Drone Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/BUDL
Drone Surveillance Negative – Table of Contents
Drone Surveillance Negative – Table of Contents ................................................................................ 1
Summary............................................................................................................................................... 2
Glossary ................................................................................................................................................ 3
No Harms – No Right to Privacy ........................................................................................................... 4
No Harms – Nothing to Hide ................................................................................................................. 5
No Harms – No Military Use Against Americans ................................................................................... 6
No Harms – National Guard Drones Not Problematic ........................................................................... 7
No Harms – National Guard Drones Not Problematic ........................................................................... 8
No Harms – National Guard Drones Not Problematic ........................................................................... 9
No Harms – Not Easier to Pull the Trigger .......................................................................................... 10
No Harms – Not Easier to Pull the Trigger .......................................................................................... 11
Solvency Turn – Police Violence......................................................................................................... 12
Solvency Turn – Broader Rights and Solves Crime ............................................................................ 13
Solvency Turn – Fight War on Drugs .................................................................................................. 14
Solvency Turn – Drones Save Lives ................................................................................................... 15
Solvency Turn – Drone Troop Tradeoff ............................................................................................... 16
Solvency Turn – Terrorism Risk Increase ........................................................................................... 17
Solvency Turn – Domestic Protection ................................................................................................. 18
No Solvency – Expansion Inevitable ................................................................................................... 19
No Solvency – Drone Proliferation Inevitable ...................................................................................... 20
No Solvency – Warrants Ineffective .................................................................................................... 21
1|Page
Drone Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/BUDL
Summary
The Drone Surveillance Negative case attacks both the problems highlighted by the Affirmative case,
and the way in which the Affirmative case proposed to solve those problems.
The Negative case explains that the public has never had a broad right to privacy. Many other types
of unmanned surveillance, such as dashboard cams, body cams, and public surveillance cameras are
used constantly by government and law enforcement. There has been no ruling which has deemed
these recordings “searches” under the Fourth Amendment, and the Negative case argues that drones
should be treated similarly. The Negative case also argues that surveillance won’t lead to unfair
treatment from law enforcement if a person has nothing to hide.
Limiting the use of drones may have negative effects on the private development drones, which could
be used to record and reduce police violence. Recordings made by drones could actually help catch
crime as it was happening, which would provide greater safety for the general public, but this is a
benefit that the plan would prevent. Drones have been effective in fighting the War on Drugs,
especially along the border, and judicial action that leads to the restriction of drones may limit
progress. Drones have also been used internationally to reduce the necessity of troops on the
ground and to protect against possible biological and chemical weapon attacks, both of which would
be prevented by the plan.
Finally, the Negative case argues that the plan itself may not be effective in solving the problems
highlighted by the Affirmative case. Since many other countries are currently developing drone
technology, it is unlikely that restricting drones now, in the U.S., will prevent the expansion of armed
drones. The Negative case also argues that warrants may be ineffective in restricting drone use
because precedents have been set with similar types of surveillance, such as dashboard cams, which
have helped prevent crime and apprehend criminals with little risk to public privacy. Setting
precedents that all such recordings should first require a warrant may negatively impact positive
trends in surveillance.
2|Page
Drone Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/BUDL
Glossary
Drone/UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) – Commonly known as a drone, and also referred to as an
unpiloted aerial vehicle and a remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), is an aircraft without a human pilot
aboard. Its flight is controlled either autonomously by onboard computers or by the remote control of
a pilot on the ground or in another vehicle.
FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) – A branch of the U.S. Department of Transportation that
has the authority to regulate all aspects of U.S. civil (non-military) aviation.
Fourth Amendment - Part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures
and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
Homeland Security - Part of the government that protects the countries security.
Judicial Review - Review of a law act by the US Supreme Court to check if the constitutional.
Supreme Court - Branch of the government that upholds the constitution.
U.S. Department of Defense – An executive branch department of the federal government of the
United States charged with coordinating and supervising all agencies and functions of the
government concerned directly with national security and the United States Armed Forces.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security – A department of the United States federal government,
created in response to the September 11 attacks, and with the primary responsibilities of protecting
the territory of the United States and protectorates from and responding to terrorist attacks, manmade accidents, and natural disasters.
Warrant - A legal document authorizing a police officer or other official to enter and search premises.
3|Page
Drone Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/BUDL
No Harms – No Right to Privacy
[___]
[___] There is no engrained right to privacy in the United States.
Gallington, 2014
(Daniel J; Uncle Sam's Right to Know The right to privacy has never been unconditional; Oct 20;
www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2014/10/20/you-have-no-absolute-right-to-privacyincluding-in-your-data-encryption; kdf)
Technically, such a capability is not all that difficult – however, the policy and legal aspects of such
technologies are the most perplexing. To begin with, do we have the right to keep any information we
choose private from everybody, including the government? If we do, then the technologies – and
private companies that implemented this principle – would simply be an exercise of that right.
However, we don’t have and never have had, even in our unique democratic society, that broad
and unconditional right of privacy. Nevertheless, we sometimes forget this, especially in today’s
information-focused age with its heightened awareness of individual privacy. Ironically perhaps, but
especially in discussions such as these, I’m always reminded of the wisdom of my late mother:
One day she and I were watching a report on privacy and so-called government snooping. And my
mom said, “I don’t think the government should be listening to anyone’s telephone
conversations.” I responded, “OK, mom, but what about terrorists, spies and kidnappers?” She
thought about it for a second and said, “Well, those kind of people … for sure." Sounds like my
mom and the FBI director, who also was the former deputy attorney general in the George W. Bush
administration, are in basic agreement on this issue – as I’m sure most thoughtful people would be.
4|Page
Drone Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/BUDL
No Harms – Nothing to Hide
[___]
[___] No Impact – If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.
Huffington Post, 2011
(Google CEO On Privacy (VIDEO): 'If You Have Something You Don't Want Anyone To Know, Maybe
You Shouldn't Be Doing It'; May 25; www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/07/google-ceo-on-privacyif_n_383105.html; kdf)
Yahoo, Verizon, Sprint, and others have recently come under fire for sharing customer data with the
authorities, and admitting to "spying" abilities that would "shock" and "confuse" customers. A CNBC
interview with Google CEO Eric Schmidt suggests the search giant Google shouldn't get off easy, and
users should be wary of what Google knows about them -- and with whom they can share that
information. CNBC's Mario Bartiromo asked CEO Schmidt in her December 3, 2009 interview:
"People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they?" Schmidt's reply hints that if
there's scandalous information out there about you, it's your problem, not Google's. Schmidt
tells Baritoromo: If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you
shouldn't be doing it in the first place. He expands on his answer, adding that the your
information could be made available not only to curious searchers or prying friends, but also
to the authorities, and that there's little recourse for people worried about unintentionally
"oversharing" online: But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines,
including Google, do retain this information for some time. And [...] we're all subject, in the US, to the
Patriot Act, and it is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities. Leaked
documents revealing Yahoo's guide for law enforcement officials, which explains how they can obtain
consumer data, highlights the type of information internet companies may have about their users -and can share with the authorities. Silicon Alley Insider notes, For example, Yahoo's document
helpfully alerts law enforcement that if they'd like to read a user's instant messanger logs, they better
ask within 45 days and come bearing a 2703(d) order. That is, unless there's "imminent danger of
death or serious physical injury." If that's the case, there's another letter to fax entirely See a video
clip of Schmidt's below.
5|Page
Drone Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/BUDL
No Harms – No Military Use Against Americans
[___]
(
) Presence of military drone bases does not mean they are being used on Americans
FRANCESCHI-BICCHIERAI ’15 (Lorenzo, “Revealed: 64 Drone Bases on American Soil,” Wired,
June 13, http://www.wired.com/2012/06/64-drone-bases-on-us-soil/, Accessed Aug 6, ’15)
The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the U.S. military from operating on American soil, and
there’s no evidence that drones have violated it so far. This new map comes almost two months
after the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) revealed another one, this time of public agencies –
including police departments and universities – that have a permit issued by the Federal Aviation
Agency to use UAVs in American airspace. “It goes to show you how entrenched drones already are,”
said Trevor Timm, an EFF activist, when asked about the new map. “It’s clear that the drone industry
is expanding rapidly and this map is just another example of that. And if people are worried about
military technology coming back and being sold in the US, this is just another example how drone
technology is probably going to proliferate in the US very soon.” Domestic proliferation isn’t the
same as domestic spying, however. Most — if not all — of these military bases would make
poor surveillance centers. Many of the locations are isolated, far from civilian populations.
Almost half of the bases on the map work only with the relatively small Raven and Shadow
drones; their limited range and endurance make them imperfect spying tools, at best. It’s safe
to assume that most of the bases are just used for military training.
6|Page
Drone Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/BUDL
No Harms – National Guard Drones Not Problematic
[___]
( ) National Guard domestic drones would be unarmed, have significant oversight, and surveillance
would be publicly accessible
FARMER ’15 (Blake, WPLN, National Public Radio, “National Guard Seeks More Drones For
Domestic Missions,” July 22, http://www.npr.org/2015/07/22/422941968/national-guard-seeks-moredrones-for-domestic-missions, accessed Aug 11, ’15)
In Tennessee, state Sen. Mae Beavers pushed through a law governing drones and unwarranted
surveillance. It targets police, but she has concerns about the military as well. "The very idea that
someone could use a drone to spy on you through your windows at home or in the privacy of
your backyard even," she says, "I think that bothers people." Albritten says there would be multiple
layers of state and federal oversight. No less than the secretary of defense must sign off on
any U.S. operation. He also says all video would be publicly available, and the unmanned
aircraft wouldn't carry weapons. "I don't care anything about you being in your backyard
flipping burgers," he says. Still, there's some pushback, even among drone supporters. "I mean,
with the name 'Reaper,' the first thing people think are these are killing machines," says Richard
Davis, an assistant fire chief in Austin, Texas. Davis has researched and written about unmanned
aircraft. He's an advocate for using drones in disaster response, but the less menacing kind, not the
military's long-range high-flyers.
7|Page
Drone Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/BUDL
No Harms – National Guard Drones Not Problematic
[___]
( ) Language used by the National Guard in Ferguson is generic deployment language; not an
indication of escalation and troop perception
STARR & BRUER ’15 (Barbary & Wesley, CNN, Apr 17, “Missouri National Guard’s term for
Ferguson protesters: ‘Enemy forces’,” http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/17/politics/missouri-nationalguard-ferguson-protesters/index.html, accessed Aug 11, ’15)
Warning of potential consequences "We are deliberately constraining mobilization timelines to the last
couple days to minimize backlash from calling up the NG early," Col. David Boyle, Army chief of staff
at the Missouri National Guard, informed his officers in a Nov. 18 email. "We have coordinated for
lower profile, less confrontation likely mission sets to emphasize support roles and minimize public
militarization perception." Additionally, some in the National Guard seemed worried the language
in the mission briefings could be problematic. Days before the announcement of the grand
jury's decision, an email from Boyle warned of potential consequences from using language
that could be "construed as potentially inflammatory." Two days after that, notification was sent
to commanding officers stating that "all reference of 'enemy' were changed to state 'criminal
elements'." Still, National Guard spokesman Capt. Quinn defended the militarized language as
standard for the planning process ahead of deployment. In an email to CNN, he said the
documents used in the Ferguson mission briefings were "a generic military planning format
utilized in a wide range of military missions, so the term 'enemy forces' would be better
understood as 'potential threats.' Often in Guard operations, threats would include inclement
weather, heat, failing levees, etc." In further comments emailed to CNN late Friday, after the initial
version of this article appeared, Quinn insisted that "while the term 'enemy forces' appears in a
handful of early drafts of the operations order it was also clear that as soon as leadership saw
the language, they correctly identified it as being inappropriate for this type of mission" and
claimed that the language was changed "well ahead of the grand jury's decision." But internal
communications from as early as Aug. 14 through Nov. 18, when the directive was issued to change
the inflammatory language, show numerous uses of the terms that were sent to a large number of
National Guard commanders and leadership. Though the National Guard's actions throughout the fall
did not elicit the type of complaints that were directed at the police, some in Ferguson were
displeased that the guardsman didn't do more to act against looters and vandals.
8|Page
Drone Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/BUDL
No Harms – National Guard Drones Not Problematic
( ) Guard’s domestic drones program are for training purposes; the impact is non-unique… drones
don’t provide any capabilities that manned aircraft already provide
KOEBLER ’13
(Jason, “Internal Memo: National Guard Can Share Drone Surveillance With Law Enforcement,” US News & World Report, Feb
22, http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/22/internal-memo-national-guard-can-share-drone-surveillance-with-law-enforcement, accessed Aug
11, ’15)
Data collected by the Army National Guard's unmanned aerial drones in American skies could be
passed along to other government agencies, as long as it is "unintentionally and incidentally
collected," according to internal documents acquired earlier this week. The "Proper Use
Memorandum," acquired by MuckRock, an organization dedicated to making government documents
public, and shared with U.S. News, says that while unmanned aerial vehicles are not to be used to
specifically "target" any "U.S. persons," anything captured incidentally can be disseminated to other
agencies. "Any personally identifying information unintentionally and incidentally collected about
specific U.S. persons will be purged and destroyed unless it may be lawfully retained and
disseminated to other government agencies that have a need for it," the document states. National
Guard organizations in at least 13 states and Guam have requested permission from the
Federal Aviation Administration to test or use drones in the United States. The states are
California, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia, according to the FAA. This "boilerplate memo," which is to be used
as a template for each individual state's purposes, was obtained from the Ohio National Guard, which
has requested permission to fly UAV training missions out of three sites in Ohio (Springfield-Beckley
Municipal Airport, Camp Ravenna Joint Military Training Center, and Wilmington Air Park). Officials
with the Ohio Army National Guard say that although they have requested permission to fly drones in
the state, they currently don't have any in use. "If the question is 'Are we flying UAV's right now in
Ohio,' the answer is 'No we are not,'" says Ohio Army National Guard representative James Sims.
"We're working with the FAA to ensure we do it in the proper way." Sims says the initial request was
made in order to get permission to train recruits how to fly Predator and Raven drones
overseas, and that the intent of the program would not be to spy on American citizens. Sims
says that if a drone were to capture video of a crime in progress, they could theoretically pass
that footage to law enforcement officials. "Part of what folks don't understand is we've got a
lot of manned aircraft flying around in Ohio that have the same imagery capabilities these
drones have. If an F-16 were flying around and saw a crime in progress, that info could be
used in court. It's the same kind of thing with an unmanned vehicle," he says. "They're not out
looking for something, but if they see something that happens, applicable laws take over at
that point. But these are not out being used to spy on U.S. citizens." Last year, Wired reported
that the Air Force has a similar policy in place. Amie Stepanovich, associate litigation counsel with
the Electronic Privacy Information Center, says the document is alarming. "When government entities
are conducting operations, even for training purposes, that subject individuals to surveillance, there
need to be strict policies for the retention, dissemination, and use of that data," she says. "Here, the
Ohio National Guard has not developed sufficient standards to govern collected surveillance data."
9|Page
Drone Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/BUDL
No Harms – Not Easier to Pull the Trigger
[___] Drone operators do experience the horror of war
CHOW ’13
(Denise, Scientific American, Nov 7, “Drone Wars: Pilots Reveal Debilitating Stress Beyond Virtual Battlefield,”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/drone-wars-pilots-reveal-debilitating-stress-beyond-virtual-battlefield/, Accessed Aug 11, ’15)
Critics say firing weapons from behind a computer screen, while safely sitting thousands of
miles away, could desensitize pilots to the act of killing. What separates this, they argue, from a battlefield video
game? But war is rarely so simple, and distance does nothing to numb the emotional impact of
taking a life, said Slim (who is referred to here by his Air Force call sign in order to protect his identity). "People think we're sitting
here with joysticks playing a video game, but that's simply not true," Slim, who retired from the Air Force in
2011, told LiveScience. "These are real situations and real-life weapons systems. Once you launch a weapon, you can't hit a replay button to bring
people back to life."
Killing machines?
In video games, players rarely make a human connection with the characters on their screen,
but Predator drone operators often monitor their targets for weeks or months before ever firing a
weapon, he added. "While the enemy is the enemy, you still understand that they are a real person,"
Slim said. "To extinguish a person's life is a very personal thing. While physically we don't experience the five senses
when we engage a target — unlike [how] an infantryman might — in my experience, the
emotional impact on the operator is equal." Still, the idea that being far away from the front lines could desensitize people to
killing is not a new one. Arguably, the first weapon to give humans standoff distance in battle was the bow and arrow, said Missy Cummings, an
associate professor of aeronautics and engineering systems at MIT in Cambridge, Mass., and director of the school's Humans and Automation
Laboratory. Cummings, who served as a naval officer from 1988 to 1999 and was one of the Navy's first female fighter pilots, said the argument that
killing at a distance could desensitize soldiers has evolved in tandem with advances in war-fighting technology. The issue was similarly discussed when
airplanes were introduced into warfare. "You could make the argument that pilots haven't really been on the front lines since before World War II,"
Cummings said. "With some of the high-altitude bombing in World War II, pilots became pretty far removed from the actual combat." But drone pilots are
sometimes thousands of miles away from the battlefield, and their physical distance takes on another dimension, since the entire operation is controlled
across a network of computers rather than by soldiers on radios in the field. Yet, Cummings said the only difference is the location of the pilot and the
amount of danger he or she may be in. "Whether you're 5,000 miles away or 5 miles up, there aren't huge differences," Cummings told LiveScience.
"When I flew F-18s, you saw everything through cameras and TV screens, just like how drone operators see today. I can't think of anybody now who
releases a weapon purely on sight — you just don't do that anymore, because you have computer systems that do it for you."
The front lines of virtual combat
In fact, Nancy Cooke, a professor of cognitive science and engineering at Arizona State University's College of Technology and Innovation in Mesa,
Ariz., argues drone pilots may be more emotionally impacted by killing at a distance because of
how closely they have to monitor the situation before, during and after the attack. "The big
difference is the level of detail that you can see on the ground," Cooke said. "When you operate a
remotely piloted aircraft, even though you're there virtually, you have a lot of information
about what's going on, on the ground." Unlike pilots who physically fly into an area, release a weapon and sometimes never see
the aftermath of their mission, drone operators regularly conduct lengthy surveillance following the
strikes, exposing themselves to the often-grisly aftermath. "While fighter pilots have to worry about being shot down,
they rarely see the results of their attack," Slim said. "After an engagement, we have to conduct surveillance for quite a long time. Yes, we may
only be seeing it, but sometimes, we're seeing it for hours on end, and that is part of the
traumatic impact of the mission. It's a definite form of stress on the operator in and of itself." In order to
better understand how to screen pilots and their supporting units for mental health concerns, Wayne Chappelle, chief of aerospace psychology at the Air
Force School of Aerospace Medicine at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, has conducted research on the potential psychological issues faced by
drone operators. Most
drone operators, Chappelle found, describe experiencing combat sensations that are
remarkably similar to infantrymen on the front lines. "They experience real and visceral
reactions, like elevated heart rate and adrenaline — similar to what you would experience if you were in real combat, so
they have that same heightened level of awareness and vigilance," Chappelle told LiveScience. And despite
conducting sometimes-lethal missions in front of a computer screen, Chappelle said drone operators have not shown any
indication that they have become numb to the act of killing.
10 | P a g e
Drone Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/BUDL
No Harms – Not Easier to Pull the Trigger
[___]
(
) Drone attacks are very real to the operators
ENGEL ’13 (Richard, Chief Foreign Correspondent for NBC News, NBC News, “Former drone
operator says he’s haunted by his part in more than 1,600 deaths,”
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/06/18787450-former-drone-operator-says-heshaunted-by-his-part-in-more-than-1600-deaths, accessed Aug 11, ’15)
A former Air Force drone operator who says he participated in missions that killed more than 1,600
people remembers watching one of the first victims bleed to death. Brandon Bryant says he was
sitting in a chair at a Nevada Air Force base operating the camera when his team fired two missiles
from their drone at three men walking down a road halfway around the world in Afghanistan. The
missiles hit all three targets, and Bryant says he could see the aftermath on his computer screen
– including thermal images of a growing puddle of hot blood. “The guy that was running forward,
he’s missing his right leg,” he recalled. “And I watch this guy bleed out and, I mean, the blood is hot.”
As the man died his body grew cold, said Bryant, and his thermal image changed until he became the
same color as the ground. “I can see every little pixel,” said Bryant, who has been diagnosed
with post-traumatic stress disorder, “if I just close my eyes.” Bryant, now 27, served as a drone
sensor operator from 2006 to 2011, at bases in Nevada, New Mexico and in Iraq, guiding unmanned
drones over Iraq and Afghanistan. Though he didn't fire missiles himself he took part in missions that
he was told led to the deaths of an estimated 1,626 individuals. In an interview with NBC News, he
provided a rare first-person glimpse into what it’s like to control the controversial machines that have
become central to the U.S. effort to kill terrorists. He says that as an operator he was troubled by the
physical disconnect between his daily routine and the violence and power of the faraway drones.
“You don't feel the aircraft turn,” he said. “You don't feel the hum of the engine. You hear the hum
of the computers, but that's definitely not the same thing.” At the same time, the images coming
back from the drones were very real and very graphic. “People say that drone strikes are like
mortar attacks,” Bryant said. “Well, artillery doesn't see this. Artillery doesn't see the results
of their actions. It's really more intimate for us, because we see everything.”
11 | P a g e
Drone Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/BUDL
Solvency Turn – Police Violence
[___]
[___] Drone expansion provides a check against police violence.
Bernd, 2013
(Candice [assistant editor/reporter with Truthout]; The Coming Domestic Drone Wars; Sep 19;
www.truth-out.org/news/item/18951-the-coming-domestic-drone-wars#; kdf)
Private Citizens and Domestic Drone Technology But in addition to major corporations, media
activists also are beginning to look at the possibilities of domestic drones to broadcast live
streaming coverage of protests and other actions in such a way that could provide greater
transparency of police activity during political clashes, such as those that occurred in 2011
during the height of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Occupy live-streamer Tim Pool, now a
producer with Vice Media, has been experimenting with a small radio-controlled quadcopter drone
called the Parrot AR Drone, which can be controlled from a tablet or smartphone. Pool hopes to lower
the cost of media production for the individual by using drone technology to gather audio and visual
content from the air. "These things make it a lot easier for the average person to pick up the control
and say, 'OK, I can do this,' whereas with something like the more expensive drones that have
proprietary controllers, you have to learn how to fly those. The AR. Drone is an iPhone app. It looks
like a video game," Pool told Truthout. But he admits that in moments when events are breaking it
becomes harder to fly a drone. "It's difficult with all the ruckus, the police, with people running. There's
no way to predict what's going to happen. It's hard to take your focus away." Pool was on the ground
in Turkey during the Occupy Gezi Park demonstrations, which protested an urban development plan
to replace the park with a shopping mall. During the demonstrations, Pool witnessed the police forces
there shoot down a DJI Phantom drone used by an accompanying journalist, whom he said was
detained by police for hours afterward. He expects the same thing could happen in the US.
"Governments will be a bit behind in adopting drones for surveillance or quad-roters like this.
I think we'll see the private sector first. We'll see private individuals filming major breaking news
with their drones, hobbyists and eventually I know a lot of news organizations are researching
drone potential. Once that gets legal they'll start flying drones all over the place, and eventually the
police will start filming with drones as well," Pool said. And he's right - scores of law enforcement
agencies are experimenting with domestic drone technology already.
12 | P a g e
Drone Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/BUDL
Solvency Turn – Broader Rights and Solves Crime
[___]
[___] Drone expansion results in broader 4th amendment rights and solves all crime.
Morrison, 2015
(Caren Myers [Associate Professor, Georgia State University College of Law]; DR. PANOPTICON,
OR, HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE DRONE; 27 J. Civ. Rts. & Econ.
Dev. 747; kdf)
The outrage against Title III did not translate into reform of many police practices that violated the
privacy of the politically and economically disadvantaged. But Title III was passed before the
ramifications of Terry v. Ohio, which approved stop and frisk practices, n92 were fully felt. It was
before the Court decided Michigan v. Chesternut, which held that people on the street have no
expectation of privacy against police inquiries, even if those inquiries include chasing someone down
the street in a police cruiser, n93 and Whren v. United States, which held that if the police have
probable cause for a traffic stop, that stop is lawful even if motivated by other, possibly discriminatory
reasons, n94 and Illinois v. Wardlow, which held that flight from the police in a "high crime area" is
enough to justify a stop, n95 and all the other cases that allowed "race-dependent decision making to
become a normal part of police practice." n96 It could be that we are more aware of the differential
impact of police practices today than we were in 1968. The short-lived district court case holding that
New York City's stop and frisk practices violated the Fourth Amendment may reflect this. n97 "No one
should live in fear of being stopped whenever he leaves his home to go about the activities of daily
life," wrote Judge Scheindlin. "Those who are routinely subjected to stops are overwhelmingly people
of color, and they are justifiably troubled to be singled out when many of them have done nothing to
attract the unwanted attention." n98 We obviously need a new way of policing the streets,
investigating crime, and keeping the public safe. If we turned to the universal surveillance that
drones could technically provide, could the very omniscience of such a system make the entire
enterprise more egalitarian? [*764] There is something else too. Unlike wiretapping, which focuses
only on specific suspects, drones and their capacity for universal surveillance evoke what one
commentator called "the idolatrous dream of omniperception embodied in the panopticon." n99 In
simpler terms, drones contain the promise that somehow, with the right tools, we could achieve
perfect knowledge. If there were a record of everything that ever happened, we could know the
truth. We could know what really happened between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman
on that night in February 2012. n100 We would be able to solve all the unsolved shootings and
disappearances and faulty eyewitness identifications. n101 So much of what happens out in
the world is a mystery. People are abducted, raped, shot. Other people are accused of these
misdeeds, sometimes convicted and executed for them, sometimes wrongfully. We never really know.
If there is a seductive quality to the seamless surveillance of the future, it is that we wouldn't
make these mistakes again.
13 | P a g e
Drone Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/BUDL
Solvency Turn – Fight War on Drugs
[___]
[___] Drones are critical to fighting the war on drugs.
Heverly, 2015
(Robert A [Associate Professor of Law, Albany Law School]; Game of Drones: The Uses and
Potential Abuses of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in the U.S. and Abroad: ARTICLE: THE STATE OF
DRONES: STATE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE DRONES; 8 Alb. Gov't L. Rev. 29; kdf)
Drones come in a variety of shapes and sizes, and with varying abilities and configurations. n21
Some of the best known drone technologies are the military drones used in foreign countries
to seek out and kill terrorists. n22 It is these drones that people react to most negatively,
especially when non-combatants and innocent civilians die either as collateral damage in a
successful drone attack, or by mistake when either drone technology or human intelligence kill people
not intentionally targeted. n23 Military drones of this type are often fixed wing aircraft, relatively large,
with the ability to carry heavy payloads. n24 Payloads may include rockets and other weapons, as
well as electronics and surveillance technologies. n25 With names like "Predator" and "Reaper,"
these drones can be found in the skies in a number of foreign countries and are now being deployed
to strategic missions within the United States. n26 Domestic missions are said to be primarily
surveillance missions, including patrolling the U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada, and also
tracking drug traffickers attempting to bring illicit drugs into the United States. n27
14 | P a g e
Drone Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/BUDL
Solvency Turn – Drones Save Lives
[___]
[___] Drones save more lives than they harm.
Weiner and Sherman, 2014
(Robert and Tom; Drones spare troops, have powerful impact; Oct 9;
www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/oct/09/drones-troops-impact/; kdf)
A note from Osama bin Laden discovered at his Abbottabad residence by U.S. Seal Team Six during
the U.S. raid on May 2, 2011, revealed, “Brothers said they were frankly exhausted from the enemy’s
air bombardments.” Osama bin Laden hated drones, because they work. Drones save American
troops from risk of death, kill far fewer civilians than ground troops operations, and make our
military more effective against enemy combatants. Regardless, drones are often decried by
many liberals as too invasive, too impersonal and too deadly to innocent civilians. Southern
California has been a national leader of the drone industry, ever since the San Diego-based General
Atomics pioneered the first Predator drone development more than two decades ago. Currently, 13
California drone manufacturers operate across the state, including 3D Robotics of San Diego and
Datron Communication Systems of Vista. Pentagon officials initially purchased 10 drones from
General Atomics — that number has now swelled to over 10,000 drones currently under Pentagon
control, according to The Washington Post, and unknown numbers in CIA hands; a Defense News
report estimates at least 80. “The defense industry has been a huge incubator of jobs in California,
especially Southern California,” said Assemblyman Steven Bradford, D-Gardena, last year. “We want
these well-paying, high-tech manufacturing jobs to continue to grow here in California.” Californians,
whether liberal or conservative, should champion drone programs that save American troops from
having a larger footprint and having to put their lives in danger in foreign territories. Drones reduce
ground troops, yet they have as powerful an impact. Hillary Clinton points out, in her recent memoir
“Hard Choices,” that during her tenure as secretary of state, drone programs were “one of the most
effective and controversial elements of the Obama administration’s strategy against Al Qaeda and
like-minded terrorists … bin Laden himself worried about the heavy losses that drones were inflicting.”
It is a key plus for drones that U.S. troops are three times safer from friendly fire attacks when
deployed in war zones covered by drones compared with traditional warfare. During the Gulf War,
American casualties totaled 382 in-theater deaths, of which nearly 62 percent were due to either
friendly fire or other accidents, according to Navy research. However, during the current age of
drones, only 21.5 percent of casualties are classified as “non-hostile,” according to Pentagon stats.
America and our allies are sometimes literally our own worst enemy on the battlefield. Drones protect
our troops from their own traditional battlefield errors. In a letter to President Obama in 2012, 25
congressmen stated, “We are concerned that the use of such “signature” strikes could raise the risk
of killing innocent civilians or individuals who may have no relationship to attacks on the United
States.” They are just wrong. In fact, it is a myth that drones disproportionately kill civilians. After
a review of the deaths inflicted by American drones since 2004, the Pakistani Defense Ministry
concluded that citizen fatalities occurred at a rate of 3 percent of total kills — a total of 67
innocent civilians.
15 | P a g e
Drone Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/BUDL
Solvency Turn – Drone Troop Tradeoff
[___]
[___] The alternative to drones is boots on the ground, domestically that puts more police in
an unnecessarily dangerous position.
Byman, 2013
(Daniel [Professor in the Security Studies Program at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign
Service at Georgetown University and a Senior Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at
the Brookings Institution]; Why Drones Work; July/ August; kdf)
Of course, it was a Navy SEAL team and not a drone strike that finally got bin Laden, but in many
cases in which the United States needs to capture or eliminate an enemy, raids are too risky
and costly. And even if a raid results in a successful capture, it begets another problem: what to do
with the detainee. Prosecuting detainees in a federal or military court is difficult because often
the intelligence against terrorists is inadmissible or using it risks jeopardizing sources and
methods. And given the fact that the United States is trying to close, rather than expand, the
detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, it has become much harder to justify holding suspects
indefinitely. It has become more politically palatable for the United States to kill rather than
detain suspected terrorists.
16 | P a g e
Drone Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/BUDL
Solvency Turn – Terrorism Risk Increase
[___]
[___] ISIS could create and detonate nuclear and chemical weapons.
Cirincione, 2014
(Joe [president of Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation]; ISIS will be in position to get
nuclear weapons if allowed to consolidate power, resources, says expert;
www.nydailynews.com/news/world/isis-nukes-allowed-consolidate-expert-article-1.1958855; kdf)
The risk of a terrorist attack using nuclear or chemical weapons has just gone up. ISIS is
willing to kill large numbers of innocents, and it has added three capabilities that catapult the threat
beyond anything seen before: control of large, urban territories, huge amounts of cash, and a global
network of recruits. British Home Secretary Theresa May warned that if ISIS consolidates its control
over the land it occupies, “We will see the world’s first truly terrorist state” with “the space to plot
attacks against us.” Its seizure of banks and oil fields gave it more than $2 billion in assets. If ISIS
could make the right connection to corrupt officials in Russia or Pakistan, the group might be able to
buy enough highly enriched uranium (about 50 pounds) and the technical help to build a crude
nuclear device. Militants recruited from Europe or America could help smuggle it into their home
nations. Or ISIS could try to build a “dirty bomb,” conventional explosives like dynamite laced
with highly radioactive materials. The blast would not kill many directly, but it would force the
evacuation of tens of square blocks contaminated with radioactive particles. The terror and
economic consequences of a bomb detonated in the financial districts of London or New York
would be enormous. ISIS could also try to get chemical weapons, such as deadly nerve gases or
mustard gas. Fortunately, the most likely source of these terror weapons was just eliminated. The
Obama administration struck a deal with Syrian President Bashar Assad that has now destroyed the
1,300 tons of chemical bombs Assad built. Without this deal, ISIS would likely already have these
weapons. There are two good answers to these threats. First, drain the swamp: Secure or eliminate
the materials ISIS would need to build terror bombs. Second, deter any attack by making sure ISIS
knows our retribution would be swift, certain and devastating.
17 | P a g e
Drone Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/BUDL
Solvency Turn – Domestic Protection
[___]
[___] Drones are necessary to protect the border, stop trafficking, and find missing persons.
Whitlock and Timberg, 2014
(Craig [covers the Pentagon and national security] and Craig [National tech reporter]; Border-patrol
drones being borrowed by other agencies more often than previously known; Jan 14;
www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/border-patrol-drones-being-borrowed-by-otheragencies-more-often-than-previously-known/2014/01/14/5f987af0-7d49-11e3-95564a4bf7bcbd84_story.html; kdf)
Federal, state and local law enforcement agencies are increasingly borrowing border-patrol
drones for domestic surveillance operations, newly released records show, a harbinger of what is
expected to become the commonplace use of unmanned aircraft by police. Customs and Border
Protection, which has the largest U.S. drone fleet of its kind outside the Defense Department, flew
nearly 700 such surveillance missions on behalf of other agencies from 2010 to 2012,
according to flight logs released recently in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by
the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil-liberties group. The records show that the border--patrol
drones are being commissioned by other agencies more often than previously known. Most of
the missions are performed for the Coast Guard, the Drug Enforcement Administration and
immigration authorities. But they also aid in disaster relief and in the search for marijuana crops,
methamphetamine labs and missing persons, among other missions not directly related to border
protection. Because they have sophisticated cameras and can remain in flight for many hours at a
time, drones create novel privacy challenges. Civil libertarians have argued that these aircraft could
lead to persistent visual surveillance of Americans on private property. Government lawyers have
argued, however, that there is no meaningful legal distinction between the use of unmanned and
piloted aircraft for surveillance.
18 | P a g e
Drone Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/BUDL
No Solvency – Expansion Inevitable
[___]
[___] Inevitably, all countries will have drones by 2024 because of China.
Russia Times, 2014
(All countries will have drone kill technology in 10 years - report; May 7; rt.com/news/157340-usdrones-military-defense/;kdf)
In just one decade, just about every country in the world will have the means to either build or
buy unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) capable of launching missiles at enemy targets, thus
dramatically changing the face of warfare. Despite a track record that is stained with the blood of
innocent victims, drone technology is quickly becoming the weapon of choice for militaries
around the globe, and it’s too late for the United States – presently the leader in UAV
technologies – to stop the rush, according to Defense One, a site devoted to security issues. Just a
few countries now hold membership in the elite drone club, including the US, United Kingdom,
Russia, Israel, Iran, Pakistan and China. Other countries, such as South Africa and India, are actively
seeking to join. According to the RAND organization, however, another 23 countries “are developing
or have developed” armed drones. Experts point to China’s prowess in building knockoff drones,
which are expected to flood the market very soon. “Once countries like China start exporting
these, they’re going to be everywhere really quickly. Within the next 10 years, every country
will have these,” Noel Sharkey, a robotics and artificial intelligence professor from the University of
Sheffield, UK, told Defense One. “There’s nothing illegal about these unless you use them to attack
other countries. Anything you can [legally] do with a fighter jet, you can do with a drone.”
19 | P a g e
Drone Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/BUDL
No Solvency – Drone Proliferation Inevitable
[___]
[___] International drone proliferation is inevitable.
Cabural, 2015
(Marie; Russia to build hundreds of drones for it's military by 2025;
www.valuewalk.com/2015/05/russia-military-drones-2025/; kdf)
Russia is planning to build hundreds of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drones for its
military by 2025, according to RIA Novosti based on information from a representative from United
Industrial Defense Corporation Oboronprom. The source said Russia plans to integrate the drones in
its military to perform different functions. “By 2025, as a result of the implementation of [new]
measures, the government will get several hundred modern, Russian-made unmanned aerial vehicles
[UAVs] of various types. Most of them will be drones used for short ranges, the most needed in
[Russian] armed forces,” according to the source. The state-owned defense corporation will build
the drones domestically in collaboration with JSC Vegas Radio Engineering, a company expert in
surveillance devices. It is still uncertain as to when Russia plans to deploy its first batch of drones.
Russia already completed R&D on drones Andrei Shibitov, deputy head of Russian Helicopters
Company, a subsidiary United Industrial Defense Corporation Oboronprom recently stated that the
Russia’s Defense Ministry already ordered the tactical and technical characteristics of the new
drones, which are currently under development. We’ve done all necessary R&D work and together
with the Defense Ministry, we are going to work on UAVs weighing over 750 kilograms,” said Shibitov.
He added that they were working on heavier types of drones. Earlier this year, the engineers at
United Instrument Corporation, a unit of Rostec State Corporation developed a new concept for a
two-ton drone, which has the ability to transport personnel, supplies, reconnaissance equipment, and
onboard weapons systems. Russia is expected to approve a prototype of the two-ton drone after
conducting a series of tests this summer.
20 | P a g e
Drone Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/BUDL
No Solvency – Warrants Ineffective
[___] Requiring warrants in the instance of drones is ineffective.
McNeal, 2014
(Gregory [prof at Pepperdine University]; Drones and Aerial surveillance: Considerations for
Legislators; Nov; www.brookings.edu/research/reports2/2014/11/drones-and-aerial-surveillance; kdf)
Legislators should reject calls for a blanket requirement that all drone use be accompanied by
a warrant. If legislators forgo the property rights approach detailed in Part A. above, they should
eschew proposals that require warrants for the use of drones. Such prohibitions are overbroad and
ill-advised.[50] Legislation that requires warrants for drones treats the information from a
drone differently than information gathered from a manned aircraft, differently than that gathered
by a police officer in a patrol car, or even from an officer on foot patrol. Under current Fourth
Amendment jurisprudence, police are not required to shield their eyes from wrongdoing until
they have a warrant. Why impose such a requirement on the collection of information by
drones? Much of the anti-drone activists efforts are aimed at the threat of persistent and pervasive
surveillance of the population by the government, an understandable fear. But what is an
unreasonable fear, and should not work its way into legislation, is a ban on ordinary aerial
observations that are only controversial because they take place with a remote controlled helicopter
rather than a manned one. If anybody in a Cessna can see the pollution pouring from a factory, or if
the police flying in a helicopter can see a cartel’s drug operations or human trafficking ring --- and
such observations can be admitted as evidence in a criminal trial, shouldn’t citizens and the police be
able to make the same observations and expect that the evidence won’t be excluded merely because
it is collected with a remote control aircraft? For example, imagine a police officer was on patrol in
her patrol car. While driving, she witnesses the car in front of her strike a pedestrian and
speed off. Until witnessing the crime she did not have probable cause (the predicate level of
suspicion for a warrant), or even reasonable suspicion (the predicate level of suspicion for a brief
investigatory stop) to believe the vehicle in front of her would be involved in a crime. Let’s further
assume that her dash camera recorded the entire incident. Nonetheless, that dashcam video may
be used as evidence against the driver in a subsequent criminal proceeding. However, under
broadly worded proposals that have been introduced in many state legislatures and the U.S.
Congress, the same piece of evidence if gathered by a drone would be inadmissible in court
because police did not have a warrant. Consider another example. Police receive an anonymous
tip that someone is growing marijuana in their backyard. A police officer attempts to view the
backyard from the ground but his view is blocked by a 10 foot tall fence. The officer next decides to fly
a commercially available remote controlled helicopter[51] over the backyard and from a vantage point
that does not violate FAA regulations observes marijuana plants growing in the yard. This observation
would be unlawful under proposals that require a warrant for observations from a drone. However,
these facts are nearly identical to the facts in the Supreme Court’s 1986 California v. Ciraolo[52]
decision which upheld aerial surveillance (discussed above). The only difference is that in Ciraolo, the
officer flew over the backyard in an airplane, rather than using a drone. In fact, in Ciraolo the Court
noted that not only would observation of the marijuana plants from the air (as described above) be
lawful, police officers peering over the fence from the top of a police truck would also be behaving
lawfully, and by extension, observation of the marijuana plants by police from the third floor of a
neighboring home would also be lawful. But under proposals requiring a warrant for observations by a
drone, this evidence would be inadmissible.
21 | P a g e