Drones AffBRRCNDI 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-industrycompete-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 dont think they are prepared for the types of arguments the privacy lobby is making,

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
and plans to make.

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 couldnt 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

how the systems they sell are used (or

abused) because that usage will directly impact their ability to sell the systems . Based on my
unmanned systems industry should focus their research on

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,

Unlike , say, NSA network surveillance or commercial data

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
technological embodiment of observation.
brokerage,

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

opponents in the
privacy lobby arent 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
isnt giving the privacy lobbys concerns enough attention. This is a fatal miscalculation ,
the privacy lobby is extremely adept at demonizing programs and advancements in
compelling case, but the problem is they are arguing the merits of their systems. Their

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 cant be
improved. Isnt 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
Were 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? Lets 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 persons 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, theyre not doing it, but theyre 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. Its nothing we
dont 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, wed better not tell them that we also have access to the
White Pages. Still, no was the privacy communitys 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 its 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 lets 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 havent 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

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
Procerus quadcopters).

are going to use aerial photos of moms, tanning in their backyards, to scare the public into believing that massive

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
violations of civil liberties are imminent. Threats to lives, threats to property, and threats to privacy. And

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 its the standard that has to

its an industry killing standard ,

premised upon fear and technophobia . It doesnt 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 . Its time for the unmanned systems industry to step up and demonstrate they have
be met before the police stop and physically frisk someone. In short,

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

some in the industry may believe that their customers arent

government agencies
dont care what those ACLU guys or Rand Paul have to say . Perhaps thats true. Maybe Im
wrong. Or maybe those people havent been to the airport recently.
matter expert on privacy. Granted,

listening to the privacy lobby. They may believe that law enforcement and other

Lack of federal regulations means states are stepping in to fill

the void---itll 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-privacydistractions-could-have-major-economic-impacts
A new report released by a drone industry trade group suggests that using
unmanned planes in the United States could create more than 70,000 jobs and $82
billion in economic impact over the next few years. But the head of the organization
warns that "privacy distractions" could derail the industry . The report, released Tuesday by the
Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, suggests that most of the impact will come within the first
three years of commercial integration of dronestentatively set by the Federal Aviation Administration to occur in

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
2015and that drones will most commonly be used in agricultural settings and for public safety reasons.

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"

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
about privacy with "strong industry standards audited by a third party."

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
sameif you are violate my privacy, whether with a UAV or a manned aircraft or
binoculars, you will be held accountable." That's not how privacy experts see it. Amie Stepanovich,
associate litigation counsel with the Electronic Privacy Information Center, says that ignoring privacy concerns is
"irresponsible." "If the privacy implications are not addressed at the same time [as safety], we are putting the
privacy rights and civil liberties of everyone within the United States at risk," she says. "The current laws are not
sufficient to address the privacy threat of a new technology, such as drones. More must be done."

Scenario 1 is Agriculture
Ag drones coming now, but privacy backlash kills the
movement
Martin LaMonica, 14, reporter for Greenbiz, June 4, 2014, Yes, drones really can
help the planet, http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/06/04/drones-can-help-planet
Unmanned aerial vehicles bring to mind the early days of the PC . Civilian drones are the

darlings of hobbyists, while their potential at home and at work is still to be grasped by the public at large.
Meanwhile, experts are already musing about the various ways drones can advance environmental sustainability.
Internet retail giant Amazon helped bring drones into the mainstream consciousness last winter with a video of
research project Prime Air. Its goal: using a flying robot to pick up and deliver a package to a persons front door in

Amazon claims that Federal Aviation Administration regulatory hurdles are the
only remaining obstacle towards bringing Prime Air to market. Other tech companies have
30 minutes.

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

They especially
recognized that a number of issues around safety and privacy will need to be
resolved before commercial activity can flourish. They also agreed that, assuming that the
FAA establishes rules for commercial drone use and that no privacy backlash
hampers commercialization, drones have the potential to help the planet in a few
areas. Drones for agriculture Aerial photography enabled by drones could be a boon to
agriculture. As a matter of fact, trade group Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International predicts
that 80 percent of commercial drone use will be in agriculture. RoboFlight already has
implemented the idea to use cameras to monitor farmland or livestock for potential
problems such as underwatered areas or bug infestations. The company has
designed an unmanned aerial vehicle to fly over large farms and create digital maps
of crop fields. Universities specialized in agriculture research could benefit also from
having up-to-the-minute data on how their experimental crops are faring . Last but not
few years for drones to move beyond the hobbyist phase into commercial applications.

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 effectivedecrease water and

chemical use
Chris Anderson, 14, former editor in chief of Wired, is the cofounder and CEO of

3D Robotics and founder of DIY Drones, 2014, MIT Technology Review, Agricultural
Drones Relatively cheap drones with advanced sensors and imaging capabilities are
giving farmers new ways to increase yields and reduce crop damage.,
http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/526491/agricultural-drones/
Ryan Kunde is a winemaker whose familys picture-perfect vineyard nestles in the Sonoma Valley north of San
Francisco. But Kunde is not your average farmer. Hes also a drone operatorand hes not alone. Hes part of the

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
vanguard of

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

These aircraft are equipped with an autopilot using GPS and a

standard point-and-shoot camera controlled by the autopilot; software on the
multibladed small helicopters.

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
Kundes 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

gives a perspective that

farmers have rarely had before. Compared with satellite imagery, its much cheaper
and offers higher resolution. Because its taken under the clouds, its unobstructed and
available anytime. Its 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
operating without special clearance from the Federal Aviation Administration)

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 softwareoften 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 arent 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
cant 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. Its 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

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
pesticidesand maintain the same output, we will be overcoming a central
challenge. Agricultural drones are becoming a tool like any other consumer device,
and were starting to talk about what we can do with the m. 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
environmental factors to faraway servers for analysis. But

a military technology may end up better known as a green-tech tool, and our kids will grow up used to flying robots
buzzing over farms like tiny crop dusters.

Drones massively impact productivity but regulations could

hurt them
Clay Dillow, 5/18, Freelance journalist contributing to Popular Science, Fortune,
and others. SciTech, NatSec, and beyond, MAY 18, 2015, Why 2015 is the year
agriculture drones take off, http://fortune.com/2015/05/18/drone-agriculture/
U.S. drones are expected to change how we cultivate and grow food across the
country. For years now, drone advocates have cited precision agriculturecrop management that uses GPS and
big dataas a way to boost crop yields and profits while resolving water and food crises. Unfortunately, for all
the hype surrounding the concept drones havent had a significant impact on the

until now. With the debut of the Federal Aviation Administrations

Section 333 exemption (which permits companies to fly drones commercially on a case-by-case basis) in
November thats 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 timeand ideally make a profit in the process . This is the first year well actually
agriculture business, at least,

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. Were really excited about that. Before the F.A.A. began offering permits for
commercial drones, companies like Vine Rangers couldnt 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 firmsmany of which are in the startup
phaseto assist both large and small farming operations with water and disease management, and charge for the

Theyll 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 Agriculture competitors. More importantly,
companies can now test their business models and develop new revenue streams,
as well as attract new investment. We can actually move companies from pilot program to paid,
services.

Baeza says about revenue possibilities that now exist for companies like his. The startup currently has two clients
both vineyardsin Californias 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 grainsas 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

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 whats going
to happen to giants like Monsanto, Baeza says. How you define this market is
changing, and the incumbents are in for a battle.
growth.

Water concerns are destroying California agriculture

Californias agriculture is k2 worldwide food
Matt Schiavenza, 3/21, contributing writer for The Atlantic, former globalaffairs 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-californiasdrought/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 fifthlargest 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 supplywith little
short-term relief in sight. For Californian agriculture, the future does not look bright.
The current drought cost the sector an estimated $2.2 billion last year, and nearly
17,000 farmers lost their jobs in 2014. Given the importance of California's
agriculture to the food supply of the United Statesand the rest of the worldthe
state's drought is far from just a local concern . "California has no contingency plan for a persistent
drought like this one (let alone a 20-plus-year mega-drought), except, apparently, staying in emergency mode and
praying for rain," wrote Famiglietti. Residents across the country might want to join them.

High food prices cause war

Clionadh Raleigh, 15, Professor Of Human Geography at the University of
Sussex, May 2015, The devil is in the details: An investigation of the relationships
between conflict, food price and climate across Africa,
http://www.sciencedirect.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/science/article/pii/S09
59378015000357
In this article, we explore the evidence for feedbacks and sequential effects between conflict, food price, and

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.
climate change. Our findings suggest that (i)

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 20072008 commodity
price increases and those of 20102011 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 19972010, 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

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 antigovernment sentiment, which can occur in a variety of forms and have quite serious
ramifications for the stability of the state.
available, updated infrastructure, security, and positive interventions. However,

Scenario 2 is Competitiveness
Regulations caused by fear of surveillance kills drone
innovationleads to offshoring
Ryan Mac, 15, Writer for Forbes, 3/24/2015 @ 5:05PM, Amazon Hammers FAA For
Lack Of 'Impetus' Over Drone Policy,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2015/03/24/amazon-hammers-faa-for-lack-ofimpetus-over-progressive-drone-policy/
Amazon.com AMZN -0.09% is not pleased with the pace by which the F ederal 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, Amazons 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

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 Amazons 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
drone delivery service, said that

operate drones unless they have an exemption from the FAA. Dressed in a light gray suit and removing his glasses

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
to address the senators,

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 Tuesdays hearing to introduce a bill. However,
those familiar with Bookers 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. Im not sure how

Senator Maria Cantwell from Washington. As the ranking Democratic member

discussed the competitive disadvantages that American
companies faced with current rules. Among those companies is Amazon, which hails
from Cantwells 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,
long that would take, said

on the subcommittee, she too

however, it did little to advance his companys approach. It took about a year receive approvalabout six months
more than in other countriesand 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 dont test it

Other senators in
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
anymore. Weve moved on to more advanced designs that we already are testing abroad.
the hearing

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 subcommittees 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 FAAs latest rule change. The 200foot blanket authorization, doesnt 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 Tuesdays hearing. The countrys laws will have to be far more progressive than even the FAAs
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

That last requirement will have to be nixed if packages are to be delivered

autonomously over several miles to customers. Its a technology challenge that
still needs to be addressed, said Margaret Gilligan, the FAAs 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
operators.

to the FAA, Booker replied, jokingly.

The internal link is reverse causaldrone regulations caused

by backlash would hamper military and economic
competitiveness
Carrie Sheffield, 14, writer and political analyst based in New York City. Sheffield
is a former editorial writer for The Washington Times, a reporter for Politico, and The
Hill newspaper, in 2009, Sheffield won funding from Harvard University to serve as a

correspondent for The Jerusalem Post in Israel, WHY AMERICA NEEDS TO GET
SMARTER ABOUT OUR COMMERCIAL DRONE POLICY,
http://opportunitylives.com/why-america-needs-to-get-smarter-about-ourcommercial-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 droneswhether through

commercial drone bans or Defense Department cuts via sequestrationhurts 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 thats 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. Were 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

Europe generally
lags behind America in creating regulatory regimes hospitable to new technology,
but in the case of drones Europe, as well as Japan, leads the way. Amazon recently
wrote to the FAA and warned that without the ability to test outdoors in the United States
soon, it will have no choice but to divert even more of our [drone] research and
development resources abroad. Marc Scribner, a fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute who
officers, firefighters volunteer and emergency medical services respond more effectively.

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

continued failure to create

sensible drone policy will only hurt American competitiveness further, according to
AEIs 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.
full integration of UAS into the [National Airspace System] will occur. A

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 Pearsons 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 hegemons 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 theorys 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 Kindlebergers early work on this

economic instability between the First and

Second World Wars could be attributed to the lack of an economic hegemon
question is of relevance. Kindleberger posited that the

(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 Germanys economic humiliation could have a
radicalizing effect on the nations 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, Britains 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 Europes 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

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
analysis.

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 hegemons 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

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.
purely for the sake of international stability.

Hegemony creates peace by preventing both great power and regional

conflicts
Stephen M. Walt, 2002, American professor of international affairs at Harvard
University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, AMERICAN PRIMACY: Its
Prospects and Pitfalls, http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/swalt/files/art1-sp2.pdf
A second consequence of U.S. primacy is a decreased danger of great-power rivalry
and a higher level of overall international tranquility. Ironically, those who argue that
primacy is no longer important, because the danger of war is slight, overlook the

fact that the extent of American primacy is one of the main reasons why the risk of
great-power war is as low as it is. For most of the past four centuries, relations among the major
powers have been intensely competitive, often punctuated by major wars and occasionally by all-out struggles for

In the first half of the twentieth century, for example, great-power wars
killed over eighty million people. Today, however, the dominant position of the
United States places significant limits on the possibility of great-power competition ,
for at least two reasons. One reason is that because the United States is currently so far ahead,
other major powers are not inclined to challenge its dominant position . Not only is
there no possibility of a hegemonic war (because there is no potential hegemon to mount a
challenge), but the risk of war via miscalculation is reduced by the overwhelming gap
between the United States and the other major powers. Miscalculation is more likely to lead to
hegemony.

war when the balance of power is fairly even, because in this situation both sides can convince themselves that

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
they might be able to win.

WAR COLLEGE REVIEW The second reason is that the continued deployment of roughly two hundred thousand

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 Americas 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
troops in Europe and in Asia provides a further barrier to conflict in each region.

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-real1409095263,
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 BerlinBaghdad Railway, and before it the Suez Canal, were built to protect favored trading. Todays 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 Maddisons data used in
Stephen Broadberrys 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

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
casualties may tell a more accurate story but

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, todays largely cordial global entente could be

smashed with precipitous speed.

1AC Modeling Advantage

The plan gets modeled to prevent rapid Latin American drone
militarization
Diego Cupolo 14, Latin American policy writer for Occupy, 1/8/2014,
Why Widely Unregulated Drone Use Is Soaring in Latin America,
Occupy, http://www.occupy.com/article/why-widely-unregulated-droneuse-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 Terror
Marguerite Cawley 14, Research Assistant at InSight Crime,
4/18/2014, Drone Use in Latin America: Dangers and Opportunities,

InSight Crime, http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/drone-use-inlatin-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 commander Raul Reyes. The fallout from this
led to more than a year of severed ties between the two nations.
Drone use also raises another question: what happens if this technology falls into
the wrong hands? According to COHA, the difficulty of setting up and utilizing drones
reduces the possibility of criminal use, but crime groups are constantly evolving
their techniques and using more sophisticated machinery, and it would not be
impossible for them to acquire the technology from private companies. In criminal
or insurgent hands, even an unarmed drone would be a powerful intelligence
weapon.
In the end, drones offer novel intelligence and surveillance solutions and could be
successfully deployed in the fight against organized crime, but it is essential that
their use be closely monitored. Both national and international regulations will need
to be put in place to ensure they are not used for the wrong reasons, by the wrong
people, or without authorization from neighboring countries. If this is done
effectively, their use could present interesting opportunities for so-called "southsouth" cooperation in anti-narcotics and anti-smuggling efforts.

Russian engagement in Latin America means small conflicts

will draw in a full US-Russia war
R. Evan Ellis 15, Research professor of Latin American Studies at the
Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, June 17 2015, THE
NEW RUSSIAN ENGAGEMENT WITH LATIN AMERICA: STRATEGIC
POSITION, COMMERCE, AND DREAMS OF THE PAST, Strategic Studies
Institute,
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?
pubID=1275
Beyond such impacts on coalition formation, Russian engagement with the region
on the United States also adversely impacts pro-U.S. states such as Colombia, Chile,
and even Honduras, which arguably perceive themselves as increasingly surrounded
by proRussian states, and threatened by Russias activities in the region. In the case
of Colombia, Russias 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 governments sense of
encirclement by hostile forces, and its interest in informal security guarantees from

its traditional ally, the United States. For some in Honduras, the prospect of
renewed Russian engagement with neighboring El Salvador, in combination with the
strong Russian position in Nicaragua and Cuba, raises similar fears of
encirclement.
With respect to the ALBA states, the economic viability of regimes such as the
Bolivarian government of Venezuela arguably is enabled more by loans and support
from the PRC than from Russia. Nonetheless, Russian activities reinforces, and
sometimes compliments, the impacts of Chinese engagement in select sectors such
as petroleum, arms, and construction, and provides political support for the antiWestern projects of these countries in a way that the PRC, to date, has been
reluctant to do. As suggested earlier, Russian arms and investment thus make these
regimes somewhat more viable, and potentially more dangerous to their neighbors.
In turn, the viability of these regimes, and their willingness to host Russian military
and irregular activities, creates an opportunity for Russia to operate in the region in
a manner that threatens the United States in the hemisphere when it wishes to do
so. During a conflict involving Russia in another theater, for example, such allies
present Russia with options to act in Latin America and the Caribbean so as to force
the United States to divert attention and resources away from its activities in other
parts of the globe. Examples of such possible actions include basing or resupplying
nuclear-capable military assets in countries in close proximity to the United States,
such as Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Ecuador. Other possibilities include
supporting military action against a U.S. ally, such as a Venezuelan occupation of
historically contested Colombian territory on its border, or a Nicaraguan incursion
against Costa Rica.

US-Russia was causes extinction --- high probability

Anthony Barrett 13, PhD in Engineering and Public Policy from Carnegie Mellon,

Director of Research @ the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute (GCRI), Fellow @ the
RAND Stanton Nuclear Security Fellows Program, and Seth Baum, PhD in Geography
from Pennsylvania State University, Executive Director @ the GCRI, Research
Scientist @ the Blue Marble Space Institute of Science, and Kelly Hostetler, Research
Assistant @ the GCRI, Analyzing and Reducing the Risks of Inadvertent Nuclear War
Between the United States and Russia, Science and Global Security 21(2): 106-133,
online
War involving significant fractions of the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, which are
by far the largest of any nations, could have globally catastrophic effects such as severely
reducing food production for years, 1,2,3,4,5,6 potentially leading to collapse of modern
civilization worldwide and even the extinction of humanity . 7,8,9,10 Nuclear war
between the US and Russia could occur by various routes, including accidental or
unauthorized launch; deliberate first attack by one nation; and inadvertent attack. In an accidental
or unauthorized launch or detonation, system safeguards or procedures to maintain control over nuclear weapons
fail in such a way that a nuclear weapon or missile launches or explodes without direction from leaders. In a
deliberate first attack, the attacking nation decides to attack based on accurate information about the state of
affairs.

In an inadvertent attack, the attacking nation mistakenly concludes that it is

under attack and launches nuclear weapons in what it believes is a counterattack .
11,12 (Brinkmanship strategies incorporate elements of all of the above, in that they
involve deliberate manipulation of the risk of otherwise unauthorized or inadvertent
attack as part of coercive threats that leave something to chance, i.e., taking steps
that raise the risk that the crisis will go out of control and end in a general
nuclear exchange . 13,14 ) Over the years, nuclear strategy was aimed primarily at minimizing risks of

intentional attack through development of deterrence capabilities, though numerous measures were also taken to
reduce probabilities of accidents, unauthorized attack, and inadvertent war. 15,16,17 For purposes of deterrence,
both U.S. and Soviet/Russian forces have maintained significant capabilities to have some forces survive a first
attack by the other side and to launch a subsequent counter-attack. However, concerns about the extreme
disruptions that a first attack would cause in the other sides forces and command-and-control capabilities led to
both sidesdevelopment 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,

inadvertent nuclear war between the United States and Russia

has continued to present a substantial risk . 23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33 While
the United States and Russia are not actively threatening each other with war, they
have remained ready to launch nuclear missiles in response to indications of attack .
34,35,36,37,38 False indicators of nuclear attack could be caused in several ways. First, a
wide range of events have already been mistakenly interpreted as indicators of attack, including weather
it has also been argued that

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 likely
Ajay Lele 9, Research Fellow at the Institute for Defense Studies and
Analyses, New Delhi, July 2009, Aerial Terrorism and the Threat from
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Journal of Defense Studies,
http://www.idsa.in/system/files/jds_3_3_alele_amishra.pdf
The present international system in a rapidly changing world order is characterised
by multivalence, interdependence and political cooperation. In the present system,
no particular country or forum can ensure global security alone. The structure of the
international system is not only changing rapidly but the challenges are also
evolving very fast. For a better world, it is essential to resort to a pluralistic security
order based on a cooperative approach to security.
The tools and tactics used by the terrorist organisations in the twenty first century
are showing signs of shifting focus from the predictable form of terrorism to a form
where modern technology is being used intelligently. Information technology based
tools and modern communication system are being employed by terrorists to
improvise the existing forms of threat. Terrorists are found using new technology to
their advantage while involving themselves in maritime, aerial, cyber or few other
forms of terrorism.
Till date the world has witnessed terrorists using aerial form of terrorism with some
success. At the same time, the counter terrorism mechanisms employed by states
are found gaining success. Such measures appear to have deterred the terrorist
groups and have also succeeded in averting some major plans of the terrorist

groups to cause damage. However, with easy availability of hardware required to

build an unmanned aerial vehicle or a toy plane the possibility exists that the
terrorist groups could opt for new techniques to effect aerial terrorism.
This is not to say that the terrorists would discontinue with the techniques used all
these years for action attacks such as aerial attacks which cause mass casualties.
Terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda or LeT may still resort to such terror means in
future in order to produce destruction in the form of life and property of catastrophic
magnitude and to send a political message. They could try to find the
unconventional ways to defeat the counter terrorism apparatus devised by nation
states in this regard. In view of this, it is essential for states to strengthen their
intelligence gathering mechanisms. More importantly, there is a need to
comprehend the likely possibility of attacks by using the UAVs or toy planes in
developing counter terrorism strategies.

Cartels will proliferate drones to terrorists-US modeling key to

solve
John Holmberg 9, Professor at George Mason University, 5/11/2009,
Narcoterrorism,
traccc.gmu.edu/pdfs/student_research/HolmbergNarcoterrorism.pdf
The threat of narcoterrorism is very serious and can be felt across every region of
the world. Narcoterrorism poses a threat to more than just the nations in which
these groups exist (Colombia, Ireland, Turkey). The globalization of the economy has
created a network for terrorist organizations and criminals to coordinate, cooperate,
and share resources. Unfortunately, policy has been slow to catch up to the
convergence of crime and terrorism. Moving forward it will be vital to the security of
the international community for international governments to work together. This
can be done by sharing intelligence, financial information, and developing a unified
approach to breaking up the ties between crime and terrorism. This process needs
to start in the United States. As the world leader, it will be integral to develop
international polices that realize the growing link between crime and 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 UKs ability to view crime
and terrorism in the same light has prepared them to counter terrorism and crime
much more effectively than the United States. All of the prescribed policy
approaches have one common ingredient; they must be international in scope. If
the international community is to work together to defeat transnational criminals
and terrorists than international governments must coordinate government. The
links forged by narcoterrorists and criminals are too vast for one nation to make a
difference. By pulling resources together, the international community can uncover
the links between crime and terrorism and consequently the effects and fund raising
capabilities of narcoterrorists like FARC will be severely decreased.

Cartel ties with terrorists means that drone proliferation would

escalate to terror against the US
Curt Andersen 8, Writer for the Associated Press, 10/8/2008, US
officials fear terrorist links with drug lords, AP,

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-08805146709_x.htm

There is real danger that Islamic extremist groups such as al-Qaida and Hezbollah
could form alliances with wealthy and powerful Latin American drug lords to launch
new terrorist attacks, U.S. officials said Wednesday. Extremist group operatives have
already been identified in several Latin American countries, mostly involved in
fundraising and finding logistical support. But Charles Allen, chief of intelligence
analysis at the Homeland Security Department, said they could use well-established
smuggling routes and drug profits to bring people or even weapons of mass
destruction to the U.S. "The presence of these people in the region leaves open the
possibility that they will attempt to attack the United States," said Allen, a veteran
CIA analyst. "The threats in this hemisphere are real. We cannot ignore them."
Added U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration operations chief Michael Braun: "It is
not in our interest to let that potpourri of scum to come together." Their comments
came at a two-day conference on the illegal drug threat in the Americas hosted by
the U.S. Southern Command and the 35,000-member AFCEA International, a trade
group for communications, intelligence and national security companies. Much as
the Taliban tapped Afghanistan's heroin for money, U.S. officials say the vast profits
available from Latin American cocaine could provide al-Qaida and others with a
ready source of income. The rebel group known as the Revolutionary Armed Forces
of Colombia, or FARC, has long used drug money to pay for weapons, supplies and
operations -- and is also designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. "We've
got a hybrid that has developed right before our eyes," Braun said. Latin America's
drug kingpins already have well-established methods of smuggling , laundering
money, obtaining false documents, providing safe havens and obtaining illicit
weapons, all of which would be attractive to terrorists who are facing new pressures
in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Nuclear terror is feasible and likely high motivation

Matthew Bunn 15, Professor of Practice at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy
School of Government, Nickolas Roth, Research Associate at the Project on
Managing the Atom in the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at
Harvard Kennedy School, Reducing the risks of nuclear theft and terrorism, from
Routledge Handbook of Nuclear Proliferation and Policy ed. Joseph F. Pilat and
Nathan E. Busch, 5/15/15, pp. 419-420
But we now live in an age that includes a few groups intent on inflicting large-scale
destruction to achieve more global objectives. In the 1990s, the japanese terror cult Anni
Shinrikyo first sought to buy nuclear weapons in Russia, then to make them themselves, before
turning to biological weapons and the nerve gas they ultimatelv used in the Tokyo subways. Starting also
in the 19905, al Qaeda repeatedly sought nuclear materials and the expertise needed to

make them into a nuclear bomb. Ultimately, al Qaeda put together a focused program reporting directly to Ayman
al-Zawahiri (now head of the group), which progressed as far as carrying out crude but sensible conventional
explosive tests for the nuclear program in the desert of Afghanistan. The killing of Osama bin Laden and the many
other blows against al Qaeda have surely reduced the risk that al Qaeda could put together and carry through a

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 Qaedas
nuclear program remain alive and at large - including Abdel Aziz al-Masri, an
Egyptian explosives expert who was al Qaedas nuclear CEO." No one knows what capabilities a secret
nuclear bomb project. But by how much?

regional affiliates and other groups in the broader

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.
cell of al Qaeda may have managed to retain or build. And

violent Islamic extremist movement particularly some of the deadly Pakistani terrorist groups

Terrorism causes extinction---hard-line responses are key

Nathan Myhrvold '13, Phd in theoretical and mathematical physics from
Princeton, and founded Intellectual Ventures after retiring as chief strategist and
chief technology officer of Microsoft Corporation , July 2013, "Stratgic Terrorism: A
Call to Action," The Lawfare Research Paper Series No.2,
http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Strategic-TerrorismMyhrvold-7-3-2013.pdf
Several powerful trends have aligned to profoundly change the way that the world works.
Technology now allows stateless groups to organize, recruit, and fund themselves
in an unprecedented fashion. That, coupled with the extreme difficulty of finding and
punishing a stateless group, means that stateless groups are positioned to be lead
players on the world stage. They may act on their own, or they may act as proxies for
nation-states that wish to duck responsibility. Either way, stateless groups are forces to be
reckoned with. At the same time, a different set of technology trends means that small numbers
of people can obtain incredibly lethal power. Now, for the first time in human history, a small
group can be as lethal as the largest superpower . Such a group could execute an attack that
could kill millions of people. It is technically feasible for such a group to kill billions of people,
to end modern civilizationperhaps 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
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.

like

1AC Solvency
The plan eliminates public privacy concerns while retaining
drones beneficial activities
Gautam Hans 13, Policy Counsel and Director of Center for Democracy
and Technology, 4/8/2013, Drone Privacy Bills Attempt to Protect
Americans from Governmental, Commercial Surveillance, Center for
Democracy and Technology, https://cdt.org/blog/drone-privacy-billsattempt-to-protect-americans-from-governmental-commercialsurveillance/
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 isnt
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 arent 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 doesnt
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 arent 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 surveillancebroadcast out (ADS-B Out) signal including an identifier, location, altitude and
velocity exactly as manned aircraft will have to broadcast by 2020.

Advantages

Backlash

UQ-IL
Backlash from the states and the public will kill the industry
unless congress acts
Sara Sorcher, 13, Writer for National Journal, February 21, 2013, The Backlash
Against Drones, http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-backlash-againstdrones-20130221

The Seattle Police Departments 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 its clear that Seattles drones,
purchased with federal grants, wont 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

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:
drone ambitionsfor now. Public concerns are not limited to Seattle.

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

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
yet, however,

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 its 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.

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. Its

unclear whos 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 theres a crisis,

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 A merican 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
oftentimes the rules and regulations that are made in crisis arent our best showing, Dillingham says.

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 whats going on . As it
stands, theres really not a lot in American privacy law thats 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 now

Joel Celso, 14, J.D. Candidate University of Baltimore School of Law, Summer,
2014, University of Baltimore Law Review, COMMENT: DRONING ON ABOUT THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT: ADOPTING A REASONABLE FOURTH AMENDMENT
JURISPRUDENCE TO PREVENT UNREASONABLE SEARCHES BY UNMANNED AIRCRAFT
SYSTEMS, LexisNexis, 43 U. Balt. L. Rev. 461
Although UAS are widely recognized for their military uses in overseas arenas like Pakistan and Afghanistan, they
are beginning to be used domestically by federal, state, and local governments for a
variety of purposes. n7 Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) has been operating Predator
B UAS at the United States' border with Mexico to intercept drug smugglers and
prevent unlawful crossings. n8 The CBP currently has a fleet of nine Predator B UAS which it estimates
helped find 7,600 pounds of marijuana, valued at $ 19.3 million, being illegally smuggled into the United States in
2011. n9 Local law enforcement agencies across the country are lining up to add UAS platforms to their arsenal of
crime fighting capabilities. n10 For example, local police in the town of Lakota, North Dakota recently made the first
UAS assisted arrest of an American citizen. n11 In that case, local police looking for six cows that had wandered
onto the suspect's 3,000 acre ranch were chased off the land by the suspect and his family members who wielded
high-powered rifles. n12 After a sixteen hour standoff, the police department's SWAT team used a [*463]
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Predator drone with video surveillance equipment to determine the
suspect's location and whether he was armed, prior to arresting him. n13 Many other law enforcement agencies
have acquired UAS and have pilot programs in place to test their surveillance capabilities. n14 Police in Oakland
tested multiple UAS models and stated that they could be used to find local marijuana farms. n15 The Seattle Police
Department has acquired and tested a UAS and envisions using it to take aerial photos of traffic accidents or
provide real time video footage in situations where a suspect is barricaded with hostages or weapons. n16 Other
agencies plan to use UAS technology in gaining a tactical advantage in everything from tracking drug dealers n17

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
to finding guns tossed away by fleeing suspects.

used to shoot Hollywood films. n25 One UAS is widely available and affordable to the general public, as it costs

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,
approximately $ 300 and is controlled from an iPhone or iPad. n26

the cost of a new helicopter is prohibitively high for most police departments with a price tag of $ 1 million, but UAS

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
can be purchased for less than $ 50,000. n29 Industry analysts predict that

integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system." n33 According to the plan, UAS
must be integrated by September 2015. n34 However, law enforcement agencies are currently allowed to operate
UAS for aerial surveillance, provided they meet certain requirements. n35

Drone surveillance causes a fear of drones

Caren Myers Morrison, 15, Associate Professor, Georgia State University College
of Law, Winter 2015, Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development, NOTE AND
COMMENT: DR. PANOPTICON, OR, HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE
THE DRONE, 27 J. Civ. Rts. & Econ. Dev. 747
Under the provisions of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must

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
produce a plan to integrate domestic drones into national airspace by 2015. n38 In the meantime,

drones shot down. n45 Although the proposal's proponents have described it as "a very symbolic ordinance," given
the fact that Deer Trail (population: 550) is unlikely to be a prime candidate for drone surveillance ,

the FAA
wasted no time in responding that anyone caught destroying government property
could be subject to federal criminal and civil [*755] penalties. n46 According to the
Associated Press, the Deer Trail proposal is only "the latest ripple in a spreading
backlash against drones. Dozens of laws aimed at curbing the use of the unmanned
aircraft have been introduced in states and cities." n47 Several bills have been
introduced in Congress n48 and in the states limiting or regulating the use of drones
for domestic surveillance; currently 20 states, including Texas, Idaho, Virginia,
Oregon, and Florida, have passed laws limiting the use of drones. n49

Fear of drones kills civilian investment

Joan Lowy, 13, National transportation correspondent for the Associated Press,
Drones poised for peaceful, everyday use in US, but privacy backlash could hamper

industry, March 29, 2013 9:28 AM, http://news.yahoo.com/drones-poised-peacefuleveryday-us-privacy-backlash-could-132852328.html

WASHINGTON - It's a good bet that in the not-so-distant future, aerial drones will be part
of everyday life in the U.S. Far from the killing machines whose missiles incinerate terrorists
overseas, these generally small, unmanned aircraft will help police departments find
missing people. Real estate agents will use them to film videos of properties and
surrounding neighbourhoods. Oil companies will use them to monitor pipelines. With
military budgets shrinking, drone makers have been counting on the civilian market
to spur the industry's growth. But the industry worries that it will be grounded because
of public fear that the technology will be misused . Some companies say the
uncertainty has caused them to put U.S. expansion plans on hold, and they are
looking overseas for new markets. "Our lack of success in educating the public about unmanned
aircraft is coming back to bite us," said Robert Fitzgerald, CEO of The BOSH Group, which provides support services
to drone users. "The U.S. has been at the lead of this technology a long time," he said. " If

our government
holds back this technology, there's the freedom to move elsewhere ... 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/dronesmassachusetts-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 its 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 goes further, seeking to protect against

invasions of privacy by private-sector drones. Hed create a registry for whats
expected to be a boom in commercial drone enterprises think of Google mapping
projects or Amazons 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
Markey has filed similar legislation. And

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 anyones
backyard, collect whatever information theyd 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

Civil liberties defenders do see an upside. At a recent Capitol Hill hearing on

domestic unmanned aerial vehicles, the national ACLUs 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,
the sky.

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

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 thats 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
technologys potential, and they are calling on the FAA and Congress to act more
quickly. Pittsfield entrepreneur Holland said hes ready to turn his passion into profits, even as he recognizes the
Cape projects coordinator, H. Carter Hunt Jr., said that

legitimate safety and privacy issues involved. I wouldnt want one of these things flying through my backyard
without my permission, so I just treat, sort of, peoples privacy the same way I want mine treated, he said. Its

incumbent upon us to be clever enough to have the appropriate rules and regulations in place to protect ourselves
from ourselves. For the time being it looks like Holland and his fellow drone-users will just have to wait and keep
their batteries charged.

Ag Scenario

UQ
California agriculture is key to overall food markets
Steven Slezak, 14, professor of finance and strategy at Cal Poly in San Luis
Obispo, California professor of financial management and financial mathematics at
the Johns Hopkins University MBA program, degree in Foreign Service from
Georgetown University and an MBA in Finance from JHU., February 25, 2014,
California drought threatens to destabilize agriculture markets,
http://globalriskinsights.com/2014/02/california-drought-threatens-to-destabilizeagriculture-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 Californias 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 NASAs 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. Were living in a dream world . So whats the big deal? As
they say, this time its different. The ongoing California drought provides a disturbing glimpse of future water

the
Central Valley, a vast area comprising 22,500 square miles (58,000 square kilometers) of the
worlds 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 countrys
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 regions total. Agriculture production is shifting from low margin fruit and
produce such as cantaloupe to more profitable commodities like tree nuts and
tomatoes. The droughts impact on overall agriculture production could amount to
losses of $1.6 billion for farms and approach $5 billion for California agribusiness in
general. Were from the government, and were here to help if youre a fish The political response has been
shortages and their impact on agricultural production and food security. Californias agricultural heartland is

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

nations 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 governments
Central Valley Project deliver agriculture water this year. Though the project was , in
its own words, originally conceivedto protect the Central Valley from crippling water
shortages, it will not prevent water shortages from crippling [hurting] farmswith 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

The
drought in California threatens to exacerbate food supply shortages in other parts of
disturbing enough. But the droughts impact on food supplies will be felt far beyond the Golden State.

the world as higher US prices shift production and supply towards satisfying US
demand. Supply shortfalls will be met by higher prices, and markets are beginning
to reflect this. Just one example: the February 2014 Live Cattle futures contract on
the Chicago Mercantile Exchange has appreciated 9.5% since mid-November. The
possibility of global food price inflation cannot easily be dismissed. We can also expect
to see greater volumes of food being imported to the US this year, in response to
higher prices. To the extent global supplies and production will respond to American market price signals,
food diverted for US buyers will not be available for consumption by others. In the
face of growing global demand for food, higher prices and reduced supply do not
bode well for the 842 million people who already do not have enough to eat . Four
million live in California, and a half million of them reside in the Central Valley.

California ag decline spills over to higher prices

Daniel G. Jennings, 14, freelance writer and journalist, March 17, 2014, Sky
High Food Prices Ahead Due To California Mega Drought,
http://www.offthegridnews.com/current-events/sky-high-food-prices-ahead-due-tocalifornia-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 nations 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 Americas food. Those regions include Monterey County, which
produced nearly half of the lettuce and broccoli grown in the United States in 2012 .
Its 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
Nations Food Supply Threatened A disturbing feature in Mother Jones magazine shows just how devastating the
mega-drought will be to the nations food supply. Californias

farms supply far more of the nations

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 Americas 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 . Were
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 isnt 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. Were not trying to make more money;
were 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, weve 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 Californias 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 Ingrams predictions
about the mega-drought are true it could be the only source of low-cost fruits and vegetables.

Their impact defense doesnt apply--Drought leads to a shift to

specialty cropsraises commodity prices and worsens water
scarcity
Alan Bjerga, 14, Writer for Bloomberg, August 11, 2014, California Drought
Transforms Global Food Market, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-0811/california-drought-transforms-global-food-market

Aug. 11 (Bloomberg) -- For more than 70 years, Fred Starrhs family was among the most prominent cotton growers

shifting global markets and rising water prices told him

that wouldnt 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 cant 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
nations 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
in Californias San Joaquin Valley. Then

have adapted to the record-low rainfall by installing high-technology irrigation systems, watering with treated

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
municipal wastewater and even recycling waste from the processing of pomegranates to feed dairy cows.

American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman. Farmers have made changes. Theyve shifted. This is

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 Starrhs one-time
what farmers do. Commodity Crops

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 worlds 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. Its a really big
deal, Sumner said. Some crops simply grow better here than anyplace else, and our
location gives us access to markets you dont 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. Its now the U.S.s top dairy producer and grows half the countrys fruits, vegetables and
nuts. Water has allowed us to grow more valuable crops, Sumner said. Now, we have fruits and vegetables and

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 isnt set
North Dakota grows our wheat. Without irrigation, wed be North Dakota. An estimated

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 states 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
Novembers election to boost water storage, a key demand of farmers thats smaller than what some groups want.
That puts the farmers on a collision course with environmentalists and urban advocates who say

-- such as a switch to almonds -- could worsen the scarcity.

some choices

Almond Crop California grows four-

fifths of the worlds 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 states 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 isnt even feeding Californians, she said. Farmers should be profitable, but it cant
come at the expense of urban water ratepayers, she said. The U.S. Interior Departments Bureau of Reclamation,
which supplies water to a third of the states 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. Were

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,

Faced with chronic dryness,

farmers have been figuring out ways to adapt . Starrhs drip-irrigation system was pioneered in
the devastation we will see here and across the state will be biblical.

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. Theyve 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 theyll 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

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-yearallowed his property to disconnect from the city water supply.

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.
Hes 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 hasnt seen for several years. We dont get

said the drought means the states

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
the fog like we used to. Howitt, of the University of California,

arrived on 30 acres in 1936 who now focuses on nuts. And solar panels. The Starrhs are leasing 480 acres to a
sustainable-energy company on land that may never be watered again.

I/l
Drones massively decrease water and fertilizer use
Hannah Miller, 15, fellow of the Poynter Institutes 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-reduceresource-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 arent. Speaking at the Innosphere, a northern Colorado incubator for clean
tech, tech and life sciences, Agribotix CEO Paul Hoff explained that the companys
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 didnt. Simply looking from the side, the farmers couldnt 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 resourceintensive, 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. Its a set of tools that make the critical link between the data
collection and the production of maps that farmers can actually use for their
planning.

Drones are specifically key in California

Sasha Khokha, 14, Central Valley Bureau Chief for KQEDs statewide public
radio program, The California Report, APRIL 21, 2014, Drones: The Newest WaterSaving Tool for Parched Farms, http://ww2.kqed.org/science/2014/04/21/drones-thenewest-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

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
for 80 percent of the commercial drone market. And

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 passionsfarming and singing opera.) Sheely and his dad, Ted, were among the first to convert to remotecontrolled drip irrigation on their sprawling Kings County farm. Now theyre taking one more step into the future.
We dont have enough water, and having a coyote chew a line in two, now that line of trees is getting half the

They recently gathered some of their neighbors to watch a demo of a drone

that can collect video and thermal images of farmland. Youve got a tablet which is
going to help figure out the mission, and is connected to a ground control station ,
water.

Zach Sheely explains. Listening to farmers programming a drone is sort of like eavesdropping on NASAs 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

dont have enough water, and having a coyote chew a line in two, now that line of
trees is getting half the water, Ted says. Weve 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. Theyll 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. Theyve 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 30somethings like John Faus, who grew up farming in Oregon. We designed this for farming, Faus says. Thats why
its 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 cant 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 cant keep up with orders for farm drones fast enough. Zach Sheely says
hes sold on the drone, which will set him back about $15,000. He says thats far less than what the lost water from

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, theyre 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, its going to benefit
my business, and hes 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 waterstressed or when theyre getting too much water, by using thermal cameras . For
leaks might cost him.

agricultural purposes, theyre going to be a real powerful tool says David Zoldoske, who heads the Center for
Irrigation Technology at Fresno State , and co-authored a recent state report on water-saving technologies.

Drones will help farmers to get more information, in real time, to make better
decisions, about everything on the farm, adds Zoldoske. We joke about being able to take pictures of
individual bugs sitting on the plants. With the right algorithm you could count all the bugs on
the plants if things work out.

Drones increase ag outputs by 20 percent

Matt McFarland, 6/25 Editor, Innovations, The Washington Post, June 25, 2015,
Do drones make sense for my corn fields? A company called Measure is trying to
find out., http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2015/06/25/dodrones-make-sense-for-my-corn-fields-a-company-called-measure-is-trying-to-findout/
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 isnt 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. Its hard to come up with a lot
thats being done now with satellites or planes that you couldnt just do easily with drones. That in a lot of ways is the thing that

it appears to be definitely lower cost

and definitely easier to deploy and quicker to deploy.
makes it sexy, Rodgers said. Its not quite the PC of precision ag, but

New FAA regulations make drones attractive for ag

Catherine Boudreau, 15, multifaceted reporter covering agriculture and food
policy for Bloomberg BNA, February 20, 2015, FAA Small Drone Proposal Embraced
By Agriculture Industry; Crop Benefits Seen, http://www.bna.com/faa-small-dronen17179923270/
Feb. 18 The benefits of using drones on farmsfrom scouting crops to managing
inputs like nitrogen and herbicideshave the agriculture industry embracing the
Federal Aviation Administrations 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
operators line of sight and not be flown over people, other than those involved with the flight (32 DER A-11,
2/18/15). Thats 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 pilots

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
license or have experience controlling manned aircraft, among other stipulations.

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 PrecisionHawks 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 productionscouting, spraying and cost

Mary Clare Jalonick, 15, Correspondent, Food Policy, Associated Press, January

25, 2015 at 12:43 PM EDT, 5 ways drones could change the way America eats,
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/5-ways-unmanned-drones-change-americanfood-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 its slower and less
detailed than images from low-flying drone. This is about getting the most
productivity from every square inch of a farm, ADAVSOs 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. Its 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 Unions 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. Thats something a drone
could do with far less money and effort. Lia Reich of the UAV manufacturer PrecisionHawk said the companys

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 laserbased 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 agbacklash kills

Christopher Doering, 14, writer for USA today, Growing use of drones poised to
transform agriculture,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/03/23/drones-agriculturegrowth/6665561/
WASHINGTON Drones are quickly moving from the battlefield to the farmer's field
on the verge of helping growers oversee millions of acres throughout rural America
and saving them big money in the process. While much of the attention regarding drones has
focused recently on Amazon and UPS seeking to use them to deliver packages, much of the future for drones is
expected to come on the farm. That's because agriculture operations span large distances and are mostly free of
privacy and safety concerns that have dogged the use of these aerial high-fliers in more heavily populated areas.

The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, the trade group that represents producers and users
of drones and other robotic equipment, predicts that 80% of the commercial market for drones will eventually be for
agricultural uses. Once the Federal Aviation Administration establishes guidelines for commercial use ,

the drone
industry said it expects more than 100,000 jobs to be created and nearly half a
billion in tax revenue to be generated collectively by 2025, much of it from
agriculture. Iowa, the country's largest corn and second-biggest soybean grower,
could see 1,200 more jobs and an economic impact topping $950 million in the next
decade. "It is endless right now, the applications in agriculture," said Kevin Price, a former professor at Kansas
State who left the university this month to join RoboFlight, a Denver-based company that sells drones and analyzes

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
the data collected on corn, soybean and other field crops.

$160,000 for a military-style device are equipped with infrared cameras, sensors and other technology controlled

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
by a pilot on the ground.

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

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
special permission to use them in civil airspace.

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

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
authority they have been given to fly the aircraft.

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 warspecifically Southeast Asia and Latin
America
Isabelle Cadoret, 15, Professor at Universit de Remes, March 8, 2015, Civil

Conflicts and Food Price Spikes, http://afse2015.sciencesconf.org/61838/document

Table 6 reports the effect of domestic food price index on the occurrence of civil con- flicts. Column (2) shows that

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 domestic food price is significant at 10% level.

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.

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
To estimate this relation, we build a data set of 82 developing countries from 1995 to 1979.

prices on the occurrence of civil war is significantly lower and even close to zero in most of our estimations. The

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.
implications of this research are potentially important from a public perspective.

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-ourfu_b_1751968.html
rising food prices of
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
This, however, is just the beginning of the likely consequences: if history is any guide,
this sort

of the average household budget, a relatively small share, so a boost in food prices in 2013 will probably not prove

It could, however, produce considerable

hardship for poor and unemployed Americans with limited resources . You are talking
overly taxing for most middle- and upper-income families.

about a real bite out of family budgets, commented Ernie Gross, an agricultural economist at Omahas 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 governments ability to address the problem dropped so precipitously that the
Haitian Senate voted to oust the countrys prime minister , Jacques-douard 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. (Oils 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 Chinas grain
harvest, while intense flooding destroyed much of Australias wheat crop. Together with other extreme-weatherrelated effects, these disasters sent wheat prices soaring by more than 50 percent and the price of most food

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
staples by 32 percent.

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
countrys 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, its 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 Britains 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, resourcescarce, 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
12s 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
Haitis 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 Johannesburgs 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 wont 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 hungergames world of rising temperatures, persistent droughts, recurring food shortages, and billions of famished,
desperate people.

A2:Herbicide Turn
Non-UniquePesticides now
Christopher D. Cook, 5, author and award-winning journalist whose writing has
appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Harper's, The Economist, Mother Jones, The
Christian Science Monitor, and other national publications, The spraying of
America,
http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/the_spraying_of_america/
Roughly 85 percent of all cropland in America relies on herbicides a business
which will remain stable as long as agribusiness fights off new pesticide bans and
maintains the myth that biotech is eliminating toxins in the fields.

A2: Industrial Ag Turn

Non-unique tons of industrial ag now
USDA, 13, Farm Size and the Organization of U.S. Crop Farming, August 2013,
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1156726/err152.pdf

The average size of a U.S. crop farm has changed little during the past three decades. However, this seeming

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
stability masks important structural changes in the complex U.S. farm sector.

U.S. farms. In fi gure 1, based on 2011 ARMS data, farms and cropland acreage are sorted into eight cropland size

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 .
classes frequently reported in Census of Agriculture publications. In that year,

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 operatesthat 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 acreagewhere 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

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
Small Crop Farms.)

2001 (fi g. 2), compared to 1,100 in 2011 (fi g. 1). Because of the complexity of changes in crop farm structure,
simple measures of mean farm size are not very informative. Simple means and medians focus on the average
farm, and the land operated by the average farmer. This report is focused on the use of cropland and must focus on
the average acre of cropland, not the average farmer or average farm. The midpoint acreage effectively tracks
cropland consolidation and will be used in this report.

Competitiveness Extensions
Drones are key to manufacturing
AUVSI, 13, Association for Unmanned Vehicular Systems International, March

2013, THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS INTEGRATION IN

THE UNITED STATES,
https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/AUVSI/958c920a-7f9b-4ad2-9807f9a4e95d1ef1/UploadedImages/New_Economic%20Report%202013%20Full.pdf
The purpose of this research is to document the economic benefits to the United States
(U.S.) once Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) are integrated into in the National Airspace
System (NAS). In 2012, the federal government tasked the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to determine
how to integrate UAS into the NAS. In this research , we estimate the economic impact of this
integration. In the event that these regulations are delayed or not enacted, this study also estimates the jobs
and financial opportunity lost to the economy because of this inaction. While there are multiple uses for UAS in the

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.
NAS, this research concludes that

Utility of UAS The main inhibitor of U.S. commercial and civil development of the UAS is the lack of a regulatory
structure. Because of current airspace restrictions, non-defense use of UAS has been extremely limited. However,

the combination of greater flexibility, lower capital and lower operating costs could
allow UAS to be a transformative technology in fields as diverse as urban
infrastructure management, farming, and oil and gas exploration to name a few .

Present-day UAS have longer operational duration and require less maintenance than earlier models. In addition,
they can be operated remotely using more fuel efficient technologies. These aircraft can be deployed in a number
of different terrains and may be less dependent on prepared runways. Some argue the use of UAS in the future will
be a more responsible approach to certain airspace operations from an environmental, ecological and human risk
perspective.

Overbearing drone regulations cause offshoring

Alan McQuinn, 14, Research Assistant with the Information Technology and

Innovation Foundation, September 30, 2014, Commercial Drone Companies Fly

Away from FAA Regulations, Go Abroad, http://www.insidesources.com/commercialdrone-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.

In August, it emerged that Googles

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
Although this is a useful first step, much broader action is needed.

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 agencys 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 drones 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

Furthermore, companies interested in pursuing

commercial drone research are not allowed to test their experimental aircraft
secret, proprietary technologyuntil 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
rules, the FAA is slowing innovation.

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

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.
Australias 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
under government supervision at a public park in Virginia.

government test sites, it allows them to test outdoors if they receive an operators certificate and submit their test
area for approval. Australias 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 Administrations (FDA) unpredictable process and
regulatory scrutiny. The FDAs 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

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
federal cousin. Like medical devices, commercial drones have massive economic potential.

both permit more companies to test their drone services and allow them to test private technologies on private land
where safety concerns are minimal. Just as Google was allowed to test its driverless cars on its own campus before
seeking state approval for offsite testing, it should also be allowed to buy land far away from major population
centers to privately test its drone technologies. These delivery drone services are almost at our doorstep (literally)
and they are ready to soar, if the FAA will only allow our visionaries the opportunity to get them right.

The US could get left behind

Ed Pilkington, 14, chief reporter for Guardian US, September 30, 2014 11.18 EDT,
What's keeping America's private drone industry grounded?,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/29/drone-testers-faa-aviationfrustration-grows

Even if it did have capacity to carry out tests more relevant to the issue of drone integration, North Dakota would be
at a loss to know which experiments to concentrate on, as the FAA has so far given no guidance. Right at this
second the FAA hasnt actually given us clear research areas to work on, Becklund said. They say thats 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
agencys overwhelming priority was safety. Integration

of unmanned aircraft into the national

airspace will be done incrementally, he said. Becklunds 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 Becklunds fear that America might
lose its edge had already come to pass. If

you are a company with a promising product theres

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 . Theres no way for America to remain
competitive.

Manufacturing key to overall military superiority and

deterrence
Mackenzie Eaglen 12 Research Fellow for national security at The
American Enterprise Institute, 1/26/2012 The Arsenal of Democracy
and How to Preserve It: Key Issues in Defense Industrial Policy.,
Brookings, http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/01/26defense-industrial-base
Yet there are severe challenges that could result to the nations 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. Chinas economic, political and
now military rise continues. Its direction is uncertain, but it has already raised
tension, especially in the South China Sea. Irans 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 capabilitieswhich 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 nations 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
DoDs weapons inventoriesfighter jets, armored vehicles, surface vessels and
submarinescontinue to age. We often say that, in todays 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. Todays industrial capabilities took
decades to build and would be hard to restore if lost (Great Britains 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 wont just cost jobs or competitiveness, but could actually result in lost
American military industrial capability in core areas. The Department of Defense has
recently made some encouraging moves towards emphasizing the role of the
industrial base in its strategic and budgetary planning. The 2010 Quadrennial
Defense Review examined the subject, for example, and Secretary Panetta and his
deputies have convened several meetings in recent months with industry leaders to

discuss their concerns. But industrial base considerations remain little discussed
outside the specialist community and too frequently take a short term or single
interest approach, such as asking a candidate to weigh in on an individual product
or firm. Rather, it is the overall state of the field and its future that should be of
concern to all, regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum. Thus, as
presidential candidates and other national leaders develop their platforms for the
2012 elections and beyond, any serious discussion of national security and the
current state and future of the military must also give direct attention to matters of
the American national security scientific and industrial base. This discussion should
be direct and forthright, recognizing the context of severe budgetary dilemmas for
the nation, the success and challenges of the defense economy, changing military
demands, and the gradual erosion of American manufacturing in many sectors over
the last several decades.

Modeling Adv

EXT Modeling
US regulations are key to stop Latin American drone conflict
W. Alejandro Sanchez 13, Senior Research Fellow at the Council on
Hemispheric Affairs, 10/8/2013, Latin America Puts Forward A Mixed
Picture on the Use of Drones in the Region, Council on Hemispheric
Affairs, http://www.coha.org/latin-america-puts-forward-a-mixedpicture-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-anddestroy missions in the name of national security. [11] While the proliferation of
drones may not be halted, it is necessary for Western military powers to keep in
mind that they must lead by example when it comes to using drones, as this tactic
sets the standard of how other nations will utilize them in the (very) near future.

US Domestic Surveillance Drones are modeled in Latin

America-Global Leader
Diego Cupolo 14, Latin American policy writer for Occupy, 1/8/2014,
Why Widely Unregulated Drone Use Is Soaring in Latin America,
Occupy, http://www.occupy.com/article/why-widely-unregulated-droneuse-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 Russias 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 worlds 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

consequences of even a small nuclear war would

include catastrophic disruptions of global climate [i] and massive destruction of
Earths protective ozone layer[ii]. These and more recent studies predict that global agriculture would be
nuclear arsenals. They concluded that the

so negatively affected by such a war, a global famine would result, which would cause up to 2 billion people to
starve to death. [iii]

These peer-reviewed studies which were analyzed by the best scientists in the world
and found to be without error also predict that a war fought with less than half of US
or Russian strategic nuclear weapons would destroy the human race .[iv] In other words, a
US-Russian nuclear war would create such extreme 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.

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
Both

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.

launchready nuclear weapons represent a self-destruct mechanism for the human race . For
Yet top political leaders and policymakers of both the US and Russia seem to be unaware that their

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 worlds 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 doesnt 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 USRussian 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

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 .
contribution lay in my knowledge of the recently published (in 2006) studies, which predicted

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. Washingtons
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 Powers
James Rochlin 94 Professor of Political Science at Okanagan University
College, Dcember 1994, Discovering the Americas: the evolution of
Canadian foreign policy towards Latin America, p. 130-131,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0008423900022460
While there were economic motivations for Canadian policy in Central America,
security considerations were perhaps more important. Canada possessed an
interest in promoting stability in the face of a potential decline of U.S. hegemony in
the Americas. Perceptions of declining U.S. influence in the region which had some
credibility in 1979-1984 due to the wildly inequitable divisions of wealth in some
U.S. client states in Latin America, in addition to political repression, underdevelopment, 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 Canadas Standing Committee Report on Central America. It was feared
that such a predicament could generate increased global instability and perhaps
even a hegemonic war. This is one of the motivations which led Canada to become
involved in efforts at regional conflict resolution, such as Contadora, as will be
discussed in the next chapter.

EXT Narcoterror
Cartels will get drones-Private manufacturing and theft
W Alejandro Sanchez 14, Senior Research Fellow at the Council on
Hemispheric Affairs, 1/12/2014, COHA Report: Drones in Latin
America, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, http://www.coha.org/cohareport-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: crudelybuilt submarines that are only able to partially submerge and can transport a small
crew but also high amounts of illegal narcotics (i.e. cocaine) from South America to
the north. For example, in November 2013, Colombian security forces seized a
narco-sub in the Narino department, which had the capacity of ferrying up to eight
tons of cocaine. The submarine had space for four operators as well as an air
conditioning system, a diesel engine, radar and a GPS system.[40]
There is little doubt that criminal or guerrilla groups can find a use for drones.
Criminal entities, particularly drug cartels, have the willingness to try new
technologies and, most importantly, the monetary funds to acquire them. Moreover,
basic versions of drones are already being built by private industries, such as 3D
Robotics, which has a manufacturing plant in Tijuana, Mexico.[41]

Ties with Hezbollah make Narcoterror extremely likely

Terence Rosenthal 13, Writer for Center for Security Policy,
7/10/2013, Los Zetas and Hezbollah, a Deadly Alliance of Terror and
Vice, Center for Security Policy,
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2013/07/10/los-zetas-andhezbollah-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, Irans 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 Mexicos 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 Beltrn-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 Hezbollahs ties to Latin American drug
smugglers poses a significant threat for U.S. national security and In the event
the nuclear confrontation with Iran gets worse rather than better, having a militant
organization like Hezbollah on, and even within our border- it certainly does pose a
threat. The obvious question is whether or not the United States is taking the
necessary precautions to counter what is likely to become an even larger problem if
left undeterred

A2 Armed Drone Alt Cause

Surveillance drones are on the rise in Latin America-Makes US
Leadership the only way to solve previous pressures
Katitza Rodriguez 15, International Rights Director, Electronic Frontier
Foundation, 1/12/2015, Drone and CCTVs for Everyone: Surveillance
Tech Expands Across Latin America, Electronic Frontier Foundation,
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/drone-and-cctvs-everyonesurveillance-tech-expands-across-latin-america

Last year, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights took issue with the
deployment of drones in fourteen countries in the Americas without a clear legal
framework to regulate their increasing use. We couldnt 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 polices 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 Medelln 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 Medelln 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 thats 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 action
Alissa Dolan 13, Legislative Attorney in the American Law Division of
the Congressional Research Service, 4/4/2013, Integration of Drones
into Domestic Airspace: Selected Legal Issues, Congressional
Research Service, https://nppa.org/sites/default/files/Integration%20of
%20Drones%20into%20Domestic%20Airspace%2004-04-13.pdf

In the 113th Congress, Representative Ed Markey introduced the Drone Aircraft

Privacy and Transparency Act of 2013 (H.R. 1262).166 This bill would amend FMRA
to create a comprehensive scheme to regulate the private use of drones, including
data collection requirements and enforcement mechanisms. First, this bill would
require the Secretary of Transportation, with input from the Secretary of Commerce,
the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, and the Chief Privacy Officer of the
Department of Homeland Security, to study any potential threats to privacy
protections posed by the introduction of drones in the national airspace. Next, the
bill would prohibit the FAA from issuing a license to operate a drone unless the
application for such use included a data collection statement. This statement
would require the following items: a list of individuals who would have the authority
to operate the drone; the location in which the drone will be used; the maximum
period it will be used; and whether the drone would be collecting information about
individuals. If the drone will be used to collect personal information, the statement
must include the circumstances in which such information will be used; the kinds of
information collected and the conclusions drawn from it; the type of data
minimization procedures to be employed; whether the information will be sold, and
if so, under what circumstances; how long the information would be stored; and
procedures for destroying irrelevant data. The statement must also include
information about the possible impact on privacy protections posed by the
operation under that license and steps to be taken to mitigate this impact.
Additionally, the statement must include the contact information of the drone
operator; a process for determining what information has been collected about an
individual; and a process for challenging the accuracy of such data. Finally, the FAA
would be required to post the data collection statement on the Internet.
H.R. 1262 includes several enforcement mechanisms. First, the FAA may revoke any
license of a user that does not comply with these requirements. The Federal Trade
Commission would have the primary authority to enforce the data collection
requirements just stated. Additionally, the Attorney General of each state, or an
official or agency of a state, is empowered to file a civil suit if there is reason to
believe that the privacy interests of residents of that state have been threatened or
adversely affected. H.R. 1262 would also create a private right of action for a person
injured by a violation of this legislation.

Now Key
Regulation now is key-Plan is necessary to solve increasing
public backlash
Hillary Farber 14, Associate Professor of Law, University of
Massachusetts School of Law, 1/1/2014, EYES IN THE SKY:
CONSTITUTIONAL AND REGULATORY APPROACHES TO DOMESTIC
DRONE DEPLOYMENT, Syracuse Law Review, 64 Syracuse L. Rev. 1,
http://scholarship.law.umassd.edu/fac_pubs/55/

Regulation is imperative if there is any promise of curtailing the slow demise of a

citizen's right to privacy in the face of these powerful, aerial observers. In light of
inadequate Fourth Amendment protections, privacy violations could occur without
redress if Congress does not act soon. Congressional regulation in the face of
technological advancement is not without precedent. Congress has preemptively
acted to address privacy issues in response to government surveillance of
communication in transit (wiretapping), n162 communications in storage such as
emails, n163 bank records, n164 and health records. n165 As one scholar
commented, "with the Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986, Congress was
protecting people's emails before most people knew what email was". n166 Possibly
the most comprehensive and promising piece of legislation in Congress is the Drone
Aircraft Privacy and Transparency [*29] Act, introduced in March 2013 by Senator
Edward Markey. n167 The bill proposes strict guidelines for the collection and
retention of information gathered by drones. The legislation would prohibit the FAA
from issuing drones licenses unless the application includes a data collection
statement disclosing who will operate the drone, where the drone will be flown, the
flight path, the type of data to be collected, how the data will be used, how long the
data will be retained, and whether information will be shared with third parties.
n168 Moreover, all this information will be available in a publicly searchable
database, along with disclosures of any data security breaches suffered by a
licensee and the times and locations of all drone flights. n169 The act further
requires law enforcement agencies to file a data minimization statement that
explains how the agency will minimize the collection and retention of data unrelated
to the criminal investigation. n170 This adds a layer of transparency to the
certification process, which has been veiled in a shroud of secrecy. It also elevates
the privacy concerns beyond those of ordinary citizens to a federal regulatory
agency. Privacy rights groups support this legislation as a significant step toward
safeguarding privacy threatened by pervasive aerial surveillance. n171 At present,
law enforcement agencies are deploying drones without any established privacy
guidelines in place, and information pertaining to drone data has been virtually
impossible to obtain despite Freedom of Information Act lawsuits filed by privacy
rights groups. n172

DMS Solve
Data Minimization Statements prevent collection of
superfluous private information
Veronica McKnight 15, J.D., California Western School of Law, Spring
2015, Drone Technology and the Fourth Amendment: Aerial
Surveillance Precedent and Kyllo Do Not Account for Current
Technology and Privacy Concerns, California Western Law Review, 51
Cal. W. L. Rev. 263, Lexis

Another unsuccessful bill, the Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act of 2013
(H.R. 1262), would have amended the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 to
create regulations for governmental use of drones. n64 This bill would have required
all drone [*273] applications for drone usage to include a "data collection
statement," listing individuals allowed to operate the drone, the drone's location,
the maximum period of time the drone would be used, and whether the drone would
gather information about citizens. n65 If an agency intended to use the drone for
monitoring citizens, then the statement would have also included: The
circumstances in which such information will be used, the kinds of information
collected and the conclusions drawn from it, the type of data minimization
procedures to be employed, whether the information will be sold, and if so, under
what circumstances, how long the information would be stored, and procedures for
destroying irrelevant data. n66 The bill would have also required that law
enforcement create policies for information gathered from drones and file a data
minimization statement explaining the policies to: minimize the collection of
information and data unrelated to the investigation of a crime under a warrant,
require the destruction of data that is no longer relevant to the investigation of a
crime, establish procedures for the method of such destruction, and establish
oversight and audit procedures to ensure the agency operates a UAS in accordance
with the data collection statement filed with the FAA.

Warrants Key
Warrant Codification and limits on duration of usage are key to
solve rampant drone usage
Victoria San Pedro 14, Senior Associate, Stetson Law Review, Spring
2014, DRONE LEGISLATION: KEEPING AN EYE ON LAW
ENFORCEMENT'S LATEST SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY, Stetson Law
Review, 43 Stetson L. Rev. 679, Lexis
Because of the relative low cost of drone surveillance in comparison to other forms
of surveillance, there is a danger that drone surveillance will be rampant. n258 As a
result, legislation must be directed at limiting law enforcement's ability to use
drones to conduct surveillance without a warrant. However, as evidenced by the
FBI's position on drone surveillance, because law enforcement agencies argue that
aerial surveillance does not constitute a search, these agencies also believe that
there is no need for a warrant. n259 Therefore, codifying a warrant requirement will
ensure that law enforcement cannot conduct drone surveillance without first
obtaining a warrant from a neutral and detached magistrate. n260
[*715] Similarly, the danger posed by the inexpensive nature of drone surveillance
can be addressed by limiting the duration of that surveillance. There are inherent
dangers associated with long-term monitoring. n261 Most significantly, long-term
sur-veillance reveals patterns, habits, and preferences of an individ-ual's life in a
way that other forms of surveillance do not. n262 Long-term surveillance allows the
government to learn not only with whom one associates and when one goes to work
and comes home, but also which is one's favorite pizza delivery company. n263
While a police stakeout can also similarly garner this type of information, a drone
gathers this type of information at a fraction of the cost, which gives law
enforcement unbridled access to one's life. n264 Drones also permit surveillance of
large numbers of people because drones are less directly constrained by things like
staffing limits in the law enforcement agencies. n265 While it is true that some of
this information can also be obtained via other forms of low-cost surveillance such
as wiretapping, n266 wiretapping is heav-ily regulated at both the state and federal
level. n267 Therefore, some of the measures and regulations associated with
wiretapping laws should be implemented in drone legislation.

Fed Key
Federal Action on drones is the most effective-Sectoral privacy
laws, momentum from FAA reform, and extensive deliberation
Robert Gruber 15, Litigation associate at Greenberg Traurig, LLP,
4/24/2015, COMMERCIAL DRONES AND PRIVACY: CAN WE TRUST
STATES WITH "DRONE FEDERALISM"?, Richmond Journal of Law &
Technology, 21 Rich. J.L. & Tech. 14, Lexis
Even if privacy is traditionally within the states' domain, Congress also has a
pedigree of privacy laws. Existing federal privacy laws are sectoral, carving out a
particular privacy issue; several answer questions about the relationship between
privacy and technology. For example, federal laws address telephone and electronic
communications, n225 standards for the electronic exchange of health care
information, n226 and the privacy of children's personal information online. n227 An
act outlining baseline privacy policies for commercial UAS would not be out of place
on such a list. n228
P81 In addition, Congress' passing of the FMRA could suggest a greater appreciation
for the social and economic benefits of commercial UAV operations than many
states currently have. The FMRA predicated the FAA's continuing funding on efforts
to integrate drones into the national airspace. n229 The impetus is there for
bipartisan support of a drone-friendly Act: having invested in the UAS industry's
economic future, it is unlikely Congress would enjoy seeing the market flounder on
state laws (once the FAA lives up to its part of the bargain).
P82 Finally, that federal legislation is more costly and often requires greater
deliberation may in fact translate into better results than those currently being
achieved by the states. While the extent of the First Amendment right to record is
far from clear, Congress could establish baseline privacy-related rules that would
prevent an act from being categorically stricken. And some privacy interests can be
vindicated without implicating the First Amendment at all, as by enacting
transparency requirements.

Fed -> States

Federal privacy law trickles down to the statesempirically
proven
Hannah Bergman 09, Legal fellow for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of

the Press, Spring 2009, Out of sight, out of bounds: Twenty years after the Reporters
Committee case, the governments ability to bar access to practically obscure
documents has disturbing implications, The News Media & The Law, page 11,
http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-andlaw-spring-2009/out-sight-out-bounds
Twenty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the seminal decision
interpreting the federal Freedom of Information Acts 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 Courts 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 sheriffs
offices.
Schakne and the Reporters Committee sought access to the Medico brothers sheets.
At first only Williams 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 FBIs decision, saying the rap sheets werent subject to disclosure under
FOIA: Even though the information was available elsewhere, the court held, it was still practically obscure.
Practical obscurity, in the Courts 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 didnt 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 Congresss 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 publics interest in disclosure that should be considered, and how
should the value of receiving the documents be measured against a persons 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. Theres 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.

Dalys 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 thats pretty much what we got in the first section of the opinion
alone, Daly said. From there, it only got better for the governments 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 courts balancing and argue that
arrest and conviction do in fact illuminate what government is up to.
Arrests that dont 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.
Its only in the context of private information that this matters. For FOIA requests that dont implicate third parties
with privacy rights, the requester doesnt 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 Courts 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 its 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 Lindhs clemency
petition last year. The APs request was denied, and it later lost a FOIA suit for access to the petition because the
government said it was protecting Lindhs 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, Utahs 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 Courts reasoning from Reporters Committee. In a 2008 New York case,
Bursac v. Suozzi, a state trial court found that a countys efforts to publicize drunken
driving arrests in press releases violated the arrestees due process rights , despite
the states freedom of information laws that make the data public. The New York court
relied on the protection afforded Medicos rap sheet in the federal Reporters Committee case.

States are responding now to federal drone legislation

Fox News 13, May 19, 2013, Lawmakers eye regulating domestic surveillance
drones, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/19/congress-eyes-regulatingdrones/
Amid growing concern over the use of drones by police and government officials for
surveillance, a bipartisan group of lawmakers is pushing to limit the use of
unmanned surveillance "eyes in the sky" aircraft.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., along with Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., and Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, is sponsoring
legislation that would codify due process protections for Americans in cases involving drones and make flying
armed drones in the U.S. sky illegal.

Sensenbrenner believes it is necessary to develop new standards to address the

privacy issues associated with use of drones which can be as small as a bird and
as large as a plane.
"Every advancement in crime fighting technology, from wiretaps to DNA, has
resulted in courts carving out the Constitutional limits within which the police
operate," Sensenbrenner said at a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing Friday on the issues surrounding

drones.
The subcommittee heard from experts who were divided on what actions Congress should take to address the new
technology. But the four witnesses all agreed that drones raised new, often unprecedented questions about
domestic surveillance.

"Current law has yet to catch up to this new technology," said Chris Calabrese,
legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Calabrese said he supported immediate regulation of the drone industry and said his biggest concern was the
overuse of drones by police and government officials for surveillance. But Calabrese said he doesn't want to hinder
the growth of drones with the power to do good, including helping find missing persons, assisting firefighters and
addressing other emergencies.
Tracey Maclin, a professor with the Boston University School of Law, said the issues raised by drones haven't been
addressed by courts before because the technology goes beyond what humans had been capable of through aerial
surveillance.

Past court rulings, "were premised on naked-eye observations simple visual

observations from a public place," he said.
Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-La., said he wanted to know when drone technology will
advance to the point where Congress will have to act on the issue. He said he was
concerned about the effect on privacy.
"At what point do you think it's going to get to a point where we have to say what a reasonable expectation of
privacy is?" Richmond said.
Republicans expressed similar concerns.
"It seems to me that Congress needs to set the standard, rather than wait and let the courts set the standard," Poe
said.
"Technology is great as long as it's used the right and proper way," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said at Friday's
hearing.
Some experts urged caution.

Gregory McNeal, an associate law professor at Pepperdine University, said writing

laws to cover drones will be difficult because the technology continues to improve
and Congress could think it's addressing key issues, only to have new ones emerge.
He compared drones to the privacy concerns raised by development of the Internet
in the 1990s. Regulating then, he said, could have stymied the rapid growth of the
Internet and wouldn't have addressed today's Internet privacy issues.
If Congress feels compelled to act, McNeal said, it should think in terms broader than a "drone policy" and set
standards for surveillance or realistic expectations of privacy. "A technology-centered approach to privacy is the
wrong approach," he said.
But the ACLU's Calabrese said Congress should work quickly.
"This can't be adequately addressed by existing law," he said. "Manned aircraft are expensive to purchase. Drones'
low cost and flexibility erode that natural limit. They can appear in windows, all for much less than the cost of a
plane or a helicopter."

A future with domestic drones may be inevitable. While civilian drone use is
currently limited to government agencies and some public universities, a law
passed by Congress last year requires the Federal Aviation Administration to allow
widespread drone flights in the U.S. by 2015. According to FAA estimates, as many
as 7,500 civilian drones could be in use within five years.
Congress isn't alone in seeking to address the issues: Since January, drone-related
legislation has been introduced in more than 30 states, largely in response to
privacy concerns.

US drone use forces a fundamental rethinking of privacy law

on all levels
M. Ryan Calo 11, Director for Privacy and Robotics, Center for Internet & Society,
December 12, 2011, The Drone as Privacy Catalyst, Stanford Law Review 64 Stan.
L. Rev. Online 29, http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/drone-privacy-catalyst

Recent shifts in technology and attendant changes to business practices have not led to similar shifts in privacy law,
at least not on the order of 1890. Computers, the Internet, RFID, GPS, biometrics, facial recognitionnone 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 todays 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 willand douse 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 defendants 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 Orwells Oceaniaor the offices of our own Defense Advanced Research Projects Agencyto
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. Todays police have to follow hunches, cultivate informants, subpoena ATM camera footage; journalists must
ghost about the restaurant or party of the moment. Tomorrows 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 Oklahomas 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
Orwells 1984, but the inscrutable courts of Franz Kafkas The Trial.[11] I agree, and believe that the lack of a
coherent mental model of privacy harm helps account for the lag between the advancement of technology and
privacy law. There is no story, no vivid and specific instance of a paradigmatic privacy violation in a digital universe,
upon which citizens and lawmakers can premise their concern.

Drones and other robots have the potential to restore that mental model. They
represent the cold, technological embodiment of observation . Unlike, say, NSA
network surveillance or commercial data brokerage, government or industry
surveillance of the populace with drones would be visible and highly salient. People
would feel observed, regardless of how or whether the information was actually
used. The resulting backlash could force us to reexamine not merely the
use of drones to observe, but the doctrines that today permit this use.

Congress Key
Legislative Action of the plan is necessary and solves drone
privacy violations
Michael Sheehan 13, J.D, Temple University Beasley School of Law,
Winter 2013, U.S. Citizens' Fourth Amendment Rights & Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles: An Appeal for Bright-Line Legislative Action, Temple
Journal of Science, Technology & Environmental Law, 32 Temp. J. Sci.
Tech. & Envtl. L. 255, Lexis

The most sensible and realistic approach is for Congress to strike a balance between
these drastically different proposals by setting clear guidelines for public law
enforcement agencies, the courts and citizens. In order to maintain Fourth
Amendment protections for US citizens, the federal legislation must require that any
public agency seeking to use UAVs for surveillance of a person's home or curtilage
first obtain a search warrant based on evidence which amounts to probable cause in
the eyes of a neutral decision maker. n366 As proposed by the ACLU, public
agencies must also be required to disclose the amount of UAVs operating annually,
along with the total number of search warrants issued for their use in surveillance.
Any federal legislation needs to clarify the operating standards for UAVs so that
every US citizen is made aware of what types of surveillance they may be subjected
to on their property so as to avoid future cases in which the courts are forced to
examine the full facts of every case before making a decision.
These essential elements should be formed into a four part resolution for adoption
into law by the federal legislature. First, UAVs should be restricted to areas of public
travel and respect the airspace above a citizen's property in the manner the [*288]
Vermont Supreme Court upheld in Bryant. n367 The airspace standard should
continue to be at least 500 feet above the citizen's property, as it was held to be for
helicopters in Riley. n368 In addition, the legislation must provide a warrant
requirement that is clear and unambiguously states that a warrant is needed prior
to any surveillance using enhanced technologies by UAVs or the altitude restrictions
will have no effect. This rule should follow the ACLU guidelines: it may only be
issued based on the probable cause standard inherent in all search warrants and
must be in the pursuit of a felony. n369 The legislation must provide a UAV policy
that is as transparent as possible within the bounds of national security concerns.
n370 There must be outside and independent review of the amount of warrants
issued for UAV surveillance, the technology they possess, and the amount of
constitutional violations they are found to commit within a given time frame. n371
At the very least, this data must be made public on an annual basis and must also
include a provision that any data acquired not pertinent to the investigation of a
felony be destroyed within a set time frame. n372 Ultimately, legislation of this type
will provide the best compromise between public agencies and the privacy rights of
U.S. citizens, without compromising the ability of law enforcement to operate
effectively.

A2 FAA regs ruin commercial

Upcoming FAA regulations are lenient on businessesNegotiations and Lobbying pressures
David Morgan 6/17, Writer for Reuters, 6/17/2015, FAA expects to
clear U.S. commercial drones within a year, Reuters,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/17/us-usa-drones-congressidUSKBN0OX1P020150617
U.S. commercial drone operations could take flight on a large scale by this time next
year, as federal regulators finalize rules allowing widespread unmanned aerial
system use by companies, according to congressional testimony on Wednesday. A
senior Federal Aviation Administration official said the agency expects to finalize
regulations within the next 12 months. Previous forecasts had anticipated rules by
the end of 2016 or the beginning of 2017. "The rule will be in place within a year,"
FAA Deputy Administrator Michael Whitaker said in testimony before the U.S. House
of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee. "Hopefully before
June 17, 2016," he added. Drone advocates expect unmanned aerial systems to
transform a number of industries - from agriculture and energy production to real
estate, news and entertainment, transportation and retailing. At the congressional
hearing, a senior Amazon.com executive told lawmakers that the e-commerce
retailer would be ready to begin delivering packages to customers via drones as
soon as federal rules allow. Wed like to begin delivering to our customers as soon
as its approved," Misener said. We will have (the technology) in place by the time
any regulations are ready. We are working very quickly. Amazon said its plans,
which call for delivering packages to customers within 30 minutes, would require
FAA rules to accommodate advanced drone technology envisioned by the
company's Prime Air operations. FAA regulations proposed in February are more
restrictive - requiring drones to fly during daylight hours only and to remain within
an operator's visual line of sight. FAA officials are in discussions with industry
stakeholders including Amazon and Google Inc about crafting final regulations that
could accommodate more sophisticated drone systems capable of flying
autonomously over longer distances. Whitaker said in written testimony that
advanced technology standards are scheduled to be completed in 2016. The
shortened FAA time-horizon for final rules follows a series of agency actions to
accommodate commercial drones. FAA officials have been under pressure from
lawmakers and industry lobbyists, who claim U.S. companies are losing billions in
potential savings and revenues while waiting for regulators to open the way for
drones. The agency has also streamlined its process for exempting companies from
a near-ban on commercial drone operations. Whitaker said the FAA is now allowing
up to 50 companies a week to use drones as part of their businesses.

Possible Addons

Disease
Commercial Drones will help prevent disease/pandemic spread,
but federal provisions are a pre-requisite
Hindustan Times 6/25, Indian news journal, Microsoft's drones to catch
mosquitoes and help stop epidemics, Hindustan Times, 6/25/15,
http://www.hindustantimes.com/science/microsoft-s-drones-to-catch-mosquitoesand-help-stop-epidemics/article1-1359218.aspx
Microsoft researchers are developing autonomous drones that collect
mosquitoes to look for early signs that potentially harmful viruses are
spreading, with the goal of preventing disease outbreaks in humans.
Project Premonition, launched by American tech company Microsoft, is
developing a system that aims to detect infectious disease outbreaks
before they become widespread. Project Premonition could eventually
allow health officials to get a jump start on preventing outbreaks of a
disease like dengue fever or avian flu before it occurs, whether or not it is a
disease spread by mosquitoes, researchers said. It will do that by relying on what
Ethan Jackson, the Microsoft researcher who is spearheading the project, calls
'nature's drones' - mosquitoes - to look for early signs that a particular illness could
be on the move. Researchers have developed a new mosquito trap that uses less
energy and relies on lighter weight batteries. It also has a new bait system for luring
mosquitoes, a sensor that automatically sorts the mosquitoes from the other bugs
and chemicals that can preserve the mosquitoes for lab study. It is expected to be
significantly cheaper and lighter than current traps. The team will use drones
that can fly the mosquito traps into and out of remote areas in a semiautonomous way, rather than having to be constantly directed from the
ground. Microsoft researchers are beginning to develop ways to make the
drones even more autonomous, and they are also working with US Federal
Aviation Administration officials on regulatory requirements, according to
a post on the company's blog. Once the mosquitoes have been collected, the
next challenge is to analyse them for microbes and viruses that could pose a threat
to humans. Until recently, the idea of culling through mosquitoes to try to
find diseases that are both known and unknown would have been wildly
impractical, according 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

burnout
Arturo Casadevall 12, M.D., Ph.D. in Biochemistry from New York University, Leo
and Julia Forchheimer Professor and Chair of the Department of Microbiology and
Immunology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, former editor of the ASM journal
Infection and Immunity, The future of biological warfare, Microbial Biotechnology
Volume 5, Issue 5, pages 584587, September 2012,
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-7915.2012.00340.x/full
In considering the importance of biological warfare as a subject for concern it is worthwhile to review the
known existential threats. At this time this writer can identify at three major existential threats to

humanity: (i) large-scale thermonuclear war followed by a nuclear winter, (ii) a planet killing asteroid impact and (iii)

infectious disease . To this trio might be added climate change making the planet uninhabitable. Of the
three existential threats the first is deduced from the inferred cataclysmic effects of nuclear war. For the second
there is geological evidence for the association of asteroid impacts with massive extinction (Alvarez, 1987). As to an
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 hostmicrobe 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
existential threat from microbes

pathogenic microbes, which number somewhere near 1500 species (Cleaveland et al., 2001; Taylor et al., 2001),
especially if some of these species acquired the capacity for pathogenicity as a consequence of natural evolution or
bioengineering.

Warming Add-On
Drones key to collecting climate data that is key to solving
warming

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.
Some

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 highspeed 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

change our picture of the planet's future.

it could

Climate data allows for adaptation and good decision-making

to solve warming
EEA 06, European Environmental Agency, Vulnerability and adaptation to climate
change in Europe, EEA Technical report No 7/2005,
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/technical_report_2005_1207_144937/downlo
ad
As a cross-cutting adaptive response to climate change, a large number of regional
and national research programmes have been undertaken to develop and/or
advance the knowledge on the characteristics of climate related risks and
strategies to manage them , in multiple sectors and at different scales. A large body of knowledge
and information has resulted from these efforts, especially on the trends of past climate, projections of climate
change in the 21st century, potential impacts of such projected changes on different sectors, systems, communities
and regions, and possible options to adapt to projected changes and their impacts.
A selection of major international projects and national research projects in support of climate change adaptation
are presented in Tables 5 and 6, respectively. A more comprehensive list of national research programmes on
various aspects of climate change are summarised in (Gabriel et al., 2005).
In response to the growing need for improved knowledge and guidance for adaptation planning and decisionmaking, 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

These include processes of adaptation decision-making, conditions

that stimulate or constrain adaptation, the rolesand responsibilities of varying stakeholders in
sufficiently studied.

adaptation process, and the role of non-climatic factors. A robust methodological framework for evaluating
adaptation options is still to be developed (see Section 5.1.2).

Warming is real, anthropogenic and causes extinction

Flournoy 12 -- Citing Feng Hsu, PhD NASA Scientist @ the Goddard Space Flight

Center. Don Flournoy is a PhD and MA from the University of Texas, Former Dean of
the University College @ Ohio University, Former Associate Dean @ State University
of New York and Case Institute of Technology, Project Manager for
University/Industry Experiments for the NASA ACTS Satellite, Currently Professor of
Telecommunications @ Scripps College of Communications @ Ohio University (Don,
"Solar Power Satellites," January, Springer Briefs in Space Development, Book, p.
10-11
In the Online Journal of Space Communication , Dr. Feng Hsu, a NASA scientist at Goddard Space Flight Center, a
research center in the forefront of science of space and Earth, writes, The

evidence of global warming

is alarming, noting the potential for a catastrophic planetary climate change is real and
troubling (Hsu 2010 ) . Hsu and his NASA colleagues were engaged in monitoring and analyzing
climate changes on a global scale, through which they received first-hand scientific
information and data relating to global warming issues, including the dynamics of polar ice cap
melting. After discussing this research with colleagues who were world experts on the subject, he wrote: I now
have no doubt global temperatures are rising, and that global warming is a serious
problem confronting all of humanity. No matter whether these trends are due to
human interference or to the cosmic cycling of our solar system, there are two basic facts that are
crystal clear: (a) there is overwhelming scientific evidence showing positive correlations
between the level of CO2 concentrations in Earths atmosphere with respect to the
historical fluctuations of global temperature changes; and (b) the overwhelming

majority of the worlds 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 Earths
biosphere, humanity will be at dire risk (Hsu 2010 ) . As a technology risk assessment expert, Hsu says he
can show with some confidence that the planet will face more risk doing nothing to curb its fossil-based energy
addictions than it will in making a fundamental shift in its energy supply. This, he writes, is because

the

risks of a catastrophic anthropogenic climate change can be potentially the

extinction of human species , a risk that is simply too high for us to take any chances (Hsu 2010 )

Economy
Drones key to infrastructure surveillance and ability to fix
structural deficiencies
Steve Carr 3/4, Senior University Communication Representative at the
University of New Mexico, UNM researchers take to the skies to assess
infrastructure damage, University of New Mexico Newsroom, 3/4/15,
http://news.unm.edu/news/unm-researchers-take-to-the-skies-to-assessinfrastructure-damage
Drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), have become increasingly popular
over the last half dozen years or so among amateur aeronautical
aficionados, engineers and generally anyone fascinated with relatively inexpensive
flying machines. Drones can be used for a number of applications including civilian
and military purposes. Monitoring and surveillance are two of the biggest uses for
drones. Now, researchers at the University of New Mexico, along with
collaborators at San Diego State University and BAE Systems, are utilizing similar
technology to develop an operational prototype that will use innovative
remote sensing approaches and cameras mounted on low cost aircraft or
unmanned drones to detect and map fine scale transportation
infrastructure damage such as cracks, deformations and shifts
immediately following natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods and
hurricanes. With the help of a two-year, $1.2 million grant from the United
States Department of Transportation Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Research & Technology Commercial Remote Sensing and Spatial
Information Technologies Program (CRS&SI) and additional support from
the UNM College of Arts and Sciences and UNM School of Engineering,
researchers Christopher Lippitt and Susan Bogus Halter are conducting the research
project. Weve 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. Weve been working on that
in a number of applications for awhile, but this is the first time were fully
operationalizing technology that myself and my collaborators at San Diego
State have been developing for many years. One of the keys to
infrastructure damage assessment is timeliness. Many natural disasters
create dangerous situations that are time-sensitive in nature. The first 24
hours are oftentimes critical in terms of damage assessment, search and
rescue. Short time-frame damage assessments, sometimes over large
urban areas, can be difficult with the current conventional, groundobservations 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/creakinginfrastructure/55096396/1
Inland waterways quietly keep the nation's economy flowing as they transport
$180 billion of coal, steel, chemicals and other goods each year a sixth of
U.S. freight across 38 states. Yet, an antiquated system of locks and dams
threatens the timely delivery of those goods daily. Locks and dams raise or
lower barges from one water level to the next, but breakdowns are frequent. For
example, the main chamber at a lock on the Ohio River near Warsaw, Ky., is being
fixed. Maneuvering 15-barge tows into a much smaller backup chamber has
increased the average delay at the lock from 40 minutes to 20 hours, including
waiting time. The outage, which began last July and is expected to end in August,
will cost American Electric Power and its customers $5.5 million as the utility ferries
coal and other supplies along the river for itself and other businesses, says AEP
senior manager Marty Hettel. As the economy picks up, the nation's creaking
infrastructure will increasingly struggle to handle the load. That will make products
more expensive as businesses pay more for shipping or maneuver around
roadblocks, and it will cause the nation to lose exports to other countries both of
which are expected to hamper the recovery. "The good news is, the economy is
turning," says Dan Murray, vice president of the American Transportation Research
Institute. "The bad news is, we expect congestion to skyrocket." The ancient
lock-and-dam system is perhaps the most egregious example of aging or
congested transportation systems that are being outstripped by demand.
Fourteen locks are expected to fail by 2020, costing the economy billions
of dollars. Meanwhile, seaports can't accommodate larger container ships,
slowing exports and imports. Highways are too narrow. Bridges are
overtaxed. Effects 'sneaking up' The shortcomings were partly masked during the
recession as fewer Americans worked and less freight was shipped, easing traffic on
transportation corridors. But interviews with shippers and logistics companies show
delays are starting to lengthen along with the moderately growing economy. "I call
this a stealth attack on our economy," says Janet Kavinoky, executive director of
transportation and infrastructure for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "It's not like an
immediate crisis. It's something that's sneaking up on us." Freight bottlenecks
and other congestion cost about $200 billion a year, or 1.6% of U.S.
economic output, according to a report last year by Building America's Future
Educational Fund, a bipartisan coalition of elected officials. The chamber of
commerce estimates such costs are as high as $1 trillion annually, or 7% of the
economy. Yet, there's little prospect for more infrastructure investment as a
divided Congress battles about how to cut the $1.3 trillion federal deficit,
and state and local governments face their own budget shortfalls.
Government investment in highways, bridges, water systems, schools and
other projects has fallen each year since 2008. IHS Global Insight expects
such outlays to drop 4.4% this year and 3% in 2013. The U.S. is spending about
half of the $2.2 trillion that it should over a five-year period to repair and expand
overburdened infrastructure, says Andrew Herrmann, president of the American
Society of Civil Engineers. Inland waterways, for example, carry coal to power
plants, iron ore to steel mills and grain to export terminals. But inadequate
investment led to nearly 80,000 hours of lock outages in fiscal 2010, four
times more than in fiscal 2000. Most of the nation's 200 or so locks are
past their 50-year design life. A prime example is an 83-year-old lock on the

Ohio River near Olmsted, Ill. Congress set aside $775 million to replace it and
another nearby lock in 1988. The project began in 1993 and was scheduled to be
finished by 2000 but still isn't complete, in part because of engineering
modifications intended to save $60 million. Now, the cost has ballooned to $3.1
billion, and the new lock won't be ready until 2020 or later. The cost overrun leaves
little money for other projects. About $8 billion is needed to replace 25 locks and
dams in the next 20 years, says Michael Toohey, president of the Waterways
Council, an advocacy group. But Congress allocates only about $170 million a year,
with the government and a 20-cent-a-gallon tax on tow operators each funding half.
Toohey says $385 million a year is required to fund all the work. "We're the silent
industry" because waterways are less visible, he says. The biggest railroad
bottleneck is in Chicago. A third of the nation's freight volume goes
through the city as 500 freight trains jostle daily for space with 800
passenger trains and street traffic. Many freight rail lines crisscross at the
same grade as other trains and cars a tangle that forces interminable
waits. It takes an average freight train about 35 hours to crawl through
the city. Shipping containers typically languish in rail yards several days
before they can be loaded onto trains. Manufacturers, in turn, must stock more
inventory to account for shipping delays of uncertain length, raising product costs
about 1%, estimates Ken Heller, a senior vice president for DSC Logistics. Caterpillar
has built two multimillion-dollar distribution centers outside the city to increase its
freight volumes so it can get loading priority at rail yards. About $3.1 billion in
projects are planned, underway or complete, such as separate intersecting
roadways and rail lines, but only a third of the money has been approved.

U.S. growth is key to the overall global economic order--failure causes global great power war
John F. Troxell 14, Research Professor of National Security and Military Strategy,
Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 7/15/14, Op-Ed: Global
Leadership Learning From History,
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/index.cfm/articles/Global-LeadershipLearning-From-History/2014/07/15
Leader complacency, caused by repeatedly running to the edge of crises prior to
reaching a resolution, leads to a false sense of security . Our political establishment
has mastered the art of kicking the can down the road and muddling through, and has
become complacent about the need to address pressing problems, most readily
demonstrated in our fiscal mismanagement. How many times have we dangerously
approached the fiscal cliff? The need for a grand bargain to balance revenues, entitlements, and
government services has been recognized, studied, and commissioned for years without effective action. Bruce

if the United
States does not rectify a perception that it is becoming incapable of managing its
global financial role, the willingness to participate in a system still overwhelmingly
managed by the United States will be undermined.7
Jones, author of the recent and appropriately titled book, Still Ours to Lead, offers this thought, . . .

Perhaps we have become complacent in another matter. In a recent Brookings Essay, Margaret MacMillan argues
that:

Like our predecessors a century ago , we assume that large-scale, all-out war is
something we no longer do . In short, we have grown accustomed to peace as the
normal state of affairs. We expect that the international community will deal with

conflicts when they arise, and that they will be short-lived and easily containable.
But this is not necessarily true .8
Decreased attention may already have contributed to worsening situations in the
Middle East, Ukraine, and the Western Pacific .
World War I was botched on the front end and the back end.9 The failure to achieve a just
and lasting peace in 1919 led to the outbreak of World War II. Economic distress during the interwar
years resulted in the rise of fascist states and easily rekindled the embers of
nationalist revanchism. President Woodrow Wilsons 14 points were not adhered to, including the allimportant 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 DDay 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

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
WTO, have succeeded in broad tariff reductions and a dramatic increase in global trade.

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 U nited States to lead by example and
demonstrate competent policy outcomes.

Resource Wars
Drones will help us substantially increase agricultural
production, solves impeding resource crisis from
overpopulation
Chris Anderson 14, NY Times best-selling author and at the time the editor-in-

chief of Wired magazine, How Drones Will Help Us Grow Better Food and Wine, and
More of It, 3drobotics.com, 10/9/14, http://3drobotics.com/drones-will-help-us-growbetter-food-wine/
The experts say were going to have to double global food production by
2050. The reason is not that the population itself will doublethough by 2050
well have around two billion more mouths to feedthe 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 couldnt 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 peoples 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. Its 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 weve 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

wont need to spend so much time scouting their crops on foot, and can appropriate
that time instead to production. Further, because drones are fully automated,
farmers and agronomists can save flight paths in the mission planning software and
fly identical missions at different times of year, or even from one year to the next,
allowing them to overlay and compare data and development across time.

Food shortages cause nuclear world war 3

FDI 12, Future Directions International, a Research institute providing strategic

analysis of Australias global interests; citing Lindsay Falvery, PhD in Agricultural

Science and former Professor at the University of Melbournes Institute of Land and
Environment, Food and Water Insecurity: International Conflict Triggers & Potential
Conflict Points, http://www.futuredirections.org.au/workshop-papers/537international-conflict-triggers-and-potential-conflict-points-resulting-from-food-andwater-insecurity.html
There is a growing appreciation that the conflicts in the next century will most
likely be fought over a lack of resources. Yet, in a sense, this is not new. Researchers
point to the French and Russian revolutions as conflicts induced by a lack of food. More
recently, Germanys 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
FDIs 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 FDIs 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 , selfperpetuating 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. 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

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 .
that hunger results in passivity not conflict. Conflict is over resources, not because people are going hungry.

Biodiversity/Oil Spills
Drone use key to mitigating the environment effects of oil
spills
Todd Woody 13 , an environmental and technology journalist who has written for
The New York Times and Quartz, and was previously an editor and writer at Fortune,
Forbes, and Business 2.0, How Scientists are Using Drones to Fight the Next Big Oil
Spill, The Atlantic, 12/2/13,
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/how-scientists-are-usingdrones-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 cameracarrying 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 zgkmen, 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
zgkmen.

Oil Spills decimate coastal ecosystems biodiversity

Joseph Ingoldsby 10, writer for the MIT Press; Requiem for a Drowning
Landscape, Orion Magazine, and many more, Silent Summer: How Oil Disaster
Impacts Biodiversity, July 21, 2010, Common Dreams,

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2010/07/21/silent-summer-how-oil-disasterimpacts-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-massextinction/
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 humancaused diversity loss, we need to tackle these problems head-on. NCEAS Director
Frank Davis said the team studied environmental stressors effects on plant growth
and decomposition and determined that higher rates of plant species loss are
directly linked to more negative impacts on plant growth. Davis said although
biodiversity loss is often overlooked as a major threat to the environment,
the study shows that its impact is actually on par with that of pollution
and global warming. The loss of biodiversity affects the way ecosystems
function in terms of human cycling and productivity, Davis said. It may
affect their ability to recover from extreme drought and it could affect the
intangible benefits that people derive from ecosystems, such as an
appreciation for diverse wild species. 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 dont know exactly
how nature works. The more we take out different species the more changes
well see in ecosystems. Think of an ecosystem like an engine. If youre a
mechanic, you need to know about the engine to play with it. If you dont [know
this], you shouldnt be playing with it or youll 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. Whats more, this isnt 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
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.
Some

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 highspeed 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

change our picture of the planet's future.

it could

Climate data allows for adaptation and good decision-making

to solve warming
EEA 06, European Environmental Agency, Vulnerability and adaptation to climate
change in Europe, EEA Technical report No 7/2005,
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/technical_report_2005_1207_144937/downlo
ad
As a cross-cutting adaptive response to climate change, a large number of regional
and national research programmes have been undertaken to develop and/or
advance the knowledge on the characteristics of climate related risks and
strategies to manage them , in multiple sectors and at different scales. A large body of knowledge
and information has resulted from these efforts, especially on the trends of past climate, projections of climate
change in the 21st century, potential impacts of such projected changes on different sectors, systems, communities
and regions, and possible options to adapt to projected changes and their impacts.
A selection of major international projects and national research projects in support of climate change adaptation
are presented in Tables 5 and 6, respectively. A more comprehensive list of national research programmes on
various aspects of climate change are summarised in (Gabriel et al., 2005).
In response to the growing need for improved knowledge and guidance for adaptation planning and decisionmaking, 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

These include processes of adaptation decision-making, conditions

that stimulate or constrain adaptation, the rolesand responsibilities of varying stakeholders in
sufficiently studied.

adaptation process, and the role of non-climatic factors. A robust methodological framework for evaluating
adaptation options is still to be developed (see Section 5.1.2).

Warming is real, anthropogenic and causes extinction

Flournoy 12 -- Citing Feng Hsu, PhD NASA Scientist @ the Goddard Space Flight

Center. Don Flournoy is a PhD and MA from the University of Texas, Former Dean of
the University College @ Ohio University, Former Associate Dean @ State University
of New York and Case Institute of Technology, Project Manager for
University/Industry Experiments for the NASA ACTS Satellite, Currently Professor of
Telecommunications @ Scripps College of Communications @ Ohio University (Don,
"Solar Power Satellites," January, Springer Briefs in Space Development, Book, p.
10-11
In the Online Journal of Space Communication , Dr. Feng Hsu, a NASA scientist at Goddard Space Flight Center, a
research center in the forefront of science of space and Earth, writes, The

evidence of global warming

is alarming, noting the potential for a catastrophic planetary climate change is real and
troubling (Hsu 2010 ) . Hsu and his NASA colleagues were engaged in monitoring and analyzing
climate changes on a global scale, through which they received first-hand scientific
information and data relating to global warming issues, including the dynamics of polar ice cap
melting. After discussing this research with colleagues who were world experts on the subject, he wrote: I now
have no doubt global temperatures are rising, and that global warming is a serious
problem confronting all of humanity. No matter whether these trends are due to
human interference or to the cosmic cycling of our solar system, there are two basic facts that are
crystal clear: (a) there is overwhelming scientific evidence showing positive correlations

between the level of CO2 concentrations in Earths atmosphere with respect to the
historical fluctuations of global temperature changes; and (b) the overwhelming
majority of the worlds 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 Earths
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

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 )
addictions than it will in making a fundamental shift in its energy supply. This, he writes, is because

2AC Offcase

T Its

Variety of Agencies
Large variety of government agencies using domestic drones
now for multitude of reasons [re-tag]
Jonathan Olivito 13, J.D. Candidate at The Ohio State University Moritz College of

Law, Beyond the Fourth Amendment: Limiting Drone Surveillance Through the
Constitutional Right to Informational Privacy, 2013, Ohio State Law Journal, 74 Ohio
St. L.J. 669
Outside of the military context, n61 government agencies currently utilize
drones in a wide variety of applications. The Customs and Border
Protection agency has operated drones around the borders since 2005. n62
Customs and Border Protection drones uncover intelligence on illegal border
crossings and major drug trafficking operations. n63 Likewise, the Coast
Guard hopes to use drones "to reconnoiter large maritime areas." n64 The FBI
and the Drug Enforcement Agency have utilized drones within the United
States; the Customs and Border Protection agency has even made its drones
available to local police departments for domestic law enforcement operations. n65
On a local scale, numerous municipal police departments have obtained permission
from the FAA to use drones. n66 These drones have been used to help with security
at sporting events, surveil private property, and assist with crime prevention. n67 In
a [*679] more academic context, NASA and NOAA have used drones for
scientific research and environmental monitoring. n68 All of these current
applications have attracted considerable interest in future career opportunities
related to drone technology. In anticipation of the increased demand for drone
operators, educational institutions, such as the University of North Dakota, now
offer undergraduate programs in unmanned aircraft systems operations. n69 As
these examples illustrate, ubiquitous drone operation within the United
States is not far in the future. The 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 longterm 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 Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI)
Director Robert Mueller told Congress that the FBI deployed drones for
surveillance on domestic soil and is developing guidelines for its future
use in law enforcement.3 State and local police departments are eager to equip
themselves with drones because they are cheaper and more efficient than
helicopters and other types of manned aircraft.4 Police departments in cities such
as Miami, Florida, Houston, Texas, Seattle, Washington, Arlington, Texas, and other
areas such as Mesa, Colorado, and Queen Annes County, Maryland, have purchased
drones and are testing the new technology with the hope of incorporating them
soon into their fleet.5 Records released by the FAA reveal that police
departments in Kansas, Washington, Texas, Arkansas, Idaho, Alabama, Colorado,
North Dakota, Ohio, and Utah have applied for permission to fly drones in U.S.
airspace.6 Federal agencies are also increasingly using drones for policing.
As of May 2013, four Department of Justice (DOJ) divisions had acquired
drones: the FBI; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF); the
Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA); and the U.S. Marshals Service.7
According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital privacy
watchdog group, the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) increased its
drone flights eight-fold between 2010 and 2012.8 Moreover, records reveal
that the CBP has conducted drone surveillance for federal, state, and local
law enforcement agencies.9 These surveillance missions have ranged from
specific drug-related investigations and missing person searches to aerial
reconnaissance and surveillance.10 Meanwhile, Fourth Amendment privacy
jurisprudence has yet to grapple with drones and their unprecedented surveillance
capabilities. Courts are slow to respond when it comes to evaluating the
constitutional implications of new technology.11 Supreme Court case law
on aerial surveillance has only considered manned aircraft flying at
relatively low altitudes, which is not equivalent to the characteristics and
capabilities of drones.12 At least in the short term, legislative regulation will
likely provide more substantive protection for individual privacy interests in the face
of the ever-increasing presence of unmanned aerial surveillance.13 Congress has
held a series of hearings to investigate the future of drones and the privacy and
safety issues they present.14 There is bipartisan concern over how and by whom
drones will be used.15 Yet, progress has been slow. On the other hand, states are
moving rapidly to regulate or ban the commercial use of drones, as well as place
restrictions on government use without a warrant.16 In 2013, forty-three states

considered more than 130 bills or resolutions on drone use, addressing a range of
issues including privacy implications, economic impact, and utilization.17 Eight
states have enacted laws regulating drone use.18

Agency Specific
FBI uses drone surveillance for intelligence gathering
Carol Cratty 13, CNN Senior Producer, FBI uses drones for surveillance in U.S,
6/20/13, CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/19/politics/fbi-drones/
FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged the law enforcement agency uses
drone aircraft in the United States for surveillance in certain difficult
cases. Mueller told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that drones are
used by the FBI in a "very, very minimal way and very seldom." He did not say how
many unmanned surveillance vehicles (UAVs) the FBI has or how often they have
been used. But a law enforcement official told CNN the FBI has used them a little
more than a dozen times but did not say when that started. The official said
drones are useful in hostage and barricade situations because they
operate more quietly and are less visible than traditional aircraft such as
helicopters. The FBI said it used a UAV earlier this year to monitor the
situation where a boy was held hostage in a bunker in Alabama. Bureau
spokesman Paul Bresson said their use allows "us to learn critical
information that otherwise would be difficult to obtain without introducing
serious risk to law enforcement personnel." Bresson said the aircraft can only
be used to perform surveillance on stationary subjects and the FBI must first get
approval from the Federal Aviation Administration to fly in a "very confined
geographic area." Surveillance fallout Mueller's comments come as the Obama
administration grapples with political and other fallout from the public disclosure of
top-secret surveillance programs, which has triggered new debate over reach of
national security vs. privacy rights. National security and law enforcement officials
have defended National Security Agency telephone and e-mail surveillance of
overseas communications as an effective tool in fighting terror. President Barack
Obama has assured Americans the government is not listening to their phone
conversations or reading their e-mail. But Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa
Republican, asked Mueller whether the FBI had guidelines for using drones that
would consider the "privacy impact on American citizens." Mueller replied the
agency was in the initial stages of developing them. "I will tell you that our
footprint is very small," he said. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman
Dianne Feinstein expressed concern over drone use domestically. "I think
the greatest threat to the privacy of Americans is the drone and the use of
the drone, and the very few regulations that are on it today and the
booming industry of commercial drones," the California Democrat said.
Mueller said he would need to check on the bureau's policy for retaining images
from drones and report back to the panel. "It is very narrowly focused on
particularized cases and particularized needs and particularized cases," said
Mueller. "And that is the principal privacy limitations we have." Sen. Mark Udall, a
Colorado Democrat, said he was concerned the FBI was deploying drone technology
and only in the initial stages of developing guidelines "to protect Americans' privacy
rights."

Customs and border protections using drones to scan for

illegal substance smuggling and immigrants however, the
program has been highly ineffective
Joseph J. Kolb 15, contributor to Fox News and Fox News Latino, Federal report
says Border Patrol's drone program doesn't fly, Fox News, 1/13/15,
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/13/federal-report-says-border-patrol-droneprogram-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 agencys 2014 end of fiscal year report, the
results are anything but impressive, fueling new calls for the program to be
grounded. The program has a fleet of 9 Predator drones and the
Department of Homeland Security is planning to spend another $443
million for more aircraft to help secure the Mexican border. But a Jan. 6
report from the agency's inspector general is advising against the expansion.
Notwithstanding the significant investment, we see no evidence that the
drones contribute to a more secure border, and there is no reason to invest
additional taxpayer funds at this time, said DHS Inspector General John Roth.
Securing our borders is a crucial mission for CBP and DHS. CBPs drone
program has so far fallen far short of being an asset to that effort. The IG report,
the second audit of the program since 2012, found there is no reliable
method of measuring the program's performance and determined that its
impact in stemming illegal immigration has been minimal. According to the
CBP Fiscal Year Report, the drones flew about 10 percent fewer hours in 2014 than
the previous year and 20 percent fewer than in 2013. The missions were
credited with contributing to the seizure of just under 1,000 pounds of
cocaine in 2014, compared to 2,645 in 2013 and 3,900 in 2012. But
apprehensions of illegal immigrants between 2014 and 2013 fell despite
the flood of more than 60,000 unaccompanied children coming across the
border from Central America. Combined with the decrease in productivity, the
OIG report disclosed the staggering costs to run the program, more than $12,000
per hour when figuring fuel, salaries for operators, equipment and overhead.
Eugene Schied, assistant commissioner of the CBP's office of administration for CBP,
said the IG used flawed methods to draw its conclusions.

NOAA using Arial drone surveillance for killer whale

surveillance
Rich Press 13, NOAA Fisheries Science Writer, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Offers a
New View of Killer Whales, October 7, 13, NOAA,
http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/podcasts/2014/10/aerial_vehicle_killer_whale.html#.V
akcExNVikp
For the first time, scientists have used an unmanned aerial vehicle to study
killer whales from above. The device they're using is a remote-controlled
hexacopter with a high-resolution camera mounted in its belly, and the
photos it produces are beautiful and full of detail. The images offer an entirely new
view of this species. But scientists aren't taking pictures just because they look nice.
The images contain detailed information that scientists can use to monitor

the health of individual killer whales and of their population as a whole. To

get these photos, scientists from NOAA Fisheries teamed up with
colleagues at the Vancouver Aquarium. The animals they studied are the
Northern Resident killer whales of British Columbia, a population that's listed as
threatened under Canada's Species At Risk Act, and the pilots were trained and
operating under permits issued by the Canadian Government. Like the endangered
Southern Residents that spend summers near Seattle, these whales eat salmon
mainly Chinook salmonand some of the salmon runs they rely on are much
smaller than they used to be. In fact, several Chinook runs are themselves
endangered, and scientists are concerned that a lack of prey may be limiting the
whale populations. The main question scientists are trying to answer is: Are
the whales getting enough to eat? To find out, they fly the hexacopter at
an altitude of more than 100 feet, high enough that the whales don't
notice it, but near enough to get photographs that are incredibly
revealing. Scientists have previously taken aerial photographs of killer whales from
a helicopter, but those photos are taken from a much higher altitude, and the cost
can be prohibitive. By analyzing the hexacopter photos, scientists can see how fat
or skinny individual whales are. They can also see which whales are pregnant and
what percentage of pregnancies are carried to term. Currently, scientists do a
summer census to learn out how many whales have died since the year
before. "But mortality is a pretty coarse measure of how well the
population is doing because the problem, if there is one, has already
occurred," said John Durban, a biologist with NOAA's Southwest Fisheries
Science Center in La Jolla, California. But the hexacopter, Durban said,
"can give us a more sensitive measure that we might be able to respond
to before whales die." Note: Whales are very sensitive to what goes on around
them. In this case, the researchers had permits for working with this at-risk species,
including permits granted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and they are
trained to recognize if their activities are disturbing the animals. Researchers kept
the hexacopter at least 100 feet above the whales at all times. The 100 foot
approach is only allowable under a research permit. For non-researchpermitted activities, regulations require an altitude of 1000 or even 1500
feet, depending on the species. If you're a hobbyist with a hexacopter, please
respect the regulations, and marine mammals, by giving them the required space.

DHS using drone technology to track cell phone signals and

identify citizens with guns
Wynton Hall 13, owner of Wynton Hall & Co., Visiting Fellow at the Hoover
Institution at Stanford University and ghostwriter for Bretibart news, HOMELAND
SECURITY DRONES DESIGNED TO IDENTIFY CIVILIANS CARRYING GUNS, 3/5/13,
Breitbart News, http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/03/05/homelandsecurity-drones-designed-to-identify-civilians-carrying-guns/
Recently uncovered government documents reveal that the U.S.
Department of Homeland Securitys (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 lawabiding 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 Securitys drone requirements through a Freedom of
Information Act request; CNET uncovered an unredacted copy. Homeland
Security design requirements specify that its Predator B drones shall be
capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or
not and must be equipped with interception systems capable of
reading cell phone signals. The first known domestic use of a drone to arrest a
U.S. citizen occurred last year in the small town of Lakota, North Dakota when
rancher Rodney Brossart was arrested for refusing to return six of his neighbors
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 whats happening at that specific scene, its
picking up everything else thats going on, says drone expert and Brookings
Institution senior fellow Peter Singer. Basically its recording footage from a lot of
different people that it didnt 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 Securitys Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) says the 10 drones in its domestic fleet are unarmed. Last
month, NBC News uncovered a confidential 16-page Justice Department memo that
concluded the U.S. government may execute a drone strike on an American citizen
it believes to be a senior operational leader of al-Qaeda or an associated force.
The Obama Administration defended the use of drones to kill Americans thought to
be working with terrorists. These strikes are legal, they are ethical, and they are
wise, said White House press secretary Jay Carney.

The FBI and Department of AFT has spent millions on

unsuccessful drone use
Sari Horwitz 3/25, writer on the Justice Department and criminal justice issues
nationwide for The Washington Post, Inspector general report: ATF bought 11
drones but never flew them, 2/25/15,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/inspector-general-reportatf-bought-11-drones-but-never-flew-them/2015/03/25/7bf45d64-d30a-11e4-ab779646eea6a4c7_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 agencys 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
generals report did not include information about the other investigations. The FBI
has only one team of two pilots trained to fly all of the 17 operational

drones in its fleet, which is kept at one location, limiting the bureaus
ability to quickly deploy to distant locations or several locations at the
same time, the report concluded. It is the first time that the government
has revealed how many drones the FBI operates; the bureau has acquired
34 drones, but not all have been put into service. The FBI spent about $3
million to acquire the drones it has deployed, the report said. The single
team of [drone] pilots has needed to travel up to thousands of miles to support FBI
investigations across the United States, the report said. Pilots told us that when
deploying they either drove or flew on commercial aircraft, and that such travel
could take up to a day or more before they arrived at the scene. No details were
released about how, where and for how long the FBIs 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. Weve
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, weve
obtained all required FAA approvals to use them

US marshal service using drones to identify and capture

fugitives
Naomi Gilens 13, graduate of Princeton University and ACLU Speech, Privacy and
Technology Project worker, New Documents Reveal U.S. Marshals Drones
Experiment, Underscoring Need for Government Transparency, 2/27/13/,
https://www.aclu.org/blog/new-documents-reveal-us-marshals-drones-experimentunderscoring-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 pagesand even
they were heavily redacted. Heres what we know from the two short paragraphs of
text we were able to see. Under a header entitled Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, ManPortable (UAV) Program, an agency document overview begins: USMS
Technical Operations Group's UAV Program provides a highly portable,
rapidly deployable overhead collection device that will provide a multi-role
surveillance platform to assist in [redacted] detection of targets. Another
document reads: This developmental program is designed to provide
[redacted] in support of TOG [presumably the agencys 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 governments use of these spying machines be transparent and accountable to
the American people. All too often, though, it is unclear which law enforcement
agencies are using these tools, and how they are doing so. We should not have to
guess whether our government is using these eyes in the sky to spy on us. As my
colleague ACLU staff attorney Catherine Crump told me,

T Surveillance
Drones Violate the expectation of privacy
John Villasenor 15, Professor of electrical engineering, public policy, and

management at UCLA and a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in

Washington DC. Also a National Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. Will
"Drones" Outflank the Fourth Amendment? Forbes, 9/20/2015,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnvillasenor/2012/09/20/will-drones-outflank-thefourth-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 OConnors 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 ones public movements. Thus, the justices are on record recognizing
the constitutionality question raised by new technologies enabling extended
surveillance, though they deferred its resolution to another day.

Border Surveillance DA

Drones Ineffective
Drones not a valuable border surveillance asset
unprecedented costs, limited flight time, small deployment
area, low success
DHS 1/6, Office of the Inspector General, January 6, 2015, CBP Drones are
Dubious Achievers, https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/pr/2015/oigpr_010615.pdf
After spending eight years and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has yet to prove the value of its
Unmanned Aircraft System (drone) program while drastically understating the
costs, according to a new report by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
Office of Inspector General (OIG). Based on its findings, OIG recommends that CBP
abandon plans to spend $443 million more on additional aircraft and put those
funds to better use.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Unmanned Aircraft System Program Does Not
Achieve Intended Results or Recognize All Costs of Operations, the OIGs second
audit of the program since 2012, found the effort by CBPs 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 OAMs 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 100mile 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. CBPs 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 its a bad
idea you cant beat this card

Lily Hay Newman 1/6, Staff writer and the lead blogger for Future Tense, Border
Patrol Drones Each Cost $12K an Hour to Fly, Dont Do Much 1/6/15, Future Tense,
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/01/06/homeland_security_s_border_p
atrol_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 Marines 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 programs 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 surveillancebad management, low success, and high
costs
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 1/9, January 9, 2015, DRONE WASTE; THE U.S.
HAS BETTER METHODS TO SECURE THE BORDER, p. A-10
The inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security issued a report card
Tuesday on the effectiveness of the surveillance drone system on the U.S. southern
border. It didn't contain the kind of grades anyone would want to take home to the
taxpayers.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection uses a fleet of 11 Predator B drones to spot
undocumented individuals attempting to cross the border illegally from Mexico. But
the inspector general's audit said the 8-year-old program is poorly managed,
ineffective and costs far more than expected. Only 2,200 of 120,939
people in 2013 who were nabbed sneaking illegally into the United States
were caught with the help of drones.
Bad weather, frequent grounding for repairs and inadequate technological capacity
conspired to prevent the surveillance drones from doing their jobs . Their
cost of operation was underestimated, auditors reported, when it was learned that
pilot salaries, equipment and overhead were left out of the calculation.
Operated from bases in Arizona and Texas, the Predator B system is such a
disappointment that a $400 million proposal to expand its use must be rejected.

The cost of using a piece of technology that has such a poor record is too high. Yet
border security must be maintained and, according to the audit, the government
would get much better results by spending its money on manned aircraft and
ground surveillance.
Now that the surveillance drone audit has been released, it will be difficult for
anyone in Washington to justify this boondoggle, particularly when Congress and
the White House must find reasonable ways to reduce the federal budget.

Drones are ineffectivesafety concerns

Chad C. Haddal and Jeremiah Gertler 10, Haddal is a immigration policy

specialist in the Congressional Research Service and Gertler is a military aviation

specialist in the Congressional Research Service, July 8, 2010, Homeland Security:
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Border Surveillance,
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RS21698.pdf
The recent UAV modification is part of an ongoing push by some policymakers and CBP to both expand CBPs UAV

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 planes fuel.10 Additionally, the FAA and CBP grounded
flights of UAVs for six days in June 2010 following a communications failure with a UAV
resources and open additional domestic airspace for UAV operations along the border.7 On June 23, 2010,

flying over Texas. In response to this incident CBP, with the FAAs 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 ineffectivehigh accident rate, inability to adapt to

weather
Chad C. Haddal and Jeremiah Gertler 10, Haddal is a immigration policy
specialist in the Congressional Research Service and Gertler is a military aviation
specialist in the Congressional Research Service, July 8, 2010, Homeland Security:
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Border Surveillance,
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RS21698.pdf
Despite potential benefits of using UAVs for homeland security, various problems encountered in the past may

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.16
Inclement weather conditions can also impinge on a UAVs surveillance capability ,
especially UAVs equipped with only an EO camera and Forward Looking Infrared
hinder UAV implementation on the border. According to a 2003 report,

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 Bs platform could significantly enhance its
operational capability for border missions. However, adding SAR and MTI to the UAV platform would increase the
costs associated with using UAVs on the border.

Other tech and manned aircraft better than drones

Chad C. Haddal and Jeremiah Gertler 10, Haddal is a immigration policy

specialist in the Congressional Research Service and Gertler is a military aviation

specialist in the Congressional Research Service, July 8, 2010, Homeland Security:
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Border Surveillance,
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RS21698.pdf
Questions as to the effectiveness of UAVs persist. Although Homeland Security officials praised the (UAVs) as a
safe and important tool that ... has contributed to the seizing of more than 22,000 pounds of marijuana and the

Unmanned aircraft serve a very useful role in

not economical or efficient in civilian law enforcement
applications, said T. J. Bonner, president of the Border Patrol union. There are a
number of other technologies that are capable of providing a greater level of
usefulness at a far lower cost.25
The DHS Inspector General noted that UAVs were less effective, in their limited tests, than
manned aircraft in supporting the apprehension of unauthorized aliens .26 In addition, the
UAVs were used to assist in the apprehensions of aliens who had already been
detected by other means. However, the ability of UAVs to maintain position for over 20 hours represents a
apprehension of 5,000 illegal immigrants, others disagree.24
military combat situations, but are

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 enoughaccidents, inability to control

Chad C. Haddal and Jeremiah Gertler 10, Haddal is a immigration policy
specialist in the Congressional Research Service and Gertler is a military aviation
specialist in the Congressional Research Service, July 8, 2010, Homeland Security:
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Border Surveillance,
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RS21698.pdf
Testing of UAVs along the border has been limited. A robust program to test multiple UAVs on the borders might
ascertain where, how, and whether UAVs should be deployed. Larger scale testing would provide an opportunity to

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
evaluate whether the limitations of UAVs would hinder their utility on the border. In the past,

issue for Congress could include whether testing should be expanded before any decisions are made regarding the
wide-scale use of UAVs along the border.

Terror DA

N/U
No UQ-- Domestic drones do not surveil for counterterrorism
purposes
Dawn M. K. Zoldi 13, Staff Judge Advocate at the United States Air Force

Academy, September 28, 2013, Abstract of On the Front Lines of the Home Front:
The Intersection of Domestic Counterterrorism Operations and Drone Legislation,
The Fundamentals of Counterterrorism Law, p. 281, American Bar Association, 2014,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2379143
For some, the term drone conjures up images of illicit government surveillance
or worse yet, the extrajudicial killing of Americans on U.S. soil. To allay these fears,
a significant amount of state and federal legislation has been proposed that
forbids the government from collecting information or evidence with a
drone, with limited exceptions including, but not limited to imminent danger to
life, terror attack, and national security conspiracy exceptions. This article
reviews the various drone proposals and other applicable policies and then explores
their impact on domestic CT operations by applying eight just-passed state drone
laws to a hypothetical scenario based loosely on the 2013 Boston Marathon
bombing.

No UQUAVs arent allowed in airspace nowno way could

contribute to CT in the squo
Chad C. Haddal and Jeremiah Gertler 10, Haddal is a immigration policy
specialist in the Congressional Research Service and Gertler is a military aviation
specialist in the Congressional Research Service, July 8, 2010, Homeland Security:
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Border Surveillance,
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RS21698.pdf
Lastly, how UAVs could be integrated into civilian airspace within the U nited States is
a fundamental question being addressed by the FAA, DHS, and the Department of
Defense (DOD). Integrating UAVs into civilian airspace so that they could operate safely would require not

only the creation of regulatory guidelines by the FAA but also technical developments. The FAA requires that all
aircraft operating in U.S. airspace have the ability to detect and avoid other aircraft. For UAVs, this has meant that
an operator at the Air and Marine Operations Center (AMOC) must be dedicated to each UAV that is flying.21
Additionally, the FAA has required that UAV operators be licensed pilots. The FAA currently is working on guidelines
for integrating UAVs into the national air space (NAS) and has deployed a representative to AMOC to liaise with DHS
on a variety of issues, including the use of UAVs.22 Although there are no guidelines or regulations for incorporating
UAVs into the NAS, the FAA has worked closely with government users of UAV technology in developing a certificate
of authority (COA) so NAS can be blocked off for exploratory development or operational testing. A primary concern
of the FAA is whether UAVs can operate in already crowded airspace. Before UAVs can be introduced into national
airspace, the FAA, DHS, and other relevant users will need to address collision-avoidance, communication, and
weather avoidance issues.23

AT: Terror Link

No linkdrones arent used for substantial domestic
surveillance
Joseph Straw 13, reporter, June 19, 2013, Drone surveillance limited, FBI boss

says in wake of NSA snooping scandal,

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/fbi-director-robert-mueller-told-u-ssenate-committee-fbi-pilotless-aircraft-narrowly-focused-particularized-casesparticularized-didn-cases-drones-article-1.1377552
FBI 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 FBIs 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 were exploring not only the use but also the necessary guidelines for that
use, he testified.

Drones Dont matter-Most Qualified Research

Insider Surveillance 1/23, January 23, 2015, U.S. National Research

Council: No Substitute for Bulk Metadata Collection,

https://insidersurveillance.com/u-s-national-research-council-no-substitute-for-bulkmetadata-collection/
At the request of the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) in
mid-2014, the National Research Council set out to examine bulk metadata
collection, its practice and results, and more specifically, to study the potential for developing software that will
provide a more targeted approach to singling out dangerous elements and preempting acts of terror.

The National Research Council report focused on the technology of all types of
electronic communication and not just domestic telephone metadata. The report was in response to

President Barack Obamas 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 dont work.
France passed one of the most intrusive, expansive surveillance laws in all of Europe last year and it didnt stop the
attack, and this is consistent with what weve seen in every country, the said, adding that French authorities knew
of the Paris attackers beforehand but didnt predict what they ultimately did.
Snowden argued that U.S. authorities that advance warnings didnnt stop the Boston Bomber attack, either. The
problem with mass surveillance is that youre 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. counter-terrorism 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 arent
necessary
Jena Baker McNeill, James Jay Carafano, Ph.D. and Jessica Zuckerman 11,
McNeill is a senior policy analyst at Homeland Security, Carafano is a Vice President
for the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign
Policy, and Zuckerman is a policy analyst at Western Hemisphere, May 20, 2011,
39 Terror Plots Foiled Since 9/11: Examining Counterterrorisms Success Stories,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/05/39-terror-plots-foiled-since-911examining-counterterrorisms-success-stories
Lesson # 2: Early Disruption of Terror Plots Requires Early Intelligence. In at least 35 of the 39 plots law
enforcement was able to dismantle a plot early in the process before the public was
in danger. Often, informants and undercover agents were inside the operationan
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 happenand 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 Acts
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

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
standards.

assist in investigations and prosecutions of terrorist activity. In the Zazi case in 2009 (foiled plot 25), PATRIOTs
intelligence-gathering provisions were essential yet again when law enforcement authorities used roving
surveillance authority to track Najibullah Zazis illegal activities across multiple communication devices.

The consequences of insufficient intelligence or late intelligence are severe. The

9/11 attacks which killed thousands of Americans are one example. The only reason that
the Christmas Day plot was not successful was because other passengers noticed suspicious behavior and
restrained the attacker. Had the fellow passengers been less conscientious, the plot could have been deadly.

Politics

A2: Drone lobbies

Lobbying strength helps the plan-- groups want to lift the
current bans and create legislation to facilitate the growth of
drones for purposes other than surveillance
Andrew Ramonas 1/20, reporter, January 20, 2015, Amazon and Google Drone
Lobbying Group Seeks FAA Rules,
http://www.corpcounsel.com/id=1202715547627/Amazon-and-Google-DroneLobbying-Group-Seeks-FAA-Rules?slreturn=20150622113757
As the U.S. government drafts rules for the use of commercial drones, Amazon.com
Inc., Google Inc. and other backers of the unmanned aircraft are working to ensure
they are on the radar of federal lawmakers and regulators.
The Small UAV Coalition, which includes Amazon, Google and other members of the
unmanned aerial vehicle industry, brought drone supporters together in
Washington, D.C., on Tuesday in an effort to showcase the aircraft and compel the
government to act on updating regulations. Although Congress directed the Federal
Aviation Administration to integrate commercial drones into U.S. air traffic by Sept.
30, the agency is unlikely to meet that target. With a ban on commercial drones
currently in place, only a few companies have received an FAA exemption to
operate the aircraft.
Michael Drobac, the Small UAV Coalition's executive director, said his group isn't
"here to lay blame" or "criticize." Rather, the organization seeks to be "part of the
solution." Drobac, who also is an Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld senior policy
adviser, leads a team of seven lobbyists at the firm who are advocating for the
Small UAV Coalition, according to congressional records.
"They face significant regulatory and legal hurdles," Drobac said of drone industry
members. "But we believe that it's incumbent upon us to go to those regulatory
officials and to lawmakers to present the pathway to safe and responsible
integration of UAVs into the airspace."
It's unclear how far away commercial drone rules are. The FAA was supposed to
release draft regulations by December. But the agency's proposed rules are still
under review.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., said at the gathering that he is ready to help the
Small UAV Coalition get its drones off the ground.
"I look forward to working with you," Blumenauer said. "If it's the FAA that we've got
to deal with, so be it. Let's think about ways to help them do the job better."
The Small UAV Coalition, which launched in August, uses Akin Gump to conduct
"outreach to FAA, Congress, the White House and other federal agencies and media,
to advance goals and interests of the small UAV manufacturers, operators and
users, and the industry that supports small UAVs," according to a lobbying activity
report filed with Congress. The firm received $220,000 for its advocacy help last
year.

No link
The plans popular with the publicspillover 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/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/322
12254994/32212254995/30064771087/42e90ec6a27c40968b911ec51eca6000.pdf
With 30,000 drone aircraft expected to patrol the nations 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 nations borders and the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has been revising rules to widen the use of drones for other domestic
purposes.

An
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 nations
The poll asked a national sample about four potential uses of unmanned drones by U.S. law enforcement.

border (64%).

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
One area where Americans say that drones should not be used, though, is to issue speeding tickets.

Murray, director of the New Jersey-based Monmouth University Polling Institute.

Curtailing domestic drone use has bipartisan support

Steven Nelson 3/17, US News and World Report reporter, March 17, 2015,

Weaponized, Peeping Drone Ban Proposed in Congress,

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/03/17/weaponized-peeping-drone-banproposed-in-congress
Legislation to forbid alarming and increasingly not-so-hypothetical uses of
unmanned aircraft was introduced in Congress Tuesday.
The Preserving American Privacy Act, sponsored by Reps. Zoe Lofgren, DCalif., 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 bills main target is government use of the technology and
say its 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 usedrives

bipartisanship
Catherine Crump and Jay Stanley 13, Crump is a ACLU attorney and Stanely
is a ACLU senior policy analyst, February 11, 2013, Why Americans Are Saying No
to Domestic Drones,
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/02/domestic_surveillanc
e_drone_bans_are_sweeping_the_nation.html
Last week, after an especially raucous city council hearing, the Seattle police
department terminated its drones program and agreed to return the purchased
equipment to the manufacturer. This came just days after both houses of the
Virginia state legislature passed historic bills imposing a two-year moratorium on
the use of drones by law enforcement and regulatory agencies in the state. In
Florida, a potentially even more significant bill imposing a judicial warrant
requirement on police use of drones continued to march toward passage. Similar
legislation has been proposed in at least 13 other state legislatures around the
country so far.
Of all the threats to privacy that we face today, why have drones caught the
attention of the American public to such a remarkable degree?
One possibility is that theres something uniquely ominous about a robotic eye in
the sky. Many privacy invasions are abstract and invisibledata 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 suspects 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 Partys 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 states 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.
Floridas drone regulation legislation is being almost entirely pushed by
conservativesand in most states, the legislative efforts weve 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 unpopularplan to curtail would have

widespread support
Michael J. Deegan 14, Colonel, U.S. Army Reserve, with duty at the International
& Operational Law Division, Office of The Judge Advocate General, Fall 2014,
UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES: LEGITIMATE WEAPON SYSTEMS OR UNLAWFUL
ANGELS OF DEATH?, Pace International Law Review, 26 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 249
The U.S. Attorney General has stated that UAV targeting [*259] in the U.S. is a
possibility in an "extraordinary circumstance" to prevent an attack similar to Pearl
Harbor or 9-11. n67 This is not as remote of a possibility as one would think. The
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization and Reform Act of 2012
"requires the FAA to begin integrating unmanned aircraft into the national airspace
system by the end of fiscal year 2015." n68 The FAA currently consents to the use
of unmanned aircraft by public entities such as law enforcement on an individual
basis. However, requests for such use have increased dramatically in recent
years. n69 Few Americans support UAV targeting in the U.S. against a suspected
terrorist, regardless of whether the suspected terrorist is a U.S. citizen or
not. n70 Only 25 percent support UAV airstrikes in the US against suspected foreign
terrorist living in the U.S., and the support is even less for UAV targeting of US
citizens living in the U.S. who are suspected terrorists (13%). n71

Obama cleared drone controversy by setting a standard

Garance Franke-Ruta 13, Former senior editor national politics reporter, May
23, 2013, Obama's Domestic Drone Standard Is Now Tighter Than Rand Paul's,
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/obamas-domestic-dronestandard-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 use

Dustin Hurst 13, January 25, 2013, Miracle workers! Domestic drones unite
Dems, GOP, http://watchdog.org/67428/opposing-parties-groups-unite-as-dronewarfare-comes-to-state-capitols/
IDAHO FALLS, Idaho Drones are wildly popular on the battlefield. Now they can
claim victory elsewhere. The use of drones within U.S. borders in car chases, to
monitor wildfires, or for simple surveillance is uniting political parties and people
more often at odds.

Their concern: the widespread use of drones among civilians represents a deep and
dangerous intrusion into American life.
What we used to know as privacy is finished, said John Whitehead, a constitutional
scholar and president of Virginia-based Rutherford Institute. Big Brother is here to
stay.
Both the progressive American Civil Liberties Union and the libertarian Rutherford
Institute cheer legislative efforts to place strict limits on unmanned aerial vehicles,
or UAVs. And, prodded by privacy groups, state lawmakers nationwide
Republicans and Democrats alike have launched an all-out offensive against
the unmanned aerial vehicles.
And to think, only the prospect of complete upheaval of Americas strong tradition
of privacy rights spurs bipartisanship.

Privacy DA
No linkSquo solves privacy and drones dont intrude it
Eli Dourado, 13, research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason

University and director of its Technology Policy Program, 04.23.13 6:30 AM, Wired
Magazine, The Next Internet-Like Platform for Innovation? Airspace. (Think
Drones), http://www.wired.com/2013/04/then-internet-now-airspace-dont-stifleinnovation-on-the-next-great-platform/
Its true that opening up U.S. airspace to commercial drones will have some important
privacy implications to consider. But its 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

We cant predict all the potential uses

of drones when airspace restrictions are lifted, but our experience with the internet
shows that its 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 wouldnt even
work. Imagine if we had tried to comprehensively regulate online privacy before
allowing commercial use of the internet. We wouldnt have even known how to . We
without having to seek the approval of regulators beforehand.

wouldnt have had the benefit of understanding how online commerce works, nor could we have anticipated the rise

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 thats
just a shortlist) be overkill, but theyre 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 dont even need to protect
privacy through innovation-stifling regulation. Citizen attitudes about commercial drones could
of social networking and related phenomena.

follow the familiar pattern weve seen play out with other radical innovations: initial resistance, gradual adaptation,

This pattern is over a century old:

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
and then eventual assimilation of that new technology into society.
Think about the evolution of the camera and photography .

claimed that numerous mechanical devices threaten to make good the prediction that what is whispered in the

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
closet shall be proclaimed from the house-tops.

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 well all become accustomed to drones. And even if we dont, 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

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. Its time to start seeing
airspace as our next, great platform for innovation .
could create solutions, and so on.

Desal CP
Desal is too expensive for farmers, takes too much time and
destroys biodiversity
Leila Monroe, 14, Staff Attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, May
21, 2014, Proceed With Caution: California's Drought & Seawater Desalination,
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/lmonroe/proceed_with_caution_californi.html
First, water produced by seawater desalination is very expensive with an average
price per acre foot 4 to 8 times higher than water from other sources. Estimates for
plants proposed in California range from $1,900 to more than $3,000 per acre-foot.
A 50 million gallon per day (MGD) plant, such as the one under construction in Carlsbad is
projected to have a price between $2042-$2290 per acre foot . By comparison, the
Department of Water Resources data cited in the 2009 California Water Plan Update found that: The
estimated range of capital and operational costs of water recycling range from
$300 to $1300 per acre-foot depending on local conditions. The cost to realize an
acre-foot of water savings through efficiency measures ranges from $223 to $522
per acre-foot. The agricultural efficiency improvements that result in water savings of between 120,000 to

563,000 acre-feet per year can be achieved at a cost ranging from $35-$900 per acre-foot. Second, seawater
desalination is typically the most energy-intensive water supply option, resulting in significant climate change
pollution compared to less energy intensive options. A 2011 life-cycle energy assessment of Californias 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

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
Californias 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,
water supply. Third,

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 plants very high operational costs. Now, the
city is considering undertaking a two year process to reactivate the plant, at an additional cost of $20.2 million and
with operating costs of approximately $1,500 per acre foot.

Desal takes too long and kills bio-d

Michael Hiltzik, 4/24, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist for the LA times, April 24,

2015, Desalination plants aren't a good solution for California drought,

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-20150426-column.html#page=1
That's what happened to Santa Barbara, which began building a $34-million desalination
plant during the drought-stricken 1980s. By the time it was completed in 1992, the
rains had returned; the facility went through a few weeks of pilot testing, then was

mothballed and partially dismantled. The city is now contemplating restarting it at a cost of $40
million, plus $5 million a year in operating costs. That would place the cost of desalinated water at about $3,000 an

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
acre-foot and drive up average monthly household water bills to $108 from $78 today.

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 doesnt solve or the CP is not mutually exclusive

Justin Gillis 4/11, Staff writer for the new york times, For Drinking Water in Drought,
California Looks Warily to Sea, New York Times, 4/11/15,
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/science/drinking-seawater-looks-ever-morepalatable-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 states
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 countys water
consumption.

Transparency CP
Drone transparency fails, agencies like the FBI will not follow
Meredith Clark, MSNBC reporter with a BA in political science from University of
Wisconsin, FBI obstructs oversight, DOJ Inspector General says, MSNBC, 09/10/14,
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/fbi-obstructs-oversight-doj-inspector-general-says
Federal agencies like the FBI regularly obstruct the Justice Departments 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 IGs behalf. Horowitz also
testified that some reports, on how the FBI conducts investigations related to
terrorism, have seen 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
OIGs work, Horowitz said. However, the current process at the Department
instead places that decision and authority in the leadership of the agency that is
being subjected to our oversight. The Justice Department is not the only agency
affected by a lack of transparency. Forty-seven inspectors generals signed a letter in
August arguing that obstructionism happens throughout the federal government. In
one instance, the Peace Corps withheld records related to sexual assaults
committed against volunteers. The Inspectors General who signed the letter urged
Congress to take action.

Ban Latin American Drones CP

Drone Regulations are key to stop Latin American Conflict-Bans
Go too far
W. Alejandro Sanchez 14, Senior Research Fellow at the Council on
Hemispheric Affairs, 1/12/2014, COHA Report: Drones in Latin
America, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, http://www.coha.org/cohareport-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
countrys 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).