Drones Aff—BRRC—NDI 2015
1AC
Plan
The United States Federal Government should, to its domestic surveillance:
 Require federal law enforcement drone operators submit data minimization
statements to the FAA
 Require all federal investigations with drones obtain a warrant
 Establish FTC enforcement for all drone usage by the federal government
1AC Drones Advantage
Anti-drone backlash will win out over the industry now---current approaches go too
far and will be overly restrictive
Gregory S. McNeal 12, Associate Professor of Law and Associate Professor of Public Policy at
Pepperdine University, 8/13/12, “Can The 'Drone' Industry Compete With The Privacy Lobby?,”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/08/13/can-the-drone-industry-compete-with-theprivacy-lobby/print/
The unmanned systems industry is not prepared for the upcoming fight with privacy groups . That is the
message I delivered to the attendees at the recent Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International 2012 conference. My panel was
aptly titled Getting in Front of the Issue: A Discussion on Unmanned Systems and Privacy. Below are my thoughts about the importance of the
privacy debate for the unmanned systems industry, and why I don’t think they are prepared for the types of arguments the “privacy lobby” is
making, and plans to make. When
it comes to sales of unmanned systems for domestic use, the fight over
privacy is the most important issue facing the unmanned systems industry. Despite the importance of the
issue, I do not believe that the industry is ready for a fight with privacy groups. The unmanned systems industry
oftentimes operates under the assumption that how the end-user uses or abuses a system is not their
concern. They will frequently say “Privacy is about people, not systems or technology.” In fact, privacy is about both. Technology enables
people to do things they otherwise couldn’t do (violate privacy for example), but technology can also prohibit individuals from doing certain
things (protect privacy by controlling use of systems, access to data, etc.). In other surveillance contexts we have seen protective technologies
deployed, they range from minimization techniques, to guarded password protected access to data, to audit trails and secure storage
requirements. Technology is the answer to many privacy concerns. Thus, after developing a reliable and cost-effective system, the unmanned
systems industry should focus their research on how
the systems they sell are used (or abused) because that usage will
directly impact their ability to sell the systems . Based on my interactions with dozens of vendors at the AUVSI conference, it is
not obvious to me that abuse and technologies to prevent abuse are paramount concerns for manufacturers (they are leaving it to end users). I
believe use and abuse should be paramount concerns for the industry. Unmanned systems are unique in that they are a
catalyst for policy change. Most manufacturers have never developed a product that triggers changes in the legal and policy landscape — at
least not until now. As Ryan Calo recently wrote: Drones… represent the cold, technological embodiment of observation. Unlike , say, NSA
network surveillance or commercial data brokerage, government or industry surveillance of the populace with
drones would be visible and highly salient . People would feel observed, regardless of how or whether the information was
actually used. The resulting backlash could force us to reexamine not merely the use of drones to observe, but
the doctrines that today permit this use . As the legal and policy landscape is changing, so too must the R&D approach of
unmanned systems manufacturers who are great at selling the capabilities of their systems, but are not adept at dealing with their products as
policy catalysts. They speak about the benefits their systems can provide, great ISR capabilities, portability, ease of use, etc. They make a
compelling case, but the problem is they are arguing the merits of their systems. Their opponents in
the privacy lobby aren’t
interested in the merits, they are interested in stopping the development of these systems out of a fear of some
potential government violation of privacy – however that term privacy is to be defined at any given moment. The problem for
the industry is that the privacy lobby is much better at this game than industry is, mostly because the industry isn’t
giving the privacy lobby’s concerns enough attention. This is a fatal miscalculation, the privacy lobby is
extremely adept at demonizing programs and advancements in technology — the unmanned systems industry (not just AUVSI)
needs to prepare for the fight. Let me provide two examples: First, consider your average trip to the airport. Most of us have to go through
airport security. We have to take off our shoes. We have to go through a scanner. Many frequent fliers wonder why this system can’t be
improved. Isn’t there some way to verify travelers ahead of time? Some way to speed you through security? Well, DHS tried to launch just such
a program in 2003. They called it Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System II (CAPPS II), it was designed to look for terrorists by using
names and reservation data. That is to say, by using the data already in the hands of the airlines, voluntarily provided by passengers. You know
what the information is: Name, address, phone number, travel history etc. DHS was fought tooth and nail by the ACLU and other privacy groups
Those groups sued, they fought on Capitol Hill, and they took to the airwaves to decry the alleged violations of travelers’ “privacy.” Stewart
Baker, former Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security recounted the story in his book Skating on Stilts. In his words, the ACLU screeched: This
system threatens to create a permanent blacklisted underclass of Americans who cannot travel freely,” one ACLU counsel told the Associated
Press in February 2003. Another declared that CAPPS II would “give the government an opening to create a Big Brother type program…” We’re
talking about reservation data here. This was a tool that could have stopped 9/11. It could have stopped the Christmas Day Bomber. And it was
opposed by the privacy lobby. Are unmanned systems more compelling? Let’s try another example, also courtesy of Stewart Baker. He
describes how in 2004 the police at Logan Airport acquired handheld computers. The computers were connected to public databases so officers
could check addresses and other information when they stopped someone. Think of it, airport police with the equivalent of iPhones. Baker
writes: The American Civil Liberties Union went nuts. The executive director of the Massachusetts chapter called the handhelds “mass scrutiny
of the lives and activities of innocent people,” and “a violation of the core democratic principle that the government should not be permitted to
violate a person’s privacy, unless it has a reason to believe that he or she is involved in wrongdoing.” Another ACLU spokesman piled on. “If the
police went around keeping files on who you lived with and who your roommates were, I think people would be outraged,” he told USA Today.
“And yet in this case, they’re not doing it, but they’re plugging into a company that is able to do it easily.” Remember, the handheld computers
only tied to public databases that any citizen could search. “It’s nothing we don’t have access to already,” Lieutenant Thomas Coffey told the
Boston Globe. “Instead of me having to go down to the registry of deeds in a particular county, I can now access this information via a
BlackBerry,” he added. If the ACLU considered that a civil liberties disaster, I remarked, we’d better not tell them that we also have access to
the White Pages. Still, “no” was the privacy community’s default answer to any improvement in law enforcement technology. The rest of us can
use Blackberries, Google, and Facebook all we want to gather information about our friends, our business associates, and even our blind dates.
But the ACLU seemed to think that law enforcement should live in 1950 forever. So it’s no surprise that privacy groups challenged our
passenger screening time and again, in the press and on Capitol Hill. Each time, they found sympathetic ears in the establishment media. They
forced us to justify our plan over and over again. Without the strong, consistent support of Secretary Michael Chertoff, a superb policy
advocate in his own right, and his willingness to take on the New York Times and the ACLU, our strategy would have been chipped away bit by
bit. We are talking about computers, tied to publicly available databases that law enforcement already had access to. The only difference, it was
made easier by technology. Sound familiar? So let’s take account of these two examples and see what they tell us about the unmanned systems
industry and the fight with the privacy lobby. In our first example, DHS was developing a system to pre-screen passengers to prevent them from
destroying aircraft. All they wanted was the information that people were already voluntarily handing over to the airlines. The privacy lobby
fought it tooth and nail. In the second example, airport police were seeking to carry handheld computers. In both cases the privacy lobby went
insane. In one of the cases (passenger screening) the program was delayed for years –you still haven’t breezed through security yet, have you?
What is the unmanned systems industry selling? UAVs. Everybody except the industry calls them DRONES! Opponents conjure up images of
Predators and Reapers armed with Hellfire missiles (not Pumas and Maverics and Procerus quadcopters). The
privacy lobby is talking
about a nightmare scenario of pervasive, persistent surveillance (not small systems with less than 4 hours of battery
life). And they are going to use aerial photos of moms, tanning in their backyards, to scare the public into believing that massive violations of
civil liberties are imminent. Threats to lives, threats to property, and threats to privacy. And what
is their proposed solution? The
ACLU wants reasonable suspicion before an unmanned system can be used. Senator Rand Paul wants a warrant before
the systems can be used, an even higher standard (probable cause) than reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion, the lowest
standard currently proposed by the privacy lobby, is more restrictive than the current standard (in most jurisdictions) for flying a
manned helicopter or airplane, it is more restrictive than the standard for deploying a patrol car (many of which are equipped with cameras and
license plate readers), in fact it’s the standard that has to be met before the police stop and physically frisk someone. In short, it’s
an
industry killing standard, premised upon fear and technophobia. It doesn’t serve the public who could benefit from law
enforcement usage of unmanned systems, and if adopted would spell the end of much of the unmanned systems
industry . There are better alternatives. One possibility would be to write broad standards governing how
imagery is accessed and stored. Another possibility is to create automated minimization and redaction
procedures. Based on my conversations with data storage vendors at AUVSI, all of these are possibilities. Embracing
technological solutions to the privacy problem can ensure the public benefits from the use of unmanned
systems while still protecting privacy . Unfortunately, much of the debate on Capitol Hill has centered around
scare tactics, sensationalism, and blunt solutions like warrants . It’s time for the unmanned systems industry to step up
and demonstrate they have the capability to develop products than can protect privacy. That will require employing more privacy experts,
either in-house or in a consulting role to start innovating within these companies. Those individuals should be analyzing the privacy implications
of their systems, and developing mechanisms to allow their customers to overcome privacy critiques. Anything
short of this is a
failing business model . Getting quickly spun up on the privacy implications of unmanned systems should be a top priority for corporate
boards, it should be a key area of focus for senior management , and someone in these companies should bear responsibility for being the
subject matter expert on privacy. Granted, some
in the industry may believe that their customers aren’t listening to the privacy
don’t care what those ACLU guys or
Rand Paul have to say. Perhaps that’s true. Maybe I’m wrong. Or maybe those people haven’t been to the airport
recently.
lobby. They may believe that law enforcement and other government agencies
Lack of federal regulations means states are stepping in to fill the void---it’ll kill the
industry
Jason Koebler 13, U.S. News & World Report, 3/13/13, “Drone Industry: Privacy 'Distractions' Could
Have Major Economic Impacts,” http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/13/drone-industryprivacy-distractions-could-have-major-economic-impacts
A new report released by a drone industry trade group suggests that using unmanned planes in the
United States could create more than 70,000 jobs and $82 billion in economic impact over the next few
years. But the head of the organization warns that "privacy distractions" could derail the industry. The
report, released Tuesday by the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, suggests that most of the impact will come within the
first three years of commercial integration of drones—tentatively set by the Federal Aviation Administration to occur in 2015—and that drones
will most commonly be used in agricultural settings and for public safety reasons. So
far, at least 31 states are considering
legislation that would limit the use of drones, and a bill in Virginia that would put a two-year
moratorium on drone use is waiting to be signed by governor Bob McDonnell. Many of the bills being
considered have been championed by civil liberties groups such as the ACLU and would put severe limits
on the commercial use of drones in those states. Some proposed bills would require police to get a
search warrant before operating a drone. Most of the proposed bills, according to Michael Toscano, president and CEO of
AUVSI, would delay or diminish the positive economic impacts that the drone industry can have in a state.
"This privacy stuff is a distraction," he says. "Look how much energy we're spending on that. It has the ability to affect things going forward."
Jim Williams, who has been tasked with heading the FAA's integration of drones into American airspace, said last month that the "protection of
public privacy is very important" and he urged the industry to "get serious" about privacy with "strong industry standards audited by a third
party." The
FAA recently put out a request for proposals from states that would like to be the first to test
how drones will be integrated into the airspace. In its memorandum of agreement, the FAA says it will
consider privacy concerns. Toscano says it's possible the FAA will pass over states that consider limiting
drone use. "Those that have limitations or difficulties with legislation would receive a lower score," he
says. "Obviously if you get a test site, it's going to increase the number of jobs doing it. Anyone who wants
to get involved in this industry will have to go through the test sites." Toscano and the AUVSI say that the Fourth
Amendment and existing "peeping tom" laws are sufficient to protect personal privacy, but the agency is willing to work with concerned
organizations to find some common ground. "If you're asking if [UAVs] can be misused by people, the answer is yes, but it's just like you can
misuse a car," he says. "We believe the laws are adequate. There are
privacy issues with any technology that comes
forward … but the law stays the same—if you are violate my privacy, whether with a UAV or a manned
aircraft or binoculars, you will be held accountable." That's not how privacy experts see it. Amie Stepanovich, associate
litigation counsel with the Electronic Privacy Information Center, says that ignoring privacy concerns is "irresponsible." "If the privacy
implications are not addressed at the same time [as safety], we are putting the privacy rights and civil liberties of everyone within the United
States at risk," she says. "The current laws are not sufficient to address the privacy threat of a new technology, such as drones. More must be
done."
Scenario 1 is Agriculture
Ag drones coming now, but privacy backlash kills the movement
Martin LaMonica, 14, reporter for Greenbiz, June 4, 2014, “Yes, drones really can help the planet”,
http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/06/04/drones-can-help-planet
Unmanned aerial vehicles bring to mind the early days of the PC. Civilian drones are the darlings of hobbyists, while
their potential at home and at work is still to be grasped by the public at large. Meanwhile, experts are already musing about the various ways
drones can advance environmental sustainability. Internet retail giant Amazon helped bring drones into the mainstream consciousness last
winter with a video of research project Prime Air. Its goal: using a flying robot to pick up and deliver a package to a person’s front door in 30
minutes. Amazon
claims that Federal Aviation Administration regulatory hurdles are the only remaining obstacle
towards bringing Prime Air to market. Other tech companies have gotten the flying robot bug as well. Earlier this year, Google
and Facebook fought over acquiring Titan Aerospace, a company in New Mexico that develops solar-powered autonomous airplanes that could
provide Internet access to remote areas. (Google won.) Experts interviewed at a recent MIT Enterprise Forum event agreed that it will take a
few years for drones to move beyond the hobbyist phase into commercial applications. They
especially recognized that a
number of issues around safety and privacy will need to be resolved before commercial activity can
flourish. They also agreed that, assuming that the FAA establishes rules for commercial drone use and that no
privacy backlash hampers commercialization, drones have the potential to help the planet in a few
areas. Drones for agriculture Aerial photography enabled by drones could be a boon to agriculture. As a matter
of fact, trade group Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International predicts that 80 percent of commercial drone use
will be in agriculture. RoboFlight already has implemented the idea to use cameras to monitor farmland or
livestock for potential problems such as underwatered areas or bug infestations. The company has
designed an unmanned aerial vehicle to fly over large farms and create digital maps of crop fields.
Universities specialized in agriculture research could benefit also from having up-to-the-minute data on
how their experimental crops are faring. Last but not least, collecting more detailed information on the state of farmland also
offers environmental benefits, said drone owner and operator Terry Holland. “Treatment with pesticides or herbicides (can be) pinpointed in
just the threatened area.
This will result in cheaper crops, less food contamination, less water contamination
from runoff and less worker exposure to unhealthy conditions because much less chemical intervention
will be required,” he claimed.
Drones make agriculture more effective—decrease water and chemical use
Chris Anderson, 14, former editor in chief of Wired, is the cofounder and CEO of 3D Robotics and
founder of DIY Drones, 2014, MIT Technology Review, “Agricultural Drones Relatively cheap drones with
advanced sensors and imaging capabilities are giving farmers new ways to increase yields and reduce
crop damage.”, http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/526491/agricultural-drones/
Ryan Kunde is a winemaker whose family’s picture-perfect vineyard nestles in the Sonoma Valley north of San Francisco. But Kunde is not your
average farmer. He’s also a drone operator—and he’s not alone. He’s part of the vanguard of farmers who are
using what was once
military aviation technology to grow better grapes using pictures from the air, part of a broader trend of
using sensors and robotics to bring big data to precision agriculture. Top: A drone from PrecisionHawk is equipped
with multiple sensors to image fields. Bottom: This image depicts vegetation in near-­infrared light to show chlorophyll levels. What “drones”
means to Kunde and the growing number of farmers like him is simply a low-cost aerial camera platform: either miniature fixed-wing airplanes
or, more commonly, quadcopters and other multibladed small helicopters. These
aircraft are equipped with an autopilot
using GPS and a standard point-and-shoot camera controlled by the autopilot; software on the ground
can stitch aerial shots into a high--resolution mosaic map. Whereas a traditional radio--controlled
aircraft needs to be flown by a pilot on the ground, in Kunde’s drone the autopilot (made by my company, 3D Robotics)
does all the flying, from auto takeoff to landing. Its software plans the flight path, aiming for maximum coverage of the
vineyards, and controls the camera to optimize the images for later analysis. This low-altitude view (from a few meters above the
plants to around 120 meters, which is the regulatory ceiling in the United States for unmanned aircraft operating without special clearance
from the Federal Aviation Administration) gives
a perspective that farmers have rarely had before. Compared with
satellite imagery, it’s much cheaper and offers higher resolution. Because it’s taken under the clouds, it’s
unobstructed and available anytime. It’s also much cheaper than crop imaging with a manned aircraft,
which can run $1,000 an hour. Farmers can buy the drones outright for less than $1,000 each. The advent of
drones this small, cheap, and easy to use is due largely to remarkable advances in technology: tiny MEMS sensors (accelerometers, gyros,
magnetometers, and often pressure sensors), small GPS modules, incredibly powerful processors, and a range of digital radios. All those
components are now getting better and cheaper at an unprecedented rate, thanks to their use in smartphones and the extraordinary
economies of scale of that industry. At the heart of a drone, the autopilot runs specialized software—often open-source programs created by
communities such as DIY Drones, which I founded, rather than costly code from the aerospace industry. Drones
can provide farmers
with three types of detailed views. First, seeing a crop from the air can reveal patterns that expose
everything from irrigation problems to soil variation and even pest and fungal infestations that aren’t apparent
at eye level. Second, airborne cameras can take multispectral images, capturing data from the infrared
as well as the visual spectrum, which can be combined to create a view of the crop that highlights
differences between healthy and distressed plants in a way that can’t be seen with the naked eye. Finally, a drone
can survey a crop every week, every day, or even every hour. Combined to create a time-series
animation, that imagery can show changes in the crop, revealing trouble spots or opportunities for
better crop management. It’s part of a trend toward increasingly data-driven agriculture. Farms today are bursting with engineering
marvels, the result of years of automation and other innovations designed to grow more food with less labor. Tractors autonomously plant
seeds within a few centimeters of their target locations, and GPS-guided harvesters reap the crops with equal accuracy. Extensive wireless
networks backhaul data on soil hydration and environmental factors to faraway servers for analysis. But what
if we could add to
these capabilities the ability to more comprehensively assess the water content of soil, become more
rigorous in our ability to spot irrigation and pest problems, and get a general sense of the state of the
farm, every day or even every hour? The implications cannot be stressed enough. We expect 9.6 billion people
to call Earth home by 2050. All of them need to be fed. Farming is an input--output problem. If we can reduce
the inputs—water and pesticides—and maintain the same output, we will be overcoming a central
challenge. Agricultural drones are becoming a tool like any other consumer device, and we’re starting to
talk about what we can do with them. Ryan Kunde wants to irrigate less, use less pesticide, and ultimately produce better wine.
More and better data can reduce water use and lower the chemical load in our environment and our
food. Seen this way, what started as a military technology may end up better known as a green-tech tool, and our kids will grow up used to
flying robots buzzing over farms like tiny crop dusters.
Drones massively impact productivity but regulations could hurt them
Clay Dillow, 5/18, Freelance journalist contributing to Popular Science, Fortune, and others. SciTech,
NatSec, and beyond, MAY 18, 2015, “Why 2015 is the year agriculture drones take off”,
http://fortune.com/2015/05/18/drone-agriculture/
U.S. drones are expected to change how we cultivate and grow food across the country. For years now, drone
advocates have cited precision agriculture—crop management that uses GPS and big data—as a way to boost crop yields and profits while
resolving water and food crises. Unfortunately, for
all the hype surrounding the concept drones haven’t had a
significant impact on the agriculture business, at least, until now. With the debut of the Federal Aviation Administration’s
Section 333 exemption (which permits companies to fly drones commercially on a case-by-case basis) in November that’s
poised to change, particularly in the United States. For the first time agriculture drones will legally be able to gather
widespread data across an entire growing season, allowing companies to test their business models and
technologies together for the first time—and ideally make a profit in the process. “This is the first year we’ll
actually be able to see, by the time the growing season is over, the impact on the farmer and the impact of the quality of the grapes,” says
David Baeza, whose precision agriculture startup Vine Rangers uses drones and ground robots to gather data on vineyard crops. We’re really
excited about that.” Before the F.A.A. began offering permits for commercial drones, companies like Vine Rangers couldn’t charge farming
operations for their services, which meant they were often relegated to working with farms (often smaller independent ones) on exploratory
pilot programs. The shift in regulatory policy will now allow Vine Rangers and other certified firms—many of which are in the startup phase—to
assist both large and small farming operations with water and disease management, and charge for the services. They’ll
also be able to
use drones to help with better planting and crop rotation strategies, and provide a higher degree of allaround knowledge of how crops are progressing day-to-day in different parts of a given field. This boost
in crop intelligence should make farms more efficient and help smaller operations compete with their
more well-heeled Big Agriculture competitors. More importantly, companies can now test their business
models and develop new revenue streams, as well as attract new investment. “We can actually move companies
from pilot program to paid,” Baeza says about revenue possibilities that now exist for companies like his. The startup currently has two clients–
both vineyards–in California’s Central Valley and working to expand its operations to other wine growing regions. “The biggest part about
getting paid is obviously bringing in revenue,” he says. “But now we can test the parameters of the business model as well.”
Revenue will
be key for drone agriculture startups—most of which currently focus on smaller specialty crops like
grapes and avocados over row crops like corn or other grains–as they prepare their businesses as and
aim to grab market share in a space analysts expect to grow exponentially in the years ahead. A widely-cited
drone report released by the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International predicts that the legalization of commercial drones will
create more than $80 billion in economic impact (such as revenue, job creation) between 2015 and 2025, and that precision agriculture will
provide the biggest piece of that growth. Startups like Vine Rangers are
honing their drone technologies on specialty
crops for now, but eventually will move into large-scale farms, which are bigger and require more
resources to cover, Baeza says. As such, the advent of all these technologies will impact both small and
international companies, though exactly how that will unfold remains to be seen. “The biggest thing to
watch is what’s going to happen to giants like Monsanto,” Baeza says. “How you define this market is
changing, and the incumbents are in for a battle.”
Water concerns are destroying California agriculture—California’s agriculture is k2
worldwide food
Matt Schiavenza, 3/21, contributing writer for The Atlantic, former global-affairs writer for the
International Business Times and Atlantic senior associate editor, MAR 21, 2015, “The Economics of
California's Drought”, http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/the-economics-ofcalifornias-drought/388375/
California is known globally for its coastal beaches, mountains, and desert. But the state's most important economic region
may be its Central Valley, one of the world's most productive agricultural areas. Virtually all of the
almonds, artichokes, lemons, pistachios, and processed tomatoes grown in the United States originate
from the valley, whose productive soil is unmatched elsewhere in the country. California's spinach yield, for
example is 60 percent more per acre than in the rest of the United States. The state's marine climate allows it to grow crops
like broccoli that wilt in humid climates. California is the world's fifth-largest supplier of food, a big
reason why the state would, if an independent country, be the 7th largest economy in the world. But
California's agricultural output demands a lot of water. Irrigation claims up to 41 percent of the state's
water supply, while cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco demand comparatively little. Crops such as
almonds, grown exclusively in California in the United States, consume 600 gallons of water per pound of nuts, more
than 25 times the water needed per pound of tomato. These water-intensive crops tend to have high
profit margins, providing farmers with an incentive to plant them. Given the scarcity of fresh water
resources, farms have begun drilling deeper into the earth in search for groundwater. This activity is
expensive and environmentally damaging. In November, Governor Jerry Brown signed the first law regulating groundwater
extraction in California's history, but have given local government agencies a leisurely 26 years to implement these regulations. Meanwhile,
farmers desperate to irrigate their crops will continue to deplete California's precious groundwater
supply—with little short-term relief in sight. For Californian agriculture, the future does not look bright.
The current drought cost the sector an estimated $2.2 billion last year, and nearly 17,000 farmers lost
their jobs in 2014. Given the importance of California's agriculture to the food supply of the United States—
and the rest of the world—the state's drought is far from just a local concern. "California has no contingency plan
for a persistent drought like this one (let alone a 20-plus-year mega-drought), except, apparently, staying in emergency mode and praying for
rain," wrote Famiglietti. Residents across the country might want to join them.
High food prices cause war
Clionadh Raleigh, 15, Professor Of Human Geography at the University of Sussex, May 2015, “The
devil is in the details: An investigation of the relationships between conflict, food price and climate
across Africa”,
http://www.sciencedirect.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/science/article/pii/S0959378015000357
In this article, we explore the evidence for feedbacks and sequential effects between conflict, food price, and climate change. Our findings
suggest that (i) higher
rates of conflict are expected in markets with higher food prices; (ii) violence raises
the average price of commodities in markets; (iii) anomalously dry conditions are associated with
increased frequencies of conflict; and (iv) decreased rainfall exerts an indirect effect on conflict through
its impact on commodity prices. Overall, we contribute to a wider set of literature on climate-security links
by emphasizing the role of intervening and mediating factors linking physical change to political
instability. Our analysis uses subnational and time varying data for all three instabilities: monthly market
data can more accurately capture how rainfall variations across a state affect subsistence commodities,
how conflict rates affect market stability, and how the economic health of a region impacts conflict
rates. Each of these factors is dynamic over time and space. Together they suggest that there exists a variation in vulnerability across markets,
and alternative scenarios through which climate impacts can be addressed: urban markets in states safe from global economic shocks may be
more resilient to variations in climate and food price through legislation, commodity substitution and common coping strategies. However, in
rural areas without support, intervention or commodity substitution possibilities, climate changes may be quite detrimental to the economic
and political stability of regions. This speaks to the topography of risk and responses in how environmental security can be addressed by
communities, governments and aid organizations.
The links between economic instability and violence is suggestive,
but not determinative. The differences in perceptions and consequences of the 2007–2008 commodity price increases and those of
2010–2011 underscores how political violence in any form is not a standard reaction to food price vacillation. In
2010, harvests were healthy and crucially, governments sought to influence the impact of price
increases. In choosing states experiencing a range of conflict severity over 1997–2010, we realistically
capture how ‘normal’ market and commodity volatility is within African states. Our findings can be
generalized outside of our sampled twenty-four African states to others experiencing a range of
instability. Communities in states experiencing severe violence often adapt to new circumstances by
engaging in normal activities within war economies; this can include farming, selling goods and incorporating the additional
risk within food prices. This underscores the perception that the most vulnerable across developing countries
survive through community assistance, instead of benefitting from external assistance. Across African
states, a more pressing spectre is looming: as more people become food consumers as well as
producers, the influence of climate change and the health of markets is paramount for domestic
stability. The ability of institutions and effective governance to mitigate the negative externalities of
climate change and to dampen the likelihood of higher conflict risks is through policies on food price
volatility, market development, and time-sensitive supplements to failing markets. Food price controls
are a key area where governments can address environmental security, but they must be carefully
attuned to the local political and economic dynamics of the locations in which they are applied. A number of
previous measures to control food price include market boards, which set prices for staples and export goods. However, these boards often
acted to support and enrich the state by elevating the national price of goods regardless of local circumstance. Further, during the 1970s and
1980s, market boards supported an ‘urban bias’ whereby food prices were set to favour urban consumers instead of rural producers. This was
to curb possible restive behaviour from urban residents who have a higher ability of collective action against the government. Political biases
continue to favour of particular markets, in the form of the range of commodities available, updated infrastructure, security, and positive
interventions. However, the
majority of Africans may be subject to markets with limited and failing
infrastructure, insecurity in a variety of forms, and negative, late interventions. This limits the ability to
address the growing needs of the populations, and may create a fertile environment for antigovernment sentiment, which can occur in a variety of forms and have quite serious ramifications for
the stability of the state.
Scenario 2 is Competitiveness
Regulations caused by fear of surveillance kills drone innovation—leads to offshoring
Ryan Mac, 15, Writer for Forbes, 3/24/2015 @ 5:05PM, “Amazon Hammers FAA For Lack Of 'Impetus'
Over Drone Policy”, http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2015/03/24/amazon-hammers-faa-for-lackof-impetus-over-progressive-drone-policy/
Amazon.com AMZN -0.09% is not pleased with the pace by which the Federal Aviation Administration is addressing
the commercial use of drones and it let the public know in a congressional hearing on Tuesday. In a Washington, D.C. meeting with
Senate members of the Subcommittee on Aviation, Operations, Safety and Security, Paul Misener, Amazon’s vice president of global public
policy, criticized the FAA for lacking “impetus” to develop timely policies for the operations of unmanned aerial systems (UASs or UAVs).
Amazon, which has been pushing for greater regulatory clarity and experimental permission for its Prime Air drone delivery service, said that
the United States has been far less progressive than other countries with its unmanned aircraft
regulations that have, in part, stifled innovation. “Although the United States is catching up in permitting
current commercial UAS testing, the United States remains behind in planning for future commercial
UAS operations,” Misener told the senators. While Misener remained polite with his points, he made Amazon’s message clear: the U.S.
is simply not doing enough for businesses that want to use drones, whether that be for the delivery of
packages or the inspection of power lines. Ironically, his comments came less than three hours after the FAA issued an
interim policy that streamlined the approval process for commercial drone use, granting companies that
had gained exemptions under current law a “blanket” permission to fly UAVs anywhere in the U.S. with
certain restrictions. Currently, it is illegal for businesses to operate drones unless they have an exemption from the FAA. Dressed in a
light gray suit and removing his glasses to address the senators, Misener stressed the differences between the U.S. and
places like Europe, where the company is already testing outdoors in the United Kingdom. “Nowhere
outside of the United States have we been required to wait more than one or two months to begin
testing,” he said. That was supported by Senator Cory Booker, who passionately suggested that if the FAA been around during
the time of the Wright brothers, other countries would have had commercial planes flying before a U.S.
aircraft got off the ground. “This is what is hard for me to believe,” Booker said. “The slowness at which this country is moving.” While
some had expected Booker to introduce temporary legislation to govern the commercial use of drones on Tuesday, the junior senator from
New Jersey did not use Tuesday’s hearing to introduce a bill. However, those familiar with Booker’s plans said that that he is still working on a
bill that would give businesses the right to use drones until the FAA settles on final rules in a process that could take more than two years. “I’m
not sure how long that would take,” said Senator Maria
Cantwell from Washington. As the ranking Democratic member on the
subcommittee, she too discussed the “competitive disadvantages” that American companies faced with current
rules. Among those companies is Amazon, which hails from Cantwell’s home state, and only last week
received an airworthiness certificate to test its delivery drones outdoors in the U.S. It was a nice gesture from
the FAA, said Misener, however, it did little to advance his company’s approach. It took about a year receive approval–about six months more
than in other countries–and was severely limiting by only approving one model of drone to be tested. “We innovated so rapidly that the UAS
approved last week by the FAA has become obsolete,” he said. “We don’t test it anymore. We’ve moved on to more advanced designs that we
already are testing abroad.” Other
senators in the hearing stressed potential privacy concerns that come with flying
drones with video capability. Democrat Edward Markey of Massachusetts, who previously introduced a bill on managing the data
collected by drones, demonstrated his concerns by holding up a blue and orange UAV manufactured by French company Parrot. “I think we can
all understand that one of the primary concerns that people have about these unmanned vehicles is privacy,” said Republican Senator Kelly
Ayotte, the subcommittee’s chairwoman. ”UASs can significantly lower the threshold for abusive surveillance.” Still,
most of the conversation drifted back to the topic of commercial drone use and the potential for the expansion of drone regulations. Currently
companies must file for case-by-case exemptions, or “333 exemptions,” in order to get FAA permission to use a drone in a business situation. To
date that FAA has received more than 750 requests and approved 64, with 10 happening on Tuesday alone. Along with that, the new policy put
forth by the FAA on Tuesday, grants all exemption holders an additional authorization certificate that allows operators to fly anywhere across
the U.S. under 200 feet, within the line of sight and five miles away from an airport. Previously, commercial drone operators were confined to a
certain block of airspace. Some drone proponents are still not happy with the FAA’s latest rule change. The 200-foot “blanket” authorization,
“doesn’t get it done,” said Michael Drobac, executive director of a lobbying group called the Small UAV Coalition, of which Amazon, Google
GOOGL +2.36% and GoPro are members. Commercial operators will still need to go through the same traditional regulatory procedures for any
flights above 200 feet, he pointed out before Tuesday’s hearing. The country’s laws will have to be far more progressive than even the FAA’s
latest concession if Amazon is to have a chance at drone delivery. Introduced by CEO Jeff Bezos on “60 Minutes” more than a year ago, drone
delivery has only been tested in the U.S. at indoor facilities and within visual sight of operators. That
last requirement will have to
be nixed if packages are to be delivered autonomously over several miles to customers. “It’s a
technology challenge that still needs to be addressed,” said Margaret Gilligan, the FAA’s associate administrator for aviation
safety, on whether drones could be trusted to fly beyond human sight. She noted that drone companies must increase the
ability of drones to “sense and avoid” air traffic or other objects, though she mentioned that it may be
possible in the future. “The FAA has turned the corner,” Misener said at the congressional meeting. ”Things are getting better
with respect to testing, [but it needs to improve] with future planning.” “Let the records show you sufficiently sucked
up to the FAA,” Booker replied, jokingly.
The internal link is reverse causal—drone regulations caused by backlash would
hamper military and economic competitiveness
Carrie Sheffield, 14, writer and political analyst based in New York City. Sheffield is a former editorial
writer for The Washington Times, a reporter for Politico, and The Hill newspaper, in 2009, Sheffield won
funding from Harvard University to serve as a correspondent for The Jerusalem Post in Israel, “WHY
AMERICA NEEDS TO GET SMARTER ABOUT OUR COMMERCIAL DRONE POLICY”,
http://opportunitylives.com/why-america-needs-to-get-smarter-about-our-commercial-drone-policy/
Warning of the economic setbacks from delaying action on drone policy, AUVSI says that for each year rules are delayed, the
United States loses more than $10 billion in potential economic impact, translating to a loss of $27.6 million per day.
And AUVSI argues, “states that create favorable regulatory and business environments for the industry and
the technology will likely siphon jobs away from states that do not.” American Enterprise Institute scholar Tom
Donnelly, who studies drone policy, told Opportunity Lives that government curtailment of drones—whether through commercial drone
bans or Defense Department cuts via sequestration—hurts American interests. “I think the biggest danger in all this is
in our haste to regulate things, we will both deprive ourselves of a stark military advantage that we have
and fail to exploit it in a commercial way,” Donnelly said. Amazone Drone DeliveryAmazon hopes to use automated drones to
deliver customers their packages within 30 minutes of ordering. In the wake of the Edward Snowden surveillance revelations and military drone
use highlighted by Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Donnelly acknowledged
Americans are concerned about
privacy, though he said on balance drones are a net benefit to Americans. “To be brutally honest, I think
that’s mostly scare tactic stuff,” he said. “If you look at the use of autonomous technology, conducting
experiments with self-driving cars and all the rest, this technology is so pervasive and so efficient and
will become things that people are increasingly comfortable with and used to, then the fear of a drone
killing you in a cafe is way overblown. “We’re coming to the fact that essentially every email we write is in a public space,” he
continued. “We may have moments of backlash and so on, but the very inability to regulate this, I think, and also the
ongoing proliferation of technology, will actually make it less frightening and more familiar.” While Amazon
drones might become a visible, consumer-facing endeavor, they represent just a small fraction of current industry projections, which are
dominated by agriculture (an estimated 90 percent of drone use through the next 10 years). Higher precision in crop monitoring can help
farmers spray crops more efficiently with nutrients and herbicides. This saves money and is more environmentally-conscious than current
practices. The second-biggest holding promise for drone use is public safety, where new tools can help police officers, firefighters volunteer and
emergency medical services respond more effectively. Europe
generally lags behind America in creating regulatory
regimes hospitable to new technology, but in the case of drones Europe, as well as Japan, leads the way.
Amazon recently wrote to the FAA and warned that without the ability to test outdoors in the United States
soon, it “will have no choice but to divert even more of our [drone] research and development resources
abroad.” Marc Scribner, a fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute who has called on Congress to bring about a “drone revolution,”
told Opportunity Lives that the Europeans generally have much better air navigation service providers compared to FAA. He noted that
Europeans are already integrating lightweight (< 150kg) UASs because the European Union exempted them from EU-wide regulation, leaving
this is up to member countries. “The FAA is failing big time,” Scribner said. “The FAA is slow because of status-quo bias.” “For each year rules
are delayed, the United States loses more than $10 billion in potential economic impact, translating to a loss of $27.6 million per day.” Scribner
has written about how a Department of Transportation Inspector General audit report published this summer “found that the FAA was so
mired in its own bureaucracy that not only would it fail to meet the 2015 congressional deadline, but that ‘it is uncertain when and if full
integration of UAS into the [National Airspace System] will occur.’” A continued
failure to create sensible drone policy will
only hurt American competitiveness further, according to AEI’s Donnelly. “Policies that do too much to
exclude unmanned systems of any kind will be fighting against the global tide of technology and
commerce,” Donnelly said.
Competitiveness is vital to hegemony and conflict suppression
Hubbard, Open Society Foundations program assistant, 2010
(Jesse, “Hegemonic Stability Theory: An Empirical Analysis”, 5-28,
http://isrj.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/hegemonic-stability-theory/)
Regression analysis of this data shows that Pearson’s r-value is -.836. In the case of American hegemony,
economic strength is a better predictor of violent conflict than even overall national power, which had an rvalue of -.819. The data is also well within the realm of statistical significance, with a p-value of .0014. While the data for British hegemony was not as striking, the
same overall pattern holds true in both cases. During both periods of hegemony, hegemonic strength was negatively related with violent conflict, and yet use of
force by the hegemon was positively correlated with violent conflict in both cases. Finally, in both cases, economic power was more closely associated with conflict
levels than military power. Statistical analysis created a more complicated picture of the hegemon’s role in fostering stability than initially anticipated. VI.
Conclusions and Implications for Theory and Policy To elucidate some answers regarding the complexities my analysis unearthed, I turned first to the existing
theoretical literature on hegemonic stability theory. The existing literature provides some potential frameworks for understanding these results. Since economic
strength proved to be of such crucial importance, reexamining the literature that focuses on hegemonic stability theory’s economic implications was the logical first
step. As explained above, the literature on hegemonic stability theory can be broadly divided into two camps – that which focuses on the international economic
system, and that which focuses on armed conflict and instability. This research falls squarely into the second camp, but insights from the first camp are still of
relevance. Even Kindleberger’s early work on this question is of relevance. Kindleberger posited that the economic
instability between the
First and Second World Wars could be attributed to the lack of an economic hegemon (Kindleberger 1973). But
economic instability obviously has spillover effects into the international political arena. Keynes, writing after WWI, warned in his seminal tract The Economic
Consequences of the Peace that Germany’s economic humiliation could have a radicalizing effect on the nation’s political culture (Keynes 1919). Given later events,
his warning seems prescient. In the years since the Second World War, however, the European continent has not relapsed into armed conflict. What was different
after the second global conflagration? Crucially, the United States was in a far more powerful position than Britain was after WWI. As the tables above show,
Britain’s economic strength after the First World War was about 13% of the total in strength in the international system. In contrast, the United States possessed
about 53% of relative economic power in the international system in the years immediately following WWII. The U.S. helped rebuild Europe’s economic strength
with billions of dollars in investment through the Marshall Plan, assistance that was never available to the defeated powers after the First World War (Kindleberger
1973). The interwar years were also marked by a series of debilitating trade wars that likely worsened the Great Depression (Ibid.). In contrast, when Britain was
more powerful, it was able to facilitate greater free trade, and after World War II, the United States played a leading role in creating institutions like the GATT that
had an essential role in facilitating global trade (Organski 1958). The possibility that economic stability is an important factor in the overall security environment
should not be discounted, especially given the results of my statistical analysis. Another
theory that could provide insight into the
patterns observed in this research is that of preponderance of power. Gilpin theorized that when a state
has the preponderance of power in the international system, rivals are more likely to resolve their
disagreements without resorting to armed conflict (Gilpin 1983). The logic behind this claim is simple – it makes more sense
to challenge a weaker hegemon than a stronger one. This simple yet powerful theory can help explain the puzzlingly strong positive correlation between military
conflicts engaged in by the hegemon and conflict overall. It is not necessarily that military involvement by the hegemon instigates further conflict in the
international system. Rather, this military involvement could be a function of the hegemon’s weaker position, which is the true cause of the higher levels of conflict
in the international system.
Additionally, it is important to note that military power is, in the long run, dependent
on economic strength. Thus, it is possible that as hegemons lose relative economic power, other
nations are tempted to challenge them even if their short-term military capabilities are still strong.
This would help explain some of the variation found between the economic and military data. The results of this analysis are of clear importance beyond the realm
of theory. As the debate rages over the role of the United States in the world, hegemonic stability theory has some useful insights to bring to the table. What this
research makes clear is that a strong hegemon can exert a positive influence on stability in the international system. However, this should not give policymakers a
If anything, this research points to
the central importance of economic influence in fostering international stability. To misconstrue these
findings to justify anything else would be a grave error indeed. Hegemons may play a stabilizing role in
the international system, but this role is complicated. It is economic strength, not military dominance
that is the true test of hegemony. A weak state with a strong military is a paper tiger – it may appear
fearsome, but it is vulnerable to even a short blast of wind.
justification to engage in conflict or escalate military budgets purely for the sake of international stability.
Hegemony creates peace by preventing both great power and regional conflicts
Stephen M. Walt, 2002, American professor of international affairs at Harvard University's John F.
Kennedy School of Government, “AMERICAN PRIMACY: Its Prospects and Pitfalls”,
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/swalt/files/art1-sp2.pdf
A second consequence of U.S. primacy is a decreased danger of great-power rivalry and a higher level of
overall international tranquility. Ironically, those who argue that primacy is no longer important, because
the danger of war is slight, overlook the fact that the extent of American primacy is one of the main
reasons why the risk of great-power war is as low as it is. For most of the past four centuries, relations among the major
powers have been intensely competitive, often punctuated by major wars and occasionally by all-out struggles for hegemony. In the first
half of the twentieth century, for example, great-power wars killed over eighty million people. Today,
however, the dominant position of the United States places significant limits on the possibility of greatpower competition, for at least two reasons. One reason is that because the United States is currently so far ahead,
other major powers are not inclined to challenge its dominant position. Not only is there no possibility of
a “hegemonic war” (because there is no potential hegemon to mount a challenge), but the risk of war via miscalculation
is reduced by the overwhelming gap between the United States and the other major powers. Miscalculation
is more likely to lead to war when the balance of power is fairly even, because in this situation both sides can convince themselves that they
might be able to win. When
the balance of power is heavily skewed, however, the leading state does not need
to go to war and weaker states dare not try.8 12 NAVAL WAR COLLEGE REVIEW The second reason is that the continued
deployment of roughly two hundred thousand troops in Europe and in Asia provides a further barrier to conflict in each region. So long as
U.S. troops are committed abroad, regional powers know that launching a war is likely to lead to a
confrontation with the United States. Thus, states within these regions do not worry as much about
each other, because the U.S. presence effectively prevents regional conflicts from breaking out. What
Joseph Joffe has termed the “American pacifier” is not the only barrier to conflict in Europe and Asia, but it is an important one.
This tranquilizing effect is not lost on America’s allies in Europe and Asia. They resent U.S. dominance
and dislike playing host to American troops, but they also do not want “Uncle Sam” to leave.9 Thus, U.S.
primacy is of benefit to the United States, and to other countries as well, because it dampens the overall
level of international insecurity. World politics might be more interesting if the United States were weaker and if other states were
forced to compete with each other more actively, but a more exciting world is not necessarily a better one. A comparatively boring era may
provide few opportunities for genuine heroism, but it is probably a good deal more pleasant to live in than “interesting” decades like the 1930s
or 1940s.
Econ decline causes nuclear war
Hutchinson 14 (Martin, Business and Economics Editor at United Press International, MBA from
Harvard Business School, former international merchant banker, 1-3-14, “The chilling echoes of 1914, a
century on” Wall Street Journal) http://online.wsj.com/articles/william-galston-secular-stagnation-maybe-for-real-1409095263,
The years before 1914 saw the formation of trade blocs separated by high tariff barriers. Back then, the world was
dominated by several roughly equivalent powers, albeit with different strengths and weaknesses. Today, the world is similarly multi-polar. The
United States is in a position of clear leadership, but China is coming up fast. Europe is weaker than it was, but is still a force to be reckoned
with. Japan, Russia, Brazil, India are also too powerful to ignore. A hundred years ago, big international infrastructure projects such as the
Berlin-Baghdad Railway, and before it the Suez Canal, were built to protect favored trading. Today’s equivalent may be the bilateral mining
partnerships forged between, for instance, China and mineral-rich African states. Today, the World Trade Organization offers some defence
against tariffs. But protectionism could be become entrenched if prolonged economic stagnation leads countries to pursue their own narrow
interests. Germany, Austria, Russia and France lost between 20 and 35 percent of national output between 1913 and 1918, according to Angus
Maddison’s data used in Stephen Broadberry’s “The Economics of World War One: A Comparative Analysis”. British GDP declined in 1914 and
1915, but grew 15 percent over the four years, as did the U.S. economy. The 37 million military and civilian casualties may tell a more accurate
story but if
history were to repeat itself, the global conflict could be both more universal and more destructive.
Nuclear weapons proliferate. Warped diplomatic anger could lead to the deployment of chemical and
biological devices. Electromagnetic pulses could wipe out our fragile electronic networks. Like the assassination of
Archduke Ferdinand that sparked World War One, the catalyst for cataclysm might be something quite surprising. A global run on bank and
other investment assets or an outbreak of hyperinflation, maybe? These threats get more serious the more policymakers pump up equity,
bond, property and banking bubbles. If global
wealth evaporates, or is proven to be an illusion, today’s largely cordial global
entente could be smashed with precipitous speed.
1AC Modeling Advantage
The plan gets modeled to prevent rapid Latin American drone militarization
Diego Cupolo 14, Latin American policy writer for Occupy, 1/8/2014, “Why Widely
Unregulated Drone Use Is Soaring in Latin America”, Occupy,
http://www.occupy.com/article/why-widely-unregulated-drone-use-soaring-latinamerica
Approximately 7,500 UAVs are expected to begin operating in U.S. airspace within the next five years
following the introduction of new regulations, said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta at news
conference in November. He added the ultimate goal of the American drone industry is to establish a
global leadership that will enable the U.S. market to set standards for the industry worldwide.
Meanwhile, most Latin American countries are enjoying economic growth, which means militaries have
larger budgets at their disposal to build new weapons or buy them from abroad. Security and military
operations in Latin America are currently pushing global demand for drones. “Countries like Brazil want
to be known as a military power and they want to show they have a vibrant domestic military industry
and they can build their own weapons and produce drone technology for sale to other countries,”
Sanchez said. Still, the proliferation of drone technology throughout the Americas is advancing more
rapidly than regulations. After analyzing the future and present uses of UAVs in Latin American, the
IACHR hearing convened with three recommendations to the international community. The first two
called on the U.S. to comply with international human rights principles in their use and development of
armed drones around the world. The third recommendation set forth the need to “clarify and articulate”
the legal obligations of states in regard to drone use, both armed and unarmed, and called for the
drafting of legislation on the matter. As time passes and falling price tags encourage more governments
to employ surveillance drones, the use of armed drones will only represent the next step in the
integration process, Stanley said in his closing statements. “From their uses abroad we know that armed
drones can be incredibly powerful and dangerous weapons. When domestic law enforcement officers
can use force from a distance it may become too easy for them to do so,” Stanley said. “When it
becomes easier to do surveillance, surveillance is used more. When it becomes easier to use force, force
will be used more. We have seen this dynamic not only overseas, but also domestically with less lethal
weapons such as tasers.” While there is currently a broad consensus against armed drone use in the
Americas, Stanley said exceptions have arisen. U.S. police departments have suggested arming UAVs
with rubber bullets for riot control. At the same time, U.S. border patrols have proposed outfitting
drones with “non-lethal weapons designed to immobilize targets of interest.” “There is very good reason
to think that once the current controversies and public spotlight on domestic drones fades away, we will
see a push for drones armed with lethal weapons,” Stanley said.
Regulations are key to prevent Latin American border conflict and Terror
Marguerite Cawley 14, Research Assistant at InSight Crime, 4/18/2014, “Drone Use in
Latin America: Dangers and Opportunities”, InSight Crime,
http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/drone-use-in-latin-america-dangers-andopportunities
Another concern lies in the potential implications of drone use that breaches sovereignty, which has
already led to some political clashes. Uruguay, Paraguay and Argentina have all accused Brazil of flying
UAVs for surveillance purposes in their territories without permission, particularly in the Triple Frontier
region bordering the latter two. Former Colombian Defense Minister Gabriel Silva admitted in 2012 that
Colombia performed unauthorized intelligence operations in Venezuela with drones under the
administration of former President Alvaro Uribe.
If armed drones were to enter the mix in the future, the problem presented by this "gray area" in regard
to appropriate drone use would, predictably, become more serious. There is a precedent here with a
different technology: in 2008, Colombia launched US-made "smart bombs" -- weapons equipped with
GPS guidance -- across the border into Ecuador to kill FARC commander Raul Reyes. The fallout from this
led to more than a year of severed ties between the two nations.
Drone use also raises another question: what happens if this technology falls into the wrong hands?
According to COHA, the difficulty of setting up and utilizing drones reduces the possibility of criminal
use, but crime groups are constantly evolving their techniques and using more sophisticated machinery,
and it would not be impossible for them to acquire the technology from private companies. In criminal
or insurgent hands, even an unarmed drone would be a powerful intelligence weapon.
In the end, drones offer novel intelligence and surveillance solutions and could be successfully deployed
in the fight against organized crime, but it is essential that their use be closely monitored. Both national
and international regulations will need to be put in place to ensure they are not used for the wrong
reasons, by the wrong people, or without authorization from neighboring countries. If this is done
effectively, their use could present interesting opportunities for so-called "south-south" cooperation in
anti-narcotics and anti-smuggling efforts.
Russian engagement in Latin America means small conflicts will draw in a full USRussia war
R. Evan Ellis 15, Research professor of Latin American Studies at the Strategic Studies
Institute, U.S. Army War College, June 17 2015, “THE NEW RUSSIAN ENGAGEMENT
WITH LATIN AMERICA: STRATEGIC POSITION, COMMERCE, AND DREAMS OF THE PAST”,
Strategic Studies Institute,
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=1275
Beyond such impacts on coalition formation, Russian engagement with the region on the United States
also adversely impacts pro-U.S. states such as Colombia, Chile, and even Honduras, which arguably
perceive themselves as increasingly surrounded by proRussian states, and threatened by Russia’s
activities in the region. In the case of Colombia, Russia’s close political, military, and economic relations
with the three ALBA states that surround it (Venezuela, Ecuador, and Cuba), and perceived historic
Russian ties to groups that fight against the Colombia government internally, such as the FARC and the
ELN, increase the Colombian government’s sense of encirclement by hostile forces, and its interest in
informal security guarantees from its traditional ally, the United States. For some in Honduras, the
prospect of renewed Russian engagement with neighboring El Salvador, in combination with the strong
Russian position in Nicaragua and Cuba, raises similar fears of “encirclement.”
With respect to the ALBA states, the economic viability of regimes such as the Bolivarian government of
Venezuela arguably is enabled more by loans and support from the PRC than from Russia. Nonetheless,
Russian activities reinforces, and sometimes compliments, the impacts of Chinese engagement in select
sectors such as petroleum, arms, and construction, and provides political support for the anti-Western
projects of these countries in a way that the PRC, to date, has been reluctant to do. As suggested earlier,
Russian arms and investment thus make these regimes somewhat more viable, and potentially more
dangerous to their neighbors.
In turn, the viability of these regimes, and their willingness to host Russian military and irregular
activities, creates an opportunity for Russia to operate in the region in a manner that threatens the
United States in the hemisphere when it wishes to do so. During a conflict involving Russia in another
theater, for example, such allies present Russia with options to act in Latin America and the Caribbean
so as to force the United States to divert attention and resources away from its activities in other parts
of the globe. Examples of such possible actions include basing or resupplying nuclear-capable military
assets in countries in close proximity to the United States, such as Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and
Ecuador. Other possibilities include supporting military action against a U.S. ally, such as a Venezuelan
occupation of historically contested Colombian territory on its border, or a Nicaraguan incursion against
Costa Rica.
US-Russia was causes extinction --- high probability
Anthony Barrett 13, PhD in Engineering and Public Policy from Carnegie Mellon, Director of Research
@ the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute (GCRI), Fellow @ the RAND Stanton Nuclear Security Fellows
Program, and Seth Baum, PhD in Geography from Pennsylvania State University, Executive Director @
the GCRI, Research Scientist @ the Blue Marble Space Institute of Science, and Kelly Hostetler, Research
Assistant @ the GCRI, “Analyzing and Reducing the Risks of Inadvertent Nuclear War Between the
United States and Russia,” Science and Global Security 21(2): 106-133, online
War involving significant fractions of the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, which are by far the largest of any
nations, could have globally catastrophic effects such as severely reducing food production for years,
1,2,3,4,5,6 potentially leading to collapse of modern civilization worldwide and even the extinction of
humanity . 7,8,9,10 Nuclear war between the US and Russia could occur by various routes, including
accidental or unauthorized launch; deliberate first attack by one nation; and inadvertent attack. In an accidental or
unauthorized launch or detonation, system safeguards or procedures to maintain control over nuclear weapons fail in such a way that a nuclear
weapon or missile launches or explodes without direction from leaders. In a deliberate first attack, the attacking nation decides to attack based
on accurate information about the state of affairs.
In an inadvertent attack, the attacking nation mistakenly concludes
that it is under attack and launches nuclear weapons in what it believes is a counterattack. 11,12
(Brinkmanship strategies incorporate elements of all of the above, in that they involve deliberate
manipulation of the risk of otherwise unauthorized or inadvertent attack as part of coercive threats that
“leave something to chance,” i.e., “taking steps that raise the risk that the crisis will go out of control and
end in a general nuclear exchange .” 13,14 ) Over the years, nuclear strategy was aimed primarily at minimizing risks of
intentional attack through development of deterrence capabilities, though numerous measures were also taken to reduce probabilities of
accidents, unauthorized attack, and inadvertent war. 15,16,17 For purposes of deterrence, both U.S. and Soviet/Russian forces have maintained
significant capabilities to have some forces survive a first attack by the other side and to launch a subsequent counter-attack. However,
concerns about the extreme disruptions that a first attack would cause in the other side’s forces and command-and-control capabilities led to
both sides’development of capabilities to detect a first attack and launch a counter-attack before suffering damage from the first attack.
18,19,20 Many people believe that with the end of the Cold War and with improved relations between the United States and Russia, the risk of
inadvertent nuclear war between
the United States and Russia has continued to present a substantial risk . 23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33
While the United States and Russia are not actively threatening each other with war, they have
remained ready to launch nuclear missiles in response to indications of attack. 34,35,36,37,38 False
indicators of nuclear attack could be caused in several ways. First, a wide range of events have already been
mistakenly interpreted as indicators of attack, including weather phenomena, a faulty computer chip, wild animal activity, and controlEast-West nuclear war was significantly reduced. 21,22 However, it has also been argued that
room training tapes loaded at the wrong time. 39 Second, terrorist groups or other actors might cause attacks on either the United States or
Russia that resemble some kind of nuclear attack by the other nation by actions such as exploding a stolen or improvised nuclear bomb,
40,41,42 especially if such an event occurs during a crisis between the United States and Russia. 43 A variety of nuclear terrorism scenarios are
possible. 44 Al Qaeda has sought to obtain or construct nuclear weapons and to use them against the United States. 45,46,47 Other methods
could involve attempts to circumvent nuclear weapon launch control safeguards or exploit holes in their security. 48,49
It has long been
argued that the probability of inadvertent nuclear war is significantly higher during U.S.-Russian crisis
conditions, 50,51,52,53 with the Cuban Missile Crisis being a prime historical example of such a crisis.
54,55,56,57,58 It is possible that U.S.-Russian relations will significantly deteriorate in the future, increasing
nuclear tensions. 59 There are a variety of ways for a third party to raise tensions between the United
States and Russia, making one or both nations more likely to misinterpret events as attacks. 60,61,62,63
Drones falling into the wrong hands makes Terrorism extremely likely
Ajay Lele 9, Research Fellow at the Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses, New
Delhi, July 2009, “Aerial Terrorism and the Threat from Unmanned Aerial Vehicles”,
Journal of Defense Studies, http://www.idsa.in/system/files/jds_3_3_alele_amishra.pdf
The present international system in a rapidly changing world order is characterised by multivalence,
interdependence and political cooperation. In the present system, no particular country or forum can
ensure global security alone. The structure of the international system is not only changing rapidly but
the challenges are also evolving very fast. For a better world, it is essential to resort to a pluralistic
security order based on a cooperative approach to security.
The tools and tactics used by the terrorist organisations in the twenty first century are showing signs of
shifting focus from the predictable form of terrorism to a form where modern technology is being used
intelligently. Information technology based tools and modern communication system are being
employed by terrorists to improvise the existing forms of threat. Terrorists are found using new
technology to their advantage while involving themselves in maritime, aerial, cyber or few other forms
of terrorism.
Till date the world has witnessed terrorists using aerial form of terrorism with some success. At the
same time, the counter terrorism mechanisms employed by states are found gaining success. Such
measures appear to have deterred the terrorist groups and have also succeeded in averting some major
plans of the terrorist groups to cause damage. However, with easy availability of hardware required to
build an unmanned aerial vehicle or a toy plane the possibility exists that the terrorist groups could opt
for new techniques to effect aerial terrorism.
This is not to say that the terrorists would discontinue with the techniques used all these years for
action attacks such as aerial attacks which cause mass casualties. Terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda or
LeT may still resort to such terror means in future in order to produce destruction in the form of life and
property of catastrophic magnitude and to send a political message. They could try to find the
unconventional ways to defeat the counter terrorism apparatus devised by nation states in this regard.
In view of this, it is essential for states to strengthen their intelligence gathering mechanisms. More
importantly, there is a need to comprehend the likely possibility of attacks by using the UAVs or toy
planes in developing counter terrorism strategies.
Cartels will proliferate drones to terrorists-US modeling key to solve
John Holmberg 9, Professor at George Mason University, 5/11/2009, “Narcoterrorism”,
traccc.gmu.edu/pdfs/student_research/HolmbergNarcoterrorism.pdf
The threat of narcoterrorism is very serious and can be felt across every region of the world.
Narcoterrorism poses a threat to more than just the nations in which these groups exist (Colombia,
Ireland, Turkey). The globalization of the economy has created a network for terrorist organizations and
criminals to coordinate, cooperate, and share resources. Unfortunately, policy has been slow to catch up
to the convergence of crime and terrorism. Moving forward it will be vital to the security of the
international community for international governments to work together. This can be done by sharing
intelligence, financial information, and developing a unified approach to breaking up the ties between
crime and terrorism. This process needs to start in the United States. As the world leader, it will be
integral to develop international polices that realize the growing link between crime and terrorism.
Internationally and domestically, the government must do a better job at sharing information and
resources to mitigate terrorism. There are encouraging signs indicating that we are headed in the right
direction in this regard but we are still behind the UK in recognizing the duality of the threat. The UK’s
ability to view crime and terrorism in the same light has prepared them to counter terrorism and crime
much more effectively than the United States. All of the prescribed policy approaches have one common
ingredient; they must be international in scope. If the international community is to work together to
defeat transnational criminals and terrorists than international governments must coordinate
government. The links forged by narcoterrorists and criminals are too vast for one nation to make a
difference. By pulling resources together, the international community can uncover the links between
crime and terrorism and consequently the effects and fund raising capabilities of narcoterrorists like
FARC will be severely decreased.
Cartel ties with terrorists means that drone proliferation would escalate to terror
against the US
Curt Andersen 8, Writer for the Associated Press, 10/8/2008, “US officials fear terrorist
links with drug lords”, AP, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-08805146709_x.htm
There is real danger that Islamic extremist groups such as al-Qaida and Hezbollah could form alliances
with wealthy and powerful Latin American drug lords to launch new terrorist attacks, U.S. officials said
Wednesday. Extremist group operatives have already been identified in several Latin American
countries, mostly involved in fundraising and finding logistical support. But Charles Allen, chief of
intelligence analysis at the Homeland Security Department, said they could use well-established
smuggling routes and drug profits to bring people or even weapons of mass destruction to the U.S. "The
presence of these people in the region leaves open the possibility that they will attempt to attack the
United States," said Allen, a veteran CIA analyst. "The threats in this hemisphere are real. We cannot
ignore them." Added U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration operations chief Michael Braun: "It is not in
our interest to let that potpourri of scum to come together." Their comments came at a two-day
conference on the illegal drug threat in the Americas hosted by the U.S. Southern Command and the
35,000-member AFCEA International, a trade group for communications, intelligence and national
security companies. Much as the Taliban tapped Afghanistan's heroin for money, U.S. officials say the
vast profits available from Latin American cocaine could provide al-Qaida and others with a ready source
of income. The rebel group known as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, has long
used drug money to pay for weapons, supplies and operations -- and is also designated as a terrorist
organization by the U.S. "We've got a hybrid that has developed right before our eyes," Braun said. Latin
America's drug kingpins already have well-established methods of smuggling, laundering money,
obtaining false documents, providing safe havens and obtaining illicit weapons, all of which would be
attractive to terrorists who are facing new pressures in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Nuclear terror is feasible and likely – high motivation
Matthew Bunn 15, Professor of Practice at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of
Government, Nickolas Roth, Research Associate at the Project on Managing the Atom in the Belfer
Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard Kennedy School, “Reducing the risks of nuclear
theft and terrorism,” from Routledge Handbook of Nuclear Proliferation and Policy ed. Joseph F. Pilat
and Nathan E. Busch, 5/15/15, pp. 419-420
But we now live in an age that includes a few groups intent on inflicting large-scale destruction to achieve
more global objectives. In the 1990s, the japanese terror cult Anni Shinrikyo first sought to buy nuclear weapons in
Russia, then to make them themselves, before turning to biological weapons and the nerve gas they ultimatelv used in the Tokyo
subways.¶ Starting also in the 19905, al Qaeda repeatedly sought nuclear materials and the expertise needed to make
them into a nuclear bomb. Ultimately, al Qaeda put together a focused program reporting directly to Ayman al-Zawahiri (now head of the
group), which progressed as far as carrying out crude but sensible conventional explosive tests for the nuclear program in the desert of
Afghanistan.‘ ¶ The killing of Osama bin Laden and the many other blows against al Qaeda have surely reduced the risk that al Qaeda could put
together and carry through a nuclear bomb project. But by how much? The
core organization of al Qaeda has proved
resilient in the past.There is every reason to believe Al-Zawahiri remains eager to inflict destruction on a
nuclear scale . Indeed, despite the large number of al Qaeda leaders who have been killed or captured, nearly all
of the key players in al Qaeda’s nuclear program remain alive and at large - including Abdel Aziz alMasri, an Egyptian explosives expert who was al Qaeda’s “nuclear CEO." No one knows what capabilities a secret cell of al Qaeda
may have managed to retain or build. And regional affiliates and other groups in the broader violent Islamic extremist movement —
particularly some of the deadly Pakistani terrorist groups — may someday develop the capability and intent to follow a
similar path.¶ North Caucasus terrorist groups sought radiological weapons and threatened to sabotage
nuclear reactors.There is significant, though less conclusive, evidence that they sought nuclear weapons as well
— particularly confirmation from senior Russian officials that two teams were caught carrying out reconnaissance at
Russian nuclear weapon storage sites, whose very locations are a state secret.¶ More fundamentally, with at least
two, and probably three, groups having gone down this path in the past twenty-five years, there is no reason to
expect they will be the last . The danger of nuclear terrorism will remain as long as nuclear weapons,
the materials needed to make them, and terrorist groups bent on large-scale destruction co-exist.
Terrorism causes extinction---hard-line responses are key
Nathan Myhrvold '13, Phd in theoretical and mathematical physics from Princeton,
and founded
Intellectual Ventures after retiring as chief strategist and chief technology officer of Microsoft
Corporation , July 2013, "Stratgic Terrorism: A Call to Action," The Lawfare Research Paper Series No.2,
http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Strategic-Terrorism-Myhrvold-7-3-2013.pdf
Several powerful trends have aligned to profoundly change the way that the world works. Technology ¶ now
allows stateless groups to organize, recruit, and fund ¶ themselves in an unprecedented fashion. That,
coupled ¶ with the extreme difficulty of finding and punishing a stateless group, means that stateless groups are
positioned to be ¶ lead players on the world stage. They may act on their own, ¶ or they may act as proxies
for nation-states that wish to ¶ duck responsibility. Either way, stateless groups are forces ¶ to be reckoned with.¶ At the
same time, a different set of technology trends ¶ means that small numbers of people can obtain incredibly ¶
lethal power. Now, for the first time in human history, a ¶ small group can be as lethal as the largest superpower.
Such ¶ a group could execute an attack that could kill millions of ¶ people. It is technically feasible for such a group to kill
billions of people, to end modern civilization—perhaps even ¶ to drive the human race to extinction. Our defense
establishment was shaped over decades to ¶ address what was, for a long time, the only strategic threat ¶ our nation faced: Soviet or Chinese
missiles. More recently, ¶ it has started retooling to address tactical terror attacks like ¶ those launched on the morning of 9/11, but the reform
real defense will ¶ require rebuilding our military and intelligence
capabilities from the ground up. Yet, so far, strategic terrorism has ¶ received relatively little attention in defense
agencies, and ¶ the efforts that have been launched to combat this existential threat seem fragmented.¶
History suggests what will happen. The only thing that shakes America out of complacency is a direct
threat from a determined adversary that confronts us with our shortcomings by repeatedly attacking us
or hectoring us for decades.
¶ process
is incomplete and inconsistent. A
1AC Solvency
The plan eliminates public privacy concerns while retaining drones’ beneficial
activities
Gautam Hans 13, Policy Counsel and Director of Center for Democracy and Technology,
4/8/2013, “Drone Privacy Bills Attempt to Protect Americans from Governmental,
Commercial Surveillance”, Center for Democracy and Technology,
https://cdt.org/blog/drone-privacy-bills-attempt-to-protect-americans-fromgovernmental-commercial-surveillance/
In March, Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) re-introduced the Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency
Act of 2013, governing the domestic use of drones, co-sponsored by Representative Joe Barton (R-TX).
The Markey/Barton bill requires private operators to submit a “data collection statement” to the FAA
prior to receiving a license to operate a drone. The statement must include the name of the operator of
the drone; where it will be operated; what data will be collected and how the data will be used and
retained; and whether data will be sold to third parties. We have previously advocated for such data
collection statements, both for oversight purposes and to ensure that drone operators are considering
individual privacy when they deploy their drones.
The Markey/Barton bill also requires law enforcement agencies (as well as their contractors and
subcontractors) to submit data minimization statements. Those statements would be required to
describe the procedures that law enforcement would use in order to ensure that data collected by
drones unrelated to crimes isn’t collected or if irrelevant information is inadvertently collected, it is not
retained. Because drones could prove very beneficial to law enforcement agencies, ensuring that law
enforcement drones aren’t used for constant, comprehensive surveillance will be essential in protecting
ordinary citizens’ constitutional rights. By requiring law enforcement agencies to think about data
minimization before deploying drones, the bill helps ensure that the use of drones by law enforcement
doesn’t become overbroad.
The bill encourages oversight of law enforcement drone use in some important ways. First, the bill
mandates that law enforcement agencies need a warrant in order to use drones for “protective
activities” or for law enforcement or intelligence purposes. The warrant requirement is excused in
exigent circumstances – an exception that characterizes other warrant-based surveillance. Second, the
bill wisely requires suppression of drone evidence that is collected illegally when the government
attempts to use it in a court or regulatory proceeding. Third, the bill requires destruction of data
collected that is unrelated to the exigency, and it requires destruction of data collected with a warrant
when it is, or it becomes, irrelevant to the crime being investigated. These oversight mechanisms
effectively balance Fourth Amendment privacy rights against the needs of law enforcement.
Some tweaks to law enforcement use will likely be developed as the legislation moves forward. For
example, it might be wise to extend the suppression requirement to data illegally maintained as well as
to data illegally collected. Additional exceptions to the warrant requirement may be needed. As it
stands, the bill might, for example, bar the police from using a drone for the “protective activity” of
observing traffic patterns to help police re-direct traffic around an accident; that would be an
undesirable result.
The bill also encourages oversight of drone use by commercial and law enforcement entities. The FAA
would be required to create a database of licensed drone operators, which would include the data
collection and data minimization statements, security breaches that a licensee suffered, and the times
and locations of drone flights. By encouraging transparency on how drones are actually used, the
database would allow both the FAA and individuals to ensure that public and private operators aren’t
using drones for improper purposes. Given that drones may be inconspicuous or invisible to the naked
eye, the FAA database would provide important information on each drone and its operator that might
not be otherwise noticeable. We have previously written on the need for drones to broadcast persistent
radio-frequency identification signals for oversight; the database proposal would help in this endeavor.
However, we think it makes sense for the bill to explicitly require the FAA to require licensed drones that
co-occupy manned aircraft airspace to broadcast what is referred to as an “automatic dependent
surveillance-broadcast out” (ADS-B Out) signal — including an identifier, location, altitude and velocity
— exactly as manned aircraft will have to broadcast by 2020.
Advantages
Backlash
UQ-IL
Backlash from the states and the public will kill the industry unless congress acts
Sara Sorcher, 13, Writer for National Journal, February 21, 2013, “The Backlash Against Drones”,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-backlash-against-drones-20130221
The Seattle Police Department’s planned demonstration of its small surveillance drones quickly devolved into a noisy protest. Angry residents
attending the community meeting in October chanted “No drones!” drowning out officers’ attempts to explain how the unmanned aerial
vehicles would support certain criminal investigations, help out during natural disasters, and assist in search-and-rescue operations. Now it’s
clear that Seattle’s drones, purchased with federal grants, won’t be flying over the metro area anytime soon. Amid backlash from civil-liberties
advocates and citizens worried about government invasion of their privacy, the mayor earlier this month tabled any drone ambitions—for now.
Public concerns are not limited to Seattle. Lawmakers
in at least 11 states want to restrict the use of drones
because of fears they will spy on Americans, and some are pushing to require warrants before the
robots collect evidence in investigations. Just this month, the Virginia General Assembly passed a two-year moratorium on
drones. The outcry comes after the Electronic Frontier Foundation sued last year for a list of drone
applicants within the U.S. When that information went public, staff attorney Jennifer Lynch says, “it really got
people up in arms about how drones are being used, and got people to question their city councils and
local law-enforcement agencies to ask for appropriate policies to be put in place to regulate drone
usage.” Drones change the game: Nearly continuous surveillance could be possible without a physical intrusion such as a property search or
an implanted listening device. The flying robots can carry high-powered cameras, even facial-recognition software or thermal imaging to “see”
through walls. They can hover, potentially undetected, for hours or days at a time. As of yet, however, there
are no laws governing
the use of domestic drones when it comes to privacy. Unless Congress or the executive branch moves to
regulate the robots’ use before they take to the skies en masse, states will likely continue to try to limit
or ban drone use altogether, which could stymie their potential for other, beneficial uses. And failing to
enact privacy limits only increases the likelihood of an incident in which the public perceives that the
technology is being misused. The Federal Aviation Administration, which is charged with overseeing drone implementation in the
U.S., says its focus is “totally on safety,” not privacy worries. “We are concerned about how it’s being used only to the extent it would affect the
safety of the operation,” says FAA spokesman Les Dorr. As it happens, domestic drone operations are relatively limited because of safety
concerns. The FAA has issued nearly 1,500 permits since 2007 for the use of drones by public entities, such as law
enforcement or fire departments, or by universities conducting research. Of those, 327 are active. For example, Customs and Border Protection
uses drones to keep tabs on the border with Mexico, and NASA deploys them to monitor hurricanes. But the sky will open to drones in 2015. A
federal law signed last year directs the FAA to safely integrate the unmanned vehicles into the U.S.
airspace by then, paving the way for businesses and other private entities to fly their own drones. With
the agency estimating that some 10,000 commercial drones could be flying by 2017, picture this: news outlets
surveying damage from natural disasters, or paparazzi snooping on celebrities. And all 18,000 state and local law-enforcement agencies could
be potential customers. The FAA last week began searching for six locations to test drones and is asking for input on privacy protections for
these sites. While the agency acknowledges that privacy is an issue that must be addressed, it does not claim overall rule-making authority.
“It’s unclear who’s responsible for privacy issues at this point and time,” says Gerald Dillingham, director of civilaviation issues at the Government Accountability Office. “No one has stepped up to the plate.” GAO recommends that the FAA, along with the
Justice and Homeland Security departments, discuss privacy parameters. “If we wait until there’s a crisis, oftentimes the rules and regulations
that are made in crisis aren’t our best showing,” Dillingham says. Congress
can also act; Reps. Ted Poe, R-Texas, and Zoe Lofgren, Da bill last week requiring warrants for the use of drones in criminal investigations. The
American Civil Liberties Union sees momentum building to put privacy protections in place before the drones
become commonplace. It insists that law-enforcement agencies should not use them for investigations
unless authorities have reasonable suspicion they will turn up a specific criminal act. This is a lower
threshold than a warrant, staff attorney Catherine Crump says, because it does not require officers to go to a
judge. “We think that standard is what is necessary to prevent law-enforcement agents to engage in
purely suspicionless use of drones, flying them around to see what’s going on.” As it stands, “there’s really
not a lot in American privacy law that’s going to be much of a barrier to using drones,” University of Washington
Calif., introduced
law professor Ryan Calo says. Court cases invoking the Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches, largely hold that a
person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in public, or from a public vantage point, such as from an aircraft overhead, Calo says. There
are signs, however, that the Supreme Court is reexamining this doctrine. In a case decided last term, five of the justices objected to police
affixing a GPS device to a car without a warrant, and four more objected to the continuous surveillance of a suspect. Drones can achieve the
same goals without touching a vehicle. Calo thus believes that drones could be the catalyst for much-needed changes to privacy laws in a nation
in which targeted, unchecked surveillance is becoming increasingly possible. The danger lies in it becoming the norm.
The drone market is growing now
Joel Celso, 14, J.D. Candidate University of Baltimore School of Law, Summer, 2014, University of
Baltimore Law Review, “COMMENT: DRONING ON ABOUT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: ADOPTING A
REASONABLE FOURTH AMENDMENT JURISPRUDENCE TO PREVENT UNREASONABLE SEARCHES BY
UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS”, LexisNexis, 43 U. Balt. L. Rev. 461
Although UAS are widely recognized for their military uses in overseas arenas like Pakistan and Afghanistan, they are beginning to be
used domestically by federal, state, and local governments for a variety of purposes. n7 Customs and
Border Patrol (CBP) has been operating Predator B UAS at the United States' border with Mexico to
intercept drug smugglers and prevent unlawful crossings. n8 The CBP currently has a fleet of nine Predator B UAS which it
estimates helped find 7,600 pounds of marijuana, valued at $ 19.3 million, being illegally smuggled into the United States in 2011. n9 Local law
enforcement agencies across the country are lining up to add UAS platforms to their arsenal of crime fighting capabilities. n10 For example,
local police in the town of Lakota, North Dakota recently made the first UAS assisted arrest of an American citizen. n11 In that case, local police
looking for six cows that had wandered onto the suspect's 3,000 acre ranch were chased off the land by the suspect and his family members
who wielded high-powered rifles. n12 After a sixteen hour standoff, the police department's SWAT team used a [*463] Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) Predator drone with video surveillance equipment to determine the suspect's location and whether he was armed,
prior to arresting him. n13 Many other law enforcement agencies have acquired UAS and have pilot programs in place to test their surveillance
capabilities. n14 Police in Oakland tested multiple UAS models and stated that they could be used to find local marijuana farms. n15 The Seattle
Police Department has acquired and tested a UAS and envisions using it to take aerial photos of traffic accidents or provide real time video
footage in situations where a suspect is barricaded with hostages or weapons. n16 Other agencies plan to use UAS technology in gaining a
tactical advantage in everything from tracking drug dealers n17 to finding guns tossed away by fleeing suspects. n18
Government
agencies plan to use UAS surveillance for purposes beyond law enforcement. n19 DHS has tested UAS
capabilities for fighting fires, detecting nuclear radiation, and responding to environmental disasters
such as earthquakes or hazardous chemical spills. n20 Other potential UAS applications which have been identified
include finding missing persons in difficult terrain, surveying crops, and monitoring pipelines and power
lines. n21 [*464] Not only is the public market for UAS technology expanding, but the private commercial industry is growing
rapidly as well. n22 Some real estate agents hire photographers using UAS to make aerial movies of
luxury properties using high-definition video. n23 A farmer in Louisiana recently used a UAS with a heatsensing camera to hunt for feral pigs at night, while other farmers have used them to spot irrigation
leaks. n24 UAS may even be used to shoot Hollywood films. n25 One UAS is widely available and affordable to the general public, as it costs
approximately $ 300 and is controlled from an iPhone or iPad. n26 The overall market for UAS is expected to grow
considerably in the near future. n27 Improving technology, coupled with decreases in acquisition and
operating costs, make UAS relatively more affordable as aerial surveillance platforms than manned
aircraft. n28 For example, the cost of a new helicopter is prohibitively high for most police departments with a price tag of $ 1 million, but
UAS can be purchased for less than $ 50,000. n29 Industry analysts predict that the global market for UAS will nearly double
from $ 6.6 billion to $ 11.4 billion in the next decade, with the United States accounting for $ 2.4 billion.
n30 In fact, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has [*465] estimated that in less than twenty
years there could be 30,000 unmanned aircraft flying in U.S. skies. n31 Until recently, FAA safety
restrictions have kept most UAS grounded and restrained their presence in national airspace. n32 This
changed when Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, which requires the FAA to
"develop a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system." n33
According to the plan, UAS must be integrated by September 2015. n34 However, law enforcement agencies are currently allowed to operate
UAS for aerial surveillance, provided they meet certain requirements. n35
Drone surveillance causes a fear of drones
Caren Myers Morrison, 15, Associate Professor, Georgia State University College of Law, Winter 2015,
Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development, “NOTE AND COMMENT: DR. PANOPTICON, OR, HOW
I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE DRONE”, 27 J. Civ. Rts. & Econ. Dev. 747
Under the provisions of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must produce a plan to integrate
domestic drones into national airspace by 2015. n38 In the meantime, the use
of drones has been sporadically authorized.
Border protection agents have used drones to patrol the nation's borders, n39 while police, firefighters, disaster
response teams, and scientists have received government approval for use of drone surveillance to
assist in crime prevention, traffic surveillance, weather monitoring, wild fire containment, and surveying.
n40 Even when used by police departments, the most common applications for [*754] drones have not been for
tactical missions so much as crime scene and accident reconstruction. n41 But the fact that, for the most
part, drones are not yet used for domestic surveillance has not dampened the growing backlash against
them, particularly in view of the FAA's prediction that 30,000 drones will be deployed by 2030. n42
Because of drones' surveillance capabilities, many have called for stricter regulations on the use of
domestic drones. n43 The ACLU has warned that "the government needs to respect Americans' privacy
while using this invasive technology, and the laws on the books need to be brought up to date to ensure
that America does not turn into a drone surveillance state." n44 Some communities have threatened to take matters into
their own hands. One resident of Deer Trail, Colorado, has proposed an ordinance that will issue dronehunting permits, allowing residents to shoot down drones flying over town, as well as proposing a $ 100 reward for
identifiable pieces of drones shot down. n45 Although the proposal's proponents have described it as "a very symbolic ordinance," given the
fact that Deer Trail (population: 550) is unlikely to be a prime candidate for drone surveillance,
the FAA wasted no time in
responding that anyone caught destroying government property could be subject to federal criminal and
civil [*755] penalties. n46 According to the Associated Press, the Deer Trail proposal is only "the latest
ripple in a spreading backlash against drones. Dozens of laws aimed at curbing the use of the unmanned
aircraft have been introduced in states and cities." n47 Several bills have been introduced in Congress
n48 and in the states limiting or regulating the use of drones for domestic surveillance; currently 20
states, including Texas, Idaho, Virginia, Oregon, and Florida, have passed laws limiting the use of drones.
n49
Fear of drones kills civilian investment
Joan Lowy, 13, National transportation correspondent for the Associated Press, “Drones poised for
peaceful, everyday use in US, but privacy backlash could hamper industry”, March 29, 2013 9:28 AM,
http://news.yahoo.com/drones-poised-peaceful-everyday-us-privacy-backlash-could-132852328.html
WASHINGTON - It's a good bet that in the not-so-distant future, aerial drones will be part of everyday life in
the U.S. Far from the killing machines whose missiles incinerate terrorists overseas, these generally small, unmanned
aircraft will help police departments find missing people. Real estate agents will use them to film videos
of properties and surrounding neighbourhoods. Oil companies will use them to monitor pipelines. With
military budgets shrinking, drone makers have been counting on the civilian market to spur the industry's
growth. But the industry worries that it will be grounded because of public fear that the technology will be
misused. Some companies say the uncertainty has caused them to put U.S. expansion plans on hold, and
they are looking overseas for new markets. "Our lack of success in educating the public about unmanned aircraft is coming back
to bite us," said Robert Fitzgerald, CEO of The BOSH Group, which provides support services to drone users. "The U.S. has been at the lead of
this technology a long time," he said. "If
our government holds back this technology, there's the freedom to move elsewhere ...
these things will be flying everywhere else and competing with us." Since January, drone-related
legislation has been introduced in more than 30 states, largely in response to privacy concerns. Many bills
and all of a sudden,
are focused on preventing police from using drones for broad public surveillance. In Virginia, for example, the state General Assembly passed a
bill that would place a two-year moratorium on the use of drones by state and local law enforcement. The bill must still be signed by the
governor. The measure is supported by groups as varied as the American Civil Liberties Union on the left and the Virginia Tea Party Patriots
Federation on the right. Gov. Bob McDonnell is proposing amendments that would retain the broad ban on spy drones but allow specific
exemptions when lives are in danger, such as for search-and rescue operations. The legislature reconvenes on April 3 to consider the
amendments. Drones "clearly have so much potential for saving lives, and it's a darn shame we're having to go through this right now," said
Stephen Ingley, executive director of the Airborne Law Enforcement Association. "It's frustrating." Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican, recently drew
attention to the domestic use of drones when he spoke for about 13 hours straight in the chamber, demanding to know whether the president
has authority to use weaponized drones to kill Americans on U.S. soil. The White House said no, if the person isn't engaged in combat. For now,
civilian drone use is limited to government agencies and public universities that have received a few hundred permits from the FAA. A law
passed by Congress last year requires the FAA to open U.S. skies to widespread drone flights by 2015, but the agency is behind schedule, and
it's doubtful it will meet that deadline. The FAA estimates that within five years of gaining broader access, about 7,500 civilian drones will be in
use. In some states, economic concerns have trumped public unease. A bill that would have limited the ability of state and local governments to
use drones died in the Washington state legislature. The measure was opposed by The Boeing Co., which employs more than 80,000 workers in
the state and which has a subsidiary, Insitu, that's a leading military drone manufacturer. In Congress, Rep. Ed Markey has introduced a bill that
prohibits the Federal Aviation Administration from issuing drone licenses unless the applicant provides a statement explaining who will operate
the drone, where it will be flown, what kind of data will be collected, how the data will be used, whether the information will be sold to third
parties and the period for which the information will be retained. Sentiment for curbing domestic drone use has brought the left and right
together perhaps more than any other recent issue.
"The thought of government drones buzzing overhead and
constantly monitoring the activities of law-abiding citizens runs contrary to the notion of what it means
to live in a free society," Sen. Charles Grassley, a Republican, said at a recent hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Privacy
advocates acknowledge the many good uses of drones. But drones' virtues can also make them dangerous, they say. Their low cost and ease of
use may encourage police and others to conduct the kind of continuous or intrusive surveillance that might otherwise be impractical. Drones
can be equipped with high-powered cameras and listening devices, and infrared cameras that can see people in the dark.
B/L kills Competitiveness
New regulations are coming and will kill competitiveness
Fred Bever, 14, Communications professional for NPR, January 24, 2014, “With Drones Rising, ‘Rules
Of The Sky’ Needed”, http://www.wbur.org/2014/01/24/drones-massachusetts-regulations
“Drones are a perfect example of one of the places where the law has failed to keep pace with the
technology,” said Kade Crockford, who monitors technology issues for the Massachusetts chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Crockford said drones can provide police with an unprecedented volume of personal information. To
some degree it’s a simple matter of money: Drones cost a lot less than planes or helicopters to buy and
deploy. “Drones in fact can have all sorts of different technologies on them,” she noted. “They can have
cellphone sniffers on them, to determine every single person who is in the building based on the
information that their cellphone is sending. The infrared cameras are another thing they can have on
them. … And there are obvious Fourth Amendment questions.” That is, questions about the constitutional right to
privacy. The ACLU is supporting a bill now in the state Legislature that would require police in
Massachusetts to seek a warrant before using drones for surveillance. There would be exceptions for emergencies
that pose a threat to life or safety. On Capitol Hill, Massachusetts U.S. Sen. Edward Markey has filed similar legislation. And Markey goes
further, seeking to protect against invasions of privacy by private-sector drones. He’d create a registry
for what’s expected to be a boom in commercial drone enterprises — think of Google mapping projects
or Amazon’s delivery systems. Markey would require reports on the kinds of data they planned to
collect and how long they would keep it. Markey believes legislation needs to be enacted quickly, before
drones start to fill the skies. "We are entering a brave new world and just as we have rules of the road, we now need rules of the
sky,” said U.S. Sen. Edward Markey (Steven Senne/AP File) “We are entering a brave new world and just as we have rules of the road, we now
need rules of the sky,” said U.S. Sen. Edward Markey (AP File) “A company could fly a drone over anyone’s backyard, collect whatever
information they’d like, sell it to whoever they want, and the individual would never know,” he said. “So we are entering a brave new world and
just as we have rules of the road, we now need rules of the sky.” Civil
liberties defenders do see an upside. At a recent
Capitol Hill hearing on domestic unmanned aerial vehicles, the national ACLU’s legislative counsel, Chris
Calabrese, told lawmakers, including Markey, that while the right to privacy was at risk, drones could
also be used by citizen watchdogs — much as cellphone cameras are now — to monitor police activity and
document civil rights abuses. Journalists too, Calabrese said, will find important new ways to report on
events using unmanned aerial vehicles. For now, the Federal Aviation Administration is barring most commercial uses of drones,
pending issuance of new rules at the end of 2015. The FAA this month designated six testing grounds around the country, including 200,000
acres at Joint Base Cape Cod, to help create safety protocols for domestic drones. The Cape project’s coordinator, H. Carter Hunt Jr., said that
creating privacy rules and seeking input from neighbors will be one of the first orders of business. And
he said developers of all types are raring to go: Military applications are already being tested, and there
are proposals to test unmanned aerial systems to track whale pods, or crop development. “We do have
one very interesting one, and that’s a group of MIT graduate students who have hooked up with
Harvard Medical School to take a UAS and use it to deliver vaccines in underdeveloped countries,” Hunt
said. Still, some say that the U.S. is falling behind other countries, like Japan and Australia, in unleashing the
technology’s potential, and they are calling on the FAA and Congress to act more quickly. Pittsfield
entrepreneur Holland said he’s ready to turn his passion into profits, even as he recognizes the legitimate safety and privacy issues involved. “I
wouldn’t want one of these things flying through my backyard without my permission, so I just treat, sort of, people’s privacy the same way I
want mine treated,” he said. “It’s incumbent upon us to be clever enough to have the appropriate rules and regulations in place to protect
ourselves from ourselves.” For the time being it looks like Holland and his fellow drone-users will just have to wait — and keep their batteries
charged.
Ag Scenario
UQ
California agriculture is key to overall food markets
Steven Slezak, 14, professor of finance and strategy at Cal Poly in San Luis Obispo, California professor
of financial management and financial mathematics at the Johns Hopkins University MBA program,
degree in Foreign Service from Georgetown University and an MBA in Finance from JHU., February 25,
2014, “California drought threatens to destabilize agriculture markets”,
http://globalriskinsights.com/2014/02/california-drought-threatens-to-destabilize-agriculture-markets/
[Edited for ableist language]
The state of California is deep into the third year of a record drought. An excellent map from the University of Nebraska
shows that nearly 91% of the state is undergoing “severe to exceptional” drought. Seventeen communities
scattered across the state are expected to run out of water by mid-May. Last year was California’s driest
since it became a state in 1850. This year looks to be the driest in over 400 years, according to
climatologists at the University of California Berkeley. Scientists say more is in store. Bill Patzert, a climatologist at NASA’s
Jet Propulsion Laboratory believes a 20-year drought cycle began in 2000. Scott Stine, a professor of environmental studies at
Cal State East Bay, told the San Jose Mercury News, “We continue to run California as if the longest drought we are
ever going to encounter is about seven years. We’re living in a dream world.” So what’s the big deal? As they say,
this time it’s different. The ongoing California drought provides a disturbing glimpse of future water shortages and their impact on agricultural
production and food security. California’s agricultural heartland is the
Central Valley, a vast area comprising 22,500 square
miles (58,000 square kilometers) of the world’s most productive agricultural land. State-wide farm production
was $44.7 billion in 2012, making California the largest agriculture producer in the US. The Central Valley
represents about 72% of this production. California is also the country’s largest agriculture exporter,
selling 39% of annual production overseas. The USDA estimates that the value of US agricultural exports
in 2011 was $136 billion, meaning California alone accounts for about 12% of all US farm exports. As a
result of the drought, Central Valley farms have left fallow 500,000 acres (202,000 hectares), roughly 8% of the
region’s total. Agriculture production is shifting from low margin fruit and produce such as cantaloupe to
more profitable commodities like tree nuts and tomatoes. The drought’s impact on overall agriculture
production could amount to losses of $1.6 billion for farms and approach $5 billion for California
agribusiness in general. We’re from the government, and we’re here to help – if you’re a fish The political response has been
predictable and unhelpful. California Governor Jerry Brown declared a drought emergency in January to open taps of federal relief dollars. For
the first time in its 54-year history, the State Water Project will not provide any water to the 750,000 acres (300,000 hectares) of farmland it
services. “The
nation’s largest state-built water and power development and conveyance system,”
according to its website, will not convey resources contracted by agriculture. Neither will the federal
government’s Central Valley Project deliver agriculture water this year. Though the project was, in its own
words, “originally conceived…to protect the Central Valley from crippling water shortages,” it will not prevent
water shortages from crippling [hurting] farms—with the possible loss of over 100,000 local jobs. Water
destined to benefit endangered fish species, such as the Delta Smelt (a short-lived, 6-cm long, reproduction-challenged member of the
Osmeridae family), will remain at 100% allocation. Their population is so low that the State of California says “it is exceptionally difficult to
determine the actual number of Delta smelt.” Food security likely to be affected How all this is playing out in California is disturbing enough.
But the drought’s impact on food supplies will be felt far beyond the Golden State. The
drought in California threatens to
exacerbate food supply shortages in other parts of the world as higher US prices shift production and
supply towards satisfying US demand. Supply shortfalls will be met by higher prices, and markets are
beginning to reflect this. Just one example: the February 2014 Live Cattle futures contract on the
Chicago Mercantile Exchange has appreciated 9.5% since mid-November. The possibility of global food price
inflation cannot easily be dismissed. We can also expect to see greater volumes of food being imported
to the US this year, in response to higher prices. To the extent global supplies and production will respond to American
market price signals, food diverted for US buyers will not be available for consumption by others. In the face
of growing global demand for food, higher prices and reduced supply do not bode well for the 842
million people who already do not have enough to eat. Four million live in California, and a half million of them reside in
the Central Valley.
California ag decline spills over to higher prices
Daniel G. Jennings, 14, freelance writer and journalist, March 17, 2014, “Sky High Food Prices Ahead
Due To California Mega Drought”, http://www.offthegridnews.com/current-events/sky-high-foodprices-ahead-due-to-california-mega-drought/
California is in the midst of what experts are calling a “mega-drought” which could lead to sky high grocery
prices and even food shortages this year, experts say. The farms that supply much of the nation’s produce
are literally running out of water. Maps indicate that the areas of California hardest hit by the mega-drought
are those that grow a large percentage of America’s food. Those regions include Monterey County,
which produced nearly half of the lettuce and broccoli grown in the United States in 2012. It’s not just
vegetables that will be affected; nuts and fruits will be hit just as hard or harder. “There will be thousands of
acres of fruit and nut trees that will die this year because of lack of water,” David Sunding, a professor of natural
resources at the University of California at Berkley, told the San Jose Mercury News. “The reduction in yield will drive up prices.” Large
Percentage of the Nation’s Food Supply Threatened A disturbing feature in Mother Jones magazine shows just how devastating the megadrought will be to the nation’s food supply. California’s
farms supply far more of the nation’s produce than you
might think. Warning Signs That Triggered The Deadliest Famines In History… The produce grown in the Golden State
includes: 95 percent of America’s broccoli crop 90 percent of its tomatoes 91 percent of its grapes 74 percent
of its lettuce 99 percent of its walnuts 99 percent of its almonds 98 percent of its pistachios 99 percent of its
walnuts 92 percent of strawberries The state also is a major source of numerous other fruits and vegetables ranging from garlic to
peaches — all of which could be affected by the drought. “We’re not expecting to see much in terms of spring planting of
peppers and melons,” Mike Wade of the California Farm Water Coalition told The Monterey Herald. How High Will Food Prices Climb? It isn’t
known how high prices will climb, but some farmers already are making predictions. The price of a pint of organic strawberries will rise by 20
percent, from $3.50 to $4.20, California strawberry farmer Jim Cochran told The Monterey Herald. Cochran runs the Swanton Berry Farm in
Davenport, California, where he also grows artichokes — which he has stopped watering. “We
are going to have to sell our
products for higher prices because we are not going to have the yield,” Cochran said. “We’re not trying
to make more money; we’re trying to lose less.” Scientist: Mega Drought Could Last for a Century Lynn Ingram, a scientist at
the University of California at Berkley, has uncovered evidence that such droughts can last for decades or centuries. “If we go back several
thousand years, we’ve seen that droughts can last over a decade, and in some cases, they can last over a century,” Ingram told CBS News.
Ingram and her colleagues examined sediment and other evidence dating back 3,000 years. The pattern she uncovered indicates that the 20th
Century was the wettest in California in 1,300 years. She believes the current mega-drought could be the start of a century-long dry spell.
Ingram also noted that California’s water infrastructure was not built to deal with such dry spells. If you live outside of California and you want
inexpensive fresh produce this summer and fall, consider planting a garden. If Ingram’s predictions about the mega-drought are true it could be
the only source of low-cost fruits and vegetables.
Their impact defense doesn’t apply--Drought leads to a shift to specialty crops—raises
commodity prices and worsens water scarcity
Alan Bjerga, 14, Writer for Bloomberg, August 11, 2014, “California Drought Transforms Global Food
Market”, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-08-11/california-drought-transforms-globalfood-market
Aug. 11 (Bloomberg) -- For more than 70 years, Fred Starrh’s family was among the most prominent cotton growers in California’s San Joaquin
Valley. Then shifting
global markets and rising water prices told him that wouldn’t work anymore. So he
replaced most of the cotton plants on his farm near Shafter, 120 miles northwest of Los Angeles, and planted almonds,
which make more money per acre and are increasingly popular with consumers in Asia. “You can’t pay
$1,000 an acre-foot to grow cotton,” said Starrh, 85, crouching to inspect a drip irrigator gently gurgling under an almond tree.
Such crop switching is one sign of a sweeping transformation going on in California -- the nation’s biggest agricultural state
by value -- driven by a three-year drought that climate scientists say is a glimpse of a drier future. The
result will affect everything from the price of milk in China to the source of cherries eaten by Americans.
It has already inflamed competition for water between farmers and homeowners. Growers have adapted to the
record-low rainfall by installing high-technology irrigation systems, watering with treated municipal wastewater and even recycling waste from
the processing of pomegranates to feed dairy cows. Some
are taking land out of production altogether, bulldozing
withered orange trees and leaving hundreds of thousands of acres unplanted. “There will be some
definite changes, probably structural changes, to the entire industry” as drought persists, said American Farm
Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman. “Farmers have made changes. They’ve shifted. This is what farmers do.” Commodity Crops In the
long term, California will probably move away from commodity crops produced in bulk elsewhere to
high-value products that make more money for the water used, said Richard Howitt, a farm economist
at the University of California at Davis. The state still has advantages in almonds, pistachios and wine grapes, and its location
means it will always be well-situated to export what can be profitably grown. That may mean less farmland in production as
growers abandon corn and cotton because of the high cost of water. Corn acreage in California has
dropped 34 percent from last year, and wheat is down 53 percent, according to the USDA. Cotton planting,
Fred Starrh’s one-time mainstay, has fallen 60 percent over the decade, while almonds are up by more than half. ‘Big Deal’ On its own,
California would be the world’s ninth-largest agricultural economy, according to a University of
California at Davis study. Shifts in its production reverberate globally, said Dan Sumner, another
agricultural economist at the school. “It’s a really big deal,” Sumner said. “Some crops simply grow better
here than anyplace else, and our location gives us access to markets you don’t have elsewhere.” The
success of California agriculture was built in large part on advances in irrigation that allowed the state to expand beyond wheat, which
flourishes in dry climates. It’s now the U.S.’s top dairy producer and grows half the country’s fruits, vegetables and nuts. “Water has allowed us
to grow more valuable crops,” Sumner said. “Now, we have fruits and vegetables and North Dakota grows our wheat. Without irrigation, we’d
be North Dakota.” An estimated 82
percent of California is experiencing extreme drought, according to the U.S.
Drought Monitor. Agriculture has been hard hit as it consumes about four-fifths of the water that isn’t set
aside for environmental preservation. Some farmers are paying as much as 10 times more for water than what it cost before the drought.
Farmers Adapt Another dry year in 2015 is a strong possibility, according to a study by the University of California at Davis
released last month. The same study pegs drought-related farm losses at $1.5 billion, with 17,100 jobs lost statewide. Groups such as the
California Citrus Mutual and California Farm Bureau Federation have been calling for bigger allocations from the state’s watersheds for
agriculture, asking the state to add storage capacity and ease environmental regulations that set aside water to preserve endangered species.
California Governor Jerry Brown last week called for a $6 billion “no frills” bond measure for this November’s election to boost water storage, a
key demand of farmers that’s smaller than what some groups want. That puts the farmers on a collision course with environmentalists and
urban advocates who say some choices -- such as a switch to almonds -- could worsen the scarcity. Almond Crop
California grows four-fifths of the world’s almonds, much of it for overseas markets. That has pushed the price up to more than $3 a pound, a
record that has encouraged farmers to divert water from other crops. Almonds use
enough water to supply 75 percent of
the state’s population, according to Carolee Krieger, president and executive director of the California Water Impact Network, which
supports bigger supplies for cities. Much of the crop is exported, meaning it isn’t even feeding Californians, she said. “Farmers should be
profitable, but it can’t come at the expense of urban water ratepayers,” she said. The U.S. Interior Department’s Bureau of Reclamation, which
supplies water to a third of the state’s irrigated farmland, cut off California water distribution to some areas, while leaving others with 75
percent or less of their normal allocation. Bulldozed Branches Shawn Stevenson, who grows 1,200 acres of orange and olive trees outside
Fresno, is in a zero-allocation area. Unable to obtain affordable water for his trees, he hired a bulldozer to uproot about 400 acres of orange
trees. He called his farm the “canary in the coal mine” for California agriculture, part of the 500,000 acres being abandoned this year, according
to the University of California at Davis. “We’re
going to deliver 25 percent of our volume this year,” Stevenson said
over the crunch of bulldozed branches. “That impacts the packing house, the people who sell the fruit, the people that we buy
pesticides and fertilizers from.” “If this persists in the next year, the devastation we will see here and across the state will be biblical.” Faced
with chronic dryness, farmers have been figuring out ways to adapt. Starrh’s drip-irrigation system was pioneered in
Israel and is now widely employed across California, cutting water use by supplying plants with smaller, targeted amounts. Pepper Plants
“Farmers have done a remarkable job, scrambling around to get every piece of water they can,” Sumner, the University of California economist,
said. “They’ve taken water out of rice, out of alfalfa and moved it into onions and carrots and kept the trees and vines alive.” Will Terry grows
peppers and strawberries in Ventura County, a region 60 miles west of Los Angeles that produces about $700 million of the fruit annually. The
farm he runs with his father now uses about two-thirds of the water it used 20 years ago. “People will try to grow the same things, but they’ll
have to change how they do it,” said Terry as workers draped string across fields with which to hold up pepper plants. Brad Scott, a dairy
producer near Riverside in the Los Angeles suburbs, supplies his farm with treated municipal wastewater. The chlorine makes his ranch smell a
bit like a swimming pool, but it has allowed his property to disconnect from the city water supply. The
disruption is worthwhile:
Dairy prices reached an all-time high of $24.31 per hundred pound in April as export demand pushed
dry-milk shipments to a record. Spraying Animals The drought has put special pressure on ranchers raising
livestock, drying out pasture land and making it more costly to cool the herd by spraying the animals
with water. Brian Medeiros, a 26-year-old dairyman near Hanford, about 30 miles south of Fresno, is replacing the fields of corn and wheat
he grows to feed his cows with sorghum and triticale, a heartier wheat and rye hybrid better suited for drought. Medeiros drives past a shed
containing almond hulls and distillers’ dried grains -- the byproduct of ethanol and brewery production -- and citrus pulp, all of which he buys
from nearby vendors to feed his cows. Leftover pomegranate has been a herd mainstay, though less so as the consumer craze for anti-oxidants
has faded, reducing the number of suppliers. He’s also working with an engineer to create a cow-motion sensor. The system, deployed in his
animal stalls, would change how animals are sprayed with water to keep them cool, ensuring that water only sprays while a cow is present.
Fewer Cherries “You have to look at everything,” Medeiros said between conversations in Portuguese with his father, who founded the farm,
on his mobile phone. A warmer climate is forcing Cindy Lashbrook to phase out cherries on the organic farm where she also grows walnuts,
blueberries and other fruits and tree nuts near Merced, about 100 miles southeast of San Francisco. Her cherries require 1,000 hours of
temperatures under 45 degrees (7 degrees Celsius) between November and February, an amount her farm hasn’t seen for several years. “We
don’t get the fog like we used to.” Howitt, of the University of California, said
the drought means the state’s farmers will
have to permanently reduce water usage. “California needs to rebalance its agricultural portfolio in response to this drought,”
Howitt said. “You will see more fallowing of land. We have to reduce our water footprint.” That means drip-fed trees for Starrh, a
cotton-grower since when his family arrived on 30 acres in 1936 who now focuses on nuts. And solar panels. The Starrhs are leasing 480 acres
to a sustainable-energy company on land that may never be watered again.
I/l
Drones massively decrease water and fertilizer use
Hannah Miller, 15, fellow of the Poynter Institute’s Sense-Making Project for Media Innovators and
writer for Triple Pundit, Feb 19th, 2015, “A griculture Drones Help Farmers Reduce Resource Use”,
http://www.triplepundit.com/2015/02/agriculture-drones-help-farmers-reduce-resource-use/
Boulder, Colorado-based Agribotix is helping farmers save money and conserve water and resources in a new way:
by flying drones over their fields to measure crop density, growth and many other factors. Why does this
work? Because drones are able to see things that are not as obvious from the traditional line-of-sight on the
ground. Agribotix, founded last year, works with farmers in Colorado like this: They send up drones over a field, fly over and
capture photo, infrared and other data, and then land after about 20 minutes. The data is then
transformed into maps showing where the crops are thriving and where they aren’t. Speaking at the
Innosphere, a northern Colorado incubator for clean tech, tech and life sciences, Agribotix CEO Paul Hoff
explained that the company’s drone solution would help save both money and conserve resources. One
case study: Agribotix was working with Munson Farms, a 4,000-acre corn farm in Missouri. By gathering the data from the
drones, farmers were able to determine what parts of the field needed fertilizer and which didn’t.
Simply looking from the side, the farmers couldn’t tell everything about growth. But after Agribotix
developed a Management Zone map based on near-infrared imagery of plan density (!), they could see
where the plants were chest-high, and which were waist-high. For a farm that usually uses 50 tons of
fertilizer per acre, they cut it down by 40 percent. What data does in agriculture is allow for the prevention of waste. As you
probably already know, American agriculture is incredibly resource-intensive, especially dependent on
petroleum products that are manufactured into nitrogen-rich fertilizer. Water use as well is incredibly
intensive: According to the USDA, more than 80 percent of water used in the U.S. goes to agriculture, with as
much as 90 percent in Western states like Colorado. It is hopeful that simply getting more precise about
irrigation and resources would ease demands on many fronts at once. In other example, drone
information helped a client avoid sacrificing their entire crop after a hailstorm. Assuming the whole field would
have to be written off, the drones found that hail had really only damaged a section of the field, and the rest
could keep growing. Agribotix is going open-source with its “Bring Your Own Drone” project, which is open to the public and
available at a discount. It’s a set of tools that make the critical link between the data collection and the
production of maps that farmers can actually use for their planning.
Drones are specifically key in California
Sasha Khokha, 14, Central Valley Bureau Chief for KQED’s statewide public radio program, The
California Report, APRIL 21, 2014, “Drones: The Newest Water-Saving Tool for Parched Farms”,
http://ww2.kqed.org/science/2014/04/21/drones-the-newest-water-saving-tool-for-parched-farms/
Farmers represent a growing share of the market for drones. The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems
International, a trade group that represents drone producers, predicts farms will eventually account for 80 percent of the commercial drone
market. And in
California, some farmers are looking at the technology as a way to save water during the
drought. When we last checked in with him five years ago, then 27-year-old Zach Sheely was already on the cutting edge of water
conservation, using his iPhone to check how much water his tomatoes were getting. (Our audio slideshow from that story shows Sheely
engaged in his two passions—farming and singing opera.) Sheely and his dad, Ted, were among the first to convert to remote-controlled drip
irrigation on their sprawling Kings County farm. Now they’re taking one more step into the future. ‘We don’t have enough water, and having a
coyote chew a line in two, now that line of trees is getting half the water.’ They
recently gathered some of their neighbors to
watch a demo of a drone that can collect video and thermal images of farmland. “You’ve got a tablet
which is going to help figure out the mission, and is connected to a ground control station,” Zach Sheely
explains. Listening to farmers programming a drone is sort of like eavesdropping on NASA’s Mission Control. But the mission here has to do
with coyotes gnawing the two rows of drip irrigation lines that feed pistachio trees. The Sheelys grow more than a thousand acres of pistachios
in this remote corner of Kings County. “We
don’t have enough water, and having a coyote chew a line in two, now
that line of trees is getting half the water,” Ted says. “We’ve got to be precise.” While coyotes are the main
culprits, two-legged interlopers can be just as much of a headache, Zach adds. “Humans are a problem,” he says. “They’ll
come out and hunt doves or something in our orchard, and the shotgun BBs will put little holes in all the
lines. We do have no trespassing signs, but those are just signs, I think, to most people.” The Sheelys are hoping a thermal camera mounted in
the drone will pick up leaks in the orchard, so they can fix them faster. They’ve invited several drone companies to the farm to demo their
crafts, including a company called HoneyComb. That company is the brainchild of a group of 20- and 30-somethings like John Faus, who grew
up farming in Oregon. “We designed this for farming,” Faus says. “That’s why it’s called HoneyComb. This is your worker bee out over your
fields scanning your crops.” ‘We want it to be the tractor of the sky.’ But demo day turns out to be really windy. And the little plane careens
wildly above the orchard before a rocky landing on a dirt road. “Sorry you got a little ding in your wing there!” Ted Sheely exclaims. “Nothing a
little gorilla glue can’t fix,” Faus says. “Our motto is we want it to be the tractor of the sky. We want it to be reliable and rugged.” He says his
company can’t keep up with orders for farm drones fast enough. Zach Sheely says he’s sold on the drone, which will set him back about
$15,000. He says that’s far less than what the lost water from leaks might cost him. A
drone can cover a thousand acres in an
hour-long flight. Zach says it would take a farmworker more than a week to drive up and down the same
orchards in an all-terrain vehicle, looking for chewed irrigation lines. ‘For agricultural purposes, they’re
going to be a real powerful tool.’ “So if I can eliminate that job,” he says, “or use that person more wisely than just drive up and
back mindlessly looking for leaks, it’s going to benefit my business, and he’s probably going to like his job a little bit better, too.”
Irrigation experts say California farmers looking to save water will be early adopters of drone
technology, and not just to check for leaks. Drones can help determine when plants are water-stressed
or when they’re getting too much water, by using thermal cameras. “For agricultural purposes, they’re going to be a
real powerful tool” says David Zoldoske, who heads the Center for Irrigation Technology at Fresno State , and co-authored a recent state report
on water-saving technologies. Drones
will help farmers “to get more information, in real time, to make better
decisions,” about everything on the farm, adds Zoldoske. “We joke about being able to take pictures of individual bugs sitting on the plants.
With the right algorithm you could count all the bugs on the plants if things work out.”
Drones increase ag outputs by 20 percent
Matt McFarland, 6/25 Editor, Innovations, The Washington Post, June 25, 2015, “Do drones make
sense for my corn fields? A company called Measure is trying to find out.”,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2015/06/25/do-drones-make-sense-for-mycorn-fields-a-company-called-measure-is-trying-to-find-out/
Reich said that PrecisionHawk believes its services can minimize the inputs a farmer has to use — such as fertilizer and
pesticides — by as much as 20 percent. While PrecisionHawk isn’t talking yet about farmers who have used its services, she said it believes
crop output can be improved by up to 20 percent as well. The potential of drones is for farmers to
monitor their crops in real-time and provide more nuanced treatments. For example, a drone might
reveal that a small section of a field is stressed, and that patch could exclusively receive additional
watering or nutrients. Aerial photography and videos form a drone are significantly cheaper than using a
plane, helicopter or satellite. “It’s hard to come up with a lot that’s being done now with satellites or planes that you couldn’t just do easily with
drones. That in a lot of ways is the thing that makes it sexy,” Rodgers said. “It’s not quite the PC of precision ag, but it appears to be definitely
lower cost and definitely easier to deploy and quicker to deploy.”
New FAA regulations make drones attractive for ag
Catherine Boudreau, 15, multifaceted reporter covering agriculture and food policy for Bloomberg
BNA, February 20, 2015, “FAA Small Drone Proposal Embraced By Agriculture Industry; Crop Benefits
Seen”, http://www.bna.com/faa-small-drone-n17179923270/
Feb. 18 — The benefits of using drones on farms—from scouting crops to managing inputs like nitrogen
and herbicides—have the agriculture industry embracing the Federal Aviation Administration’s proposed rule for
commercial use of the unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). UAS technology is used for precision farming by capturing
high resolution images of fields that are transformed into a mosaic map. The map can help farmers
count crops and locate those that are too wet or dry, have been damaged by the weather or infected by
pests or disease. Drone camera sensors also can detect water management systems, erosion and
nutrients in the soil. Analysis of that data can impact where and how much fertilizer a farmer decides to
apply, for example, which can prevent runoff and have a positive impact on the environment. “Any way to
lower environmental impact while reducing input costs for farmers, as well as increasing production to
feed a growing global population, is a recipe for success,” R.J. Karney, director of congressional relations for the American
Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), said. Proposal Fit for Agriculture The FAA on Feb. 15 laid out a framework for drones weighing 55 pounds or
less that would restrict flights to daylight hours, 500 feet of altitude and 100 miles per hour. The small UAS would have to remain within the
operator’s line of sight and not be flown over people, other than those involved with the flight (32 DER A-11, 2/18/15). “That’s perfect for
agriculture because generally farms fit those categories,” Brian Wynne, president and chief executive officer of the Association for Unmanned
Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), said. AUVSI estimates that drones represent a roughly $82 billion economic opportunity during the first
10 years after the FAA proposal is finalized. Agriculture would account for 80 percent of that, Wynne said. He noted that it will take at least 18
months before the FAA completes the regulation. In the meantime, stakeholders plan to persuade the agriculture industry and Congress that
UAS is a technology to be trusted. That includes PrecisionHawk, which sells UAS hardware and provides software and training services to risk
management agencies, multinational companies and universities doing research.
“We really do see this as a tool on every
farm in America just like a John Deere tractor,” Lia Reich, spokeswoman for PrecisionHawk, said. FAA Drone Approvals The
FAA currently approves commercial use of drones on a case-by-case basis, requiring operators to obtain a private pilot’s license or have
experience controlling manned aircraft, among other stipulations. Under
the new proposal, drone operators would have
to be at least 17 years old, pass an aeronautical knowledge test and have an FAA UAS operator
certificate. These proposed changes to operator requirements were welcomed by the agriculture
industry, which said the current system is lengthy, costly and demands a lot of paperwork. “We think the regulations that came out are a
really great start,” Reich of PrecisionHawk said. She added that less than 30 percent of PrecisionHawk’s business will take place in the U.S. until
the FAA proposal is completed. The FAA has granted 24 requests for the commercial use of drones to date, including one in January for
Advanced Aviations Solutions (AVA), which works with farmers in Idaho. Monsanto Co.’s Climate Corp. has applied for FAA approval. Regions
including Canada, Latin America, Europe and Japan use commercial drones in agriculture. Line of Sight, Data Privacy Stakeholders said many
companies, and potentially farmers with thousands of acres, will want to be able to fly beyond line of sight. The FAA under its proposal said
farmers can address this limitation by placing spotters to track a drone. Other systems may potentially be explored as long as there is adequate
communication, Robert Moorhead, director of the Mississippi State University Geosystems Research Institute, said. “Beyond line of sight is
something the FAA may let up on,” Moorhead told Bloomberg BNA, adding that farmers also may seek waivers to be able to operate drones at
night because the imagery is better. Reich of PrecisionHawk, whose company stores agriculture data on a cloud-based system, said another
issue is privacy. “Data privacy is of the utmost importance to us, especially because we work with a number of competitors in this space like
large-scale feed operations,” Reich said. “We make sure data is encrypted during transfers and negotiate data contracts with our customers.”
Farmers should understand what they are agreeing to in terms of ownership of the data when negotiating contracts, Karney of the AFBF said.
For example, concerns include the cost of it and ensuring it can be shared across multiple platforms.
Drones increase food production—scouting, spraying and cost
Mary Clare Jalonick, 15, Correspondent, Food Policy, Associated Press, January 25, 2015 at 12:43 PM
EDT, “5 ways drones could change the way America eats”, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/5ways-unmanned-drones-change-american-food-supply/
Five ways drones could affect the food supply: Scouting Farms The first agriculture drones are looking at
massive fields of crops to scout out where crops are too wet, too dry, too diseased or too infested with
pests. They can help farmers count plants or measure their height. Farmers can now use satellite technology,
but it’s slower and less detailed than images from low-flying drone. “This is about getting the most
productivity from every square inch of a farm,” ADAVSO’s Edgar said. Alabama farmer Don Glenn said he would buy a drone or
use a service that provides drone surveillance on his farm of corn, wheat, soybeans and canola. It’s hard to survey corn fields when they are
eight feet to 10 feet tall, he says.
Drones can carry different tools, including high-resolution cameras, infrared
sensors and thermal sensors. Ground-penetrating radar could even measure soil conditions. Applying
Chemicals Once the land is surveyed, farmers could use that data to narrow the areas that need treatment.
If a plot of farmland is infested with weeds, for example, a farmer could spray a small amount of
herbicide just in that area, instead of an entire field, to kill them. Farmers hope that they eventually could use
drones to do the spraying. Kevin Price of the Iowa-based drone company RoboFlight Systems said that kind of precision would
put farmers at a huge advantage, helping them reduce the costs of chemicals and their application. Playing
Cowboy The National Farmers Union’s Johnson said his father used to fly a plane over his ranch and his neighbors’ to spot escaped cattle when
he was growing up in North Dakota. That’s something a drone could do with far less money and effort. Lia Reich of the UAV manufacturer
PrecisionHawk said the company’s drones
can use thermal sensors to take the temperature of cattle. The data
comes back as bands of color, and “if all of the cattle look green and one looks dark purple then that one
has a higher temperature,” she said. Drones could help ranchers count cattle, disturb pests that are
aggravating livestock or even apply insecticide to an animal. Finding Fish A University of Maryland project is
developing drone technology to monitor fish in the Chesapeake Bay. Matt Scassero, the project director, says the idea
is that a laser-based sensor mounted on a drone would allow scientists to see through the water and
measure the size of a school of fish. Researchers could ascertain the conditions of the water, too. Some
drones can land on water, making it possible to measure water quality, as well.
Drones k2 ag—backlash kills
Christopher Doering, 14, writer for USA today, “Growing use of drones poised to transform
agriculture”, http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/03/23/drones-agriculturegrowth/6665561/
WASHINGTON — Drones are quickly moving from the battlefield to the farmer's field — on the verge of
helping growers oversee millions of acres throughout rural America and saving them big money in the
process. While much of the attention regarding drones has focused recently on Amazon and UPS seeking to use them to deliver packages,
much of the future for drones is expected to come on the farm. That's because agriculture operations span large distances and are mostly free
of privacy and safety concerns that have dogged the use of these aerial high-fliers in more heavily populated areas. The Association for
Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, the trade group that represents producers and users of drones and other robotic equipment,
predicts that 80% of the commercial market for drones will eventually be for agricultural uses. Once the Federal Aviation Administration
establishes guidelines for commercial use,
the drone industry said it expects more than 100,000 jobs to be created
and nearly half a billion in tax revenue to be generated collectively by 2025, much of it from agriculture.
Iowa, the country's largest corn and second-biggest soybean grower, could see 1,200 more jobs and an
economic impact topping $950 million in the next decade. "It is endless right now, the applications in agriculture," said
Kevin Price, a former professor at Kansas State who left the university this month to join RoboFlight, a Denver-based company that sells drones
and analyzes the data collected on corn, soybean and other field crops. Farmers "are going
to be able to see things and
monitor their crops in ways they never have before. In the next 10 years almost every farm will be using
it." Today, satellites, manned planes and walking the field are the main ways farmers monitor their
crops. But these methods often can be incomplete or time consuming, and when data is collected it can
take a long time to process and analyze. As a result, it can be difficult or impossible for the farmer to
react to a problem like a disease outbreak before it's too late or the costs to treat it have soared. Drones —
which range in cost from $2,000 for a plane the farmer puts together up to around $160,000 for a military-style device — are equipped with
infrared cameras, sensors and other technology controlled by a pilot on the ground. The
sticker shock may be steep, but
backers of the technology say the data they collect — from identifying insect problems, watering issues,
assessing crop yields or tracking down cattle that have wandered off — help farmers recover the
investment, often within a year. Farmers also can use drones to tailor their use of pesticides, herbicides,
fertilizer and other applications based on how much is needed at a specific point in a field — a process
known as precision agriculture — saving the grower money from unnecessarily overusing resources while at the same time reducing
the amount of runoff that could flow into nearby rivers and streams. Brent Johnson, a corn and soybean farmer in Calhoun County in central
Iowa, purchased a drone in 2013 for $30,000 that is already paying dividends on his 900-acre farm. He's used the aircraft, which covers about
80 acres an hour, to study how yields on his property are affected by changes in topography. And last growing season he identified some areas
where his corn stands were not strong enough, information he's going to consider in future plantings when he decides whether to replant or
avoid the acreage all together. This year he's going to scout early for any problems and use the data he collects to help determine when to sell
his crops. "I'm always looking for an advantage, looking for how I can do things better," said Johnson, who also owns a precision agriculture
company. While some farmers could join Johnson and buy their own drones, most are expected to hire companies that specialize in this niche
market. A major reason to hire someone instead of buying is the extensive training needed to operate the costly piece of machinery and the
complexity of flying it. RoboFlight, which opened a facility in Des Moines this month to house data it collects from surveying land for farmers,
has positioned itself to sell drones in much the same way as General Motors works with its dealers to peddle cars. The company has pacts in
place throughout nearly a third of the United States with John Deere dealers who will showcase the devices and sell services like training and
hardware right next to the big green tractors and combines displayed in their showrooms. Phil Ellerbroek, director of sales at RoboFlight,
declined to give specific sales data for 2014 but said the firm is on pace to post "triple-digit growth in both hardware and (drone) sales." The
company also has seen strong demand from farmers looking to RoboFlight to survey their land. Since it first started signing contracts in January,
RoboFlight has inked nearly 400,000 acres. The pace of orders from farmers and ranchers has increased since then. "Our phones are continually
ringing," said Ellerbroek. Still, he said for drones to have a meaningful and long-lasting impact in agriculture, they need to be retrofitted with
additional devices to collect more information such as thermal sensors to identify early signs of plant stress that can later be parsed, analyzed
and used by farmers. "We need to do more than just generate pretty pictures," he said. "Unless you have usable data, it's all noise. Despite how
attractive UAVs look, and the potential is there, if we don't help (translate that information) into actual data UAVs could fall into a fad." For the
most part, drone use has been largely relegated to the military, but law enforcement and other government agencies can apply to the FAA for
special permission to use them in civil airspace. But
the moves have raised privacy concerns. This year alone nearly
three dozen states are considering legislation that would place restrictions on drone use and data
collection. Lawmakers say they feel compelled to start working on the issue as a wave of drones are starting to be considered for purposes
ranging from finding missing children to delivering pizzas, along with agricultural uses. Gilbert Landolt, president of the Des Moines Veterans for
Peace chapter, said while he and others have protested the way the U.S. military uses drones for operations overseas, they concede the
technology could be beneficial for some with the proper oversight. "There are good uses for drones, I'm not saying there's not, but we need to
get a handle on it," said Landolt. "If they had some type of control over it and could do it in a way on a farm that makes sense I don't have an
issue with that." As farmers press ahead using drones, there is some uncertainty over how much flexibility the federal government has really
given agriculture to use the aircraft. Even farm operators and drone companies are divided over how much authority they have been given to
fly the aircraft. Later
this year, the FAA is expected to propose rules for drones weighing less than 55
pounds. This should cover most uses on the farm. Until then, the agency said some operators will
continue to incorrectly assume they can operate drones under the guise of existing model aircraft rules
— which would cover planes flown for personal use below 400 feet, within eyesight and a safe distance from airports and populated areas. The
use by people or companies for business purposes is not allowed. There also is uncertainty today as to whether a farmer who decides to use his
own drone to survey as part of his effort to run his business and make a profit would be considered a commercial entity. The FAA does not
allow drones to be used for commercial operations unless they apply for a special exemption. Government and universities can operate drones
as long as they get a waiver and fly them within a specific area. "We are concerned about any (Unmanned Aircraft Systems) operation that
poses a hazard to other aircraft or to people and property on the ground," the agency said in a statement. "If we receive a complaint about
such UAS flights, we investigate to determine if the operator violated FAA safety regulations." Johnson, who uses a drone on his Iowa farm, said
the lack of rules from the FAA is the biggest challenge for farmers eager to embrace the technology. "We just don't have enough direction from
the FAA as to what we can do and what we shouldn't do," he said. "The technology is extremely exciting. People just have to be careful right
now with the political pressure and lack of rules." The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International has been pressing the FAA to
allow limited drone use for some operations like farmers and movies, citing authority already granted by Congress. "Instead, they are taking a
one size fits all approach, which is to regulate the entire airspace to prevent anyone from flying," said Ben Gielow, general counsel of the
Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International. As federal regulators struggle to define how drones can be used for commercial
purposes, many countries around the world have loose guidelines for how these devices can be used. Drones are being used for agriculture in a
slew of countries including Canada, Australia, Japan and Brazil. Price, the former Kansas State professor who is now an executive vice president
of commercial integration with RoboFlight, told farm conference attendees in January that farmers should begin learning how to use drones
rather than wait until the FAA acts. "It's going to blow your socks off. There is no question this technology is moving forward and it's going to
move fast," said Price. "Don't wait. If you're going to wait until the FAA says you can then you'll be two years behind everybody else."
!
Price rises cause war—specifically Southeast Asia and Latin America
Isabelle Cadoret, 15, Professor at Université de Remes, March 8, 2015, “Civil Conflicts and Food Price
Spikes”, http://afse2015.sciencesconf.org/61838/document
Table 6 reports the effect of domestic food price index on the occurrence of civil con- flicts. Column (2) shows that the domestic food price is
significant at 10% level. A
rise of 1% of domestic food price increases the likelihood of civil conflicts by 0.19%.
All else being equal, the occurrence of conflict is higher in countries already in conflict. Conflicts are less
likely to be observed in countries where the open rate is higher. In column (3), we examine the regional impact of the
effect domestic food price index on the occurrence of civil conflicts. The effect of domestic food price index is significantly
positive in two regions: South-East Asia and Latin America while it is not significant in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. In
Table 7, we examine if domestic food price has a differential impact in countries with a higher cereal import dependency ratio. Finally, our
results reveal that there is significant difference among the different regions. The likelihood of conflicts
after a rise in domestic food price is higher in South-East Asia and in Latin America. Finally, the indirect
effect of international food prices on the likelihood of civil conflict is shown in Table 8. Column (1)
indicates that the pass-through between the international and the domestic food prices is significant at
1%. A rise of one percent of international food prices induces a rise in domestic food price of around
0.15%. Surprisingly, the occurrence of a disaster has no contemporaneous effect on the domestic food
price. Then, we examine if the size of the impact of domestic food prices on the likelihood is different across the different regions. The impact
is higher in South-East Asia and in Latin America. 6. Conclusion The objective of this paper is to estimate the effect of food price spikes on the
occurrence of conflicts. To estimate this relation, we build a data set of 82 developing countries from 1995 to 1979. Our
results reveal
that there exist a significant and positive relation between food price spikes and civil conflicts. Most
likely, a civil conflict will occur in South-East Asia and Latin America after a food price spike. Due to the
imperfect pass-through, the effect of international food prices on the occurrence of civil war is significantly lower and even close to zero in
most of our estimations. The implications of this research are potentially important from a public perspective. The
recent food price
spikes observed since 2000 can increase poverty and cause civil conflicts. Civil conflicts may slow down
economic development in some regions.
Food price spikes cause war (this card is not very good and says that only solving
warming solves)
Michael Klare, 12, Author and Professor of Peace and World-Security Studies, Hampshire College,
08/07/2012, The Hunger Wars in Our Future, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-t-klare/thehunger-wars-in-our-fu_b_1751968.html
This, however, is just the beginning of the likely consequences: if history is any guide, rising
food prices of this sort will also lead to
widespread social unrest and violent conflict. Food -- affordable food -- is essential to human survival and
well-being. Take that away, and people become anxious, desperate, and angry. In the United States, food
represents only about 13 percent of the average household budget, a relatively small share, so a boost in food prices in 2013 will probably not
prove overly taxing for most middle- and upper-income families. It
could, however, produce considerable hardship for poor
and unemployed Americans with limited resources. “You are talking about a real bite out of family budgets,” commented
Ernie Gross, an agricultural economist at Omaha’s Creighton University. This could add to the discontent already evident in depressed and highunemployment areas, perhaps prompting an intensified backlash against incumbent politicians and other forms of dissent and unrest.
It is in
the international arena, however, that the Great Drought is likely to have its most devastating effects.
Because so many nations depend on grain imports from the U.S. to supplement their own harvests, and
because intense drought and floods are damaging crops elsewhere as well, food supplies are expected
to shrink and prices to rise across the planet. “What happens to the U.S. supply has immense impact around the world,” says
Robert Thompson, a food expert at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. As the crops most affected by the drought, corn
and soybeans, disappear from world markets, he noted, the price of all grains, including wheat, is likely
to soar, causing immense hardship to those who already have trouble affording enough food to feed their families. The Hunger Games, 20072011 What happens next is, of course, impossible to predict, but if the recent past is any guide, it could turn
ugly. In 2007-2008, when rice, corn, and wheat experienced prices hikes of 100 percent or more, sharply
higher prices -- especially for bread -- sparked “food riots” in more than two dozen countries, including
Bangladesh, Cameroon, Egypt, Haiti, Indonesia, Senegal, and Yemen. In Haiti, the rioting became so
violent and public confidence in the government’s ability to address the problem dropped so
precipitously that the Haitian Senate voted to oust the country’s prime minister, Jacques-Édouard Alexis. In other
countries, angry protestors clashed with army and police forces, leaving scores dead. Those price increases of 2007-2008 were largely
attributed to the soaring cost of oil, which made food production more expensive. (Oil’s use is widespread in farming operations, irrigation,
food delivery, and pesticide manufacture.) At the same time, increasing amounts of cropland worldwide were being diverted from food crops
to the cultivation of plants used in making biofuels. The next price spike in 2010-11 was, however, closely associated with climate change. An
intense drought gripped much of eastern Russia during the summer of 2010, reducing the wheat harvest in that breadbasket region by one-fifth
and prompting Moscow to ban all wheat exports. Drought also hurt China’s grain harvest, while intense flooding destroyed much of Australia’s
wheat crop. Together with other extreme-weather-related effects, these disasters sent wheat prices soaring by more than 50 percent and the
price of most food staples by 32 percent. Once
again, a surge in food prices resulted in widespread social unrest,
this time concentrated in North Africa and the Middle East. The earliest protests arose over the cost of
staples in Algeria and then Tunisia, where -- no coincidence -- the precipitating event was a young food
vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi, setting himself on fire to protest government harassment. Anger over rising food and fuel prices
combined with long-simmering resentments about government repression and corruption sparked what
became known as the Arab Spring. The rising cost of basic staples, especially a loaf of bread, was also a
cause of unrest in Egypt, Jordan, and Sudan. Other factors, notably anger at entrenched autocratic regimes, may have proved
more powerful in those places, but as the author of Tropic of Chaos, Christian Parenti, wrote, “The initial trouble was traceable, at least in part,
to the price of that loaf of bread.”
As for the current drought, analysts are already warning of instability in Africa,
where corn is a major staple, and of increased popular unrest in China, where food prices are expected to rise at a
time of growing hardship for that country’s vast pool of low-income, migratory workers and poor peasants. Higher food prices in the U.S. and
China could also lead to reduced consumer spending on other goods, further contributing to the slowdown in the global economy and
producing yet more worldwide misery, with unpredictable social consequences. The Hunger Games, 2012-?? If this was just one bad harvest,
occurring in only one country, the world would undoubtedly absorb the ensuing hardship and expect to bounce back in the years to come.
Unfortunately, it’s becoming evident that the Great Drought of 2012 is not a one-off event in a single heartland nation, but rather an inevitable
consequence of global warming which is only going to intensify. As a result, we can expect not just more bad years of extreme heat, but worse
years, hotter and more often, and not just in the United States, but globally for the indefinite future. Until recently, most scientists were
reluctant to blame particular storms or droughts on global warming. Now, however, a growing number of scientists believe that such links can
be demonstrated in certain cases. In one recent study focused on extreme weather events in 2011, for instance, climate specialists at the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Great Britain’s National Weather Service concluded that human-induced climate
change has made intense heat waves of the kind experienced in Texas in 2011 more likely than ever before. Published in the Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society, it reported that global warming had ensured that the incidence of that Texas heat wave was 20 times more
likely than it would have been in 1960; similarly, abnormally warm temperatures like those experienced in Britain last November were said to
be 62 times as likely because of global warming. It is still too early to apply the methodology used by these scientists to calculating the effect of
global warming on the heat waves of 2012, which are proving to be far more severe, but we can assume the level of correlation will be high.
And what can we expect in the future, as the warming gains momentum? When we think about climate change (if we think about it at all), we
envision rising temperatures, prolonged droughts, freakish storms, hellish wildfires, and rising sea levels. Among other things, this will result in
damaged infrastructure and diminished food supplies. These are, of course, manifestations of warming in the physical world, not the social
world we all inhabit and rely on for so many aspects of our daily well-being and survival. The purely physical effects of climate change will, no
doubt, prove catastrophic. But the social effects including, somewhere down the line, food riots, mass starvation, state collapse, mass
migrations, and conflicts of every sort, up to and including full-scale war, could prove even more disruptive and deadly. In her immensely
successful young-adult novel The Hunger Games (and the movie that followed), Suzanne Collins riveted millions with a portrait of a dystopian,
resource-scarce, post-apocalyptic future where once-rebellious “districts” in an impoverished North America must supply two teenagers each
year for a series of televised gladiatorial games that end in death for all but one of the youthful contestants. These “hunger games” are
intended as recompense for the damage inflicted on the victorious capitol of Panem by the rebellious districts during an insurrection. Without
specifically mentioning global warming, Collins makes it clear that climate change was significantly responsible for the hunger that shadows the
North American continent in this future era. Hence, as the gladiatorial contestants are about to be selected, the mayor of District 12’s principal
city describes “the disasters, the droughts, the storms, the fires, the encroaching seas that swallowed up so much of the land [and] the brutal
war for what little sustenance remained.” In this, Collins was prescient, even if her specific vision of the violence on which such a world might
be organized is fantasy. While we may never see her version of those hunger games, do not doubt that some version of them will come into
existence -- that, in fact,
hunger wars of many sorts will fill our future. These could include any combination or
permutation of the deadly riots that led to the 2008 collapse of Haiti’s government, the pitched battles
between massed protesters and security forces that engulfed parts of Cairo as the Arab Spring
developed, the ethnic struggles over disputed croplands and water sources that have made Darfur a
recurring headline of horror in our world, or the inequitable distribution of agricultural land that continues to fuel the
insurgency of the Maoist-inspired Naxalites of India. Combine such conflicts with another likelihood: that persistent
drought and hunger will force millions of people to abandon their traditional lands and flee to the
squalor of shantytowns and expanding slums surrounding large cities, sparking hostility from those
already living there. One such eruption, with grisly results, occurred in Johannesburg’s shantytowns in 2008 when desperately poor and
hungry migrants from Malawi and Zimbabwe were set upon, beaten, and in some cases burned to death by poor South Africans. One terrified
Zimbabwean, cowering in a police station from the raging mobs, said she fled her country because “there is no work and no food.” And count
on something else: millions more in the coming decades, pressed by disasters ranging from drought and flood to rising sea levels, will try to
migrate to other countries, provoking even greater hostility. And that hardly begins to exhaust the possibilities that lie in our hunger-games
future. At this point, the focus is understandably on the immediate consequences of the still ongoing Great Drought: dying crops, shrunken
harvests, and rising food prices. But keep an eye out for the social and political effects that undoubtedly won’t begin to show up here or
globally until later this year or 2013. Better than any academic study, these will offer us a hint of what we can expect in the coming decades
from a hunger-games world of rising temperatures, persistent droughts, recurring food shortages, and billions of famished, desperate people.
A2:Herbicide Turn
Non-Unique—Pesticides now
Christopher D. Cook, 5, author and award-winning journalist whose writing has appeared in the Los
Angeles Times, Harper's, The Economist, Mother Jones, The Christian Science Monitor, and other
national publications, “The spraying of America”,
http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/the_spraying_of_america/
Roughly 85 percent of all cropland in America relies on herbicides – a business which will remain stable
as long as agribusiness fights off new pesticide bans and maintains the myth that biotech is eliminating
toxins in the fields.
A2: Industrial Ag Turn
Non-unique tons of industrial ag now
USDA, 13, “Farm Size and the Organization of U.S. Crop Farming”, August 2013,
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1156726/err152.pdf
The average size of a U.S. crop farm has changed little during the past three decades. However, this seeming stability masks important
structural changes in the complex U.S. farm sector. There
are growing numbers of very small and very large farms and
declining numbers of mid-sized farms. Cropland acreage has moved toward much larger farms. Start with
the complex size pattern of U.S. farms. In fi gure 1, based on 2011 ARMS data, farms and cropland acreage are sorted into eight cropland size
classes frequently reported in Census of Agriculture publications. In that year, 391.6
million acres of cropland were divided
among 1.675 million U.S. farms with cropland, for an average (mean) farm size of 234 acres. However,
relatively few farms are near the average. Eighty percent of farms with cropland were smaller than the mean size, and 70
percent were less than half the mean size. The median farm size (at which half of farms were larger and half were smaller) was just 45 acres.
Similarly, little cropland is on farms near the average. Eighty-three percent of cropland was on farms that were larger than the mean size, and
71 percent was on farms that were more than twice Figure 1 The size distribution of crop farms, 2011 Note: Farm size is defined according to
the cropland the farm operates—that is, the cropland it owns, plus any that it rents, minus any rented to others. Source: USDA Agricultural
Resource Management Survey, 2011. Percent of farms or acres Cropland acres on the farm Farms Cropland Mean farm size (total cropland
divided by total farms with cropland) is 234 acres. Half of all farms have less than 45 acres (the median), and half have more. Half
of all
acres are on farms with less than 1,100 acres (the midpoint acreage), and half are on farms with more. 5 Farm Size and the
Organization of U.S. Crop Farming, ERR-152 Economic Research Service/USDA the mean. The midpoint acreage—where half of cropland is on
larger farms and half on smaller— was 1,100 acres. Figure 2 reports the same data for 2001; together the two fi gures summarize a decade of
structural change. The mean farm size was little different (235 acres), but the median farm size in 2001 (63 acres) was substantially larger than
that in 2011. There were nearly 100,000 more farms with 1-49 acres of cropland in 2011 than in 2001, as the count of small farms in USDA
statistics increased sharply. (See box: “The Increasing Number of Small Crop Farms.”) Cropland
moved in the other direction:
the largest farms (at least 2,000 acres of cropland) accounted for 34.3 percent of cropland in 2011, up
from 24.1 percent in 2001, and the number of farms with at least 2,000 acres of cropland increased
during the decade. The midpoint acreage refl ects the shift in cropland: it was 900 acres in 2001 (fi g. 2), compared to 1,100 in 2011 (fi g.
1). Because of the complexity of changes in crop farm structure, simple measures of mean farm size are not very informative. Simple means and
medians focus on the average farm, and the land operated by the average farmer. This report is focused on the use of cropland and must focus
on the average acre of cropland, not the average farmer or average farm. The midpoint acreage effectively tracks cropland consolidation and
will be used in this report.
Competitiveness Extensions
Drones are key to manufacturing
AUVSI, 13, Association for Unmanned Vehicular Systems International, March 2013, “THE ECONOMIC
IMPACT OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS INTEGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES”,
https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/AUVSI/958c920a-7f9b-4ad2-9807f9a4e95d1ef1/UploadedImages/New_Economic%20Report%202013%20Full.pdf
The purpose of this research is to document the economic benefits to the United States (U.S.) once Unmanned
Aircraft Systems (UAS) are integrated into in the National Airspace System (NAS). In 2012, the federal government tasked
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to determine how to integrate UAS into the NAS. In this research, we estimate the
economic impact of this integration. In the event that these regulations are delayed or not enacted, this study also estimates the
jobs and financial opportunity lost to the economy because of this inaction. While there are multiple uses for UAS in the NAS, this research
concludes that precision
agriculture and public safety are the most promising commercial and civil markets.
These two markets are thought to comprise approximately 90% of the known potential markets for UAS. We conclude the following: 1. The
economic impact of the integration of UAS into the NAS will total more than $13.6 billion (Table 19) in the
first three years of integration and will grow sustainably for the foreseeable future, cumulating to more
than $82.1 billion between 2015 and 2025 (Table 1); 2. Integration into the NAS will create more than 34,000
manufacturing jobs (Table 18) and more than 70,000 new jobs in the first three years (Table 19); 3. By 2025,
total job creation is estimated at 103,776 (Table 1); 4. The manufacturing jobs created will be high paying ($40,000)
and require technical baccalaureate degrees; 5. Tax revenue to the states will total more than $482 million in the first
11 years following integration (2015-2025); and 6. Every year that integration is delayed, the United States
loses more than $10 billion in potential economic impact. This translates to a loss of $27.6 million per day that UAS are not
integrated into the NAS. Utility of UAS The main inhibitor of U.S. commercial and civil development of the UAS is the lack of a regulatory
structure. Because of current airspace restrictions, non-defense use of UAS has been extremely limited. However, the
combination of
greater flexibility, lower capital and lower operating costs could allow UAS to be a transformative
technology in fields as diverse as urban infrastructure management, farming, and oil and gas exploration
to name a few. Present-day UAS have longer operational duration and require less maintenance than earlier models. In addition, they can
be operated remotely using more fuel efficient technologies. These aircraft can be deployed in a number of different terrains and may be less
dependent on prepared runways. Some argue the use of UAS in the future will be a more responsible approach to certain airspace operations
from an environmental, ecological and human risk perspective.
Overbearing drone regulations cause offshoring
Alan McQuinn, 14, Research Assistant with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation,
“September 30, 2014”, “Commercial Drone Companies Fly Away from FAA Regulations, Go Abroad”,
http://www.insidesources.com/commercial-drone-companies-fly-away-from-faa-regulations-goabroad/
News broke last week that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would allow the use of drones on movie sets. Although this is a useful first
step, much broader action is needed. In
August, it emerged that Google’s secret drone program is currently being
tested in Australia, and earlier this year, there were reports that Amazon would begin testing its muchanticipated delivery drones in Indian skies. Unfortunately, cutting-edge drone pioneers will continue to go
abroad and the United States will keep losing jobs in research and development to other countries
because the U.S. government has an outdated, onerous ban on commercial drones as well as additional
restrictions that impede the development of experimental aircraft. To address this problem before the FAA finalizes its
commercial drone rules next year, the government should reverse its current policy and allow companies to test
drone technologies on private land. The FAA is the federal agency charged by Congress in the 2012 FAA Modernization and
Reform Act to create commercial drone rules. Ahead of releasing its proposed rulemaking, the agency has banned commercial drones, unless a
company petitions the FAA for an exemption. While its timeline for deciding these rules was set to be complete by September 2015, the
agency’s inspector general has said it will miss that deadline, and earlier this month an FAA official said there is no way to know when it will be
reached. FAA exemptions for testing are also extremely rare. To date, the agency has only given them out to a handful of companies, such as
Sempra Energy, which will test its drone’s abilities to inspect electric and gas lines in remote areas. With no certainty surrounding a timeline,
limited access to exemptions, and a dithering pace for setting its rules, the FAA is slowing innovation. Furthermore,
companies
interested in pursuing commercial drone research are not allowed to test their experimental aircraft—
secret, proprietary technology—until they first get permission from the FAA to test their drones in a
FAA-run government testing site. These rules bar Amazon from testing its inventions on private land, even if the company buys land
far from any populations or other aircraft. Instead it must use FAA testing facilities, which only exist in six states. By using these public facilities,
companies are forced to demonstrate their private technologies, which is like forcing the California-based Tesla to test is prototype cars under
government supervision at a public park in Virginia. These
overbearing rules have pushed U.S. companies to move
their drone research and development projects to more permissive nations, such as Australia, where
Google chose to test its drones. Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority , the agency in charge of
commercial drones, offers a great example of unrestrictive regulations. While it has not yet finalized its
drone laws, it still allows companies and citizens to test and use these technologies under certain rules.
Instead of forcing companies to reveal their technologies at government test sites, it allows them to test outdoors if they receive an operator’s
certificate and submit their test area for approval. Australia’s more permissive nature shows how a country can allow innovation to thrive while
simultaneously examining it for potential safety concerns.
This situation brings to mind the medical device sector, which
has seen numerous companies leave the United States because of the Food and Drug Administration’s
(FDA) unpredictable process and regulatory scrutiny. The FDA’s process takes an average of 31 months from first
communication to being cleared to market a low-risk device, compared to an average of 7 months in Europe. These delays cost companies
more than $500,000 per month and result in many companies moving their clinical trials and product launches to Europe. One example is
Biosensors International, which shut down its U.S. operations in 2011, deciding instead to spend research money in China, Brazil, India, and
Europe. The FAA apparently has not learned any lessons from its federal cousin. Like medical devices, commercial drones have massive
economic potential. The
Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems, an advocacy group for drones, predicts
the drone industry will create more than 100,000 jobs and generate $82 billion in revenue in the next 10
years, but only after domestic rules are finalized. The time to act is now. To keep these investments,
jobs, and innovations in the United States, the FAA should both permit more companies to test their drone services and allow
them to test private technologies on private land where safety concerns are minimal. Just as Google was allowed to test its driverless cars on its
own campus before seeking state approval for offsite testing, it should also be allowed to buy land far away from major population centers to
privately test its drone technologies. These delivery drone services are almost at our doorstep (literally) and they are ready to soar, if the FAA
will only allow our visionaries the opportunity to get them right.
The US could get left behind
Ed Pilkington, 14, chief reporter for Guardian US, September 30, 2014 11.18 EDT, “What's keeping
America's private drone industry grounded?”, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/29/dronetesters-faa-aviation-frustration-grows
Even if it did have capacity to carry out tests more relevant to the issue of drone integration, North Dakota would be at a loss to know which
experiments to concentrate on, as the FAA has so far given no guidance. “Right at this second the FAA hasn’t actually given us clear research
areas to work on,” Becklund said. “They say that’s coming.”
In a statement, the FAA said it was working to speed up the
process of securing drone flight permits, or COAs, and was “continuously looking for ways to streamline
the overall process.” It added that it was also in discussions with all the official drone test sites “to discuss how the test site program is
progressing and ways to work out any issues.” An FAA spokesman stressed that the agency’s overwhelming priority was safety. “Integration
of unmanned aircraft into the national airspace will be done incrementally,” he said. Becklund’s fear that
the US could be left behind in the global drone scramble was underlined this week by news that DHL has
begun deliveries in Germany using a “parcelcopter”. The move leaves major US companies, who have all been
intensively developing their strategies, standing and watching. Google, Amazon and Fedex are all looking to launch drone delivery
services but are stymied under the FAA prohibition. Brendan Schulman, a New York-based expert on drone law, said that in his view Becklund’s
fear that America might lose its edge had already come to pass. “If
you are a company with a promising product there’s no
way to develop it – you need to take it to Canada or the UK, or Australia where the regulatory
environment is not so unfriendly. There’s no way for America to remain competitive.”
Manufacturing key to overall military superiority and deterrence
Mackenzie Eaglen 12 Research Fellow for national security at The American Enterprise
Institute, 1/26/2012 “The Arsenal of Democracy and How to Preserve It: Key Issues in
Defense Industrial Policy.”, Brookings,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/01/26-defense-industrial-base
Yet there are severe challenges that could result to the nation’s security interests even with 10 percent
cutbacks. Despite the likely potential of lesser resources, the demand side of the equation does not
seem likely to grow easier. The international security environment is challenging and complex. China’s
economic, political and now military rise continues. Its direction is uncertain, but it has already raised
tension, especially in the South China Sea. Iran’s ambitions and machinations remain foreboding, with its
nuclear plans entering a new phase of both capability but also crisis. North Korea is all the more
uncertain with a leadership transition, but has a history of brinkmanship and indeed even the occasional
use of force against the South, not to mention nuclear weapons-related activities that raise deep
concern. And the hopeful series of revolutions in the broader Arab world in 2011, while inspiring at
many levels, also seem likely to raise uncertainty in the broader Middle East. Revolutions are inherently
unpredictable and often messy geostrategic events. On top of these remain commitments in
Afghanistan and beyond and the frequent U.S. military role in humanitarian disaster relief. Thus, there
are broad challenges for American defense planners as they try to address this challenging world with
fewer available resources. The current wave of defense cuts is also different than past defense budget
reductions in their likely industrial impact, as the U.S. defense industrial base is in a much different place
than it was in the past. Defense industrial issues are too often viewed through the lens of jobs and pet
projects to protect in congressional districts. But the overall health of the firms that supply the
technologies our armed forces utilize does have national security resonance. Qualitative superiority in
weaponry and other key military technology has become an essential element of American military
power in the modern era—not only for winning wars but for deterring them. That requires world-class
scientific and manufacturing capabilities—which in turn can also generate civilian and military export
opportunities for the United States in a globalized marketplace. While procurement budgets have
finally, in recent years, reached their historic norms as a percent of the overall defense budget, the
legacy of the 1990s procurement “holiday” remains real. In that period, the United States as a matter of
policy bought much less equipment than it would normally, enjoying the fruits of the 1980s buildup as it
sought to reduce defense spending. But Reagan-era weaponry is wearing out, and the recent increase in
procurement spending has not lasted long enough to replenish the nation’s key weapons arsenals with
new weaponry. The last decade of procurement policy focused more on filling certain gaps in
counterinsurgency capabilities than replacing the mainline weapons programs that make up the bulk of
conventional capabilities. Meanwhile, the main elements of DoD’s weapons inventories—fighter jets,
armored vehicles, surface vessels and submarines—continue to age. We often say that, in today’s
American armed forces, people are our most cherished commodity and greatest asset. That is certainly
true at one level, through the dedication and excellence shown by our brave men and women in
uniform. But it is also true that adjusting the personnel size of the military up or down has been done
with success multiple times, and seems likely to happen again. By contrast, scientific and manufacturing
excellence in the defense space is not something easily moved up and down. Today’s industrial
capabilities took decades to build and would be hard to restore if lost (Great Britain’s difficulty restoring
its ability to build nuclear submarines is a frequently cited example.). Unlike the period just after the
Cold War, there are no obvious surpluses of defense firms, such that a natural paring process will find
the fittest firms and ensure their survival. While there are roughly five major firms, there are often just
one or two suppliers in any given major area of defense technology. Similar challenges exist within the
subcontractor community, which has become highly specialized, with certain key components or
capabilities similarly reflecting monopolies or oligopolies, or being acquired by the primes in a way that
risks future competition. The defense economy is also experiencing meta-changes in everything from
shifts in traditional sectors, such as the move from manned to unmanned planes, to new sectors arising
like cybersesecurity, to a broader move from the exclusive production of goods to the growing provision
of defense services. Such issues in the defense economy also touch on broader areas of national
economic and geopolitical competitiveness. Top class American firms rely on top class scientists and
engineers. At present, the United States ranks in the lower half of industrial countries for the average
math and science scores of its public school students and graduates just a fraction as many scientists
and engineers a year from university-level studies as does either China or India. These trends should not
be overstated; the quality of American scientists and engineers remains world class. But the trends still
pose deep worries in the American defense industrial field as its looks towards the future of its work
force, which is aging rapidly in numerous sectors. Not only then are the U.S. military services, but also
American defense industry at a crossroads. Normally, defense policy decisions in times of retrenchment
begin with strategy, threats, missions, and force structure and only address defense industrial issues as
an afterthought. In past days of flush budgets and numerous duplicative suppliers, this approach may
have made sense. It makes sense no longer. Careless defense reductions or poor planning won’t just
cost jobs or competitiveness, but could actually result in lost American military industrial capability in
core areas. The Department of Defense has recently made some encouraging moves towards
emphasizing the role of the industrial base in its strategic and budgetary planning. The 2010
Quadrennial Defense Review examined the subject, for example, and Secretary Panetta and his deputies
have convened several meetings in recent months with industry leaders to discuss their concerns. But
industrial base considerations remain little discussed outside the specialist community and too
frequently take a short term or single interest approach, such as asking a candidate to weigh in on an
individual product or firm. Rather, it is the overall state of the field and its future that should be of
concern to all, regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum. Thus, as presidential candidates
and other national leaders develop their platforms for the 2012 elections and beyond, any serious
discussion of national security and the current state and future of the military must also give direct
attention to matters of the American national security scientific and industrial base. This discussion
should be direct and forthright, recognizing the context of severe budgetary dilemmas for the nation,
the success and challenges of the defense economy, changing military demands, and the gradual erosion
of American manufacturing in many sectors over the last several decades.
Modeling Adv
EXT Modeling
US regulations are key to stop Latin American drone conflict
W. Alejandro Sanchez 13, Senior Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs,
10/8/2013, “Latin America Puts Forward A Mixed Picture on the Use of Drones in the
Region”, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, http://www.coha.org/latin-america-putsforward-a-mixed-picture-on-the-use-of-drones-in-the-region/
Latin America has been successful at avoiding inter-state warfare throughout most of the past century.
Today its security challenges are mostly internal and come from entities like narco-terrorist movements
and drug cartels; in the case of Shining Path or FARC, these groups operate in isolated regions. Hence,
drone technology is regarded as useful to find these guerrilla fighters and, given the (controversial)
success of armed drones by countries like the U.S., it is only a matter of time before Latin American
militaries decide to follow suit and utilize drones for search-and-destroy missions in the name of
national security. [11] While the proliferation of drones may not be halted, it is necessary for Western
military powers to keep in mind that they must lead by example when it comes to using drones, as this
tactic sets the standard of how other nations will utilize them in the (very) near future.
US Domestic Surveillance Drones are modeled in Latin America-Global Leader
Diego Cupolo 14, Latin American policy writer for Occupy, 1/8/2014, “Why Widely
Unregulated Drone Use Is Soaring in Latin America”, Occupy,
http://www.occupy.com/article/why-widely-unregulated-drone-use-soaring-latinamerica
For the time being, a treaty to regulate drone usage does not exist anywhere in the world. Lawmakers
have only begun to talk about the issue and according to Sanchez, it is unrealistic to expect an
international agreement anytime soon.
“Supporters of drone technology argue that the drones operate under the umbrella of the Geneva
Conventions, which were signed in 1949,” Sanchez said. “That was 64 years ago, more or less, and we
have to keep up with the times.”
When legislation does reach senate floors, Sanchez said he expects Latin American governments to
follow U.S., Israeli and European domestic drone programs for guidelines on how to form their own UAV
policies.
Yet a look inside the U.S presents a mostly grounded domestic drone market due to restrictions from
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which prevents the majority of personal and commercial
UAVs from taking flight due to the threat of mid-air collisions with manned aircrafts, among other
hazards.
Still, current regulations are likely to change as the U.S. congress, acting recently under pressure from
UAV industry lobbyists, ordered the FAA to speed up drone integration and draft new rules by 2015.
EXT LA war = Russia War
Latin American conflicts greatly heighten the risk of US-Russia war-Strategic
withdrawals and influence entanglement
R. Evan Ellis 15, Research professor of Latin American Studies at the Strategic Studies
Institute, U.S. Army War College, June 17 2015, “THE NEW RUSSIAN ENGAGEMENT
WITH LATIN AMERICA: STRATEGIC POSITION, COMMERCE, AND DREAMS OF THE PAST”,
Strategic Studies Institute,
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=1275
In a conflict scenario, in evaluating whether Latin American states would risk openly assisting a
competitor such as Russia against the United States, analysts should also consider conditions under
which such an anti-U.S. regime in the region might calculate that the United States might not prevail in
the broader conflict, or might not be able or willing to impose consequences for such behavior. Beyond
assessing the possibility of Latin American states providing direct assistance to Russia during a global
conflict, such as access to bases or intelligence support, analysts should also consider ways in which
states of the region could impact the outcome of the global conflict by withholding cooperation, such as
not supporting the U.S. position on the crisis in international forums such as the UN, not contributing
personnel or resources to an international coalition deployed to the conflict zone, not provid- 84 ing
intelligence support to the United States, or not allowing the United States to use its territorial waters or
airspace.
Finally, using the specific scenarios generated, the United States should consider strategies that it could
use to counter Russian actions in the Western Hemisphere during a conflict, in shaping the conflict in
the lead-up to it, and in shaping the strategic environment in the present day to mitigate or reduce the
probability of undesirable outcomes. In developing strategies to manage the identified risks and pursue
associated opportunities, the United States should consider collaboration with like-minded extrahemispheric actors, whose values and interests in resisting the Russian advance in Latin America
coincide with that of the United States. Japan, South Korea, and India each are arguably candidates to
collaborate with the United States in select areas. Each has commercial interests in the region, each is
adversely impacted by the expansion of Russia’s presence globally, and each has an interest in
strengthening its own ties with the United States in the face of the expansion of rivals in its own region,
which include not only Russia, but also others such as the PRC.
EXT Russia !
U.S.-Russian nuclear war causes extinction
Steven Starr 14, the Senior Scientist for Physicians for Social Responsibility and Director of the Clinical
Laboratory Science Program at the University of Missouri, 5/30/14, “The Lethality of Nuclear Weapons,”
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/05/30/lethality-nuclear-weapons/
Nuclear war has no winner. Beginning in 2006, several of the world’s leading climatologists (at Rutgers, UCLA, John
Hopkins University, and the University of Colorado-Boulder) published a series of studies that evaluated the long-term
environmental consequences of a nuclear war, including baseline scenarios fought with merely 1% of the explosive power in
the US and/or Russian launch-ready nuclear arsenals. They concluded that the consequences of even a “small” nuclear war
would include catastrophic disruptions of global climate[i] and massive destruction of Earth’s protective
ozone layer[ii]. These and more recent studies predict that global agriculture would be so negatively affected by such a war, a global famine
would result, which would cause up to 2 billion people to starve to death. [iii]
These peer-reviewed studies – which were analyzed by the best scientists in the world and found to be
without error – also predict that a war fought with less than half of US or Russian strategic nuclear weapons
would destroy the human race .[iv] In other words, a US-Russian nuclear war would create such extreme longterm damage to the global environment that it would leave the Earth uninhabitable for humans and most
animal forms of life.
A recent article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Self-assured destruction: The climate impacts of nuclear war”,[v] begins by stating:
“A
nuclear war between Russia and the United States, even after the arsenal reductions planned under New
START, could produce a nuclear winter. Hence, an attack by either side could be suicidal, resulting in self-assured destruction.”
In 2009, I wrote an article[vi] for the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament that summarizes the findings of
these studies. It explains that nuclear firestorms would produce millions of tons of smoke, which would rise above cloud level and form a global
stratospheric smoke layer that would rapidly encircle the Earth. The smoke layer would remain for at least a decade, and it would act to destroy
the protective ozone layer (vastly increasing the UV-B reaching Earth[vii]) as well as block warming sunlight, thus creating Ice Age weather
conditions that would last 10 years or longer.
Following a US-Russian nuclear war, temperatures in the central US and Eurasia would fall below freezing every day for one to three years; the
intense cold would completely eliminate growing seasons for a decade or longer. No crops could be grown, leading to a famine that would kill
most humans and large animal populations.
Electromagnetic pulse from high-altitude nuclear detonations would destroy the integrated circuits in all modern
electronic devices[viii], including those in commercial nuclear power plants. Every nuclear reactor would almost
instantly meltdown ; every nuclear spent fuel pool (which contain many times more radioactivity than found in the reactors) would boiloff, releasing vast amounts of long-lived radioactivity. The fallout would make most of the US and Europe uninhabitable. Of course, the
survivors of the nuclear war would be starving to death anyway.
Once nuclear weapons were introduced into a US-Russian conflict, there would be little chance that a
nuclear holocaust could be avoided. Theories of “limited nuclear war” and “nuclear de-escalation” are
unrealistic.[ix] In 2002 the Bush administration modified US strategic doctrine from a retaliatory role to permit preemptive nuclear attack;
in 2010, the Obama administration made only incremental and miniscule changes to this doctrine, leaving it essentially unchanged.
Furthermore, Counterforce doctrinex – used by both the US and Russian military – emphasizes the need for preemptive strikes once nuclear
war begins Both sides would be under immense pressure to launch a preemptive nuclear first-strike once military hostilities had commenced,
especially if nuclear weapons had already been used on the battlefield.
Both the
US and Russia each have 400 to 500 launch-ready ballistic missiles armed with a total of at least
1800 strategic nuclear warheads,[xi] which can be launched with only a few minutes warning.[xii] Both the US and Russian
Presidents are accompanied 24/7 by military officers carrying a “nuclear briefcase”, which allows them to transmit the permission order to
launch in a matter of seconds.
Yet top political leaders and policymakers of both the US and Russia seem to be unaware that their launch-ready
nuclear weapons
represent a self-destruct mechanism for the human race. For example, in 2010, I was able to publicly question the chief
negotiators of the New START treaty, Russian Ambassador Anatoly Antonov and (then) US Assistant Secretary of State, Rose Gottemoeller,
during their joint briefing at the UN (during the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference). I asked them if they were familiar with the recent
peer-reviewed studies that predicted the detonation of less than 1% of the explosive power contained in the operational and deployed U.S. and
Russian nuclear forces would cause catastrophic changes in the global climate, and that a nuclear war fought with their strategic nuclear
weapons would kill most people on Earth. They both answered “no.”
More recently, on April 20, 2014, I asked the same question and received the same answer from the US officials sent to brief representatives of
the NGOS at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee meeting at the UN. None of the US officials at the briefing were aware of the
studies. Those present included top officials of the National Security Council.
It is frightening that President Obama and his administration appear unaware that the world’s leading scientists have for years predicted that a
nuclear war fought with the US and/or Russian strategic nuclear arsenal means the end of human history. Do they not know of the existential
threat these arsenals pose to the human race . . . or do they choose to remain silent because this fact doesn’t fit into their official narratives?
We hear only about terrorist threats that could destroy a city with an atomic bomb, while the threat of human extinction from nuclear war is
never mentioned – even when the US and Russia are each running huge nuclear war games in preparation for a US-Russian war.
Even more frightening is the fact that the neocons running US foreign policy believe that the US has “nuclear primacy” over Russia; that is, the
US could successfully launch a nuclear sneak attack against Russian (and Chinese) nuclear forces and completely destroy them. This theory was
articulated in 2006 in “The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy”, which was published in Foreign Affairs by the Council on Foreign Relations.[xiii] By
concluding that the Russians and Chinese would be unable to retaliate, or if some small part of their forces remained, would not risk a second
US attack by retaliating, the article invites nuclear war.
Colonel Valery Yarynich (who was in charge of security of the Soviet/Russian nuclear command and control systems for 7 years) asked me to
help him write a rebuttal, which was titled “Nuclear Primacy is a Fallacy”.[xiv] Colonel Yarynich, who was on the Soviet General Staff
and did war planning for the USSR, concluded that the “Primacy” article used faulty methodology and erroneous assumptions, thus invalidating
its conclusions. My contribution lay in my knowledge of the recently published (in 2006) studies, which predicted even
a “successful”
nuclear first-strike, which destroyed 100% of the opposing sides nuclear weapons, would cause the
citizens of the side that “won” the nuclear war to perish from nuclear famine, just as would the rest of
humanity .
Although the nuclear primacy article created quite a backlash in Russia, leading to a public speech by the Russian Foreign Minister, the story
was essentially not covered in the US press. We were unable to get our rebuttal published by US media. The question remains as to whether
the US nuclear primacy asserted in the article has been accepted as a fact by the US political and military establishment. Such acceptance would
explain the recklessness of US policy toward Russia and China.
Thus we find ourselves in a situation in which those who are in charge of our nuclear arsenal seem not to understand that they can end human
history if they choose to push the button. Most of the American public also remains completely unaware of this deadly threat. The uninformed
are leading the uninformed toward the abyss of extinction.
US public schools have not taught students about nuclear weapons for more than 20 years. The last time nuclear war was discussed or debated
in a US Presidential election was sometime in the last century. Thus, most people do not know that a single strategic nuclear weapon can easily
ignite a massive firestorm over 100 square miles, and that the US and Russia each have many thousands of these weapons ready for immediate
use.
Meanwhile, neoconservative ideology has kept the US at war during the entire 21st century. It has led to the expansion of US/NATO forces to
the very borders of Russia, a huge mistake that has consequently revived the Cold War. A hallmark of neconservatism is that America is the
“indispensable nation”, as evidenced by the neoconservative belief in “American exceptionalism”, which essentially asserts that Americans are
superior to all other peoples, that American interests and values should reign supreme in the world.
At his West Point speech on May 28, President Obama said, “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being.” Obama stated
his bottom line is that “America must always lead on the world stage,” and “the backbone of that leadership always will be the military.”
American exceptionalism based on might, not diplomacy, on hard power, not soft, is precisely the hubris and arrogance that could lead to the
termination of human life. Washington’s determination to prevent the rise of Russia and China, as set out in the Brzezinski and Wolfowitz
doctrines, is a recipe for nuclear war.
The need is dire for the president of the US, Russia, or China to state in a highly public forum that the existence of nuclear
creates the possibility of their use and that their use in war would likely mean
winners, the weapons should be banned and destroyed before they destroy all of us.
weapons
human extinction . As nuclear war has no
Great Power Draw In !
Latin American Conflicts escalate and Draw in Great Powers
James Rochlin 94 Professor of Political Science at Okanagan University College, Dcember
1994, “Discovering the Americas: the evolution of Canadian foreign policy towards Latin
America,” p. 130-131, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0008423900022460
While there were economic motivations for Canadian policy in Central America, security considerations
were perhaps more important. Canada possessed an interest in promoting stability in the face of a
potential decline of U.S. hegemony in the Americas. Perceptions of declining U.S. influence in the region
– which had some credibility in 1979-1984 due to the wildly inequitable divisions of wealth in some U.S.
client states in Latin America, in addition to political repression, under-development, mounting external
debt, anti-American sentiment produced by decades of subjugation to U.S. strategic and economic
interests, and so on – were linked to the prospect of explosive events occurring in the hemisphere.
Hence, the Central American imbroglio was viewed as a fuse which could ignite a cataclysmic process
throughout the region. Analysts at the time worried that in a worst-case scenario, instability created by
a regional war, beginning in Central America and spreading elsewhere in Latin America, might preoccupy
Washington to the extent that the United States would be unable to perform adequately its important
hegemonic role in the international arena – a concern expressed by the director of research for Canada’s
Standing Committee Report on Central America. It was feared that such a predicament could generate
increased global instability and perhaps even a hegemonic war. This is one of the motivations which led
Canada to become involved in efforts at regional conflict resolution, such as Contadora, as will be
discussed in the next chapter.
EXT Narcoterror
Cartels will get drones-Private manufacturing and theft
W Alejandro Sanchez 14, Senior Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs,
1/12/2014, “COHA Report: Drones in Latin America”, Council on Hemispheric Affairs,
http://www.coha.org/coha-report-drones-in-latin-america/
In an October 2013 interview with The Voice of Russia – America, COHA discussed the possibility of how
criminal entities could use drone technology in the near future. Certainly, drug cartels that have shown
to be unsurprisingly adaptive to new technologies: perhaps the best example comparison are the narcosubs: crudely-built submarines that are only able to partially submerge and can transport a small crew
but also high amounts of illegal narcotics (i.e. cocaine) from South America to the north. For example, in
November 2013, Colombian security forces seized a narco-sub in the Narino department, which had the
capacity of ferrying up to eight tons of cocaine. The submarine had space for four operators as well as
an air conditioning system, a diesel engine, radar and a GPS system.[40]
There is little doubt that criminal or guerrilla groups can find a use for drones. Criminal entities,
particularly drug cartels, have the willingness to try new technologies and, most importantly, the
monetary funds to acquire them. Moreover, basic versions of drones are already being built by private
industries, such as 3D Robotics, which has a manufacturing plant in Tijuana, Mexico.[41]
Ties with Hezbollah make Narcoterror extremely likely
Terence Rosenthal 13, Writer for Center for Security Policy, 7/10/2013, “Los Zetas and
Hezbollah, a Deadly Alliance of Terror and Vice”, Center for Security Policy,
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2013/07/10/los-zetas-and-hezbollah-a-deadlyalliance-of-terror-and-vice/
Former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Roger Noriega believes that an
attack on U.S. personnel installations by Hezbollah is possible. It is known that they have expanded from
their operations in Paraguay, Brazil and Argentina, and are gaining ground in Central America and
Mexico. The relationship between Hezbollah and Los Zetas has almost touched down on American soil.
Los Zetas was to be paid to bomb the Israeli Embassy in Washington, and the Saudi and Israeli embassy
in Argentina. Why is the combination of well-connected drug dealers, terrorist organizations like
Hezbollah, and the Zetas such a dangerous combination? It is a money laundering operation that has the
power to supersede local government, weaken communities, and make people subject to criminal
tyranny. It is highly possible that this threat could become a reality in the United States. In 2011, Iran’s
Quds forces attempted an assassination against the Saudi Ambassador to the United States enlisting the
use of the Los Zetas cartel. Luckily, this plot was thwarted by agents in the United States Drug
Enforcement Agency (DEA).
The Los Zetas Cartel is a deadly crime machine that diversifies in illegal drugs, human trade, money
laundering, and the exchange of illegal weaponry. Many of its members were recruited from police and
armed forces in Mexico. Techniques involving ambushes, defensive positions, and intelligence used by
the military are now applied by Mexico’s criminal syndicates. Los Zetas is prominent in 6 Mexican states,
and actively infringes on government solvency in northeastern Tamaulipas. Many view the Mexican
state of Guerrero as one where the power of Los Zetas narco-criminals is equal to that of the local
authorities. Los Zetas has even siphoned $1billion dollars in fuels from state-run oil producer, Pemex
through their pipelines. In Tamaulipas, five people were killed as Los Zetas sought to take control of a
Pemex well. Some of Los Zetas’ allies are among the most powerful cartels in the world, including
Beltrán-Leyva, the Juarez and Tijuana cartels, Bolivian drug clans, and ’Ndrangheta.
It is understandable why the Mexican government would be apprehensive about marginalizing the
power of Mexican drug cartels. They have seen many of their people die as a result of the war against
the cartels. The Mexican economy also benefits greatly from the high profit margins of illicit drugs and
other forms of illegal contraband. Latin America is home to one of the largest underground economies
in the world. 600,000-800,000 people are smuggled through international borders every year,
generating $16 billion each year in human trafficking and sexual exploitation. These staggering financial
statistics have won over many law officers in Mexico who initially fought against the cartels.
The lure of criminal activity and the drug trade, coupled with the presence of Hezbollah and Iranian
Quds forces in neighboring Mexico present the United States with a major threat at its borders. Dr.
Matthew Levitt, senior fellow and director of terrorism studies at The Washington Institute for Near East
Policy, as reported in CNS News.com in 2010 stated that Hezbollah’s ties to Latin American drug
smugglers poses a “significant” threat for U.S. national security and “In the event the nuclear
confrontation with Iran gets worse rather than better, having a militant organization like Hezbollah on,
and even within our border- it certainly does pose a threat”. The obvious question is whether or not the
United States is taking the necessary precautions to counter what is likely to become an even larger
problem if left undeterred
A2 Armed Drone Alt Cause
Surveillance drones are on the rise in Latin America-Makes US Leadership the only
way to solve previous pressures
Katitza Rodriguez 15, International Rights Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation,
1/12/2015, “Drone and CCTVs for Everyone: Surveillance Tech Expands Across Latin
America”, Electronic Frontier Foundation,
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/drone-and-cctvs-everyone-surveillance-techexpands-across-latin-america
Last year, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights took issue with the deployment of drones in
fourteen countries in the Americas without a clear legal framework to regulate their increasing use. We
couldn’t agree more. Privacy law has not kept up with the rapid pace of drone technology, giving many
states free reign to use drones to spy on citizens without court order or legal process.
Colombia acquired city surveillance drones in 2013. During the end of the year 2014 holiday, the traffic
police triumphantly announced the used of surveillance drones to monitor the main roads. They have
also being used to monitor concerts in Cali. Moreover, according to news report, Colombian contractor
for security forces (Emerging Technologies Corporation), has reached an agreement with a US supplier
that will allow them to become the "exclusive distributor" of drones to the Colombian government, the
armed forces, and the national police. In the same spirit, the Argentinean army is developing its own
drone technology for aerial surveillance. The drones of the Municipality of Tigre, Argentina, have
cameras that capture and transmit high definition images in real time to the police’s command centers.
In the Argentine city of San Luis, local government has implemented four drones to add to the 196 fixed
video surveillance cameras.
It is Brazil, however, that has been the most enthusiastic adopter of drone technology. Brazil used
drones throughout the 2013 Confederations Cup and the 2014 World Cup. Rio also invested in a
surveillance center for monitoring the city with cameras, location tracking and audio surveillance
capabilities. The center monitors 3,000 cameras placed throughout the 12 venue cities. According to
Wired, the country has spent a total of $900 million on bolstering security approximately and has
reportedly even invested in facial-recognition camera glasses to be worn by police.
The Mexican government is using drones with cameras that provide real-time images to monitor the
Mexican border. (In a recent report published last week, the United States government said that drones
that are used along the border by US Customs and Border Protection had only helped with very few
arrests of people crossing the border illegally.) Paraguay just got their first two surveillance drones.
But drones are not the only surveillance technologies on the rise. Closed-circuit television (CCTV)
cameras are too. In Uruguay, a government program led by the Ministry of the Interior has installed
more than 300 cameras in the downtown area of Montevideo. (They will shortly be joined by a fleet of
drones that fly over the Old City to monitor the streets.) In Mexico City, the government created an
emergency response center, initially consisting of more than 8,000 surveillance cameras on public roads
connected by a fiber optic network. As of 2013, they had approximately 10,956 cameras.
In Colombia since 1996, the Municipality of Medellín have implemented a national video-surveillance
system. By 2010, they had a total of 222 analog cameras located at strategic locations in the city. In
recent years, the Municipality of Medellín has invested in IP video surveillance systems. The city has 533
cameras helping them now covered almost 100% of the center of Medellin. In addition, 129 more
cameras are now used to monitor public spaces in the metro system. But that’s not all. The video
surveillance system is complemented by an automatic vehicle location system. This year, the city of
Bogota is also planning to install modern system of 1700 surveillance cameras with facial recognition
software. These cameras perform biometric facial recognition in seconds and can quickly crossreference their information with police databases. The system will cost over 3 million US dollars, and will
enable authorities to receive alerts when facial detection recognizes individuals with criminal records.
Colombia, Peru, Mexico, Paraguay, Brazil, and other Central American countries have experienced
multiple internal wars: civil wars, as well as the war against terrorism and the war against drug
trafficking. These wars have bred a rapid expansion of surveillance architecture, encouraged by
partners like the United States. In addition, in many countries civilians have embraced more security
measures under the misconception that more intrusive measures will naturally lead to greater security.
Solvency
EXT Solvency
Plan solves transparency and ensures enforcement-FAA licensing, private suits, and
civil legal action
Alissa Dolan 13, Legislative Attorney in the American Law Division of the Congressional
Research Service, 4/4/2013, “Integration of Drones into Domestic Airspace: Selected
Legal Issues”, Congressional Research Service,
https://nppa.org/sites/default/files/Integration%20of%20Drones%20into%20Domestic
%20Airspace%2004-04-13.pdf
In the 113th Congress, Representative Ed Markey introduced the Drone Aircraft Privacy and
Transparency Act of 2013 (H.R. 1262).166 This bill would amend FMRA to create a comprehensive
scheme to regulate the private use of drones, including data collection requirements and enforcement
mechanisms. First, this bill would require the Secretary of Transportation, with input from the Secretary
of Commerce, the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, and the Chief Privacy Officer of the
Department of Homeland Security, to study any potential threats to privacy protections posed by the
introduction of drones in the national airspace. Next, the bill would prohibit the FAA from issuing a
license to operate a drone unless the application for such use included a “data collection statement.”
This statement would require the following items: a list of individuals who would have the authority to
operate the drone; the location in which the drone will be used; the maximum period it will be used;
and whether the drone would be collecting information about individuals. If the drone will be used to
collect personal information, the statement must include the circumstances in which such information
will be used; the kinds of information collected and the conclusions drawn from it; the type of data
minimization procedures to be employed; whether the information will be sold, and if so, under what
circumstances; how long the information would be stored; and procedures for destroying irrelevant
data. The statement must also include information about the possible impact on privacy protections
posed by the operation under that license and steps to be taken to mitigate this impact. Additionally,
the statement must include the contact information of the drone operator; a process for determining
what information has been collected about an individual; and a process for challenging the accuracy of
such data. Finally, the FAA would be required to post the data collection statement on the Internet.
H.R. 1262 includes several enforcement mechanisms. First, the FAA may revoke any license of a user
that does not comply with these requirements. The Federal Trade Commission would have the primary
authority to enforce the data collection requirements just stated. Additionally, the Attorney General of
each state, or an official or agency of a state, is empowered to file a civil suit if there is reason to believe
that the privacy interests of residents of that state have been threatened or adversely affected. H.R.
1262 would also create a private right of action for a person injured by a violation of this legislation.
Now Key
Regulation now is key-Plan is necessary to solve increasing public backlash
Hillary Farber 14, Associate Professor of Law, University of Massachusetts School of
Law, 1/1/2014, “EYES IN THE SKY: CONSTITUTIONAL AND REGULATORY APPROACHES TO
DOMESTIC DRONE DEPLOYMENT”, Syracuse Law Review, 64 Syracuse L. Rev. 1,
http://scholarship.law.umassd.edu/fac_pubs/55/
Regulation is imperative if there is any promise of curtailing the slow demise of a citizen's right to
privacy in the face of these powerful, aerial observers. In light of inadequate Fourth Amendment
protections, privacy violations could occur without redress if Congress does not act soon. Congressional
regulation in the face of technological advancement is not without precedent. Congress has
preemptively acted to address privacy issues in response to government surveillance of communication
in transit (wiretapping), n162 communications in storage such as emails, n163 bank records, n164 and
health records. n165 As one scholar commented, "with the Electronic Communication Privacy Act of
1986, Congress was protecting people's emails before most people knew what email was". n166
Possibly the most comprehensive and promising piece of legislation in Congress is the Drone Aircraft
Privacy and Transparency [*29] Act, introduced in March 2013 by Senator Edward Markey. n167 The
bill proposes strict guidelines for the collection and retention of information gathered by drones. The
legislation would prohibit the FAA from issuing drones licenses unless the application includes a data
collection statement disclosing who will operate the drone, where the drone will be flown, the flight
path, the type of data to be collected, how the data will be used, how long the data will be retained, and
whether information will be shared with third parties. n168 Moreover, all this information will be
available in a publicly searchable database, along with disclosures of any data security breaches suffered
by a licensee and the times and locations of all drone flights. n169 The act further requires law
enforcement agencies to file a data minimization statement that explains how the agency will minimize
the collection and retention of data unrelated to the criminal investigation. n170 This adds a layer of
transparency to the certification process, which has been veiled in a shroud of secrecy. It also elevates
the privacy concerns beyond those of ordinary citizens to a federal regulatory agency. Privacy rights
groups support this legislation as a significant step toward safeguarding privacy threatened by pervasive
aerial surveillance. n171 At present, law enforcement agencies are deploying drones without any
established privacy guidelines in place, and information pertaining to drone data has been virtually
impossible to obtain despite Freedom of Information Act lawsuits filed by privacy rights groups. n172
DMS Solve
Data Minimization Statements prevent collection of superfluous private information
Veronica McKnight 15, J.D., California Western School of Law, Spring 2015, “Drone
Technology and the Fourth Amendment: Aerial Surveillance Precedent and Kyllo Do Not
Account for Current Technology and Privacy Concerns”, California Western Law Review,
51 Cal. W. L. Rev. 263, Lexis
Another unsuccessful bill, the Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act of 2013 (H.R. 1262), would
have amended the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 to create regulations for governmental
use of drones. n64 This bill would have required all drone [*273] applications for drone usage to
include a "data collection statement," listing individuals allowed to operate the drone, the drone's
location, the maximum period of time the drone would be used, and whether the drone would gather
information about citizens. n65 If an agency intended to use the drone for monitoring citizens, then the
statement would have also included: The circumstances in which such information will be used, the
kinds of information collected and the conclusions drawn from it, the type of data minimization
procedures to be employed, whether the information will be sold, and if so, under what circumstances,
how long the information would be stored, and procedures for destroying irrelevant data. n66 The bill
would have also required that law enforcement create policies for information gathered from drones
and file a data minimization statement explaining the policies to: minimize the collection of information
and data unrelated to the investigation of a crime under a warrant, require the destruction of data that
is no longer relevant to the investigation of a crime, establish procedures for the method of such
destruction, and establish oversight and audit procedures to ensure the agency operates a UAS in
accordance with the data collection statement filed with the FAA.
Warrants Key
Warrant Codification and limits on duration of usage are key to solve rampant drone
usage
Victoria San Pedro 14, Senior Associate, Stetson Law Review, Spring 2014, “DRONE
LEGISLATION: KEEPING AN EYE ON LAW ENFORCEMENT'S LATEST SURVEILLANCE
TECHNOLOGY”, Stetson Law Review, 43 Stetson L. Rev. 679, Lexis
Because of the relative low cost of drone surveillance in comparison to other forms of surveillance,
there is a danger that drone surveillance will be rampant. n258 As a result, legislation must be directed
at limiting law enforcement's ability to use drones to conduct surveillance without a warrant. However,
as evidenced by the FBI's position on drone surveillance, because law enforcement agencies argue that
aerial surveillance does not constitute a search, these agencies also believe that there is no need for a
warrant. n259 Therefore, codifying a warrant requirement will ensure that law enforcement cannot
conduct drone surveillance without first obtaining a warrant from a neutral and detached magistrate.
n260
[*715] Similarly, the danger posed by the inexpensive nature of drone surveillance can be addressed by
limiting the duration of that surveillance. There are inherent dangers associated with long-term
monitoring. n261 Most significantly, long-term sur-veillance reveals patterns, habits, and preferences of
an individ-ual's life in a way that other forms of surveillance do not. n262 Long-term surveillance allows
the government to learn not only with whom one associates and when one goes to work and comes
home, but also which is one's favorite pizza delivery company. n263 While a police stakeout can also
similarly garner this type of information, a drone gathers this type of information at a fraction of the
cost, which gives law enforcement unbridled access to one's life. n264 Drones also permit surveillance of
large numbers of people because drones are less directly constrained by things like staffing limits in the
law enforcement agencies. n265 While it is true that some of this information can also be obtained via
other forms of low-cost surveillance such as wiretapping, n266 wiretapping is heav-ily regulated at both
the state and federal level. n267 Therefore, some of the measures and regulations associated with
wiretapping laws should be implemented in drone legislation.
Fed Key
Federal Action on drones is the most effective-Sectoral privacy laws, momentum from
FAA reform, and extensive deliberation
Robert Gruber 15, Litigation associate at Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 4/24/2015,
“COMMERCIAL DRONES AND PRIVACY: CAN WE TRUST STATES WITH "DRONE
FEDERALISM"?”, Richmond Journal of Law & Technology, 21 Rich. J.L. & Tech. 14, Lexis
Even if privacy is traditionally within the states' domain, Congress also has a pedigree of privacy laws.
Existing federal privacy laws are sectoral, carving out a particular privacy issue; several answer questions
about the relationship between privacy and technology. For example, federal laws address telephone
and electronic communications, n225 standards for the electronic exchange of health care information,
n226 and the privacy of children's personal information online. n227 An act outlining baseline privacy
policies for commercial UAS would not be out of place on such a list. n228
P81 In addition, Congress' passing of the FMRA could suggest a greater appreciation for the social and
economic benefits of commercial UAV operations than many states currently have. The FMRA
predicated the FAA's continuing funding on efforts to integrate drones into the national airspace. n229
The impetus is there for bipartisan support of a drone-friendly Act: having invested in the UAS industry's
economic future, it is unlikely Congress would enjoy seeing the market flounder on state laws (once the
FAA lives up to its part of the bargain).
P82 Finally, that federal legislation is more costly and often requires greater deliberation may in fact
translate into better results than those currently being achieved by the states. While the extent of the
First Amendment right to record is far from clear, Congress could establish baseline privacy-related rules
that would prevent an act from being categorically stricken. And some privacy interests can be
vindicated without implicating the First Amendment at all, as by enacting transparency requirements.
Fed -> States
Federal privacy law trickles down to the states—empirically proven
Hannah Bergman 09, Legal fellow for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Spring 2009,
Out of sight, out of bounds: Twenty years after the Reporters Committee case, the government’s ability
to bar access to “practically obscure” documents has disturbing implications,” The News Media & The
Law, page 11, http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-andlaw-spring-2009/out-sight-out-bounds
Twenty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the seminal decision interpreting the federal
Freedom of Information Act’s privacy exemptions. Many journalists would agree it is not an anniversary worth celebrating.
Since the case, brought by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, was decided in March 1989, the Court’s
reasoning has trickled down to state courts in unforeseen and unwelcome ways.
The notorious “Reporters Committee” decision is now uniformly used to restrict access to what in other settings is thought of as public
information &emdash; all in the guise of government protecting individual privacy interests.
It also has been used as precedent in state courts and in judicial debates over whether to put state court
records online.
The case began with a 1978 FOIA request by the Reporters Committee and CBS reporter Robert Schakne to the FBI for the rap sheets of four
brothers accused by a Pennsylvania law enforcement agency of having ties to organized crime.
William, Phillip, Samuel and Charles Medico then jointly ran an operation known as Medico Industries. They had drawn the interest of Schakne
and the Pennsylvania Crime Commission for running what the Supreme Court would later call “a legitimate business dominated by organized
crime figures.”
The Pennsylvania authorities thought the company had ties to a “corrupt Congressman” through whom it had won defense contracts, according
to a court opinion.
Separately, as the Medico brothers were falling under police suspicion, the FBI had started to maintain compilations of criminal records on
individuals in computerized form. The new medium offered easy access to public arrest and conviction information that otherwise would have
required visits to multiple county courthouses and sheriff’s offices.
Schakne and the Reporters Committee sought access to the Medico brothers’ sheets.
At first only William’s was provided because he had died &emdash; presumably his privacy interests were no longer at issue. The rest were
withheld under a FOIA exemption protecting personal privacy. In 1979, the requesters filed a FOIA lawsuit in federal court in Washington over
the others. The suit would end up 10 years later in the Supreme Court as Department of Justice v. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the
Press.
As the litigation plodded along toward that end, Phillip and Samuel Medico also died. The FBI released their files. But the bureau steadfastly
refused access to the rap sheet of the last living brother, Charles.
The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the FBI’s decision, saying the rap sheets weren’t subject to disclosure under FOIA: Even though the
information was available elsewhere, the court held, it was still “practically obscure.”
Practical obscurity, in the Court’s reasoning, refers to the idea that even though some information may be public, such as police blotters or
arrest records, the information is obscure because it is not easily accessible.
Beyond that, the court said, the rap sheets didn’t provide insight into what the government was up to &emdash; which, it said, was the “core
purpose” of FOIA. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the unanimous opinion for the court.
Stevens looked to the history of the Privacy Act, which provided a close approximation of Congress’s position on individual privacy and
governmental data collection, in forming the basis of his analysis.
“Although the Privacy Act contains a variety of exceptions … Congress’ basic policy concern regarding the implications of computerized data
banks for personal privacy is certainly relevant in our consideration of the privacy interest affected by dissemination of rap sheets from the FBI
computer,” Stevens wrote.
The crux of the issue was how best to balance the interests in public disclosure of the information against any privacy interest Medico had. It
was the first time the Supreme Court weighed in on this tension.
John Daly, who worked on the case on behalf of the government while an attorney at the Justice Department, said from the start all the judges
in the lower court and at the Supreme Court were worried about a balancing of interests that had no clear standards. Was it the public’s
interest in disclosure that should be considered, and how should the value of receiving the documents be measured against a person’s interest
in keeping the data private?
The idea that the public interest in disclosure had to be considered in terms of the core purpose of FOIA &emdash; to find out what the
government is up to &emdash; came from the need to establish standards for balancing, Daly said. “There’s not much here in terms of a public
interest, and there is a privacy interest,” Daly said at a recent conference at American University regarding the anniversary of the Reporters
Committee case.
Daly’s view ultimately won the Supreme Court over when the opinion came down. “One is always surprised, as a litigator, to get everything you
asked for, but that’s pretty much what we got” in the first section of the opinion alone, Daly said. From there, it only got better for the
government’s side &emdash; the opinion went so far as to categorically exempt rap sheets from disclosure under FOIA.
For their part, open-government advocates would back up to the premise of the court’s balancing and argue that arrest and conviction do in
fact illuminate what “government is up to.”
Arrests that don’t lead to prosecution illuminate how the government decides whether to take or drop cases. Arrests without convictions may
shed light on the demographics of people who wind up behind bars.
It’s only in the context of private information that this matters. For FOIA requests that don’t implicate third parties with privacy rights, the
requester doesn’t have to show the information will shed light on “what government is up to.”
But today, the balancing test that the Supreme Court laid out has affected access to those so-called private records in unforeseen ways.
Fallout from the decision Tonda Rush, now the president of American PressWorks, worked at the Reporters Committee in the 1980s when
litigation over the Medico records was just getting started. She said the Supreme Court’s decision in the Reporters Committee case burdens
people seeking documents with an unusual responsibility for FOIA requests: they must prove something in order to succeed.
To obtain public records that involve a privacy interest &emdash; generally anything that names a living person other than the requester
&emdash; a requester has to show the documents will somehow reveal some aspect of what government is up to. But it’s difficult to have
enough evidence to do that without actually having the documents one is seeking, as the Associated Press learned when seeking access to John
Walker Lindh’s clemency petition last year. The AP’s request was denied, and it later lost a FOIA suit for access to the petition because the
government said it was protecting Lindh’s privacy interests.
The practical obscurity prong of the Reporters Committee decision has also had far-reaching effects. The court said Charles Medico had a
privacy interest in maintaining the practical obscurity of the compilation of information on his rap sheet &emdash; even though the information
about the individual incidents on the rap sheet was public at the county level.
In the decisions interpreting and applying the Reporters Committee standard, there is an underlying theme that if a FOIA request is necessary
to access previously public information, that information must now be considered practically obscure and, as such, cannot be released.
For example, in Isley v. Executive Office for the U.S. Attorneys, the requester sought access to information he had once, several years earlier,
obtained through a FOIA request. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. denied his request on the grounds the information had become
practically obscure.
“As the public domain doctrine stands today, a party can only gain access to information withheld by the government under a FOIA exemption
if it can ‘point to “specific” information identical to that being withheld’ that is publicly available,” the D.C. Circuit said.
It then concluded, “As far as the documents received from the prior FOIA request are concerned, appellant has not demonstrated that those
documents continue to be ‘freely available’ in any ‘permanent public record.’ Presumably they are not since appellant is invoking FOIA to obtain
them. But, more importantly, appellant has not shown that the documents from the 1986 FOIA request have ever been replicated in public
documents or in any other ‘permanent public record’ which would indicate that they are freely available.”
The practical obscurity argument has also reared its head in debates about whether to put court records online in various states.
For example, Utah’s Judicial Council in 2004 declared: “The most compelling argument against protecting aggregate compilations of otherwise
public records is the obvious one: the individual records are public. This argument, while persuasive at first blush, ignores the very real benefits
of ‘practical obscurity’ that exist when certain public information is available only in discrete, individual units, be they paper or electronic.
Practical obscurity may well turn out to be nothing more than a quaint, Luddite notion, but, as things stand today, practical obscurity helps
maintain a delicate balance between public access to court records and at least minimal personal privacy.”
The council went on to recommend online access, but the argument over practical obscurity still colored the debate over access.
Likewise, state courts in interpreting their own open records laws have applied the Supreme Court’s
reasoning from Reporters Committee. In a 2008 New York case, Bursac v. Suozzi, a state trial court found
that a county’s efforts to publicize drunken driving arrests in press releases violated the arrestees’ due
process rights, despite the state’s freedom of information laws that make the data public. The New York court
relied on the protection afforded Medico’s rap sheet in the federal Reporters Committee case.
States are responding now to federal drone legislation
Fox News 13, May 19, 2013, “Lawmakers eye regulating domestic surveillance drones,”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/19/congress-eyes-regulating-drones/
Amid growing concern over the use of drones by police and government officials for surveillance, a
bipartisan group of lawmakers is pushing to limit the use of unmanned surveillance "eyes in the sky"
aircraft.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., along with Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., and Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, is sponsoring legislation that would codify
due process protections for Americans in cases involving drones and make flying armed drones in the U.S. sky illegal.
Sensenbrenner believes it is necessary to develop new standards to address the privacy issues
associated with use of drones — which can be as small as a bird and as large as a plane.
"Every advancement in crime fighting technology, from wiretaps to DNA, has resulted in courts carving
out the Constitutional limits within which the police operate," Sensenbrenner said at a House Judiciary subcommittee
hearing Friday on the issues surrounding drones.
The subcommittee heard from experts who were divided on what actions Congress should take to address the new technology. But the four
witnesses all agreed that drones raised new, often unprecedented questions about domestic surveillance.
"Current law has yet to catch up to this new technology," said Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the
American Civil Liberties Union.
Calabrese said he supported immediate regulation of the drone industry and said his biggest concern was the overuse of drones by police and
government officials for surveillance. But Calabrese said he doesn't want to hinder the growth of drones with the power to do good, including
helping find missing persons, assisting firefighters and addressing other emergencies.
Tracey Maclin, a professor with the Boston University School of Law, said the issues raised by drones haven't been addressed by courts before
because the technology goes beyond what humans had been capable of through aerial surveillance.
Past court rulings, "were premised on naked-eye observations — simple visual observations from a
public place," he said.
Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-La., said he wanted to know when drone technology will advance to the point
where Congress will have to act on the issue. He said he was concerned about the effect on privacy.
"At what point do you think it's going to get to a point where we have to say what a reasonable expectation of privacy is?" Richmond said.
Republicans expressed similar concerns.
"It seems to me that Congress needs to set the standard, rather than wait and let the courts set the standard," Poe said.
"Technology is great — as long as it's used the right and proper way," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said at Friday's hearing.
Some experts urged caution.
Gregory McNeal, an associate law professor at Pepperdine University, said writing laws to cover drones
will be difficult because the technology continues to improve and Congress could think it's addressing
key issues, only to have new ones emerge.
He compared drones to the privacy concerns raised by development of the Internet in the 1990s.
Regulating then, he said, could have stymied the rapid growth of the Internet and wouldn't have
addressed today's Internet privacy issues.
If Congress feels compelled to act, McNeal said, it should think in terms broader than a "drone policy" and set standards for surveillance or
realistic expectations of privacy. "A technology-centered approach to privacy is the wrong approach," he said.
But the ACLU's Calabrese said Congress should work quickly.
"This can't be adequately addressed by existing law," he said. "Manned aircraft are expensive to purchase. Drones' low cost and flexibility erode
that natural limit. They can appear in windows, all for much less than the cost of a plane or a helicopter."
A future with domestic drones may be inevitable. While civilian drone use is currently limited to
government agencies and some public universities, a law passed by Congress last year requires the
Federal Aviation Administration to allow widespread drone flights in the U.S. by 2015. According to FAA
estimates, as many as 7,500 civilian drones could be in use within five years.
Congress isn't alone in seeking to address the issues: Since January, drone-related legislation has been
introduced in more than 30 states, largely in response to privacy concerns.
US drone use forces a fundamental rethinking of privacy law on all levels
M. Ryan Calo 11, Director for Privacy and Robotics, Center for Internet & Society, December 12, 2011,
“The Drone as Privacy Catalyst,” Stanford Law Review 64 Stan. L. Rev. Online 29,
http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/drone-privacy-catalyst
Recent shifts in technology and attendant changes to business practices have not led to similar shifts in privacy law, at least not on the order of
1890. Computers, the Internet, RFID, GPS, biometrics, facial recognition—none of these developments has created the same sea change in
privacy thinking. One might reasonably wonder whether we will ever have another Warren and Brandeis moment, whether any technology will
dramatize the need to rethink the very nature of privacy law.
One good candidate is the drone. In routine use by today’s military, these unmanned aircraft systems
threaten to perfect the art of surveillance. Drones are capable of finding or following a specific person.
They can fly patterns in search of suspicious activities or hover over a location in wait. Some are as small
as birds or insects, others as big as blimps. In addition to high-resolution cameras and microphones,
drones can be equipped with thermal imaging and the capacity to intercept wireless communications.
That drones will see widespread domestic use seems inevitable. They represent an efficient and cost-effective alternative to helicopters and
airplanes. Police, firefighters, and geologists will—and do—use drones for surveillance and research. But drones will not be limited to
government or scientific uses. The private sector has incentives to use drones as well. The media, in particular, could make widespread use of
drones to cover unfolding police activity or traffic stories. Imagine what drones would do for the lucrative paparazzi industry, especially coupled
with commercially available facial recognition technology.
You might think drones would already be ubiquitous. There are, however, Federal Aviation Administration restrictions on the use of unmanned
aircraft systems, restrictions that date back several years. Some public agencies have petitioned for waiver. Customs and Border Protection
uses drones to police our borders. Recently the state of Oklahoma asked the FAA for a blanket waiver of eighty miles of airspace. Going
forward, waiver may not be necessary. The FAA faces increasing pressure to relax its restrictions and is considering rulemaking to reexamine
drone use in domestic airspace.[4]
Agency rules impede the use of drones for now; United States privacy law does not. There is very little in
our privacy law that would prohibit the use of drones within our borders. Citizens do not generally enjoy a
reasonable expectation of privacy in public, nor even in the portions of their property visible from a public vantage. In 1986, the Supreme Court
found no search where local police flew over the defendant’s backyard with a private plane.[5] A few years later, the Court admitted evidence
spotted by an officer in a helicopter looking through two missing roof panels in a greenhouse.[6] Neither the Constitution nor common law
appears to prohibit police or the media from routinely operating surveillance drones in urban and other environments.[7]
If anything, observations by drones may occasion less scrutiny than manned aerial vehicles. Several
prominent cases, and a significant body of scholarship, reflect the view that no privacy violation has
occurred unless and until a human observes a person, object, or attribute.[8] Just as a dog might sniff packages and
alert an officer only in the presence of contraband, so might a drone scan for various chemicals or heat signatures and alert an officer only upon
spotting the telltale signs of drug production.[9]
In short, drones like those in widespread military use today will tomorrow be used by police, scientists,
newspapers, hobbyists, and others here at home. And privacy law will not have much to say about it.
Privacy advocates will. As with previous emerging technologies, advocates will argue that drones threaten our dwindling individual and
collective privacy. But unlike the debates of recent decades, I think these arguments will gain serious traction among courts, regulators, and the
general public.
I have in mind the effect on citizens of drones flying around United States cities. These machines are disquieting. Virtually any robot can
engender a certain amount of discomfort, let alone one associated in the mind of the average American with spy operations or targeted killing.
If you will pardon the inevitable reference to 1984, George Orwell specifically describes small flying devices that roam neighborhoods and peer
into windows. Yet one need not travel to Orwell’s Oceania—or the offices of our own Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency—to
encounter one of these machines. You could travel to one of several counties where American police officers are presently putting this
technology through its paces.
The parallels to The Right to Privacy are also acute. Once journalists needed to convince high society to pose for a photograph. New
technologies made it possible for a journalist automatically to “snap” a picture, which in turn led to salacious news coverage. Americans in 1890
could just picture that tweedy journalist in the bushes of a posh wedding, hear the slap of the newspaper the next day, and see the mortified
look of the bridal party in the cover art. Today’s police have to follow hunches, cultivate informants, subpoena ATM camera footage; journalists
must ghost about the restaurant or party of the moment. Tomorrow’s police and journalists might sit in an office or vehicle as their metal
agents methodically search for interesting behavior to record and relay. Americans can visualize and experience this activity as a physical
violation of their privacy.
There are ways that drones might be introduced without this effect. Previous military technology has found its way into domestic use through
an acclimation process: it is used in large events requiring heightened security, for instance, and then simply left in place.[10] We could delay
public awareness of drones by limiting use to those that are capable of observing the ground without detection. But these efforts would take a
knowing, coordinated effort by the government. The more likely scenario, as suggested by Oklahoma’s plan, is one in which FAA restrictions
relax and private and public drones quickly fill the sky.
Daniel Solove has argued that the proper metaphor for contemporary privacy violations is not the Big Brother of Orwell’s 1984, but the
inscrutable courts of Franz Kafka’s The Trial.[11] I agree, and believe that the lack of a coherent mental model of privacy harm helps account for
the lag between the advancement of technology and privacy law. There is no story, no vivid and specific instance of a paradigmatic privacy
violation in a digital universe, upon which citizens and lawmakers can premise their concern.
Drones and other robots have the potential to restore that mental model. They represent the cold,
technological embodiment of observation. Unlike, say, NSA network surveillance or commercial data
brokerage, government or industry surveillance of the populace with drones would be visible and highly
salient. People would feel observed, regardless of how or whether the information was actually used.
The resulting backlash could force us to reexamine not merely the use of drones to observe, but the
doctrines that today permit this use.
Congress Key
Legislative Action of the plan is necessary and solves drone privacy violations
Michael Sheehan 13, J.D, Temple University Beasley School of Law, Winter 2013, “U.S.
Citizens' Fourth Amendment Rights & Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: An Appeal for BrightLine Legislative Action”, Temple Journal of Science, Technology & Environmental Law, 32
Temp. J. Sci. Tech. & Envtl. L. 255, Lexis
The most sensible and realistic approach is for Congress to strike a balance between these drastically
different proposals by setting clear guidelines for public law enforcement agencies, the courts and
citizens. In order to maintain Fourth Amendment protections for US citizens, the federal legislation must
require that any public agency seeking to use UAVs for surveillance of a person's home or curtilage first
obtain a search warrant based on evidence which amounts to probable cause in the eyes of a neutral
decision maker. n366 As proposed by the ACLU, public agencies must also be required to disclose the
amount of UAVs operating annually, along with the total number of search warrants issued for their use
in surveillance. Any federal legislation needs to clarify the operating standards for UAVs so that every US
citizen is made aware of what types of surveillance they may be subjected to on their property so as to
avoid future cases in which the courts are forced to examine the full facts of every case before making a
decision.
These essential elements should be formed into a four part resolution for adoption into law by the
federal legislature. First, UAVs should be restricted to areas of public travel and respect the airspace
above a citizen's property in the manner the [*288] Vermont Supreme Court upheld in Bryant. n367
The airspace standard should continue to be at least 500 feet above the citizen's property, as it was held
to be for helicopters in Riley. n368 In addition, the legislation must provide a warrant requirement that
is clear and unambiguously states that a warrant is needed prior to any surveillance using enhanced
technologies by UAVs or the altitude restrictions will have no effect. This rule should follow the ACLU
guidelines: it may only be issued based on the probable cause standard inherent in all search warrants
and must be in the pursuit of a felony. n369 The legislation must provide a UAV policy that is as
transparent as possible within the bounds of national security concerns. n370 There must be outside
and independent review of the amount of warrants issued for UAV surveillance, the technology they
possess, and the amount of constitutional violations they are found to commit within a given time
frame. n371 At the very least, this data must be made public on an annual basis and must also include a
provision that any data acquired not pertinent to the investigation of a felony be destroyed within a set
time frame. n372 Ultimately, legislation of this type will provide the best compromise between public
agencies and the privacy rights of U.S. citizens, without compromising the ability of law enforcement to
operate effectively.
A2 FAA regs ruin commercial
Upcoming FAA regulations are lenient on businesses-Negotiations and Lobbying
pressures
David Morgan 6/17, Writer for Reuters, 6/17/2015, “FAA expects to clear U.S.
commercial drones within a year”, Reuters,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/17/us-usa-drones-congressidUSKBN0OX1P020150617
U.S. commercial drone operations could take flight on a large scale by this time next year, as federal
regulators finalize rules allowing widespread unmanned aerial system use by companies, according to
congressional testimony on Wednesday. A senior Federal Aviation Administration official said the
agency expects to finalize regulations within the next 12 months. Previous forecasts had anticipated
rules by the end of 2016 or the beginning of 2017. "The rule will be in place within a year," FAA Deputy
Administrator Michael Whitaker said in testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Oversight
and Government Reform Committee. "Hopefully before June 17, 2016," he added. Drone advocates
expect unmanned aerial systems to transform a number of industries - from agriculture and energy
production to real estate, news and entertainment, transportation and retailing. At the congressional
hearing, a senior Amazon.com executive told lawmakers that the e-commerce retailer would be ready to
begin delivering packages to customers via drones as soon as federal rules allow. “We’d like to begin
delivering to our customers as soon as it’s approved," Misener said. “We will have (the technology) in
place by the time any regulations are ready. We are working very quickly.” Amazon said its plans, which
call for delivering packages to customers within 30 minutes, would require FAA rules to accommodate
advanced drone technology envisioned by the company's Prime Air operations. FAA regulations
proposed in February are more restrictive - requiring drones to fly during daylight hours only and to
remain within an operator's visual line of sight. FAA officials are in discussions with industry
stakeholders including Amazon and Google Inc about crafting final regulations that could accommodate
more sophisticated drone systems capable of flying autonomously over longer distances. Whitaker said
in written testimony that advanced technology standards are scheduled to be completed in 2016. The
shortened FAA time-horizon for final rules follows a series of agency actions to accommodate
commercial drones. FAA officials have been under pressure from lawmakers and industry lobbyists, who
claim U.S. companies are losing billions in potential savings and revenues while waiting for regulators to
open the way for drones. The agency has also streamlined its process for exempting companies from a
near-ban on commercial drone operations. Whitaker said the FAA is now allowing up to 50 companies a
week to use drones as part of their businesses.
Possible Addons
Disease
Commercial Drones will help prevent disease/pandemic spread, but federal provisions
are a pre-requisite
Hindustan Times 6/25, Indian news journal, “Microsoft's drones to catch mosquitoes and help stop
epidemics”, Hindustan Times, 6/25/15, http://www.hindustantimes.com/science/microsoft-s-drones-tocatch-mosquitoes-and-help-stop-epidemics/article1-1359218.aspx
Microsoft researchers are developing autonomous drones that collect mosquitoes to look for early
signs that potentially harmful viruses are spreading, with the goal of preventing disease outbreaks in
humans. Project Premonition, launched by American tech company Microsoft, is developing a system
that aims to detect infectious disease outbreaks before they become widespread. Project Premonition
could eventually allow health officials to get a jump start on preventing outbreaks of a disease like
dengue fever or avian flu before it occurs, whether or not it is a disease spread by mosquitoes,
researchers said. It will do that by relying on what Ethan Jackson, the Microsoft researcher who is
spearheading the project, calls 'nature's drones' - mosquitoes - to look for early signs that a particular
illness could be on the move. Researchers have developed a new mosquito trap that uses less energy
and relies on lighter weight batteries. It also has a new bait system for luring mosquitoes, a sensor that
automatically sorts the mosquitoes from the other bugs and chemicals that can preserve the
mosquitoes for lab study. It is expected to be significantly cheaper and lighter than current traps. The
team will use drones that can fly the mosquito traps into and out of remote areas in a semiautonomous way, rather than having to be constantly directed from the ground. Microsoft
researchers are beginning to develop ways to make the drones even more autonomous, and they are
also working with US Federal Aviation Administration officials on regulatory requirements, according
to a post on the company's blog. Once the mosquitoes have been collected, the next challenge is to
analyse them for microbes and viruses that could pose a threat to humans. Until recently, the idea of
culling through mosquitoes to try to find diseases that are both known and unknown would have
been wildly impractical, acß∑cording to James Pipas, a professor of molecular biology at the University
of Pittsburgh who also is working on Project Premonition. But now, the latest developments in
molecular biology and genetic sequencing are allowing researchers to cull through samples to look for
multiple viruses, including ones that have not been discovered yet. Researchers can then create cloudbased databases of the information they find, and come up with algorithms for evaluating which of
these viruses could present a threat to humans or animals that humans rely on. Pipas expects that it will
be very difficult to figure out which of the viruses they identify in mosquitoes are a threat, but he also
said such a system holds incredible promise for preventing outbreaks.
Disease causes extinction---zoonotic diseases overwhelm burnout
Arturo Casadevall 12, M.D., Ph.D. in Biochemistry from New York University, Leo and Julia
Forchheimer Professor and Chair of the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Albert Einstein
College of Medicine, former editor of the ASM journal Infection and Immunity, “The future of biological
warfare,” Microbial Biotechnology Volume 5, Issue 5, pages 584–587, September 2012,
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-7915.2012.00340.x/full
In considering the importance of biological warfare as a subject for concern it is worthwhile to review the known existential
threats. At this time this writer can identify at three major existential threats to humanity: (i) large-scale thermonuclear war
followed by a nuclear winter, (ii) a planet killing asteroid impact and (iii) infectious disease . To this trio might be added climate change
making the planet uninhabitable. Of the three existential threats the first is deduced from the inferred cataclysmic effects of nuclear war. For
the second there is geological evidence for the association of asteroid impacts with massive extinction (Alvarez, 1987). As to an existential
threat from microbes recent
decades have provided unequivocal evidence for the ability of certain pathogens
to cause the extinction of entire species. Although infectious disease has traditionally not been
associated with extinction this view has changed by the finding that a single chytrid fungus was
responsible for the extinction of numerous amphibian species (Daszak et al., 1999; Mendelson et al., 2006).
Previously , the view that infectious diseases were not a cause of extinction was predicated on the
notion that many pathogens required their hosts and that some proportion of the host population was
naturally resistant. However, that calculation does not apply to microbes that are acquired directly from
the environment and have no need for a host, such as the majority of fungal pathogens . For those types of
host–microbe interactions it is possible for the pathogen to kill off every last member of a species without
harm to itself, since it would return to its natural habitat upon killing its last host. Hence, from the viewpoint of
existential threats environmental microbes could potentially pose a much greater threat to humanity
than the known pathogenic microbes, which number somewhere near 1500 species (Cleaveland et al., 2001; Taylor et al., 2001), especially if
some of these species acquired the capacity for pathogenicity as a consequence of natural evolution or bioengineering.
Warming Add-On
Drones key to collecting climate data that is key to solving warming
Some NASA
researchers believe the key to better climate science is sitting about 65,000 feet above the
Pacific Ocean. This month, they're going up there.
The project, called ATTREX (Airborne Tropical TRopopause EXperiment), will provide measurements of moisture and chemical
composition, radiation levels, meteorological conditions, and trace gas levels in the high atmosphere. A slew of climate specialists hope
to collect unprecedented amounts of data from the tropopause, the boundary between the troposhere (where most weather phenomenon
take place) and the stratosphere. The
ultimate goal, according to principal investigator Eric Jensen, is to improve the
mathematical models scientists use to predict climate change.
"It turns out that even the smallest changes in the humidity of the stratosphere are important to climate," he
says. "As we put more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, there are going to be changes in the
tropopause that will affect the air going into the stratosphere. This will have a feedback effect on
climate change. It could dampen or magnify it." With more data from this vital region, he says, climate-change
models can give us a better sense of what's coming.
Climate researchers first realized the importance of this region more than a decade ago. Greenhouse gases seem to cause the stratosphere to
cool, allowing a greater number of clouds to form. This in turn causes a faster depletion of ozone in the stratosphere, as the clouds destroy
ozone faster than dry air. Since the composition of the stratosphere affects climate, and the tropopause is the gateway to the stratosphere,
understanding how water vapor circulates in this layer is vital to understanding climate change. Without good data on how the air circulates,
climate models won't produce accurate predictions.
The trick to studying the tropical tropopause is finding an aircraft that can withstand the temperatures
(as low as minus 115 degrees F) and long-duration flight time required. Traditional manned aircraft can't breach the
altitude the scientists are interested in studying. That's because in the tropics the troposphere is higher than it is in many parts of the globe,
where commercial jets can soar into the stratosphere with ease.
Instead, NASA will use drones. With the two Global Hawks the agency has acquired for the project, Jensen and his colleagues will
complete 24-hour missions, during which they can watch and control the craft using a high-speed satellite. "It's very interactive," he says.
"We're changing parameters in real time. In a way, it's like we're in the aircraft . . . even though we're all sitting in a comfy control room."
The Global Hawk, which can fly about 20,000 feet higher than commercial airliners, has been used for climate research before. In September,
the Hurricane and Severe Storm Sentinel began a five-year project flying into and around hurricanes. These five-year campaigns, of which
ATTREX is one of the first, are part of NASA's Earth Ventures project. Low- to moderate-cost missions can get preapproval for five years of
research, something that makes it possible to plan for data collection across the globe during different seasons.
Eventually, ATTREX will be moving to Guam and Australia to collect more data. While in Guam, researchers will collaborate with scientists from
the U.K. and the National Science Foundation, who will fly their aircraft at different altitudes. Jensen says he hopes the data from three aircraft
will provide a more complete picture of what's happening from the surface to the stratosphere.
The first science flight is scheduled to leave on Jan. 17 or 18 from the Dryden Flight Research Center in California. It can't come soon enough for
Jensen and his team. "It's going to be exhausting," Jensen says, "Because the flights last for 24 hours, and you just want to stay up for the whole
thing."
It could take years before the data collected by ATTREX has any effect on climate-change models, but
it could change our picture of
the planet's future.
Climate data allows for adaptation and good decision-making to solve warming
EEA 06, European Environmental Agency, “Vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in Europe,”
EEA Technical report No 7/2005,
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/technical_report_2005_1207_144937/download
As a cross-cutting adaptive response to climate change, a large number of regional and national
research programmes have been undertaken to develop and/or advance the knowledge on the
characteristics of climate related risks and strategies to manage them , in multiple sectors and at different scales. A
large body of knowledge and information has resulted from these efforts, especially on the trends of past climate, projections of climate change
in the 21st century, potential impacts of such projected changes on different sectors, systems, communities and regions, and
options to adapt to projected changes and their impacts.
possible
A selection of major international projects and national research projects in support of climate change adaptation are presented in Tables 5 and
6, respectively. A more comprehensive list of national research programmes on various aspects of climate change are summarised in (Gabriel et
al., 2005).
In response to the growing need for improved knowledge and guidance for adaptation planning and decision-making, research efforts have
been gradually moving from scientific driven, single sector/system-focused sensitivity analysis (i.e. to answer questions, such as: 'Is climate
changing now?', 'Does climate change matter in my sector of responsibility?' etc.) towards a more policy-driven, multi-disciplinary integrated
assessment (i.e. to address issues like 'What are the likelihoods of critical thresholds being exceeded under a changing climate?', 'How to best
manage climate risks in
a cost-effective fashion?' etc.). Hence, not only
have the research questions been directed more closely towards policy
issues, the approach of such research activities has changed to include a strong stakeholder involvement component. An example of such a
policy-oriented research initiative from Finland (FINADAPT) is given in Box 5.
Although progress is being made in assessing vulnerability and adaptive capacity, several
aspects are not sufficiently studied. These
include processes of adaptation decision-making, conditions that stimulate or constrain adaptation, the
rolesand responsibilities of varying stakeholders in adaptation process, and the role of non-climatic factors. A robust methodological framework
for evaluating adaptation options is still to be developed (see Section 5.1.2).
Warming is real, anthropogenic and causes extinction
Flournoy 12 -- Citing Feng Hsu, PhD NASA Scientist @ the Goddard Space Flight Center. Don Flournoy
is a PhD and MA from the University of Texas, Former Dean of the University College @ Ohio University,
Former Associate Dean @ State University of New York and Case Institute of Technology, Project
Manager for University/Industry Experiments for the NASA ACTS Satellite, Currently Professor of
Telecommunications @ Scripps College of Communications @ Ohio University (Don, "Solar Power
Satellites," January, Springer Briefs in Space Development, Book, p. 10-11
In the Online Journal of Space Communication , Dr. Feng Hsu, a NASA scientist at Goddard Space Flight Center, a research center in the
forefront of science of space and Earth, writes, “The
evidence of global warming is alarming,” noting the potential for a
catastrophic planetary climate change is real and troubling (Hsu 2010 ) . Hsu and his NASA colleagues were engaged in
monitoring and analyzing climate changes on a global scale, through which they received first-hand
scientific information and data relating to global warming issues, including the dynamics of polar ice cap melting. After
discussing this research with colleagues who were world experts on the subject, he wrote: I now have no doubt global
temperatures are rising, and that global warming is a serious problem confronting all of humanity. No
matter whether these trends are due to human interference or to the cosmic cycling of our solar system, there are
two basic facts that are crystal clear: (a) there is overwhelming scientific evidence showing positive correlations
between the level of CO2 concentrations in Earth’s atmosphere with respect to the historical fluctuations
of global temperature changes; and (b) the overwhelming majority of the world’s scientific community is
in agreement about the risks of a potential catastrophic global climate change. That is, if we humans
continue to ignore this problem and do nothing, if we continue dumping huge quantities of greenhouse gases into Earth’s
biosphere, humanity will be at dire risk (Hsu 2010 ) . As a technology risk assessment expert, Hsu says he can show with some
confidence that the planet will face more risk doing nothing to curb its fossil-based energy addictions than it will in making a fundamental shift
in its energy supply. “This,” he writes, “is because the
risks of a catastrophic anthropogenic climate change can be
potentially the extinction of human species , a risk that is simply too high for us to take any chances” (Hsu 2010 )
Economy
Drones key to infrastructure surveillance and ability to fix structural deficiencies
Steve Carr 3/4, Senior University Communication Representative at the University of New Mexico,
“UNM researchers take to the skies to assess infrastructure damage”, University of New Mexico
Newsroom, 3/4/15, http://news.unm.edu/news/unm-researchers-take-to-the-skies-to-assessinfrastructure-damage
Drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), have become increasingly popular over the last half dozen
years or so among amateur aeronautical aficionados, engineers and generally anyone fascinated with
relatively inexpensive flying machines. Drones can be used for a number of applications including civilian
and military purposes. Monitoring and surveillance are two of the biggest uses for drones. Now,
researchers at the University of New Mexico, along with collaborators at San Diego State University and
BAE Systems, are utilizing similar technology to develop an operational prototype that will use
innovative remote sensing approaches and cameras mounted on low cost aircraft or unmanned
drones to detect and map fine scale transportation infrastructure damage such as cracks,
deformations and shifts immediately following natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods and
hurricanes. With the help of a two-year, $1.2 million grant from the United States Department of
Transportation Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research & Technology Commercial Remote
Sensing and Spatial Information Technologies Program (CRS&SI) and additional support from the UNM
College of Arts and Sciences and UNM School of Engineering, researchers Christopher Lippitt and Susan
Bogus Halter are conducting the research project. “We’ve been working on basic technology for really
fast and precise change detection by aligning images to each other before a disaster and immediately
after an event to detect anything that changed,” said Lippitt, an assistant professor in Department of
Geography and Environmental Studies. “We’ve been working on that in a number of applications for
awhile, but this is the first time we’re fully operationalizing technology that myself and my
collaborators at San Diego State have been developing for many years.” One of the keys to
infrastructure damage assessment is timeliness. Many natural disasters create dangerous situations
that are time-sensitive in nature. The first 24 hours are oftentimes critical in terms of damage
assessment, search and rescue. Short time-frame damage assessments, sometimes over large urban
areas, can be difficult with the current conventional, ground-observations and sensor networks
researchers say.
Poor infrastructure hurts economic growth – mass deficit to exports.
Paul Davidson 12, Writer for USATODAY Money, “USA's creaking infrastructure holds back
economy”, USA Today, 5/20/12, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2012-0520/creaking-infrastructure/55096396/1
Inland waterways quietly keep the nation's economy flowing as they transport $180 billion of coal,
steel, chemicals and other goods each year — a sixth of U.S. freight — across 38 states. Yet, an
antiquated system of locks and dams threatens the timely delivery of those goods daily. Locks and
dams raise or lower barges from one water level to the next, but breakdowns are frequent. For example,
the main chamber at a lock on the Ohio River near Warsaw, Ky., is being fixed. Maneuvering 15-barge
tows into a much smaller backup chamber has increased the average delay at the lock from 40 minutes
to 20 hours, including waiting time. The outage, which began last July and is expected to end in August,
will cost American Electric Power and its customers $5.5 million as the utility ferries coal and other
supplies along the river for itself and other businesses, says AEP senior manager Marty Hettel. As the
economy picks up, the nation's creaking infrastructure will increasingly struggle to handle the load. That
will make products more expensive as businesses pay more for shipping or maneuver around
roadblocks, and it will cause the nation to lose exports to other countries — both of which are expected
to hamper the recovery. "The good news is, the economy is turning," says Dan Murray, vice president of
the American Transportation Research Institute. "The bad news is, we expect congestion to skyrocket."
The ancient lock-and-dam system is perhaps the most egregious example of aging or congested
transportation systems that are being outstripped by demand. Fourteen locks are expected to fail by
2020, costing the economy billions of dollars. Meanwhile, seaports can't accommodate larger
container ships, slowing exports and imports. Highways are too narrow. Bridges are overtaxed. Effects
'sneaking up' The shortcomings were partly masked during the recession as fewer Americans worked
and less freight was shipped, easing traffic on transportation corridors. But interviews with shippers and
logistics companies show delays are starting to lengthen along with the moderately growing economy. "I
call this a stealth attack on our economy," says Janet Kavinoky, executive director of transportation and
infrastructure for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "It's not like an immediate crisis. It's something that's
sneaking up on us." Freight bottlenecks and other congestion cost about $200 billion a year, or 1.6% of
U.S. economic output, according to a report last year by Building America's Future Educational Fund, a
bipartisan coalition of elected officials. The chamber of commerce estimates such costs are as high as $1
trillion annually, or 7% of the economy. Yet, there's little prospect for more infrastructure investment
as a divided Congress battles about how to cut the $1.3 trillion federal deficit, and state and local
governments face their own budget shortfalls. Government investment in highways, bridges, water
systems, schools and other projects has fallen each year since 2008. IHS Global Insight expects such
outlays to drop 4.4% this year and 3% in 2013. The U.S. is spending about half of the $2.2 trillion that it
should over a five-year period to repair and expand overburdened infrastructure, says Andrew
Herrmann, president of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Inland waterways, for example, carry
coal to power plants, iron ore to steel mills and grain to export terminals. But inadequate investment
led to nearly 80,000 hours of lock outages in fiscal 2010, four times more than in fiscal 2000. Most of
the nation's 200 or so locks are past their 50-year design life. A prime example is an 83-year-old lock on
the Ohio River near Olmsted, Ill. Congress set aside $775 million to replace it and another nearby lock in
1988. The project began in 1993 and was scheduled to be finished by 2000 but still isn't complete, in
part because of engineering modifications intended to save $60 million. Now, the cost has ballooned to
$3.1 billion, and the new lock won't be ready until 2020 or later. The cost overrun leaves little money for
other projects. About $8 billion is needed to replace 25 locks and dams in the next 20 years, says
Michael Toohey, president of the Waterways Council, an advocacy group. But Congress allocates only
about $170 million a year, with the government and a 20-cent-a-gallon tax on tow operators each
funding half. Toohey says $385 million a year is required to fund all the work. "We're the silent industry"
because waterways are less visible, he says. The biggest railroad bottleneck is in Chicago. A third of the
nation's freight volume goes through the city as 500 freight trains jostle daily for space with 800
passenger trains and street traffic. Many freight rail lines crisscross at the same grade as other trains
and cars — a tangle that forces interminable waits. It takes an average freight train about 35 hours to
crawl through the city. Shipping containers typically languish in rail yards several days before they can
be loaded onto trains. Manufacturers, in turn, must stock more inventory to account for shipping delays
of uncertain length, raising product costs about 1%, estimates Ken Heller, a senior vice president for DSC
Logistics. Caterpillar has built two multimillion-dollar distribution centers outside the city to increase its
freight volumes so it can get loading priority at rail yards. About $3.1 billion in projects are planned,
underway or complete, such as separate intersecting roadways and rail lines, but only a third of the
money has been approved.
U.S. growth is key to the overall global economic order---failure causes global great
power war
John F. Troxell 14, Research Professor of National Security and Military Strategy, Strategic Studies
Institute, U.S. Army War College, 7/15/14, “Op-Ed: Global Leadership — Learning From History,”
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/index.cfm/articles/Global-Leadership-Learning-FromHistory/2014/07/15
Leader complacency, caused by repeatedly running to the edge of crises prior to reaching a resolution,
leads to a false sense of security. Our political establishment has mastered the art of kicking the can
down the road and muddling through, and has become complacent about the need to address pressing
problems, most readily demonstrated in our fiscal mismanagement. How many times have we dangerously
approached the fiscal cliff? The need for a grand bargain to balance revenues, entitlements, and government services has been
recognized, studied, and “commissioned” for years without effective action. Bruce Jones, author of the recent and appropriately titled book,
Still Ours to Lead, offers this thought, “. . . if
the United States does not rectify a perception that it is becoming
incapable of managing its global financial role, the willingness to participate in a system still overwhelmingly
managed by the United States will be undermined.”7
Perhaps we have become complacent in another matter. In a recent Brookings Essay, Margaret MacMillan argues that:
Like our predecessors a century ago, we assume that large-scale, all-out war is something we no longer
do . In short, we have grown accustomed to peace as the normal state of affairs. We expect that the
international community will deal with conflicts when they arise, and that they will be short-lived and
easily containable. But this is not necessarily true .8
Decreased attention may already have contributed to worsening situations in the Middle East, Ukraine,
and the Western Pacific .
World War I was botched on the front end and the back end.9 The failure to achieve a just and lasting peace in 1919 led
to the outbreak of World War II. Economic distress during the interwar years resulted in the rise of fascist states
and easily rekindled the embers of nationalist revanchism. President Woodrow Wilson’s 14 points were not adhered to,
including the all-important point 3: “the removal, as far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade
conditions among all nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.” In terms of post-war economic relations,
the opposite occurred as nations scrambled to respond to the 1929 crash. Nations
participated in a series of competitive
devaluations and enacted crippling tariffs, sending the global economy into a death spiral .
Our second major commemoration of this summer is the Bretton Woods conference, convened shortly after the D-Day landings and well before
the end of World War II. It was focused on creating a post-war international regime based on rules designed to govern the global economy.
Following the collapse of the Soviet empire, these rules now govern the vast majority of the globally interconnected economy. The results of
this conference point to the importance of institutional arrangements to monitor and support the global economy, including the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development, better known today as it has evolved into the World Bank
(WB); and the commitment to free trade. Conference attendees initially debated the creation of the International Trade Organization, which at
the time proved to be a bridge too far, and thus they settled on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Through a series of
multinational negotiating rounds and agreements, culminating in the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995, GATT, and now
the WTO, have succeeded in broad tariff reductions and a dramatic increase in global trade. The
liberal world economy, based on
open markets and free trade, and managed by rules-based, international monetary and trade regimes, has furthered both individual
and collective interests and promoted international cooperation . When it comes to the support for
international institutions, the President is correct in highlighting their importance. But some of that support should also be
expressed in action, particularly as it relates to the global economy . Once again the President is right to focus on the
“key source of American strength: a growing economy,” and there is nothing wrong with domestic nation building, but only
if it does not replace an equal emphasis on the management and continued engagement in geoeconomic affairs.
International regimes, particularly those related to the global economy, require the willingness to fight for
proven common benefits . Globalization has provided proven benefits, but it has always been a hard sell with the American people
and thus our politicians need to continue to make the case. The United States is currently engaged in two potential game changing trade
negotiations: the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). These are both characterized
as comprehensive and high-standard 21st century trade agreements and could knit together most of the major trading nations, generating
increased economic benefits for all. Of the two, the TPP holds the most promise because of the possibility that China may join, further
integrating their economy into the international rules-based trading regime. Encouraging our negotiating partners to take the necessary
political risks to finalize these agreements would be facilitated if the United States showed leadership and passed Trade Promotion Authority.
The President called for this action in his State of the Union address, and was immediately rejected by Senator Harry Reid. Congress also needs
to make progress on IMF reforms. Economics represents a positive-sum game and leads to international cooperation. The United States needs
to level with the American people and show leadership in this area.
Bretton Woods points to the essential role of the United States in supporting these global economic
arrangements. The Bretton Woods conference represented “a made in America” approach to the global economy,10 and the United
States was willing to fulfill that essential leadership role. Political economist Robert Gilpin argues that:
there can be no liberal international economy unless there is a leader that uses its resources and influence to establish and manage an
international economy based on free trade, monetary stability, and freedom of capital movement. The leader must also encourage other states
to obey the rules and regimes governing international economic activities.11
Global economic leadership requires the United States to lead by example and demonstrate competent
policy outcomes.
Resource Wars
Drones will help us substantially increase agricultural production, solves impeding
resource crisis from overpopulation
Chris Anderson 14, NY Times best-selling author and at the time the editor-in-chief of Wired
magazine, “How Drones Will Help Us Grow Better Food and Wine, and More of It”, 3drobotics.com,
10/9/14, http://3drobotics.com/drones-will-help-us-grow-better-food-wine/
The experts say we’re going to have to double global food production by 2050. The reason is not that
the population itself will double—though by 2050 we’ll have around two billion more mouths to feed—
the reason is also what those two billion mouths will be feeding on. With economies surging in big
developing countries like China, India and Brazil, people who formerly couldn’t afford much meat
have developed a taste for it, and the animals that will provide all that meat have to be fed somehow.
To give you an idea of how this breaks down, around 10% of the corn we grow in the U.S. today ends up
in people’s bellies, while 40% ends up in the bellies of other animals. Given the scale of this challenge,
the obvious question is how. One approach is to take the “grow more” route. It’s worked in the past.
However, the “more” approach, more pasture clearing and more land converted to farmland, has also
had an enormous impact on the environment, as agriculture contributes significantly to climate change
through greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation. And in a vicious circle, climate change in turn
negatively impacts agriculture by diminishing crop yields. Another route is the “grow more by growing
better” route, or, in terms of the buzzword we’ve all seen in even Walmart grocery stores by now, the
sustainable route. And this is where drones come in. Drones will contribute to a more sustainable
world. They can collect the aerial data that farmers need to better understand and predict crop yield,
assess crop health and weed cover, and perhaps most importantly when it comes to environmental
sustainability, monitor and target water and fertilizer distribution and application. These farming
techniques are popularly called precision agriculture, which can save farmers money and time, as well as
help them enhance their crop quality, yields, and profits on those yields, and optimize the usage and
output of farmland. For instance, 3DR Mapping Platforms can automatically capture aerial images to
create maps that help farmers scout their crops and monitor soil quality, crop stress and vigor. Crop
consultants and agronomists can use those same images to identify and assess crop health, irrigation
and yield patterns, and even predict crop yield in advance. They can accordingly target their
distribution of fertilizer and water, which not only have a huge environmental impact but are also the
two biggest cost inputs for farming. (Ironically, nitrogen fertilizer, which we use heavily to increase crop
yield, also causes prairie grasslands to become a virtual monoculture of an otherwise extremely rare
invasive agricultural weed.) If farmers want, our one cm/pixel resolution can even allow them to see
clearly and accurately right down to each individual grape. And perhaps most obviously, they won’t
need to spend so much time scouting their crops on foot, and can appropriate that time instead to
production. Further, because drones are fully automated, farmers and agronomists can save flight paths
in the mission planning software and fly identical missions at different times of year, or even from one
year to the next, allowing them to overlay and compare data and development across time.
Food shortages cause nuclear world war 3
FDI 12, Future Directions International, a Research institute providing strategic analysis of Australia’s
global interests; citing Lindsay Falvery, PhD in Agricultural Science and former Professor at the
University of Melbourne’s Institute of Land and Environment, “Food and Water Insecurity: International
Conflict Triggers & Potential Conflict Points,” http://www.futuredirections.org.au/workshop-
papers/537-international-conflict-triggers-and-potential-conflict-points-resulting-from-food-and-waterinsecurity.html
There is a growing appreciation that the conflicts in the next century will most likely be fought over a
lack of resources.¶ Yet, in a sense, this is not new. Researchers point to the French and Russian revolutions as
conflicts induced by a lack of food. More recently, Germany’s World War Two efforts are said to have been
inspired, at least in part, by its perceived need to gain access to more food. Yet the general sense among those that attended FDI’s
recent workshops, was that the scale of the problem in the future could be significantly greater as a result of population
pressures, changing weather, urbanisation, migration, loss of arable land and other farm inputs, and increased affluence in the developing world. ¶ In his book, Small
Farmers Secure Food, Lindsay
Falvey, a participant in FDI’s March 2012 workshop on the issue of food and conflict, clearly expresses the
problem and why countries across the globe are starting to take note. .¶ He writes (p.36), “…if people are hungry, especially in cities, the
state is not stable – riots, violence, breakdown of law and order and migration result.” ¶ “Hunger feeds anarchy.”¶ This view is also shared by Julian
Cribb, who in his book, The Coming Famine, writes that if “large regions of the world run short of food, land or water in the
decades that lie ahead, then wholesale, bloody wars are liable to follow.” ¶ He continues: “An increasingly credible
scenario for World War 3 is not so much a confrontation of super powers and their allies, as a festering , self-perpetuating
chain of resource conflicts.” He also says: “The wars of the 21st Century are less likely to be global conflicts with sharply defined sides and huge
armies, than a scrappy mass of failed states, rebellions, civil strife, insurgencies, terrorism and genocides, sparked by bloody competition over dwindling
resources.Ӧ As another workshop participant put it, people do not go to war to kill; they go to war over resources, either to protect or to gain the resources for
themselves.¶ Another observed that hunger results in passivity not conflict. Conflict is over resources, not because people are going hungry.¶ A
study by
the I nternational P eace R esearch I nstitute indicates that where food security is an issue, it is more
likely to result in some form of conflict. Darfur, Rwanda, Eritrea and the Balkans experienced such wars.
Governments, especially in developed countries, are increasingly aware of this phenomenon. ¶ The UK Ministry of Defence, the CIA, the US
C enter for S trategic and I nternational S tudies and the Oslo Peace Research Institute, all identify famine as a
potential trigger for conflicts and possibly even nuclear war .
Biodiversity/Oil Spills
Drone use key to mitigating the environment effects of oil spills
Todd Woody 13 , an environmental and technology journalist who has written for The New York Times
and Quartz, and was previously an editor and writer at Fortune, Forbes, and Business 2.0, “How
Scientists are Using Drones to Fight the Next Big Oil Spill”, The Atlantic, 12/2/13,
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/how-scientists-are-using-drones-to-fight-thenext-big-oil-spill/281975/
More than three-and-half years after the Deepwater Horizon disaster spewed millions of gallons of
petroleum into the Gulf of Mexico, scientists are launching drones and ocean-going sensor arrays off
the Florida coast in an effort to map the path of future oil spills before they devastate beaches and
coastal ecosystems. Researchers from the University of Miami and other scientists are placing 200 GPSequipped “drifters” in the surf zone just off Fort Walton to map where the ocean currents take the
devices. Sensors placed on the ocean surface and seabed will track the movement of colored dye that
will be released during the three-week experiment that began today. Two drones outfitted with GoPro
cameras will also monitor where the currents take the drifters and dye. Since the drones can only stay
aloft for an hour at a time, a camera-carrying kite will also be deployed. All the data collected will be
used to construct a computer model of near-shore ocean currents to predict how future oil spills or
other pollutants will disperse as they approach the shore. “Computer models will be able to give us
better estimates of where the oil spill will go, and how fast and in which patterns it will spread,”
Tamay Özgökmen, a University of Miami professor and the director of the Consortium for Advanced
Research on Transport of Hydrocarbons in the Environment, told The Atlantic in an email. “This can help
emergency responders to better direct their limited resources. In the longer term, models are also
helpful to make sense of any ecological damage that may have occurred in the environment.” For
instance, that model can also predict where currents will carry shrimp larvae – crucial information
given the importance of fishing to the Gulf Coast economy. The Surfzone Coastal Oil Pathways
Experiment is part of a larger $500 million effort funded in part by oil giant BP in the wake of the
Deepwater Horizon catastrophe. Depending on the strength of the currents, the drifters and drones will
be deployed over an area that could stretch from hundreds of square yards to many square miles,
according to Özgökmen.
Oil Spills decimate coastal ecosystems biodiversity
Joseph Ingoldsby 10, writer for the MIT Press; Requiem for a Drowning Landscape, Orion Magazine,
and many more, “Silent Summer: How Oil Disaster Impacts Biodiversity”, July 21, 2010, Common
Dreams, http://www.commondreams.org/views/2010/07/21/silent-summer-how-oil-disaster-impactsbiodiversity
Residents from the Gulf of Mexico report that schools of fish, manta rays, sharks, dolphins and sea
turtles are fleeing the plumes of oil and solvents to the shallow waters off of the coasts of Alabama
and Florida. Marine biologists from Duke University state that that the animals sense the change in
water chemistry and try to escape the contaminated water dead zones by swimming toward the oxygen
rich shallows. Here, they could be trapped between the approaching plumes of oil and the shoreline.
Scientists warn of a mass die off. Death comes in the spawning and nesting season within the Gulf of
Mexico's bio-diverse ecosystems. We have witnessed the immediate impact of oil on the threatened
brown pelican, the egrets, the laughing gulls and other shore and migratory birds, grounded with oiled
plumage as they try to rear their spring nestlings. This is also the time when the endangered Kemp
Ridley turtles migrate through the Gulf of Mexico to spawn, and when loggerhead turtles drag
themselves up on the Gulf sands to lay their eggs. Their hatchlings face an uncertain future as they
return to the polluted Gulf of Mexico to begin their life's journey. This is also the time when the
endangered manatees leave their winter gathering spots in warm springs to migrate to their summer
range along the Gulf coast and the time when Gulf sturgeon congregate in coastal waters for upstream
migration exposing them to harm. We do not readily see the impact to the diverse marine fisheries of
the Gulf and Atlantic. The Gulf of Mexico is the nursery for a host of marine species, including the
embattled western Atlantic blue fin tuna. The Gulf of Mexico is the principal spawning ground of the
migratory Western Atlantic tuna. Their spawning coincided with the Horizon oil disaster. The larval
and juvenile fish are most vulnerable to the toxic effects of oil and dispersants documented within
their spawning ground. Scientific analysis of the viability of the 2010 spawning is necessary to
determine the future health of the tuna population. According to the World Wildlife Fund, the Atlantic
blue fin tuna population has fallen 90% since the 1970s and the species faces a serious risk of extinction.
With the loss of the fisheries and the shrimp and oyster operations, go the fishing communities and a
way of life on the bayou. Fishing is often familial and multigenerational. The Deepwater Horizon oil rig
explosion and sinking may have broken the familial transferal of working knowledge between father
and son and from son to grandson. No one knows how many years it will take for the Gulf of Mexico to
heal from the deadly infusion of oil, methane and toxic dispersants. The tragedy on the Gulf Coast
galvanizes public attention as images of the slow demise of brown pelicans, sea turtles, dolphins, sperm
whales and sea birds covered in oil flood our television screens. We are looking at the expansion of
eutrophic dead zones; the contamination of the entire water column in the Gulf of Mexico- killing
deep-water corals and giant squid to the black skimmers feeding on the surface; the tragic loss of
species and biodiversity; and the potential disappearance of the fishing cultures of the Gulf. This will
be the "Silent Summer" that could last for years. The poisonous mix of oil, methane and dispersants
will be the final nail in the coffin of these vanishing landscapes and endangered species. We know
from past oil spills that the toxic effects continue decades later. Long time residents of New England
may remember the grounding of the oil tanker, Florida, which broke up on the rocky shoals off Old Silver
Beach, West Falmouth on 16 September 1969 spewing 189,000 gallons of #2 fuel into Buzzards Bay.
Scientists from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution documented the damages to the marine
ecosystem and coastline over the ensuing years. Their observations are helpful to codify the
environmental damages to sensitive coastal wetlands by oil contamination. To this day, toxic oil remains
in the sediment layers of the marshlands ringing the Falmouth shore and oil continues to inhibit growth
and colonization of the subsoil by the marsh grass roots, fiddler crabs and other organisms. The vertical
burrows of the fiddler crabs veer horizontally avoiding the oil stained layer of soil. The marsh grass roots
stop above the oil and spread horizontally, 41 years after the Buzzards Bay oil spill.
Long term biodiversity Loss causes extinction – you may want to cut another card
cause this says the timeframe is WAY off but still good impact.
Sruthi Nair, BA from UC Santa Barbara in Communications, “Decline in Biodiversity May Lead to Mass
Extinction” Daily Nexus: University of California Santa Barbara, 5/22/12, http://dailynexus.com/201205-22/decline-biodiversity-lead-mass-extinction/
According to NCEAS Postdoctoral Fellow Jarrett Byrnes, research shows that with the current level of
biodiversity loss, Earth faces a potential mass extinction in about 240 years. Byrnes said part of the
problem stems from constant environmental alteration as a result of pollution and habitat destruction.
“Modern rates of diversity loss [are] a symptom of a number of different human-driven
environmental changes,” Byrnes said. “Habitat destruction, over-harvesting, pollution, climate change
and more all contribute to the loss of the diversity of life on Earth. If we want to slow the rate of
human-caused diversity loss, we need to tackle these problems head-on.” NCEAS Director Frank Davis
said the team studied environmental stressors’ effects on plant growth and decomposition and
determined that higher rates of plant species loss are directly linked to more negative impacts on plant
growth. Davis said although biodiversity loss is often overlooked as a major threat to the environment,
the study shows that its impact is actually on par with that of pollution and global warming. “The loss
of biodiversity affects the way ecosystems function in terms of human cycling and productivity,” Davis
said. “It may affect their ability to recover from extreme drought and it could affect the intangible
benefits that people derive from ecosystems, such as an appreciation for diverse wild species.” Thirdyear environmental studies major Alyssa Hall said because of the interconnected and complex nature of
many ecosystems, the loss of a species can take a severe toll on the rest of the environment.
“Ecosystems are vital for natural resources and for use of plants and animals, so we should not be
messing with them,” Hall said. “We don’t know exactly how nature works. The more we take out
different species the more changes we’ll see in ecosystems. Think of an ecosystem like an engine. If
you’re a mechanic, you need to know about the engine to play with it. If you don’t [know this], you
shouldn’t be playing with it or you’ll cause more damage. If we keep making more changes to
ecosystems we could be causing more damage.” Byrnes said biodiversity loss has a tendency to
compound itself, often leaving the full extent of its impact greatly underestimated. “Diversity loss —
particularly of plants — can affect a number of other ecosystem functions that are valuable to the
maintenance of human life here on Earth,” Byrnes said. “What’s more, this isn’t something that one
may notice right off the bat. The loss of a few species may not have a huge impact, but as more and
more species are lost, the impacts grow progressively stronger. Species diversity is like the rivets on the
wing of an airplane — lose a few and the airplane will still fly, but as more rivets are lost, the chance of
the wing falling off increases dramatically.”
–Drones key to collecting climate data that is key to solving warming
Some NASA
researchers believe the key to better climate science is sitting about 65,000 feet above the
Pacific Ocean. This month, they're going up there.
The project, called ATTREX (Airborne Tropical TRopopause EXperiment), will provide measurements of moisture and chemical
composition, radiation levels, meteorological conditions, and trace gas levels in the high atmosphere. A slew of climate specialists hope
to collect unprecedented amounts of data from the tropopause, the boundary between the troposhere (where most weather phenomenon
take place) and the stratosphere. The
ultimate goal, according to principal investigator Eric Jensen, is to improve the
mathematical models scientists use to predict climate change.
"It turns out that even the smallest changes in the humidity of the stratosphere are important to climate," he
says. "As we put more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, there are going to be changes in the
tropopause that will affect the air going into the stratosphere. This will have a feedback effect on
climate change. It could dampen or magnify it." With more data from this vital region, he says, climate-change
models can give us a better sense of what's coming.
Climate researchers first realized the importance of this region more than a decade ago. Greenhouse gases seem to cause the stratosphere to
cool, allowing a greater number of clouds to form. This in turn causes a faster depletion of ozone in the stratosphere, as the clouds destroy
ozone faster than dry air. Since the composition of the stratosphere affects climate, and the tropopause is the gateway to the stratosphere,
understanding how water vapor circulates in this layer is vital to understanding climate change. Without good data on how the air circulates,
climate models won't produce accurate predictions.
The trick to studying the tropical tropopause is finding an aircraft that can withstand the temperatures
(as low as minus 115 degrees F) and long-duration flight time required. Traditional manned aircraft can't breach the
altitude the scientists are interested in studying. That's because in the tropics the troposphere is higher than it is in many parts of the globe,
where commercial jets can soar into the stratosphere with ease.
Instead, NASA will use drones. With the two Global Hawks the agency has acquired for the project, Jensen and his colleagues will
complete 24-hour missions, during which they can watch and control the craft using a high-speed satellite. "It's very interactive," he says.
"We're changing parameters in real time. In a way, it's like we're in the aircraft . . . even though we're all sitting in a comfy control room."
The Global Hawk, which can fly about 20,000 feet higher than commercial airliners, has been used for climate research before. In September,
the Hurricane and Severe Storm Sentinel began a five-year project flying into and around hurricanes. These five-year campaigns, of which
ATTREX is one of the first, are part of NASA's Earth Ventures project. Low- to moderate-cost missions can get preapproval for five years of
research, something that makes it possible to plan for data collection across the globe during different seasons.
Eventually, ATTREX will be moving to Guam and Australia to collect more data. While in Guam, researchers will collaborate with scientists from
the U.K. and the National Science Foundation, who will fly their aircraft at different altitudes. Jensen says he hopes the data from three aircraft
will provide a more complete picture of what's happening from the surface to the stratosphere.
The first science flight is scheduled to leave on Jan. 17 or 18 from the Dryden Flight Research Center in California. It can't come soon enough for
Jensen and his team. "It's going to be exhausting," Jensen says, "Because the flights last for 24 hours, and you just want to stay up for the whole
thing."
It could take years before the data collected by ATTREX has any effect on climate-change models, but
it could change our picture of
the planet's future.
Climate data allows for adaptation and good decision-making to solve warming
EEA 06, European Environmental Agency, “Vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in Europe,”
EEA Technical report No 7/2005,
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/technical_report_2005_1207_144937/download
As a cross-cutting adaptive response to climate change, a large number of regional and national
research programmes have been undertaken to develop and/or advance the knowledge on the
characteristics of climate related risks and strategies to manage them , in multiple sectors and at different scales. A
large body of knowledge and information has resulted from these efforts, especially on the trends of past climate, projections of climate change
in the 21st century, potential impacts of such projected changes on different sectors, systems, communities and regions, and
possible
options to adapt to projected changes and their impacts.
A selection of major international projects and national research projects in support of climate change adaptation are presented in Tables 5 and
6, respectively. A more comprehensive list of national research programmes on various aspects of climate change are summarised in (Gabriel et
al., 2005).
In response to the growing need for improved knowledge and guidance for adaptation planning and decision-making, research efforts have
been gradually moving from scientific driven, single sector/system-focused sensitivity analysis (i.e. to answer questions, such as: 'Is climate
changing now?', 'Does climate change matter in my sector of responsibility?' etc.) towards a more policy-driven, multi-disciplinary integrated
assessment (i.e. to address issues like 'What are the likelihoods of critical thresholds being exceeded under a changing climate?', 'How to best
manage climate risks in
a cost-effective fashion?' etc.). Hence, not only
have the research questions been directed more closely towards policy
issues, the approach of such research activities has changed to include a strong stakeholder involvement component. An example of such a
policy-oriented research initiative from Finland (FINADAPT) is given in Box 5.
Although progress is being made in assessing vulnerability and adaptive capacity, several
aspects are not sufficiently studied. These
include processes of adaptation decision-making, conditions that stimulate or constrain adaptation, the
rolesand responsibilities of varying stakeholders in adaptation process, and the role of non-climatic factors. A robust methodological framework
for evaluating adaptation options is still to be developed (see Section 5.1.2).
Warming is real, anthropogenic and causes extinction
Flournoy 12 -- Citing Feng Hsu, PhD NASA Scientist @ the Goddard Space Flight Center. Don Flournoy
is a PhD and MA from the University of Texas, Former Dean of the University College @ Ohio University,
Former Associate Dean @ State University of New York and Case Institute of Technology, Project
Manager for University/Industry Experiments for the NASA ACTS Satellite, Currently Professor of
Telecommunications @ Scripps College of Communications @ Ohio University (Don, "Solar Power
Satellites," January, Springer Briefs in Space Development, Book, p. 10-11
In the Online Journal of Space Communication , Dr. Feng Hsu, a NASA scientist at Goddard Space Flight Center, a research center in the
forefront of science of space and Earth, writes, “The
evidence of global warming is alarming,” noting the potential for a
catastrophic planetary climate change is real and troubling (Hsu 2010 ) . Hsu and his NASA colleagues were engaged in
monitoring and analyzing climate changes on a global scale, through which they received first-hand
scientific information and data relating to global warming issues, including the dynamics of polar ice cap melting. After
discussing this research with colleagues who were world experts on the subject, he wrote: I now have no doubt global
temperatures are rising, and that global warming is a serious problem confronting all of humanity. No
matter whether these trends are due to human interference or to the cosmic cycling of our solar system, there are
two basic facts that are crystal clear: (a) there is overwhelming scientific evidence showing positive correlations
between the level of CO2 concentrations in Earth’s atmosphere with respect to the historical fluctuations
of global temperature changes; and (b) the overwhelming majority of the world’s scientific community is
in agreement about the risks of a potential catastrophic global climate change. That is, if we humans
continue to ignore this problem and do nothing, if we continue dumping huge quantities of greenhouse gases into Earth’s
biosphere, humanity will be at dire risk (Hsu 2010 ) . As a technology risk assessment expert, Hsu says he can show with some
confidence that the planet will face more risk doing nothing to curb its fossil-based energy addictions than it will in making a fundamental shift
in its energy supply. “This,” he writes, “is because the
risks of a catastrophic anthropogenic climate change can be
potentially the extinction of human species , a risk that is simply too high for us to take any chances” (Hsu 2010 )
2AC Offcase
T – Its
Variety of Agencies
Large variety of government agencies using domestic drones now for multitude of
reasons [re-tag]
Jonathan Olivito 13, J.D. Candidate at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, “Beyond the
Fourth Amendment: Limiting Drone Surveillance Through the Constitutional Right to Informational
Privacy”, 2013, Ohio State Law Journal, 74 Ohio St. L.J. 669
Outside of the military context, n61 government agencies currently utilize drones in a wide variety of
applications. The Customs and Border Protection agency has operated drones around the borders
since 2005. n62 Customs and Border Protection drones uncover intelligence on illegal border crossings
and major drug trafficking operations. n63 Likewise, the Coast Guard hopes to use drones "to
reconnoiter large maritime areas." n64 The FBI and the Drug Enforcement Agency have utilized drones
within the United States; the Customs and Border Protection agency has even made its drones available
to local police departments for domestic law enforcement operations. n65 On a local scale, numerous
municipal police departments have obtained permission from the FAA to use drones. n66 These drones
have been used to help with security at sporting events, surveil private property, and assist with crime
prevention. n67 In a [*679] more academic context, NASA and NOAA have used drones for scientific
research and environmental monitoring. n68 All of these current applications have attracted
considerable interest in future career opportunities related to drone technology. In anticipation of the
increased demand for drone operators, educational institutions, such as the University of North Dakota,
now offer undergraduate programs in unmanned aircraft systems operations. n69 As these examples
illustrate, ubiquitous drone operation within the United States is not far in the future. The widespread use of maneuverable and stealthy drones equipped with powerful sensory tools leads to the
unsettling conclusion that domestic drones could gather an inordinate amount of information about
people, both inadvertently and intention-ally. n70 The information that government drone operators
could obtain through long-term drone observation might range from the trivial-what gym a person
frequents-to the intimate-a person's healthcare choices-but when considered as a whole, extended
observation can reveal "the full picture of a person's life." n71 Also, regardless of whether UAS operators actually record any information about people's lives, the prospect of constant government
monitoring and recording "chills associational and expressive freedoms." n72 The imminent mass
arrival of drones in the United States will almost certainly imperil privacy. But problematically, the
Fourth Amendment, and other current privacy safeguards, fall short of providing sufficient privacy
protection against UAS surveillance.
Variety of agencies using domestic drones now for a multitude of purposes – FAA
records prove.
Hillary B. Farber 14, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Massachusetts School of Law, J.D.
Northeastern University School of Law and B.A. University of Michigan, “EYES IN THE SKY:
CONSTITUTIONAL AND REGULATORY APPROACHES TO DOMESTIC DRONE DEPLOYMENT”, 2/3/14, Social
Science Research Network, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2350421
The defense and aerospace industries are propelling drones into our lives faster than the courts and
lawmakers can prepare for their ubiquitous and powerful presence. By 2020, it is estimated that
30,000 drones will be occupying national airspace.1 In 2012, Congress passed the Federal Aviation
Administration Modernization and Reform Act, which ordered the Federal Aviation Administration
(“FAA”) to promulgate regulations for the integration of drones into the national airspace.2 On June 19,
2013, the Federal Bureau of Investigations (“FBI”) Director Robert Mueller told Congress that the FBI
deployed drones for surveillance on domestic soil and is developing guidelines for its future use in law
enforcement.3 State and local police departments are eager to equip themselves with drones because
they are cheaper and more efficient than helicopters and other types of manned aircraft.4 Police
departments in cities such as Miami, Florida, Houston, Texas, Seattle, Washington, Arlington, Texas, and
other areas such as Mesa, Colorado, and Queen Anne’s County, Maryland, have purchased drones and
are testing the new technology with the hope of incorporating them soon into their fleet.5 Records
released by the FAA reveal that police departments in Kansas, Washington, Texas, Arkansas, Idaho,
Alabama, Colorado, North Dakota, Ohio, and Utah have applied for permission to fly drones in U.S.
airspace.6 Federal agencies are also increasingly using drones for policing. As of May 2013, four
Department of Justice (“DOJ”) divisions had acquired drones: the FBI; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms (“ATF”); the Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”); and the U.S. Marshals Service.7
According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital privacy watchdog group, the Customs and
Border Protection (“CBP”) increased its drone flights eight-fold between 2010 and 2012.8 Moreover,
records reveal that the CBP has conducted drone surveillance for federal, state, and local law
enforcement agencies.9 These surveillance missions have ranged from specific drug-related
investigations and missing person searches to aerial reconnaissance and surveillance.10 Meanwhile,
Fourth Amendment privacy jurisprudence has yet to grapple with drones and their unprecedented
surveillance capabilities. Courts are slow to respond when it comes to evaluating the constitutional
implications of new technology.11 Supreme Court case law on aerial surveillance has only considered
manned aircraft flying at relatively low altitudes, which is not equivalent to the characteristics and
capabilities of drones.12 At least in the short term, legislative regulation will likely provide more
substantive protection for individual privacy interests in the face of the ever-increasing presence of
unmanned aerial surveillance.13 Congress has held a series of hearings to investigate the future of
drones and the privacy and safety issues they present.14 There is bipartisan concern over how and by
whom drones will be used.15 Yet, progress has been slow. On the other hand, states are moving rapidly
to regulate or ban the commercial use of drones, as well as place restrictions on government use
without a warrant.16 In 2013, forty-three states considered more than 130 bills or resolutions on drone
use, addressing a range of issues including privacy implications, economic impact, and utilization.17
Eight states have enacted laws regulating drone use.18
Agency Specific
FBI uses drone surveillance for intelligence gathering
Carol Cratty 13, CNN Senior Producer, “FBI uses drones for surveillance in U.S”, 6/20/13, CNN,
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/19/politics/fbi-drones/
FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged the law enforcement agency uses drone aircraft in the
United States for surveillance in certain difficult cases. Mueller told the Senate Judiciary Committee on
Wednesday that drones are used by the FBI in a "very, very minimal way and very seldom." He did not
say how many unmanned surveillance vehicles (UAVs) the FBI has or how often they have been used.
But a law enforcement official told CNN the FBI has used them a little more than a dozen times but did
not say when that started. The official said drones are useful in hostage and barricade situations
because they operate more quietly and are less visible than traditional aircraft such as helicopters.
The FBI said it used a UAV earlier this year to monitor the situation where a boy was held hostage in a
bunker in Alabama. Bureau spokesman Paul Bresson said their use allows "us to learn critical
information that otherwise would be difficult to obtain without introducing serious risk to law
enforcement personnel." Bresson said the aircraft can only be used to perform surveillance on
stationary subjects and the FBI must first get approval from the Federal Aviation Administration to fly in
a "very confined geographic area." Surveillance fallout Mueller's comments come as the Obama
administration grapples with political and other fallout from the public disclosure of top-secret
surveillance programs, which has triggered new debate over reach of national security vs. privacy rights.
National security and law enforcement officials have defended National Security Agency telephone and
e-mail surveillance of overseas communications as an effective tool in fighting terror. President Barack
Obama has assured Americans the government is not listening to their phone conversations or reading
their e-mail. But Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, asked Mueller whether the FBI had
guidelines for using drones that would consider the "privacy impact on American citizens." Mueller
replied the agency was in the initial stages of developing them. "I will tell you that our footprint is very
small," he said. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein expressed concern over
drone use domestically. "I think the greatest threat to the privacy of Americans is the drone and the
use of the drone, and the very few regulations that are on it today and the booming industry of
commercial drones," the California Democrat said. Mueller said he would need to check on the
bureau's policy for retaining images from drones and report back to the panel. "It is very narrowly
focused on particularized cases and particularized needs and particularized cases," said Mueller. "And
that is the principal privacy limitations we have." Sen. Mark Udall, a Colorado Democrat, said he was
concerned the FBI was deploying drone technology and only in the initial stages of developing guidelines
"to protect Americans' privacy rights."
Customs and border protections using drones to scan for illegal substance smuggling
and immigrants – however, the program has been highly ineffective
Joseph J. Kolb 15, contributor to Fox News and Fox News Latino, “Federal report says Border Patrol's
drone program doesn't fly”, Fox News, 1/13/15, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/13/federalreport-says-border-patrol-drone-program-doesnt-fly/
For nearly a decade, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection has touted its drone program as an
“effective technology to further enhance operational capabilities,” but according to the agency’s 2014
end of fiscal year report, the results are anything but impressive, fueling new calls for the program to
be grounded. The program has a fleet of 9 Predator drones and the Department of Homeland Security
is planning to spend another $443 million for more aircraft to help secure the Mexican border. But a
Jan. 6 report from the agency's inspector general is advising against the expansion. “Notwithstanding
the significant investment, we see no evidence that the drones contribute to a more secure border,
and there is no reason to invest additional taxpayer funds at this time,” said DHS Inspector General
John Roth. “Securing our borders is a crucial mission for CBP and DHS. CBP’s drone program has so far
fallen far short of being an asset to that effort.” The IG report, the second audit of the program since
2012, found there is no reliable method of measuring the program's performance and determined
that its impact in stemming illegal immigration has been minimal. According to the CBP Fiscal Year
Report, the drones flew about 10 percent fewer hours in 2014 than the previous year and 20 percent
fewer than in 2013. The missions were credited with contributing to the seizure of just under 1,000
pounds of cocaine in 2014, compared to 2,645 in 2013 and 3,900 in 2012. But apprehensions of illegal
immigrants between 2014 and 2013 fell despite the flood of more than 60,000 unaccompanied
children coming across the border from Central America. Combined with the decrease in productivity,
the OIG report disclosed the staggering costs to run the program, more than $12,000 per hour when
figuring fuel, salaries for operators, equipment and overhead. Eugene Schied, assistant commissioner of
the CBP's office of administration for CBP, said the IG used flawed methods to draw its conclusions.
NOAA using Arial drone surveillance for killer whale surveillance
Rich Press 13, NOAA Fisheries Science Writer, “Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Offers a New View of Killer
Whales”, October 7, 13, NOAA,
http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/podcasts/2014/10/aerial_vehicle_killer_whale.html#.VakcExNVikp
For the first time, scientists have used an unmanned aerial vehicle to study killer whales from above.
The device they're using is a remote-controlled hexacopter with a high-resolution camera mounted in
its belly, and the photos it produces are beautiful and full of detail. The images offer an entirely new
view of this species. But scientists aren't taking pictures just because they look nice. The images contain
detailed information that scientists can use to monitor the health of individual killer whales and of
their population as a whole. To get these photos, scientists from NOAA Fisheries teamed up with
colleagues at the Vancouver Aquarium. The animals they studied are the Northern Resident killer
whales of British Columbia, a population that's listed as threatened under Canada's Species At Risk Act,
and the pilots were trained and operating under permits issued by the Canadian Government. Like the
endangered Southern Residents that spend summers near Seattle, these whales eat salmon—mainly
Chinook salmon—and some of the salmon runs they rely on are much smaller than they used to be. In
fact, several Chinook runs are themselves endangered, and scientists are concerned that a lack of prey
may be limiting the whale populations. The main question scientists are trying to answer is: Are the
whales getting enough to eat? To find out, they fly the hexacopter at an altitude of more than 100
feet, high enough that the whales don't notice it, but near enough to get photographs that are
incredibly revealing. Scientists have previously taken aerial photographs of killer whales from a
helicopter, but those photos are taken from a much higher altitude, and the cost can be prohibitive. By
analyzing the hexacopter photos, scientists can see how fat or skinny individual whales are. They can
also see which whales are pregnant and what percentage of pregnancies are carried to term. Currently,
scientists do a summer census to learn out how many whales have died since the year before. "But
mortality is a pretty coarse measure of how well the population is doing because the problem, if there
is one, has already occurred," said John Durban, a biologist with NOAA's Southwest Fisheries Science
Center in La Jolla, California. But the hexacopter, Durban said, "can give us a more sensitive measure
that we might be able to respond to before whales die." Note: Whales are very sensitive to what goes
on around them. In this case, the researchers had permits for working with this at-risk species, including
permits granted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and they are trained to recognize if their
activities are disturbing the animals. Researchers kept the hexacopter at least 100 feet above the whales
at all times. The 100 foot approach is only allowable under a research permit. For non-researchpermitted activities, regulations require an altitude of 1000 or even 1500 feet, depending on the
species. If you're a hobbyist with a hexacopter, please respect the regulations, and marine mammals, by
giving them the required space.
DHS using drone technology to track cell phone signals and identify citizens with guns
Wynton Hall 13, owner of Wynton Hall & Co., Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford
University and ghostwriter for Bretibart news, “HOMELAND SECURITY DRONES DESIGNED TO IDENTIFY
CIVILIANS CARRYING GUNS”, 3/5/13, Breitbart News, http://www.breitbart.com/biggovernment/2013/03/05/homeland-security-drones-designed-to-identify-civilians-carrying-guns/
Recently uncovered government documents reveal that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s
(DHS) unmanned Predator B drone fleet has been custom designed to identify civilians carrying guns
and track cell phone signals. “I am very concerned that this technology will be used against law-abiding
American firearms owners,” said founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment
Foundation, Alan Gottlieb. “This could violate Fourth Amendment rights as well as Second Amendment
rights.” The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) obtained a partially redacted copy of
Homeland Security’s drone requirements through a Freedom of Information Act request; CNET
uncovered an unredacted copy. Homeland Security design requirements specify that its Predator B
drones “shall be capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or not” and
must be equipped with “interception” systems capable of reading cell phone signals. The first known
domestic use of a drone to arrest a U.S. citizen occurred last year in the small town of Lakota, North
Dakota when rancher Rodney Brossart was arrested for refusing to return six of his neighbor’s cows that
had wandered on to his property. Critics say the fact that domestic drones are being used in such
minor matters raises serious concerns about civil liberties and government overreach. “That drone is
not just picking up information on what’s happening at that specific scene, it’s picking up everything
else that’s going on,” says drone expert and Brookings Institution senior fellow Peter Singer. “Basically
it’s recording footage from a lot of different people that it didn’t have their approval to record footage.”
Others, like progressive author Naomi Wolf, have warned that domestic drones may soon be
weaponized. The military version of the Predator B drone carries 100-pound Hellfire missiles, but the
Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection (CBP) says the 10 drones in its domestic fleet are
unarmed. Last month, NBC News uncovered a confidential 16-page Justice Department memo that
concluded the U.S. government may execute a drone strike on an American citizen it believes to be a
“senior operational leader” of al-Qaeda or “an associated force.” The Obama Administration defended
the use of drones to kill Americans thought to be working with terrorists. “These strikes are legal, they
are ethical, and they are wise,” said White House press secretary Jay Carney.
The FBI and Department of AFT has spent millions on unsuccessful drone use
Sari Horwitz 3/25, writer on the Justice Department and criminal justice issues nationwide for The
Washington Post, “Inspector general report: ATF bought 11 drones but never flew them”, 2/25/15,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/inspector-general-report-atf-bought-11drones-but-never-flew-them/2015/03/25/7bf45d64-d30a-11e4-ab77-9646eea6a4c7_story.html
The federal agency that regulates firearms spent about $600,000 on six drones, but never used them
because of mechanical and technical problems and eventually disposed of them altogether, according
to a new federal report released Wednesday. Even after the drone program was suspended, a separate
unit in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives purchased an additional five drones
for $15,000 without coordinating with the agency’s drone office — and those aircraft were grounded.
The findings by Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz also revealed that the FBI has
deployed its drones in 13 investigations. In the nine investigations between 2010 and 2014, the period
examined by Horowitz, the FBI obtained permission from the Federal Aviation Administration. The
inspector general’s report did not include information about the other investigations. The FBI has only
one team of two pilots trained to fly all of the 17 operational drones in its fleet, which is kept at one
location, limiting the bureau’s ability to quickly deploy to distant locations or several locations at the
same time, the report concluded. It is the first time that the government has revealed how many
drones the FBI operates; the bureau has acquired 34 drones, but not all have been put into service.
The FBI spent about $3 million to acquire the drones it has deployed, the report said. “The single team
of [drone] pilots has needed to travel up to thousands of miles to support FBI investigations across the
United States,” the report said. “Pilots told us that when deploying they either drove or flew on
commercial aircraft, and that such travel could take up to a day or more before they arrived at the
scene.” No details were released about how, where and for how long the FBI’s drones were used, except
to say that they provided “targeted aerial surveillance” on domestic national security missions, antidrug-trafficking interdictions, search-and-rescue operations, kidnappings, and fugitive manhunts up to
2014, according to the IG report. “The FBI told us that it determined it did not need to obtain search
warrants for any of its [drone] operations,” the report said. The report does not disclose what kinds of
drones are flown by the FBI or were in possession of the ATF. “We’ve used small unmanned aircraft
system devices in support of a very limited number of investigations,” said FBI spokesman Paul Bresson.
“As part of this process, we’ve obtained all required FAA approvals to use them
US marshal service using drones to identify and capture fugitives
Naomi Gilens 13, graduate of Princeton University and ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project
worker, “New Documents Reveal U.S. Marshals’ Drones Experiment, Underscoring Need for
Government Transparency”, 2/27/13/, https://www.aclu.org/blog/new-documents-reveal-us-marshalsdrones-experiment-underscoring-need-government-transparency
The use of surveillance drones is growing rapidly in the United States, but we know little about how the
federal government employs this new technology. Now, new information obtained by the ACLU shows
for the first time that the U.S. Marshals Service has experimented with using drones for domestic
surveillance. We learned this through documents we released today, received in response to a
Freedom of Information Act request. The documents are available here. (We also released a short log of
drone accidents from the Federal Aviation Administration as well as accident reports and other
documents from the U.S. Air Force.) This revelation comes a week after a bipartisan bill to protect
Americans’ privacy from domestic drones was introduced in the House. Although the Marshals Service
told us it found 30 pages about its drones program in response to our FOIA request, it turned over only
two of those pages—and even they were heavily redacted. Here’s what we know from the two short
paragraphs of text we were able to see. Under a header entitled “Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, ManPortable (UAV) Program,” an agency document overview begins: USMS Technical Operations Group's
UAV Program provides a highly portable, rapidly deployable overhead collection device that will
provide a multi-role surveillance platform to assist in [redacted] detection of targets. Another
document reads: This developmental program is designed to provide [redacted] in support of TOG
[presumably the agency’s Technical Operations Group] investigations and operations. This surveillance
solution can be deployed during [multiple redactions] to support ongoing tactical operations. These
heavily redacted documents reveal almost no information about the nature of the Marshals’ drone
program. However, the Marshals Service explained to the Los Angeles Times that they tested two small
drones in 2004 and 2005. The experimental program ended after both drones crashed. It is surprising
that what seems like a small-scale experiment remained hidden from the public until our FOIA
unearthed it. Even more surprising is that seven years after the program was discontinued, the
Marshals still refuse to disclose almost any records about it. As drone use becomes more and more
common, it is crucial that the government’s use of these spying machines be transparent and
accountable to the American people. All too often, though, it is unclear which law enforcement agencies
are using these tools, and how they are doing so. We should not have to guess whether our government
is using these eyes in the sky to spy on us. As my colleague ACLU staff attorney Catherine Crump told
me,
T Surveillance
Drones Violate the expectation of privacy
John Villasenor 15, Professor of electrical engineering, public policy, and management at UCLA and a
nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington DC. Also a National Fellow at the
Hoover Institution at Stanford. “Will "Drones" Outflank the Fourth Amendment?” Forbes, 9/20/2015,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnvillasenor/2012/09/20/will-drones-outflank-the-fourth-amendment/
In Riley, which also involved naked eye observations, Justice White and the three other justices who
joined his opinion found no Fourth Amendment violation in part because “no intimate details connected
with the use of the home or curtilage were observed.” Justice O’Connor’s Riley concurrence
emphasized that reasonable expectations of privacy, and not “compliance with FAA regulations
alone,” should determine the constitutionality of aerial observations. The Dow Chemical Court
concluded that “the open areas of an industrial plant complex are not analogous to the ‘curtilage’ of a
dwelling for purposes of aerial surveillance.” Yet, even under that much lower privacy standard, the
Court implied the existence of some constitutional bounds, noting that “the photographs here are not
so revealing of intimate details as to raise constitutional concerns.” Several more recent Supreme Court
decisions in non-aviation cases are also relevant to UAV privacy. In 2001, the Court ruled against the
government in a case involving use of a ground-based thermal imager to detect an indoor marijuana
growing operation by measuring the temperature of the roof and outside wall of a house. Writing for
the Court in Kyllo v. United States, Justice Scalia expressed concern that allowing the government to
freely collect any information “emanating from a house” would put people “at the mercy of advancing
technology – including imaging technology that could discern all human activity in the home.” The rule
adopted by the Kyllo Court provides that when “the Government uses a device that is not in general
public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical
intrusion, the surveillance is a ‘search’ and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.” As has
often been noted (including in Justice Stevens’ dissent in Kyllo), the “not in general public use”
restriction can weaken with time as a formerly rare technology becomes common. However, Kyllo
stops well short of endorsing the constitutionality of using a commonly available technology to observe
a home. As Justice Scalia wrote in response to the dissent on this specific point, the thermal imaging in
Kyllo was not “routine.” The Kyllo Court did not need to address the question of observations using
routine technology, and specifically declined to do so. Under a balanced reading of Kyllo, government
use of a UAV to reveal “details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without
physical intrusion” would be unconstitutional today. Ten years from now, when UAVs will be common,
that still may be the case – but that conclusion will need to come from a ruling other than Kyllo. Most
recently, the Supreme Court found against the government in United States v. Jones [PDF], a January
2012 decision that addressed the constitutionality of affixing a GPS tracking device to a vehicle
without a valid warrant. While the basis for the decision was narrow – the Court found a Fourth
Amendment violation in the physical trespass that occurred during the placement of the GPS device
on the vehicle – the aspects of the Jones opinions addressing extended surveillance are directly
relevant to long-endurance UAVs. The opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, stated that
extended electronic surveillance “without an accompanying trespass” may be unconstitutional, but
noted that the “present case does not require us to answer that question.” In a concurrence, Justice
Alito wrote that “the use of longer term GPS monitoring in investigations of most offenses impinges on
expectations of privacy.” And in a separate concurrence, Justice Sotomayor noted the “existence of a
reasonable societal expectation of privacy in the sum of one’s public movements.” Thus, the justices are
on record recognizing the constitutionality question raised by new technologies enabling extended
surveillance, though they deferred its resolution to another day.
Border Surveillance DA
Drones Ineffective
Drones not a valuable border surveillance asset—unprecedented costs, limited flight
time, small deployment area, low success
DHS 1/6, Office of the Inspector General, January 6, 2015, “CBP Drones are Dubious Achievers,”
https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/pr/2015/oigpr_010615.pdf
After spending eight years and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) has yet to prove the value of its Unmanned Aircraft System (drone) program while
drastically understating the costs, according to a new report by the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), Office of Inspector General (OIG). Based on its findings, OIG recommends that CBP abandon plans
to spend $443 million more on additional aircraft and put those funds to better use.
“U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Unmanned Aircraft System Program Does Not Achieve Intended
Results or Recognize All Costs of Operations,” the OIG’s second audit of the program since 2012, found
the effort by CBP’s Office of Air and Marine (OAM) still has no reliable method of measuring its
performance and that its impact in stemming illegal immigration has been minimal.
The OIG specifically found that, during Fiscal Year 2013: - OAM calculated that it cost $2,468 per hour to
operate a drone. OIG found the actual price tag to be $12,255 per hour, noting that OAM omitted such
key costs as salaries for operators, equipment and overhead.
- Flight time fell far short of OAM’s goal of 16 hours per day, 365 days per year. OIG found the drones,
which were often grounded by weather, were airborne for only 22 percent of those goal hours.
- While CBP has touted drone surveillance of the entire Southwest Border (1,993 miles from Texas to
California), the majority of deployment was limited to a 100-mile stretch in Arizona and a 70-mile
segment in Texas.
- Drone surveillance was credited with assisting in less than 2 percent of CBP apprehensions of illegal
border crossers. “Notwithstanding the significant investment, we see no evidence that the drones
contribute to a more secure border , and there is no reason to invest additional taxpayer funds at this
time,” said Inspector General John Roth. “Securing our borders is a crucial mission for CBP and DHS.
CBP’s drone program has so far fallen far short of being an asset to that effort.”
Drone program very expensive with very low success rate --- 1.8% success rate --Inspector general even thinks it’s a bad idea – you can’t beat this card
Lily Hay Newman 1/6, Staff writer and the lead blogger for Future Tense, “Border Patrol Drones Each
Cost $12K an Hour to Fly, Don’t Do Much” 1/6/15, Future Tense,
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/01/06/homeland_security_s_border_patrol_drones_c
ost_12k_an_hour_to_fly_and_don.html
Customs and Border Protection monitors about 7,000 miles of U.S. border and 2,000 miles of coastal
waters. It's a lot of ground to cover, so the agency uses a number of different strategies to get the job
done. One is its 10 Predator B drones that patrol parts of the Arizona and Texas borders. But in a
report released on Dec. 24, the Office of Inspector General revealed that the drones are underutilized
and cost way more to operate than CBP originally estimated. As the Washington Free Beacon points
out, the Predator B drones survey less than 200 miles of southwest border, and cost $12,255 each per
flight hour compared with the Office of Air and Marine's $2,468 per hour estimate. The report
explains: We estimate that, in fiscal year 2013, it cost at least $62.5 million to operate the program, or
about $12,255 per hour. The Office of Air and Marine’s calculation of $2,468 per flight hour does not
include operating costs, such as the costs of pilots, equipment, and overhead. By not including all
operating costs, CBP also cannot accurately assess the program’s cost effectiveness or make informed
decisions about program expansion. Meanwhile, CBP planned for 23,296 total flight hours per year, but
logged just 5,102 flight hours in 2013. And the drones only played a part in catching 1.8 percent of
border crossers in the Tucson region, and 0.7 percent in the Rio Grande Valley region . Not exactly
stellar numbers. Homeland Security wants to expand the program by adding 14 more drones, which
will cost $443 million. But since it has already cost $360 million since 2005, the Office of Inspector
General doesn't think there's proof that the approach is working and deserves more money. It writes:
Given the cost of the Unmanned Aircraft System program and its unproven effectiveness, CBP should
reconsider its plan to expand the program. The $443 million that CBP plans to spend on program
expansion could be put to better use by investing in alternatives, such as manned aircraft and ground
surveillance assets. Eugene Schied, an assistant commissioner at CBP, told the Washington Post that the
audit mischaracterizes the situation and that the program “has achieved or exceeded all relevant
performance expectations.”
Drones ineffective at border surveillance—bad management, low success, and high costs
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 1/9, January 9, 2015, “DRONE WASTE; THE U.S. HAS BETTER METHODS TO
SECURE THE BORDER,” p. A-10
The inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security issued a report card Tuesday on the
effectiveness of the surveillance drone system on the U.S. southern border. It didn't contain the kind of
grades anyone would want to take home to the taxpayers.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection uses a fleet of 11 Predator B drones to spot undocumented
individuals attempting to cross the border illegally from Mexico. But the inspector general's audit said
the 8-year-old program is poorly managed, ineffective and costs far more than expected. Only 2,200
of 120,939 people in 2013 who were nabbed sneaking illegally into the United States were caught with
the help of drones.
Bad weather, frequent grounding for repairs and inadequate technological capacity conspired to
prevent the surveillance drones from doing their jobs . Their cost of operation was underestimated,
auditors reported, when it was learned that pilot salaries, equipment and overhead were left out of the
calculation.
Operated from bases in Arizona and Texas, the Predator B system is such a disappointment that a $400
million proposal to expand its use must be rejected.
The cost of using a piece of technology that has such a poor record is too high. Yet border security must
be maintained and, according to the audit, the government would get much better results by spending
its money on manned aircraft and ground surveillance.
Now that the surveillance drone audit has been released, it will be difficult for anyone in Washington to
justify this boondoggle, particularly when Congress and the White House must find reasonable ways to
reduce the federal budget.
Drones are ineffective—safety concerns
Chad C. Haddal and Jeremiah Gertler 10, Haddal is a immigration policy specialist in the
Congressional Research Service and Gertler is a military aviation specialist in the Congressional Research
Service, July 8, 2010, “Homeland Security: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Border Surveillance,”
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RS21698.pdf
The recent UAV modification is part of an ongoing push by some policymakers and CBP to both expand CBP’s UAV resources and open
the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) granted a certificate of authorization requested by CBP, clearing the UAV flights along the Texas border
additional domestic airspace for UAV operations along the border.7 On June 23, 2010,
and Gulf region. Other requests have reportedly been delayed due to safety concerns, some of which
stem from previous incidents.8 The National Transportation Safety Board held a forum in 2007 on safety
concerns associated with pilotless aircraft after a Predator crashed in Arizona the previous year.9 The board concluded
the ground operator remotely controlling the plane had inadvertently cut off the plane’s fuel.10
Additionally, the FAA and CBP grounded flights of UAVs for six days in June 2010 following a
communications failure with a UAV flying over Texas. In response to this incident CBP, with the FAA’s cooperation, conducted a safety
review and provided UAV operators with additional training.11 Despite safety concerns raised by such incidents, some policymakers continue
to call for the increased domestic use of UAVs.
Drones ineffective—high accident rate, inability to adapt to weather
Chad C. Haddal and Jeremiah Gertler 10, Haddal is a immigration policy specialist in the
Congressional Research Service and Gertler is a military aviation specialist in the Congressional Research
Service, July 8, 2010, “Homeland Security: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Border Surveillance,”
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RS21698.pdf
Despite potential benefits of using UAVs for homeland security, various problems encountered in the past may hinder UAV implementation on
the border. According to a 2003 report, there
have been concerns regarding the high accident rate of UAVs, which
can be multiple times higher than that of manned aircraft.15 Because UAV technology is still evolving, there is less
redundancy built into the operating system of UAVs than of manned aircraft and until redundant systems are perfected
mishap rates are expected to remain high. Additionally, if control systems fail in a manned aircraft, a welltrained pilot is better positioned to find the source of the problem because of his/her physical proximity.
If a UAV encountered a similar system failure, or if a UAV landing was attempted during difficult weather conditions, the
ground control pilot would be at a disadvantage because he or she is removed from the event. Unlike a
manned pilot, the remote pilot would not be able to assess important sensory information such as wind
speed.16
Inclement weather conditions can also impinge on a UAV’s surveillance capability, especially UAVs
equipped with only an EO camera and Forward Looking Infrared Radar (FLIR), because cloudy conditions
and high humidity climates can distort the imagery produced by EO and FLIR equipment. Although the Predator B is
operating in the low-humidity environment of the Southwest, the effects of extreme climatic or atmospheric conditions on its sensors
reportedly can be mitigated if DHS decides to outfit the Predator B with a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) system17 and a moving target
indicator (MTI) radar. Adding SAR and MTI to the Predator B’s platform could significantly enhance its operational capability for border
missions. However, adding SAR and MTI to the UAV platform would increase the costs associated with using UAVs on the border.
Other tech and manned aircraft better than drones
Chad C. Haddal and Jeremiah Gertler 10, Haddal is a immigration policy specialist in the
Congressional Research Service and Gertler is a military aviation specialist in the Congressional Research
Service, July 8, 2010, “Homeland Security: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Border Surveillance,”
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RS21698.pdf
Questions as to the effectiveness of UAVs persist. Although “Homeland Security officials praised the (UAVs) as a safe and important tool that ...
has contributed to the seizing of more than 22,000 pounds of marijuana and the apprehension of 5,000 illegal immigrants,” others disagree.24
“Unmanned aircraft serve a very useful role in military combat situations, but are not economical or efficient in civilian
law enforcement applications,” said T. J. Bonner, president of the Border Patrol union. “There are a
number of other technologies that are capable of providing a greater level of usefulness at a far lower
cost.”25
The DHS Inspector General noted that UAVs were less effective, in their limited tests, than manned aircraft in
supporting the apprehension of unauthorized aliens.26 In addition, the UAVs were used to assist in the
apprehensions of aliens who had already been detected by other means. However, the ability of UAVs to maintain
position for over 20 hours represents a significant advantage over manned aircraft; in the future, they may be used to actually detect
unauthorized entries as opposed to merely supporting apprehensions of aliens already detected. An issue for Congress could entail whether
UAVs are an effective tool for securing the border.
Drones not good enough—accidents, inability to control
Chad C. Haddal and Jeremiah Gertler 10, Haddal is a immigration policy specialist in the
Congressional Research Service and Gertler is a military aviation specialist in the Congressional Research
Service, July 8, 2010, “Homeland Security: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Border Surveillance,”
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RS21698.pdf
Testing of UAVs along the border has been limited. A robust program to test multiple UAVs on the borders might ascertain where, how, and
whether UAVs should be deployed. Larger scale testing would provide an opportunity to evaluate whether the limitations of UAVs would hinder
their utility on the border. In the past, multiple
UAVs piloted in close proximity have experienced interference and
loss of control between the UAV and the remote pilot. In many cases, interference led to accidents. A
possible issue for Congress could include whether testing should be expanded before any decisions are made regarding the wide-scale use of
UAVs along the border.
Terror DA
N/U
No UQ-- Domestic drones do not surveil for counterterrorism purposes
Dawn M. K. Zoldi 13, Staff Judge Advocate at the United States Air Force Academy, September 28,
2013, Abstract of “On the Front Lines of the Home Front: The Intersection of Domestic Counterterrorism
Operations and Drone Legislation,” The Fundamentals of Counterterrorism Law, p. 281, American Bar
Association, 2014, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2379143
For some, the term “drone” conjures up images of illicit government surveillance – or worse yet, the
extrajudicial killing – of Americans on U.S. soil. To allay these fears, a significant amount of state and
federal legislation has been proposed that forbids the government from collecting information or
evidence with a drone, with limited exceptions including, but not limited to “imminent danger to life,”
“terror attack,” and “national security conspiracy” exceptions. This article reviews the various drone
proposals and other applicable policies and then explores their impact on domestic CT operations by
applying eight just-passed state drone laws to a hypothetical scenario based loosely on the 2013 Boston
Marathon bombing.
No UQ—UAVs aren’t allowed in airspace now—no way could contribute to CT in the
squo
Chad C. Haddal and Jeremiah Gertler 10, Haddal is a immigration policy specialist in the
Congressional Research Service and Gertler is a military aviation specialist in the Congressional Research
Service, July 8, 2010, “Homeland Security: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Border Surveillance,”
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RS21698.pdf
Lastly, how UAVs could be integrated into civilian airspace within the United States is a fundamental
question being addressed by the FAA, DHS, and the Department of Defense (DOD). Integrating UAVs into civilian
airspace so that they could operate safely would require not only the creation of regulatory guidelines by the FAA but also technical
developments. The FAA requires that all aircraft operating in U.S. airspace have the ability to detect and avoid other aircraft. For UAVs, this has
meant that an operator at the Air and Marine Operations Center (AMOC) must be dedicated to each UAV that is flying.21 Additionally, the FAA
has required that UAV operators be licensed pilots. The FAA currently is working on guidelines for integrating UAVs into the national air space
(NAS) and has deployed a representative to AMOC to liaise with DHS on a variety of issues, including the use of UAVs.22 Although there are no
guidelines or regulations for incorporating UAVs into the NAS, the FAA has worked closely with government users of UAV technology in
developing a certificate of authority (COA) so NAS can be blocked off for exploratory development or operational testing. A primary concern of
the FAA is whether UAVs can operate in already crowded airspace. Before UAVs can be introduced into national airspace, the FAA, DHS, and
other relevant users will need to address collision-avoidance, communication, and weather avoidance issues.23
AT: Terror Link
No link—drones aren’t used for substantial domestic surveillance
Joseph Straw 13, reporter, June 19, 2013, “Drone surveillance ‘limited,’ FBI boss says in wake of NSA
snooping scandal,” http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/fbi-director-robert-mueller-told-u-ssenate-committee-fbi-pilotless-aircraft-narrowly-focused-particularized-cases-particularized-didn-casesdrones-article-1.1377552
FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged Wednesday for the first time that the bureau has used
drones for surveillance operations inside the U.S. — but only in a “very, very minimal way.”
He told a U.S. Senate committee that the FBI’s use of the pilotless aircraft was “very narrowly focused
on particularized cases and particularized needs.”
“And I will tell you that our footprint is very small. We have very few and of limited use and we’re
exploring not only the use but also the necessary guidelines for that use,” he testified.
Drones Don’t matter-Most Qualified Research
Insider Surveillance 1/23, January 23, 2015, “U.S. National Research Council: No Substitute for Bulk
Metadata Collection,” https://insidersurveillance.com/u-s-national-research-council-no-substitute-forbulk-metadata-collection/
At the request of the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) in mid-2014, the National
Research Council set out to examine bulk metadata collection, its practice and results, and more specifically, to study the
potential for developing software that will provide a more targeted approach to singling out dangerous elements and preempting acts of terror.
The National Research Council report focused on the technology of all types of electronic
communication and not just domestic telephone metadata. The report was in response to President Barack Obama’s call last year for a
review of potential software-based alternatives to the controversial program.
The report came out just as Edward Snowden launched his latest attack on national security programs, saying that surveillance systems and
laws don’t work.
“France passed one of the most intrusive, expansive surveillance laws in all of Europe last year and it didn’t stop the attack, and this is
consistent with what we’ve seen in every country,” the said, adding that French authorities knew of the Paris attackers beforehand but didn’t
predict what they ultimately did.
Snowden argued that U.S. authorities that advance warnings didnn’t stop the Boston Bomber attack, either. “The problem with mass
surveillance is that you’re burying people under too much data,” he said, echoing arguments that others have made about the “base rate
fallacy”.
Intelligence officials disagree,
maintaining that collecting telephone metadata in bulk is critical to U.S. counterterrorism efforts. The new research backs them up.
“A choice to eliminate all forms of bulk collection would have costs in intelligence capabilities,” concluded Council researchers, who came from
universities across the country and top technology companies.
“There are no technical alternatives that can
complete substitute for it; there is no technological magic.”
accomplish the same functions as bulk collection and serve as a
Drones not Key
Metadata is the key to preventing terror attacks-Drones aren’t necessary
Jena Baker McNeill, James Jay Carafano, Ph.D. and Jessica Zuckerman 11, McNeill is a senior
policy analyst at Homeland Security, Carafano is a Vice President for the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom
Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, and Zuckerman is a policy analyst at Western
Hemisphere, May 20, 2011, “39 Terror Plots Foiled Since 9/11: Examining Counterterrorism’s Success
Stories,” http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/05/39-terror-plots-foiled-since-911examining-counterterrorisms-success-stories
Lesson # 2: Early Disruption of Terror Plots Requires Early Intelligence. In at least 35 of the 39 plots law enforcement was
able to dismantle a plot early in the process before the public was in danger. Often, informants and
undercover agents were inside the operation—an objective that could not have been achieved without
obtaining intelligence early on.
In the case of Iyman Faris in 2003 (foiled plot 4), an anonymous tipster informed the NYPD about a potential attack on the Brooklyn Bridge,
allowing law enforcement to immediately begin patrolling the bridge and increasing physical security. Subsequently, Faris and his superiors
cancelled the attack. In the case of Antonio Martinez in December 2010 (foiled plot 36), a 21-year-old American citizen planning to bomb a
military recruiting center in Maryland, the FBI was able to make contact with him and supply him with a fake explosive, arresting Martinez
before he was able to detonate it. Complex and carefully orchestrated sting operations like the Martinez case are not easily accomplished.
Without the right intelligence, such opportunities are unlikely to happen—and without investigative tools, law enforcement may not find the
right leads to track the suspects in time to intervene.
The PATRIOT Act, for instance, is a key source of such investigative and intelligence gathering tools, as well as
other key counterterrorism reforms. Enacted shortly after 9/11, the PATRIOT Act breaks down the walls
of information sharing that existed between criminal and national security investigations. For instance,
the PATRIOT Act’s information-sharing provisions were essential for investigating and prosecuting the
Lackawanna Six (foiled plot 3). An anonymous letter sent to investigators which detailed a potential terrorist plot as well as criminal
activity was able to be pursued as a single investigation, instead of two separate investigations (one criminal, one national security), which
would have been required under pre-PATRIOT Act standards. This
meant that authorities could share leads and
intelligence.
PATRIOT also equipped law enforcement officials with more tools to track down leads, including
investigative tools like roving surveillance authority and the business records provision, as well as changes in
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act laws which assist in investigations and prosecutions of terrorist activity. In the Zazi case in 2009 (foiled
plot 25), PATRIOT’s intelligence-gathering provisions were essential yet again when law enforcement authorities used roving surveillance
authority to track Najibullah Zazi’s illegal activities across multiple communication devices.
The consequences of insufficient intelligence or late intelligence are severe. The 9/11 attacks which
killed thousands of Americans are one example. The only reason that the Christmas Day plot was not successful was because
other passengers noticed suspicious behavior and restrained the attacker. Had the fellow passengers been less conscientious, the plot could
have been deadly.
Politics
A2: Drone lobbies
Lobbying strength helps the plan-- groups want to lift the current bans and create
legislation to facilitate the growth of drones for purposes other than surveillance
Andrew Ramonas 1/20, reporter, January 20, 2015, “Amazon and Google Drone Lobbying Group
Seeks FAA Rules,” http://www.corpcounsel.com/id=1202715547627/Amazon-and-Google-DroneLobbying-Group-Seeks-FAA-Rules?slreturn=20150622113757
As the U.S. government drafts rules for the use of commercial drones, Amazon.com Inc., Google Inc. and
other backers of the unmanned aircraft are working to ensure they are on the radar of federal
lawmakers and regulators.
The Small UAV Coalition, which includes Amazon, Google and other members of the unmanned aerial
vehicle industry, brought drone supporters together in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday in an effort to
showcase the aircraft and compel the government to act on updating regulations. Although Congress
directed the Federal Aviation Administration to integrate commercial drones into U.S. air traffic by Sept.
30, the agency is unlikely to meet that target. With a ban on commercial drones currently in place, only
a few companies have received an FAA exemption to operate the aircraft.
Michael Drobac, the Small UAV Coalition's executive director, said his group isn't "here to lay blame" or
"criticize." Rather, the organization seeks to be "part of the solution." Drobac, who also is an Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld senior policy adviser, leads a team of seven lobbyists at the firm who are
advocating for the Small UAV Coalition, according to congressional records.
"They face significant regulatory and legal hurdles," Drobac said of drone industry members. "But we
believe that it's incumbent upon us to go to those regulatory officials and to lawmakers to present the
pathway to safe and responsible integration of UAVs into the airspace."
It's unclear how far away commercial drone rules are. The FAA was supposed to release draft
regulations by December. But the agency's proposed rules are still under review.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., said at the gathering that he is ready to help the Small UAV Coalition get
its drones off the ground.
"I look forward to working with you," Blumenauer said. "If it's the FAA that we've got to deal with, so be
it. Let's think about ways to help them do the job better."
The Small UAV Coalition, which launched in August, uses Akin Gump to conduct "outreach to FAA,
Congress, the White House and other federal agencies and media, to advance goals and interests of the
small UAV manufacturers, operators and users, and the industry that supports small UAVs," according to
a lobbying activity report filed with Congress. The firm received $220,000 for its advocacy help last year.
No link
The plan’s popular with the public—spillover to Congress
Patrick Murray 12, founder of the Monmouth University Polling Institute, June 12, 2012, “U.S.
SUPPORTS SOME DOMESTIC DRONE USE,”
http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212
254995/30064771087/42e90ec6a27c40968b911ec51eca6000.pdf
With 30,000 drone aircraft expected to patrol the nation’s skies within a decade, the Monmouth University Poll finds the
American public supports many applications of this technology. Routine policing, though, is not
among them.
A majority of Americans have heard either a great deal (27%) or some (29%) news about the use of unmanned surveillance drones by the U.S.
Military. Another 22% have heard only a little and 22% have heard nothing at all. The Department of Homeland Security has also been
developing drones to patrol the nation’s borders and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has been revising rules to widen the use of
drones for other domestic purposes.
The poll asked a national sample about four potential uses of unmanned drones by U.S. law enforcement. An
overwhelming majority
of Americans support the idea of using drones to help with search and rescue missions (80%). Twothirds of the public also support using drones to track down runaway criminals (67%) and control illegal
immigration on the nation’s border (64%).
One area where Americans say that drones should not be used, though, is to issue speeding tickets. Only
23% support using drones
for this routine police activity while a large majority of 67% oppose the idea.
“Americans clearly support using drone technology in special circumstances, but they are a bit leery of
more routine use by local law enforcement agencies,” said Patrick Murray, director of the New Jersey-based Monmouth
University Polling Institute.
Curtailing domestic drone use has bipartisan support
Steven Nelson 3/17, US News and World Report reporter, March 17, 2015, “Weaponized, Peeping
Drone Ban Proposed in Congress,” http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/03/17/weaponizedpeeping-drone-ban-proposed-in-congress
Legislation to forbid alarming and increasingly not-so-hypothetical uses of unmanned aircraft was
introduced in Congress Tuesday.
The Preserving American Privacy Act, sponsored by Reps. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., and Ted Poe, R-Texas ,
would make it illegal for Americans to use increasingly affordable drones to record other people's
private moments, such as a neighbor using the bathroom.
The bill would also ban civilians and law enforcement alike from using drones mounted with firearms,
and would require warrants before law enforcement officers use drones to surveil private property not
in plain view or obtain information "reasonably likely to enable identification of an individual."
The bill as proposed would not establish specific penalties for civilians using drones to record audio or
images in a manner “highly offensive to a reasonable person” where the subject has a reasonable
expectation of privacy.
But it would allow for administrative discipline for officials who violate the law and would make illegally
collected drone evidence inadmissible in court.
The legislation includes warrant exceptions in emergency situations and for flights within 25 miles of
U.S. land borders.
Poe and Lofgren say the bill’s main target is government use of the technology and say it’s important to
protect Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights as law enforcement outfits grasp for the devices.
“Privacy is a constitutional right and it ought to apply to drones,” Poe says.
“The Fourth Amendment enhances your ability to exercise your First Amendment rights,” Lofgren says,
and free-wheeling drone use by authorities may have a chilling effect on citizens doing so.
Public supports curtailing of domestic drone use—drives bipartisanship
Catherine Crump and Jay Stanley 13, Crump is a ACLU attorney and Stanely is a ACLU senior policy
analyst, February 11, 2013, “Why Americans Are Saying No to Domestic Drones,”
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/02/domestic_surveillance_drone_bans_
are_sweeping_the_nation.html
Last week, after an especially raucous city council hearing, the Seattle police department terminated its
drones program and agreed to return the purchased equipment to the manufacturer. This came just
days after both houses of the Virginia state legislature passed historic bills imposing a two-year
moratorium on the use of drones by law enforcement and regulatory agencies in the state. In Florida, a
potentially even more significant bill imposing a judicial warrant requirement on police use of drones
continued to march toward passage. Similar legislation has been proposed in at least 13 other state
legislatures around the country so far.
Of all the threats to privacy that we face today, why have drones caught the attention of the American
public to such a remarkable degree?
One possibility is that there’s something uniquely ominous about a robotic “eye in the sky.” Many
privacy invasions are abstract and invisible—data mining, for example, or the profiling of Internet users
by online advertisers. Drones, on the other hand, are concrete and real, and the threat requires no
explanation. But they are just the most visible example of a host of new surveillance technologies that
have the potential to fundamentally alter the balance of power between individuals and the state.
Physically tailing a suspect requires teams of police officers working 24/7, but now police can slap GPS
devices on a suspect’s car and then sit in the station house tracking his movements on a laptop. Now
that the wholesale surveillance of American life is becoming cheap and easy, legal protections are all the
more important.
The drone issue has also gained momentum because the concern over it is bipartisan. While Democrats
get most of the credit for pushing back on national surveillance programs, it was the Republican Party’s
2012 platform that addressed domestic surveillance drones, stating that “we support pending legislation
to prevent unwarranted or unreasonable governmental intrusion through the use of aerial surveillance.”
The ACLU of Virginia, for instance, teamed up with one of the state’s most conservative lawmakers to
introduce a drone regulation bill in the state House of Delegates, while its Senate companion bill was
introduced by a progressive. Florida’s drone regulation legislation is being almost entirely pushed by
conservatives—and in most states, the legislative efforts we’ve seen so far have been conservative or
bipartisan. Privacy issues are always less partisan than many other political questions, but the support
for action on drones from both left and right has been remarkable.
Drones as a CT tool is unpopular—plan to curtail would have widespread support
Michael J. Deegan 14, Colonel, U.S. Army Reserve, with duty at the International & Operational Law
Division, Office of The Judge Advocate General, Fall 2014, “UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES: LEGITIMATE
WEAPON SYSTEMS OR UNLAWFUL ANGELS OF DEATH?,” Pace International Law Review, 26 Pace Int'l L.
Rev. 249
The U.S. Attorney General has stated that UAV targeting [*259] in the U.S. is a possibility in an
"extraordinary circumstance" to prevent an attack similar to Pearl Harbor or 9-11. n67 This is not as
remote of a possibility as one would think. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization and
Reform Act of 2012 "requires the FAA to begin integrating unmanned aircraft into the national airspace
system by the end of fiscal year 2015." n68 The FAA currently consents to the use of unmanned aircraft
by public entities such as law enforcement on an individual basis. However, requests for such use have
increased dramatically in recent years. n69 Few Americans support UAV targeting in the U.S. against a
suspected terrorist, regardless of whether the suspected terrorist is a U.S. citizen or not. n70 Only 25
percent support UAV airstrikes in the US against suspected foreign terrorist living in the U.S., and the
support is even less for UAV targeting of US citizens living in the U.S. who are suspected terrorists
(13%). n71
Obama cleared drone controversy by setting a standard
Garance Franke-Ruta 13, Former senior editor national politics reporter, May 23, 2013, “Obama's
Domestic Drone Standard Is Now Tighter Than Rand Paul's,”
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/obamas-domestic-drone-standard-is-nowtighter-than-rand-pauls/276188/
The president also laid out what the standard should be for domestic use of armed but unmanned aerial
vehicles: They should not be used.
"For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S.
citizen -- with a drone, or a shotgun -- without due process," Obama said. "Nor should any president
deploy armed drones over U.S. soil."
Let me repeat the second part of that quote, since this has been such a controversial and muchdiscussed topic: "Nor should any president deploy armed drones over U.S. soil."
There is bipartisan support for curtailing domestic drone use
Dustin Hurst 13, January 25, 2013, “Miracle workers! Domestic drones unite Dems, GOP,”
http://watchdog.org/67428/opposing-parties-groups-unite-as-drone-warfare-comes-to-state-capitols/
IDAHO FALLS, Idaho — Drones are wildly popular on the battlefield. Now they can claim victory
elsewhere. The use of drones within U.S. borders — in car chases, to monitor wildfires, or for simple
surveillance — is uniting political parties and people more often at odds.
Their concern: the widespread use of drones among civilians represents a deep and dangerous intrusion
into American life.
“What we used to know as privacy is finished,” said John Whitehead, a constitutional scholar and
president of Virginia-based Rutherford Institute. “Big Brother is here to stay.”
Both the progressive American Civil Liberties Union and the libertarian Rutherford Institute cheer
legislative efforts to place strict limits on unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs. And, prodded by privacy
groups, state lawmakers nationwide — Republicans and Democrats alike — have launched an all-out
offensive against the unmanned aerial vehicles.
And to think, only the prospect of complete upheaval of America’s strong tradition of privacy rights
spurs bipartisanship.
Privacy DA
No link—Squo solves privacy and drones don’t intrude it
Eli Dourado, 13, research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and director of
its Technology Policy Program, 04.23.13 6:30 AM, Wired Magazine, “The Next Internet-Like Platform for
Innovation? Airspace. (Think Drones)”, http://www.wired.com/2013/04/then-internet-now-airspacedont-stifle-innovation-on-the-next-great-platform/
It’s true that opening up U.S. airspace to commercial drones will have some important privacy implications to
consider. But it’s even more important that we consider the effect of too-early, heavy-handed regulation
on future innovation. Like the internet, airspace is a platform for commercial and social innovation. As a
permissionless, open platform, the internet allowed — still allows — entrepreneurs to try new business models and offer new services without
having to seek the approval of regulators beforehand. We
can’t predict all the potential uses of drones when airspace
restrictions are lifted, but our experience with the internet shows that it’s vital to allow innovation and
entrepreneurship to proceed on this new platform without imposing pre-emptive regulatory barriers.
Regulation at this juncture requires our over-speculating about which types of privacy violations might
arise. Since many of these harms may never materialize, pre-emptive regulation is likely to overprotect
privacy at the expense of innovation. Frankly, it wouldn’t even work. Imagine if we had tried to
comprehensively regulate online privacy before allowing commercial use of the internet. We wouldn’t
have even known how to. We wouldn’t have had the benefit of understanding how online commerce works, nor could we have
anticipated the rise of social networking and related phenomena. Imagine if we had tried to comprehensively regulate
online privacy before allowing commercial use of the internet. Yet some of the proposed privacy
requirements are quite onerous for commercial operators of drones — their costs will likely outweigh
any hypothetical benefits. Consider the example of a real-estate agent using drones to create detailed, 3-D
photos of a property for sale. If that real-estate agent treated every single passerby as a potential victim
of privacy violation, would s/he have to stop every single person, ensure each is given access to and the
right to review all photographs (even ones not used on the property listing website), and take numerous
expensive security measures to protect photos taken in a public space? Not only would such
requirements (and that’s just a shortlist) be overkill, but they’re unnecessary. Because there are already federal,
state, and local laws that protect individuals’ rights to privacy. If drone operators violate such laws, they can be
prosecuted or sued for damages. For those concerned about drones used for voyeurism, state “peeping Tom” statutes already
make such activity illegal. And by actually allowing court cases to proceed and be decided by juries — instead of
preempting the state judicial process with federal regulation — we can develop a sophisticated,
narrowly tailored body of law that addresses privacy violations by drone operators without harming
innovation. We may further find that we don’t even need to protect privacy through innovation-stifling
regulation. Citizen attitudes about commercial drones could follow the familiar pattern we’ve seen play out with other radical innovations:
initial resistance, gradual adaptation, and then eventual assimilation of that new technology into society. This pattern is over a
century old: Think about the evolution of the camera and photography. In an 1890 Harvard Law Review paper, Samuel
Warren and Louis Brandeis lamented that “instantaneous photographs and newspaper enterprise have invaded
the sacred precincts of private and domestic life” and claimed that “numerous mechanical devices threaten to make good the
prediction that ‘what is whispered in the closet shall be proclaimed from the house-tops.’” After the initial panic, we almost
always embrace the service that once violated our visceral sense of privacy. But today, every
smartphone takes not just photographs but records video, and we tend to regard such capabilities as
benign if not empowering. After “the initial panic,” Larry Downes has observed, “we almost always embrace the service that once
violated our visceral sense of privacy.” By allowing time for social norms to adapt, we may find that we’ll all become accustomed to drones. And
even if we don’t, there are other solutions to privacy problems besides heavy regulation. Drone operators could develop voluntary codes of
conduct, individuals could learn to employ effective privacy-protecting or self-help countermeasures, the market could create solutions, and so
on. But
unless we exercise regulatory forbearance now, we may never see less-restrictive means of
preserving privacy develop. An entirely new platform for innovation awaits us, and if we can integrate
commercial drones into airspace without preemptive, heavy-handed regulation, the consequences —
and benefits — could be as revolutionary as the internet itself. It’s time to start seeing airspace as our
next, great platform for innovation.
Desal CP
Desal is too expensive for farmers, takes too much time and destroys biodiversity
Leila Monroe, 14, Staff Attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, May 21, 2014, “Proceed
With Caution: California's Drought & Seawater Desalination”,
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/lmonroe/proceed_with_caution_californi.html
First, water produced by seawater desalination is very expensive with an average price per acre foot 4 to
8 times higher than water from other sources. Estimates for plants proposed in California range from
$1,900 to more than $3,000 per acre-foot. A 50 million gallon per day (MGD) plant, such as the one under
construction in Carlsbad is projected to have a price between $2042-$2290 per acre foot. By comparison, the
Department of Water Resources data cited in the 2009 California Water Plan Update found that: The “estimated range of capital
and operational costs of water recycling range from $300 to $1300 per acre-foot” depending on local
conditions. The cost to realize an acre-foot of water savings through efficiency measures ranges from
$223 to $522 per acre-foot. The agricultural efficiency improvements that result in water savings of between 120,000 to 563,000
acre-feet per year can be achieved at a cost ranging from $35-$900 per acre-foot. Second, seawater desalination is typically the most energyintensive water supply option, resulting in significant climate change pollution compared to less energy intensive options. A 2011 life-cycle
energy assessment of California’s alternative water supplies commissioned by the California Energy Commission found that, while a
desalination system can have a wide array of impacts depending on the water source: “In all cases, the energy use is higher than alternative
water supply.” Third, seawater desalination can
have significant impacts on the marine environment.
Seawater desalination plants typically only convert 45-55% of the water they withdraw into freshwater,
which means they must take in twice as much seawater as the amount of freshwater they intend to
produce. Many of the proposed desalination projects in California plan to use large pipes in the water
column to suck in the source seawater": these open ocean intakes kill billions of fish eggs, adult fish, and
other marine life each year, threatening the productivity of California’s marine ecosystems. The
desalination process also generates large quantities of waste, known as brine, which can have serious
impacts, including acute and chronic toxicity if improperly discharged into the marine environment.
Finally, experience demonstrates that large, expensive desalination facilities and associated infrastructure
can take many years to build and bring online, yet the water demand and price may be insufficient to
justify continued operation of the desalination plant when less expensive water supply and demand
management alternatives are available: this creates significant financial risk for ratepayers and taxpayers. For example, in
response to the 1986-1991 drought, Santa Barbara spent $34 million to build a reverse osmosis desalination plant that was promptly placed
into long-term storage because of the plant’s very high operational costs. Now, the city is considering undertaking a two year process to
reactivate the plant, at an additional cost of $20.2 million and with operating costs of approximately $1,500 per acre foot.
Desal takes too long and kills bio-d
Michael Hiltzik, 4/24, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist for the LA times, April 24, 2015, “Desalination
plants aren't a good solution for California drought”, http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fihiltzik-20150426-column.html#page=1
That's what happened to Santa Barbara, which began building a $34-million desalination plant during the
drought-stricken 1980s. By the time it was completed in 1992, the rains had returned; the facility went
through a few weeks of pilot testing, then was mothballed and partially dismantled. The city is now
contemplating restarting it at a cost of $40 million, plus $5 million a year in operating costs. That would place the cost of desalinated water at
about $3,000 an acre-foot and drive up average monthly household water bills to $108 from $78 today. Santa
Barbara's experience
has been replicated on a much larger scale by Australia, which after 2006 invested more than $12 billion
in six desalination plants — the largest of them twice the capacity of Carlsbad's — only to mothball four
in 2012, after returning rains overfilled the country's reservoirs. The least visible cost, of course, is
environmental damage. Ocean inflows suck up and kill larval marine organisms. At the other end of the
desalination cycle, the salt extracted from seawater produces a heavy brine to be pumped back into the
ocean, potentially destabilizing the ecology around the outflows. "Dumping water that is saltier than
seawater into the ocean isn't harmless," says Vaux, who contributed to a 2008 blue-ribbon study of desalination for the National
Research Council. "Some organisms can't survive, others move in — the ocean isn't a great big garbage can."
Few studies have tracked the environmental impact of dumping on Carlsbad's scale for a long period. It may be premature, at best, for
MacLaggan to say that it "truly is a benign impact" compared with that of diverting water from waterways in Northern California to send south.
San Diego, which is more dependent on outside water than most populous California communities, may be the best location in the state for a
big desalination project. Other jurisdictions, including Santa Cruz and five Northern California water districts, have taken a look at the
technology and backed off because of its expense and environmental implications. Assertions
that desalination is an easy
answer to California's water crisis should be taken with more than a grain of, well, salt.
Several states already building desalination plants now-Means it either doesn’t solve
or the CP is not mutually exclusive
Justin Gillis 4/11, Staff writer for the new york times, “For Drinking Water in Drought, California Looks
Warily to Sea”, New York Times, 4/11/15, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/science/drinkingseawater-looks-ever-more-palatable-to-californians.html?_r=0
Now, for the first time, a major California metropolis is on the verge of turning the Pacific Ocean into an
everyday source of drinking water. A $1 billion desalination plant to supply booming San Diego County is
under construction here and due to open as early as November, providing a major test of whether
California cities will be able to resort to the ocean to solve their water woes. Across the Sun Belt, a
technology once dismissed as too expensive and harmful to the environment is getting a second look.
Texas, facing persistent dry conditions and a population influx, may build several ocean desalination
plants. Florida has one operating already and may be forced to build others as a rising sea invades the
state’s freshwater supplies. In California, small ocean desalination plants are up and running in a handful
of towns. Plans are far along for a large plant in Huntington Beach that would supply water to populous
Orange County. A mothballed plant in Santa Barbara may soon be reactivated. And more than a dozen
communities along the California coast are studying the issue. The facility being built here will be the
largest ocean desalination plant in the Western Hemisphere, producing about 50 million gallons of
drinking water a day. So it is under scrutiny for whether it can operate without major problems. “It was
not an easy decision to build this plant,” said Mark Weston, chairman of the agency that supplies water
to towns in San Diego County. “But it is turning out to be a spectacular choice. What we thought was on
the expensive side 10 years ago is now affordable.” Still, the plant illustrates many of the hard choices
that states and communities face as they consider whether to tap the ocean for drinking water. In San
Diego County, which depends on imported freshwater supplies from the Colorado River and from
Northern California, water bills already average about $75 a month. The new plant will drive them up by
$5 or so to secure a new supply equal to about 7 or 8 percent of the county’s water consumption.
Transparency CP
Drone transparency fails, agencies like the FBI will not follow
Meredith Clark, MSNBC reporter with a BA in political science from University of Wisconsin, “FBI
obstructs oversight, DOJ Inspector General says”, MSNBC, 09/10/14,
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/fbi-obstructs-oversight-doj-inspector-general-says
Federal agencies like the FBI regularly obstruct the Justice Department’s watchdog office from
conducting effective oversight, the Inspector General testified Tuesday before Congress. Michael
Horowitz told the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that his office has had to ask
Attorney General Eric Holder or Deputy Attorney General James Cole to intercede on the IG’s behalf.
Horowitz also testified that some reports, on how the FBI conducts investigations related to terrorism,
have se–en long delays due to agency stonewalling. “Access by Inspectors General to information in
agency files goes to the heart of our mission to provide independent and non-partisan oversight,”
Horowitz said. A 1978 law gives Inspectors General the power to request documents and information
from the agencies they are tasked with policing. But according to Horowitz, many agencies have recently
been ignoring the statute. “The IG Act expressly provides that an independent Inspector General should
decide whether documents are relevant to an OIG’s work,” Horowitz said. “However, the current
process at the Department instead places that decision and authority in the leadership of the agency
that is being subjected to our oversight.” The Justice Department is not the only agency affected by a
lack of transparency. Forty-seven inspectors generals signed a letter in August arguing that
obstructionism happens throughout the federal government. In one instance, the Peace Corps withheld
records related to sexual assaults committed against volunteers. The Inspectors General who signed the
letter urged Congress to take action.
Ban Latin American Drones CP
Drone Regulations are key to stop Latin American Conflict-Bans Go too far
W. Alejandro Sanchez 14, Senior Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs,
1/12/2014, “COHA Report: Drones in Latin America”, Council on Hemispheric Affairs,
http://www.coha.org/coha-report-drones-in-latin-america/
Latin American governments, as well as their security forces (both military and police), believe that
drones can be a game changer when it comes to pulling off effective security operations. Even without
weapons, unarmed drones can serve in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance operations (ISR).
How successful they can be remains debatable, but it has been reported that, for example, Colombia has
used its ScanEagle drones for counter terrorism operations as well as to protect the country’s vital oil
industry. Meanwhile, reports in 2012 explained that a special forces unit (BOPE) of the Brazilian police
has begun using drones to monitor crimes, including drug sales, in the shantytowns (known as favelas in
Portuguese) around Rio de Janeiro.[36]
As for the future, security operations will continue to be a priority. For example, Peru believes that
drones can be of use to combat the narco-insurgent movement Shining Path, which operates in the
dense Peruvian highlands known as the VRAEM (Valley of the Apurimac, Ene and Mantaro Rivers).