WHO WATCHES THE WATCHERS? SHAE BUNAS UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL OKLAHOMA Domestic Surveillance: Topic Analysis

Introduction/Outline 1. Resolution and Key Terms 2. Historical Background 3. Potential Affirmative Ideas 4. Plans and Solvency Mechanisms 5. Negative Options 6. Q & A

The Resolution and Key Terms Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance.

Resolution and Key Terms United States federal government-the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal governments of the United States. You will likely see cases that use executive action, congressional action, or judicial action. The case for why your specific actor matters when debating the surveillance topic!

Resolution and Key Terms Curtail-reduce in extent or quantity; impose a restriction on. Its-possessive form of it. (must be USFG domestic surveillance—excludes foreign, state and local government surveillance as well as corporate)

Resolution and Key Terms Domestic-of or relating to one’s own or a particular country as apart from other countries. Sometimes meaning “within one’s national borders”. Surveillance-continuous observation of a place, person, group, or ongoing activity in order to gather information. A “domestic surveillance” definition? Not exactly.

“Domestic Surveillance” Precise Definition Small 8 [“His Eyes are Watching You: Domestic Surveillance, Civil Liberties and Executive Power during Times of National Crisis,” MATTHEW L. SMALL, United States Air Force Academy, Domestic surveillance is a subset of intelligence gathering. Intelligence, as it is to be understood in this context, is “information that meets the stated or understood needs of policy makers and has been collected, processed and narrowed to meet those needs” (Lowenthal 2006, 2). In essence, domestic surveillance is a means to an end; the end being intelligence. The intelligence community best understands domestic surveillance as the acquisition of nonpublic information concerning United States persons (Executive Order (3.4) (i)). With this definition domestic surveillance remains an overly broad concept.

Historical Background th Amendment in the Bill of Rights protects citizens from “unreasonable searches and seizures.” security vs. liberty balance 1967 – Berger v. New York: the Court rules that authorities need more than just a name and phone # to get a warrant – violates 4 th Amendment 1967—Katz v. United States: similar to Berger except that Katz was surveilled in a public phone booth. The court ruled there was a “reasonable expectation of privacy”

Historical Background 1968—Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act: restricts wiretapping but allows executive exception if in service of protecting the United States 1972—Nixon is impeached (wiretapping and theft of docs) 1975 – The Church Committee investigates illegal intelligence gathering by NSA/FBI/CIA 1978—Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA): creates secret court to hear requests for warrants to obtain foreign intelligence information.

Historical Background 1986—Electronic Comm Privacy Act (ECPA): adds wireless data and communications to OCSSA Act 2001—Wake of 9/11, Patriot Act: changes to FISA and ECPA including easing wiretapping restrictions. Section 215 allows sharing of “any tangible thing” as part of foreign intelligence or international terrorism investigation. 2006—Patriot Act Renewed 2007—Protect America Act: amends FISA by removing warrant requirement for surveillance of foreign targets “reasonably believed” to be outside the US.

Historical Background 2008—FISA Amendments Act: allows immunity for telecom companies that cooperate with government informational gathering and more. 2011—Extension of the Patriot Act 2012—Congress extends FISA Amendments Act while the New York times has be reporting on over collection of data by the USFG for years. 2013—Snowden happens, PRISM revealed to public, 1 st ruling against NSA’s surveillance program handed down by Federal District Court for DC. The program is allowed to exist while Congress reforms the law.

Historical Background 2014—President Obama announced reforms to the surveillance program based on an advisory panel commissioned in 2013 to evaluate the NSA. The reforms he outlined include: requiring NSA analysts to get a court order to access phone data unless in cases of emergencies; an eventual end to the collection of massive amounts of metadata by the government; the NSA will stop eavesdropping on leaders of allied nations; officials can pursue a phone number linked to a terrorist association by two degrees rather than three; and Congress will appoint advocates to argue on the side of civil liberties before the FISA court.

Historical Background 2015—2 nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled in May that Congress never authorized the bulk collection of phone records in the Patriot Act so the NSA program is illegal. They said it may continue but they called on Congress to amend the law. June 2 nd USA Freedom Act: The act ends the NSA's bulk collection of phone records of millions of Americans. That responsibility shifts to the phone companies, who can turn the data over to the government only when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court issues a warrant to search the phone records of individuals. The law also reinstates three provisions of the USA Patriot Act, which expired on June 1: roving wiretaps of terror suspects who change devices, surveillance of "lone wolf" suspects who are not affiliated with a terrorist organization, and the seeking of court orders to search business records.

Affirmative Advantages/Harms Democracy/Tyranny: Path to totalitarianism, weaken democratic norms, international modeling vs. domestic decline Racism and Religious Discrimination: Disproportionate targeting of specific groups Constitutional Rights A. 1 st Amendment—Speech, press, right to assemble and petition B. 4 th Amendment—Unreasonable searches and seizures C. 14 th Amendment—Due process and equal protection

Affirmative Advantages/Harms Economy: Foreign companies and countries concerns over US corporation compliance with USFG surveillance Foreign Relations: Many countries are angry about US surveillance. Aff’s can’t likely solve these concerns topically but the Aff will attempt to get internals into FR scenarios. US Hegemony: Accessed via soft power or hard power internals

Affirmative Advantages/Harms Securitization: State transforms subjects into matters of security, an extreme form of politicization Biopolitics: Social and political power over life Ethics of Privacy Internet Security (US infrastructure trust)

Potential Plans/Cases Mass Surveillance Program Cases Surveillance State Repeal Act (Patriot Act and FISA Amendments Act of 08) Stricter requirements for access (warrants/probable cause) Private company can collect but no NSA FISA court regulations End a specific program like PRISM (corporations giving data to the USFG)

Potential Plans/Cases Technology Cases Drones Face-recognition, Biometrics RFID Chips Smart Video Surveillance-learn what’s “normal” Civilian Encryption Protection Just scratching surface…

Potential Plans/Cases Social Monitoring Affs Boarder/Immigration Surveillance End Muslim and Arab Targeting End Surveilling of the Black Body Disease Monitoring Welfare Monitoring Protest Group Infiltration-specific group FBI Searches and CONTELPRO Education Tracking Programs

Negative Disadvantages Terrorism or Intelligence DA Political Capital DA Elections DA Executive Power Good DA Federalism DA Court DAs A. Court Politics-how they rule in future case based on Aff plan ruling B. Judicial Activism-SOP and Legitimacy Impacts

Negative Counterplans Agent CP Debate: Courts vs. Executive Action vs. Congress vs. States Regulate/Limit vs. Eliminate surveillance CP Private Oversight Boards/Commissions CP Advantage CPs

Negative Kritiks Critical Legal Studies: law is indeterminate Feminism: Privacy increases abuses of patriarchy Race Kritiks: Must resolve this before we fix the law or reforms will fail Foucault: Reforms leads to a population more willing to be surveilled by other means increasing biopower Capitalism: Various links Security: Will likely link to Affs that impose restrictions to make surveillance less controversial Various other K’s will emerge…

Conclusion This is a current and timely topic so lots of information is available. It’s very student friendly for researching. Don’t forget the National Debate Coaches Association will upload camp files for free access as they receive them. The National Speech and Debate Association will have more resources about policy debate and the topic in the future. Feel free to contact me with questions or just to brainstorm about the topic: 