Aerial Surveillance Negative - Michigan7 2015

8/18/2019 Aerial Surveillance Negative - Michigan7 2015

1/107

Aerial Surveillance Negative

Wave 2


2/107

Counterplans


3/107

Congress CP


4/107

1NCThe United States federal government should [do the plan]

The CP has congress do the plan! it solves drones "est

#othfuss 2$1% (Ian F [George Mason School of Law]; Student Comment: An

Economc !ers"ect#e on the !r#ac$ Im"lcatons of %omestc %rone Sur#ellance;&' )L) Econ) * !ol+$ ,,&; -df.

I/) Legslat#e and !olc$ 0ecommendatons 1hs secton dscusses the current "olc$ and legslat#erecommendatons regardng drone sur#ellance and a""les economc anal$ss to recommend an o"tmal wa$

forward) %e#elo"ng new laws and "olces to address the "r#ac$ threats "resented 2$domestc drone sur#ellance wll n#ol#e the d3cult 2alancng of man$ s"ecalnterests and the nd#dual "r#ac$ rghts of 4)S) ct5ens) n&,6 1herefore7 n draftng a legalframewor- for domestc drone sur#ellance7 Congress should consder economc factors andesta2lsh a framewor- whch allows the use of drones wth constrants to "rotect the"r#ac$ nterests of 4)S) ct5ens) As an o28ect#e methodolog$7 these economc "ers"ect#esshould lead lawma-ers and "olc$ma-ers to enact rules that wll e3centl$

ma9m5e utlt$ whle "rotectng "r#ac$ nterests) 1he new framewor- should address the"r#ac$ concerns arsng out of the domestc use of drones7 whle stll allowng socet$ to real5e the technologcal

2enets) Congress must consder man$ factors when determnng how to 2estntegrate drones nto 4)S) ars"ace) n&, In addton7 the "ro"osed "olces should 2e com"ared wththe "olces n countres such as the 4nted Current recommendatons address a num2er of concerns regardng the wdes"read de"lo$ment ofdrones n the 4nted States) Among these are recommendatons from the Amercan C#l L2ertes 4non (ACL4.n&?B and legslaton currentl$ "endng n 2oth houses of Congress) n&?, 1he rst grou" of recommendatons toconsder s usage restrctons) It s generall$ acce"ted that drones and other means of sur#ellance ma$ 2e used

when a warrant has 2een ssued 2ecause "ro2a2le cause e9sts) 1herefore7 the focus of [,?=] "endng legslatonand "olc$ recommendatons s on when the use of drones should 2e allowed wthout a warrant7 f at all) 1he ACL4

"ro"oses that drone use should 2e lmted to three "ur"oses: (&. where there ares"ecc and artcula2le grounds to 2ele#e that the drone wll collect e#dencerelatng to a s"ecc nstance of crmnal wrongdong or7 f the drone wll ntrude u"onreasona2le e9"ectatons of "r#ac$7 where the go#ernment has o2taned a warrant 2ased on"ro2a2le cause; n&?? (>. where there s a geogra"hcall$ conned7 tmeDlmtedemergenc$ stuaton n whch "artcular nd#duals+ l#es are at rs-; n&? or (B. for reasona2le nonDlaw enforcement "ur"oses ) ) ) where "r#ac$ wll not 2e su2stantall$ aected ) n&?6Smlarl$7 2oth the ouse and Senate #ersons of the !reser#ng Freedom from 4nwanted Sur#ellance Act of >'&B"ro#de for three e9ce"tons to the warrant re@urement: (&. "atrol of 2orders; (>. e9gent crcumstances; and(B. hgh rs- of terrorst attac-7 as determned 2$ the Secretar$ of omeland Securt$) n&? 1he denton ofe9gent crcumstances ders n the two 2lls) 1he Senate 2ll denes e9gent crcumstances to onl$ nclude acton

necessar$ to "re#ent mmnent danger to lfe7 n&?= whle the ouse 2ll uses a 2roader denton that alsoncludes serous damage to "ro"ert$7 or to forestall the mmnent esca"e of a sus"ect7 or destructon of e#dence)

n&' 1he 2roader denton of e9gent crcumstances n the ouse of 0e"resentat#es#erson of the 2ll n&& s a""ro"rate snce t wll g#e law enforcement morelattude to "rotect the Amercan "eo"le n addton to "ro#dng for c#l la2lt$ n&>as a chec- aganst m"ro"er use of ths authort$) 1he ne9t recommendaton s to consderwhether there should 2e an e9clusonar$ rule that would ma-e an$ e#dence gathered wthout a warrant or otherlegal author5aton nadmss2le n a crmnal "roceedng) 1he Senate 2ll also ncludes an e9clusonar$ rule thatwould "roh2t e#dence collected n #olaton of the Act from 2eng used n crmnal "rosecuton) n&B E9clusonar$


5/107

rules can o#erdeter crmnal n#estgatons) n&, 1herefore7 unless a com"ellng case can 2e made as to wh$ t snecessar$7 t would 2e more e3cent not to nclude an e9clusonar$ rule n the legslaton) Another consderaton swhether drones o"eratng n the 4nted States should 2e allowed to carr$ wea"ons l-e drones o"eratng o#erseaswhch [,'] are used to target enem$ com2atants) Hne recommendaton s to "roh2t law enforcement fromarmng drones) n&? %rones ha#e the a2lt$ to conduct remote "recson str-es on sus"ects7 2ut due "rocessconcerns and the dangers resultng from armed unmanned arcraft "reclude the #a2lt$ of ths o"ton wthn the

4nted States) 1herefore7 domestc drones should 2e "roh2ted from carr$ng wea"ons of

an$ -nd) Congress should enact rules to go#ern domestc drone use ) Hnerecommendaton s that Congress should re@ure the %e"artment of 1rans"ortaton to conduct a !r#ac$ Im"actAssessment of the o"eraton of drones domestcall$) n& !endng legslaton "ro"oses amendng the FAAModern5aton and 0eform Act of >'&> to address drone "r#ac$ concerns) n&6 th the "ro"er focus on "r#ac$concerns7 drones ma$ 2e de"lo$ed domestcall$ whle stll "rotectng the "r#ac$ of Amercan ct5ens) In addton7

Congress should re@ure a warrant for e9tended sur#ellance of a "artcular target) n& As dscussed earler7 the Fourth Amendment would not necessarl$ re@ure a warrant n these stuatons) E#en

so7 such a re@urement e9tendng warrant "rotectons ma-es sense and wll "ro#de a#alua2le chec- aganst law enforcement a2use of the new technolog$ ) Congressshould re@ure author5aton from an nde"endent o3cal for general5edsur#ellance that collects "ersonall$ denta2le nformaton such as facal featuresand lcense "late num2ers) n&= 1hs recommendaton would a""l$ to stuatons where a warrant was notre@ured 2ut "ersonall$ denta2le nformaton was stll 2eng gathered7 such as sur#ellance at a "u2lc e#ent) 1hs

recommendaton should 2e enacted as a safeguard of the "u2lc+s "r#ac$ nterests) 1o ade@uatel$ "rotect "r#ac$nterests7 Congress should drect that the nde"endent o3cal7 #ested wth decsonDma-ng "ower on a""lcatonsfor general sur#ellance7 2e a neutral and detached magstrate who s com"letel$ se"arated from an$ lawenforcement or ntellgence agenc$) As dscussed n the "re#ous secton7 legslaton should 2e crafted to ma9m5ethe socal utlt$ from the domestc use of drones) 1he legslaton should 2e structured accordng to the three le#elsof scrutn$ "ro"osed 2$ Song to ensure that the go#ernmental nterest n the sur#ellance outweghs the dsutlt$ orsocal cost that wll result from the loss of "r#ac$) n&6' 1he neutral and detached magstrate dscussed a2o#ecould determne when a su3cent go#ernment nterest e9sts to warrant allowng general5ed drone sur#ellance)[,&] Addtonal "olc$ recommendatons nclude an mage retenton restrcton n&6& and a re@urement to le adata collecton statement to o2tan a FAA lcense to o"erate a drone) n&6> 1hese recommendatons should 2encor"orated nto the legslaton) Congress should re@ure a data collecton statement wth a""lcatons for a FAAlcense to o"erate a drone) A -e$ element of the re@ured data collecton statement should address the retenton ofmages and other data o2taned) n&6B Such a restrcton would mandate that all mages and other sensor$ datagathered through sur#ellance 2e deleted unless the nformaton ser#es a #ald7 legal "ur"ose that re@uresretenton) n&6, 1hs restrcton s necessar$ to "re#ent the go#ernment or an$ other entt$ from amassng an

essentall$ lmtless data2ase of nformaton on the act#tes of 4)S) ct5ens wthout a #ald and s"eced "ur"ose)Collect#el$7 enactng these recommendatons would "re#ent wdes"read7 generaldrone sur#ellance whle allowng drones to 2e utl5ed domestcall$ whenreasona2l$ warranted to mantan securt$ or "rotect the nterests of Amercanct5ens) 1herefore7 these recommendatons would ade@uatel$ "rotect the "r#ac$nterests of Amercan ct5ens whle allowng law enforcement and other enttes toutl5e drones to "rotect our countr$ and ser#e other worthwhle endea#ors)


6/107

Congressional leadership good&'piration of section 21( proves congress is poised to ta)e

leadership in limiting e'ecutive po*ers in domestic

surveillance

+uttar 1(,Shahid +uttar is a constitutional la*-er! electronic musician! grassroots

organi.er and e'ecutive director of the +ill of #ights /efense Committee (0201(!

Senate 3oves to Chec) &'ecutive Sp-ing Po*er pg online 4 ***truth5

outorg0ne*s0item06$785senate5starts5to5rethin)5mass5surveillance5chec)ing5

e'ecutive5sp-ing5po*er00/39

hat a""enedJ Congressonal alles of the ntellgence agences faled to muster enough#otes to e9tend Secton >&? n the face of o""oston7 ncludng a dramatc 2"artsan l2uster ntated 2$Sen) 0and !aul (0D&?)

A federal a""ellate court recentl$ ruled that ts "ror ncarnaton was llegal7an$wa$7 reducng another "otental #ote to 2c-erng o#er $esterda$+s news) Thepolitical shift indicates a direction for future reform) ho ns and ho LosesJ 1he mosto2#ous losers are the SA and FI) After &? $ears of 2rea-ng alread$ "ermss#elaws7 $et not congressonal 2lan- chec-s7 the agences must nall$ start com"l$ngwth consttutonal lmts ) thn the agences7 senor leaders of the ntellgence esta2lshment also emerge loo-ng l-e clowns)Secton >&? sur##ed ths long onl$ 2ecause agenc$ o3cals D ncludng %rector of atonal Intellgence ames Cla""er and former SA %rector Mchaela$den D led under oath to e#ade o#ersght) 1he Senate+s decson to end a "rogram that senators learned a2out from whstle2lowers7 nstead of those

o3cals7 further dscredts ther legaces) E#en f the$ reman a2o#e the law 2$ e#adng the "rosecutonfor "er8ur$ sought 2$ mult"le mem2ers of Congress7 ther careers wll 2e dened 2$congressonal and 8udcal re8ecton of llegal "rograms the$ 2ult n secret) 1o the e9tentntellgence o3cals are clowns7 the man$ congressonal leaders from 2oth "artes who su""orted them are stooges) Esta2lshment %emocrats and0e"u2lcans al-e uncrtcall$ acce"ted les7 deferred to them and went along wth the eltwa$ consensus D n shar" contrast to ther "o"ulst colleagueswho "ro#ed wllng to u"hold ther oath of o3ce to defend the Consttuton aganst all enemes7 foregn and domestc) Se#eral wnners also emerged

from ths drama) Congressonal re8ecton of mass s"$ng #ndcates se#eral "rnc"les atonce7 including transparenc-! oversight! chec)s and "alances! theseparation of po*ers and constitutional rights enshrned n the Frst andFourth Amendments) Each of those #alues s chershed across the "oltcal contnuum7 ma-ng them es"ecall$ "owerful durng a"resdental electon $ear) Senator !aul s another clear wnner) e demonstrated leadersh"7 surged among the crowded GH! eld of >'& "resdentalho"efuls and eect#el$ se5ed control of the Senate from the ma8ort$ leader) th ts senators leadng 2oth the sur#ellanceNsecrec$Ncorru"ton caucus7as well as the com"etng consttutonalN"r#ac$Naccounta2lt$ caucus7 &? ad#ancesFourth Amendment "r#ac$ nterests) E#en though mass sur#ellance wll contnue for now under other legal authortes7 one "rogram through whch our

go#ernment montors "hone calls and trac-s e#er$one+s 2eha#or7 regardless of wrongdong7 wll end) More 2roadl$7 ths #ote 2egns alongDo#erdue "rocess of lmtng e9ecut#e "owers 7 e9"anded durng a "erod ofseemng emergenc$7 whch grew entrenched des"te "ro#ng neect#e as well as consttutonall$ oens#e) In ths sense7 congressonalassert#eness su""orts democrac$ n a longDrunnng 2attle to a#od the eroson from wthn foreseen 2$ 2oth Ale9s de 1oc@ue#lle and !resdent and

Su"reme Alled Commander %wght Esenhower) hat Comes e9tJ th reformers ha#ng trum"hed n Congress7 the de2ate o#ersur#ellance reform must e9"and) Further reforms are necessar$ to ena2le anad#ersaral "rocess and greater trans"arenc$ at the secret Foregn Intellgence Sur#ellance Court7 and also to lmtother legal authortes D l-e E9ecut#e Hrder &>BBB and FISA Secton 6'> D used to 8ustf$ unconsttutonal domestc sur#ellance) It+s a good thng that a

2"artsan measure7 the Sur#ellance State 0e"eal Act (0 &,.7 s "osed to do


7/107

e9actl$ that ) 0e") Mar- !ocan (%Dsconsn. and 0e") 1homas Masse (0D


8/107

Congress SolvesCongress "est to regulate drones : previous e'perience

;ar"er 1% (llar$ )7 )%)7 Assocate !rofessor of Law at the 4n#erst$ ofMassachusettsO School of Law7 PE$es n the S-$: Consttutonal and 0egulator$

A""roaches to %omestc %rone %e#elo"ment7 , S$racuse L) 0e#) &7 "g) >6DB'7>'&,.

I/) Eorts to 0egulate on the Federal Le#el 1he FAA Modern5aton and 0eform Act of >'&> drects the FAA to "romulgate regulatons so arwa$s can accommodatedrones 2$ >'&?) n&? It s estmated that7 2$ end of ths decade7 B'7''' drones wll2e o"eratng n natonal ars"ace) n&?6 1he FAA has selected s9 test stes toconduct research on how to safel$ ntegrate drones nto the ars"ace) 1he s9 "u2lcenttes nclude Gr3ss Internatonal Ar"ort n ew Qor-7 /rgna !ol$techncInsttute and State 4n#erst$ (/rgna 1ech.7 the 4n#erst$ of Alas-a7 the State ofe#ada7 the orth %a-ota %e"artment of Commerce7 and 1e9as A*M 4n#erst$ DCor"us Chrst) n&?%rone Kghts from these test stes are e9"ected to 2egn 2$

[>] une >'&, and end n >'&6) n&?= 1he "u2lc and some mem2ers of Congressha#e called u"on the FAA to esta2lsh a "r#ac$ "olc$ as "art of ts msson tontegrate drones nto domestc ars"ace) n&' hle the FAA mantans ts chefmsson s to ensure safet$ and e3cenc$ of all a#aton s$stems7 t has res"onded n"art 2$ nsttutng "r#ac$ re@urements for all test stes) n&& 0egulaton sm"erat#e f there s an$ "romse of curtalng the slow demse of a ct5en+s rght to"r#ac$ n the face of these "owerful7 aeral o2ser#ers) In lght of nade@uate FourthAmendment "rotectons7 "r#ac$ #olatons could occur wthout redress f Congressdoes not act soon) Congressonal regulaton n the face of technologcalad#ancement s not wthout "recedent) Congress has "reem"t#el$ acted to address"r#ac$ ssues n res"onse to go#ernment sur#ellance of communcaton n transt

(wreta""ng.7 n&> communcatons n storage such as emals7 n&B 2an- records7n&, and health records) n&? As one scholar commented7 wth the ElectroncCommuncaton !r#ac$ Act of &=7 Congress was "rotectng "eo"le+s emals 2eforemost "eo"le -new what emal was) n& !oss2l$ the most com"rehens#e and"romsng "ece of legslaton n Congress s the %rone Arcraft !r#ac$ and

1rans"arenc$ [>=] Act7 ntroduced n March >'&B 2$ Senator Edward Mar-e$) n&6 1he 2ll "ro"oses strct gudelnes for the collecton and retenton of nformatongathered 2$ drones) 1he legslaton would "roh2t the FAA from ssung droneslcenses unless the a""lcaton ncludes a data collecton statement dsclosng whowll o"erate the drone7 where thedrone wll 2e Kown7 the Kght "ath7 the t$"e ofdata to 2e collected7 how the data wll 2e used7 how long the data wll 2e retaned7

and whether nformaton wll 2e shared wth thrd "artes) n& Moreo#er7 all thsnformaton wll 2e a#ala2le n a "u2lcl$ searcha2le data2ase7 along wthdsclosures of an$ data securt$ 2reaches suered 2$ a lcensee and the tmes andlocatons of all drone Kghts) n&= 1he act further re@ures law enforcementagences to le a data mnm5aton statement that e9"lans how the agenc$ wllmnm5e the collecton and retenton of data unrelated to the crmnal n#estgaton)n&6' 1hs adds a la$er of trans"arenc$ to the certcaton "rocess7 whch has 2een#eled n a shroud of secrec$) It also ele#ates the "r#ac$ concerns 2e$ond those of

http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n156http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n157http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n158http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n159http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n160http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n161http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n162http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n163http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n164http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n165http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n166http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n167http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n168http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n169http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n170http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n157http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n158http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n159http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n160http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n161http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n162http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n163http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n164http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n165http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n166http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n167http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n168http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n169http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n170http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n156


9/107

ordnar$ ct5ens to a federal regulator$ agenc$) !r#ac$ rghts grou"s su""ort thslegslaton as a sgncant ste" toward safeguardng "r#ac$ threatened 2$"er#as#e aeral sur#ellance) n&6& At "resent7 law enforcement agences arede"lo$ng drones wthout an$ esta2lshed "r#ac$ gudelnes n "lace7 andnformaton "ertanng to drone data has 2een #rtuall$ m"oss2le to o2tan des"te

Freedom of Informaton Act lawsuts led 2$ "r#ac$ rghts grou"s) n&6> 1he %roneArcraft and 1rans"arenc$ Act s not the onl$ attem"t to regulate drone de"lo$mentat the federal le#el) In >'&>7 Senator 0and !aul ntroduced the !reser#ng Freedomfrom 4nwanted Sur#ellanceAct7 whch called for a swee"ng "roh2ton of droneusage for sur#ellance 2$ an$ "erson or entt$ a3lated wth the 4)S) go#ernment)n&6B !aul rentroduced the 2ll n Ma$ >'&B) n&6, 1he [B'] legslaton currentl$resdes n the Senate udcar$ Commttee) n&6?

http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n171http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n172http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n173http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n174http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n175http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n171http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n172http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n173http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n174http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786757.1302822112&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T22257148329&parent=docview&rand=1435600349836&reloadEntirePage=true#n175


10/107

Congress< oversight on *iretapping in the past indicates its

e'pertise in regulating surveillance

=err eorge Washington ?a* (Hrn7 "rofessor of lawat the George ashngton 4n#erst$ Law School7 scholar n the su28ects ofcom"uter crme law and nternet sur#ellance7 P1he Fourth Amendment and ew

1echnologes: Consttutonal M$ths and the Case for CautonR7 /ol) &'>7 o) ? (Mar)7>'',.7 "") '&D7 cl.

1hs !art e9"lores the hstor$ of wreta""ng law and concludes that ths accounto#erstates the m"act of the Fourth Amendment and understates the role oflegslat#e "r#ac$ "rotectons) 1o 2e sure7 , At the same tme7 the e9tent to whch courts ha#erefused to regulate wreta""ng "ractces #a 8udcal standards "ostD> >6 and the enactment of the federal reta" Act; and fourth7 the "erod "ostD&=7 whch s the modern era followng


11/107


In ths "art7 I wll argue that such enthusasm for 8udcal solutons o#erloo-ssgncant nsttutonal lmtatons of 8udcal rulema-ng) Courts tend to 2e "oorl$suted to generate eect#e rules regulatng crmnal n#estgatons n#ol#ng new

technologes) In contrast7 legslatures "ossess a sgncant nsttutonal ad#antagen ths area o#er courts) hle courts ha#e successfull$ created rules that esta2lshm"ortant "r#ac$ rghts n man$ areas7 it is dicult for Budges to fashionlasting guidance *hen technologies are ne* and rapidl- changing) 1h econte9t of 8udcal decsonma-ng often lea#es the law sur"rsngl$ unclear) Courtslac) the institutional capacit- to easil- grasp the privac- implications of

ne* technologies the$ encounter) udges cannot readl$ understand how thetechnologes ma$ de#elo"7 cannot easl$ a""recate conte9t7 and often canno t e#enrecogn5e whether the facts of the case 2efore them rase "r#ac$ m"lcatons thatha""en to 2e t$"cal or at$"cal) udcall$ created rules also lac- necessar$Ke92lt$; the$ cannot change @uc-l$ and cannot test #arous regulator$

a""roaches) As a result7 8udcall$ created rules regulatng go#ernmentn#estgatons tend to 2ecome @uc-l$ outdated or uncertan as technolog$ changes)

1he conte9t of legslat#e ruleDcreaton oers sgncantl$ 2etter "ros"ects for thegeneraton of 2alanced7 nuanced7 and eect#e n#estgat#e rule s n#ol#ng newtechnologes) In lght of these nsttutonal realtes7 courts should place a thum"on the scale in favor of Budicial deference to legislative privac- protections


12/107

AT Congress ;ailsCongress alread- has e'pertise in dronesDThe Consumer

/rone Safet- Act is regulating drones no*

/illo* 026

(Cla$ %llow [contr2utng to Fortune snce >'&B7 wrtng fre@uentl$ a2outtechnolog$7 aeros"ace7 and defense]7 N>BN&?7 Is Congress+ new drone safet$ actan nno#aton -llerJ7 Fortune7 fortune)comN>'&?N'N>BNcongressDdroneDsafet$N7 M.

1he "ro"osed Consumer %rone Safet$ Act calls for more gudelnes a2out when andwhere drones can K$ n the 4)S) th a wealth of aeros"ace engneerng talent located n the south and Slcon /alle$Ossoftware "rogrammng talent u" north7 Calforna has @uetl$ grown nto a hu2 for the growng 4)S) drone ndustr$) ut7 some n thendustr$ are worred that a 2ll "utforth 2$ CalfornaOs own Sen) %anne Fensten could "ush the 2ra-es on nno#aton 2$ "lacng

onerous restrctons on consumer drone technologes) 4nder "ressure from Fensten7 the FAA recentl$ releaseddata showng &=' ncdents durng a nneDmonth "erod n >'&, where unauthor5ed drones weresghted 2$ mem2ers of the general a#aton communt$ o"eratng n areas where the$ were not author5ed) Hf those7 some

two do5en were re"ortedl$ descr2ed as close sha#es7 where a mdDar collson was narrowl$ a#oded)In res"onse7 Sen) Fensten has ntroduced the Consumer %rone Safet$ Act7 whch would createstrcter federal laws go#ernng consumer drone o"eratons and re@ure safet$features to 2e ncor"orated nto new consumer drones) PIf we donOt act now7 tOs onl$ a matter of tme2efore we ha#e a traged$ on our hands7R Senator Fensten sad n a statement) hle man$ ndustr$ ad#ocates ds"ute the

meanngfulness of the FAAOs ncdent data7 the$Ore more concerned a2out the fallout from what the$see as legslat#e o#er-ll) P1hereOs "otental for ths to turn nto a rather draconanset of lmts on 2oth the user and the manufacturer7 R sa$s rendan Schulman7 head of the 4nmannedArcraft S$stems "ractce at ew Qor- Ct$D2ased law rm


13/107

are alread$ stretched #er$ thn) 1he larger "ro2lem7 he sa$s7 s the wde a#ala2lt$ of the technolog$ and the relat#el$ narrowsco"e of o""ortuntes for new users to educate themsel#es) PItOs a new mar-et7 tOs reall$ eas$ to get $our hands on ths stu7 andusers arenOt educated7R


14/107

AT Courts "est&mpirics proveDstare decisis prevents the Budicial "ranch from

ma)ing resolute decisions

=err eorge Washington ?a* (Hrn7 "rofessor of law

at the George ashngton 4n#erst$ Law School7 scholar n the su28ects ofcom"uter crme law and nternet sur#ellance7 P1he Fourth Amendment and ew


A second derence 2etween 8udcal and legslat#e rulema-ng concerns thero"erat#e constrants) Eudicial rulema)ing is limited "- strong stare decisisnorms that limit the a"ilit- of Budicial rules to change Fuic)l-; n contrast7legislatures enBo- *ide5ranging discretion to enact ne* rules) 1he derencefa#ors legslatures when technolog$ s n Ku9 2ecause the privac- implications of particular rules can Guctuate as technolog$ ad#ances) 1o ensure that the lawmantans ts ntended 2alance7 t needs mechansms that can ada"t totechnologcal change) Legslatures are u" to the tas-; courts generall$ are not)Legslatures can e9"erment wth derent rules and ma-e fre@uent amendments;the$ can "lace restrctons on 2oth "u2lc and "r#ate actors; and the$ can e#enPsunsetR rules so that the$ a""l$ onl$ for a "artcular "erod of tme) 1he courtscannot) As a result7 Fourth Amendment rules wll tend to lac- the Ke92lt$ that aregulator$ res"onse to new technologes ma$ re@ure) 1he statutor$ framewor- thatgo#erns Internet "r#ac$ demonstrates the Ke92lt$ and creat#e "otental oflegslat#e a""roaches ) Congress enacted the Electronc Communcatons !r#ac$Act (PEC!A R. n &= to regulate the "r#ac$ of Internet communcaton s),>, Sncethat tme7 Congress has amended the framewor- no less than ele#en tmes : once n&=7 ,>? twce n &==,7,> three tmes n &==7,>6 once &==7 ,> twce n >''&7

,>= and twce n >''>) ,B' Some of those changes were onl$ mnor techncalamendments7 whle others were more sgncant alteratons to the statutor$scheme) Moreo#er7 the structure of CongressOs statutor$ Internet "r#ac$ lawsdemonstrates how legslat#e rules can m"ose creat#e and Ke92le regulator$regmes n#ol#ng new technologes) For e9am"le7 Congress o"ted to regulate 2oth"u2lc and "r#ate "artes to 2est "rotect "r#ac$) This *ould "e dicult if notimpossi"le under the ;ourth Amendment ! *hich regulates onl- the

government and private parties acting on the government n addton to restrctng the a2lt$ of lawenforcement to order "r#ate IS!s to dsclose communcatons to lawenforcement7,BB the law also restrcts the a2lt$ of "r#ate IS!s to dsclosecommuncatons to law enforcement #oluntarl$)


15/107

AT Court Sets precedent?egislative processes generate more informed rules than the

courtiven this environment! the legislative process tends togenerate more informed rules governing developing technologies than is

li)el- to result from the closed environment of the Budicial process


16/107

AT CP /oesn= s now a realt$) n>=' hlestate statutes and "ro"osed federal legslaton attem"t to lmt law enforcement+sa2lt$ to use drones n sur#ellance eorts7 those "ro"osals and statutes do notade@uatel$ address the duraton of the surD#ellance or the so"hstcaton of thetechnolog$ used 2$ law enforcement to enhance drone ca"a2ltes ) 1herefore7 2$ re@urDng a warrant and restrctng law enforcement from conductng drone sur#ellance for a "erod lastng longer thantwent$Dfour hours7 the "ro"osed legslaton wll 2est address the ssues left o"en 2$ Fourth Amendment

8urs"rudence) [6>'] Further7 ncludng the e9gent crcumstances language nto the

legslaton wll allow law enforcement agences to 2etter understand thecrcumstances that would "ermt the use of a drone) ecause the courts ha#e addressed e9gentcrcumstances on numerous occasons7 n>=& law enforcement agences ma$ alread$ ha#e"rotocols and o3cer tranng dealng wth e9gent crDcumstances) 0ather than draftnglegslaton that attem"ts to descr2e a crcumstance mertng the use of a drone7 n>=> usng the e9gentcrcumstances language wll allow law enforcement agenDces to com"l$ wth Fourth Amendment 8urs"rudence

alread$ dened 2$ the Court) Smlarl$7 legslaton m"osng a tme restrcton on the duraDtonof the sur#ellance wll "ro#de law enforcement agences wth a 2rghtDlne rule thatfacltates a""lcaton across the 2oard) Snce the current Fourth Amendment 8urs"rudence "ro#desthat one does not ha#e a reasona2le e9"ectaton of "rD#ac$ from all o2ser#atons of one+s "ro"ert$7 n>=B thsstatutor$ lanDguage wll "ro#de a reasona2le e9"ectaton of "r#ac$ from "rolonged o2ser#atons of one+s "ro"ert$)

1hs "ro"osal would com"l$ wth current Fourth Amendment 8urs"rudenceregardng K$Do#er aeral o2ser#atons and would also 2e consstent wth the mosactheor$) n>=, Further7 ths "ro"osal lmts law enforcement+s a2lt$ to use an$ form of drone technolog$) G#enthat the technologcal ad#ancements n ths eld wll l-el$ contnue to "rogress at a ra"d "ace7 an$ "ro"osedlegslaton should ncor"orate an o28ect#e standard denng the "ermss2le le#el of technolog$ or an outrght"roh2ton on the use of all drone sur#ellance) In ths wa$7 we can algn the use of ths form of technolog$ wthFourth Amendment "rotectons) 0ather than "ro#dng #ague standards7 such as technolog$ that s not n general

"u2lc use7 the general restrcton "ro#des a 2rghtDlne rule to law enforcement agences) [6>&] 1herefore7 ths"ro"osal would allow law enforcement to 2e e9em"t from the warrant re@urementfor e9gent crcumstances7 whle also allowng them to o2tan a warrant from aneutral and detached magstrate when law enforcement ntends to conduct longDterm sur#ellance7 there2$ ensurng that law enforcement agences com"l$ wth thewarrant re@urement of the Fourth Amendment and res"ect ct5ens+ "r#ac$ rghts)


17/107

AT SHP Add on?egislative reform is )e- to ensure eIective Burisdiction over

the e'ecutiveD congress is a pre5reFuisite to court action

/ivoll 12

,Jic)i /ivoll is a la*-er and national securit- e'pert "ased in Washington /CUntil 2$12! /ivoll taught United States >overnment and Constitutional /evelo!

602(012! Targeted )illings WhoKs chec)ing the e'ecutive "ranchL pg online 4

articleslatimescom02$120mar02(0opinion0la5oe5divoll5congress5and5targeted5

assassinations52$12$62(00/39

1he courts ha#e recogn5ed re"eatedl$ that in order to perform its "asicconstitutional responsi"ilities! Congress can and must acFuire information

from the "resdent and the de"artments and agences of the e'ecutive "ranch) 1he fact that the memo s hghl$ classed sno e9cuse7 nor s t l-el$ to t wthn the #er$ narrow doctrne of e9ecut#e "r#lege7 as enuncated 2$ the Su"reme Court) So Leah$ would 2e wthn hs

rghts to 2e "@ued) ut s Congress gettng or not gettng ths memo reall$ the "ont hereJ older has "u2lcl$ outlned the memo+s 2ottom lne7 and he has l-el$ g#en more detal n closed sesson commttee 2rengs) ut shouldn+t Leah$ as- hsown legon of law$ers7 who are at least as com"etent as those n the e9ecut#e 2ranch7 to assess the state of the law for hmJ ere7 n a nutshell7 s whatthe$ would "ro2a2l$ nd: Frst7 the Su"reme Court has not ruled ($et. that the due "rocess clause of the Consttuton "roh2ts the e9ecut#e 2ranch7wthout 8udcal re#ew7 from targetng and -llng an Amercan outsde a war 5one) Second7 there are no statutes on the 2oo-s that "re#ent the "resdentfrom orderng such an acton) 1hrd7 an$ e9ecut#e orders or other "olc$ statements that mght 2e nter"reted to "reclude such a -llng do not 2nd the"resdent) Fnall$7 t ma$ 2e that the 8ustcaton of selfDdefense s su3centl$ strong to answer the moral and ethcal @uestons7 (although we do not -nowthe detals of the admnstraton+s "oston.) So7 Sen) Leah$7 now $ou can sto" as-ng for memos that $ou nether need nor are l-el$ to o2tan7 and get to

wor-) In the &=6's7 Congress dd 8ust that7 ta- ng a hard loo- at the e9cess#e ntellgenceact#tes of agences wthn the e9ecut#e 2ranch ) It dd not l-e what t found 7 nor dd theAmercan "eo"le) Months of hearngs 2$ select commttees of the ouse and the Senateresulted n new laws lmtng7 most nota2l$7 the "ower of the e9ecut#e 2ranch totarget Amercan ct5ens) ac- then we were outraged that our "hones could 2e ta""ed wthout a 8udge+s order7 so Congress enactedthe Foregn Intellgence Sur#ellance Act of &=6 to re@ure 8udcal o#ersght) 0egardng targeted -llng7 "ressure from Congress got !resdent Ford to

ssue an e9ecut#e order "roh2tng assassnatons altogether7 though we were -llng onl$ foregners n those da$s) So now we aretargetng not 8ust the "hones 2ut the l#es of Amercans 7 and there s no consttutonal doctrne7 statute ore9ecut#e order addressng the ssue) 1hs s where the framers would ha#e e9"ected the legslatureto ta-e a good7 hard loo-) 1he framers T "oltcal realsts one and all T would not 2e sur"rsed7 howe#er7 2$ the deafenng slenceon ths ssue from Ca"tol ll) !resuma2l$7 the 0e"u2lcan ma8ort$ n the ouse s n fa#or of the aggress#e "olc$7 and the %emocratc ma8ort$ n theSenate ma$ 2e reluctant to lead the charge aganst a "olc$ em2raced 2$ one of ts own n the hte ouse) ut Leah$ wants to do somethng7 so he s

chec-ng the o#ersght 2o9 2$ "u2lcl$ as-ng for memos7 rather than holdng hearngs to e9amne whether7 once agan7 we ma$need legslaton to cur2 e9ecut#e 2ranch e9cesses) In the &=6's7 Congress enactedthe safeguard of 8udcal re#ew 2efore the e9ecut#e could conduct electroncsur#ellance of Amercans7 and nonct5ens7 nsde the 4nted States7 not trustng the e9ecut#e to ma-e those decsons on ts own)And n >''7 the law was amended to "rotect Amercans+ "hones and emal o#erseas too) Leah$ should redrect hs attenton from as-ng for memoranda

from the ustce %e"artment to focus hs commttee+s energ$ on the real ssue facng Congress: Should the"resdent of the 4nted States 2e a2le to order the -llng of an Amercan ct5enwth no re#ew outsde hs own e9ecut#e 2ranch ad#sorsJ E#en f Leah$ trusts ths "resdent to treadcautousl$ wth such enormous7 unchec-ed "ower7 what a2out the ne9t one7 or the one after thatJ


18/107

;AA CP


19/107

1NC CPCounterplan5 The United States federal government should

amend the ;AA 3oderni.ation and #eform Act "- mandating

interagenc- cooperation to create a 3emorandum of

Understanding that clariMes responsi"ilities! recommendspermissi"le use guidelines! and creates accounta"ilit- for the

privac- implications of drone use

Counterplan )e- to solve privac-

endri)sen 16 (!atrce endr-sen s an assocate at Goodwn !roctor LL! and an e9ecut#e edtor for 1he George ashngton Law 0e#ew7 P4nmanned and 4nchec-ed: Confrontng the 4nmanned Arcraft S$stem!r#ac$ 1hreat 1hrough Interagenc$ Coordnaton7R !u2lshed %ecem2er >'&B7 George ashngton Law 0e#ew7

/olume >:>'67 htt":NNwww)gwlr)orgNw"DcontentNu"loadsN>'&,N'>NG&'?)"df 7 SW.

1o address the 4AS "r#ac$ ga"7 Congress should amend the FAA Modern5aton and0eform Act of >'&> to re@ure creaton of an MH4 addressng the "r#ac$ ssuesm"lcated 2$ ra"d 4AS ntegraton n the natonal ars"ace s$stem) 1he "ro"osedamendment re@ures "artc"aton of three "rmar$ sta-eholdersTthe FAA7 %H7 and%STand "ermts ther dscretonar$ consultaton wth other nterestedagences)>>B 1he FAA s well #ersed as the "rmar$ actor n 4AS ntegraton alread$)Hf the remanng nterested agences7 the %H has the closest connecton to thecru9 of the ssue: the use of 4ASs 2$ law enforcement)>>, %S has demonstrated a#ested nterest n and de#elo"ng e9"ertse regardng the "r#ac$ m"lcatons ofgo#ernment 4AS o"eratons)>>? Interagenc$ coordnaton "reser#es the currentlead status of the FAA whle 2rngng n addtonal nterested agences to oer there9"ertse on the ssue) A congressonall$ mandated MH4 "ro#des an a""ro"rate

#ehcle to accom"lsh ths goal: t s Ke92le enough to res"ond to the constantl$e#ol#ng status of 4ASs and can 2e structured to create accounta2lt$ amongn#ol#ed agences) Su2stant#el$7 the mandated MH4 should clarf$ 8ursdctonallnes among agences7 re@ure nteragenc$ communcaton7 and recommendsu2stant#e gudelnes for "ermss2le 4AS o"eratons) Further7 the amendmentshould call for the MH4Os tmel$ re#son7 dened to reKect the FAAOs tmelne forntegraton) Sta-eholders agree that de#elo"ng gudelnes for "ermss2le 4AS usesahead of ther wdes"read ado"ton ma$ "reclude a2use)>> 1hs "ro"osal ensuresthat "r#ac$ constrants de#elo" n ste" wth the "ro2lem tself 2$ e#ol#ng nres"onse to the FAAOs alread$ esta2lshed ntegraton tmelne)>>6 Fnall$7 to further"romote the accounta2lt$ of mem2er agences under ths amendment7 the

agences should "u2lsh the MH4 and su2mt a re"ort of the resultng "lan torele#ant congressonal commttees for consderaton)

Plan can


20/107

!r#ac$ 1hreat 1hrough Interagenc$ Coordnaton7R !u2lshed %ecem2er >'&B7 George ashngton Law 0e#ew7


Com"lete 4AS ntegraton nto the domestc ars"ace s a steadl$ a""roachng realt$) As law enforcementsur#ellance mssons ncrease7 so does the threat to ct5ensO Fourth Amendmentand related "r#ac$ rghts) owe#er7 so"hstcated 4AS technolog$ can 2e

constraned 2$ nether e9stng Fourth Amendment 8urs"rudence nor the current statutor$ scheme) Addtonall$7 legslat#e and sngleDagenc$ solutons fal to addressthe com"le9 nature of 4AS use) Congress should re#se the FAA Modern5aton and0eform Act of >'&> to re@ure coordnaton 2etween the FAA and other agencesn#ested n 4AS "r#ac$ ssues though an MH4 that clares 8ursdctonal 2ounds7assgns res"ons2ltes7 and creates accounta2lt$ for the "r#ac$ Pga"R n 4ASntegraton) Such an amendment would res"ond to the com"le9 and changng nature of the 4AS "r#ac$ ssue and ta-e the muchDneeded ntal ste" of assgnng res"ons2lt$ for ts resoluton)

http://www.gwlr.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/GWN105.pdfhttp://www.gwlr.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/GWN105.pdfhttp://www.gwlr.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/GWN105.pdf


21/107

Hvervie*

The counterplan solves for the entiret- of the plan Solves for

privac- concerns *ithout lin)ing to the Oinsert net "eneMt

Solves "est "- mandating interagenc- cooperation to create a3emorandum of Understanding This creates an ecient

guaranteed *a- to solve clarif-ing responsi"ilities!

recommends permissi"le use guidelines! and creates

accounta"ilit- for the privac- implications of drone use The CP

*ould change the ;AA 3oderni.ation and #eform Act to solve

for privac- concerns The ;AA is )e- to solve "ecause it is the

primar- agenc- regulating drone use


22/107

&'t CP Solvenc-&'t 1NC endri)sen evidence5 Counterplan )e- to solve

privac- +- mandating cooperation! a 3emorandum of

Understanding *ill "e formed that solves for all concerns

a"out drone usePrivac- is an increasing concern5 Counterplan is onl- *a- to

solve

endri)sen 16 (!atrce endr-sen s an assocate at Goodwn !roctor LL! and an e9ecut#e edtor for 1he George ashngton Law 0e#ew7 P4nmanned and 4nchec-ed: Confrontng the 4nmanned Arcraft S$stem!r#ac$ 1hreat 1hrough Interagenc$ Coordnaton7R !u2lshed %ecem2er >'&B7 George ashngton Law 0e#ew7


4nmanned arcraft s$stems (P4ASsR.7 "o"ularl$ -nown as Pdrones7R are an e#ol#ng technolog$ that"ro#des a tem"tng alternat#e to more tradtonal law enforcement sur#ellance methods) 1her "resence nthe natonal ars"ace s a @uc-l$ a""roachng realt$ ) 1he Federal A#aton Admnstraton

(PFAAR. s the "rmar$ agenc$ regulatng 4AS use7 2ut ts reach e9tends to safet$7 not"r#ac$) 1he FAA must ntegrate 4ASs nto the natonal ars"ace 2$ >'&?) 4AS technolog$ and ts mar-et are alsochangng) Models are 2ecomng smaller7 faster7 and less e9"ens#e to 2uld and o"erate) 1here wll l-el$ 2eB'7''' 4ASs n our s-es 2$ >'B'7 wth law enforcement agences re"resentng ther most sgncantfuture users) %omestc 4AS sur#ellance o"eratons m"lcate the Fourth Amendmentrght to freedom from unreasona2le searches and other "r#ac$ nterests) 4ASs ha#egreat "otental to #olate ct5ensO Preasona2le e9"ectatons of "r#ac$R as e9"laned2$ the Su"reme Court n aeral sur#ellance and senseDenhancng technolog$ cases 2ecause thetechnolog$ lac-s certan "ractcal 2oundares that formerl$ constraned tradtonal sur#ellance)

1hs ote "ro"oses that Congress amend the FAA Modern5aton and 0eform Act tomandate nteragenc$ coordnaton among 4AS federal sta-eDholders) Congress should re@ure these sta-eholders tocreate a Memorandum of 4nderstandng that clares res"ons2ltes7 recommends "ermss2le use gudelnes7 and

creates accounta2lt$ for the "r#ac$ m"lcatons of 4AS ntegraton) Such an amendment wlleect#el$ address the com"le9t$ of 4AS o"eratons and close the "r#ac$ ga" thate9sts under the law toda$)



23/107

AT Plan solves "etter0AT Courts )e-Warrants are insucient to solve5 the ;AA has the greatest

authorit- over drones

endri)sen 16 (!atrce endr-sen s an assocate at Goodwn !roctor LL! and an e9ecut#e edtor for

1he George ashngton Law 0e#ew7 P4nmanned and 4nchec-ed: Confrontng the 4nmanned Arcraft S$stem!r#ac$ 1hreat 1hrough Interagenc$ Coordnaton7R !u2lshed %ecem2er >'&B7 George ashngton Law 0e#ew7


1he "ro"osed statutor$ amendment s necessar$ 2ecause nether e9stng case lawnor the current statutor$ regme "laces ade@uate lmtatons on domestc 4ASsur#ellance 2$ law enforcement) Courts ha#e not $et a""led the FourthAmendment to 4AS sur#ellance7& and when the$ do7 the degree to whch 4AS usewll 2e crcumscr2ed s d3cult to "redct)&6 Moreo#er7 e#en f the courts that ultmatel$confront ths ssue do "ro#de meanngful "rotectons from 4AS a2use7 those "rotectons wll cometoo late7 after 4ASs ha#e 2ecome more "re#alent) 4AS sta-eholders agree that de#elo"ng usagegudelnes 2efore 4ASs 2ecome more "o"ular ma$ "re#ent a2uses 2$ law enforcement and a negat#e "u2lc"erce"ton of 4ASs)& atng for courts to s"ea- on the ssue o"ens the door for such a2uses to occur n the

meantme) Legslat#e gudance s also lac-ng) As ustce Alto suggested n ones7 legslat#e or regulator$acton ma$ 2etter safeguard "r#ac$ nterests from new technolog$ than courts oflaw)&= Legslatures can res"ond to "u2lc atttudes7 draw a""ro"ratel$ detaled lnes7 and 2alancecom"rehens#e "u2lc nterests)&6' Congress has not $et s"o-en drectl$ on 4AS "r#ac$ ssues) 4nder the current

statutor$ regme7 the FAA a""arentl$ has the greatest authort$ o#er 4ASs due to tsgeneral res"ons2lt$ to regulate the natonal ars"ace 7 and ts s"ecc charge to facltate thesafe ntegraton of 4ASs nto the ars"ace under the FAA Modern5aton and 0eform Act of >'&>)&6& Some 4AS

sta-eholders ha#e alread$ urged the FAA to ncor"orate "r#ac$ concerns nto ts4AS rulema-ng "rocedures)&6> FAA o3cals ha#e re8ected the call to address "r#ac$7 e9"lanng that ts outsde the FAAOs msson of a#aton safet$)&6B %es"te the FAAOs earler "rotest7 howe#er7 n o#em2er >'&B7the agenc$ released Fnal !r#ac$ 0e@urements for ts s9 4AS test stes)&6, 0ather than "rescr2ng su2stant#e"r#ac$ "olces for test ste o"erators7 the re@urements mandate that o"erators de#elo" ther own "r#ac$ and

data retenton "olces and com"l$ wth a""lca2le "r#ac$ law)&6?



24/107

AT Perm do "oth@f *e prove that the counterplan solves the aI and avoids the

net5"eneMt! *e onl- need to *in a ris) of the /A to prove the

perm *ould cause the impacts of the /A

The plan and CP are incompati"le : the perm *ould include the

*arrants *hich *ould lin) to Oinsert net "eneMt H# the-

sever the plan and ma)es going for the counterplan

impossi"le! uniFue reason to vote negative

3cNeal 2$1% (Gregor$ ["rof at !e""erdne 4n#erst$]; %rones and Aeralsur#ellance: Consderatons for Legslators; o#;www)2roo-ngs)eduNresearchNre"orts>N>'&,N&&NdronesDandDaeralDsur#ellance; -df.

Concluson 1he emergence of unmanned aeral #ehcles n domestc s-es rases understanda2le "r#ac$ concerns

that re@ure careful and sometmes creat#e solutons) 1he smartest and most eect#e soluton sto ado"t a "ro"ert$ rghts a""roach that does not disrupt the status Fuo Suchan a""roach7 cou"led wth tmeD2ased "roh2tons on "ersstent sur#ellance7 trans"arenc$7 and data retenton"rocedures wll create the most eect#e and clear legslat#e "ac-age) Legslatorsshould re8ect alarmst calls that suggest we are on the #erge of an Hrwellan "olcestate)[6B] In &=?7 the ACL4 argued n an amcus 2ref led n Calforna #) Craolo that "olce o2ser#aton from anar"lane was Pn#as#e modern technolog$R and u"holdng the search of CraoloOs $ard would Palter socet$Os #er$conce"t of "r#ac$)R Later7 n &=7 the ACL4 argued n Florda #) 0le$ that allowng "olce sur#ellance 2$ helco"terwas PHrwellanR and Pwould e9"ose all Amercans7 ther homes and eects7 to hghl$ ntrus#e snoo"ng 2$go#ernment agents)))R In a derent conte9t n >'', (2efore the ad#ent of the !hone. "olce n oston were gong

to use lac-2err$ "hones to access "u2lc data2ases (the e@u#alent of Googlng.) !r#ac$ ad#ocatesdecred the use of these handheld "hones as Pmass scrutn$ of the l#es andact#tes of nnocent "eo"le7R and Pa #olaton of the core democratc "rnc"le thatthe go#ernment should not 2e "ermtted to #olate a "ersonOs "r#ac$7 unless t hasa reason to 2ele#e that he or she s n#ol#ed n wrongdong) R[6,] 0eactonar$ clams such asthese get the "u2lcOs attenton and are eas$ to ma-e7 2ut ha#e the "redcted harms come trueJ Is the s-$ trul$

fallngJ e should 2e careful to not craft hast$ legslaton 2ased on emotonall$charged rhetorc) Hutrght 2ans on the use of drones and 2roadl$ worded warrantre@urements that functon as the e@u#alent of an outrght 2an do lttle to "rotect"r#ac$ or "u2lc safet$ and n some nstances wll onl$ ser#e to "rotect crmnalwrongdong) Legslators should nstead enact legslaton that mantans the current2alance 2etween legtmate sur#ellance and nd#dualsO "r#ac$ rghts) 1he 2est wa$ toache#e that goal s to follow a "ro"ert$ centrc a""roach7 cou"led wth lmts on "er#as#e sur#ellance7 enhancedtrans"arenc$ measures7 and data "rotecton "rocedures)


25/107


26/107


27/107

3cNeal CP


28/107

1NCThe United States federal government should limit the

persistent use of aerial surveillance! reFuire la* enforcement

agents to delete impertinent information after %R hours! and

mandate that aerial surveillance occur at least 6($ feet a"ovethe ground

The CP is prefera"le to the *arrant5"ased logic of the aI


hle warrants are a""ealng to "r#ac$ ad#ocates7 the enactment of o#erl$ 2roadrestrctons on drone use can curtal nonDn#as#e7 2enecal uses of drones )

?egislators should reBect a *arrant5"ased7 technolog$ centrc a""roach as t sunwor-a2le and counter"roduct#e) Instead7 legslators should follow a "ro"ert$ rghtscentrc a""roach7 cou"led wth lmts on "ersstent sur#ellance7 data retenton"rocedures7 trans"arenc$ and accounta2lt$ measures and a recognton of the"oss2lt$ that technolog$ ma$ ma-e unmanned aeral sur#ellance more "rotect#eof "r#ac$ than manned sur#ellance) 1hs "a"er ma-es #e core recommendatons: Legslators shouldfollow a "ro"ert$ rghts a""roach to aeral sur#ellance) 1hs a""roach "ro#des landowners wth the rght to e9cludearcraft7 "ersons7 and other o28ects from a column of ars"ace e9tendng from the surface of ther land u" to B?'feet a2o#e ground le#el) Such an a""roach ma$ sol#e most "u2lc and "r#ate harms assocated wth drones)

Legslators should craft sm"le7 duratonD2ased sur#ellance legslaton that wll lmtthe aggregate amount of tme the go#ernment ma$ sur#el a s"ecc nd#dual) Suchlegslaton can address the "otental harm of "ersstent sur#ellance7 a harm that s ca"a2le of 2eng commtted 2$

manned and unmanned arcraft)

Legslators should ado"t data retenton "rocedures thatre@ure heghtened le#els of sus"con and ncreased "rocedural "rotectons foraccessng stored data gathered 2$ aeral sur#ellance ) After a legslat#el$ determned "erod oftme7 all stored data should 2e deleted) Legslators should enact trans"arenc$ andaccounta2lt$ measures7 re@urng go#ernment agences to "u2lsh on a regular2ass nformaton a2out the use of aeral sur#ellance de#ces (2oth manned and unmanned.)Legslators should recogn5e that technolog$ such as geofencng and autoDredacton7 ma$ ma-e aeral sur#ellance 2$ drones more "rotect#e of "r#ac$ thanhuman sur#ellance)


29/107

Hvervie*e are counter"lannng out of the a3rmat#es warrant re@urements 2ecause those"ro#sons un@uel$ ma-e t d3cult to "re#ent terror attac-s) Hur Mceal e#dencesa$s that the 2est a""roach to drones s to re@ure trans"arenc$ on data collecton7erasng m"ertnent nformaton7 and ma-ng to so drones ha#e to K$ n hgher

ars"ace) 1hs sol#es the "r#ac$ ad#antage 2ecause t ensures that onl$nformaton "ertnent to n#estgatons s -e"t and "uts drones under the same lawsas helco"ter sur#ellance) e sol#e the drone warfare ad#antage 2ecause thecounter"lan would send the same sgnal nternatonall$ as the "lan 2$ not allowngfor the wea"on5aton of domestc drones) Lastl$7 we a#od the ln- to the terrorsmdsad 2ecause nstead of groundng drones7 we allow for the constant collecton ofe#dence that could 2e #tal n "re#entng a loomng attac-)


30/107

AT Perm /o +oth&) @f *e prove that the counterplan solves the aI and avoidsthe net5"eneMt! *e onl- need to *in a ris) of the /A to prove

the perm *ould cause terrorism

2 The aI and CP are incompati"le : the perm *ould include

the "aggage of *arrants H# the- sever the plan and ma)es

going negative impossi"le! uniFue reason to vote negative


Concluson 1he emergence of unmanned aeral #ehcles n domestc s-es rases understanda2le "r#ac$ concerns

that re@ure careful and sometmes creat#e solutons) 1he smartest and most eect#e soluton sto ado"t a "ro"ert$ rghts a""roach that does not disrupt the status Fuo Suchan a""roach7 cou"led wth tmeD2ased "roh2tons on "ersstent sur#ellance7 trans"arenc$7 and data retenton"rocedures wll create the most eect#e and clear legslat#e "ac-age ) Legslatorsshould re8ect alarmst calls that suggest we are on the #erge of an Hrwellan "olcestate )[6B] In &=?7 the ACL4 argued n an amcus 2ref led n Calforna #) Craolo that "olce o2ser#aton from anar"lane was Pn#as#e modern technolog$R and u"holdng the search of CraoloOs $ard would Palter socet$Os #er$conce"t of "r#ac$)R Later7 n &=7 the ACL4 argued n Florda #) 0le$ that allowng "olce sur#ellance 2$ helco"terwas PHrwellanR and Pwould e9"ose all Amercans7 ther homes and eects7 to hghl$ ntrus#e snoo"ng 2$go#ernment agents)))R In a derent conte9t n >'', (2efore the ad#ent of the !hone. "olce n oston were gong

to use lac-2err$ "hones to access "u2lc data2ases (the e@u#alent of Googlng.) !r#ac$ ad#ocatesdecred the use of these handheld "hones as P mass scrutn$ of the l#es andact#tes of nnocent "eo"le7R and Pa #olaton of the core democratc "rnc"le thatthe go#ernment should not 2e "ermtted to #olate a "ersonOs "r#ac$7 unless t has

a reason to 2ele#e that he or she s n#ol#ed n wrongdong) R[6,] 0eactonar$ clams such asthese get the "u2lcOs attenton and are eas$ to ma-e7 2ut ha#e the "redcted harms come trueJ Is the s-$ trul$

fallngJ e should 2e careful to not craft hast$ legslaton 2ased on emotonall$charged rhetorc ) Hutrght 2ans on the use of drones and 2roadl$ worded warrantre@urements that functon as the e@u#alent of an outrght 2an do lttle to "rotect"r#ac$ or "u2lc safet$ and n some nstances wll onl$ ser#e to "rotect crmnalwrongdong) Legslators should nstead enact legslaton that mantans the current2alance 2etween legtmate sur#ellance and nd#dualsO "r#ac$ rghts) 1he 2est wa$ toache#e that goal s to follow a "ro"ert$ centrc a""roach7 cou"led wth lmts on "er#as#e sur#ellance7 enhancedtrans"arenc$ measures7 and data "rotecton "rocedures)


31/107

AT Perm do the CPPolic- precision is uniFue in the instance of drones : the perm

*ould sever out of the *arrant provision of the 1ac! voting

issues for education and fairness

Qang 2$1% (Q) %ouglas [% oston 4]; IG 0H1E0+S G0H IGS: 1E%HMES1IC !0HLIFE0A1IH HF %0HE S40/EILLACE A% 1E LA+S 0ES!HSE;>B )4) !u2) Int) L)) B,B; -df.

I/) Concluson %rones "resent a re#olutonar$ "ro2lem that re@ures 2oth the udcar$ andlegslatures to modf$ ther a""roaches to regulatng and controllng go#ernment sur#ellance) nB'= 4"holdng thes"rt of the Fourth Amendment7 a s"rt that em2odes notons of "r#ac$ and securt$ from unwarrantedgo#ernment nter#enton7 nB&' re@ures that socet$ at least attem"t to mantan a smlar degree of "r#ac$ wthdrones that "eo"le en8o$ed wthout drones) 1he Su"reme Court+s framewor- for anal$5ng Fourth Amendment@uestons underlnes the d3cult$ and sheer magntude of ths tas-7 howe#er) nB&& H#er the course numerousterms7 the Su"reme Court has oscllated 2etween the rgd nter"retatons of Hlmstead7 to "ractcal $etndetermnate constructons of "r#ac$ n E#en when dscussngnarrowl$ talored ssues such as aeral sur#ellance7 the Court struggles to mantan a rm footng as to whatconsttutes a search7 and what does not) nB&B onetheless7 the Su"reme Court+s framewor- "ro#des useful

gudance for formng a soluton that answers how socet$ can successfull$ assmlate drone sur#ellance nto theAmercan landsca"e wthout further deteroratng nd#dual "r#ac$ rghts and e9"ectatons) e$ond the Su"reme

Court+s gudance7 the #arous federal and state legslat#e res"onses to the rse of dronesur#ellance "ro#de $et another nsght nto how drone sur#ellance should 2etreated) nB&, Anal$5ng legslat#e res"onses generall$ $elds a much closer #ew ofhow the general "u2lc #ews drone use7 [B] sm"l$ 2ecause [a] legslat#e 2od$ s well stuatedto gauge changng "u2lc atttudes7 to draw detaled lnes7 and to 2alance "r#ac$ and "u2lc safet$ n a

com"rehens#e wa$) nB&? 1he nearDu2@utous warrant re@urements among 2oth thefederal and state "ro"osals clearl$ ndcate that the legslatures ntend to restrctdrone use a2o#e and 2e$ond the Su"reme Court+s 2aselne rules) nB& e#ertheless7nether the Su"reme Court nor the #arous legslat#e "ro"osals "ro"erl$ address how to dene and restrct dronesur#ellance; the Court sm"l$ has not addressed the lmts of drone use as of $et7 and the legslatures ha#emsa""led warrant re@urements to drones when such re@urements are too 2road7 too 2lunt7 and unreasona2l$

restrct#e) nB&6 1o eect#el$ address the "r#ac$ ssues that surround dronesur#ellance7 one needs to a""l$ a new a""roach that s founded on legal "recedentand em2races a 2alance 2etween socet$+s nterest n eect#e law enforcementand the nd#dual+s nterest n "ersonal "r#ac$) Instead of a""l$ng a nearDun#ersalwarrant re@urement7 courts and legslatures should loo- to 2rghtDlne rules that aremore "recse7 attuned7 and reasona2le7 whle aordng a smlar le#el of "rotectonthat an ordnar$ "erson en8o$s toda$) nB& 1hs ote "resents s9 2rghtDlne rules to assstlegslatures and courts n ther determnatons of how drone sur#ellance should 2e regulated) nB&= Each of the s9rules restates the Su"reme Court+s understandng of the Fourth Amendment7 $et smultaneousl$ ncor"oratesuggestons from #arous federal and state legslat#e "ro"osals that addressed the "u2lc+s concerns) nB>' As theworld of "r#ac$ law and the Fourth Amendment wander nto the uncertan ca#erns of drone sur#ellance7 ths oteams to shed some lght onto the rght "ath forward) hle socet$ ma$ currentl$ see drones as an un-nown entt$7

socet$ ma$ soon nd a "ath that "reser#es ts fundamental #alues and securt$7whle ena2lng genune law enforcement wor- to carr$ out ts dut$ to "rotect us all)


32/107

AT &'igent circumstances solve the N+ 0AT Perm

do the CP&'igent circumstances donN>'&,N&&NdronesDandDaeralDsur#ellance; -df.

Legslators should re8ect 2roadl$ worded use restrctons) Some 8ursdctons ha#e enactedlmtatons on how nformaton gathered from drones ma$ 2e used) Legslators should re8ect these2roadl$ worded use restrctons that "roh2t the use of an$ e#dence gathered 2$drones n nearl$ an$ "roceedng) Such restrctons e9ceed the "arameters of theFourth Amendment and n some crcumstances ma$ onl$ ser#e to "rotect crmnalswhle not deterrng go#ernmental wrongdong) For e9am"le7 the Alameda Count$ CalfornaSherOs %e"artment "ro"osed the use of small drones for: crme scene documentaton7 EH% mssons7 AWMA1res"onse7 search and rescue7 "u2lc safet$ and lfe "reser#aton mssons7 dsaster res"onse7 re "re#enton7 and

documentaton of a felon$ when such documentaton s "remsed u"on "ro2a2le cause)[?B] Lnda L$le7 a "r#ac$ad#ocate wth the ACL4 crtc5ed the "ro"osal7 statng: PIf the sher wants a drone for search and rescue then the"olc$ should sa$ he can onl$ use t for search and rescue)))4nfortunatel$ under hs "olc$ he can de"lo$ a drone forsearch and rescue7 2ut then use the data for untold other "ur"oses) 1hat s a huge loo"hole7 tOs an e9ce"ton that

swallows the rule)R[?,] er "onts mrror the ACL4Os "oston n ther %ecem2er >'&& whte "a"er wherethe$ state that drone use s acce"ta2le so long as Pthe sur#ellance wll not 2e used forsecondar$ law enforcement "ur"oses)R[??] It s also smlar to the language used nother "ro"osals "roh2tng the use of nformaton gathered 2$ a drone Pas e#denceaganst an nd#dual n an$ tral7 hearng or other "roceedng))))R[?] A sm"le h$"othetcalcan hel" to llustrate the "ro2lem wth ths a""roach) Imagne that law enforcement uses a droneto search for a lost h-er n a state "ar-) 1hs s a search and rescue msson that ts wthn the "u2lcsafet$7 emergenc$7 or e9genc$ e9ce"tons n most legslat#e "ro"osals amed at controllng drone usage) owe#er7

magne that durng the course of the search the drone o2ser#ed a man sta22ng awoman to death n the "ar-) 1hat collecton was entrel$ nad#ertent7 and as suchsu""ressng the #deota"e of the sta22ng would not ser#e to deter the "olce fromusng drones n the future as the$ were not searchng for an unrelated sta22ngcrme7 the$ were searchng for a lost h-er) Qet7 that e#dence under the 2lan-et use restrctons found n #arous"ro"osals crculatng n state legslatures7 Congress7 and under the ACL4Os Psecondar$ law enforcement "ur"osesR

standard would need to 2e su""ressed)[?6] Su""ressng secondarl$ gathered e#dence doesnOt"rotect "r#ac$ (as nad#ertent dsco#er$ canOt 2e deterred.; t merel$ "rotects a crmnal who fo2ser#ed from a helco"ter7 an ar"lane7 or from the ground would face e#dence ofhs crme7 2ut under 2roadl$ worded drone focused "r#ac$ 2lls ma$ 2e more d3cult to "rosecute) It sd3cult to see what "u2lc "olc$ goal s furthered 2$ su""ressng e#dence of acrme merel$ 2ecause the e#dence was gathered from a drone nstead of ahelco"ter) %o legslators reall$ want to 2e n the "oston of ma-ng t harder to "unsh "er"etrators of #olentcrmeJ If the dsco#er$ were genunel$ nad#ertent7 there s lttle to no deterrent #alue that

8ustes su""ressng such e#dence)


33/107

AT CP doesn,>%rones should 2e used onl$ for n#estgatons of s"ecc targets7 not merel$ to loo- for crme) Ct5ens of the4nted States do not want to 2ecome ct5ens of the ne9t So#et 4non where agents and drones randoml$ "atrol forcrmnal or antDstate act#t$) Ct5ens fear that regular drone Kghts mght nad#ertentl$ collect data from a whole

range of nd#duals unrelated to a s"ecc n#estgaton) !6 1he answer les not n re@urng awarrant or a "artcular e9ce"ton to the warrant re@urement7 2ut n re@urng lawenforcement to see- a court order smlar to that re@ured for a "en regster under &4)S)C X >6'B) n>,B 1o o2tan such a court order 7 law enforcement o3cals would need todemonstrate s"ecc and artcula2le facts ndcatng that the data s rele#ant to an

ongong crmnal n#estgaton) 1hs would "re#ent law enforcement from usngdrones to randoml$ search for crme n a "artcular area) 1he order would s"ecf$ the dentt$7f -nown7 of the "erson who s the su28ect of the crmnal n#estgaton and whom law enforcement would l-e to

sur#el and descr2e the "artcular5ed need for the nformaton that can 2e gathered wth the drone) n>,, !6= 1he order also should contan language re@urng law enforcement to dscard an$nformaton collected 2$ the drone that s not rele#ant to the sco"e of then#estgaton wthn twent$Dfour to fort$Deght$ hours) 1hs re@urement would alle#ate an$concerns that the go#ernment would collect ths nformaton for other nefarous "ur"oses n the future) eng that ts a court order7 ths re@urement would ha#e teeth as long as magstrates sgnng these orders follow u" and


34/107

demand that law enforcement demonstrate that the$ n fact ha#e com"led wth the order and destro$ed an$rrele#ant nformaton) If a law enforcement o3cer fals to com"l$7 a #aret$ of sanctons could 2e used to demandcom"lance) Sanctons e#en as se#ere as 8al tme would cause an$ law enforcement agent to com"l$ full$) !'

1he court order also should nclude a "enalt$ for dsclosng to unauthor5ed "ersonsdata o2taned from a drone7 there2$ lmtng e9"osure of the nformaton togo#ernment "ersonnel wor-ng on the "artcular case7 smlar to grand 8ur$ secrec$

re@urements under the Federal 0ule of Crmnal !rocedure (e.) n>,? 4nder Federal 0ule of Crmnal !rocedure (e.(6.7 [a] -nowng #olaton of 0ule ) ) ) ma$ 2e "unshed as a contem"t of court) n>, Moreo#er7 f the drone sKown outsde the FAA regulated na#ga2le ars"ace and #ews act#t$ not wthn the "u2lc+s #antage "ont7"enaltes should also 2e n "lace to "unsh those nd#duals n #olaton of strct Kght gudelnes "ro#ded n thecourt order) !unshng nd#dual agents wth contem"t of court holds 2oth law enforcement and 8udges accounta2leand l-el$ wll ser#e as a more eect#e means to "re#ent go#ernment a2use than re@urng warrants "ror to droneKghts) !& 1he re@urement of a court order smlar to that found "ursuant to & 4)S)C) X >6'B elmnates thecharade of ttng drone use wthn the Fourth Amendment conte9t) Instead7 t mandates a standard smlar to thatre@ured for an$ nformaton the go#ernment re@uests #a a court order7 such as a re@uest for a "en regster) n>,6hle the Su"reme Court deemed a "en regster to 2e outsde the Fourth Amendment7 Congress later "assed &4)S)C) X >6'B to "ro#de some "rotectons aganst go#ernmental a2use) n>, %rone use does not g#e rse to"r#ac$ ssues; t g#es rse to concerns of go#ernment a2use and should follow the "en regster "recedent) n>,=

!> 1he 4)S) Consttuton contans no e9"ress rght to "r#ac$7 2ut the FourthAmendment "ro#des certan guarantees for the "r#ac$ of the "erson and"ossessons) n>?' 1he l2ert$ guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment has 2een 2roadl$ nter"reted toguarantee a farl$ 2road rght of "r#ac$ and "r#ac$ ssues) n>?& 1he Court can address the "oss2lenfrngement on these undened "r#ac$ ssues 2$ focusng on the legalt$ of dronesur#ellance through the "rsm of reasona2le use) If law enforcement utl5es the drone tocollect data that s rele#ant to a "artcular7 ongong n#estgaton7 then the drone use s reasona2le) n>?> 1hegreater the ntrus#eness of the n#estgator$ tool7 the greater the "oss2lt$ that tool wll mo#e nto the searchcategor$ of the Fourth Amendment7 at whch "ont the tool 2ecomes unreasona2le wthout a warrant) n>?B 1herefore7 a drone that ho#ers around 2edroom wndows and ta-es "hotogra"hs of the lad$ of the house ta-ng herdal$ sauna would 2e ntrus#e and unreasona2le and would consttute a search under the Fourth Amendment (aswould a drone wth thermal magng or 9Dra$ ca"a2ltes.7 and a warrant s re@ured) owe#er7 f the lad$ of thehouse chooses to wal- outsde and tend to her garden n her front $ard7 she must come to terms wth the fact that"r$ng e$es ma$ 2e watchngDDwhether t 2e realtors7 oll$wood lmma-ers7 or law enforcement) 1he tool used n"u2lc areas s reasona2le and can 2e utl5ed wthout a warrant) It would 2e reasona2le for an$ of these actors tocome across the gardener n the "rocess of conductng ther own drone "ro8ects) If law enforcement re@uested theutl5aton of a drone #a a X >6'B court order to assst them n the sur#ellance of a realDtme drug transacton andha""en u"on the lad$ of the house tendng her mar8uana garden7 then t would 2e reasona2le for the go#ernmentto use that e#dence aganst her n a crmnal "rosecuton) n>?, Language n the court order should allow for thesu2se@uent use of ths t$"e of nformaton) Hnce outsde7 the lad$ of the house ta-es the rs- that her actons wll2e seen; our 5ones of "r#ac$ where a warrant s re@ured ha#e tradtonall$ 2een reser#ed for our ndoor act#tes)

!B Hur rght to "r#ac$ stems from our desre to 2e free from go#ernmentalnterference n our dal$ l#es) In the Fourth Amendment conte9t7 we ha#e a rght to 2e freefrom unreasona2le searches and se5ures and a rght to 2e free from go#ernmentala2use) owe#er7 these "rotectons do not e9tend to an$ lmtaton on lawenforcement+s use of drone sur#ellance n "u2lc areas for a s"ecc "ur"ose) 1here sno realstc e9"ectaton of "r#ac$ when a drone "asses o#er one+s house or car or o2ser#es our act#t$ n "u2lc)

e ga#e u" the lu9ur$ of "r#ac$ n "u2lc "laces long ago) !, %rone use 2$ law enforcement must2e lmted 2ut not undul$ su28ected to Fourth Amendment scrutn$7 as drones

should not consttute a search) 1o lmt the tem"taton to use drones to loo- for crme7 lawenforcement could 2e su28ect to the court order "rocess "ror to utl5ng a drone n an n#estgaton) !? In m$o"non7 n the followng scenaros drone use 2$ law enforcement mght fall closer towards a search under theFourth Amendment and a warrant would most l-el$ 2e re@ured: (&. 1he drone s Kown outsde FAA na#ga2lears"ace for arcraft and helco"ters (2elow ,'' feet.; (>. 1he drone collects nformaton emanatng from wthn thehome (smlar to thermal magng or nfrared sensors that detect mo#ement.; (B. Law enforcement uses hghl$so"hstcated technolog$ that s not commercall$ a#ala2le (e)g)7 automated lcense "late readers or facalrecognton technolog$.; (,. 1he drone ho#ers around a "artcular area whch ma$ consttute a longDterm sustanedmontorng as mentoned n ones7 and a reasona2le e9"ectaton of "r#ac$ s trggered; or (?. 1he drone ho#ers andcreates an undue amount of wnd7 nose7 dust7 or threat of n8ur$ that could consttute a tres"ass) ! FourthAmendment cases n#o-ng the


35/107

"ermt the go#ernment to see what would otherwse 2e n#s2le to the na-ed e$e7 e#en n da$lght7 from a lawful#antage "ont. and the nature of the "lace 2eng o2ser#ed (s t an o"en eld7 the curtlage of a home7 commercal"ro"ert$ as n %ow Chemcal7 or the nteror of a homeJ.) n>?? 1he more a drone o"erates outsde of FAA gudelnesand the more a drone causes undue dust7 nose7 and wnd7 the more the drone o"eraton wll consttute a tres"assand the Fourth Amendment s trggered) 1he more a drone uses hghl$ so"hstcated technolog$ not a#ala2le for"u2lc use or collects nformaton from nsde the home7 the more the drone o"eraton wll consttute a searchunder the Fourth Amendment as ct5ens wll ha#e a reasona2le e9"ectaton of "r#ac$ n the area and act#tes2eng o2ser#ed) !6 1herefore7 drones that K$ wthn FAA na#ga2le ars"ace7 o2ser#ng "r#ate "ro"ert$ 2elow thatcan 2e seen 2$ the "u2lc n an arcraft7 and usng commercall$ a#ala2le cameras or enhanced sensor$technolog$7 would fall outsde Fourth Amendment "rotectons and should 2e regulated #a court order as "re#ousl$suggested)


36/107

AT /oesn


37/107

AT /oesn


38/107

AT CP ?in)s to the terror /AThere is a )e- distinction "et*een the aI and the counterplan

: the- ma)e it more onerous for drones to collect data that *ill

prevent a terror attac) The CP allo*s for constant surveillance

"ut onl- )eeps the data that is useful in solving terror : that


39/107

AT Separation of Po*ers Add5on/omestic sp-ing isn'&,N'N'?NtheDchllngDeectDofD

domestcDs"$ngN; -df.Congress has ts share of the 2lame for the domestc s"$ng that has and e#en toths da$ s ta-ng "lace) After all t s congress that has the res"ons2lt$ of o#ersghto#er agences and de"artments of the federal go#ernment) All too often congress has faledto do what t has 2een tas-ed wth dong; "erformng o#ersght) In fact7 not too long ago congress ga#e retroact#emmunt$ to telecom com"anes for the roles telecom com"anes "la$ed n llegall$ collectng nformaton for theSA at the re@uest of former !resdent ush) hen t comes down to t7 there s "lent$ of P2lameR to go around)Some are gult$: All are res"ons2le ncludng the "u2lc for not demandng 2etter of our elected and a""onted

o3cals) hether a %emocrat or 0e"u2lcan occu"ed the hte ouse or regardless of whch "art$ controlled the Senate andNor the ouse of 0e"resentat#es7 domestcs"$ng too- "lace and s stll ta-ng "lace) %omestc s"$ng s not a P0ghtR or PLeftR ssue) %omestcs"$ng s an e@ual o""ortunt$ oender)


40/107

/isads


41/107

>eneric @mpact


42/107

Politics 5 AT Courts Shield

President gets "lamed for Court


43/107

strong ma8ort$ of regstered #oters l-el$ to #ote n ne9t $ear+s "resdental andcongressonal electons would #ew 0e"u2lcans less fa#ora2l$ f the$ dd nothng to

re"lace those 2llons of dollars of lost su2sdes7 and used such a Su"reme Courtdecson as le#erage to com"letel$ re"eal H2amacare)

Supreme Court decisions reFuire legislative and e'ecutive

action 55 ensures controversial decisions are perceived "- the

pu"lic

3onda) and Smithe- 78(eer$ )7 Florda State 4n#erst$7 ShannonIsh$ama7 4n#erst$ of !tts2urgh7 P1he %$namcs of !u2lc Su""ort for the Su"remeCourtR 1he ournal of !oltcs7 o#)7 (?=., 7 ") &&&,D&&,>.

1he $upreme Court is an inherently weak nsttuton) 1o g#e m"act to tsdecsons7 the Court depends on le#islators or undin#7 the e9ecut#e forenorcement, and the public or compliance) 1hs last relationship-between the Su"reme Court and the public provides the Court with its most dauntin# obstacles) Adsgruntled public may not onl$ reuse to cooperate with a $upreme Court decision72ut ma$ also pressure elected oicials to resist implementation of 8udcal orders) Assuch7 des"te the Su"reme Court+s nomnal nsulaton from the Amercan"eo"le7 the Court+s 8ustces ha#e strong ncent#es to 2e concerned wth ther"u2lc standng) 1he Su"reme Court would seem to 2e n a "erlous strategc"oston: i the Court acts as a policy leader, it risks loss o critical public esteem;con#ersel$7 f the Court+s 8ustces attend too closel$ to ther standng n the"olls7 the$ ma$ a#od addressng the thorn$ socal and "oltcal @uestons forwhch a 8udcal decson s most needed)

http://www.jstor.org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/action/showPublication?journalCode=jpoliticshttp://www.jstor.org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/action/showPublication?journalCode=jpolitics


44/107

AT Privac- out*eighs/rones are )e- to Mrst amendment rights! turns the aI

+err- 2$1% (Mchael ["artner n the !hladel"ha o3ce of Le#ne Sull#an '&, got under wa$7 Amercans 2egan to hear more a2out drones K$ngdomestcall$7 rght here7 o#er 4)S) sol) Last $ear 2rought a s"ate of droneDrelated headlnes: A Colorado townconsdered an ordnance allowng ts resdents to shoot down go#ernment drones) In Manhattan a small dronecaromed o a s-$scra"er and crashed onto a 2us$ sdewal-) Hn ' Mnutes7 Ama5on CEH e e5os announced

that hs com"an$ ho"es one da$ to use drones to del#er "ac-ages) As we saw these headlnes7 "eo"le 2eganto real5e that drones are not sm"l$ mass#e 2om2Ddro""ng7 foregnDs"$ngar"lanes) 1he$ come n all sha"es and s5es and ha#e countless uses) Some drones loo- l-e ar"lanes) Hthersloo- l-e small7 hghDtech helco"ters) And stll others loo- l-e nothng $ou+#e e#er seen 2efore and can e#en t n

$our hand) !eo"le can "ut drones to wor- n man$ wa$s) 1he$ can do seemngl$ o2#ous thngs7l-e chec- tra3c condtons7 lm thrllng acton scenes for mo#es or "ro#de aeral "hotogra"hs for real estate

agents see-ng to show o houses) %rones can also do more com"lcated wor- that currentl$re@ures great eort or "uts "eo"le n harm+s wa$: 1he$ can hel" farmers montorther cro"s) 1he$ can ta-e measurements to trac- en#ronmental condtons) And7followng natural dsasters7 the$ can sur#e$ damage and loo- for sur##ors) %rones can also ma-eseemngl$ m"oss2le tas-s "oss2le DD whether @uc-l$ K$ng Kotaton de#ces to "eo"le adrft n the ocean or

del#erng a "55a n B' mnutes or less) And drones can ser#e a sgncant "u2lc nterest 2$"ro#dng a new tool for 8ournalsts to use n gatherng and dssemnatngnformaton) 1he$ alread$ ha#e 2een llng ths role nternatonall$7 ca"turng dramatc mages of go#ernment"rotests n ''67 the FAA ssued a "olc$ statement "ro#dng thatthose gudelnes "ermt onl$ ho22$sts to K$ drones and that drones cannot 2e Kown for commercal "ur"oses)

Essentall$ the FAA has sta-ed out the "oston that go#ernment enttes can K$ dronesf s"eccall$ a""ro#ed 2$ the FAA and "r#ate ct5ens can K$ drones onl$ f the$are ho22$sts or f the FAA grants them a wa#er to e9"erment under lmtedcrcumstances)


45/107

&conom- /A


46/107

1NCThe econom- is strongD"ut can easil- "e reversed

Saphir 2$1( (Ann; 4)S) econom$ sn+t as wea- as estmates suggest7 Fed "a"ersa$s; www)reuters)comNartcleN>'&?N'?N&NusDusaDfedDgd"D

d4S "ercent7 far 2elow economsts+ e9"ectatons and uncomforta2l$ close to anoutrght contracton l-e that e9"erenced n the rst @uarter of >'&,) ut 2$ runnng a seres of statstcal

correctons for the wa$ the go#ernment accounts for seasonal #aratons n out"ut7 the "a"er+s authorsfound a good chance that underl$ng economc growth so far ths $ear wassu2stantall$ stronger than re"orted) A chart n the "a"er suggested rstD@uarter growth ma$ ha#e2een closer to &) "ercent) 1hat+s stll 2elow the econom$+s "otental 2ut not dramatcall$ so) A stronger econom$

suggests a lower hurdle for the Fed to rase nterest rates that ha#e 2een near 5ero snce %ecem2er >'') SanFrancsco Fed !resdent ohn llams7 whose chef research economst coDauthored Monda$+s "a"er7has sad he 2ele#es the econom$ wll 2ounce 2ac- ths @uarter and ma$ 2e strongenough for the Fed to 2egn rasng nterest rates e#en as soon as une) 1he "a"er+sconclusons are at odds wth the ndngs "u2lshed last wee- 2$ economsts at the ashngtonD2ased Federal0eser#e oard) 1he$ argued that the recent "attern of rstD@uarter economc slowdowns sn+t a reKecton of astatstcal Ku-e n the wa$ 4)S) gross domestc "roduct s measured)

The plan guts tens of thousands of good pa-ing Bo"s

Wolfgang 2$16 (en; %rone ndustr$ "redcts e9"los#e economc 2oost; Mar&>; www)washngtontmes)comNnewsN>'&BNmarN&>NdroneDndustr$D"redctsDe9"los#eDeconomcD2oostNJ"ageall; -df.

%rones as wea"ons and drones as s"es reman matters of ntense de2ate across the countr$7 2utthe contro#ersal arcraft are "osed to ma-e an m"act as somethng else: economcengnes) !r#ateDsector drones T also called unmanned aeral s$stems or 4A/s T wll create more than6'7''' 8o2s wthn three $ears and wll "um" more than \> 2llon nto the 4)S)econom$ 2$ >'>?7 accordng to a ma8or new stud$ commssoned 2$ the ndustr$Os leadng trade grou")ut the re"ort7 authored 2$ aeros"ace s"ecalst and former George ashngton 4n#erst$ "rofessor %arr$l en-ns7 assumes thatthe hte ouse and Congress stc- to the current schedule and ha#e n "lace the necessar$ legal and regulator$ framewor-s)Current law calls for full drone ntegraton nto 4)S) ars"ace 2$ Se"tem2er >'&?7 2ut man$ -e$ "r#ac$ @uestons surroundng 4A/sha#e $et to 2e answered) 1hereOs also growng dou2t that the Federal A#aton Admnstraton can meet the congressonall$mandated tmeta2le) If deadlnes are met and drones 2ecome common"lace n Amercan s-es7 some states wll 2e es"ecall$ 2g

wnners) /rgna7 for e9am"le7 stands to gan nearl$ >7?'' 8o2s 2$ >'&6) It also could ta-e n\,), mllon n ta9 re#enue and see more than \,' mllon n o#erall economc

act#t$ 2$ >'&67 the re"ort sa$s) /rgna would gan the eghthDmost 8o2s of an$ state as a result of drone ntegraton)Mar$land snOt far 2ehnd7 wth "ro8ectons of more than &76'' new 8o2s 2$ >'&6) Calforna would 2e 2$ far the2ggest wnner n terms of 8o2s7 wth more than &>7''' e9"ected ) Florda7 1e9as7 ew Qor-7ashngton7 Connectcut7


47/107

economc "otental of drones T runs dee"er than 8ust dollars and cents) 1he ndustr$ faces an uncertan future n lght of growng"u2lc "aranoa surroundng the craft T "aranoa that has onl$ 2een heghtened 2$ the de2ate o#er whether the H2amaadmnstraton would e#er consder usng a drone to -ll an Amercan on 4)S) sol) hle the drones that wll 2e em"lo$ed 2$ 4)S)com"anes or law enforcement agences are far derent than the mltar$Dst$le 4A/s e@u""ed wth ellre mssles7 thosedstnctons arenOt alwa$s clear) 1uesda$Os re"ort not onl$ oered the ndustr$ a chance to shne the s"otlght on dronesO "ost#euses and economc "otental7 2ut also ser#ed as an o""ortunt$ T or7 "erha"s a warnng T to lawma-ers see-ng to lmt 4A/s) Morethan >' states are consderng 2lls to esta2lsh strct gudelnes for what drones can do) /rgna s mullng a measure that would "uta twoD$ear moratorum on all go#ernment use of drones) Such a measure would 2e es"ecall$ harsh 2ecause rstDres"onders such

as "olce and re de"artments are e9"ected to 2e one of the largest mar-ets for 4A/s) L-e other growng andthr#ng sectors of the econom$7 the drone 2usness l-el$ wll set u" sho" n frendl$en#ronments) Phle we "ro8ect more than &''7''' new 8o2s 2$ >'>?7 states that create fa#ora2le regulator$ and 2usnessen#ronments for the ndustr$ and the technolog$ wll l-el$ s"hon 8o2s awa$ from states that do not7R sad Mr) en-ns7 the re"ortOslead author who used to head George ashngton 4n#erst$Os A#aton Insttute and also s a former "rofessor at Em2r$D0ddle4n#erst$) Hn another front7 the FAA a""ears to 2e n danger of mssng the congressonall$ mandated >'&? deadlne for dronentegraton) 1he agenc$ 8ust recentl$ 2egan ta-ng

Aerial Surveillance Negative - Michigan7 2015

Documents

Transcript of Aerial Surveillance Negative - Michigan7 2015