Cdl core Files 2015-2016 cdl core Files
**CISA DISADVANTAGE Negative 1NC- CISA DISADVANTAGE
Download 1.69 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 2. Link- The plan restricts government surveillance- CISA will be deemed necessary to bridge the gap
- 5. Impact- the collapse of the economic system creates great power wars
**CISA DISADVANTAGE Negative1NC- CISA DISADVANTAGE1. Uniqueness- CISA will not pass in the status quo- too much senate oppositionWashington Examiner 2015 - “Senate vote falls short of approving defense act with CISA amendment”¶ http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/senate-vote-falls-short-of-approving-defense-act-with-cisa-amendment/article/2566527, June 22 Memories are long in the Senate, and it will probably take Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., more than a week or two to get over the rebuff he suffered on the floor when he tried to attach cybersecurity legislation as an amendment to a pending defense bill.¶ That procedural gambit was blocked on June 11 by most Democrats and three Republicans, just days after McConnell's move to renew National Security Agency surveillance authorities was similarly rejected.¶ Last week, McConnell walked away from a reporter without comment when asked about prospects in July for the cybersecurity bill, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing Act, which would encourage the sharing of cyberthreat indicators between government and industry with liability protection for participating companies. Critics of the bill say it places more personal information in government hands and raises profound concerns over privacy. And that it could also open the door to retributive hacking by government and private companies.¶ Later, McConnell said the cyber bill "is important, it's a priority, we will continue to look for a way forward." 2. Link- The plan restricts government surveillance- CISA will be deemed necessary to bridge the gapFlores 2014- Christian, Medill school of journalism reporter, “CISA puts Congress in rough spot”¶ http://nationalsecurityzone.org/site/cisa-puts-congress-in-rough-spot/ The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence passed the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2014 – or CISA – last month. But, as with recent attempts at passing other cyber security bills, Congress is once again put in a delicate position.¶ On the one hand, past cyber attacks from China and Russia – as well as the fear of future ones – has led Congress to try and step up with cybersecurity bills.¶ “The continued cybercriminal activity and threats have become so great that everyone realizes something has to be done,” said Jerry Irvine of the National Cyber Security Task Force. “While this may not be the best or even the correct reaction, it is necessary to get something in place now.”¶ But that last part about the bill perhaps not being the best or correct reaction has been the exact complaint by those opposed to the perceived privacy intrusions that come tacked on to CISA.¶ “The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence…continues to attempt to expand the ability of the government to engage in mass surveillance of online communications by Americans without adequate protections for privacy…while at the same time shielding companies providing this information from consequences even if they violate the law,” said Ray Trygstad, a retired U.S. Navy Security Manager and current Associate Director of Cyber Security and Forensics Education at the Illinois Institute of Technology.¶ The proposed bill – drafted by Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Vice Chairman Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) – removes legal barriers for private companies to share cyber threat information with the government voluntarily. This means companies will receive liability protection for the data sharing if used for cyber security purposes. The government can also share information with the companies.¶ CISA passed the Intelligence Committee with an overwhelming 12-3 vote. But U.S. Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) have been two of the most vocal senators opposed to CISA, stating concerns over the combination of the lack of privacy protections and the bill perhaps not materially improving cyber security. They issued the following statement:¶ “Cyber-attacks on U.S. firms and infrastructure pose a serious threat to America’s economic health and national security. We agree there is a need for information-sharing between the federal government and private companies about cybersecurity threats and how to defend against them.. However, we have seen how the federal government has exploited loopholes to collect Americans’ private information in the name of security The only way to make cybersecurity information-sharing effective and acceptable is to ensure that there are strong protections for Americans’ constitutional privacy rights. Without these protections in place, private companies will rightly see participation as bad for business.”¶ An Electronic Frontier Foundation – or EFF – article and Trygstad point to President Obama’s signing of Executive Order 13636 as a good start to ensuring national cyber security. The executive order directed the Department of Homeland Security to expand information-sharing programs in a way that provides more privacy protections than CISA and previous cyber security bills.¶ The EFF article also raises concerns with CISA and previously proposed cybersecurity bills. The article calls to question what exactly is a “cybersecurity purpose” and “cybersecurity threat,” two phrases used in CISA, arguing that these broad definitions “grant new spying power to companies.”¶ But these broad definitions are inevitable with all of the advancements in cyber crime, Irvine says.¶ “Unfortunately because of the ever changing technologies and risks that are associated with cyber events, it is difficult if not impossible to provide more specific definitions as both purposes and threats of cyber criminals continuously changes,” Irvine said. 3. Internal Link- CISA is terrible for privacy and greatly expands the U.S. surveillance state through data sharing - political capital is key to prevent passageThe Guardian 2015- “A government surveillance bill by any other name is just as dangerous” Trevor Timm, 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/13/cisa-cybersecurity-surveillance-government-data-access, June 13 Less than two weeks after Congress was forced into passing historic NSA reform, the Senate tried Thursday to sneak a dangerous “cybersecurity” proposal, which would exponentially expand the spy agency’s power to gather data on Americans, into a massive defense-spending bill. The amendment thankfully failed, but it will be back – possibly within days – and it may require a huge grassroots effort to stop its passage.¶ Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wanted to attach the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (Cisa) to the defense bill in order to push through the controversial measure while avoiding a large public debate about it. But he just missed getting the 60 votes required to move the amendment forward.¶ Cisa, which supporters have euphemistically labeled “info-sharing” legislation, essentially carves a giant hole in our privacy laws to allow tech companies like Google and Facebook to hand over our private data to the government with no legal process whatsoever. The bill is a disaster for transparency too: it contains what would be the first exemption to the Freedom of Information Act in 50 years, which could allow corporations to hide all sorts of information from public view that have nothing to do with cybersecurity.¶ But the bill has an even darker, more dangerous element that’s only come to the fore in the last couple weeks, even though the legislation has been kicked around for a few years.¶ In a little-reported speech on the Senate floor on Thursday, Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden issued an ominous warning to the public about the so-called “cybersecurity” bill, which he has called a “surveillance bill by another name” on multiple occasions. He warned every senator not to vote on the bill without reading a secret Justice Department memo interpreting the government’s existing legal authorities. 4. Massive governmental surveillance programs such as CISA devastate investor confidence, ongoing trade talks, and every other facet of the economyHRW 2013- Human Rights Watch, July 15, “How the NSA Scandal Hurts the Economy” https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/07/15/how-nsa-scandal-hurts-economy The National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance scandal has been devastating to the U.S. government’s credibility as an advocate for Internet freedom. But as the EU-U.S. trade talks began last week, the impact on U.S. technology companies and a fragile American economy may be even greater.¶ Every new revelation suggests far more surveillance than imagined and more involvement by telephone and Internet companies, with much still unknown. One of the most troubling aspects of this spying is that foreign nationals abroad have no privacy rights under U.S. law. Foreigners using the services of global companies are fair game. (There is also a certain irony to the revelations considering that some European governments such as Germany and the Netherlands are strong U.S. allies on Internet freedom but may simultaneously be targets of U.S. surveillance online). ¶ A July 1 report by Der Spiegel on the NSA spying on European officials infuriated governments a week before negotiations started on a massive U.S.-EU trade agreement that could be worth almost $272 billion for their economies and 2 million new jobs. Officials throughout Europe, most notably French President Francois Hollande, said that NSA spying threatens trade talks. ¶ The French government unsuccessfully called for a two week postponement of the trade talks. The next day it had to address allegations in Le Monde of its own domestic mass surveillance program.¶ For the Internet companies named in reports on NSA surveillance, their bottom line is at risk because European markets are crucial for them. It is too early assess the impact on them, but the stakes are huge. For example, Facebook has about 261 million active monthly European users compared to about 195 million in the U.S. and Canada, and 22 percent of Apple’s net income came from Europe in the first quarter of 2013. ¶ Europe was primed for a backlash against NSA spying because people care deeply about privacy after their experience of state intrusion in Nazi Germany and Communist Eastern Europe. And U.S. spying on Europeans via companies had been a simmering problem since at least 2011.¶ In June 2011, Microsoft admitted that the United States could bypass EU privacy regulations to get vast amounts of cloud data from their European Customers. Six months later, U.K.-based BAE Systems stopped using the company’s cloud services because of this issue.¶ A major 2011 European Union survey released that June found that “[t]hree out of four Europeans accept that revealing personal data is part of everyday life, but they are also worried about how companies – including search engines and social networks – use their information.” Only 22 percent trusted e-mail, social networking, and search companies with their data.¶ Then the European Parliament issued a report on privacy in October 2012 confirming Microsoft’s claim and urging new privacy protections between the EU and the United States. The EU tried, but the Financial Times reported that senior Obama administration officials and tech industry representatives successfully lobbied against it.¶ The NSA scandal has brought tensions over spying to a boil. German prosecutors may open a criminal investigation into NSA spying. On July 3, Germany’s Interior Minister said that people should stop using companies like Google and Facebook if they fear the U.S. is intercepting their data. On July 4, the European Parliament condemned spying on Europeans and ordered an investigation into mass surveillance. The same day, Neelie Kroes, the EU’s chief telecom and Internet official, warned of “multi-billion euro consequences for American companies” because of U.S. spying in the cloud.¶ The companies have belatedly distanced themselves from the NSA and called for more transparency. Google, Microsoft, Yahoo! and Facebook, are in a particularly tough spot as members of the Global Network Initiative, a group (including Human Rights Watch) formed to verify whether companies respect freedom of expression and privacy online.¶ Their role in NSA surveillance raises serious questions about whether they have done their utmost to protect billions of people’s privacy or whether it is even possible to know since virtually everything is classified. Yahoo! unsuccessfully challenged a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act request in 2008, the New York Times reported and the company is trying to publicly release its petition to the government. But on July 11, The Guardian reported that Microsoft helped the NSA and FBI bypass its own encryption to access its users’ data, based on documents from Edward Snowden.¶ Transparency is an important first step. Its absence only exacerbates a trust deficit that companies already had in Europe. And trust is crucial. Google’s chief legal officer recognized this on June 19 when he said, “Our business depends on the trust of our users,” during a web chat about the NSA scandal. Some companies have been aggressive in trying to disclose more, and others have not. But unless the U.S. government loosens strictures and allows greater disclosure, all U.S. companies are likely to suffer the backlash.¶ Since the story broke, the United States has allowed companies to disclose the number of FISA requests they receive, but only combined with all law enforcement requests in ranges of 1,000. So the exact number is impossible to determine.¶ Google has been the most aggressive, including by petitioning the FISA court. Microsoft hasfollowed. Apple, Yahoo!, and Facebook are starting to report aggregate data in the wake of the NSA fallout.¶ Companies should press for meaningful disclosure about the scope and scale of government surveillance and their role in it. They also need to support laws and policies, including changes to surveillance laws, to protect their customers’ privacy. Ultimately, they need to show how they actually protect users from government spying.¶ The Obama administration needs to recognize and mitigate the serious economic risks of spying while trying to rebuild its credibility on Internet freedom. The July 9 hearing of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is a start, but much more is needed. More disclosure about the surveillance programs, more oversight, better laws, and a process to work with allied governments to increase privacy protections would be a start.¶ The European customers of Internet companies are not all al Qaeda or criminals, but that is essentially how U.S. surveillance efforts treat them. If this isn’t fixed, this may be the beginning of a very costly battle pitting U.S. surveillance against European business, trade, and human rights. 5. Impact- the collapse of the economic system creates great power warsRoyal 2010 — Jedidiah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, M.Phil. Candidate at the University of New South Wales, 2010 (“Economic Integration, Economic Signalling and the Problem of Economic Crises,” Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, Edited by Ben Goldsmith and Jurgen Brauer, Published by Emerald Group Publishing, ISBN 0857240048, p. 213-215) Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Feaver, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult [end page 213] to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. “Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.
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:
|