Poliy Debate topic analysis 15 16-bg

WHO WATCHES THE WATCHERS?

BRYAN GASTONHERITAGE HALL SCHOOL

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK2015-2016

Domestic Surveillance:Policy Topic Analysis

The Order

1. Resolution and Key Terms2. Historical Background3. Affirmative Advantages/Harms

4. Plans/Cases5. Negative Disadvantages, Counterplans, and Kritiks

The Resolution and Key Terms

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance.

Resolution and Key Terms

United States federal government-the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal governments of the United States.

You will likely see cases that use executive action, congressional action, or judicial action.

The case for why your specific actor matters when debating the surveillance topic!


Curtail-reduce in extent or quantity; impose a restriction on.

Its-possessive form of it. (must be USFG domestic surveillance—excludes foreign, state and local government surveillance)


Domestic-of or relating to one’s own or a particular country as apart from other countries.

Surveillance-continuous observation of a place, person, group, or ongoing activity in order to gather information.

A “domestic surveillance” definition?

“Domestic Surveillance” Precise Definition

Small 8 [“His Eyes are Watching You: Domestic Surveillance, Civil Liberties and Executive Power during Times of National Crisis,” MATTHEW L. SMALL, United States Air Force Academy, 2008 http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Fellows2008/Small.pdf]

Domestic surveillance is a subset of intelligence gathering. Intelligence, as it is to be understood in this context, is “information that meets the stated or understood needs of policy makers and has been collected, processed and narrowed to meet those needs” (Lowenthal 2006, 2). In essence, domestic surveillance is a means to an end; the end being intelligence. The intelligence community best understands domestic surveillance as the acquisition of nonpublic information concerning United States persons (Executive Order 12333 (3.4) (i)). With this definition domestic surveillance remains an overly broad concept.

http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Fellows2008/Small.pdf




Historical Background

1791--4th Amendment in the Bill of Rights protects citizens from “unreasonable searches and seizures.” security vs. liberty balance

1967—Katz v. United States: 4th Amendment does protect non-tangible possessions such as phone calls and electronic transmissions. It establishes “reasonable expectation of privacy” in homes, office, hotel rooms, and warrants are necessary for surveillance of those spaces.


1968—Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act: restricts wiretapping but allows executive exception if in service of protecting the United States.

1972—Nixon is impeached (wiretapping and theft of docs)

1978—Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA): creates secret court to hear requests for warrants to obtain foreign intelligence information.

1986—Electronic Comm Privacy Act (ECPA): adds wireless data and communications to OCSSA Act.


2001—Wake of 9/11, Patriot Act: changes to FISA and ECPA including easing wiretapping restrictions. Section 215 allows sharing of “any tangible thing” as part of foreign intelligence or international terrorism investigation.

2006—Patriot Act Renewed2007—Protect America Act: amends FISA by

removing warrant requirement for surveillance of foreign targets “reasonably believed” to be outside the US. President Bush issues 1st National Strategy for Information Sharing (NSI)


2008—FISA Amendments Act: allows immunity for telecom companies that cooperate with government informational gathering and more.

2011—Extension of the Patriot Act2012—Congress extends FISA Amendments Act

while the New York times has be reporting on over collection of data by the USFG for years.

2013—Snowden happens, PRISM revealed to public, 1st ruling against NSA’s surveillance program handed down by Federal District Court for DC. The program is allowed to exist while Congress reforms the law.


2014—President Obama announced reforms to the surveillance program based on an advisory panel commissioned in 2013 to evaluate the NSA.

The reforms he outlined include: requiring NSA analysts to get a court order to access phone data unless in cases of emergencies; an eventual end to the collection of massive amounts of metadata by the government; the NSA will stop eavesdropping on leaders of allied nations; officials can pursue a phone number linked to a terrorist association by two degrees rather than three; and Congress will appoint advocates to argue on the side of civil liberties before the FISA court.


2015—2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled in May that Congress never authorized the bulk collection of phone records in the Patriot Act so the NSA program is illegal. They said it may continue but they called on Congress to amend the law.

June 2nd USA Freedom Act: The act ends the NSA's bulk collection of phone records of millions of Americans. That responsibility shifts to the phone companies, who can turn the data over to the government only when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court issues a warrant to search the phone records of individuals. The law also reinstates three provisions of the USA Patriot Act, which expired on June 1: roving wiretaps of terror suspects who change devices, surveillance of "lone wolf" suspects who are not affiliated with a terrorist organization, and the seeking of court orders to search business records.

Affirmative Advantages/Harms

Democracy/Tyranny: Path to totalitarianism, weaken democratic norms, international modeling vs. domestic decline

Racism and Religious Discrimination: Disproportionate targeting of specific groups

Constitutional Rights A. 1st Amendment—Speech, press, right to assemble and petitionB. 4th Amendment—Unreasonable searches and seizuresC. 14th Amendment—Due process and equal protection


Economy: Foreign companies and countries concerns over US corporation compliance with USFG surveillance

Foreign Relations: Many countries are angry about US surveillance. Possible International Law internal links

US Hegemony: Accessed via soft power or hard power internals


Securitization: State transforms subjects into matters of security, an extreme form of politicization

Biopolitics: Social and political power over life

Ethics of Privacy

Internet Security (US infrastructure trust)

Potential Plans/Cases

Mass Surveillance Program CasesSurveillance State Repeal Act (Patriot Act

and FISA Amendments Act of 08)Stricter requirements for access/warrantsPrivate company can collect but no NSAFISA court regulationsEnd a specific program like PRISM

(corporations giving data to the USFG)


Technology Cases DronesFace-recognition, BiometricsRFID ChipsSmart Video Surveillance-learn what’s

“normal”Civilian Encryption ProtectionJust scratching surface…


Social Monitoring AffsBoarder/Immigration SurveillanceEnd Muslim and Arab Targeting End Surveilling of the Black Body Disease MonitoringWelfare MonitoringProtest Group Infiltration-specific groupFBI Searches and CONTELPROEducation Tracking Programs

Negative Disadvantages

Terrorism or Intelligence DAPolitical Capital DAElections DAExecutive Power Good DAFederalism DA Court DAs

A. Court Politics-how they rule in future case based on Aff plan ruling

B. Judicial Activism-SOP and Legitimacy Impacts

Negative Counterplans

Agent CP Debate: Courts vs. Executive Action vs. Congress vs. States

Regulate/Limit vs. Eliminate surveillance CP

Private Oversight Boards/Commissions CP

Advantage CPs

Negative Kritiks

Critical Legal Studies: law is indeterminate Feminism: Privacy increases abuses of patriarchyRace Kritiks: Must resolve this before we fix the

law or reforms will failFoucault: Reforms leads to a population more

willing to be surveilled by other means increasing biopower

Capitalism: Various linksSecurity: Will likely link to Affs that impose

restrictions to make surveillance less controversialVarious other K’s will emerge…

Conclusion

This is a current and timely topic so lots of information is available. It’s very student friendly for researching.

Don’t forget the National Debate Coaches Association will upload camp files for free access as they receive them. http://www.debatecoaches.org/

The National Speech and Debate Association will have more resources about policy debate and the topic in the future.

Feel free to contact me with questions or just to brainstorm about the topic: Bryan Gaston, Head Debate Coach, Heritage Hall School, OKC OK [email protected]

http://www.debatecoaches.org/

http://www.debatecoaches.org/

Poliy Debate topic analysis 15 16-bg

Education

Transcript of Poliy Debate topic analysis 15 16-bg