Cdl core Files 2015-2016 cdl core Files
*** Drone Negative 1NC Advantage Frontlines
Download 1.69 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 2. The FBI does not undertake long-term, warrantless, surveillance missions- specific, targeted instances do not violate the 4 th amendment
- 1NC Civil Liberties FRONTLINE
- 2. Privacy invasions are inevitable- drone technology is not uniquely harmful
- 1NC Credibility FRONTLINE
- There is no impact to global warming- most data on climate change is flawed
- There’s no internal link- global perception of U.S. civil liberties has little bearing on U.S. credibility
- 1NC Innovation FRONTLINE
- Drone innovation is inevitable- the plan’s boost in not necessary
- 3. The Drone industry is resilient- it can withstand a lack of public support
- 1. Turn- the aff’s characterization of drones is overblown- their insistence on regulating drones leaves the most pernicious forms of piloted aerial surveillance intact
*** Drone Negative1NC Advantage Frontlines1NC Inherency FRONTLINE1. The affirmative is not inherent, the federal government is increasing oversight of drone use in the status quoWashington Post 2015- “FAA rules might allow thousands of business drones”, Feb 15 http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/faa-releases-proposed-rules-for-domestic-drone-use/2015/02/15/6787bdce-b51b-11e4-a200-c008a01a6692_story.html While the FAA rules are designed to exploit the economic potential of drones without jeopardizing aviation safety, the order issued Sunday by President Obama is intended to safeguard personal privacy and require the federal government to be more forthcoming about when and where it uses drones to conduct surveillance.¶ All federal agencies, for example, would have to disclose where they conduct drone operations within the United States, as well as their policies for storing and protecting personal information collected from surveillance flights. Agencies would also have to issue an annual report detailing the types of missions they flew in the previous year.¶ The order will have a large impact on the Defense Department and law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, which uses drones to patrol the nation’s borders. The FBI has been especially secretive about its drone operations, even ducking lawmakers’ queries about how many it has and how often they are used.¶ “It is a very big deal and a very positive step,” said Lisa Ellman, a former Justice Department official who helped prepare the presidential order and works on drone issues as a lawyer in private practice. The agencies, she said, “understand that even with all the benefits of drones, the American public has concerns — concerns about privacy and concerns about accountability.”¶ In addition, Obama directed the Commerce Department to work with companies and the drone industry to develop a voluntary code of conduct for the private sector regarding surveillance and privacy protections. 2. The FBI does not undertake long-term, warrantless, surveillance missions- specific, targeted instances do not violate the 4th amendmentWashington Times 2013- Stephan Dinan, July 29, “FBI says it doesn’t need warrant to use drones” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/29/fbi-says-it-doesnt-need-warrant-use-drones/ The FBI has told Congress it does not need to get a warrant to conduct surveillance with drones, in a letter laying out some of the top federal law enforcement agency’s policies for how it uses unmanned aerial vehicles.¶ In a July 19 letter to Sen. Rand Paul, Stephen D. Kelly, assistan t director for the FBI’s congressional liaison office, said the agency has used drones in 10 instances, including twice for “national security” cases and eight times for criminal cases. The FBI authorized the use of drones in three other criminal cases but didn’t deploy them.¶ Then, in a follow-up letter Mr. Paul released Monday, Mr. Kelly said they don’t believe they ever need to obtain a warrant to conduct drone surveillance as long as it’s done within guidelines.¶ He said they take their lead from several Supreme Court cases that don’t deal directly with drones but do cover manned aerial surveillance. In those cases the court ruled that a long as the areas observed were in public view and no law enforcement officer was trespassing, no privacy rights were violated.¶ In one case a concurring opinion by one of the justices said that there could be a problem if an agency were conducting long-term warrantless surveillance of someone in public, because that could constitute an unreasonable search in violation of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment.¶ “We do not use UAVs to undertake such surveillance,” Mr. Kelly said.¶ Mr. Paul had been holding up the nomination of James B. Comey Jr. to become the new FBI director, using the blockade as a way to try to force the administration to divulge more information on the FBI’s drone surveillance.¶ Current Director Robert S. Mueller III revealed the agency’s use of drones in a congressional hearing earlier this summer. 1NC Civil Liberties FRONTLINE
Cummiskey 1990 David, Professor of Philosophy, Bates, Kantian Consequentialism, Ethics 100.3, p 601-2, p 606, jstor We must not obscure the issue by characterizing this type of case as the sacrifice of individuals for some abstract "social entity." It is not a question of some persons having to bear the cost for some elusive "overall social good." Instead, the question is whether some persons must bear the inescapable cost for the sake of other persons. Nozick, for example, argues that "to use a person in this way does not sufficiently respect and take account of the fact that he is a separate person, that his is the only life he has."30 Why, however, is this not equally true of all those that we do not save through our failure to act? By emphasizing solely the one who must bear the cost if we act, one fails to sufficiently respect and take account of the many other separate persons, each with only one life, who will bear the cost of our inaction. In such a situation, what would a conscientious Kantian agent, an agent motivated by the unconditional value of rational beings, choose? We have a duty to promote the conditions necessary for the existence of rational beings, but both choosing to act and choosing not to act will cost the life of a rational being. Since the basis of Kant's principle is "rational nature exists as an end-in-itself' (GMM, p. 429), the reasonable solution to such a dilemma involves promoting, insofar as one can, the conditions necessary for rational beings. If I sacrifice some for the sake of other rational beings, I do not use them arbitrarily and I do not deny the unconditional value of rational beings. Persons may have "dignity, an unconditional and incomparable value" that transcends any market value (GMM, p. 436), but, as rational beings, persons also have a fundamental equality which dictates that some must sometimes give way for the sake of others. The formula of the end-in-itself thus does not support the view that we may never force another to bear some cost in order to benefit others. If one focuses on the equal value of all rational beings, then equal consideration dictates that one sacrifice some to save many. [continues] According to Kant, the objective end of moral action is the existence of rational beings. Respect for rational beings requires that, in deciding what to do, one give appropriate practical consideration to the unconditional value of rational beings and to the conditional value of happiness. Since agent-centered constraints require a non-value-based rationale, the most natural interpretation of the demand that one give equal respect to all rational beings lead to a consequentialist normative theory. We have seen that there is no sound Kantian reason for abandoning this natural consequentialist interpretation. In particular, a consequentialist interpretation does not require sacrifices which a Kantian ought to consider unreasonable, and it does not involve doing evil so that good may come of it. It simply requires an uncompromising commitment to the equal value and equal claims of all rational beings and a recognition that, in the moral consideration of conduct, one's own subjective concerns do not have overriding importance 2. Privacy invasions are inevitable- drone technology is not uniquely harmfulThompson 2013 – Richard, legislative attorney, April, “Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations: Fourth Amendment Implications and Legislative Responses” Congressional Research Service https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42701.pdf The crucial question, then, is whether drones have the potential to be significantly more invasive than traditional surveillance technologies such as manned aircraft or low-powered cameras— technologies that have been upheld in previous cases. In this vein, some have asked whetherusing sophisticated digital platforms on a drone is any different from attaching the same instrument to a lamppost or traditional aircraft.108 Take, for example, the tracking of license plates. Currently, many states and municipalities employ automatic license plate readers (ALPRs), which are usually mounted on police vehicles or stationary objects along the streets, to take a snapshot of a license plate as a car drives by, and store this information in a large database for possible later use by law enforcement.109 It is alleged that these devices can be used to track a person’s movements when police aggregate the data from a multitude of ALPR stations.110 A majority of the reviewing federal circuit courts have held that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his license plate number.111 3. Reject their internal link evidence- Malko does not say that drone use would undermine the 4th amendment, just that the FBI will use the technology, they have to prove that these searches would occur without a warrant1NC Credibility FRONTLINE
Haas, 2008 (Richard Haas (president of the Council on Foreign Relations, former director of policy planning for the Department of State, former vice president and director of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution, the Sol M. Linowitz visiting professor of international studies at Hamilton College, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a lecturer in public policy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, and a research associate at the International Institute for Strategic Studies) April 2008 “Ask the Expert: What Comes After Unipolarity?” http://www.cfr.org/publication/16063/ask_the_expert.html) Does a non polar world increase or reduce the chances of another world war? Will nuclear deterrence continue to prevent a large scale conflict? Sivananda Rajaram, UK Richard Haass: I believe the chance of a world war, i.e., one involving the major powers of the day, is remote and likely to stay that way. This reflects more than anything else the absence of disputes or goals that could lead to such a conflict. Nuclear deterrence might be a contributing factor in the sense that no conceivable dispute among the major powers would justify any use of nuclear weapons, but again, I believe the fundamental reason great power relations are relatively good is that all hold a stake in sustaining an international order that supports trade and financial flows and avoids large-scale conflict. The danger in a nonpolar world is not global conflict as we feared during the Cold War but smaller but still highly costly conflicts involving terrorist groups, militias, rogue states, etc.
Contescu 2012– Professor Emeritus of Geology and Geography at Roosevelt University, Ph.D. (Lorin, "600 MILION YEARS OF CLIMATE CHANGE; A CRITIQUE OF THE ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING HYPOTESIS FROM A TIME-SPACE PERSPECTIVE”, Geo-Eco-Marina, 2012, Issue 18, pgs. 5-25, peer reviewed, Proquest,) It is true that temperatures are collected throughout the world, but this is not really a correct statement since 90% of the measuring stations are and were emplaced and located on land. Of these, a clear majority covered the territories of North America and Europe. Observations from Asia, South America and Africa were much sparser and the measuring stations were antiquated so that the information they provided was less reliable. But the most important reservation concerning the accuracy of data from measuring stations is their emplacement in or near the cities or towns which are known as "urban heat islands". The buildings, the pavement, the buses and cars, are all traps of heat that they release later, distorting the temperature of the area. It is claimed that appropriate means and statistical measures were taken to clean and correct the data, but it is doubtful that such measures have been taken in all urban agglomerations, but the real large ones. Thus, some scientists are convinced that "Earth's surface thermometers are heavily skewed by urban heat islands and overstate surface warming by as much as 40%" (Singer and Avery, 2007).
Stokes 2014- Bruce, director of global economic attitudes at the Pew Research Center http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/30/did-nsa-snooping-hurt-u-s-image-not-so-much/ But U.S. spying has tarnished America’s image as a staunch defender of the personal freedoms of its own people, long one of the positive attributes of U.S. soft power.¶ Admiration for America as a defender of such civil liberties has dropped significantly in 22 of 36 nations where there is comparable data for 2013 and 2014. NSA actions have particularly hurt the U.S. reputation in Brazil, where belief that Uncle Sam respects Americans’ freedoms is down 25 percentage points, and in Germany, where it is down 23 points. Drops of 20 points or more are also found in El Salvador, Pakistan, Argentina, Spain and Russia.¶ Still, half or more of the public in 33 of 44 nations surveyed still think that Washington safeguards Americans’ freedoms. And the U.S. image as a protector of personal liberties remains quite strong in a number of Asian nations: South Korea, Philippines, Japan and Vietnam; and also in the Middle East, in Lebanon and Israel.¶ NSA spying has also helped erode President Obama’s standing in some countries. A median of 56 percent in the 43 countries outside the United States have confidence in Obama to do the right thing in world affairs, largely unchanged from last year. But his image is down 17 percentage points in both Germany and Brazil, again the countries where Obama administration’s alleged spying on their leaders was a major domestic issue.¶ But revelations of NSA snooping have had no appreciable effect on America’s overall standing in the world. A global median of 65 percent see the United States in a favorable light. And the global public’s judgment of the United States is largely unchanged from 2013.
Salehyan 2007 – Professor of Political Science – University of North Texas (Idean, “The New Myth About Climate Change”, Foreign Policy, August 13 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3922) First, aside from a few anecdotes, there is little systematic empirical evidence that resource scarcity and changing environmental conditions lead to conflict. In fact, several studies have shown that an abundance of natural resources is more likely to contribute to conflict. Moreover, even as the planet has warmed, the number of civil wars and insurgencies has decreased dramatically. Data collected by researchers at Uppsala University and the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo shows a steep decline in the number of armed conflicts around the world. Between 1989 and 2002, some 100 armed conflicts came to an end, including the wars in Mozambique, Nicaragua, and Cambodia. If global warming causes conflict, we should not be witnessing this downward trend. Furthermore, if famine and drought led to the crisis in Darfur, why have scores of environmental catastrophes failed to set off armed conflict elsewhere? For instance, the U.N. World Food Programme warns that 5 million people in Malawi have been experiencing chronic food shortages for several years. But famine-wracked Malawi has yet to experience a major civil war. Similarly, the Asian tsunami in 2004 killed hundreds of thousands of people, generated millions of environmental refugees, and led to severe shortages of shelter, food, clean water, and electricity. Yet the tsunami, one of the most extreme catastrophes in recent history, did not lead to an outbreak of resource wars. Clearly then, there is much more to armed conflict than resource scarcity and natural disasters.
McNeal, 2014 Gregory, 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-aerial-surveillance-legislators/Drones_Aerial_Surveillance_McNeal_FINAL.pdf?la=en, /Bingham-MB The domestic use of drones by law enforcement is a popular topic following passage of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. The act directed that the FAA must integrate unmanned aircraft systems—drones—into the national airspace by September of 2015. A number of organizations have expressed concern over the possibility that thousands of drones will be crowding the skies, some armed with sophisticated cameras. The ACLU, for example, has been quite vocal in its criticism releasing a report that sets out their concerns over the prospect of intrusive aerial surveillance without proper safeguards. While a robust public debate over the use of domestic drones is warranted, the conclusion that widespread privacy violations are imminent is premature. While the FAA Modernization and Reform Act seeks the integration of unmanned aircraft into U.S. airspace by September 30, 2015, most of the provisions dealing with unmanned aircraft create a broad framework under which the FAA can explore the uses and feasibility of integration of this new technology. The key sections of the law direct the Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of the FAA to draft plans, standards, and rules to ensure that drone integration proceeds in a safe and legal manner. In short, this is a public process where civil liberties and privacy groups will no doubt have a voice in crafting rules, and that voice seems to be at least as effective as the industry association’s voice. What is left out of the process is what state and local governments will do with the technology, and that is the primary focus of this paper. 3. The Drone industry is resilient- it can withstand a lack of public supportThompson 2015 (Cadie Thompson, CNBC, “Here’s where the real money is in drones”, http://www.cnbc.com/id/102676023, May 13, 2015) The drone industry is expected to climb to a whopping $8.4 billion by 2019, according to ABI Research. But most of that growth won't come from selling hardware. Instead, it's all the applications and services on top of the hardware (sometimes literally), that hold the big opportunity, said industry experts. All about commercial drone services "Application services, data services, licensing and legal services—once you start adding all of this into the mix, the size of the marketplace starts growing very, very quickly," said Dan Kara, an ABI Research analyst, at the RoboUniverse Conference this week in New York. "The money to be made is actually in the application space to a large degree," he said. Companies playing in this space include those like PrecisionHawk—which combines unmanned aerial systems with information delivery and sensing technologies to enhance business operations for a slew of different industries—and Airware, a developer of drone software, hardware and cloud services. "So the services [offered by drones] are stored, manipulated and optimized depending on what you are looking for. It's then georeferenced and tagged in a way that you can access that data in the cloud," Kara said. "So really what it is is not a drone delivery platform, it's actually an information services architecture." Last month, Airware launched an operating system for commercial drones to help big companies both scale their drone operations, and to help them adhere to safety regulations and insurance requirements. Read More Drone driver Airware ready to take flight "Big companies like GE, they can take a small consumer system, and they can take some pictures, but what happens when they need to use hundreds of them?" said Jesse Kallman, director of business development and regulatory affairs for Airware. "How do you do that safely and reliably? How do you do that at scale? How do you get certification for these types of systems?" Kallman said. "[Big companies] are not going to use this technology unless it's proven to be safe," he said. Read More FAA makes big step for drones Follow the money In total, VC funding in drone companies was more than $108 million across 29 deals in 2014, according to data from CB Insights. According to the research firm, Airware was the best-funded drone start-up in 2014, having raised a total of $40 million from venture capital firms including Kleiner Perkins Caufield Byers, Andreessen Horowitz and First Round Capital. Last month, the company also received an undisclosed investment amount from Intel Capital, which is also invested in PrecisionHawk. "It's a data play. We are going to sell servers and we are going to sell chipsets based on getting this new class of information that we couldn't get before in the same degree in the same amounts," Kara said. Traditional drone suppliers both in the consumer and military space are aware this is where the money is flowing and are all trying to get a piece of the action, he said. For example, more consumer-focused drone makers are adding more advanced capabilities, and military drones, which are typically single-purpose, are beginning to add more technologies so that they can be used for many different scenarios. "Every drone supplier knows this, they recognize this. So you see the military and civil guys moving down and adding new technologies and the prosumer folks are also upgrading their systems," Kara said. 1NC Solvency FRONTLINE1. Turn- the aff’s characterization of drones is overblown- their insistence on regulating drones leaves the most pernicious forms of piloted aerial surveillance intactMcNeal 2014- Gregory, professor, Pepperdine University, School of Law, “Drones and ¶ Aerial Surveillance: ¶ Considerations For Legislators” Brookings Institute http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2014/10/drones-aerial-surveillance-legislators/Drones_Aerial_Surveillance_McNeal_FINAL.pdf?la=en The looming prospect of expanded use of unmanned aerial vehicles, colloquially known as drones, has raised understandable concerns for lawmakers.[1] Those concerns have led some to call for legislation mandating that nearly all uses of drones be prohibited unless the government has first obtained a warrant. Privacy advocates have mounted a lobbying campaign that has succeeded in convincing thirteen states to enact laws regulating the use of drones by law enforcement, with eleven of those thirteen states requiring a warrant before the government may use a drone.[2] The campaigns mounted by privacy advocates oftentimes make a compelling case about the threat of pervasive surveillance, but the legislation is rarely tailored in such a way to prevent the harm that advocates fear. In fact, in every state where legislation was passed, the new laws are focused on the technology (drones) not the harm (pervasive surveillance). In many cases, this technology centric approach creates perverse results, allowing the use of extremely sophisticated pervasive surveillance technologies from manned aircraft, while disallowing benign uses of drones for mundane tasks like accident and crime scene documentation, or monitoring of industrial pollution and other environmental harms.
Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2015 2015 -> Police Militarization 2015 -> 2015 ihbb championships: hs history Bowl Round 4 – Prelims First Quarter 2015 -> Wrtp/big step · 3841 W. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, wi 53208 2015 -> Rao bulletin 1 December 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Darton College 2015 -> Training Workshop on Planning and Implementation of Multi-Sectoral Development Programme (MsDP) in Bihar Date : 6th 2015 -> Rao bulletin 15 June 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Rao bulletin 1 September 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Rao bulletin 1 August 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Science, and transportation united states senate Download 1.69 Mb. Share with your friends:
|