**A2- Hillary Good- No Link

**A2- Hillary Good- No Link

2AC Hillary Good- Drone Affirmative- No Link

Notably, this may be one area where an actual bipartisan/trans-partisan alliance can meaningfully emerge, as most advocates working on these issues with whom I've spoken say that libertarian-minded GOP state legislators have been as responsive as more left-wing Democratic ones in working to impose some limits. One bill now pending in Congress would prohibit the use of surveillance drones on US soil in the absence of a specific search warrant, and has bipartisan support. Only the most authoritarian among us will be incapable of understanding the multiple dangers posed by a domestic drone regime (particularly when their party is in control of the government and they are incapable of perceiving threats from increased state police power). But the proliferation of domestic drones affords a real opportunity to forge an enduring coalition in defense of core privacy and other rights that transcends partisan allegiance, by working toward meaningful limits on their use. Making people aware of exactly what these unique threats are from a domestic drone regime is the key first step in constructing that coalition.

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner's Opening Statement on 'Clean Up Government Act of 2011' In the wake of rising apprehensions over using drones for domestic surveillance purposes, a bipartisan group of legislators is trying to restrict the use of unmanned observation aircraft or "eyes in the sky.” Republican Reps. James Sensenbrenner and Ted Poe have teamed up with Democrat Rep. Zoe Lofgren to sponsor legislation aimed at codifying due process shields for US citizens regarding drones. It would also prohibit the use of armed drones in the US. "Every advancement in crime fighting technology, from wiretaps to DNA, has resulted in courts carving out the Constitutional limits within which the police operate," Sensenbrenner said at a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing Friday on the issues surrounding drones, according to Fox News. Virginia, Florida, Montana and Idaho have already approved laws to restrict the use of drones by police. According to a computation by the American Civil Liberties Union, laws to restrict drone use has been proposed in 41 states and is operational in 32 states. Moreover, pressure is increasing at the federal level to restrict the domestic use of drones. It is pertinent to mention here that the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations has proposed to hold a hearing called "Eyes in the Sky: The Domestic Use of Unmanned Aerial Systems."

2AC Hillary Good- Stingray Affirmative- No Link

The public has been clamoring for more oversight over the use of stingray technology- the plan is a positive for democrats

Washington Post 2015- “Secrecy around police surveillance equipment proves a case’s undoing” https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/secrecy-around-police-surveillance-equipment-proves-a-cases-undoing/2015/02/22/ce72308a-b7ac-11e4-aa05-1ce812b3fdd2_story.html, Feb 22

The secrecy surrounding the device’s use has begun to prompt a backlash in cities across the country. In Baltimore, a judge is pushing back against the refusal of police officers to answer questions while testifying. In Charlotte, following a newspaper investigation, the state’s attorney is reviewing whether prosecutors ­illegally withheld information about the device’s use from defendants. In Tacoma, Wash., after a separate newspaper investigation found that judges in almost 200 cases had no idea they were issuing orders for the StingRay, the courts set new rules requiring police to disclose the tool’s use. The state legislature is weighing a bill to regulate police use of the equipment.¶ The FBI and Tallahassee police say that the device is used only with an appropriate court order and that they do not collect the content of calls or text messages. The FBI also said it retains only location data that is relevant to an investigation and immediately discards all other data.¶ So far, there is virtually no case law on how the Fourth Amendment — which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures — should apply to this technology.

2AC Hillary Good- Security Letters - No Link

The public is asking for more oversight over security letters

Huffington Post 2015- Matt Sledge, “The Gaping Hole In Obama's FBI Surveillance Reform” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/04/national-security-letter-reform_n_6617572.html, Feb 2

For years, Crocker and other lawyers at the privacy watchdog have been fighting to force the federal government to reveal in court the name of a phone company challenging one gag order. A federal district judge handed the foundation a major victory in 2013, ruling that the gag order violates the First Amendment's right to free speech. The case -- which stems from a 2011 government order -- has remained on appeal since then.¶ The FBI has wielded national security letters for decades, but the authority to do so was vastly expanded by the post-9/11 Patriot Act. Department of Justice inspector general reports released since then have documented widespread abuse of the letters. But the bureau keeps using them, to the tune of 21,000 letters in the 2012 fiscal year.¶ Because the recipients of all those letters are often barred by the gag orders from speaking out, their voices in the debate has been silenced. That changed a little in 2010, when Nicholas Merrill was finally able to reveal as the result of a long court battle that his small Internet service provider had received a letter -- in 2004.¶ Merrill was back in court in December, trying to force the government to allow him to reveal what it had sought (he never supplied them with any of data after the government backed down on its original request, but that portion of the gag order still stands).¶ If the reforms announced this week have affected his case, Merrill wrote to HuffPost in an email, "nobody has told me." He said the government has shown no sign of surrender in trying to block him from speaking out.¶ The White House last year rejected a review panel's proposal to make national security letters subject to court order. Administration counterterrorism adviser Lisa Monaco heralded the minor changes to some national security letters' gag orders in a statement on Tuesday.¶ Merrill was unimpressed.¶ "The issue at hand is that the government doesn't want me to discuss what was in the third page of the (national security letter) I received, namely, the types of data they demanded (and I did not hand over)," Merrill wrote. "The problem with not being able to discuss that openly, is that is the heart of the public policy issue -- what kinds of information can the government get on an innocent citizen without a warrant, or even any suspicion of wrongdoing.”

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: