Data Erasure Counterplan Affirmative

Varsity Division

Data Erasure Counterplan Affirmative Answers – Table of Contents
Permutation – Implement Rule 1.............................................................................................................4
Solvency Answers
No Solvency – Privacy.............................................................................................................................5
No Solvency – Altitude Privacy................................................................................................................6
No Solvency – Persistent Surveillance Circumvention...........................................................................7
No Solvency – Time Limit Circumvention................................................................................................8
No Solvency – Curtilage Laws Circumvention........................................................................................9
Solvency Turn – Separation of Powers.................................................................................................10
Solvency Turn – Separation of Powers.................................................................................................11
Solvency Turn – Racism........................................................................................................................12
Solvency Turn – Dismantling Racism....................................................................................................13


actually fail to do so. The second option also allows the Affirmative team to claim that the counterplan has negative impacts where the Affirmative’s plan has positive impacts. 2|Page . This particular permutation invokes Rule 1. the Affirmative would claim that the counterplan prevents this balancing of power. and thus could solve perception issues. situations. In contrast. The Affirmative could claim that their plan further strengthens the balance of powers between various branches of government. This reasoning applies to all provisions including altitude. but would allow law enforcement officials to be excused from acquiring a warrant in certain highly threatening. The first option is to create a permutation of the plan and the benefits of the counterplan.Data Erasure Counterplan Affirmative RIUDL Varsity Division Summary The Data Erasure Counterplan Affirmative position gives debaters two options on how to respond to the Negative team’s advocacy for a counterplan. The second option is to reject the counterplan entirely by explaining why it doesn’t solve the problems that it claims to solve. but that the original Affirmative plan does not prevent other methods from being put in place that will solve those additional problems. It continues on by saying that certain elements of the counterplan that are meant to provide privacy. yet often unpredictable. The permutation is a tool used by the Affirmative team to acknowledge that the issues of secondhand surveillance and security are valid. The Affirmative position claims that continuing to collect data without initial restrictions still allows for a total surveillance state in which the public is not afforded any right to privacy. but not the deep structural issues that contribute to racist policies by law enforcement. persistency or recording. which requires warrants in most situations. and time limits after recording has occurred.

Data Retention – The storage of data gathered through surveillance operations. or found everywhere. 3|Page . Surveillance cameras that record on a closed circuit.Data Erasure Counterplan Affirmative RIUDL Varsity Division Glossary Curtail – Reduce in extent or quantity. Curtilage – An area of land attached to a house and forming one enclosure with it. Warrant (Search) – A legal document authorizing a police officer or other official to enter and search a premises. impose a restriction on. Fourth Amendment – The part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. such that only the people with access to the system can watch the footage. but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content. Ubiquitous – Present. Jurisprudence – The theory or philosophy of law. CCTV – Closed-circuit television. appearing. Rhetoric – Language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience.

n233 Senior Alerts. Rule 1's first paragraph is a compromise measure that allows the government to promptly respond to urgent situations. Douglas [JD Boston U]. while ensuring that the government. and particularly law enforcement agencies. where a law enforcement agency believes that a particular area.U. Pub. 343) a." n236 Moreover. 2014 (Y. BIG BROTHER'S GROWN WINGS: THE DOMESTIC PROLIFERATION OF DRONE SURVEILLANCE AND THE LAW'S RESPONSE. n230 wildlife management and protection. n229 weather and climate observation and scientific research.Data Erasure Counterplan Affirmative RIUDL Varsity Division Permutation – Implement Rule 1 Permutation – Do the plan and counterplan by implementing Rule 1. Rule 1: Warrantless Drone Use Rule 1 embodies the desire of both federal and state legislatures to exclude certain situations from the burden of a warrant requirement. much in the same way that police helicopters and aircraft currently provide aerial support. substantial legal obstacles should not hamper that agency. n238 Thus.J." n235 While the Fourth Amendment covers all government intrusions of privacy. event. Rule 1 also exempts situations where a high risk of terrorist attack or imminent danger to life or property exists. or situation poses a high risk of attack by terrorists. 23 B. Int. adhere to the privacy protections of the Rule by demonstrating that probable cause of a high risk of terrorist attack existed or that an imminent danger to life or property existed at the time and general location of the drone's operation. L. n239 4|Page . which exempts situations where a high risk of terrorist attack or imminent danger is present. This specific provision finds its inspiration in Virginia's [*377] warrant exception that allows drone use for responses to Amber Alerts. n237 Rule 1 reflects a desire by federal and state legislative proposals to exempt exigent circumstances from restrictions on drone use. drones can be a potent tool to assist in searching for missing persons and in police emergencies. n234 and search-and-rescue missions. government activity that does not involve criminal investigation tends to involve "a less hostile intrusion than the typical policeman's search for the fruits and instrumentalities of crime. n232 In addition to Rule 1's exemption of non-law enforcement uses of drones. albeit at a much higher cost and with less flexibility. n231 and search and rescue missions. or that there is an imminent and articulable threat to a specific person's life or property. Yang. n228 Common examples of non-law enforcement operations include. but are not limited to. land surveying.

" n243 it could be that any [*488] UAS surveillance taken through skylights. UAS are not in general public use. 2014 (Joel [JD Candidate U of Baltimore Law]. airspace by 2015. n249 Once the use of UAS becomes commonplace. DRONING ON ABOUT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: ADOPTING A REASONABLE FOURTH AMENDMENT JURISPRUDENCE TO PREVENT UNREASONABLE SEARCHES BY UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS.." n247 To date. the Supreme Court may have opened the door to warrantless UAS surveillance of the home at some point in the not-too-distant future. the government may be able to use them to photograph or scan the interior of a home without a warrant. given the expectation of privacy in the home and the Supreme Court's assertion that "in the home ." n242 However. 43 U. the FAA is required to fully integrate them into U. n241 In fact. or open doors constitutes a search. under the Supreme Court's current jurisprudence. it does not constitute a search. n244 Finally. the Court provided an important caveat by stating that when the technology used is available to the general public. n251 5|Page . L.. n245 In holding that the use of thermal imaging constitutes a search.Data Erasure Counterplan Affirmative RIUDL Varsity Division No Solvency – Privacy [___] [___] The CP doesn’t solve the privacy harm. in Kyllo. n240 it is not clear that courts would accept technological surveillance as an equivalent substitute for manned surveillance. the Supreme Court emphasized that commercial property does not have the same heightened expectation of privacy as the home and stated that "the photographs here are not so revealing of intimate details as to raise constitutional concerns. all details are intimate details. an expectation of privacy from unmanned aerial surveillance of the home could become unreasonable. Balt. and their decreasing cost makes them more widely accessible. it appears that the Court's bright-line rule drawn at the entrance to the home may have been written in "disappearing ink. in holding that the use of a camera to photograph an open industrial area is not a search. n248 That is about to change since certain government agencies are allowed to operate them. Celso. n246 Therefore. Rev. 461) Despite a strong argument that UAS surveillance should not constitute a search as long as it shows nothing more or different than what is revealed by naked-eye observation. regardless of whether the information revealed could not have otherwise been obtained without a physical intrusion. windows. n250 Therefore.S. removing Fourth Amendment protections from the place that has historically enjoyed the greatest protection. and most importantly.

which would be attached to some kind of unmanned UAV (such as the Predator) and flown at an altitude of around 20.extremetech. it could observe half of Manhattan. which DARPA/BAE says are just 5-megapixel smartphone camera sensors.8 gigapixels are provided via 368 smaller sensors. It is the definition of “observe” in this case that will blow your mind. ARGUS captures video (12 fps) that is detailed enough to pick out birds flying through the sky. 24/7. ARGUS is by far the highest-resolution surveillance platform in the world. 2013 (“DARPA shows off 1. These 368 sensors are focused on the ground via four image-stabilized telescopic lenses. 6|Page .000 feet (6km).8-gigapixel surveillance drone. The 350 foot limit in the counterplan would not solve for privacy. though. can spot a terrorist from 20.000 feet”. or a lost toddler wandering around. and the US could keep an eye on the entirety of Manhattan. These 1. and probably the highest-resolution camera in the world. can observe an area of 25 square kilometers (10sqmi) at any one time.000 feet.000 feet. If ARGUS was hovering over New York City. January 28. Anthony. a 1. With an imaging unit that totals 1. period. DARPA and the US Army have taken the wraps off ARGUS-IS.Data Erasure Counterplan Affirmative RIUDL Varsity Division No Solvency – Altitude Privacy [___] [___] Drones can resolve details as small as six inches from 20. Two ARGUS-equipped drones.8-gigapixel video surveillance platform that can resolve details as small as six inches from an altitude of 20. 2013. ARGUS.8 billion pixels. Extreme Tech.

Jones.140 7|Page . advanced technology. the privacy protections available under both approaches remain tied to the reasonable expectation of privacy test.130 Although the Court unanimously agreed that the government committed a search in Jones.131 In a four-vote concurrence. and through the compilation and aggregation of data collected over an extended period of time. under either Justice Alito’s or Justice Sotomayor’s approach. http://moritzlaw. Olivito.132 Justice Alito suggested that society does not expect law enforcement to engage in the type of long-term surveillance entailed by a GPS monitor for most offenses.137 However.”139 As applied by the Court. those areas of the home that are not visible to the public.138 The Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence related to aerial surveillance. 2013.osu. trespass-based analysis to determine the existence of a search in a recent GPS tracking case. Additionally. A five-Justice majority of the Court held that the government’s installation of a GPS tracking device on the defendant’s vehicle constituted a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment because the government’s actions amounted to a trespass under common law. this condition could be abused. and extended monitoring all carry the limitation that an expectation of privacy be “reasonable. such that an individual’s expectation that he will not be subject to extended surveillance will become unreasonable as the government utilizes domestic drones more frequently. 2013 (Beyond the Fourth Amendment: Limiting Drone Surveillance Through the Constitutional Right to Informational Privacy Ohio State Law Journal.136 Either of the concurring opinions could safeguard against long-term drone surveillance.129 The agents replaced the batteries in the device while the vehicle was parked in a different public parking lot. and the government subsequently obtained information from the device for twenty-eight days. Justice Alito found a search through the application of the Katz reasonable expectation of privacy test. as drones can engage in surveillance without making physical contact with the government agents attached a GPS tracking device to the defendant’s vehicle while the vehicle was in a public parking lot. the Justices split sharply as to the underlying test. Justice Sotomayor contended that the government committed a search in two ways: through a physical trespass.pdf) Although the Katz reasonable expectation of privacy test remains valid.135 The majority opinion in Jones would provide almost no protection against drone surveillance. the level of protection against long-term surveillance is far from clear.133 Lastly.128 In United States v. although people might expect the government to observe some of their public movements. the reasonableness requirement narrows the area where an individual can expect to remain free from drone surveillance to the home. a five-Justice majority of the Court returned to a physical.134 Under Justice Sotomayor’s mosaic approach. Neither of the concurring opinions clearly demarcates when long-term surveillance would constitute a search. particularly.Data Erasure Counterplan Affirmative RIUDL Varsity Division No Solvency – Persistent Surveillance Circumvention [___] [___] Definition of a persistent search is unclear. people do not expect the government to record and compile all of their movements.

S. Even if the Court were to establish such a time limit." n287 This could happen as early as 2015 when UAS can be fully integrated into U. n281 may support time limit rules as evidenced by their concerns that long-term tracking may interfere with privacy expectations. including Justice Sotomayor n280 and Justice Alito. airspace. n279 Some members of the Court. DRONING ON ABOUT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: ADOPTING A REASONABLE FOURTH AMENDMENT JURISPRUDENCE TO PREVENT UNREASONABLE SEARCHES BY UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS. n277 or hold that the Fourth Amendment is not implicated. it will not affect UAS surveillance which involves no trespass. n285 Once UAS flights become routine.Data Erasure Counterplan Affirmative RIUDL Varsity Division No Solvency – Time Limit Circumvention [___] [___] It would be easy for law enforcement to circumvent time limits. n288 8|Page . Celso. there are more fundamental problems with the Katz test than practical concerns with its implementation. n276 If a challenge [*492] to prolonged UAS surveillance were to occur. The Inability of the Katz Test to Address UAS Surveillance While the Supreme Court's decision in Jones could be interpreted as an effort to bolster privacy protections in public places. 2014 (Joel [JD Candidate U of Baltimore Law]. it would not be difficult for law enforcement to circumvent it. 461) A. the expectation of privacy is no longer reasonable and its protection is removed. Balt. n286 The result becomes a "paradoxical situation in which law enforcement overreach is legitimized once it becomes routinized. n282 However. n284 As long as UAS surveillance remains sufficiently rare. n283 [*493] The Katz reasonable expectation of privacy test has been criticized for its circular nature. n278 Any time limit on warrantless UAS surveillance established by the Court would be based on an analysis of a reasonable expectation of privacy. 43 U. an individual's expectation of privacy is considered reasonable and it is protected from government intrusion by the Fourth Amendment. L. the Court would have to either provide an arbitrarily determined length of time during which UAS surveillance could pass constitutional muster. Rev.

n218 Because the FAA is currently establishing navigable airspace for UAS. L. airspace. if an individual planted trees in his backyard to conceal his actions from aerial observation. 461) Critical to a court's analysis would be how it evaluates UAS surveillance in light of the emphasis on aerial surveillance taking place in navigable airspace and the routine nature of private and commercial flights. n222 Because the area is not exposed. it would likely be a search if police used laser radar affixed to a UAS frame to see through the foliage. an expectation of privacy should be recognized as reasonable. n223 For example. n224 Once UAS are generally available to the public and their flights become routine in public airspace. Balt. Celso. n227 The curtilage of the home may then be vulnerable to UAS surveillance without any Fourth Amendment protections. Ultimately. Rev. n225 At that point the litigated issue will likely become whether the technology employed by a particular UAS is in general public use or not. 9|Page . such as digital cameras. DRONING ON ABOUT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: ADOPTING A REASONABLE FOURTH AMENDMENT JURISPRUDENCE TO PREVENT UNREASONABLE SEARCHES BY UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS. n219 In the absence of routine flights. it is reasonable to conclude that UAS surveillance of the curtilage of a home is currently a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. when UAS are expected to become commonplace in U. n226 Many of the technologies. 2014 (Joel [JD Candidate U of Baltimore Law]. and it may not be long before others join them. are already in general public use. private and commercial usage of UAS is [*485] restricted and flights are rare. any Fourth Amendment protection of the curtilage from warrantless UAS surveillance is likely expiring. 43 U. an expectation of privacy from UAS surveillance will no longer be reasonable. and curtilage enjoys similar protection as the interior of the home.Data Erasure Counterplan Affirmative RIUDL Varsity Division No Solvency – Curtilage Laws Circumvention [___] [___] Curtilage limits fail too – court action on warrants is key. n220 That analysis is likely to change in 2015 and beyond. n221 Under Supreme Court jurisprudence.S. it is likely a search if the government uses UAS surveillance to expose areas within the curtilage which an individual has concealed from aerial observation.

two characteristics not in oversupply among our political class. legislative. 2014 (Glenn Harlan [prof of law @ U of Tennessee]. the president can appoint new judges. but they might not. That means that the government shouldn't be able to spy on Americans without a warrant — a warrant that comes from a different branch of government. We need the kind of extensive audit trails for access to information that. or refuse to enforce them. NSA spying undermines separation of powers: Most of the worry about the National Security Agency's bulk interception of telephone calls. can declare them invalid. "the accumulation of all powers.Data Erasure Counterplan Affirmative RIUDL Varsity Division Solvency Turn – Separation of Powers [___] Warrants revitalize the separation of powers." that is. If Congress passes unconstitutional laws. the president can veto them. www. probably rightly. given the secrecy surrounding such programs." That such widespread spying power exists. and Congress can change the laws. again. and judiciary. The government should also have to keep a clear record of who was spied on. but a threat to the separation of powers and the Constitution. then the president has the power to snoop on political enemies. or even impeach. And the ability of the executive branch to snoop on the phone calls of people in the other branches isn't just a threat to privacy. And. of course. If the president gets out of control. But the temptation to make use of such a power for self-serving political ends is likely to be very great. that the NSA isn't likely to be interested in their stuff. What they have to say is likely to be pretty interesting to anyone with a political ax to grind. of course. Reynolds. by having to read it. and our system of government would veer toward what James Madison in The Federalist No. legislative and judicial -.each of which is designed to serve as a check on the others. But most Americans figure. And. or impeach him. that such abuses would leak out. and the judiciary can declare his acts unconstitutional. But if the federal government has broad domestic-spying powers. doesn't prove that it has actually been abused. in the same hands. completely unaware that one small section is devoted to gather political intelligence. as the Edward Snowden experience clearly illustrates. Rather than counting on leakers to protect us. and requires probable cause.or Skype-sex session going on. e-mail and the like has centered around threats to privacy. the traditional role of the other branches as checks would be seriously undermined. and gathering material that can be used to blackmail or destroy them. We can hope. Congress can defund his efforts. With such power in the executive. the evidence suggests that if you've got a particularly steamy phone. In fact. executive. and why. 47 called "the very definition of tyranny. 10 | P a g e . As the Framers conceived it.the executive.usatoday. it just might wind up being shared by voyeuristic NSA analysts. which would be prevented by the CP. a class of people who can't take that disinterest for granted: members of Congress and the judiciary. however. outsiders might never know. and if those are controlled by the executive branch without significant oversight. don't currently exist. we need strong structural controls that don't depend on people being heroically honest or unusually immune to political temptation. in fact. given the compartmentalization that goes on in the intelligence world. and the judiciary. our system of government is divided into three branches -. If the judiciary gets carried away.) There is. almost everyone at the NSA might be acting properly. and of exactly who had access to the information once it was gathered. (Anyone who hacks my e-mail is automatically punished. getting an advantage in countering their plans.

Think of the United States as a giant corporation that seeks foreign investors. National Interest. to return to the corporate metaphor. But over the long term.policies that do not reflect the capricious and idiosyncratic whims of an autocrat. The rule of law and the institutions of policymaking in a democracy are the political equivalent of corporate transparency and accountability.S. The messiness of a democracy can.S. John. Spring 2001. frustrate American diplomats and confuse foreign observers. An active press and competitive party system also provide a service to outside states by generating information about U. Ikenberry. Lexis) First. mutually beneficial relations. indeed. democratic institutions produce more consistent and credible policies . The pluralistic and regularized way in which U. rule-based democracy. America's mature political institutions organized around the rule of law have made it a relatively predictable and cooperative hegemon. 11 | P a g e . outside states are more willing to work with the United States-or. Sharp shifts in policy must ultimately be vetted within the policy process and pass muster by an array of investigatory and decision-making bodies. 2001 (Professor at Georgetown University – G. policy and determining its seriousness of purpose. to invest in ongoing partnerships. It is more likely to attract investors if it can demonstrate that it operates according to accepted accounting and fiduciary principles. The governmental separation of powers creates a shared decision-making system that opens up the process and reduces the ability of any one leader to make abrupt or aggressive moves toward other states. foreign and security policy is made reduces surprises and allows other states to build long-term. Because it is a constitutional.Data Erasure Counterplan Affirmative RIUDL Varsity Division Solvency Turn – Separation of Powers [___] [___] Strong separation of powers are essential for US global leadership.

org/news/item/29250-proposed-rules-regulating-domestic-drone-use-lack-policewarrant-requirement) "You're not just talking about the physical border." she said. just by virtue of living in that region are somehow accepting that they have a right to less privacy. while the counterplan fails to do so.Data Erasure Counterplan Affirmative RIUDL Varsity Division Solvency Turn – Racism [___] [___] The plan reverses racist trends. "State and local agencies are using them. Feb 24. and we're kind of having the privacy debate after the fact with very little information. as technologies such as StingRay are already being used mostly in the ongoing war on drugs to track those suspected of selling and buying drugs. based on racialized drug policies and racial discrimination by law enforcement. 2015 (Candice. The drug war has long negatively impacted communities of color.truth-out. you're talking about an area that encompasses many major cities that have large minority populations." Guliani said. Bernd. There's federal dollars that are going to buy them. and the idea that these drones can be flown with little or no privacy protections really mean that. "What we see with StingRays is the same phenomenon that we're seeing with [UAS]. African-American communities could well feel the disproportionate impacts of the integrated use of domestic drones and other surveillance in the coming years. and coming up with privacy policies governing their use afterward (when they may already be violating many people's civil rights). These alreadyexisting racial disparities in intrusive policing tactics and deployment of surveillance technologies are one of the primary reasons civil liberties experts are saying the government often gets it backward when thinking about privacy issues: deploying intrusive technologies first. despite similar rates of drug use among whites and people of color. Proposed Rules Regulating Domestic Drone Use Lack Police Warrant Requirement. two-thirds of all those convicted of drug crimes are people of color. www. people. where federal agencies are using them." 12 | P a g e .

the walls of racism. once and for all. For the sake of the world and ourselves. The danger point of self-destruction seems to be drawing even more near. We have looked at barriers and fences. The limitations imposed on people of color by poverty. the prison of individual. will inevitably destroy us as well. but are offered the vision and the possibility of freedom. The prison of racism confines us all. of military buildups and violent aggression. 1991 (Joseph R. no judicial oversight in counterplan requires law enforcement implementation and can lead to cultural racism. institutional. ghettos and prisons. Barndt co-director of Ministry Working to Dismantle Racism "Dismantling Racism" p. and cultural racism can be destroyed.Data Erasure Counterplan Affirmative RIUDL Varsity Division Solvency Turn – Dismantling Racism [___] [___] The plan requires warrant checks that help dismantle racism. which are the marks of our white prison. restraints and limitations. and powerlessness are cruel. the effects of uncontrolled power. privilege. in our separate prisons we are all prevented from achieving the human potential God intends for us. But we have also seen that the walls of racism can be dismantled. inhuman. stone by stone. we dare not allow it to continue. and greed. 155) To study racism is to study walls. You and I are urgently called to join the efforts of those who know it is time to teardown. We are not condemned to an inexorable fate. subservience. people of color and white people alike. Barndt. of overconsumption and environmental destruction may be reaching a point of no return. A small and predominantly white minority of the global population derives its power and privilege from the sufferings of vast majority of peoples of all color. Brick by brick. It shackles the victimizer as well as the victim. 13 | P a g e . The walls forcibly keep people of color and white people separate from each other. and unjust. The results of centuries of national and worldwide conquest and colonialism.