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-the-privacy-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

lobby. They may believe that law enforcement and other government agencies 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.

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-industry-privacy-distractions-could-have-major-economic-impactsA 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 movementMartin 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-planetUnmanned 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 agricultur e . 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 useChris 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 themClay 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 F ederal 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 all-around 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 Ag riculture 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 foodMatt 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-of-californias-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 U nited 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 warClionadh 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/S0959378015000357In 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, insecurit y 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 anti- government 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 offshoringRyan 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-lack-of-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 wit h 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 competitivenessCarrie 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 abroa d. ” 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 r-value 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

justification to engage in conflict or escalate military budgets purely for the sake of international stability. 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.

Hegemony creates peace by preventing both great power and regional conflictsStephen 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.pdfA 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 U nited S tates places significant limits on the possibility of great- power competition, for at least two reasons. One reason is that because the U nited S tates 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 U nited S tates 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-may-be-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 militarizationDiego 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-latin-america 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 TerrorMarguerite 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-and-opportunities 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 commande r 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 US-Russia warR. 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 U nited S tates. 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 U nited S tates 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 U nited S tates 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 probabilityAnthony 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, onlineWar involving significant fractions of the U.S. and Russia n 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 lead ing 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

East-West nuclear war was significantly reduced. 21,22 However, it has also been argued that 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 U nited S tates and Russia are not actively threatening each other with war, they have remain ed 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 control-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 likelyAjay 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.pdfThe 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 u nmanned a erial v ehicle 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 terror ism 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 solveJohn Holmberg 9, Professor at George Mason University, 5/11/2009, “Narcoterrorism”, traccc.gmu.edu/pdfs/student_research/HolmbergNarcoterrorism.pdfThe 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 terror ism . 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 U nited S tates . 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 USCurt 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/2008-10-08-805146709_x.htmThere 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 motivationMatthew 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. 419-420But 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 al-Masri, 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 keyNathan 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.pdfSeveral 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 tech nology 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

¶ process is incomplete and inconsistent. A 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 .

1AC Solvency

The plan eliminates public privacy concerns while retaining drones’ beneficial activitiesGautam 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-from-governmental-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 actsSara Sorcher, 13, Writer for National Journal, February 21, 2013, “The Backlash Against Drones”, http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-backlash-against-drones-20130221The 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 civil-aviation 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, D-Calif., introduced a 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 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 nowJoel 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. 461Although 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 heat-sensing 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 dronesCaren 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 drone-hunting 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 investmentJoan 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.htmlWASHINGTON - 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 ...

and all of a sudden, 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 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 marketsSteven 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 pricesDaniel 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-food-prices-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 mega-

drought 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 scarcityAlan 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-global-food-marketAug. 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 useHannah 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 CaliforniaSasha 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 percentMatt 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-my-corn-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 agCatherine 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 costMary 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/5-ways-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 killsChristopher 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-agriculture-growth/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 AmericaIsabelle Cadoret, 15, Professor at Université de Remes, March 8, 2015, “Civil Conflicts and Food Price Spikes”, http://afse2015.sciencesconf.org/61838/documentTable 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/the-hunger-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 high-

unemployment 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, 2007-

2011 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 nowChristopher 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 nowUSDA, 13, “Farm Size and the Organization of U.S. Crop Farming”, August 2013, http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1156726/err152.pdfThe 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 ExtensionsDrones are key to manufacturingAUVSI, 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-4ad2-9807-f9a4e95d1ef1/UploadedImages/New_Economic%20Report%202013%20Full.pdfThe 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 offshoringAlan 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-go-abroad/ 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 much-anticipated 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 behindEd 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/drone-testers-faa-aviation-frustration-growsEven 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 deterrenceMackenzie 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-baseYet 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 conflictW. 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-puts-forward-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 LeaderDiego 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-latin-america 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 extra-hemispheric 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 nuc lear weapon s would destroy the human race .[iv] In other words, a US-Russian nuclear war would create such extreme long- term 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.

E lectro m agnetic p ulse 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 boil-off, 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 weapons creates the possibility of their use and that their use in war would likely mean human extinction . As nuclear war has no winners, the weapons should be banned and destroyed before they destroy all of us.

Great Power Draw In !

Latin American Conflicts escalate and Draw in Great PowersJames 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/S0008423900022460While 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 theftW 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 narco-subs: 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 likelyTerence 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-deadly-alliance-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 pressuresKatitza 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-tech-expands-across-latin-americaLast 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 cross-reference 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 actionAlissa 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.pdfIn 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 backlashHillary 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 informationVeronica 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 usageVictoria 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, LexisBecause 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 deliberationRobert 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, LexisEven 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. n228P81 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 provenHannah 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-and-law-spring-2009/out-sight-out-boundsTwenty 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 legislationFox 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 F ederal A viation A dministration 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 levelsM. 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 violationsMichael Sheehan 13, J.D, Temple University Beasley School of Law, Winter 2013, “U.S. Citizens' Fourth Amendment Rights & Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: An Appeal for Bright-Line Legislative Action”, Temple Journal of Science, Technology & Environmental Law, 32 Temp. J. Sci. Tech. & Envtl. L. 255, LexisThe 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 pressuresDavid 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-congress-idUSKBN0OX1P020150617U.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

DiseaseCommercial Drones will help prevent disease/pandemic spread, but federal provisions are a pre-requisiteHindustan 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-to-catch-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 semi- autonomous 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 F ederal A viation A dministration 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 cloud-based 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 burnoutArturo 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/fullIn 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-OnDrones key to collecting climate data that is key to solving warmingSome 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 warmingEEA 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/downloadAs 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 ina cost-effective fashion?' etc.). Hence, not onlyhave 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, severalaspects 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 extinctionFlournoy 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. 10-11In 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 )

EconomyDrones key to infrastructure surveillance and ability to fix structural deficienciesSteve 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-assess-infrastructure-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 m ap 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 D epartment o f T ransportation 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 assessmen t, 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/2012-05-20/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 o f 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-From-History/2014/07/15Leader 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.”7Perhaps 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 WarsDrones will help us substantially increase agricultural production, solves impeding resource crisis from overpopulationChris 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. I t’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 3FDI 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-water-insecurity.htmlThere 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 SpillsDrone use key to mitigating the environment effects of oil spillsTodd 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-the-next-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 GPS-equipped “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 biodiversityJoseph 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-impacts-biodiversity

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/2012-05-22/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 p ar 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 specie s.” Third-year 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 ou t 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 warmingEEA 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/downloadAs 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 ina cost-effective fashion?' etc.). Hence, not onlyhave 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, severalaspects 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 extinctionFlournoy 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 C ustoms and B order P rotection 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 U nited S tates is not far in the future . The wide- spread 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 opera-tors 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 F ederal 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 gatheringCarol 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 U nited S tates 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 ineffectiveJoseph 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/federal-report-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 D epartment of H omeland S ecurity 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 surveillanceRich 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 u nmanned a erial v ehicle 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-research- permitted 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 gunsWynton 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/big-government/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. H omeland S ecurity 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 useSari 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-11-drones-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, l imiting 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 dr ones, but not all have been put into service. The FBI spent about $3 million to acquire the drones it has deploy ed, 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, anti-drug-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 fugitivesNaomi 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-marshals-drones-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, Man-Portable (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 SurveillanceDrones Violate the expectation of privacyJohn 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 successDHS 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.pdfAfter 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 cardLily 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_cost_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 costsPittsburgh Post-Gazette 1/9, January 9, 2015, “DRONE WASTE; THE U.S. HAS BETTER METHODS TO SECURE THE BORDER,” p. A-10The inspector general of the D epartment of H omeland S ecurity 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 U nited S tates 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 concernsChad 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.pdfThe recent UAV modification is part of an ongoing push by some policymakers and CBP to both expand CBP’s UAV resources and open

additional domestic airspace for UAV operations along the border.7 On June 23, 2010, the Federal Aviation Administration

( FAA ) granted a certificate of authorization requested by CBP, clearing the UAV flights along the Texas border 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 weatherChad 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.pdfDespite 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 well- trained 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.16Inclement 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 dronesChad 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.pdfQuestions 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.”25The 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 controlChad 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.pdfTesting 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=2379143For 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 squoChad 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.pdfLastly, how UAVs could be integrated into civilian airspace within the U nited S tates 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 surveillanceJoseph 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-s-senate-committee-fbi-pilotless-aircraft-narrowly-focused-particularized-cases-particularized-didn-cases-drones-article-1.1377552FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged Wednesday for the first time that the bureau has used drones for surveillance operations in side 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 ResearchInsider 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-for-bulk-metadata-collection/At the request of the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) in mid-2014, the N ational R esearch C ouncil 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 r eport 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. c ounter- t errorism 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 accomplish the same functions as bulk collection and serve as a complete substitute for it; there is no technological magic.”

Drones not Key

Metadata is the key to preventing terror attacks-Drones aren’t necessaryJena 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-911-examining-counterterrorisms-success-storiesLesson # 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 surveillanceAndrew 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-Drone-Lobbying-Group-Seeks-FAA-Rules?slreturn=20150622113757As 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/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/42e90ec6a27c40968b911ec51eca6000.pdfWith 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. A n overwhelming majority of Americans support the idea of using drones to help with search and rescue missions (80%). Two- thirds 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 supportSteven 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/weaponized-peeping-drone-ban-proposed-in-congressLegislation 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 bipartisanshipCatherine 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.htmlLast 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 supportMichael 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. 249The 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 standardGarance 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-now-tighter-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 much-discussed topic: " Nor should any president deploy armed drones over U.S. soil."

There is bipartisan support for curtailing domestic drone useDustin 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 Democrat s 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 DANo link—Squo solves privacy and drones don’t intrude itEli 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-airspace-dont-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 CPDesal is too expensive for farmers, takes too much time and destroys biodiversityLeila 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.htmlFirst, 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 energy-intensive 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-dMichael 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-fi-hiltzik-20150426-column.html#page=1That'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 exclusiveJustin 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/drinking-seawater-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 CPDrone transparency fails, agencies like the FBI will not followMeredith 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 CPDrone Regulations are key to stop Latin American Conflict-Bans Go too farW. 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).