Cdl core Files 2015-2016 cdl core Files



Download 1.69 Mb.
Page72/75
Date18.10.2016
Size1.69 Mb.
#2993
1   ...   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75

**Uniqueness

2NC/1NR- CISA DISADVANTAGE- Uniqueness Wall

Democrats and libertarians successfully blocked passage in the status quo, but they need to sustain that momentum


Politico 2015 “Democrats block cyber bill, leaving measure in limbo

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/democrats-cybersecurity-cyber-bill-block-limbo-gop-amendments-118890.html, June 11



Democrats made good on their threats to block a bipartisan cybersecurity bill on Thursday, after they were infuriated by Republican procedural moves to pass the bill with only limited amendments, something Democrats called a “cynical ploy.”¶ The partisan blowup marked a stunning turn for legislation that’s enjoyed broad support. The measure had gained new urgency after the Office of Personnel Management announced 4 million federal employees’ records had been breached — at the hands of Chinese hackers, according to anonymous federal officials.¶ Story Continued Below¶ Privacy advocates in both parties had wanted to strengthen personal data protections in the measure, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) procedural gambit made it next to impossible to make those changes.¶ So Democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans banded together to defeat McConnell’s plan to attach the cyberthreat information sharing legislation to the National Defense Authorization Act days. The procedural vote was 56-40, with McConnell needing 60 votes to advance the cyber bill.¶ The majority of Democrats were joined by several Republicans, including Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Dean Heller (R-Nev.), to block the bill from moving forward.¶ On the other side, a handful of Democrats, including Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), voted with McConnell to advance the cyber measure.

Democrats will block the defense bill if CISA is attached


The Hill, 2015 “Senate Dems threaten to block cyber bill as defense add-on”

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/244594-senate-dems-threaten-to-block-cyber-bill-as-defense-add-on, June 10



Senate debate was tied up Wednesday as Democrats lashed out against an upcoming vote on whether to attach the Senate’s main cyber bill to the defense budget bill. Majority Leader McConnell (R-Ky.) wants to combine a stalled cyber measure — intended to boost the public-private exchange of hacking information — with the annual defense authorization measure under consideration this week. It’s an effort to rush the bill, known as the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA), in the wake of the massive data breach at the Office of Personnel Management that exposed 4 million federal workers’ records. But the move has cracked bipartisan support for one of the few issues that has united Congress this year — cybersecurity. Democrats that had previously backed CISA are now refusing to support the bill as a defense budget add-on. The left is threatening to block the attachment, accusing Republicans of trying to avoid a bruising fight over privacy. Several Democrats have vowed to offer privacy-enhancing amendments to the bill, fearing it could shuttle more surveillance data to the National Security Agency (NSA) as written. “We cannot trifle with Americans’ civil liberties,” the top four Senate Democrats said in a letter sent Wednesday to McConnell, calling his strategy “ridiculous.” “This is a pure political ploy that does nothing to advance America’s national security,” they said. The White House has also threatened to veto the defense bill, known as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). "We look foolish to the rest of the country, actually the rest of the world, doing it this way," Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) told The Hill. Even CISA’s co-sponsors — Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) — split over the tactic Wednesday, with Feinstein arguing on the Senate floor that the move has imperiled the bipartisan bill.

CISA is too unpopular with dems, privacy groups, and the president to pass


SC Magazine 2015- “OPM breach exposed SSNs, personnel records of all fed workers” http://www.scmagazine.com/opm-breach-larger-than-anticipated-worker-info-on-dark-web/article/420348, June 12
Calling Senate Democrats out for a 56-40 voteThursday that failed to garner enough support to more the Defense Authorization Bill forward, and with it the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA), that Republicans had attached to the bill, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, said “the refusal to move forward with this legislation, particularly the cybersecurity part of this discussion, is just unconscionable.”¶ CISA had enjoyed bipartisan support, easily passing the Senate Intelligence Committee in a14-1 vote in March, although it continued to draw criticism from privacy groups.¶ After the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) revealed a data breach that is now believed to have exposed the social security numbers and personnel information on every federal worker, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., tried to attached CISA to the Defense Authorization Bill and fast track its passage. Prior to the vote and amid Republican criticism, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid noted that Democrats had been trying for five years to pass a cybersecurity bill but it was consistently blocked by Republicans. ¶ “So why does the Republican leader now come and say look how strong I am on cybersecurity, look at me, I lifted my cybersecurity weights this morning,” Reid said in a statement issued the day before the vote. “But what he's done is now he's going to put cybersecurity on this bill the President has said he's going to veto.”

**Link

2NC/1NR – CISA DISADVANTAGE- Link Wall- Drone Affirmative

Restricting armed domestic drones popular- shores up political capital for passage


FoxNews 2013 (Fox News, “Lawmakers eye regulating domestic surveillance drones”, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/19/congress-eyes-regulating-drones/, May 19, 2013)
Amid growing concern over the use of drones by police and government officials for surveillance, a bipartisan group of lawmakers is pushing to limit the use of unmanned surveillance "eyes in the sky" aircraft. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., along with Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., and Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, is sponsoring legislation that would codify due process protections for Americans in cases involving drones and make flying armed drones in the U.S. sky illegal. Sensenbrenner believes it is necessary to develop new standards to address the privacy issues associated with use of drones — which can be as small as a bird and as large as a plane. "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. The subcommittee heard from experts who were divided on what actions Congress should take to address the new technology. But the four witnesses all agreed that drones raised new, often unprecedented questions about domestic surveillance. "Current law has yet to catch up to this new technology," said Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. Calabrese said he supported immediate regulation of the drone industry and said his biggest concern was the overuse of drones by police and government officials for surveillance. But Calabrese said he doesn't want to hinder the growth of drones with the power to do good, including helping find missing persons, assisting firefighters and addressing other emergencies. Tracey Maclin, a professor with the Boston University School of Law, said the issues raised by drones haven't been addressed by courts before because the technology goes beyond what humans had been capable of through aerial surveillance. Past court rulings, "were premised on naked-eye observations — simple visual observations from a public place," he said. Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-La., said he wanted to know when drone technology will advance to the point where Congress will have to act on the issue. He said he was concerned about the effect on privacy. "At what point do you think it's going to get to a point where we have to say what a reasonable expectation of privacy is?" Richmond said. Republicans expressed similar concerns. "It seems to me that Congress needs to set the standard, rather than wait and let the courts set the standard," Poe said. "Technology is great — as long as it's used the right and proper way," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said at Friday's hearing. Some experts urged caution. Gregory McNeal, an associate law professor at Pepperdine University, said writing laws to cover drones will be difficult because the technology continues to improve and Congress could think it's addressing key issues, only to have new ones emerge. He compared drones to the privacy concerns raised by development of the Internet in the 1990s. Regulating then, he said, could have stymied the rapid growth of the Internet and wouldn't have addressed today's Internet privacy issues. If Congress feels compelled to act, McNeal said, it should think in terms broader than a "drone policy" and set standards for surveillance or realistic expectations of privacy. "A technology-centered approach to privacy is the wrong approach," he said. But the ACLU's Calabrese said Congress should work quickly. "This can't be adequately addressed by existing law," he said. "Manned aircraft are expensive to purchase. Drones' low cost and flexibility erode that natural limit. They can appear in windows, all for much less than the cost of a plane or a helicopter." A future with domestic drones may be inevitable. While civilian drone use is currently limited to government agencies and some public universities, a law passed by Congress last year requires the Federal Aviation Administration to allow widespread drone flights in the U.S. by 2015. According to FAA estimates, as many as 7,500 civilian drones could be in use within five years.

The plan functions as an olive branch for bipartisanship- massively popular gets republicans the necessary votes


Greenwald 2013 (Glenn Greenwald, Business Insider, “GLENN GREENWALD: The US Needs To Wake Up To Threat Of Domestic Drones”, http://www.businessinsider.com/drone-threats-strikes-us-2013-3, March 30, 2013)

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.


Limiting domestic drones is popular- shores up support for CISA


Sasso 2012 (Brendan Sasso, “Lawmakers mull restrictions on domestic drones”, http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/264189-lawmakers-mull-restrictions-on-domestic-drones, October 25, 2012)

At Thursday's forum, lawmakers, academics and privacy advocates worried that widespread drone use would pose a serious threat to privacy. "Persistently monitoring Americans' movements can reveal their political identity, their religious views and even how safe your marriage is, how strong it is," Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) said. "Both parties cast a skeptical eye toward drone surveillance in law enforcement," he added. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) emphasized that he believes drones are essential for killing suspected terrorists overseas and monitoring the border, and he said drones have a "real benefit and use" for law enforcement. But he added that he would support legislation to limit their use in domestic airspace. Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, explained that drones can be equipped with surveillance technologies such as night-vision cameras, body scanners and license plate readers. "Drones should only be used if subject to a powerful framework that regulates their use in order to avoid abuse and invasions of privacy," he said. The lawmakers and witnesses agreed that domestic drones should not be equipped with weapons, like the military drones that fly over Afghanistan. But David Crump, a professor at the Houston University Law Center, said Poe should revise his legislation to allow for more uses of drones. He said the law should make it clear that police can use drones in hostage situations, car chases and for security around sensitive government buildings or officials. He predicted that as drones become more widespread, a university may want to use a drone to televise views of a sports game.



2NC/1NR- CISA DISADVANTAGE- Link Wall- Stingray Affirmative




The plan has the kind of bipartisan support necessary to get republicans a win on CISA


Washington House Republicans 2015- “Rep. Taylor's 'drone' and 'stingray' bills pass the state House” http://houserepublicans.wa.gov/uncategorized/rep-taylors-drone-and-stingray-bills-pass-state-house, March 4

Legislation passed the state House of Representatives today setting parameters around the state's use of drones and cell site simulators, commonly called "stingrays."¶ Rep. David Taylor, R-Moxee, sponsored both bills and said today was a good day for open government advocates and those who value individual freedom and liberty.¶ "Today's actions by the House prove once again that freedom and liberty are not partisan issues," said Taylor. "When we work together we can do great things for Washington citizens."¶ House Bill 1639 creates new guidelines for when a state or local agency can use extraordinary sensing devices (ESD) or "drones," and what they can do with the personal information gathered. Specifically, the bill:¶ Prohibits state agencies from procuring an extraordinary sensing device (ESD) without an appropriation by the Legislature and prohibits a local agency from procuring an ESD without explicit approval of its governing body.¶ Requires agencies to publish written policies for the use of ESDs and to minimize collection and disclosure of personal information.¶ Prohibits agencies from operating an ESD and disclosing personal information unless specifically authorized by the act.¶ Allows agencies to operate an ESD without obtaining a warrant if the agency does not intend to collect personal information.¶ Allows agencies to operate an ESD and disclose personal information from the operation under certain circumstances.¶ Excludes all evidence collected by an ESD from all court, legislative, or regulatory proceedings if the collection or disclosure of personal information violates any provision of this act.¶ Creates a legal cause of action for damages where an individual claims a violation of this act injured his or her business, person, or reputation.¶ Requires agencies to maintain records related to each use of an ESD and file an annual report with the Office of Financial Management.¶ Taylor said the bill is similar to bipartisan legislation he proposed last year. His previous bill placing restrictions on drones passed the Legislature but was vetoed by Gov. Jay Inslee. The governor then placed a limited moratorium on the state's use of drones and convened a task force to study the issue more thoroughly.¶ "While the task force didn't come to a clear consensus, we did take some of their suggestions and cleaned up the language of the bill a little bit," said Taylor. "With the amount of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle pushing for this bill, I don't anticipate the governor will veto it this time around."¶ House Bill 1440 prohibits the use of cell site simulators, commonly referred to as "stingrays," unless a warrant is issued.¶ A cell site simulator is a device that emits a signal mimicking a cellphone tower. It allows law enforcement agencies to capture detailed information from a suspect's cell phone, including location and who the person calls or texts.¶ "As technology evolves and is enhanced, electronic privacy is an important component to consider," said Taylor. "I have serious concerns about information collected from third parties when these devices are used and we will hopefully address that at some point in the future. For now, we're drawing a clear line in the sand and saying you can't use this new technology unless you go to a judge and convince them to give you a warrant to do so."¶ HB 1440 passed the House unanimously. HB 1639 passed the House 73-25. Both bills now move to the state Senate for further consideration. The 105-day 2015 legislative session is scheduled to end April 26.

Here’s more evidence- there is bipartisan support for the aff, leads to eventual compromise


Babcock 2015- Steven, lead reporter for Technical.ly Baltimore, “Senators, feeling disconnected from Stingray details, press FBI for answers” http://technical.ly/baltimore/2015/01/07/leahy-grassley-stingray-fbi-letter, Jan 7

As a new Congress dawns, a pair of powerful U.S. senators told FBI officials that they’re in the dark about police use of cell phone tracking devices, known as Stingrays.¶ In a Dec. 23 letter, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) (who will switch places when the Republican-controlled Congress assumes office) asked Obama administration officials for information on how the FBI uses cell phone data surreptitiously collected by the devices, but has nothing to do with police investigations. ¶ “Specifically, we are concerned about whether the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have adequately considered the privacy interests of other individuals who are not the targets of the interception, but whose information is nevertheless being collected when these devices are being used,” the letter states. ¶ Stingrays, which have also been used by Baltimore Police, mimic cell phone towers. When activated, Stingrays force all cell phones in an area to connect to the device, allowing authorities to see the precise location of the phone, its electronic serial number and other information. The data helps police track suspects, but it also gives them the information about other phones that just happen to be in the area.¶ In November, the American Civil Liberties Union intervened in a Baltimore man’s lawsuit against police over Stingray use. The defendant, Robert Harrison, argues his 4th Amendment rights were violated when he was named as an accomplice in a murder-for-hire case because he had the phone police were tracking with a Stingray. A hearing was scheduled in the case for Jan. 7 in federal court, and the ACLU of Maryland submitted the senators’ letter to the judge, arguing that Harrison’s case raises similar concerns to those raised by Grassley and Leahy. The hearing on various motions in the case is scheduled for 11 a.m. in the courtroom of Judge Catherine Blake. In that case, police did not obtain a search warrant to use the Stingray, but instead got a court order for a “pen register” device. The ACLU argues that the order only covers devices that track cell phones by connecting to a single device. ¶ According to the two U.S. senators, the FBI recently updated their policies, requiring a search warrant to be obtained before a Stingray can be used. But Leahy and Grassley still have a lot of questions. They sent U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson a list of seven multi-part questions, and want each answered by Jan. 30.¶ Specifically, the two senators questioned three exceptions to the use of a search warrant. According to administration policy, authorities can forego a warrant if a case poses an “imminent threat to public safety,” involves a fugitive or if it used in public places at which the FBI deems there is “no reasonable expectation of privacy.”¶ “We understand that the FBI believes that it can address [privacy] interests by maintaining that information for a short period of time and purging the information after it has been collected,” the letter states. “But there is a question as to whether this sufficiently safeguards privacy interests.”¶ They also want to know how other agencies use the technology, which could potentially include local police.¶ Any answers from the feds would add a lot to the debate, since very little has been said publicly about Stingrays.¶ The information in the senators’ letter was summarized after a classified hearing, and, in Baltimore, police even withdrew evidence in a separate case from Harrison’s because the FBI wouldn’t let them talk about the devices publicly.

2NC/1NR- CISA DISADVANTAGE- Link Wall- Security Letters

Empirically proven that surveillance reforms enjoy bipartisan support


The Nation 2014 John Nichols,  co-author with Robert W. McChesney of Dollarocracy: How the Money and Media Election Complex is Destroying America, “NSA Reform Is Blocked by Constitutionally Disinclined Senate Republicans” http://www.thenation.com/article/could-mark-udall-make-last-ditch-difference-nsa-reform/, Nov 19

The vital cause of NSA reform—which seemed to be gaining strength as not just citizens but their elected representatives came to recognize the consequences of the issues raised by Edward Snowden’s leaks—has hit a rough spot in recent weeks. Allies of the cause are being defeated or abandoning their principles and major initiatives are failing.¶ The first bad news came November 4, when Colorado Senator Mark Udall lost his campaign for a second term. In his first term, the Democrat had emerged as one of the steadiest, and frequently most aggressive, critics of National Security Agency abuses. Arguing that there was “a groundswell of public support for reform,” and that such reform had to “reject half-measures that could still allow the government to collect millions of Americans’ records without any individual suspicion or evidence of wrongdoing,” Udall worked with Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden and Kentucky Republican Rand Paul to get Congress to crack down on the NSA. ¶ Udall is still in the Senate until January, and he moved in the immediate aftermath of his defeat to gain Senate support for at least a small measure of NSA reform. But even that initiative fell short Tuesday night, as Udall and his allies could muster only fifty-eight of the sixty needed votes to prohibit the NSA from holding the phone records of Americans and to establish better procedures for challenging the claims and initiatives of government agencies that overreach. ¶ Though the measure fell far short of what was needed, the American Civil Liberties Union argued that the so-called “USA Freedom Act,” which was introduced by outgoing Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, “is our chance to turn the tide on suspicionless mass surveillance, restoring some of the crucial privacy protections lost with passage of the Patriot Act in 2001.”

Here’s more evidence- the plan’s introduction would create an unusual alliance between dems and republicans


NEW YORK TIMES 2015- “Patriot Act Faces Revisions Backed by Both Parties” http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/01/us/politics/patriot-act-faces-revisions-backed-by-both-parties.html, May 1

After more than a decade of wrenching national debate over the intrusiveness of government intelligence agencies, a bipartisan wave of support has gathered to sharply limit the federal government’s sweeps of phone and Internet records.¶ On Thursday, a bill that would overhaul the Patriot Act and curtail the so-called metadata surveillance exposed by Edward J. Snowden was overwhelmingly passed by the House Judiciary Committee and was heading to almost certain passage in that chamber this month.¶ An identical bill in the Senate — introduced with the support of five Republicans — is gaining support over the objection of Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, who is facing the prospect of his first policy defeat since ascending this year to majority leader.¶ The push for reform is the strongest demonstration yet of a decade-long shift from a singular focus on national security at the expense of civil liberties to a new balance in the post-Snowden era.Under the bipartisan bills in the House and Senate, the Patriot Act would be changed to prohibit bulk collection, and sweeps that had operated under the guise of so-called National Security Letters issued by the F.B.I. would end. The data would instead be stored by the phone companies themselves, and could be accessed by intelligence agencies only after approval of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court.¶ The legislation would also create a panel of experts to advise the FISA court on privacy, civil liberties, and technology matters, while requiring the declassification of all significant FISA court opinions.¶ The debate has resulted in a highly unusual alliance of House Speaker John A. Boehner, the White House, the Tea Party and a bipartisan majority in the House. They are in opposition to Mr. McConnell, his Intelligence Committee chairman, and a small group of defense hawks. In addition, two Republican presidential candidates in the Senate, Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky, have made it clear they will not accept a straight extension of the current Patriot Act.





Download 1.69 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
Guide
Instructions
Report
Request
Review