Web.pdf
Americans are reluctant to accept terrorism is part of their daily lives, but attacks have been
planned or attempted against American targets (usually airliners or urban areas) almost every
year since 9/11. Europe faces even greater risk, given the thousands of European Union citizens
who will return hardened and radicalized from fighting in Syria and Iraq.
The threat of attack is easy to exaggerate, but that does not mean it is nonexistent. Australias
then-attorney general said in August 2013 that communications surveillance had stopped four
mass casualty events since 2008. The constant planning and preparation for attack by
terrorist groups is not apparent to the public. The dilemma in assessing risk is that it is
discontinuous. There can be long periods with no noticeable activity, only to have the apparent
calm explode.
The debate over how to reform communications surveillance has discounted this risk.
Communications surveillance is an essential law enforcement and intelligence tool . There is no
replacement for it. Some suggestions for alternative approaches to surveillance, such as the idea
that the National Security Agency (NSA) only track known or suspected terrorists, reflect
wishful thinking , as it is the unknown terrorist who will inflict the greatest harm.

1NC Politics Link

The plans massively unpopular---iron triangle of support for unrestricted drone
usage
Jefferson Morley 12, Salon, "The drones are coming - to America", April 10,
www.salon.com/2012/04/10/the_drones_are_coming_to_america/
The opening of domestic airspace to drones has been driven by industry and the Pentagon without much
attention to privacy and civil liberties issues. The drones, first developed in the 1990s, became popular with U.S. military commanders in
Iraq and Afghanistan as a way of targeting enemies without risking U.S. soldiers. As those wars wind down, the Pentagon is
looking to expand their use outside of war theaters. The stuff from Afghanistan is going to come back, Steve
Pennington, the Air Forces director of ranges, bases and airspace, said at a drone conference in February, according to the Los Angeles Times. The
Department of Defense doesnt want a segregated environment for operating drones. We want a fully integrated environment. The

integration of drones into U.S. airspace has already begun with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency of the
Department of Homeland Security, now operating nine drones from sites along the countrys northern and southern borders, according to director
Michael Kostelnik, a retired Air Force general. The CPB shares information with Immigration Customs Enforcement and other law enforcement
agencies, he said in an interview. With

the emergence of the Unmanned Systems Caucus on Capitol Hill,

domestic drones are now backed by the proverbial iron triangle of Washington
policymaking : congressional committees, executive branch agencies and the private sector.
The drone caucus, a group of 53 representatives, 16 of whom come from districts in Southern California and Texas where drone contractors
are concentrated, led the push to force the FAA to open the airspace to law enforcement immediately
and to the commercial drones by 2015. The caucus defines its mission as educating Congress and the public on the strategic,
tactical, and scientific value of unmanned systems and to actively supporting further development and acquisition of more systems. The
caucus enjoys the backing of the defense industry . The co-chairs of the caucus, Reps. Buck McKeon, R-Calif.,
and Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, received $64,000 and $7,400, respectively, from General Atomics, the firm that developed the first military drones,
according to the Center for Responsive Politics. So

far during the 2012 campaign cycle the General Atomics PAC has
contributed $68,500 to 15 drone caucus members, reports the Texas Independent. The caucus, in turn, works
closely with the drone industry, says Toscano of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International. The only
changes made to the [unmanned aviation systems] section of the House FAA bill were made at
the request of AUVSI, according to a PowerPoint presentation made by Toscano and obtained by Republic Report. Our
suggestions were often taken word-for-word, Toscano boasted
a phone interview.

at the time, a claim he repeated in

2NC/1NR Politics Link Wall

Drone lobby interests outweigh link turns---its hugely powerful
Glenn Greenwald 13, 3-30, The US Needs To Wake Up To Threat Of Domestic Drones,"
Business Insider, http://www.businessinsider.com/drone-threats-strikes-us-2013-3
One significant reason why this proliferation of domestic drones has become so likely is the
emergence of a powerful drone lobby . I detailed some of how that lobby is functioning here, so will
simply note this passage from a recent report from the ACLU of Iowa on its attempts to persuade legislators to enact statutory limits
on the use of domestic drones: "Drones have their own trade group, the Association for Unmanned Aerial

Systems International, which includes some of the nation's leading aerospace companies. And
Congress now has 'drone caucuses' in both the Senate and House ." Howie Klein has been one of
the few people focusing on the massive amounts of money from the drone industry now flowing into
the coffers of key Congressional members from both parties in this "drone caucus". Suffice to say,
there is an enormous profit to be made from exploiting the domestic drone marke t, and as usual,
that factor is thus far driving the (basically nonexistent) political response to these
threats .
The plan sparks a fight between Democrats and law enforcement
Pete Kasperowicz 12, The Hill, 6/13, Sen. Paul proposes bill protecting Americans from drone
surveillance," http://thehill.com/policy/technology/232489-sen-paul-proposes-bill-protectingamericans-from-drone-surveillance
While drone surveillance in the United States would undoubtedly prove controversial , the
use of drones is currently a topic of international concern. Some Democrats have said the use of drones to disrupt
terrorist networks is hurting America's image overseas. Additionally, the United Nations is considering an investigation
into drone airstrikes inside Pakistan, which could focus on the rate of civilian casualties caused by these attacks. Congress has
ordered the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to move toward allowing drones to fly
alongside commercial aircraft in U.S. airspace by 2015 . The FAA is planning a pilot program to test fly drones in
six locations, but will not set the rules for what the unmanned aircraft can be used for. Law enforcement agencies and
state and local governments have expressed a strong interest in unmanned aircraft , and are
being courted as potential customers by the booming drone industry. There is opposition, however,
from groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) that have raised concerns about
the impact of the drones on privacy.
Massive opposition to regulating domestic drones
Tom Barry 12, 4-5, Drones Flying Under the Radar", Truthout.org,
http://www.ciponline.org/research/entry/drones-flying-under-radar
In the seven years that the CIA and US military have deployed killer drones, the US Congress has
never once debated the new commitment to drone operations. Although the CIA and the US military now
routinely direct intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) operations that enter foreign airspace, these interventions
haven't been subject to serious Congressional review. Drone operations often proceed without any authorization
or knowledge of the intervened nations . On the domestic front, local police and Homeland Security agents
are also enthusiastically deploying drones for law enforcement and border security missions. At
all levels, government in the United States is sidelining mounting civil rights, privacy and air
safety concerns. The US Congress functions more as a booster for the drone
industry than as a regulator .

Drones are increasingly controversial in Washington---exceptions arent agreed

upon
Nancy Watzman 14, Sunlight Foundation, "Influence Analytics: Drones in domestic skies",
October 8, sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/10/08/influence-analytics-drones-in-domesticskies/
Drones in Congress. Drones are becoming a popular and controversial topic of both speechifying
and bill writing on Capitol Hill . Most famously, in March 2013, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., filibustered for
more than 13 hours against the use of drones in surveillance of the general population as a way to put off the
nomination vote for President Barack Obama's pick to head the CIA, John Brennan a filibuster reflected in this chart from Capitol
Words, which shows a huge spike that month with 155 mentions. Rand has sponsored a bill that would prohibit

the federal government from using a drone to gather evidence about criminal conduct of individuals but
with the notable exceptions of illegal immigrants, for countering terrorist attacks and "by law enforcement under
exigent circumstances." He was criticized by some admirers soon after for doing an "about face" on
his strong anti-drone stance by saying on Fox News that it's ok to use drones to crack down on a crime in action.
called him out for saying he supports using drones to track down
Guantanamo Bay prisoners who are planning terrorist attacks . Overall, at least ten bills have been
introduced concerning use of drones by the federal government since January 2013, according to a
search in OpenCongress. Most are sponsored by Republicans who do not want the C entral Intelligence
Agency to have authority to use drones. However, Sens. Ed Markey, D-Mass.; Mark Udall, D-Colo.; and Rep.
Peter Welch, D-Vt., have all sponsored bills that address possible privacy concerns as the FAA opens up air
In June of this year, MSNBC

space to use of drones.