Drones Aff Supplement Wave 2

-- UM 2015 CFFP

Privacy Impact: V2L

Privacy is key to value to life its a prerequisite to all other
values
Sundquist 12 (Matthew, graduate of Harvard, Privacy Manager at Inflection and
a Student Fellow of the Harvard Law School Program on the Legal Profession,
ONLINE PRIVACY PROTECTION: PROTECTING PRIVACY, THE SOCIAL CONTRACT, AND
THE RULE OF LAW IN THE VIRTUAL WORLD,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2120148, 2012)//HW
So what is the value of privacy? Privacy creates a framework that allows other
values to exist and develop. Where privacy is available, we can have freedom,
liberty, and other intrinsic goods. We can develop friendships, relationships, and
love. n29 As anyone who has had a camera pointed at them knows, we act
differently when being recorded. Now consider that everything we do online, over
the phone, or with a credit card can be monitored and recorded. If this in-formation
is used abusively, similar to how we might feel if we were filmed all the time, it
compromises our ability to act naturally and freely. A social dynamic exists in this as
well. In society, when people are around, we must react to external stimulants and
forces. But alone, we can choose and create our stimulants and environment and
react accord-ingly. Thus, we develop as independent beings and people when we
have privacy. n30

AT: Nothing to hide, nothing to worry

Just because you have nothing to hide doesnt mean your
privacy should be violated
Sundquist 12 (Matthew, graduate of Harvard, Privacy Manager at Inflection and
a Student Fellow of the Harvard Law School Program on the Legal Profession,
ONLINE PRIVACY PROTECTION: PROTECTING PRIVACY, THE SOCIAL CONTRACT, AND
THE RULE OF LAW IN THE VIRTUAL WORLD,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2120148, 2012)//HW
At this point, it is also worth addressing two common arguments against privacy.
The first says, "You needn't worry about privacy if you haven't done anything
wrong." I ask people making this argument if they believe they are doing something
wrong by showering. They usually say "no." I then ask if they would be comfortable
having a video of their [*159] shower projected to the internet. Again, the answer
is usually "no." The point is this: we do, write, and say things, as individuals and in
relationships, that, while not wrong, are private. We are comfortable showering,
expressing our vulnerabilities or beliefs, or confessing our love because we believe
our actions are private. Violating that security undermines our person, actions, and
relationships. A second common argument is that we should trust the government
to guard us against terrorism, crime, etc. As I discuss throughout this Article, the
government and corporations often act in secret, shrouded behind a veil of secrecy
that has permitted abuse of our privacy and existing laws. Secrecy, law-breaking,
and privacy abuses, in my view, suggest we should closely scrutinize privacy
practices and those managing them.

AT: T
Its the core of the topic
Yang 2014 (Y. Douglas [JD Boston U]; BIG BROTHER'S GROWN WINGS: THE
DOMESTIC PROLIFERATION OF DRONE SURVEILLANCE AND THE LAW'S RESPONSE;
23 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J. 343; kdf)
The purpose of the Fourth Amendment "is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary

defining what is an unreasonable search or

seizure unfolds a two-part inquiry: establishing when a search or seizure occurs, and
"deciding what makes a search or seizure 'unreasonable.' " n25 This two-part inquiry is
invasions by governmental officials." n24 Generally,

deceivingly simple, however, for the very concept of reasonableness has changed over time, and often in response

Within the realm of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,

remote surveillance involving unmanned platforms presents a unique privacy
problem. Such technology is an invention of the twenty-first century and was not explicitly contemplated by the
Constitution's drafters. n27 Additionally, modern drone surveillance is only beginning to mature
to its potential, n28 and the Supreme Court thus has not had the opportunity to
incorporate drone surveillance into its Fourth Amendment jurisprudence .
to changes in technology. n26 [*348]

AT: Circumvention
Drones are unique, circumvention doesnt matter
Slobogin 2014 (Christopher [Milton Underwood Prof of Law, Vanderbilt U Law
School]; Panvasive Surveillance, Political Process Theory, and the Nondelegation
Doctrine; 102 Geo. L.J. 1721; kdf)
Why has there been such a legislative flurry in connection with drones, while there has been minimal legislative

drones discover more intimate

information or are more "intrusive" than these other surveillance techniques , but that
movement on fusion centers and cameras? One might argue that

is a hard distinction to accept, given the vast amounts of data fusion centers can collect and the ubiquity of

The more likely answer is that, given their appearance and their association
with our overseas adventures, the panvasive nature of drones --even those, and perhaps
especially those, that are hummingbird-like --is dramatically obvious, whereas fusion centers and cameras
cameras.

operate almost invisibly. n180 Some states will likely leave drone operation up to law enforcement as they have
with cameras, rather than require warrants or some other Fourth Amendment-type restriction before they can be
deployed. In those states, courts

sensitive to political process theory need to ensure that

the legislative authorization meets not only the legislation criterion but also the
representation criterion. Of most concern in this context are law enforcement decisions to fly drones only
over certain areas--for instance, urban centers of a city. That is the same representation issue that
arises in connection with CCTV and should be handled in the same manner.