***Case***

1NC - Privacy
Turn- morality undercuts political responsibility leading to
political failures and greater evils
Isaac 2
Jeffrey C. Isaac, James H. Rudy Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center
for the Study of Democracy and Public Life at Indiana University-Bloomington, 2002
(Ends, Means, and Politics, Dissent, Volume 49, Issue 2, Spring, Available Online to
Subscribing Institutions via EBSCOhost, p. 35-37)
As writers such as Niccolo Machiavelli, Max Weber, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Hannah
Arendt have taught, an unyielding concern with moral goodness undercuts
political responsibility. The concern may be morally laudable, reflecting a kind of
personal integrity, but it suffers from three fatal flaws: (1) It fails to see that the
purity of ones intention does not ensure the achievement of what one
intends. Abjuring violence or refusing to make common cause with morally
compromised parties may seem like the right thing; but if such tactics entail
impotence, then it is hard to view them as serving any moral good beyond
the clean conscience of their supporters; (2) it fails to see that in a world of
real violence and injustice, moral purity is not simply a form of
powerlessness; it is often a form of complicity in injustice. [end page 35] This is
why, from the standpoint of politicsas opposed to religionpacifism is always a
potentially immoral stand. In categorically repudiating violence, it refuses in principle to
oppose certain violent injustices with any effect; and (3) it fails to see that politics is
as much about unintended consequences as it is about intentions; it is the
effects of action, rather than the motives of action, that is most significant .
Just as the alignment with good may engender impotence, it is often the
pursuit of good that generates evil. This is the lesson of communism in the
twentieth century: it is not enough that ones goals be sincere or idealistic; it is
equally important, always, to ask about the effects of pursuing these goals
and to judge these effects in pragmatic and historically contextualized ways.
Moral absolutism inhibits this judgment. It alienates those who are not true
believers. It promotes arrogance. And it undermines political effectiveness.

Privacy violations inevitable tech and corporations

Goldsmith, 2015
Jack the Henry L. Shattuck Professor at Harvard Law School, The Ends of Privacy, The
New Rambler, Apr. 06, 2015 (reviewing Bruce Schneier, Data and Goliath: The Hidden
Battles to Collect Your Data and Control Your World (2015)). Published Version
http://newramblerreview.com/images/files/Jack- Goldsmith_Review-of-BruceSchneier.pdf
The truth is that consumers love the benefits of digital goods and are willing to
give up traditionally private information in exchange for the manifold
miracles that the Internet and big data bring . Apple and Android each offer more than a million
apps, most of which are built upon this model, as are countless other Internet services. More generally, big data
promises huge improvements in economic efficiency and productivity, and
in health care and safety. Absent abuses on a scale we have not yet seen, the
publics attitude toward giving away personal information in exchange for
these benefits will likely persist, even if the government requires firms to

make more transparent how they collect and use our data . One piece of evidence for
this is that privacy-respecting search engines and email services do not capture large market shares. In general these
services are not as easy to use, not as robust, and not as efficacious as their personal-data-heavy competitors. Schneier
understands and discusses all this. In the end his position seems to be that we should

deny ourselves some (and perhaps a lot) of the benefits big data because the
costs to privacy and related values are just too high . We have to stop the
slide away from privacy, he says, not because privacy is profitable or
efficient, but because it is moral. But as Schneier also recognizes, privacy is not a static
moral concept. Our personal definitions of privacy are both cultural and situational, he acknowledges.
Consumers are voting with their computer mice and smartphones for more digital goods in exchange for more personal
data. The culture increasingly accepts the giveaway of personal information

for the benefits of modern computerized life. This trend is not new. The idea that
privacy cant be invaded at all is utopian, says Professor Charles Fried of Harvard Law School.
There are amounts and kinds of information which previously were not given out and suddenly they have to be given out.
People adjust their behavior and conceptions accordingly. That is Fried in the 1970 Newsweek story, responding to an
earlier generations panic about big data and data mining . The same point applies today, and will

apply as well when the Internet of things makes todays data mining seem as
quaint as 1970s-era computation.

The right to security trumps the right to privacy Individual

ethics prove
Himma 2007 (KENNETH EINAR , Privacy Versus Security: Why Privacy is Not an

Absolute Value or Right San Diego Law Review,

http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?
ID=9460991130930661030770741120160170900150220280450890920750010730990
010991091061141270110170120001061000151141010760201230930780100500120920
7209311307809602108100803803405509010712607809111602810306602708807212
4015085097094100087114086001099009078&EXT=pdf&TYPE=2)
From an intuitive standpoint, the idea that the right to privacy is an absolute right
seems utterly implausible. Intuitively, it seems clear that there are other rights
that are so much more important that they easily trump privacy rights in the
event of a conflict. For example, if a psychologist knows that a patient is highly
likely to commit a murder, then it is, at the very least, morally permissible to
disclose that information about the patient in order to prevent the crime
regardless of whether such information would otherwise be protected by
privacy rights. Intuitively, it seems clear that life is more important from the standpoint
of morality than any of the interests protected by a moral right to privacy .
Still one often hearsprimarily from academics in information schools and library schools, especially in
connection with the controversy regarding the USA PATRIOT Act the claim that privacy should
never be sacrificed for security, implicitly denying what I take to be the underlying rationale for the
PATRIOT Act. This also seems counterintuitive because it does not seem
unreasonable to believe we have a moral right to security that includes the
right to life. Although this right to security is broader than the right to life,
the fact that security interests include our interests in our lives implies that
the right to privacy trumps even the right to lifesomething that seems
quite implausible from an intuitive point of view. If I have to give up the most private
piece of information about myself to save my life or protect myself from either grievous
bodily injury or financial ruin, I would gladly do so without hesitation. There are many
things I do not want you to know about me, but should you make a credible
threat to my life, bodily integrity, financial security, or health, and then hook me up to a lie detector machine, I
will truthfully answer any question you ask about me. I value my privacy a

lot, but I value my life, bodily integrity, and financial security much more than any of the
interests protected by the right to privacy.

Surveillance reinforces the equal protection of the law key to

equitable morals
Taylor 05

[In Praise of Big Brother: Why We Should Learn to Stop Worrying and Love Government
Surveillance; James Stacey Taylor; Public Affairs Quarterly Vol. 19, No. 3 (Jul., 2005),
pp. 227-246 Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of North American
Philosophical Publications Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40441413] //duff
A system of constant State surveillance would have other advantages, too. Under the current criminal
justice system a wealthy defendant who is innocent of the charges that she is
faced with can use her wealth to hire private investigators to demonstrate
her innocence, either by finding persons who witnessed the crime of which she is accused, or by finding persons
who can provide her with a legitimate alibi. This option is not open to poorer defendants
who are similarly innocent, but who cannot afford to hire private
investigators. Since this is so, innocent, poor defendants are more likely than
innocent, wealthy defendants to accept plea bargains, or to be convicted of
crimes that they did not commit. If, however, a poor person were to be accused of a crime in a
State that subjected its citizens to constant surveillance, the judge in her
case would be morally justified (indeed, would be morally required) in enabling the
defense to secure information that would prove her innocence, and that
would have been gathered by the State's surveillance devices. A State's use of
constant surveillance could thus reduce the number of persons who are
wrongfully convicted. This would not only be good in itself, but it would also lead to a more
equitable justice system, for the disparity in wrongful conviction rates
between the wealthy (who could use their wealth to prove their innocence) and the poor could be
eliminated.

Transparency is inevitable and aids psychological and ethical

self-development welcome to Post-Privacy
Seemann, 2015,

Michael Seemann studied Applied Cultural Studies in Lnebur, Now he blogs at

mspr0.de and writes for various media like Rolling Stone, TIME online, SPEX, Spiegel
Online, ct and the DU magazine Digital Tailspin Ten Rules for the Internet After
Snowden The Network Notebooks series March 2015 http://networkcultures.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/03/NN09_Digital_Tailspin_SP.pdf
POST-PRIVACY: TRANSPARENCY AS A STOIC EXERCISE In his book Post-Privacy: Prima leben ohne Privatsphre
(Post-Privacy: Living just Fine Without Privacy),18 Christian Heller embraces an even more radical strategy. He argues
that it is time to say goodbye to privacy altogether and to embrace the inevitable:

transparency. He highlights, amongst other points, the fact that privacy as we know it today is a relatively new
form of coexistence, and one that has not only been advantageous. The private sphere has, for the longest
time, been the place of the oppression of women , for example. Contrast this with the gay
rights movements, which were among the first to show how social progress can
be achieved by making ultimately personal information public. Since we are
unable to halt technological progress, we'd better get used to the idea of
total transparency, says Heller. Heller himself acts out this idea in practice. He documents all of his daily
routines, his finances, and large amounts of highly personal information in a publicly accessible wiki.19 It is easy to
dismiss this as a self-indulgent discovery trip, but Heller is undeniably radicalizing an issue that has become the norm, in
social networks anyway, namely the fact that formerly private matters are explicitly being made public. Unlike many
Facebook users, however, Heller doesnt deceive himself. He is highly aware of the fact that his

data can be used and abused, by anyone, at any time, for any purpose. In this sense, post-privacy as a

strategy complies well with Nassim Nicholas Talebs dictum of antifragility. Post-privacy

is a practical
exercise in stoicism: basing your assumptions on the worst case scenario in
this case, that all information is public by default will not give you a false sense of security,
but rather will allow you to make plans in such a way that, should this worst
case actually occur, you will not be confronted with unsolvable problems. If
you keep in mind that all data is accessible, in one way or another, this can
actually reduce anxiety one of the more negative effects of surveillance.
They dont even have an impact to democracy, but five reasons democracy
re-entrench inequality
McElwee 14 (Five Reasons Why Democracy Hasn't Fixed Inequality,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-mcelwee/five-reasons-whydemocrac_b_5858160.html)//A.V.
One of the most longstanding hopes (on the left) and fears (on the right)
about democratic politics is that voters of modest means will use their
electoral weight to level the economic playing field . In a market economy, the median
voter's income will invariably be below the national average creating an apparently compelling opportunity for a politics of
redistribution. This makes the sustained increase in income inequality in the

United States and other developed countries a bit of a puzzle. One common
suggestion, offered recently by Eduardo Porter in The New York Times, is ignorance. Voters "don't grasp how deep
inequality is." But while Americans' understanding of economic trends is certainly imperfect, the data suggest that the
broad trends are known to the population. Nathan Kelly and Peter Enns, for instance, find that when asked to compare the
ratio of the highest paid occupation and the lowest, Americans at the bottom of the income distribution do believe
inequality is high and rising. In 1987, Americans as reported that the highest-paid occupation took home 20 times what
the lowest paid occupation did - by 2000, they thought the gap had grown to 74 times. A recent Pew survey finds that 65%
of adults agree that the gap between the rich and everyone else has increased in the past 10 years, only 8% say it has
decreased. A Gallup poll from earlier this year suggests that 67% of Americans report that they are either "somewhat" or
"very" dissatisfied with the income and wealth distribution in the U.S. If ignorance doesn't explain

inaction, what does? These five factors are the most important culprits: 1)
Upward mobility According to research from Carina Engelhardt and
Andreas Wagner, around the world people overestimate the level of upward
mobility in their society. They find that redistribution is lower then when actual social mobility is but also
lower where perceived mobility is higher. Even if voters perceive the level of inequality
correctly, their tendency to overstate the level of mobility can undermine
support for redistribution. In another study Alberto Alesina and Eliana La Ferrara find that, Americans
who believe that American society offers equal opportunity (a mythology) are more likely to oppose redistribution.

Using data from 33 democracies, Elvire Guillaud finds that those who
believe they have experienced downward mobility in the past decade are
32% more likely to support redistribution. A relatively strong literature now
supports this thesis. 2) Inequality undermines solidarity Enns and Kelly
find, rather counterintuitively, that when "inequality in America rises, the
public responds with increased conservative sentiment." That is, higher
inequality leads to less demand for redistribution. This is perhaps because
as society becomes less equal, its members have less in common and find it
less congenial to act in solidarity. Bo Rothstein and Eric Uslaner argue that, "the best policy response
to growing inequality is to enact universalistic social welfare programs. However, the social strains stemming from
increased inequality make it almost impossible to enact such policies." As inequality increases, the

winner-take-all economy leads voters try to look out for their own children.
The period during which overall inequality has risen has seen a massive
increase in more affluent families' spending on enrichment for their own
children. Chris Dillow points to research by Klaus Abbink, David Masclet and Daniel Mirza who find in social
science experiments that disadvantaged groups are more likely to sacrifice their wealth to reduce the wealth of the
advantaged group when inequality was lower than when it was higher. Kris-Stella Trump finds that

rising inequality perpetuates itself, noting that, "Public ideas of what

constitutes fair income inequality are influenced by actual inequality: when

inequality changes, opinions regarding what is acceptable change in the

same direction." 3) Political misrepresentation Ideological factors can't tell the whole story.
Many Americans support redistributive programs like the minimum wage
and support for the idea that hard work leads to success has plummeted in
the last decade. A further important reason for the lack of political response
to inequality relates to the structure of American political institutions,
which fail to translate the desires of less-advantaged Americans for more
redistribution into actual policy change. Support for this thesis comes from many corners of the
political science field, including Martin Gilens, Dorian Warren, Jacob Hacker, Paul Pierson, andKay Lehman Schlozman.

Research by five political scientists finds that status quo bias of America's
often-gridlocked congress serves to entrench inequality. More simply,
lower-income Americans tend to vote at a lower rate. William Franko,
Nathan Kelly and Christopher Witko find that states with lower turnout
inequality also have lower income inequality. Elsewhere, Franko finds that states with wider

turnout gaps between the rich and poor are less likely to pass minimum-wage increases, have weaker anti-predatorylending policies and have less generous health insurance programs for children in low-income families. Kim Hill, Jan
Leighley and Angela Hilton-Andersson find, "an enduring relationship between the degree of mobilization of lower-class
voters and the generosity of welfare benefits." Worryingly, Frederick Solt finds that, " citizens of states with

greater income inequality are less likely to vote and that income inequality
increases income bias in the electorate." That is, as inequality increases, the
poor are less likely to turn out, further exacerbating inequality. 4) Interestgroup politics The decline of labor unions has decreased the political importance of poor voters, because unions
were an important "get-out-the-vote" machine. A recent study by Jan Leighley and Jonathan
Nagler finds that the decline in union strength has reduced low-income and
middle-income turnout. But labor's influence (or lack thereof) is also important when the voting is done.
Research finds that policy outcomes in the United States are heavily mediated by lobbying between interest groups, so
organization matters. Martin Gilens writes, "Given the fact that most Americans

have little independent influence on policy outcomes, interest groups like

unions may be the only way to forward their economic interests and
preference." His research indicates that unions regularly lobby in favor of policies broadly supported by Americans
across the income spectrum, in contrast to business groups, which lobby in favor of policies only supported by the wealthy.
It's no surprise then that numerous studies have linked the decline in union membership and influence with rising
inequality. 5) Racial conflict A recent study by Maureen A. Craig and Jennifer A.

Richeson finds that when white Americans are reminded that the nation is
becoming more diverse, they become more conservative. Dog-whistle
phrases like "welfare queens" have long driven whites to oppose social
safety net programs they disproportionately benefit from. Research from Donald Kinder
and Cindy Kam indicates that racial bias among white voters is strongly correlated with hostility toward means-tested
social assistance programs. Another study by Steven Beckman and Buhong Zhen finds

that blacks are more likely to support redistribution even if their incomes
are far above average and that poor whites are more likely to oppose
redistribution. In other words, a massive public education campaign about
the extent of income inequality is neither necessary nor sufficient to achieve
the kind of redistributive policies liberals favor. The real obstacles to policy
action on inequality are more deeply ingrained in the structure of American
politics, demographics, and interest group coalitions . Insofar as there is a role for better
information to play, it likely relates not to inequality but tosocial mobility which remains widely misperceived and is a
potent driver of feelings about the justice of economic policy. As John Steinbeck noted, "Socialism never took root in
America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
Stronger unions, more lower income voter turnout and policies to reduce the corrupting influence of money on the
political process would all work to reduce inequality. It will take political mobilization, not simply voter education to
achieve change. The wonks have interpreted the world; the point, however, is to change it.

2NC Privacy

Morality bad
Privacy needs to be considered in a utilitarian framework to be properly evaluated
weigh it against our impacts
Solove 2Daniel Solove is an Associate Professor at George Washington University Law School
and holds a J.D. from Yale Law School, he is one of the worlds leading expert in information
privacy law and is well known for his academic work on privacy and for popular books on how
privacy relates with information technology, he has written 9 books and more than 50 law review
articles, 2002 (Conceptualizing Privacy, Available online at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=313103, accessed on 7/17/15)
Thus far, attempts to locate a common denominator for conceptualizing privacy have been
unsatisfying. Conceptions that attempt to locate the core or essence of privacy wind
up being too broad or too narrow. I am not arguing that we must always avoid referring to privacy in the abstract;
sometimes it is easiest and most efficient to do so. Rather, such abstract reference to privacy often
fails to be useful when we need to conceptualize privacy to solve legal and policy
problems. Therefore, it may be worthwhile to begin conceptualizing privacy in a different way. A bottom-up
contextualized approach toward conceptualizing privacy will prove quite fruitful in todays world of rapidly changing
technology. Of course, in advocating a contextual analysis of privacy, the issue remains: At what level of generality should
the contexts be defined? This is a difficult question, and I doubt there is a uniform level of generality that is preferable.
This Article does not recommend that contexts be defined so narrowly as to pertain to only a few circumstances. It is often
useful to define contexts of some breadth, so long as the generalization is not overly reductive or distorting. All
generalization is an imperfection. Focusing on particular contexts and practices is a way

of carving up experience into digestible parts. The human mind simply cannot
examine experience in its chaotic totality: it must bite off pieces to analyze. The way
we conceptualize privacy in each context profoundly influences how we shape legal
solutions to particular problems. We can evaluate the results of our conceptions by looking to how well
they work in solving the problems. Although I critique attempts to locate an overarching conception of privacy, I am
certainly not arguing against endeavors to conceptualize privacy. Conceptualizing privacy in particular contexts is an
essential step in grappling with legal and policy problems. Thus, the issue of how we conceptualize privacy is of paramount
importance for the Information Age, for we are beset with a number of complex privacy problems, causing great
disruption to numerous important practices of high social value. With the method of philosophical inquiry I am
recommending, we can better understand, and thus more effectively grapple with, these emerging problems.

The value of privacy depends on the contextdont buy into their universal
absolutes arguments
Solove 7Daniel Solove, an Associate Professor at George Washington University Law School
and holds a J.D. from Yale Law School, one of the worlds leading expert in information privacy
law and is well known for his academic work on privacy and for popular books on how privacy
relates with information technology, has written 9 books and more than 50 law review articles,
2007 (Ive Got Nothing to Hide and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy, Available online at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 , accessed on 7/17/15)
Because privacy involves protecting against a plurality of different harms or problems, the
value of privacy is different depending upon which particular problem or harm is being
protected. Not all privacy problems are equal; some are more harmful than others. Therefore,
we cannot ascribe an abstract value to privacy. Its value will differ substantially
depending upon the kind of problem or harm we are safeguarding against. Thus, to understand
privacy, we must conceptualize it and its value more pluralistically. Privacy is a set of protections against a related set of
problems. These problems are not all related in the same way, but they resemble each other. There is a social value
in protecting against each problem, and that value differs depending upon the

nature of each problem.

There should not be a universal ethical rule against surveillance, the context
matters.
Stoddart, 2014
Eric. School of Divinity, University of St Andrews "Challenging Just Surveillance Theory: A
Response to Kevin Macnishs Just Surveillance? Towards a Normative Theory of Surveillance."
Surveillance & Society 12.1 (2014): 158-163.

I am sorry to say that I

find Macnish's aim of a normative ethics of surveillance to be an

unnecessary goal. I could be persuaded that a radically revised model of practical reasoning based on the Just War
Tradition might have saliency for investigative strategies involving surveillance technologies. However,

'surveillance' is much too all-encompassing a term to be the subject of its own

ethics. There can be no 'ethics of surveillance' but there may be norms appropriate
for particular contexts of surveillance. This means examining specific domains in
which surveillance is deployed, along with other strategies, to address concerns or
challenges. For example, the ethics of surveillance in elderly care or the ethics of
surveillance in education are valuable discussions to be had. My point is that it ought to be the
ethics of elderly care that is foregrounded within which we would be seek to understand the ethical deployment of
surveillance mechanisms.

Privacy is instrumental and never a moral absoluteits only valued through other
ends
Solove 2Daniel Solove is an Associate Professor at George Washington University Law School
and holds a J.D. from Yale Law School, he is one of the worlds leading expert in information
privacy law and is well known for his academic work on privacy and for popular books on how
privacy relates with information technology, he has written 9 books and more than 50 law review
articles, 2002 (Conceptualizing Privacy, Available online at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=313103, accessed on 7/17/15)
However, along with other scholars,342 I contend that privacy has an instrumental value namely,
that it is valued as a means for achieving certain other ends that are valuable. As John
Dewey observed, ends are not fixed, but are evolving targets, constantly subject to revision and
change as the individual strives toward them.343 Ends are foreseen consequences which arise in the course of activity
and which are employed to give activity added meaning and to direct its further course.344 In contrast to many
conceptions of privacy, which describe the value of privacy in the abstract, I contend
that there is no overarching value of privacy. For example, theories of privacy have viewed the value of
privacy in terms of furthering a number of different ends. Fried claims that privacy fosters love and friendship. Bloustein
argues that privacy protects dignity and individuality. Boling and Inness claim that privacy is necessary for intimate
human relationships. According to Gavison, privacy is essential for autonomy and freedom. Indeed, there are a
number of candidates for the value of privacy, as privacy fosters self-creation, independence,
autonomy, creativity, imagination, counter-culture, freedom of thought, and reputation. However, no

one of these ends is furthered by all practices of privacy. The problem with
discussing the value of privacy in the abstract is that privacy is a dimension of a wide
variety of practices each having a different valueand what privacy is differs in different
contexts. My approach toward conceptualizing privacy does not focus on the value of privacy generally. Rather,
we must focus specifically on the value of privacy within particular practices .

Privacy violations inevitable

Privacy is dead Americans willingly share all their data anyway, legal change isnt
necessary
Etzioni 15 Amitai, The New Normal Finding a Balance between Individual Rights and the
Common Good, Transaction Publishers New Brunswick, NJ, Senior Advisor to the Carter White
House; taught at Columbia, Harvard Business, Copyright 2015, ISBN 978-1-4128-5477-1)
One major response to privacy merchants' expanding reach has been well
encapsulated by the CEO of Sun Microsystems, Scott McNealy, who stated "You have zero privacy ...
Get over it:'44 Facebook's founder, Mark Zuckerberg'. argues that social norms undergirding privacy
law are obsolete.45 That is, instead offinding new ways to protect individuals from
corporations, individu- als should learn to accept changed-in effect, much lowerlevels of privacy. He elaborated, "People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing
more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people . ..
That social norm is just something that has evolved over time :'46 Zuckerberg continued: "We
view it as our role in the system to constantly be innovating and be updating what
our system is to reflect what the current social norms are :'47He thus implies that the
privacy erchants are not undermining the norm, but merely accommodating their
wares to already in-place changes in norms. As I see it, it is true that the privacy norms are eroding
due to other fac- tors than the corporate drive to use private information for profit making, as one sees with people going
on talk shows to reveal much about themselves, a form of exhibitionism. However, there can be little doubt that
corporations, especially the new social media, led by Facebook, are aiding, abetting, and seeking to legitimate the erosion
of privacy. The Wall Street Journal editorial page, which reflects that publication's philosophy, argues that the change

in norms indicates that the introduction of new laws or regulations to better protect
privacy is not called for.48 L. Gordon Crovitz pointed out that, as ofMarch 2011, more than half of
Americans over age twelve have Facebook accounts.49 He proceeded to ask: "If most
Americans are happy to have Facebook accounts, knowingly trading personal
information for other benefits, why is Washington so focused on new privacy laws?
There is little evidence that people want new rules:so Furthermore, Crovitz argues,
consumers value the benefits of information gathering , including better-targeted ads, specific
recommendations for cus- tomers, and huge troves of data for research, such as in Google Flu Trends, which
tracks search terms about illnesses to assist epidemiologists . "People are
increasingly at ease with sharing personal data in exchange for other benefits ;' he
argues.51

Privacy erosion inevitable -- technological innovation.

Stalder, 2009
Felix. Department of Sociology, Queens University "Privacy is not the Antidote to Surveillance."
Surveillance & Society 1.1 (2009): 120-124.
The standard answer to these problems the call for our privacy to be protected. Privacy, though, is a
notoriously vague concept. Europeans have developed on of the most stringent approaches where privacy is
understood as informational self-determination. This, basically, means that an individual should be able to determine the
extent to which data about her or him is being collected in any given context. Following this definition, privacy is a kind of
bubble that surrounds each person, and the dimensions of this bubble are determined by one's ability to control who
enters it and who doesn't. Privacy is a personal space; space under the exclusive control of the individual. Privacy, in a
way, is the informational equivalent to the (bourgeois, if you will) notion of "my home is my castle." As appealing

and seemingly intuitive as this concept is, it plainly doesn't work. Everyone agrees
that our privacy has been eroding for a very long time hence the notion of the "surveillance
society" and there is absolutely no indication that the trend is going to slow down, let
alone reverse. Even in the most literal sense, the walls of our castles are being pierced by more and more
connections to the outside world. It started with the telephone, the TV and the Internet, but imagine when your fridge
begins to communicate with your palm pilot, updating the shopping list as you run out of milk, and perhaps even sending
a notice to the grocer for home delivery. Or maybe the stove will alert the fire department because you didn't turn off the
hot plate before rushing out one morning.6 A less futuristic example of this connectivity would be smoke detectors that are
connected to alarm response systems. Outside the home, it becomes even more difficult to avoid
entering into relationships that produce electronic, personal data. Only the most zealous
will opt for standing in line to pay cash at the toll both every day, if they can just breeze through an electronic gate instead.
This problem is made even more complicated by the fact that there are certain cases in which we want "them" to have our

data. Complete

absence from databanks is neither practical nor desirable. For

example, it can be a matter of life and death to have instant access to comprehensive
and up-to-date health-related information about the people who are being brought
into the emergency room unconscious. This information needs to be too detailed and needs to be updated too
often for example to include all prescriptiondrugs a person is currently using to be issued on, say, a smartcard held by
the individual, hence giving him or her full control over who accesses it. To make matters worse, with privacy

being by definition personal, every single person will have a different notion about
what privacy means. Data one person might allow to be collected might be deeply personal for someone else.
This makes it very difficult to collectively agree on the legitimate boundaries of the
privacy bubble.
Privacy cant be restored technological and corporate invasions happen all the
time.
Lewis 2014
James Andrew Lewis is a senior fellow and director of the Strategic Technologies Program at the
Center for Strategic and International Studies. Previously, US Departments of State and
Commerce as a Foreign Service officer and as a member of the Senior Executive Service.
Underestimating Risk in the Surveillance Debate - Center For Strategic & International Studies
- Strategic Technologies Program December - http://csis.org/publication/underestimatingrisk-surveillance-debate
On average, there are 16 tracking programs on every website. 4 This means that when you
visit a website, it collects and reports back to 16 companies on what youve looked at
and what you have done. These programs are invisible to the user. They collect IP address, operating
system and browser data, the name of the visiting computer, what you looked at,
and how long you stayed. This data can be made even more valuable when it is matched with other data
collections. Everything a consumer does online is tracked and collected. There is a
thriving and largely invisible market in aggregating data on individuals and then selling
it for commercial purposes. Data brokers collect utility bills, addresses, education, arrest records (arrests, not just
convictions). All of this data is recorded, stored, and made available for sale. Social networking sites sell user data in some
anonymized form so that every tweet or social media entry can be used to calculate market trends and refine advertising
strategies. What can be predicted from this social media data is amazingunemployment trends, disease outbreaks,
consumption patterns for different groups, consumer preferences, and political trends. It is often more accurate than
polling because it reflects peoples actual behavior rather than the answer they think an interviewer wants to hear.
Ironically, while the ability of U.S. agencies to use this commercial data is greatly restricted by law and policy, the same
restrictions do not apply to foreign governments. The development of the Internet would have been very
different and less dynamic if these business models had not been developed. They

provide incentives and financial returns to develop or improve Internet services.

There is an implicit bargain where you give up privacy in exchange for services, but
in bargains between service providers and consumers, one side holds most of the cards and there
is little transparency. But the data-driven models of the Internet mean that it is an
illusion to think that there is privacy online or that NSA is the only entity harvesting
personal data.

Security first
Security comes firstprivacy is never absolute
Himma 7Kenneth Himma, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Seattle Pacific University, holds
JD and PhD and was formerly a Lecturer at the University of Washington in Department of
Philosophy, the Information School, and the Law School, 2007 (Privacy vs. Security: Why
Privacy is Not an Absolute Value or Right, Available online at http://ssrn.com/abstract=994458,
accessed on 7/17/15)
Although an account that enables us to determine when security and privacy come into conflict and when security trumps
privacy would be of great importance if I am correct about the general principle, my efforts in this essay will
have to be limited to showing that the various theories of legitimacy presuppose or entail that, other things being
equal, security is, as a general matter, more important than privacy. Among the moral rights
most people believe deserve legal protection, none is probably more poorly understood than privacy. What exactly privacy
is, what interests it encompasses, and why it deserves legal protection, are three of the most contentious issues in
theorizing about information ethics and legal theory. While there is certainly disagreement about the nature and
importance of other moral rights deserving legal protection, like the right to property, the very concept of privacy is deeply
contested. Some people believe that the various interests commonly characterized as privacy interests have some essential
feature in common that constitutes them as privacy interests; others believe that there is no such feature and that the
concept of privacy encompasses a variety of unrelated interests, some of which deserve legal protection while others do
not Notably, many people tend to converge on the idea that privacy rights, whatever they ultimately
encompass, are absolute in the sense that they may not legitimately be infringed for any
reason. While the various iterations of the USA PATRIOT Act are surely flawed with
respect to their particulars, there are many people who simply oppose, on principle,
even a narrowly crafted attempt to combat terrorism that infringes minimally on
privacy interests. There is no valid justification of any kind, on this absolutist
conception, for infringing any of the interests falling within the scope of the moral right to privacy.

The counter-terror benefits of mass surveillance outweigh privacy and the

Constitution.
Posner 5
Richard A. Posner, Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago, Judge on the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, was named the most cited legal scholar
of the 20th century by The Journal of Legal Studies, 2013 Our Domestic Intelligence Crisis,
Washington Post, December 21st, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122001053.html
These programs are criticized as grave threats to civil liberties. They are not. Their
significance is in flagging the existence of gaps in our defenses against terrorism . The
Defense Department is rushing to fill those gaps, though there may be better ways. The collection, mainly
through electronic means, of vast amounts of personal data is said to invade
privacy. But machine collection and processing of data cannot, as such, invade
privacy. Because of their volume, the data are first sifted by computers, which
search for names, addresses, phone numbers, etc., that may have intelligence value.
This initial sifting, far from invading privacy (a computer is not a sentient being), keeps most
private data from being read by any intelligence officer. The data that make the cut are those that
contain clues to possible threats to national security. The only valid ground for forbidding human inspection of such data
is fear that they might be used to blackmail or otherwise intimidate the administration's political enemies. That danger is
more remote than at any previous period of U.S. history. Because of increased political partisanship,
advances in communications technology and more numerous and competitive media , American government

has become a sieve. No secrets concerning matters that would interest the public
can be kept for long. And the public would be far more interested to learn that public officials were using private
information about American citizens for base political ends than to learn that we have been rough with terrorist suspects
a matter that was quickly exposed despite efforts at concealment. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act makes it

difficult to conduct surveillance of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents

unless they are suspected of being involved in terrorist or other hostile activities.
That is too restrictive. Innocent people, such as unwitting neighbors of terrorists, may, without
knowing it, have valuable counterterrorist information. Collecting such information is of a piece
with data-mining projects such as Able Danger. The goal of national security intelligence is to

prevent a terrorist attack, not just punish the attacker after it occurs, and the
information that enables the detection of an impending attack may be scattered
around the world in tiny bits. A much wider, finer-meshed net must be cast than
when investigating a specific crime. Many of the relevant bits may be in the e-mails,
phone conversations or banking records of U.S. citizens, some innocent, some not
so innocent. The government is entitled to those data, but just for the limited
purpose of protecting national security.The Pentagon's rush to fill gaps in domestic intelligence reflects
the disarray in this vital yet neglected area of national security. The principal domestic intelligence agency is the FBI, but it
is primarily a criminal investigation agency that has been struggling, so far with limited success, to transform itself. It is
having trouble keeping its eye on the ball; an FBI official is quoted as having told the Senate that environmental and
animal rights militants pose the biggest terrorist threats in the United States. If only that were so. Most other
nations, such as Britain, Canada, France, Germany and Israel, many with longer histories of fighting terrorism than the
United States, have a domestic intelligence agency that is separate from its national
police force, its counterpart to the FBI. We do not. We also have no official with sole and

comprehensive responsibility for domestic intelligence. It is no surprise that gaps in

domestic intelligence are being filled by ad hoc initiatives .We must do better. The
terrorist menace, far from receding, grows every day. This is not only because al Qaeda
likes to space its attacks, often by many years, but also because weapons of mass
destruction are becoming ever more accessible to terrorist groups and individuals .

1NC Econ
Turn They increase cloud computing, which hurts the
environment
Schmidt 10 (Stephan Schmidt, writer for the Guardian, "The dark side of cloud
computing: soaring carbon emissions," The Guardian, 4-1-2010,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/apr/30/cloud-computing-carbonemissions, al)
However, things turned out differently. Each day we generate more and more data
your digital footprint, so to speak, requires huge amounts of server space and energy. A
part of that digital footprint may be described as digital waste just think about all the
data that you have created online that you no longer use. Almost everything we do online
increases our carbon footprint. As a perverse example, Antivirus Company MacAffee
reports that the electricity needed just to transmit the trillions of spam e-mails sent every
year is equivalent to powering two million homes in the United States and generates the
same amount of greenhouse gas emissions as that produced by three million cars.
According to a recent Greenpeace report, Make IT Green: Cloud Computing and its
Contribution to Climate Change, the electricity consumed by cloud computing globally
will increase from 632 billion kilowatt hours in 2007 to 1,963 billion kWh by 2020 and
the associated CO2 equivalent emissions would reach 1,034 megatonnes.

Extinction and food insecurity 24 academic and professional

bodies for scientific, medical and engineering say we must stop
emitting carbon now
Carrington 7/20 (Damian Carrington, head of environment at the Guardian, "Act on
climate change now, top British institutions tell governments," The Guardian, 7-20-2015,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/21/act-on-climate-change-nowtop-british-institutions-tell-governments, al)
The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that the climate is warming and that human
activity is largely responsible for this change through emissions of greenhouse gases.
Governments will meet in Paris in November and December this year to negotiate a
legally binding and universal agreement on tackling climate change. Any international
policy response to climate change must be rooted in the latest scientific evidence. This
indicates that if we are to have a reasonable chance of limiting global warming in this
century to 2C relative to the pre-industrial period, we must transition to a zero-carbon
world by early in the second half of the century. To achieve this transition, governments
should demonstrate leadership by recognising the risks climate change poses, embracing
appropriate policy and technological responses, and seizing the opportunities of lowcarbon and climate-resilient growth. Risks. Climate change poses risks to people and
ecosystems by exacerbating existing economic, environmental, geopolitical, health and
societal threats, and generating new ones. These risks increase disproportionately as the
temperature increases. Many systems are already at risk from climate change. A rise of
2C above pre-industrial levels would lead to further increased risk from extreme
weather and would place more ecosystems and cultures in significant danger. At or
above 4C, the risks include substantial species extinction, global and regional food
insecurity, and fundamental changes to human activities that today are taken for
granted.

Tech sector is growing

Grisham 2/10 (Preston Grisham, United States Tech Industry Employs 6.5 Million

in 2014, February 10th, 2015, https://www.comptia.org/about-us/newsroom/pressreleases/2015/02/10/united-states-tech-industry-employs-6.5-million-in-2014)

Washington, D.C., February 10, 2015 The U.S. tech industry added 129,600 net
jobs between 2013 and 2014, for a total of nearly 6.5 million jobs in the U.S.,
according to Cyberstates 2015: The Definitive State-by-State Analysis of the U.S. Tech
Industry published by CompTIA. The report represents a comprehensive look at tech
employment, wages, and other key economic factors nationally and state-by-state,
covering all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. This years edition
shows that tech industry jobs account for 5.7 percent of the entire private
sector workforce. Tech industry employment grew at the same rate as the
overall private sector, 2 percent, between 2013-2014. Growth was led by the IT
services sector which added 63,300 jobs between 2013 and 2014 and the R&D, testing,
and engineering services sector that added 50,700 jobs. The U.S. tech industry
continues to make significant contributions to our economy, said Todd
Thibodeaux, president and CEO, CompTIA. The tech industry accounts for 7.1
percent of the overall U.S. GDP and 11.4 percent of the total U.S. private
sector payroll. With annual average wages that are more than double that of
the private sector, we should be doing all we can to encourage the growth
and vitality of our nations tech industry.

Europe biotechnology industry is inevitable maintains

European tech competition
Van Leeuwen 6/30 (Patrick; Coordinator Public Affairs and Communications

Forestry House Rue du Luxembourg 66 B-1000 Brussels Belgium - EU green light for
120 million new investments in circular bioeconomy projects//RD)
The European Commission releases 50 million of EU public money via the Bio-based
Industries Joint Undertaking (BBI JU) leveraging 70 million of investments from
industry into projects to boost the European bioeconomy. The Bio-based Industries Joint
Undertaking, a public-private partnership between the EU and the Bio-based Industries
Consortium (BIC), has approved the funding of 10 projects totalling 120
million to boost the EU capacity to stimulate growth and jobs via a more
circular, low carbon and sustainable bioeconomy. The BBI is a 3.7 billion innovative
partnership that was officially launched in July 2014. Driven by a unique cross sector
industry grouping, the BBI focuses on using Europe's biomass and wastes to
make high value products and bring them to market. Advanced biorefineries and
innovative technologies are at the heart of this process, converting renewable resources
into sustainable bio-based chemicals, materials and fuels, allowing the EU to reduce
its dependence on finite fossil resources. In the midst of political discussions on
developing an ambitious circular economy for Europe, Marcel Wubbolts, Chairman of
the Bio-based Industries Consortium and Chief Technology Officer of Royal DSM said:
"Today we celebrate the translation of the vision of the Bio-based Industries Consortium
into concrete projects that will help Europe develop a future economic model that is fully
sustainable. The bioeconomy is global and these investments ensure that
Europe remains a sustainable, competitive and innovative region." The 7
funded research projects will tackle specific value chain challenges such as
sustainability, technology and competitiveness. The 2 demonstration projects will
demonstrate the technological and economic viability of biorefinery systems and
processes for making chemicals from wood, and for making high value products for

detergents, personal care, paints and coatings and composites from sugar beet pulp. The
industrial scale flagship project will make use of cardoon, an under-utilised oil crop
grown on arid and marginal lands, to extract vegetable oils to be further converted into
bio-based products (bio-lubricants, cosmetics, bio-plastics). By- and co-products from
the process will also be valorised for energy, feed for animals and added value chemical
production. Dirk Carrez, Executive Director of the Bio-based Industries Consortium said:
"Today we see the first leverage effect of the BBI JU: 50 million of EU
public money have raised 70 million in private investments. And this is only
the beginning. No doubt that the BBI, and the bioeconomy in general, will play an
important role in the Juncker investment plan and in enabling the European circular
economy." On 26 June, the BBI JU officially announced at its Info Day the 200 million
call for proposals for 2015. 100 million have already been allocated to first-ofa-kind biorefineries on 19 May. The BBI partners The European Commission is the
public partner in the BBI. It supports it with a contribution of 975 million from Horizon
2020, the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation from 2014 to 2020. The
activities of the BBI complement the activities funded under Horizon 2020 and seek to
establish synergies where relevant. The Bio-based Industries Consortium (BIC) is
the industrial partner in the PPP. It is made of a unique mix of sectors
including agriculture, agro-food, biotechnology / technology providers,
forestry/pulp and paper, chemicals and energy. BIC was established in 2012 to
collectively represent the private sector in the BBI. To date, BIC has close to 80 full
industrial members (large, SMEs, clusters) and about 150 associate members (RTOs,
universities, associations, technology platforms). BIC supports the BBI with a
contribution of 2.7 billion, of which 975 million is used to support research
and innovation activities, and another 1.7 is provided in the form of
additional activities.

International norms maintain economic stability

***Zero empirical data supports their theory the only financial crisis of the new liberal
order experienced zero uptick in violence or challenges to the central factions governed
by the US that check inter-state violence they have no theoretical foundation for
proving causality
Barnett, 9 senior managing director of Enterra Solutions LLC (Thomas, The New
Rules: Security Remains Stable Amid Financial Crisis, 25 August 2009,
http://www.aprodex.com/the-new-rules--security-remains-stable-amid-financial-crisis398-bl.aspx)
When the global financial crisis struck roughly a year ago, the blogosphere was ablaze with all sorts of
scary predictions of, and commentary regarding, ensuing conflict and wars -- a rerun of the Great Depression
leading to world war, as it were. Now, as global economic news brightens and recovery -- surprisingly led by China and
emerging markets -- is the talk of the day, it's interesting to look back over the past year and realize how
globalization's first truly worldwide recession has had virtually no impact whatsoever on the

international security landscape. None of the more than three-dozen ongoing conflicts listed by
GlobalSecurity.org can be clearly attributed to the global recession. Indeed, the last new entry (civil
conflict between Hamas and Fatah in the Palestine) predates the economic crisis by a year, and three
quarters of the chronic struggles began in the last century. Ditto for the 15 low-intensity conflicts listed by
Wikipedia (where the latest entry is the Mexican "drug war" begun in 2006). Certainly, the Russia-Georgia conflict last
August was specifically timed, but by most accounts the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics was the most
important external trigger (followed by the U.S. presidential campaign) for that sudden spike in an almost two-decade
long struggle between Georgia and its two breakaway regions. Looking over the various databases, then, we see a

most familiar picture: the usual mix of civil conflicts, insurgencies, and liberation-themed
terrorist movements. Besides the recent Russia-Georgia dust-up, the only two potential state-onstate wars (North v. South Korea, Israel v. Iran) are both tied to one side acquiring a nuclear weapon capacity -- a

process wholly unrelated

to global economic trends. And with the United States effectively tied down by its two
involvement elsewhere around
the planet has been quite modest, both leading up to and following the onset of the economic crisis: e.g.,
ongoing major interventions (Iraq and Afghanistan-bleeding-into-Pakistan), our

the usual counter-drug efforts in Latin America, the usual military exercises with allies across Asia, mixing it up with
pirates off Somalia's coast). Everywhere else we find serious instability we pretty much let it burn, occasionally pressing
the Chinese -- unsuccessfully -- to do something. Our new Africa Command, for example, hasn't led us to anything beyond
advising and training local forces. So, to sum up: No significant uptick in mass violence or unrest
(remember the smattering of urban riots last year in places like Greece, Moldova and Latvia?); The usual frequency
maintained in civil conflicts (in all the usual places); Not a single state-on-state war directly caused (and no great-poweron-great-power crises even triggered); No great improvement or disruption in great-power cooperation
regarding the emergence of new nuclear powers (despite all that diplomacy); A modest scaling back of international
policing efforts by the system's acknowledged Leviathan power (inevitable given the strain); and No serious efforts

by any rising great power to challenge that Leviathan or supplant its role. (The worst things we can cite
are Moscow's occasional deployments of strategic assets to the Western hemisphere and its weak efforts to outbid the
United States on basing rights in Kyrgyzstan; but the best include China and India stepping up their aid and investments
in Afghanistan and Iraq.) Sure, we've finally seen global defense spending surpass the previous world record set in the late
1980s, but even that's likely to wane given the stress on public budgets created by all this unprecedented "stimulus"
spending. If anything, the friendly cooperation on such stimulus packaging was the most notable

great-power dynamic caused by the crisis. Can we say that the world has suffered a distinct shift to political
radicalism as a result of the economic crisis? Indeed, no. The world's major economies remain governed by
center-left or center-right political factions that remain decidedly friendly to both markets and trade. In
the short run, there were attempts across the board to insulate economies from immediate damage (in effect, as much
protectionism as allowed under current trade rules), but there was no great slide into "trade wars." Instead, the World
Trade Organization is functioning as it was designed to function, and regional efforts toward free-trade agreements have
not slowed. Can we say Islamic radicalism was inflamed by the economic crisis? If it was, that shift was clearly
overwhelmed by the Islamic world's growing disenchantment with the brutality displayed by violent extremist groups such
as al-Qaida. And looking forward, austere economic times are just as likely to breed connecting evangelicalism as
disconnecting fundamentalism. At the end of the day, the economic crisis did not prove to be sufficiently frightening to
provoke major economies into establishing global regulatory schemes, even as it has sparked a spirited -- and much
needed, as I argued last week -- discussion of the continuing viability of the U.S. dollar as the world's primary reserve
currency. Naturally, plenty of experts and pundits have attached great significance to this debate, seeing in it the
beginning of "economic warfare" and the like between "fading" America and "rising" China. And yet, in a world of globally
integrated production chains and interconnected financial markets, such "diverging interests" hardly constitute signposts
for wars up ahead. Frankly, I don't welcome a world in which America's fiscal profligacy goes undisciplined, so bring it on
-- please! Add it all up and it's fair to say that this global financial crisis has proven the great resilience of
America's post-World War II international liberal trade order.

2NC Econ

Cloud Computing Turn

Increased cloud computing contributes to ghg emissions
Greenpeace 11 (non-governmental environmental organization with offices in over
forty countries, How dirty is your data?: A Look at the Energy Choices That Power
Cloud Computing, Greenpeace International, April 2011,
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/climate/2
011/Cool%20IT/dirty-data-report-greenpeace.pdf/, al)
Data centres to house the explosion of virtual information currently consume 1.5-2% of
all global electricity; this is growing at a rate of 12% a year. The IT industry points to
cloud computing as the new, green model for our IT infrastructure needs, but few
companies provide data that would allow us to objectively evaluate these claims. The
technologies of the 21st century are still largely powered by the dirty coal power of the
past, with over half of the companies rated herein relying on coal for between 50% and
80% of their energy needs. IT innovations have the potential to cut greenhouse gas
emissions across all sectors of the economy, but ITs own growing demand for dirty
energy remains largely unaddressed by the worlds biggest IT brands. There is a lack of
transparency across the industry about ITs own greenhouse gas footprint and a need to
open up the books on its energy footprint. In emerging markets, where there is limited
reliable grid electricity, there is a tremendous opportunity for telecom operators to
show leadership by investing in renewable energy, but many are relying on heavily
polluting diesel generators to fuel their growth. Data centre clusters (Google, Facebook,
Apple) are cropping up in places like North Carolina and the US Midwest, where cheap
and dirty coal-powered electricity is abundant. IT companies are failing to prioritise
access to clean and renewable energy in their infrastructure siting decisions. Of the 10
brands graded, Akamai, a global content distribution network, earned top-of-the-class
recognition for transparency; Yahoo! had the strongest infrastructure siting policy;
Google & IBM demonstrated the most comprehensive overall approach to reduce its
carbon footprint to date.
Warming causes the sixth mass extinction
Zielinski 4/30 (Sarah Zielinski, award-winning science writer and editor, "Climate
Change Will Accelerate Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction," Smithsonian, 4-30-2015,
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/climate-change-will-accelerateearths-sixth-mass-extinction-180955138/?no-ist, al)
Climate change is accelerating species loss on Earth , and by the end of this century, as many as
one in six species could be at risk of extinction . But while these effects are being seen around the world,
the threat is much higher in certain sensitive regions, according to two new comprehensive studies. The planet is
experiencing a new wave of die-offs driven by factors such as habitat loss, the
introduction of exotic invaders and rapid changes to our climate. Some people have called
the phenomenon the sixth mass extinction, on par with the catastrophic demise of the
large dinosaurs 65 million years ago. To try and combat the declines, scientists have been racing to make
predictions about which species are most likely to go extinct, along with when and where it will happen, sometimes with
widely varying results.

Tech Sector Boom Now

Tech spending increasing now despite projections

Seitz 1/30/15

(Patrick, 1/30/15, Investors Business Daily, Software apps to continue dominating

cloud sales, http://news.investors.com/technology-click/013015-736967-software-as-aservice-gets-lions-share-of-public-cloud-revenue.htm, 7/13/15, SM)
Public cloud computing services are a bright spot in the otherwise stagnant corporate information technology market, and
software-as-a-service (SaaS) vendors are seen benefiting disproportionately in the years ahead. Public cloud

spending reached $67 billion in 2014 and is expected to hit $113 billion in
2018, Technology Business Research said in a report Wednesday. "While the vast majority of IT companies remain
plagued by low-single-digit revenue growth rates at best, investments in public cloud from
software-centric vendors such as Microsoft and SAP are moving the
corporate needle," TBR analyst Jillian Mirandi said in a statement. Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) is pushing the
cloud development platform Azure and migrating Office customers to the cloud-based Office 365. SAP (NYSE:SAP) got a
late start to the public cloud but has acquired SuccessFactors and Ariba to accelerate its efforts. The second half of 2014
was marked by partnerships and integration of services from different vendors in the software-as-a-service sector. SaaS
vendors like Salesforce.com (NYSE:CRM) and Workday (NYSE:WDAY) have also added

cloud-based analytics applications, which have increased their appeal to

business users, Mirandi said. Software-as-a-service accounted for 62% of public
cloud spending last year, and the percentage will decline only modestly in the years ahead. Technology
Business Research estimates that SaaS will be 59.5% of public cloud spending in 2018. Infrastructure-as-aservice (IaaS)is the second-largest category of public cloud spending, at
28.5% in 2014, but climbing to 30.5% in 2018 . IaaS vendors include Amazon.com's
(NASDAQ:AMZN) Amazon Web Services, Microsoft and Google (NASDAQ:GOOGL). Platform-as-a-service (PaaS) is the
third category, accounting for 9.5% of spending last year and projected to be 10% in 2018, TBR says. PaaS vendors include
Google, Microsoft and Salesforce.com.

Tech industry spending high now

Columbus 14

(Louis, 2/24/14, Forbes, The Best Cloud Computing Companies And CEOs To Work For
In 2014, http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiscolumbus/2014/02/24/the-best-cloudcomputing-companies-and-ceos-to-work-for-in-2014/, 7/17/15, SM)
IT decision makers spending on security technologies will increase 46% in 2015, with
cloud computing increasing 42% and business analytics investments up 38%.
. Enterprise investments in storage will increase 36%, and for wireless & mobile, 35%. Cloud computing initiatives are the
most important project for the majority of IT departments today (16%) and are expected to cause the most disruption in
the future. IDG predicts the majority of cloud computings disruption will be focused on improving service and generating
new revenue streams. These and other key take-aways are from recent IDG Enterprise research titled Computerworld
Forecast Study 2015. The goal of the study was to determine IT priorities for 2015 in areas such as spending, staffing and
technology. Computerworld spoke with 194 respondents, 55% of which are from the executive IT roles. 19% from midlevel IT, 16% in IT professional roles and 7% in business management. You can find the results and methodology of the
study here. Additional key take-aways from the study include: Enterprises are predicting they will increase their
spending on security technologies by 46%, cloud computing by 42% with the greatest growth in

enterprises with over 1,000 employees (52%), 38% in business analytics, 36% for storage
solutions and 35% for wireless & mobile. The following graphic provides an overview of the top five tech spending
increases in 2015:

Tech spending is through the roof now

Holland 1/26 (Simon Holland, Marketing technology industry set for explosive
revenue gains, 1/26/15
http://www.marketingtechnews.net/news/2015/jan/26/marketing-technologyindustry-set-explosive-revenue-gains/)
Companies investing in marketing technology will continue to raise their
budgets, with global vendor revenue forecasted to touch $32.2 billion by

2018. The projections, part of an IDC webinar on the marketing software revolution, reveal a
compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 12.4% and total spend of $130 billion
across the five-year stretch between 2014 and 2015. Customer relationship
management software is a sizable growth sector of marketing, with
projections from IDCs software tracker predicting CRM application revenue will reach $31.7 billion
by 2018, a CAGR of 6.9%. A MaaS revival Most marketing solutions are available in the cloud, but some large businesses
are acquiring these point solutions, investing in them and then turning them into a marketing as a service platform. The
MaaS, an industry segment bundling a tech platform, creative services and the IT services to run it, is making a comeback
after economic uncertainty stunted investment in this area for so many years. IDCs view on marketing as a service
platforms is that it will blend global media and marketing tech expenditure. There may have been little or no budget being
attributed to this type of product in 2014, but IDC has forecasted increases in the run up to

2018. Getting the investment in early can set a company up for a similar or larger return later down the road, a fact
demonstrated by IDC that puts spend from digital marketing leaders at $14 million
while achievers and contenders set aside $4.2 million and $3.1 million
respectively.
The tech sector is growing nowemployment
Snyder 2/5 (Bill Snyder, The best jobs are in tech, and so is the job growth,
Febuary 5th, 2015, http://www.infoworld.com/article/2879051/it-careers/the-best-jobsare-in-tech-and-so-is-the-job-growth.html)
In 2014, IT employment grew by 2.4 percent. Although that doesnt sound
like much, it represents more than 100,000 jobs. If the projections by CompTIA
and others hold up, the economy will add even more this year. Tech dominates
the best jobs in America A separate report by Glassdoor, a large job board that
includes employee-written reviews of companies and top managers, singled out 25 of the
best jobs in America, and 10 of those were in IT. Judged by a combination of factors -including earnings potential, career opportunities, and the number of current job listings
-- the highest-rated tech job was software engineer, with an average base salary of
$98,074. In the last three months, employers have posted 104,828 openings for software
engineers and developers on the Glassdoor job site, though many are no longer current.
(Glassdoor combines the titles of software developers and software engineers, so we
don't know how many of those positions were just for engineers.) The highest-paid tech
occupation listed on Glassdoor is solutions architect, with an average base pay of
$121,657. Looked at more broadly, the hottest tech occupation in the United States last
year was Web developer, for which available jobs grew by 4 percent to a total of 235,043
jobs -- a substantial chunk of the 4.88 million employed tech workers, according to the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. As for tech support, jobs in that occupation increased by
2.5 percent to 853,256, which is a bit more than overall tech job growth of 2.4
percent. Taken together, the two new reports provide more evidence that we can
expect at least another year of buoyant employment prospects in IT -- and
give rough guidelines of the skills you need to get a great job and the potential employers
you might contact. Hiring across the economy Most striking is the shift in
employer attitudes over the last year or two, says Tim Herbert, CompTIAs vice
president of research. Theres less concern about the bottom dropping out, he
said. Even worst-case estimates by employers are not at all bad, he adds. The
survey found that 43 percent of the companies say they are understaffed, and 68 percent
say they expect filling those positions will be challenging or very challenging. If thats
the case, supply and demand should push salaries even higher. One of the
most positive trends in last years employment picture is the broad wave of
IT hiring stretching across different sectors of the economy. Companies that
posted the largest number of online ads for IT-related jobs were Accenture, Deloitte,
Oracle, General Dynamics, Amazon.com, JP Morgan, United Health, and Best Buy,

according to Burning Glass Technologies Labor Insights, which tracks online

advertising. Information technology now pervades the entire economy, says
CompTIAs Herbert. Whats more, technologies like cloud computing and
software as a service are cheap enough and stable enough for small and
medium-sized businesses to adopt, which in turn creates even more job
opportunities, he notes.

Econ Collapse No War

Aggregate data proves interstate violence doesnt result from economic
decline
Drezner, 12 --- The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University (October
2012, Daniel W., The Irony of Global Economic Governance: The System Worked,
www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/IR-Colloquium-MT12-Week5_The-Irony-of-Global-Economic-Governance.pdf)
The final outcome addresses a dog that hasnt barked: the effect of the Great Recession
on cross-border conflict and violence. During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple
analysts asserted that the financial crisis would lead states to increase their
use of force as a tool for staying in power.37 Whether through greater internal repression,
diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power conflict, there were genuine concerns
that the global economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflict .
Violence in the Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea, and even the disruptions of the Occupy movement
fuel impressions of surge in global public disorder.

The aggregate data suggests otherwise, however. The Institute for

Economics and Peace has constructed a Global Peace Index annually since
2007. A key conclusion they draw from the 2012 report is that The average
level of peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in 2007.38
Interstate violence in particular has declined since the start of the financial crisis
as have military expenditures in most sampled countries. Other studies confirm that the Great
Recession has not triggered any increase in violent conflict ; the secular decline in
violence that started with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed.39 Rogers Brubaker concludes,
the crisis has not to date generated the surge in protectionist nationalism
or ethnic exclusion that might have been expected.40
None of these data suggest that the global economy is operating swimmingly. Growth remains unbalanced and fragile, and
has clearly slowed in 2012. Transnational capital flows remain depressed compared to pre-crisis levels, primarily due to a
drying up of cross-border interbank lending in Europe. Currency volatility remains an ongoing concern. Compared to the
aftermath of other postwar recessions, growth in output, investment, and employment in the developed world have all
lagged behind. But the Great Recession is not like other postwar recessions in either scope or kind; expecting a standard
V-shaped recovery was unreasonable. One financial analyst characterized the post-2008

global economy as in a state of contained depression. 41 The key word is contained,

however. Given the severity, reach and depth of the 2008 financial crisis, the
proper comparison is with Great Depression. And by that standard, the
outcome variables look impressive. As Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff concluded in This Time
is Different: that its macroeconomic outcome has been only the most severe global recession since World War II and
not even worse must be regarded as fortunate.42

Most rigorous historical analysis proves

Miller, 2K economist, adjunct professor in the University of Ottawas Faculty of
Administration, consultant on international development issues, former Executive
Director and Senior Economist at the World Bank, (Morris, Poverty as a cause of
wars?, Winter, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 25, Iss. 4, p. Proquest)
Perhaps one should ask, as some scholars do, whether it is not poverty as such but some dramatic event or sequence of
such events leading to the exacerbation of poverty that is the factor that contributes in a significant way to the
denouement of war. This calls for addressing the question: do

wars spring from a popular reaction to

an economic crisis that exacerbates poverty and/or from a heightened awareness of
the poor of the wide and growing disparities in wealth and incomes that diminishes
their tolerance to poverty? It seems reasonable to believe that a powerful "shock" factor might act as a
catalyst for a violent reaction on the part of the people or on the part of the political leadership . The leadership,
finding that this sudden adverse economic and social impact destabilizing, would
possibly be tempted to seek a diversion by finding or, if need be, fabricating an enemy

and setting in train the process leading to war. There would not appear to be any
merit in this hypothesis according to a study undertaken by Minxin Pei and Ariel
Adesnik of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. After studying 93
episodes of economic crisis in 22 countries in Latin America and Asia in the years
since World War II they concluded that Much of the conventional wisdom about the
political impact of economic crises may be wrong ..The severity of economic crisis as measured in terms of inflation and negative growth bore no relationship to the
collapse of regimes.(or, in democratic states, rarely) to an outbreak of violenceIn
the cases of dictatorships and semi-democracies, the ruling elites responded to crises
by increasing repression (thereby using one form of violence to abort another.)

1NC Internet Freedom

Cant solve US allies destroy i-freedom signal
Hanson 10/25/12, Nonresident Fellow, Foreign Policy, Brookings
http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2012/10/25-ediplomacy-hanson-internetfreedom
Another challenge is dealing with close partners and allies who undermine internet
freedom. In August 2011, in the midst of the Arab uprisings, the UK experienced a
different connection technology infused movement, the London Riots. On August 11, in
the heat of the crisis, Prime Minister Cameron told the House of Commons: Free flow of
information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill. So we are working with
the police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to
stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are
plotting violence, disorder and criminality. This policy had far-reaching implications. As
recently as January 2011, then President of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, ordered the shutdown of Egypts largest ISPs and the cell phone network, a move the United States had
heavily criticized. Now the UK was contemplating the same move and threatening to
create a rationale for authoritarian governments everywhere to shut down
communications networks when they threatened violence, disorder and criminality.
Other allies like Australia are also pursuing restrictive internet policies. As OpenNet
reported it: Australia maintains some of the most restrictive Internet policies of any
Western country When these allies pursue policies so clearly at odds with the U.S.
internet freedom agenda, several difficulties arise. It undermines the U.S. position that
an open and free internet is something free societies naturally want. It also gives
repressive authoritarian governments an excuse for their own monitoring and filtering
activities. To an extent, U.S. internet freedom policy responds even-handedly to this
challenge because the vast bulk of its grants are for open source circumvention tools that
can be just as readily used by someone in London as Beijing, but so far, the United States
has been much more discreet about criticising the restrictive policies of allies than
authoritarian states.

No evidence that the internet actually spurs democratization

Aday et al. 10 (Sean Aday is an associate professor of media and public affairs and
international affairs at The George Washington University, and director of the Institute
for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication. Henry Farrell is an associate professor
of political science at The George Washington University. Marc Lynch is an associate
professor of political science and international affairs at The George Washington
University and director of the Institute for Middle East Studies. John Sides is an
assistant professor of political science at The George Washington University. John Kelly
is the founder and lead scientist at Morningside Analytics and an affiliate of the Berkman
Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University. Ethan Zuckerman is senior
researcher at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University and
also part of the team building Global Voices, a group of international bloggers bridging
cultural and linguistic differences through weblogs. August 2010, BLOGS AND
BULLETS: new media in contentious politics,
http://www.usip.org/files/resources/pw65.pdf)
New media, such as blogs, Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, have played a major role in
episodes of contentious political action. They are often described as important tools for

activists seeking to replace authoritarian regimes and to promote freedom and

democracy, and they have been lauded for their democratizing potential. Despite the
prominence of Twitter revolutions, color revolutions, and the like in public debate,
policymakers and scholars know very little about whether and how new media affect
contentious politics. Journalistic accounts are inevitably based on anecdotes
rather than rigorously designed research. Although data on new media have been
sketchy, new tools are emerging that measure linkage patterns and content as well as
track memes across media outlets and thus might offer fresh insights into new media.
The impact of new media can be better understood through a framework that considers
five levels of analysis: individual transformation, intergroup relations, collective action,
regime policies, and external attention. New media have the potential to change how
citizens think or act, mitigate or exacerbate group conflict, facilitate collective action,
spur a backlash among regimes, and garner international attention toward a given
country. Evidence from the protests after the Iranian presidential election in June 2009
suggests the utility of examining the role of new media at each of these five levels.
Although there is reason to believe the Iranian case exposes the potential benefits of new
media, other evidencesuch as the Iranian regimes use of the same social network tools
to harass, identify, and imprison protesterssuggests that, like any media, the Internet
is not a magic bullet. At best, it may be a rusty bullet. Indeed, it is plausible
that traditional media sources were equally if not more important. Scholars and
policymakers should adopt a more nuanced view of new medias role in democratization
and social change, one that recognizes that new media can have both positive and
negative effects. Introduction In January 2010, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
articulated a powerful vision of the Internet as promoting freedom and global political
transformation and rewriting the rules of political engagement and action. Her vision
resembles that of others who argue that new media technologies facilitate participatory
politics and mass mobilization, help promote democracy and free markets, and create
new kinds of global citizens. Some observers have even suggested that Twitters creators
should receive the Nobel Peace Prize for their role in the 2009 Iranian protests.1 But not
everyone has such sanguine views. Clinton herself was careful to note when sharing her
vision that new media were not an unmitigated blessing. Pessimists argue that these
technologies may actually exacerbate conflict, as exemplified in Kenya, the Czech
Republic, and Uganda, and help authoritarian regimes monitor and police their citizens.
2 They argue that new media encourage self-segregation and polarization as people seek
out only information that reinforces their prior beliefs, offering ever more opportunities
for the spread of hate, misinformation, and prejudice.3 Some skeptics question whether
new media have significant effects at all. Perhaps they are simply a tool used by those
who would protest in any event or a trendy hook for those seeking to tell political
stories. Do new media have real consequences for contentious politicsand in which
direction?4 The sobering answer is that, fundamentally, no one knows. To this point,
little research has sought to estimate the causal effects of new media in a
methodologically rigorous fashion, or to gather the rich data needed to establish causal
influence. Without rigorous research designs or rich data, partisans of all
viewpoints turn to anecdotal evidence and intuition

Collapse of Internet freedom inevitable

VARA 14 [Vauhini Vara, the former business editor of newyorker.com, lives in

San Francisco and is a business and technology correspondent for the New Yorker.
The World Cracks Down on the Internet, 12-4-14,
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/world-cracks-internet, msm]

In September of last year, Chinese

authorities announced an unorthodox standard to help them decide

people for posting online comments that are false,
defamatory, or otherwise harmful: Was a message popular enough to attract five hundred reposts or five
thousand views? It was a striking example of how sophisticated the Chinese
government has become, in recent years, in restricting Internet communicationgoing
whether to punish

well beyond crude measures like restricting access to particular Web sites or censoring online comments that use certain keywords.
Madeline Earp, a research analyst at Freedom House, the Washington-based nongovernmental organization, suggested a phrase to describe
the approach: strategic, timely censorship. She told me, Its about allowing a surprising amount of open discussion, as long as youre not
the kind of person who can really use that discussion to organize people. On Thursday, Freedom House published its fifth annual report
on Internet freedom around the world. As in years past, China

is again near the bottom of the rankings,

which include sixty-five countries. Only Syria and Iran got worse scores , while Iceland and Estonia fared the best.
(The report was funded partly by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the United States Department of State, Google, and Yahoo, but
Freedom House described the report as its sole responsibility and said that it doesnt necessarily represent its funders views.)

Chinas place in the rankings wont come as a surprise to many people. The notable part is that
the report suggests that, when it comes to Internet freedom, the rest of the world is
gradually becoming more like China and less like Iceland. The researchers found that Internet
freedom declined in thirty-six of the sixty-five countries they studied,
continuing a trajectory they have noticed since they began publishing the
reports in 2010. Earp, who wrote the China section, said that authoritarian regimes might even be
explicitly looking at China as a model in policing Internet communication .
(Last year, she co-authored a report on the topic for the Committee to Protect Journalists.) China isnt alone in its
influence, of course. The reports authors even said that some countries are using the U.S. National Security Agencys widespread
surveillance, which came to light following disclosures by the whistle-blower Edward Snowden, as an excuse to augment their own
monitoring capabilities. Often, the surveillance comes with little or no oversight, they said, and is directed at human-rights activists and
political opponents. China, the U.S., and their copycats arent the only offenders, of course. In fact, interestingly,

the
United States was the sixth-best country for Internet freedom , after Germanythough
this may say as much about the poor state of Web freedom in other places as it does about protections for U.S. Internet users. Among the
other countries, this was a particularly bad year for Russia

and Turkey, which registered the sharpest

declines in Internet freedom from the previous year. In Turkey, over the past several years,
the government has increased censorship, targeted online journalists and
social-media users for assault and prosecution, allowed state agencies to
block content, and charged more people for expressing themselves online , the

report notednot to mention temporarily shutting down access to YouTube and Twitter. As Jenna Krajeski wrote in a post about Turkeys
Twitter ban, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoan vowed in March, Well eradicate Twitter. I dont care what the international community
says. They will see the power of the Turkish Republic. A month later, Russian President Vladimir Putin, not to be outdone by Erdoan,
famously called the Internet a C.I.A. project, as Masha Lipman wrote in a post about Russias recent Internet controls. Since Putin took
office again in 2012, the report found, the government has enacted laws to block online content, prosecuted people for their Internet
activity, and surveilled information and communication technologies. Among changes in other countries, the report said that the
governments of Uzbekistan and Nigeria had passed laws requiring cybercafs to keep logs of their customers, and that the Vietnamese
government began requiring international Internet companies to keep at least one server in Vietnam. Whats behind

the
decline in Internet freedom throughout the world? There could be several reasons for it, but the most obvious one
is also somewhat mundane: especially in countries where people are just beginning to go online in large numbers, governments
that restrict freedom offlineparticularly authoritarian regimesare only beginning to
do the same online, too. Whats more, governments that had been using strategies like blocking certain Web sites to try to control the
Internet are now realizing that those approaches dont actually do much to keep their citizens from seeing content that the governments
would prefer to keep hidden. So theyre turning

to their legal systems, enacting new laws that

restrict how people can use the Internet and other technologies. There is definitely a
sense that the Internet offered this real alternative to traditional mediaand then government started playing catch-up a little bit, Earp
told me. If a regime has developed laws and practices over time that limit what the traditional media can do, theres that moment of
recognition: How can we apply what we learned in the traditional media world online? There were a couple of hopeful signs for Internet
activists during the year. India, where authorities relaxed restrictions that had been imposed in 2013 to help quell rioting, saw the biggest
improvement in its Internet-freedom score. Brazil, too, notched a big gain after lawmakers approved a bill known as the Marco Civil da
Internet, which protects net neutrality and online privacy. But, despite those developments, the reports authors didnt seem particularly
upbeat. There might be some cautious optimism there, but I do not want to overstate that because, since we started tracking this, its been
a continuous decline, unfortunately, Sanja Kelly, the project director for the report, told me. Perhaps the surprising aspect of Freedom
Houses findings isnt that the Internet is becoming less freeits that it has taken this long for it to happen.

As internet use increases, internet freedom will inevitably

decrease its zero-sum
Kelly and Cook 11 [Sanja Kelly, managing editor, and Sarah Cook, assistant editor, at
Freedom House produced "Freedom on the Net: A Global Assessment of Internet and Digital
Media," a 2011 report. Internet freedom, 4-17-11,
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Internet-freedom-declining-as-usegrows-2375021.php, msm]
Indeed, as

more people use the Internet to freely communicate and obtain information, governments
have ratcheted up efforts to control it. Today, more than 2 billion people have access to the Internet, a
number that has more than doubled in the past five years. Deepening Internet penetration is particularly evident in the developing world,
where declining subscription costs, government investments in infrastructure, and the rise of mobile technology has allowed the number of
users to nearly triple since 2006. In order to better understand the diverse, rapidly evolving threats to Internet freedom, Freedom House, a
Washington, D.C., NGO that conducts research on political freedom, has undertaken an analysis - the first of its kind - of the ways in which
governments in 37 key countries create obstacles to Internet access, limit digital content and violate users' rights. What we found was that
Internet freedom in a range of countries, both democratic and authoritarian, is declining. Embold ened

governments and
their sympathizers are increasingly using technical attacks to disrupt
political activists' online networks, eavesdrop on their communications and
debilitate their websites. Such attacks were reported in at least 12 countries ,
ranging from China to Russia, Tunisia to Burma, Iran to Vietnam. In Belarus, at the height of controversial elections, the
authorities created mirror versions of opposition websites, diverting users
to the new ones, where deliberately false information on the times and
locations of protests were posted. In Tunisia, in the run-up to the January 2011 uprising that drove the regime

from power, the authorities regularly broke into the e-mail, Facebook and blogging accounts of opposition and human rights activists, either
deleting specific material or simply collecting intelligence about their plans. Governments

around the world

increasingly are establishing mechanisms to block what they deem to be
undesirable information. In many cases, the restrictions apply to content involving illegal gambling, child
pornography, copyright infringement or the incitement of hatred or violence. However, a large number of
governments are also engaging in deliberate efforts to block access to
information related to politics, social issues and human rights. In Thailand, tens of
thousands of websites critical of the monarchy have been blocked. In China - in addition to blocking dissident websites - user

discussions and blog postings revealing tainted-milk products, pollution or

torture are deleted. Centralized government control over a country's
connection to international Internet traffic also emerged as one significant
threat to online free expression. In one-third of the states examined,
authorities have exploited their control over infrastructure to limit access to
politically and socially controversial content or, in extreme cases, cut off
access to the Internet entirely, as Hosni Mubarak's government did in Egypt
during the height of the protests there. Until recently, the conventional
assumption has been that Internet freedom would inexorably improve,
given the technology's diffuse and open structure. But this assumption was
premature. Our findings should serve as an early warning sign to defenders of free
expression.

Governments will inevitably oppose internet freedom attempts

to oppose it exasperate the problem
Utah Post 1-3 [2014 MARKED THE DECLINE IN INTERNET FREEDOM, 1-315, http://www.utahpeoplespost.com/2015/01/2014-marked-decline-internetfreedom/, msm]

Last year marked a decline in internet freedom in numerous countries , as indicated

The study analyzed 65 countries in terms of user access to
internet and laws governing the World Wide Web . The report shows that web freedom has
corroded for the fourth back to back year. The document highlights
administrative endeavors to ban applications and tech advances by putting

by a report released by the Freedom House.

cutoff points on content, sites filters and infringement of clients rights by

peeping in their online log. The report also warns that 2015s dares in terms of web freedom
will increase as Russia and Turkey plan to increase controls on foreignbased internet organizations. Many countries already put major American
internet businesses into odd circumstances . Among them: Twitter, Facebook
and Google, who were challenged by problematic regulations. Overlooking
these laws has led to their services being hindered. For instance, Googles engineers retreated from Russia while
China blocked Gmail, after the company refused to give the national governments access to its servers. This Wednesday, Vladimir Putin, Russian President approved
the law obliging organizations to store Russian clients information on
servers located on Russian grounds. But only a few countries approve of this new legislation. As a result it is expected that the law will spur
some international debates not long from now. Most of tech experts believe that pieces of legislation and other state measures will not be able to actually stop information from rolling on the
internet. For instance, a year ago Russian powers asked Facebook to shut down a page setup against the government, advancing anti-government protests. Despite the fact that Facebook

The Turkish government

was also slammed by internet power when it attempted to stop the spread of
leaked documents on Twitter in March. Recep Tayyip Erdogans government at the time requested the shutdown of Twitter inside
consented to the request and erased the page, which had 10 million supporters, different replica pages were immediately set up.

Turkey after the organization declined to erase the posts revealing information about government authorities accused of corruption. The result of the government action was that while Twitter was
blocked, Turkish users started to evade the ban. Comparable demands were registered in nations like China, Pakistan, and so forth. According to a popular Russian blogger, Anton Nosik,
governments are delusional to think they can remove an article or video footage from the web when materials can easily be duplicated and posted somewhere else. Most Internet users militate

Governments on the other hand, are not really

fans of this idea. Tech analysts say it is likely to see an increase in clashes
between internet surfers and authorities in various countries throughout
2015.
for a free and limitless system, where individuals are permitted to openly navigate whatever they want.

Democracy causes war much more recent evidence

Lebow 11 (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nedlebow/aggresive_democracies.pdf,
Aggressive Democracies)//A.V.

Aggressive Democracies Richard Ned Lebow1 abstract Democracies

are the most aggressive

regime type measured in terms of war initiation. Since 1945, the United
States has also been the worlds most aggressive state by this measure. This
finding prompts the question of whether the aggressiveness of democracies, and the United States in particular, is due to
regime type or other factors. I make the case for the latter. My argument has implications for the Democratic Peace thesis
and the unfortunate tendency of some of its advocates to use its claims for policy guidance. The Democratic

Peace research programme is based on the putative empirical finding that

democracies do not fight other democracies. It has generated a large
literature around the validity of this finding and about the reasons why
democracies do not initiate wars against democratic opponents. In this
paper, I do not engage these controversies directly, but rather look at the
record of democracies as war initiators in the post-World War II period.
They turn out to be the most aggressive regime type measured by war
initiation. The United States, which claims to be the worlds leading democracy, is also the worlds most aggressive
state by this measure. Below, I first document this set of claims using a data set that Benjamin Valentino and I
constructed. Next, I speculate about some of the reasons why the United States has been such an aggressive state in the
post-war era. In particular, I am interested in the extent to which this aggressiveness is due to democratic governance or
other, more idiosyncratic factors. I am inclined to make the case for the latter. This argument has implications for the
Democratic Peace thesis and the unfortunate tendency of some of its advocates to use its claims for policy guidance.
Richard Ned Lebow, Aggressive Democracies, St Antonys International Review 6, no. 2 (2011): 120133.121 The United
States and War Initiation The more meaningful peer group comparison for the United States is with the countries of
Western Europe, Japan, the Old Commonwealth (Canada, Australia, and New Zealand), and certain Latin American
states. This is because these are all fellow democracies thatlike the United

Statesare relatively well-established, relatively liberal, relatively wealthy

(on a per capita income basis), and unlike Israel and Indiarelatively geo-politically
secure and relatively lacking in severe religious and ethnic tension . Here the
United States is clearly an outlier, as only two of these countries initiated wars (France and Britain against Egypt in 1956).
Britain was also a partner of the United States in the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The United States
differs from all these countries in several important ways. In A Cultural Theory of International Relations, I describe it as a
parvenu power. These are states that are late entrants into the arena where they can compete for standing and do so with
greater intensity than other states. Moreover, due to the ideational legacy left by their parvenu status, such states may
continue to behave like this for a considerable time after achieving great power status. They devote a higher

percentage of their national income to military forces and pursue more

aggressive foreign policies. Examples include Sweden under Gustavus Adolphus, Prussia and
Russia in the eighteenth centuries, and Japan and the United States in the late nineteenth
and twentieth centuries.5 Unlike other parvenu powers, the constraints on the United States were more
internal than external. Congress, not other powers, kept American presidents from playing a more active role in European
affairs in the 1920s and 1930s and forced a withdrawal from Indochina in the 1970s. The United States was never spurned
or humiliated by other powers, but some American presidents and their advisers did feel humiliated by the constraints
imposed upon them domestically. They frequently sought to commit the country to activist policies through membership
in international institutions that involved long-term obligations (for example, the imf and nato), executive actions (for
example, the 1940 destroyer deal, intervention in the Korean War, and sending Marines to Lebanon in 1958), and
congressional resolutions secured on the basis of false or misleading information (the Gulf of Tonkin and Iraq War
resolutions). Ironically, concern for credibility promoted ill-considered and open-ended commitments like Vietnam and
Iraq that later led to public opposition and the congressional constraints that subsequent American presidents considered
detrimental to presidential credibility. Instead of 123 prompting a reassessment of national

security strategy, these setbacks appear to have strengthened the

commitment of at least some presidents and their advisers to breaking free
of these constraints and asserting leadership in the world, thus ushering in
a new cycle of overextension, failure, and renewed constraints. The United States is
unique in other ways. It is by far and away the most powerful economy in the world . At the end of World
War II, it accounted for 46 per cent of the worlds gross domestic product
(gdp) and today represents a still-impressive 21 per cent.6 Prodigious
wealth allows the United States to spend an extraordinary percentage of its
gdp on its armed forces in comparison to other countries. In the aftermath of the Cold
War, most countries cut back on military spending, but us spending has increased. In 2003, the United
States spent $417 billion on defence, 47 per cent of the world total .7 In 2008, it
spent 41 per cent of its national budget on the military and the cost of past wars, which accounted for almost 50 per cent of
world defence spending. In absolute terms, this was twice the total of Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, Germany, and
China combined. Not surprisingly, the United States is the only state with global military reach.8 Democratic and
Republican administrations alike have held that extraordinary levels of military expenditure will sustain, if not increase,
the standing and influence that traditionally comes with military dominance. It is intended to make the United States, in
the words of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, the indispensable nationthe only power capable of
enforcing global order.9 An equally important point is that possession of such military instruments encourages
policymakers to formulate maximalist objectives. Such goals are, by definition, more difficult to achieve by diplomacy,
pushing the United States into eyeball-to-eyeball confrontations where the use of force becomes a possibility. us defence
expenditure also reflects the political power of the military-industrial complex. Defence spending has encouraged the
dependence of numerous companies on the government and helped bring others into being. In 1991, at the end of the Cold
War, twelve million people, roughly ten per cent of the us workforce, were directly or indirectly dependent upon defence
dollars. The number has not changed significantly since. Having such a large impact on the

economy gives defence contractors enormous political clout.10 Those who

land major weapons projects are careful to subcontract production across
the country, often offering a part of the production process to companies in
every state. This gives the contractors enormous political leverage in
Congress, often 124

2NC Internet Freedom

Cant Solve Authoritarianism

Internet freedom is just as likely to be used to crush dissent
Siegel 11 (Lee Siegel, a columnist and editor at large for The New York Observer, is the
author of Against the Machine: How the Web Is Reshaping Culture and Commerce
and Why It Matters. The Net Delusion and the Egypt Crisis, February 4, 2011,
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/the-net-delusion-and-the-egypt-crisis)
Morozov takes the ideas of what he calls cyber-utopians and shows how reality
perverts them in one political situation after another. In Iran, the regime used the
internet to crush the internet-driven protests in June 2009. In Russia, neofascists use
the internet to organize pogroms. And on and on. Morozov has written hundreds of
pages to make the point that technology is amoral and cuts many different ways. Just as
radio can bolster democracy or as in Rwanda incite genocide, so the internet can
help foment a revolution but can also help crush it. This seems obvious, yet it has often
been entirely lost as grand claims are made for the internets positive, liberating
qualities. And suddenly here are Tunisia and, even more dramatically, Egypt,
simultaneously proving and refuting Morozovs argument. In both cases, social
networking allowed truths that had been whispered to be widely broadcast and
commented upon. In Tunisia and Egypt and now across the Arab world Facebook
and Twitter have made people feel less alone in their rage at the governments that stifle
their lives. There is nothing more politically emboldening than to feel, all at once, that
what you have experienced as personal bitterness is actually an objective condition, a
universal affliction in your society that therefore can be universally opposed. Yet at the
same time, the Egyptian government shut off the internet, which is an effective way of
using the internet. And according to one Egyptian blogger, misinformation is being
spread through Facebook as it was in Iran just as real information was shared by
anti-government protesters. This is the dark side of internet freedom that
Morozov is warning against. It is the freedom to wantonly crush the forces of freedom.
All this should not surprise anyone. It seems that, just as with every other type of
technology of communication, the internet is not a solution to human conflict but an
amplifier for all aspects of a conflict. As you read about pro-government agitators
charging into crowds of protesters on horseback and camel, you realize that nothing has
changed in our new internet age. The human situation is the same as it always was,
except that it is the same in a newer and more intense way. Decades from now, we will no
doubt be celebrating a spanking new technology that promises to liberate us from the
internet. And the argument joined by Morozov will occur once again.
Mobilization and Internet access are not correlated other factors are more
important
Kuebler 11 (Johanne Kuebler, contributor to the CyberOrient journal, Vol. 5, Iss. 1,
2011, Overcoming the Digital Divide: The Internet and Political Mobilization in Egypt
and Tunisia, http://www.cyberorient.net/article.do?articleId=6212)
The assumption that the uncensored accessibility of the Internet encourages the struggle
for democracy has to be differentiated. At first sight, the case studies seem to confirm the
statement, since Egypt, featuring a usually uncensored access to the Internet, has
witnessed mass mobilisations organised over the Internet while Tunisia had not.
However, the mere availability of freely accessible Internet is not a sufficient condition
insofar as mobilisations in Egypt took place when a relative small portion of the

population had Internet access and, on the other hand, mobilisation witnessed a decline
between 2005 and 2008 although the number of Internet users rose during the same
period. As there is no direct correlation between increased Internet use and
political action organised through this medium, we have to assume a more complex
relationship. A successful social movement seems to need more than a virtual space of
debate to be successful, although such a space can be an important complementary
factor in opening windows and expanding the realm of what can be said in public. A
political movement revolves around a core of key actors, and "netizens" qualify for this
task. The Internet also features a variety of tools that facilitate the organisation of events.
However, to be successful, social movements need more than a well-organised campaign.
In Egypt, we witnessed an important interaction between print and online media,
between the representatives of a relative elitist medium and the traditional, more
accessible print media. A social movement needs to provide frames resonating with
grievances of the public coupled with periods of increased public attention to politics in
order to create opportunity structures. To further transport their message and to attract
supporters, a reflection of the struggle of the movement with the government in the
"classical" media such as newspapers and television channels is necessary to give the
movement momentum outside the Internet context.

Democracy Bad
Democracies start more wars- statistical analysis proves
Henderson 2 (Errol Henderson, Assistant Professor, Dept. of Political Science at the University
of Florida, 2002, Democracy and War The End of an Illusion?, p. 146)
Are Democracies More Peaceful than Nondemocracies with Respect to Interstate Wars ? The results indicate that
democracies are more war-prone than non-democracies (whether democracy is coded
dichotomously or continuously) and that democracies are more likely to initiate interstate
wars. The findings are obtained from analyses that control for a host of political,
economic, and cultural factors that have been implicated in the onset of
interstate war, and focus explicitly on state level factors instead of simply inferring state level processes from
dyadic level observations as was done in earlier studies (e.g., Oneal and Russett, 1997; Oneal and Ray, 1997). The
results imply that democratic enlargement is more likely to increase the probability

of

war for states since democracies are more likely to become involved inand to initiateinterstate wars.
Democracy leads to wars against non-democracies.
Daase 6 (Christopher, Chair in International Organisation, University of Frankfurt, Democratic
Wars, pg. 77)
In what follows, I will focus on three reasons why democracies might be peaceful to each other, but abrasive or even
bellicose towards non- democracies. The first reason is an institutional one: domestic institutions

dampen conflicts among democracies but aggravate conflicts between

democracies and non-democracies. The second reason is a normative one: shared social
values and political ideals prevent wars between democracies but make wars
between democracies and non-democracies more likely and savage. The third reason is
a structural one: the search for safety encourages democracies to create security
communities by renouncing violence among themselves but demands
assertiveness against outsiders and the willingness to use military means if
enlargement of that community cannot be achieved peacefully. To illustrate this, I will
draw mainly on the United States as an example following a Tocquevlllean tradition, but knowing that not all
democracies behave in the same way or that the US is the only war-fighting democracy. It is clear that the hypotheses
are first conjectures and that more case studies and quantitative tests are needed to reach more general conclusions .

Democratic governments engage in diversionary wars to influence elections.

Daase 6 (Christopher, Chair in International Organisation, University of Frankfurt, Democratic
Wars, pg. 77)
However, there is a contradictory effect as well. Democratic governments are tempted to use
military violence prior to elections if their public esteem is in decline and if they must fear not being
re-elected (Ostrom and]ob, 1986; Russett, 1990; Mintz and Russett, 1992; Mintz and Geza, 1993). In doing so, they
count on the 'rally round the flag' effect, which is usually of short duration but
long enough to make the public forget economic misery or governmental
misbehaviour in order to influence tight elections results in favour of the
incumbent. This diversionary effect of warfare is especially attractive to
democracies since they have no other means at their disposal to diffuse
discontent or suppress internal conflict. Therefore, the use of military force for
diversionary purposes is generally 'a pathology of democratic systems' (Gelpi, 1997,
p. 280).

1NC Solvency
5 alt causes Aff doesnt solve
Enderle 6/12
(Rob, 6/12/15, CIO, US surveillance programs are killing the tech industry, Rob is the president
and principal analyst of the Enderle Group, he has worked for IBM, Dell, Microsoft, Siemens, and
Intel, MBA @ California State University, Long Beach,
http://www.cio.com/article/2934887/privacy/u-s-surveillance-programs-are-killing-the-techindustry.html, 7/13/15, SM)

The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, ranked as the most authoritative science and
technology think tank in the U.S. (second in the world behind Max Planck Institutes of Germany), has just
released its latest report on the impact of the existence and disclosure of the broad NSA national and
international spying programs. It was initially reported that the revenue loss range would be between
$21.5 billion and $35 billion, mostly affecting U.S. cloud service providers. However, they have gone back
and researched the impact and found it to be both far larger and far broader than originally estimated. In
fact, it appears the surveillance programs could cause a number of U.S. technology firms to fail outright or
to be forced into bankruptcy as they reorganize for survival. The damage has also since spread to domestic
aerospace and telephony service providers. The programs identified in the report are PRISM;

the program authorized by the FISA Amendments act, which allowed search without
the need for a warrant domestically and abroad, and Bullrun; the program designed
to compromise encryption technology worldwide. The report ends in the following
recommendations: Increase transparency about U.S. surveillance activities both at
home and abroad. Strengthen information security by opposing any government
efforts to introduce backdoors in software or weaken encryption. Strengthen U.S.
mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs). Work to establish international legal standards for
government access to data. Complete trade agreements like the Trans Pacific Partnership
that ban digital protectionism, and pressure nations that seek to erect protectionist
barriers to abandon those efforts. The 2014 survey indicates that 25 percent of companies in the

UK and Canada plan to pull data out of the U.S. Of those responding, 82 percent indicated they now look at
national laws as the major deciding factor with regard to where they put their data. Software-as-a-Service
(SaaS) company Birst indicated that its European customers are refusing to host information in the U.S. for
fear of spying. Salesforce, another SaaS company, revealed that its German insurance client pulled out of
using the firm. In fact, Salesforce faced major short-term sales losses and suffered a $124 million deficit in
the fiscal quarter after the NSA revelations according to the report. Cisco, the U.S. firm that leads the
networking market, reported that sales was interrupted in Brazil, China and Russia as a result of the belief
that the U.S. had placed backdoors in its networking products. Ciscos CEO, John Chambers, tied his
revenue shortfall to the NSA disclosure. Servint, a U.S. Web Hosting company, reported losing half of its
international clients as a result of the NSA Disclosure. Qualcomm, IBM, Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard
have all reported significant adverse revenue impact in China from the NSA disclosure. A variety of U.S.
companies including Cisco, McAfee/Intel, Apple and Citrix Systems were all dropped from the approved list
for the Chinese government as a result of the NSA disclosure. But it isnt even just tech companies that
have lost significant customers and revenues. Boeing lost a major defense contract to Saab AB to replace
Brazils aging fighter jets due to the disclosure. Verizon was dropped by a large number German
government facilities for fear Verizon would open them up to wiretapping and other surveillance.

Executive circumvented FISA once- no proof that it wont

happen again
NYT 07 ( Spies, Lies and FISA, October 14 2007,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/opinion/14sun1.html?_r=0, Accessed
7/16/15)

As Democratic lawmakers try to repair a deeply flawed bill on electronic eavesdropping, the White House is
pumping out the same fog of fear and disinformation it used to push the bill through Congress this
summer. President Bush has been telling Americans that any change would deny the government critical
information, make it easier for terrorists to infiltrate, expose state secrets, and make it harder to save
American lives. There is no truth to any of those claims. No matter how often Mr. Bush says otherwise,

there is also no disagreement from the Democrats about the need to provide adequate tools to fight
terrorists. The debate is over whether this should be done constitutionally, or at the whim of the president.

or FISA, requires a warrant to

intercept international communications involving anyone in the
United States. A secret court has granted these warrants quickly nearly every time it has been
asked. After 9/11, the Patriot Act made it even easier to conduct
surveillance, especially in hot pursuit of terrorists. But that was not good
The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,

enough for the Bush team, which was determined to use the nations tragedy to grab ever more power for

Bush ignored the FISA law and ordered the

National Security Agency to intercept phone calls and e-mail
between people abroad and people in the United States without a
warrant, as long as the target was not in this country. The
president did not announce his decision. He allowed a few lawmakers to be briefed
but withheld key documents. The special intelligence court was in the dark
until The Times disclosed the spying in December 2005. Mr. Bush still
refused to stop. He claimed that FISA was too limiting for the
Internet-speed war against terror. But he never explained those limits and rebuffed
lawmakers offers to legally accommodate his concerns. This year, the administration found
an actual problem with FISA: It requires a warrant to eavesdrop on
communications between foreigners that go through computers in
the United States. It was a problem that did not exist in 1978, and it had an easy fix. But Mr.
its vision of an imperial presidency. Mr.

Bushs lawyers tacked dangerous additions onto a bill being rushed through Congress before the recess.
When the smoke cleared, Congress had fixed the real loophole, but also endorsed the idea of spying
without court approval. It gave legal cover to more than five years of illegal spying. Fortunately, the law is
to expire in February, and some Democratic legislators are trying to fix it. House members have drafted a
bill, which is a big improvement but still needs work. The Senate is working on its bill, and we hope it will
show the courage this time to restore the rule of law to American surveillance programs. There are some
red lines, starting with the absolute need for court supervision of any surveillance that can involve
American citizens or others in the United States. The bill passed in August allowed the administration to
inform the FISA court about its methods and then issue blanket demands for data to communications
companies without any further court approval or review. The House bill would permit the government to
conduct surveillance for 45 days before submitting it to court review and approval. (Mr. Bush is wrong
when he says the bill would slow down intelligence gathering.) After that, ideally, the law would require a
real warrant. If Congress will not do that, at a minimum it must require spying programs to undergo
periodic audits by the court and Congress. The administration wants no reviews. Mr. Bush and his team say
they have safeguards to protect civil liberties, meaning surveillance will be reviewed by the attorney
general, the director of national intelligence and the inspectors general of the Justice Department and the
Central Intelligence Agency. There are two enormous flaws in that. The Constitution is based on the rule of
law, not individuals; giving such power to any president would be un-American. And this one long ago
showed he cannot be trusted. Last week, The Times reported that the C.I.A. director, Gen. Michael V.
Hayden, is investigating the office of his agencys inspector general after it inquired into policies on
detention and interrogation. This improper, perhaps illegal investigation sends a clear message of
intimidation. We also know that the F.B.I. has abused expanded powers it was granted after 9/11 and that
the former attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, systematically covered up the presidents actions with

Mr. Bush says the law should give immunity to

communications companies that gave data to the government over
the last five years without a court order. He says they should not be
punished for helping to protect America, but what Mr. Bush really
wants is to avoid lawsuits that could uncover the extent of the
illegal spying he authorized after 9/11. It may be possible to shield these companies
deliberately misleading testimony.

from liability, since the government lied to them about the legality of its requests. But the law should allow
suits aimed at forcing disclosure of Mr. Bushs actions. It should also require a full accounting to Congress
of all surveillance conducted since 9/11. And it should have an expiration date, which the White House
does not want. Ever since 9/11, we have watched Republican lawmakers help Mr. Bush shred the
Constitution in the name of fighting terrorism. We have seen Democrats acquiesce or retreat in fear. It is
time for that to stop.

2NC Solvency

Alt Causes
6 more alt causes the Aff doesnt resolve any of them
Kehl et al 14 (Danielle Kehl is a Policy Analyst at New Americas Open Technology Institute
(OTI). Kevin Bankston is the Policy Director at OTI, Robyn Greene is a Policy Counsel at OTI, and
Robert Morgus is a Research Associate at OTI, New Americas Open Technology Institute Policy
Paper, Surveillance Costs: The NSAs Impact on the Economy, Internet Freedom &
Cybersecurity, July 2014// rck)
The U.S. government has already taken some limited steps to mitigate this damage and begin the slow, difficult process of
rebuilding trust in the United States as a responsible steward of the Internet. But the reform efforts to date have been
relatively narrow, focusing primarily on the surveillance programs impact on the rights of U.S. citizens. Based on our
findings, we recommend that the U.S. government take the following steps to address the broader concern that the NSAs
programs are impacting our economy, our foreign relations, and our cybersecurity: Strengthen privacy protections for
both Americans and non-Americans, within the United States and extraterritorially. Provide for increased

transparency around government surveillance, both from the government and companies.
Recommit to the Internet Freedom agenda in a way that directly addresses issues raised by NSA
surveillance, including moving toward international human-rights based standards on
surveillance. Begin the process of restoring trust in cryptography standards through the National
Institute of Standards and Technology. Ensure that the U.S. government does not undermine cybersecurity by
inserting surveillance backdoors into hardware or software products. Help to eliminate security vulnerabilities
in software, rather than stockpile them. Develop clear policies about whether, when, and under
what legal standards it is permissible for the government to secretly install malware on a
computer or in a network. Separate the offensive and defensive functions of the NSA in order to
minimize conflicts of interest.

Circumvention

The executive can circumvent via national security letters

Sanchez 15
(Julian Dont (Just) Let the Sun Go Down on Patriot Powers, May 29, 2015,
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/dont-just-let-the-sun-go-down-on-patriot-powers)
Also permanent are National Security Letters or NSLs, which allow the FBI to obtain a more
limited range of telecommunications and financial records without even needing to seek
judicial approval. Unsurprisingly, the government loves these streamlined tools, and used

them so promiscuously that the FBI didnt even bother using 215 for more than a
year after the passage of the Patriot Act. Inspector General reports have also made clear that
the FBI is happy to substitute NSLs for 215 orders when even the highly
accommodating FISC manages a rare display of backbone. In at least one case, when
the secret court refused an application for journalists records on First Amendment grounds,
the Bureau turned around and obtained the same data using National Security
Letters.
Executive will circumvent the NSA- FDR wire tapping proves
Katyal and Caplan 08 (The Surprisingly Stronger Case for the Legality
of the NSA Surveillance Program: FDR Precendent,
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu /cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1058&context=fwps_papers, accessed 7-15-2015, EHS MKS)
This Article explains why the legal case for the recently disclosed National Security
Agency surveillance program turns out to be stronger than what the
Administration has advanced. In defending its action, the Administration
overlooked the details surrounding one of the most important
periods of presidentially imposed surveillance in wartime President
Franklin Delano Roosevelts (FDR) wiretapping and his secret endrun around both the wiretapping prohibition enacted by Congress
and decisions of the United States Supreme Court. In our view, the argument
does not quite carry the day, but it is a much heftier one than those that the Administration has put forth
to date to justify its NSA program. The secret history, moreover, serves as a powerful new backdrop

we believe that compliance with

executive branch precedent is a critical element in assessing the
legality of a Presidents actions during a time of armed conflic t. In
the crucible of legal questions surrounding war and peace, few
judicial precedents will provide concrete answers. Instead, courts
will tend to invoke the political question doctrine or other prudential
canons to stay silent; and even in those cases where they reach the
merits, courts will generally follow a minimalist path. For these and other
against which to view todays controversy. In general,

reasons, the ways in which past Presidents have acted will often be a more useful guide in assessing the

as Presidents face pressures on security

unimaginable to any other actor outside or inside government . At the
legality of a particular program,

same time as Presidents realize these pressures, they are under an oath to the Constitution, and so the
ways in which they balance constitutional governance and security threats can and should inform practice
today

***Off Case***

<<T Domestic>>

Top Shelf

1NC Shell
T NOT DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE
A. DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE IS SURVEILLANCE OF US PERSONS
Small 8
MATTHEW L. SMALL. United States Air Force Academy 2008 Center for the Study
of the Presidency and Congress, Presidential Fellows Program paper "His Eyes are Watching
You: Domestic Surveillance, Civil Liberties and Executive Power during Times of National Crisis"
http://cspc.nonprofitsoapbox.com/storage/documents/Fellows2008/Small.pdf
Before one can make any sort of assessment of domestic surveillance policies, it is first necessary to narrow the scope
of the term domestic surveillance. 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 12333 (3.4) (i)). With this definition domestic surveillance remains
an overly broad concept. This papers analysis, in terms of President Bushs policies, focuses on electronic
surveillance; specifically, wiretapping phone lines and obtaining caller information from phone companies. Section f
of the USA Patriot Act of 2001 defines electronic surveillance as:

B. ANY FOREIGN ELEMENT IS NOT DOMESTIC

Olberman 6 Countdown with Keith Olberman, msnbc.com updated 1/26/2006 7:05:00
PM ET White House defines 'domestic' spying
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/11048359/ns/msnbc-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/t/whitehouse-defines-domestic-spying/#.VU1lZJOYF2A
The White House is trying to sell this so hard that it actually issued an official press release
titled, Setting the Record Straight, Charges of Domestic Spying. Look, your tax dollars in
action. Word wealth, SAT training class. As a public service, COUNTDOWN will now review, and, where applicable,
provide translations of the White House take on what domestic means versus what
international means, and then well add a few bonus examples of our own. Quoting, Deputy Director Of
National Intelligence General Michael Hayden, semicolon; One End Of Any Call Targeted Under This Program Is
Always Outside The United States. This is the glass-is-half-full view of warrantless eavesdropping, much as if a U.S.
soldier, who, like the average human male, has about 12 pints of blood in his body, would lose six of those pints.
Critics of the NSA terrorist surveillance program would say, That soldier is half empty. The White House would
remind you that that soldier is half full. Anyway, the press release actually gives several examples of the differences
between the meanings of these two words. Definition, Domestic Versus International. Domestic Calls are

calls inside the United States. International Calls are calls either to or from the
United States. And dont forget to deposit $2 for the first five minutes, and an extra $2 to cover the cost of the
guy listening in at the NSA. Domestic Flights, the White House reminds us, are flights
from one American city to another. International Flights are flights to or from
the United States. So what happens if I call a domestic airline about a flight to Europe, but theyve
outsourced their reservation agents to India? Is that a domestic call about an international flight, or an international
call about a domestic flight? Wait, theres more. Domestic Mail consists of letters and packages sent within the
United States, the press release reads. International Mail consists of letters and packages sent to or from the United
States. And dont forget, we can not only open either kind, kind if we damn well feel like it, but if youre using an
international stamp and we need it for our collection, were keeping it. One more item from the press release,
Domestic Commerce involves business within the United States. International Commerce involves business between
the United States and other countries. International commerce. You know, the kind of stuff Jack Abramoff did for
the -- Huh, leave Abramoff out of it? Gotcha, sorry.

C. SECTION 702 IS SURVEILLANCE OF NON-US PERSONS IN FOREIGN

LOCATIONS
Wyden 14 (Ron Wyden, senator for Oregon, Section 702,
http://www.wyden.senate.gov/download/?id=ea62ab96-06c3-4c0f-abc2c2fd70776179&download=1, al)
Title VII, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Procedures for
Targeting Certain Persons Outside the United States Other Than United States Persons (50
U.S.C. sec. 1881a) x This authority allows only the targeting, for foreign intelligence purposes, of
communications of foreign persons who are located abroad. x The government may not target any U.S.

person anywhere in the world under this authority, nor may it target a person outside of the U.S. if the purpose is to
acquire information from a particular, known person inside the U.S.

D. THE AFFIRMATIVE INTERPRETATION IS BAD FOR DEBATE Limits are

necessary for negative preparation and clash, and their interpretation makes the
topic too big. Immigration is a huge area, big enough to be a topic itself, and all the
issues are completely different.
E. T IS A VOTER because the opportunity to prepare promotes better debating

Overview
Our interpretation is that topical affirmatives must be surveillance of US
persons located within the US their affirmative is surveillance of non-US
persons in foreign locations, which is a voting issue.
T version of the Aff

AT: W/M
They dont meet Section 702 is not domestic surveillance because it is
foreign surveillance of foreign persons.

AT: C/I
Their interpretation is bad ___
Prefer our interpretation Small 8 takes the general consensus of the
intelligence community, which would include experts on surveillance, to
define domestic surveillance as US persons. Olberman 6 should be
preferred over any piece of evidence they read because it comes from the
White House its the most predictable definition and has the most accurate
definition of domestic surveillance, which is that it must be calls inside the
US.

Impact Debate

XT: Limits
Extend limits requiring surveillance to be of US persons and within the US
narrows the literature base because there are infinite Affs if the surveillance
can be foreign. Allowing the Aff to read a plan about foreign surveillance
explodes limits because it goes way outside the scope of domestic
surveillance we prevent the proliferation of infinite and impossible to
research mechanisms.
Crafting a limited interpretation of domestic is necessary to stabilize our
resolutional focus and to foster in-depth research on the plan. Only our
interpretation facilitates specific debates, which are critical to accurately
test the Affirmatives desirability, whereas shallow and overly generic
debates dont focus our learning in the same way.

Blocks

Extra-T
Extra T is a voting issue
1. Limits allowing them to go outside of resolutional actions lets them do
anything there is no way to predict the infinite number of advantages they
can garner.
2. Topicality the extra topical portions of the plan arent domestic
surveillance kills topic specific education allowing them to go outside
detracts focus from the resolution.

AT: Overlimit
Better to overlimit than underlimit depth over breadth, we can have more
in-depth debate about actually topical Affs.

AT: Predictability
They are the opposite of predictable when debating domestic surveillance,
nobody is expected to do research on surveillance of non-US persons in
foreign locations.

AT: Reasonability
Prefer competing interpretations
1. Theyre not reasonable the limits debate proves they explode the topic,
there is no way our interpretations are even close.
2. Reasonability forces judge intervention having the judge decide what
reasonable means in every different round means that we can never have
a definition of what is and is not reasonable.

AT: Potential Abuse

It is about what you justify whenever a judge deems your Aff topical, it
allows anybody to read an Aff that takes twenty steps to curtail domestic
surveillance set the precedent at the beginning of camp

<<Terror DA>>

Top Shelf

1NC Shell
Terror risk is high- maintaining current surveillance is key
Inserra, 6/8 (David Inserra is a Research Associate for Homeland Security and Cyber Security
in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign and National Security Policy of the Kathryn
and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, at The Heritage
Foundation, 6-8-2015, "69th Islamist Terrorist Plot: Ongoing Spike in Terrorism Should Force
Congress to Finally Confront the Terrorist Threat," Heritage Foundation,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/06/69th-islamist-terrorist-plot-ongoing-spikein-terrorism-should-force-congress-to-finally-confront-the-terrorist-threat)
On June 2 in Boston, Usaamah Abdullah Rahim drew a knife and attacked police
officers and FBI agents, who then shot and killed him. Rahim was being watched by
Bostons Joint Terrorism Task Force as he had been plotting to behead police
officers as part of violent jihad. A conspirator, David Wright or Dawud Sharif Abdul
Khaliq, was arrested shortly thereafter for helping Rahim to plan this attack. This
plot marks the 69th publicly known Islamist terrorist plot or attack against the U.S.
homeland since 9/11, and is part of a recent spike in terrorist activity. The U.S. must
redouble its efforts to stop terrorists before they strike, through the use of properly
applied intelligence tools. The Plot According to the criminal complaint filed against Wright, Rahim had
originally planned to behead an individual outside the state of Massachusetts,[1] which, according to news reports citing
anonymous government officials, was Pamela Geller, the organizer of the draw Mohammed cartoon contest in Garland,
Texas.[2] To this end, Rahim had purchased multiple knives, each over 1 foot long, from Amazon.com. The FBI was

listening in on the calls between Rahim and Wright and recorded multiple
conversations regarding how these weapons would be used to behead someone .
Rahim then changed his plan early on the morning of June 2. He planned to go on vacation right here in Massachusetts.
Im just going to, ah, go after them, those boys in blue. Cause, ah, its the easiest target.[3] Rahim and Wright had used
the phrase going on vacation repeatedly in their conversations as a euphemism for violent jihad. During this
conversation, Rahim told Wright that he planned to attack a police officer on June 2 or June 3. Wright then offered advice
on preparing a will and destroying any incriminating evidence. Based on this threat, Boston police officers and FBI agents
approached Rahim to question him, which prompted him to pull out one of his knives. After being told to drop his
weapon, Rahim responded with you drop yours and moved toward the officers, who then shot and killed him. While
Rahims brother, Ibrahim, initially claimed that Rahim was shot in the back, video surveillance was shown to community
leaders and civil rights groups, who have confirmed that Rahim was not shot in the back.[4 ] Terrorism Not Going Away
This 69th Islamist plot is also the seventh in this calendar year. Details on how exactly Rahim
was radicalized are still forthcoming, but according to anonymous officials, online propaganda from
ISIS and other radical Islamist groups are the source.[5] That would make this attack

the 58th homegrown terrorist plot and continue the recent trend of ISIS playing an
important role in radicalizing individuals in the United States. It is also the sixth plot or
attack targeting law enforcement in the U.S., with a recent uptick in plots aimed at police. While the debate over the
PATRIOT Act and the USA FREEDOM Act is taking a break, the terrorists are not. The result of the debate has been the
reduction of U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism capabilities, meaning that the U.S. has to do even more with less when
it comes to connecting the dots on terrorist plots.[6] Other legitimate intelligence tools and
capabilities must be leaned on now even more. Protecting the Homeland To keep the U.S. safe,
Congress must take a hard look at the U.S. counterterrorism enterprise and determine other measures that are needed to
improve it. Congress should: Emphasize community outreach. Federal grant funds should be used to create robust
community-outreach capabilities in higher-risk urban areas. These funds must not be used for political pork, or so broadly
that they no longer target those communities at greatest risk. Such capabilities are key to building trust within these
communities, and if the United States is to thwart lone-wolf terrorist attacks, it must place effective community outreach
operations at the tip of the spear. Prioritize local cyber capabilities. Building cyber-investigation capabilities in the higherrisk urban areas must become a primary focus of Department of Homeland Security grants. With so much terrorismrelated activity occurring on the Internet, local law enforcement must have the constitutional ability to monitor and track
violent extremist activity on the Web when reasonable suspicion exists to do so. Push the FBI toward being more
effectively driven by intelligence. While the FBI has made high-level changes to its mission and organizational structure,
the bureau is still working on integrating intelligence and law enforcement activities. Full integration will require
overcoming inter-agency cultural barriers and providing FBI intelligence personnel with resources, opportunities, and the
stature they need to become a more effective and integral part of the FBI . Maintain essential

counterterrorism tools. Support for important investigative tools is essential to

maintaining the security of the U.S. and combating terrorist threats. Legitimate
government surveillance programs are also a vital component of U.S. national
security and should be allowed to continue. The need for effective counterterrorism
operations does not relieve the government of its obligation to follow the law and

respect individual privacy and liberty. In the American system, the government
must do both equally well. Clear-Eyed Vigilance The recent spike in terrorist plots and
attacks should finally awaken policymakersall Americans, for that matterto the seriousness
of the terrorist threat. Neither fearmongering nor willful blindness serves the
United States. Congress must recognize and acknowledge the nature and the scope
of the Islamist terrorist threat, and take the appropriate action to confront it.
Bulk surveillance is crucial to detect and act on threats many examples prove
Hines 13 [Pierre Hines is a defense council member of the Truman National Security Project,
Heres how metadata on billions of phone calls predicts terrorist attacks
http://qz.com/95719/heres-how-metadata-on-billions-of-phone-calls-predicts-terrorist-attacks,
June 19th, 2013//Rahul]
Yesterday, when NSA Director General Keith Alexander testified before the House
Committee on Intelligence, he declared that the NSAs surveillance programs have
provided critical leads to help prevent over 50 potential terrorist events. FBI
Deputy Director Sean Boyce elaborated by describing four instances when the NSAs
surveillance programs have had an impact: (1) when an intercepted email from a
terrorist in Pakistan led to foiling a plan to bomb of the New York subway system;
(2) when NSAs programs helped prevent a plot to bomb the New York Stock
Exchange; (3) when intelligence led to the arrest of a U.S. citizen who planned to
bomb the Danish Newspaper office that published cartoon depictions of the Prophet
Muhammad; and (4) when the NSAs programs triggered reopening the 9/11
investigation. So what are the practical applications of internet and phone records gathered from two NSA
programs? And how can metadata actually prevent terrorist attacks? Metadata does not give the NSA and intelligence
community access to the content of internet and phone communications. Instead, metadata is more like the

transactional information cell phone customers would normally see on their billing
statementsmetadata can indicate when a call, email, or online chat began and how long the communication lasted.
Section 215 of the Patriot Act provides the legal authority to obtain business records from phone companies. Meanwhile,
the NSA uses Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to authorize its
PRISM program. According the figures provided by Gen. Alexander, intelligence gathered based on
Section 702 authority contributed in over 90% of the 50 cases . One of major benefits of
metadata is that it provides hindsightit gives intelligence analysts a retrospective view of a
sequence of events. As Deputy Director Boyce discussed, the ability to analyze previous
communications allowed the FBI to reopen the 9/11 investigation and determine who was linked to that attack. It

is important to recognize that terrorist attacks are not orchestrated overnight; they
take months or years to plan. Therefore, if the intelligence community only catches
wind of an attack halfway into the terrorists planning cycle, or even after a terrorist attack has
taken place, metadata might be the only source of information that captures the
sequence of events leading up to an attack. Once a terrorist suspect has been identified or once an attack has
taken place, intelligence analysts can use powerful software to sift through metadata to determine which numbers, IP
addresses, or individuals are associated with the suspect. Moreover, phone numbers and IP addresses

sometimes serve as a proxy for the general location of where the planning has taken
place. This ability to narrow down the location of terrorists can help determine
whether the intelligence community is dealing with a domestic or international threat. Even
more useful than hindsight is a crystal ball that gives the intelligence community a look into the future. Simply knowing
how many individuals are in a chat room, how many individuals have contacted a particular phone user, or how many
individuals are on an email chain could serve as an indicator of how many terrorists are involved in a plot. Furthermore,
knowing when a suspect communicates can help identify his patterns of behavior. For instance, metadata can help
establish whether a suspect communicates sporadically or on a set pattern (e.g., making
a call every Saturday at 2 p.m.). Any deviation from that pattern could indicate that the plan
changed at a certain point; any phone number or email address used consistently and then not at all could
indicate that a suspect has stopped communicating with an associate. Additionally, a rapid increase in communication
could indicate that an attack is about to happen. Metadata can provide all of this information

without ever exposing the content of a phone call or email. If the metadata reveals
the suspect is engaged in terrorist activities, then obtaining a warrant would allow
intelligence officials to actually monitor the content of the suspects
communication. In Gen. Alexanders words, These programs have protected our country and allies . . . [t]hese

programs have been approved by the administration, Congress, and the courts. Now, Americans will have to decide
whether they agree.

Terrorists will use bioweapons- guarantees extinction

Cooper 13 (Joshua, 1/23/13, University of South Carolina, Bioterrorism and the Fermi
Paradox, http://people.math.sc.edu/cooper/fermi.pdf, 7/15/15, SM)
We may conclude that, when a civilization reaches its space-faring age, it will more or less at the same
moment (1) contain many individuals who seek to cause large-scale destruction, and
(2) acquire the capacity to tinker with its own genetic chemistry. This is a perfect
recipe for bioterrorism, and, given the many very natural pathways for its
development and the overwhelming evidence that precisely this course
has been taken by humanity, it is hard to see how bioterrorism does not provide a neat, if
profoundly unsettling, solution to Fermis paradox. One might object that, if omnicidal individuals are
successful in releasing highly virulent and deadly genetic malware into the wild, they
are still unlikely to succeed in killing everyone. However, even if every such mass death event
results only in a high (i.e., not total) kill rate and there is a large gap between each
such event (so that individuals can build up the requisite scientific infrastructure
again), extinction would be inevitable regardless. Some of the engineered bioweapons will
be more successful than others; the inter-apocalyptic eras will vary in length; and post-apocalyptic
environments may be so war-torn, disease-stricken, and impoverished of genetic
variation that they may culminate in true extinction events even if the initial
cataclysm only results in 90% death rates, since they may cause the effective
population size to dip below the so-called minimum viable population . This author

ran a Monte Carlo simulation using as (admittedly very crude and poorly informed, though arguably
conservative) estimates the following Earth-like parameters: bioterrorism event mean death rate 50%
and standard deviation 25% (beta distribution), initial population 1010, minimum viable population 4000,
individual omnicidal act probability 107 per annum, and population growth rate 2% per annum. One
thousand trials yielded an average post-space-age time until extinction of less than 8000 years. This is
essentially instantaneous on a cosmological scale, and varying the parameters by quite a bit does nothing
to make the survival period comparable with the age of the universe.

Overview
1. Current NSA surveillance efforts that would be curtailed by FISA Court
restrictions on Section 702 would guarantee a terrorist attack via bioweapons
intelligence gathered based on Section 702 has been crucial to counterterrorism
efforts.
Disease would rapidly spread, and war over whatever minimal resources were left
would be inevitable, causing extinction.
2. DA outweighs case:
A. Magnitude a bioweapon rapidly spreading fatal diseases would wipe out the
entire population, whereas economic collapse would only affect a small amount
B. Time frame a terrorist attack would immediately obliterate everything,
whereas economic collapse would take a number of years before having its minimal
effect
3. DA turns case:
A. Turns econ post attack intervention would cost the state over $1 trillion and
cause mass deaths
Inglesby 14
(Tom, 2/11/14, UPMC Center for Health Security of the University of Pittsburgh medical Center,
Bioterrorism: Assessing the Threat, Tom is a director and CEO of the UPMC Center for Health
Security and an Associate Professor of Medicine and Public Health at the University of Pittsburgh,
http://www.upmchealthsecurity.org/our-work/testimony/bioterrorism-assessing-the-threat,
7/15/15, SM)
The Consequences of Biological Weapons The anthrax events of 2001 were shocking for the country.
Letters carrying anthrax spores were sent to a number of people in different cities. Hospitals, doctors, and
nurses at the time were largely unfamiliar with the disease. Elements of all three branches of government
were each affected and closed at some point. Buildings had to be evacuated for prolonged periods. Cases
appeared over weeks in different places. A number of people were sickened and killed. The source of the
anthrax could not be identified. The communication about it from our own government was often uncertain
and changing. The media coverage was constant. People were afraid of their own mail. Nothing like this
had happened before in our country or any country. A great deal has been done to improve our ability to
recognize and respond to biological weapons events since that time. I will say more about that below. But
it is important for this committee to know that a future biological weapons attack on the US could

look quite different from the 2001 anthrax incident - in terms of size of attack, form, and the
numbers affected. The anthrax letters of 2001 came with a warning in them, which allowed some people
to begin taking protective antibiotics and initiate evacuation. Future events are unlikely to come with
warnings like that. It is more likely that the first sign of a bioterror attack will be sick people appearing in
clinics and emergency rooms. And while the anthrax letters of 2001 came through the mail, future
bioterrorism attacks could come in many different kinds of form. There are many means of creating
aerosols. And there are clearly other means of using biological weapons against the public. We also

need
to understand that the scope of future bioweapons events could be far, far greater that what we
saw in 2001. In 2009, the US National Security Council said: "The effective dissemination of a lethal
biological agent within an unprotected population could place at risk the lives of hundreds of
thousands of people. The unmitigated consequences of such an event could overwhelm our public
health capabilities, potentially causing an untold number of deaths. The economic cost could
exceed $1 trillion for each such incident." The use of such weapons could lead to
substantial loss of life and great societal disruption. Even with a small or modest-sized attack, the
social and economic impact would be significant.
B. Turns privacy and Internet freedom a major terrorist attack would increase
surveillance because more would be necessary to prevent future attacks; the NSA
would be even more invasive than they are now

Uniqueness
Extend Inserra 6/8 a recent spike in terrorist plots means the risk is extremely
high; US intelligence tools have been key to stop the 69 known terrorist plots, and
current programs balance both national security and individuals privacy rights.

Homegrown
Homegrown terrorism on the rise74 plots discovered
Blackmore 1/17 (Carrie Blackmore, 1-17-2015, "Number of homegrown terrorists is rising," USA
TODAY, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/17/number-of-homegrownterrorists-is-rising/21940159/)
CINCINNATI We are far from knowing the outcome of the case against Christopher Cornell, the young local
man accused of plotting an attack on the U.S. Capitol, but if he is convicted, he would be added to a growing
list of homegrown jihadist terrorists. From Sept. 11, 2001, to January 2014, there
were 74 known terrorist plots perpetrated by Americans, lawful U.S. residents or
visitors largely radicalized here in the United States, according to the most recent data reported by
the Congressional Research Service. Five of those plots were carried out before law enforcement was able to intervene.

Fifty-three of the cases almost 72 percent happened after April 2009. That's a
152 percent increase over that time period and constitutes a spike , according to the report
by the service, an agency that works exclusively for the U.S. Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees
and members of the House and Senate. "It may be too early to tell how sustained this uptick is," the report reads.
"Regardless, the apparent spike in such activity after April 2009 suggests that ideologies
supporting violent jihad continue to influence some Americans even if a tiny minority." A
review of the 74 cases shows that just seven were initiated by someone working independently, a

lone wolf. Forty-five of the 74 planned to attack a domestic target.

The likelihood of a lone wolf attack is growing
Zenko 5/19 (Micah, 5/19/15, Council on Foreign Relations, "Is US Foreign Policy Ignorning
Homegrown Terrorists?")
On February 12, National Counterterrorism Center Director Nicholas Rasmussen told the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence: We face a much greater, more frequent, recurring threat from lone offenders and

probably loose networks of individuals. Measured in terms of frequency and numbers, it is attacks
from those sources that are increasingly the most noteworthy On February 26, during the annual
worldwide threats hearing, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper warned: Home-grown violent
extremists continue to pose the most likely threat to the homeland. Last Friday, Secretary of Homeland
Security Jeh Johnson stated on MSNBC: Were in a new phasein the global terrorist threat where, because of
effective use of social media, the Internet, by ISIL, al-Qaeda, we have to be concerned about the independent actor who is
here in the homeland who may strike with little or no warning Finally, yesterday, former CIA deputy director Michael
Morell described the messaging efforts of jihadist groups generally and the self-declared Islamic State (IS) more
specifically: Their narrative is pretty powerful: The West, the United States, the modern world, is a
significant threat to their religion. Their answer to that is to establish a caliphate. And they are being attacked by
the U.S. and other Western nations, and by these apostate regimes in the region. Because they are being attacked

they need support in two ways; people coming to fight for them, and people coming to stand up
and attack coalition nations in their home. In summary, the most likelythough not most lethalterror
threats to Americans come from individuals living within the United States who are partially
motivated to undertake self-directed attacks based upon their perception that the United States
and the West are at war with the Muslim world.

ISIS
Isis is mobilizing now and ready to take action.
DeSoto 5/7 (Randy DeSoto May 7, 2015 http://www.westernjournalism.com/isis-claims-tohave-71-trained-soldiers-in-targeted-u-s-states/ Randy DeSoto is a writer for Western
Journalism, which consistently ranks in the top 5 most popular conservative online news outlets
in the country)
Purported ISIS jihadists issued threats against the United States Tuesday,
indicating the group has trained soldiers positioned throughout the country, ready
to attack any target we desire. The online post singles out controversial blogger Pamela Geller, one of the
organizers of the Draw the Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest in Garland, Texas, calling for her death to heal the
hearts of our brothers and disperse the ones behind her. ISIS also claimed responsibility for the

shooting, which marked the first time the terror group claimed responsibility for an
attack on U.S. soil, according to the New York Daily News. The attack by the Islamic State in America is only
the beginning of our efforts to establish a wiliyah [authority or governance] in the heart of our enemy, the ISIS post reads.
As for Geller, the jihadists state: To those who protect her: this will be your only warning of housing this woman and her
circus show. Everyone who houses her events, gives her a platform to spill her filth are legitimate targets. We have been
watching closely who was present at this event and the shooter of our brothers. ISIS further claims to have

known that the Muhammad cartoon contest venue would be heavily guarded, but
conducted the attack to demonstrate the willingness of its followers to die for the
Sake of Allah. The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, in fact, issued a bulletin on April 20 indicating
the event would be a likely terror target. ISIS drew its message to a close with an ominous threat:
We have 71 trained soldiers in 15 different states ready at our word to attack any
target we desire. Out of the 71 trained soldiers 23 have signed up for missions like
Sunday, We are increasing in number bithnillah [if God wills]. Of the 15 states, 5 we will
name Virginia, Maryland, Illinois, California, and MichiganThe next six months will be
interesting. Fox News reports that the U.S. intelligence community was assessing the threat
and trying to determine if the source is directly related to ISIS leadership or an
opportunist such as a low-level militant seeking to further capitalize on the Garland
incident. Former Navy Seal Rob ONeill told Fox News he believes the ISIS threat is credible, and the U.S. must be
prepared. He added that the incident in Garland is a prime example of the difference between a gun free zone and Texas.
They showed up at Charlie Hebdo, and it was a massacre. If these two guys had gotten into that building it would have
been Charlie Hebdo times ten. But these two guys showed up because they were offended by something protected by the
First Amendment, and were quickly introduced to the Second Amendment. Geller issued a statement regarding the
ISIS posting: This threat illustrates the savagery and barbarism of the Islamic State. They want me dead for violating
Sharia blasphemy laws. What remains to be seen is whether the free world will finally wake up and stand for the freedom
of speech, or instead kowtow to this evil and continue to denounce me.

Isis threat level at military bases increasing

Starr 5/8 (Barbara, 5/8/15, cnn pentagon correspondent ISIS activity prompts threat level
increase at bases http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/08/politics/isis-activity-prompts-threat-levelincrease-at-bases/)
On Thursday, FBI Director James Comey told reporters that there are thousands of
ISIS, also known as ISIL, followers online in the U.S. "We have a general concern,
obviously, that ISIL is focusing on the uniformed military and law enforcement,"
Comey told reporters Thursday. The order to upgrade the threat level was signed by Admiral William Gortney, head of the
U.S. Northern Command, which oversees all U.S. military installations in the continental U.S. The security order affects
3,200 sites, including bases, National Guard facilities, recruiting stations and health clinics, a Pentagon official said. "We
have the same concern about the potential threat posed by violent homegrown extremists," said Captain Jeff Davis,
spokesman for the U.S. Northern Command, or NORTHCOM. Davis declined to specify the new security measures. But
the change in threat level status could mean more checks of vehicles entering bases,
and more thorough identity checks of all personnel. Davis emphasized that "this is the new
normal, that we are going to have increased vigilance and force protection. We seek to be
unpredictable." A U.S. military official said the order to raise the force protection level to Bravo also applies to all National
Guard installations, recruiting stations, and ROTC detachments, though practically speaking, the official acknowledges it
will be difficult for the ROTC detachments to do much more than security awareness. In addition, security was raised
recently at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio, in response to a perceived threat to the base security,
another U.S. military official said. The threat was never deemed credible, but it came after another security concern at a
base in Delaware used by Vice President Joe Biden when he flies home. On Friday, Wright-Patterson

announced that the Air Force museum, which is part of the base, was canceling a
planned Friday night concert and was stopping tours that were regularly offered
until further notice. The base said this was "due to elevated security measures."
Since NORTHCOM was established in October 2002, the threat level has reached
Bravo on four occasions: Feb. 9, 2003, amid concerns al Qaeda was planning
attacks on American targets; Dec. 21, 2003, when officials were concerned about
attacks during the holiday season; May 1, 2011, in the aftermath of the raid that
killed Osama bin Laden; and the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.
ISIS will emerge as a serious threat to the US
Morell 15 (Michael Morell is the former deputy director of the CIA and has twice served as
acting director. He is the author of The Great War of Our Time: The CIA's Fight Against
Terrorism From al Qa'ida to ISIS. May 14, 2015 Time Magazine ISIS Is a Danger on U.S.
Soil http://time.com/3858354/isis-is-a-danger-on-u-s-soil/)
The terrorist group poses a gathering threat. In the aftermath of the attempted terrorist attack on May 4 in Garland,
Texasfor which ISIS claimed responsibilitywe find ourselves again considering the question of whether
or not ISIS is a real threat. The answer is yes. A very serious one. Extremists inspired by
Osama bin Ladens ideology consider themselves to be at war with the U.S.; they want to
attack us. It is important to never forget thatno matter how long it has been since 9/11. ISIS is just the latest
manifestation of bin Ladens design. The group has grown faster than any terrorist group we
can remember, and the threat it poses to us is as wide-ranging as any we have seen .
What ISIS has that al-Qaeda doesnt is a Madison Avenue level of sophisticated messaging and social media. ISIS has a
multilingual propaganda arm known as al-Hayat, which uses GoPros and cameras mounted on drones to make videos that
appeal to its followers. And ISIS uses just about every tool in the platform boxfrom Twitter to YouTube to Instagramto
great effect, attracting fighters and funding. Digital media are one of the groups most significant strengths; they have
helped ISIS become an organization that poses four significant threats to the U.S. First, it is a threat to the stability of the
entire Middle East. ISIS is putting the territorial integrity of both Iraq and Syria at risk. And a further collapse of either or
both of these states could easily spread throughout the region, bringing with it sectarian and religious strife, humanitarian
crises and the violent redrawing of borders, all in a part of the world that remains critical to U.S. national interests. ISIS
now controls more territoryin Iraq and Syriathan any other terrorist group anywhere in the world. When al-Qaeda in
Iraq joined the fight in Syria, the group changed its name to ISIS. ISIS added Syrians and foreign fighters to its ranks, built
its supply of arms and money and gained significant battlefield experience fighting Bashar Assads regime. Together with
the security vacuum in Iraq and Nouri al-Malikis alienation of the Sunnis, this culminated in ISISs successful blitzkrieg
across western Iraq in the spring and summer of 2014, when it seized large amounts of territory. ISIS is not the first
extremist group to take and hold territory. Al-Shabab in Somalia did so a number of years ago and still holds territory
there, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb did so in Mali in 2012, and al-Qaeda in Yemen did so there at roughly the same
time. I fully expect extremist groups to attempt to takeand sometimes be successful in takingterritory in the years
ahead. But no other group has taken so much territory so quickly as ISIS has. Second, ISIS is attracting young men and
women to travel to Syria and Iraq to join its cause. At this writing, at least 20,000 foreign nationals from roughly 90
countries have gone to Syria and Iraq to join the fight. Most have joined ISIS. This flow of foreigners has outstripped the
flow of such fighters into Iraq during the war there a decade ago. And there are more foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq
today than there were in Afghanistan in the 1980s working to drive the Soviet Union out of that country. These foreign
nationals are getting experience on the battlefield, and they are becoming increasingly radicalized to ISISs cause. There is
a particular subset of these fighters to worry about. Somewhere between 3,500 and 5,000 jihadist
wannabes have traveled to Syria and Iraq from Western Europe, Canada, Australia and the U.S. They all have
easy access to the U.S. homeland, which presents two major concerns: that these

fighters will leave the Middle East and either conduct an attack on their own or
conduct an attack at the direction of the ISIS leadership. The former has already
happened in Europe. It has not happened yet in the U.S.but it will . In spring 2014, Mehdi
Nemmouche, a young Frenchman who went to fight in Syria, returned to Europe and shot three people at the Jewish
Museum of Belgium in Brussels. The third threat is that ISIS is building a following among other extremist groups around
the world. The allied exaltation is happening at a faster pace than al-Qaeda ever enjoyed. It has occurred in Algeria, Libya,
Egypt and Afghanistan. More will follow. These groups, which are already dangerous, will become even more so. They will
increasingly target ISISs enemies (including us), and they will increasingly take on ISISs brutality. We saw the targeting
play out in early 2015 when an ISIS-associated group in Libya killed an American in an attack on a hotel in Tripoli
frequented by diplomats and international businesspeople. And we saw the extreme violence play out just a few weeks
after that when another ISIS-affiliated group in Libya beheaded 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians. And fourth, perhaps most
insidiously, ISISs message is radicalizing young men and women around the globe who have never traveled to Syria or
Iraq but who want to commit an attack to demonstrate their solidarity with ISIS. These are the so-called lone wolves. Even
before May 4, such an ISIS-inspired attack had already occurred in the U.S.: an individual with sympathies for ISIS
attacked two New York City police officers with a hatchet. Al-Qaeda has inspired such U.S. attacksthe Fort Hood
shootings in late 2009 that killed 13 and the Boston Marathon bombing in spring 2013 that killed five and injured nearly
300. The attempted attack in Texas is just the latest of these. We can expect more of these kinds of attacks in the U. S.
Attacks by ISIS-inspired individuals are occurring at a rapid pace around the worldroughly 10 since ISIS took control of

so much territory. Two such attacks have occurred in Canada, including the October 2014 attack on the Parliament
building. And another occurred in Sydney, in December 2014. Many planning such attacksin Australia, Western Europe
and the U.S.have been arrested before they could carry out their terrorist plans. Today an ISIS-directed

attack in the U. S. would be relatively unsophisticated (small-scale), but over time

ISISs capabilities will grow. This is what a long-term safe haven in Iraq and Syria would give ISIS, and it is
exactly what the group is planning to do. They have announced their intentionsjust like bin Laden did in the years prior
to 9/11.

ISIS will attack three reasons its capabilities are growing, an attack would be
good propaganda, and it basically hates all things America
Rogan 15 (Tom, panelist on The McLaughlin Group and holds the Tony Blankley Chair at the
Steamboat Institute, Why ISIS Will Attack America, National Review, 3-24-15,
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415866/why-isis-will-attack-america-tom-rogan)//MJ
There is no good in you if they are secure and happy while you have a pulsing vein. Erupt volcanoes of jihad everywhere.
Light the earth with fire upon all the [apostate rulers], their soldiers and supporters. ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi,
November 2014. Those words werent idle. The Islamic State (ISIS) is still advancing, across continents

and cultures. Its attacking Shia Muslims in Yemen, gunning down Western tourists
in Tunisia, beheading Christians in Libya, and murdering or enslaving all who do
not yield in Iraq and Syria. Its black banner seen as undaunted by the international coalition against it, new
recruits still flock to its service. The Islamic States rise is, in other words, not over, and it is likely to end
up involving an attack on America. Three reasons why such an attempt is inevitable: ISISS STRATEGY
PRACTICALLY DEMANDS IT Imbued with existential hatred against the United States, the group doesnt just oppose
American power, it opposes Americas identity. Where the United States is a secular democracy that binds law to
individual freedom, the Islamic State is a totalitarian empire determined to sweep freedom from the earth. As an
ideological and physical necessity, ISIS must ultimately conquer America. Incidentally,
this kind of total-war strategy explains why counterterrorism experts are rightly concerned about nuclear proliferation.
The Islamic States strategy is also energized by its desire to replace al-Qaeda as Salafi
jihadisms global figurehead. While al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and ISIS had a short flirtation
last year, ISIS has now signaled its intent to usurp al-Qaedas power in its home territory. Attacks by ISIS last week against
Shia mosques in the Yemeni capital of Sanaa were, at least in part, designed to suck recruits, financial donors, and
prestige away from AQAP. But to truly displace al-Qaeda, ISIS knows it must furnish a new
9/11. ITS CAPABILITIES ARE GROWING Today, ISIS has thousands of European citizens in its ranks.
Educated at the online University of Edward Snowden, ISIS operations officers have cut back

intelligence services ability to monitor and disrupt their communications. With EU

intelligence services stretched beyond breaking point, ISIS has the means and
confidence to attempt attacks against the West. EU passports are powerful weapons: ISIS could
attack as al-Qaeda has repeatedly U.S. targets around the world. AN ATTACK ON THE U.S. IS
PRICELESS PROPAGANDA For transnational Salafi jihadists like al-Qaeda and ISIS, a successful
blow against the U.S. allows them to claim the mantle of a global force and
strengthens the narrative that theyre on a holy mission. Holiness is especially important: ISIS
knows that to recruit new fanatics and deter its enemies, it must offer an abiding narrative of strength and divine purpose.

With the groups leaders styling themselves as Mohammeds heirs, Allahs chosen
warriors on earth, attacking the infidel United States would reinforce ISISs
narrative. Of course, attacking America wouldnt actually serve the Islamic States long-term objectives. Quite the
opposite: Any atrocity would fuel a popular American resolve to crush the group with expediency. (Make no mistake, it
would be crushed.) The problem, however, is that, until then, America is in the bulls eye.

Al-Qaeda
Terror threat high nowAl Qaeda initiatives prove
Daily Mail 7/15 (7-15-2015, "Terror alert remains high,"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-181751/Terror-alert-remains-high.html)
Britain and the US remained on terror alert today, following a call from Osama bin
Laden's deputy for Muslims to attack the "missions" of the two countries. An audio
tape said to have come from Ayman al-Zawahri was played on Arabic television
station al-Jazeera, urging "brothers" to follow the example of the September 11
hijackers. "Consider your 19 brothers who attacked America in Washington and
New York with their planes as an example," said the voice, identified as al-Zawahri by al-Jazeera, which
did not say how it got the tape. "Attack the missions of the United States , the UK, Australia and Norway
and their interests, companies and employees. Turn the ground beneath their feet
into an inferno and kick them out of your countries," said the tape. "Know that you are
not alone in this battle. Your mujahadeen brothers are following the enemies as
well and are lying in wait for them." Al-Zawahri, who has not been seen since the
war in Afghanistan, lashed out at Arab leaders for offering "airports and the
facilities" to the Allied troops, in an apparent reference to the war on Iraq. His call to
arms came as British and US embassies in the Saudi capital Riyadh remained shut amid fears they could be targeted in
"imminent" terrorist attacks, and America upped its homeland terror alert status. Hijack plot foiled And details
emerged of a possible al Qaida plot to hijack a civilian airliner in the Saudi town of Jeddah and crash it into a bank.
According to reports, three armed Moroccans arrested in Jeddah's airport on Monday had planned the suicide hijack and
hoped to crash the plane into the headquarters of Saudi's National Commercial Bank. It was not clear if they were linked
to last week's triple suicide bombings of foreign residential compounds in Riyadh which killed 34, including two Britons,
or similar bombings in Morocco on Friday. Security boosted Security officials warned that al Qaida

appeared to be entering an "active" phase of attacks, aimed at showing it was still

operational despite the so-called "war on terror". The British, German and Italian embassies in the
Saudi capital Riyadh closed to the public yesterday following intelligence reports that terrorist attacks were being planned.
The British consulate in Jeddah and trade office in al Khobar were also closed from yesterday. It is expected the offices will
reopen on Saturday, although the situation will be kept under review. The US closed its embassy and consulates in the
Middle Eastern kingdom on Tuesday, a week after the series of suicide bomb attacks in Riyadh. The Bush administration
raised America's terror alert level to orange, its second highest level, amid fears that the wave of terrorist attacks in Saudi,
Morocco and Israel will spread to the US.

Link
Extend Hines 13 restrictions by the FISA Court on NSA data collection through
Section 702 would mean records key to stopping terrorism would be unavailable to
the government. Specifically, through Section 702, the government has been
essential to preventing over 90% of the 50 known terrorist plots. Metadata is the
only source of information that can capture the sequence of events, which is crucial
to stopping large-scale terrorist attacks.
Unwarranted domestic surveillance is the most significant anti-terror tool
available- allows us to infiltrate terror groups and prevent weapons proliferationhas solved 53 of 54 suppressed terror attacks in recent years
Clarke et al 2013 [Report and Recommendations of the Presidents Review Group on
Intelligence and Surveillance Technologies, Liberty and Security in a Changing World,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2013-12-12_rg_final_report.pdf, Accessed
7/3/15, AX]
According to NSA, section 702 is the most significant tool in NSA collection arsenal for the
detection, identification, and disruption of terrorist threats to the US and around the world. To
cite just one example, collection under section 702 was critical to the discovery and disruption of a
planned bomb attack in 2009 against the New York City subway system and led to the arrest and
conviction of Najibullah Zazi and several of his co-conspirators. According to the Department of Justice and
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in a 2012 report to Congress: Section 702 enables the
Government to collect information effectively and efficiently about foreign targets overseas and in
a manner that protects the privacy and civil liberties of Americans. Through rigorous oversight,
the Government is able to evaluate whether changes are needed to the procedures or guidelines,
and what other steps may be appropriate to safeguard the privacy of personal information . In addition, the
Department of Justice provides the joint assessments and other reports to the FISC. The FISC has been actively involved
in the review of section 702 collection. Together, all of these mechanisms ensure thorough and continuous oversight of
section 702 activities. . . . Section 702 is vital to keeping the nation safe. It provides information about

the plans and identities of terrorists allowing us to glimpse inside terrorist organizations and
obtain information about how those groups function and receive support. In addition, it lets us collect
information about the intentions and capabilities of weapons proliferators and other foreign
adversaries who threaten the United States. In reauthorizing section 702 for an additional five years in 2012,
the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded: [T]he authorities provided [under section
702] have greatly increased the governments ability to collect information and act quickly against
important foreign intelligence targets. The Committee has also found that [section 702] has been implemented

with attention to protecting the privacy and civil liberties of US persons, and has been the subject of extensive oversight by
the Executive branch, the FISC, as well as the Congress. . . . [The] failure to reauthorize [section 702] would

result in a loss of significant intelligence and impede the ability of the Intelligence Community to
respond quickly to new threats and intelligence opportunities.147Our own review is not inconsistent with
this assessment. During the course of our analysis, NSA shared with the Review Group the details of 54
counterterrorism investigations since 2007 that resulted in the prevention of terrorist attacks in
diverse nations and the United States. In all but one of these cases, information obtained under
section 702 contributed in some degree to the success of the investigation. Although it is difficult to assess
precisely how many of these investigations would have turned out differently without the information learned through
section 702, we are persuaded that section 702 does in fact play an important role in the nations effort to

prevent terrorist attacks across the globe.

Mass surveillance has thwarted many attacks more transparency of the programs
makes attacks very likely
Nakashima 13 [Ellen Nakashima, national security reporter for The Washington Post. She
focuses on issues relating to intelligence, technology and civil liberties. Officials: Surveillance
programs foiled more than 50 terrorist plots, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nationalsecurity/officials-surveillance-programs-foiled-more-than-50-terroristplots/2013/06/18/d657cb56-d83e-11e2-9df4-895344c13c30_story.html, June 18th, 2013//Rahul]

The U.S. governments sweeping surveillance programs have disrupted more than 50 terrorist
plots in the United States and abroad, including a plan to bomb the New York Stock Exchange,
senior government officials testified Tuesday. The officials, appearing before a largely friendly House committee,
defended the collection of telephone and Internet data by the National Security Agency as central
to protecting the United States and its allies against terrorist attacks. And they said that recent
disclosures about the surveillance operations have caused serious damage. We are now faced with a situation
that, because this information has been made public, we run the risk of losing these collection capabilities,
said Robert S. Litt, general counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Were not going to know for
many months whether these leaks in fact have caused us to lose these capabilities, but if they do have that effect, there is
no doubt that they will cause our national security to be affected. The hearing before the House
Intelligence Committee was the third congressional session examining the leaks of classified material about two top-secret
surveillance programs by Edward Snowden, 29, a former NSA contractor and onetime CIA employee. Articles based on the
material in The Washington Post and Britains Guardian newspaper have raised concerns about intrusions on civil
liberties and forced the Obama administration to mount an aggressive defense of the effectiveness and privacy protections
of the operations. Gen. Keith B. Alexander, the head of the NSA, told the committee that the programs had
helped prevent potential terrorist events over 50 times since 9/11. He said at least 10 of the disrupted
plots involved terrorism suspects or targets in the United States. Alexander said officials do not plan to release additional
information publicly, to avoid revealing sources and methods of operation, but he said the House and Senate intelligence
committees will receive classified details of the thwarted plots. Newly revealed plots In testimony last week, Alexander

said the surveillance programs had helped prevent an attack on the subway system in New York
City and the bombing of a Danish newspaper. Sean Joyce, deputy director of the FBI, described two
additional plots Tuesday that he said were stopped through the surveillance a plan by a Kansas
City, Mo., man to bomb the New York Stock Exchange and efforts by a San Diego man to send
money to terrorists in Somalia. The officials said repeatedly that the operations were authorized by Congress and
subject to oversight through internal mechanisms and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, whose proceedings are
secret. Alexander said that more than 90 percent of the information on the foiled plots came from a program targeting the
communications of foreigners, known as PRISM. The program was authorized under Section 702 of a 2008
law that amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The law authorizes the NSA to collect e-

mails and other Internet communications to and from foreign targets overseas who are thought to
be involved in terrorism or nuclear proliferation or who might provide critical foreign
intelligence. No American in the country or abroad can be targeted without a warrant, and no person inside the United
States can be targeted without a warrant. A second program collects all call records from U.S. phone companies. It is
authorized under Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act. The records do not include the content of calls, location data, or a
subscribers name or address. That law, passed in 2001 and renewed twice since then, also amended FISA. Snowden, a
high school dropout who worked at an NSA operations center in Hawaii for 15 months as a contractor, released highly
classified information on both programs, claiming they represent government overreach. He has been in hiding since
publicly acknowledging on June 9 that he leaked the material. Several lawmakers pressed for answers on how Snowden, a
low-level systems administrator, could have had access to highly classified material such as a court order for phone
records. We need to seal this crack in the system, said Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (Md.), the ranking Democrat on
the intelligence panel. Alexander said he is working with intelligence officials to come up with a two-person rule to
ensure that the agency can block unauthorized people from removing information from the system. But Alexander and the
other witnesses focused more heavily on justifying the programs and arguing that they operate under legal guidelines. As
Americans, we value our privacy and our civil liberties, Alexander said. As Americans, we also value our security and our
safety. In the 12 years since the attacks on September 11th, we have lived in relative safety and

security as a nation. That security is a direct result of the intelligence communitys quiet efforts to
better connect the dots and learn from the mistakes that permitted those attacks to occur on
9/11.
Surveillance is necessary and has very little negative consequences on civil liberty
Boot 13 [Max Boot, Max Boot is an American author, consultant, editorialist, lecturer, and
military historian, Stay calm and let the NSA carry on,
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/09/opinion/la-oe-boot-nsa-surveillance-20130609, June
9th, 2015//Rahul]
After 9/11, there was a widespread expectation of many more terrorist attacks on the United States.
So far that hasn't happened. We haven't escaped entirely unscathed (see Boston Marathon, bombing of),
but on the whole we have been a lot safer than most security experts, including me, expected. In light
of the current controversy over the National Security Agency's monitoring of telephone calls and emails, it is worthwhile to
ask: Why is that? It is certainly not due to any change of heart among our enemies. Radical Islamists still want to
kill American infidels. But the vast majority of the time, they fail. The Heritage Foundation estimated last
year that 50 terrorist attacks on the American homeland had been foiled since 2001. Some, admittedly,
failed through sheer incompetence on the part of the would-be terrorists. For instance, Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani

American jihadist, planted a car bomb in Times Square in 2010 that started smoking before exploding, thereby alerting
two New Yorkers who in turn called police, who were able to defuse it. But it would be naive to adduce all of our security
success to pure serendipity. Surely more attacks would have succeeded absent the ramped-up counterterrorism efforts undertaken by the U.S. intelligence community, the military and law enforcement. And a
large element of the intelligence community's success lies in its use of special intelligence that is, communications
intercepts. The CIA is notoriously deficient in human intelligence infiltrating spies into terrorist organizations is hard
to do, especially when we have so few spooks who speak Urdu, Arabic, Persian and other relevant languages. But the

NSA is the best in the world at intercepting communications. That is the most important technical
advantage we have in the battle against fanatical foes who will not hesitate to sacrifice their lives
to take ours. Which brings us to the current kerfuffle over two NSA monitoring programs that have been exposed by the
Guardian and the Washington Post. One program apparently collects metadata on all telephone calls made in the United
States. Another program provides access to all the emails, videos and other data found on the servers of major Internet
firms such as Google, Apple and Microsoft. At first blush these intelligence-gathering activities raise the
specter of Big Brother snooping on ordinary American citizens who might be cheating on their spouses or
bad-mouthing the president. In fact, there are considerable safeguards built into both programs to
ensure that doesn't happen. The phone-monitoring program does not allow the NSA to listen in on conversations
without a court order. All that it can do is to collect information on the time, date and destination of phone calls. It

should go without saying that it would be pretty useful to know if someone in the U.S. is calling a
number in Pakistan or Yemen that is used by a terrorist organizer. As for the Internet-monitoring
program, reportedly known as PRISM, it is apparently limited to "non-U.S. persons" who are abroad and
thereby enjoy no constitutional protections. These are hardly rogue operations. Both programs were initiated by
President George W. Bush and continued by President Obama with the full knowledge and support of Congress and
continuing oversight from the federal judiciary. That's why the leaders of both the House and Senate intelligence
committees, Republicans and Democrats alike, have come to the defense of these activities. It's possible that, like all
government programs, these could be abused see, for example, the IRS making life tough on tea partiers. But there is

no evidence of abuse so far and plenty of evidence in the lack of successful terrorist attacks
that these programs have been effective in disrupting terrorist plots. Granted there is
something inherently creepy about Uncle Sam scooping up so much information about us. But Google, Facebook, Amazon,
Twitter, Citibank and other companies know at least as much about us, because they use very similar data-mining
programs to track our online movements. They gather that information in order to sell us products, and no one seems to
be overly alarmed. The NSA is gathering that information to keep us safe from terrorist attackers. Yet somehow its actions
have become a "scandal," to use a term now loosely being tossed around. The real scandal here is that the Guardian and
Washington Post are compromising our national security by telling our enemies about our intelligence-gathering
capabilities. Their news stories reveal, for example, that only nine Internet companies share information with the NSA.

This is a virtual invitation to terrorists to use other Internet outlets for searches, email, apps and
all the rest. No intelligence effort can ever keep us 100% safe, but to stop or scale back the NSA's
special intelligence efforts would amount to unilateral disarmament in a war against terrorism
that is far from over.

AT: False Positives

False positives are wrong meta-data eliminates scenarios and increases efficiency
Lewis 14 [James Andrew Lewis, Director and Senior Fellow of the Technology and Public Policy
Program at the CSIS, December 2014, "Underestimating Risk in the Surveillance Debate", Center
for Strategic and International Studies,
http://csis.org/files/publication/141209_Lewis_UnderestimatingRisk_Web.pdf, pg 2 jf]
NSA carried out two kinds of signals intelligence programs: bulk surveillance to support counterterrorism and collection
to support U.S. national security interests. The debate over surveillance unhelpfully conflated the two programs. Domestic
bulk collection for counterterrorism is politically problematic, but assertions that a collection program is

useless because it has not by itself prevented an attack reflect unfamiliarity with
intelligence. Intelligence does not work as it is portrayed in filmssolitary agents do not make startling discoveries
that lead to dramatic, last-minute success. Success is the product of the efforts of teams of dedicated
individuals from many agencies, using many tools and techniques, working together to assemble
fragments of data from many sources into a coherent picture. In practice, analysts must
simultaneously explore many possible scenarios. A collection program contributes
by not only what it reveals, but also what it lets us reject as false. The Patriot Act Section 215
domestic bulk telephony metadata program provided information that allowed analysts
to rule out some scenarios and suspects. The consensus view from interviews with current and former
intelligence officials is that while metadata collection is useful, it is the least useful of the collection programs available to
the intelligence community. If there was one surveillance program they had to give up, it would be 215, but this would not
come without an increase in risk. Restricting metadata collection will make it harder to
identify attacks and increase the time it takes to do this. Spying on Allies NSAs mass surveillance
programs for counterterrorism were carried out in cooperation with more than 30 countries. Unilateral U.S. collection
programs focused on national security problems: nonproliferation, counterintelligence (including Russian covert influence
operations in Europe), and arms sales to China. The United States failed to exercise sufficient oversight over intelligence
collection, but the objectives set for NSA reflect real security problems for the United States and its allies. The notion that
friends dont spy on friends is naive. The United States has friends that routinely spy on it and yet are strong security
partners. Relations among powerful states are complex and not explained by simple bromides drawn from personal life.
The most startling thing about U.S. espionage against Germany was the absence of a strategic calculation of risk and
benefit. There are grounds for espionage (what other major power has a former leader on Russias payroll?), but the
benefits were outweighed by the risk to the relationship. The case for spying on Brazil is even weaker. While Brazil is often
antagonistic, it poses no risk to national security. If economic intelligence on Brazil is needed, the private sector has
powerful incentives and legitimate means to obtain information and usually has the best data. Risk Is Not Going Away

Broad surveillance of communications is the least intrusive and most effective

method for discovering terrorist and espionage activity. Many countries have expanded

surveillance programs since the 9/11 attacks to detect and prevent terrorist activity, often in cooperation with other
countries, including the United States. Precise metrics on risk and effectiveness do not exist for
surveillance, and we are left with conflicting opinions from intelligence officials and civil libertarians as to what
makes counterterrorism successful. Given resurgent authoritarianism and continuing jihad, the new context for the
surveillance debate is that the likelihood of attack is increasing. Any legislative change

should be viewed through this lens.

AT: Zero Sum

Funding divided between 15+ agencies, not a funding tradeoff
Sahadi 13 (Jeanne Sahadi 13, 6-7-2013, "What the NSA costs taxpayers," CNNMoney,
http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/07/news/economy/nsa-surveillance-cost/ CCC)
As a result, it's impossible to say exactly how much money the NSA is given to conduct its surveillance efforts -- which
Americans learned this week has recently included collecting phone call data and monitoring online activities. That's

because the NSA, a Defense Department agency created in 1952, falls under the category of a
"black" program in the federal budget, a term applied to classified efforts. The NSA is one of at
least 15 intelligence agencies, and combined the total U.S. intelligence budget in 2012 was $75
billion, said Steve Aftergood, director of the government secrecy program at the Federation of American Scientists, a
nonpartisan think tank that analyzes national and international security issues. The intelligence budget includes
funding for both classified and unclassified activities. Funding for classified programs has tracked
the upward trend in defense spending over the past decade, according to an analysis of fiscal year
2012 Defense Department budget request by Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and
Budgetary Assessments. Aftergood estimates about 14% of the country's total intelligence budget
-- or about $10 billion -- goes to the NSA.

AT: Recruitment
NSA recruiting is going extremely well
Libicki et al 14 [Libicki, Martin C., 2014, "Hackers Wanted: An Examination of the
Cybersecurity Labor Market," RAND, http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR430.html
jf]
The NSA is the countrys largest and leading employer of cybersecurity
professionals. In the face of the current stresses in the market for such professionals, officials there
believe they are doing quite wellfewer than 1 percent of their positions are vacant
for any significant length of time, and supervisors, queried after their new hires have been working for
six months, report being very happy with the personnel they get . NSA also has a very low turnover
rate (losing no more to voluntary quits than to retirements). One reason is that it pays attention to senior technical
development programs to ensure that employees stay current and engaged. Yet, to get to that point, our interview
indicates that NSA must and does pay a great deal of attention to workforce issues. If not its primary focus, then it is still
very high up on the list. Although only 80 people have recruitment as their full-time occupation, another 300 have
recruitment as an additional duty, and another 1,500 beyond that are involved in the whole recruitment and employment
process. All told, that is a great deal of effortsuggesting, from our perspective, that the difficulties of finding

enough cybersecurity professionals can be largely met if sufficient energy is devoted

to the task. NSA has outreach into many universities , not simply those designated its Centers of
Academic Excellence (CAE),2 although it pays attention to supporting cybersecurity curricula development in the CAE
schools, as noted. In some cases it has people teaching in schools to encourage potential cybersecurity professionals at the
pre-college levels, particularly, for obvious reasons, in the state of Maryland. For the most part, our interview suggests
that the NSA makes rather than buys cybersecurity professionals, although its recruitment
process is very sensitive to the importance of determining those qualities that predispose people to make good employees.
Recruiters also look hard at schools that have a reputation for educating people that go into the military. Fully 80 percent
of their hires are entry level, the vast majority of whom have bachelors degrees. They could conceivably draw deeper by
finding particularly talented junior college graduates, but the latter would have to undergo a much longer training
program as a result. Furthermore, they are not inclined to look for the brilliant non-degreed hacker.3 NSA has a
very intensive internal schooling system, lasting as long as three years for some. This too, would be
difficult for other institutions to duplicate. NSA can take advantage not only of its size, but also of its low turnover rate.
The latter means that it reaps the benefits of its investments in people rather than seeing the benefits accrue to other
organizations after NSA has paid the costs of the training (not least of which is the time that such students spend off the
job to be trained). Employers with more turnover may logically deem it not worthwhile investing that much to educate
their employees. In all fairness, only one organization can be the most prestigious place to
work, and for this line of work (and for this size of organization), NSA is hard to beat. It consistently
absorbs a third of all Scholarship for Service graduates, as shown in Figure 3.1,4 in part because it has the most job
openings but also because it has a reputation for hiring the best hackers.

Silicon valley jobs are comparatively a much bigger challenge for NSA recruitment
-- the NSA has already had to deal with recruitment issues in the past
Brumfiel 3/31 (science correspondent for NPR, 3/31/15, Geoff Brumfiel, NPR, MARCH 31,
2015, After Snowden, The NSA Faces Recruitment Challenge,
http://www.npr.org/2015/03/31/395829446/after-snowden-the-nsa-faces-recruitmentchallenge, accessed 7/17/15 JH @ DDI)
But Ziring says there's a much bigger problem: "I was at a Dartmouth career fair a few months ago," he says,
"and our table was right across from Facebook. And we are looking for some of the same things that they are." Ever
since the Snowden leaks, cybersecurity has been hot in Silicon Valley. I n part that's
because the industry no longer trusts the government as much as it once did. Companies want to develop
their own security, and they're willing to pay top dollar to get the same people the
NSA is trying to recruit. Students like Swann. Last summer Microsoft paid him $7,000 a month to work as an
intern. The company even rented him a car. "It was actually really nice," Swann says. "It was a Subaru Legacy." Ziring says
the agency can't compete on money, so he tries to sell it in other ways: "You know we have good health
benefits, and we're government, right? So we have a huge scope of insurance to choose from," he says.

Impact
Extend Cooper 13 currently, there are many individuals who have the desire and
capabilities to cause large-scale destruction, specifically through fatal bioweapons.
The spread of fatal diseases means that extinction is inevitable, and even if the
disease does not cause immediate extinction, resource wars over disease cures will
be inevitable, causing even more death.

Bioterrorism
Bioweapons are easily accessible by terrorists and have empirically cause deaths
Wilson 13 (Grant, 1/17/13, University of Virginia School of Law, MINIMIZING GLOBAL
CATASTROPHIC AND EXISTENTIAL RISKS FROM EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES THROUGH
INTERNATIONAL LAW, professor @ University of Virginia School of Law,
http://lib.law.virginia.edu/lawjournals/sites/lawjournals/files/3.%20Wilson%20-%20Emerging
%20Technologies.pdf, 7/15/15, SM)
ii. Risk of bioterrorism The threat of the malicious release of bioengineered organisms (i.e., bioterrorism)
poses a GCR/ER.75 Bioengineering enables a malicious actor to create an organism that is more
deadly to humans, animals, or plants than anything that exists in the natural world.76 Experts
contend that the barriers for a terrorist to order a DNA sequence for a highly pathogenic virus online or
acquire a DNA synthesis machine online are surmountable. 77 Alternatively , bioterrorists could break
into laboratories housing dangerous bioengineered organismslike the H5N1 virus, for
exampleand release them. Meanwhile, third world countries with laxer standards and lower
laboratory accountability are rapidly discovering and using bioengineering, which may give
bioterrorists an easier pathway to obtain deadly bioengineered organisms.78 There have already
been several occasions in which groups attempted to use or successfully used biological weapons. One
unsophisticated example of bioterrorism occurred when an individual contaminated salads and dressing
with salmonella in what apparently was an attempt to decide a local election.79 Another example
occurred in 2001, when bioterrorists sent envelopes containing anthrax spores through the mail,
infecting twenty-two people and killing five of them. 80 While these particular acts of bioterrorism
did not cause widespread death, deploying extremely deadly bioengineered organisms over a large
area is a real possibility: tests by the United States in 1964 demonstrated that a single aircraft can
contaminate five thousand square kilometers of land with a deadly bacterial aerosol.81 The
recent engineering of an airborne H5N1 virus demonstrates societys concern over risks of
bioterrorism arising from bioengineering. Before scientists could publish their results of their
bioengineered airborne H5N1 virus in the widely read journals Nature and Science, the NSABB determined
that the danger of releasing the sensitive information outweighed the benefits to society, advising that
the findings not be published in their entirety.82 The main risk is that either a state or non-state actor
could synthesize a weaponized version of the H5N1 virus to create a disastrous pandemic.83 There is
precedent of outside groups recreating advanced bioengineering experiments, such as when many
scientists immediately synthesized hepatitis C replicons upon publication of its genetic code. 84 However,
the NSABBs recommendation was nonbinding, and there is nothing to stop other scientists from
releasing similar data in the future. Furthermore, while the NSABB merely asserts that the blueprints of
the virus should not be printed, other biosecurity experts argue that the virus should never have been
created in the first place because of risks that the viruses would escape or be stolen.85

Terrorists using bioweapons can achieve the same mortality rates as with WMD
bioweapons are cheaper, more effective
SIU School of Medicine 14 (12/15/14, SIU School of Medicine, Overview of Potential Agents
of Biological Terrorism, http://www.siumed.edu/medicine/id/bioterrorism.htm#threat,
7/15/15, SM)
Biological weapons are very attractive to the terrorist because of several characteristics. Aerosols of biological agents
are invisible, silent, odorless, tasteless, and are relatively easily dispersed. They are 600 - 2000 times cheaper
than other weapons of mass destruction. It is estimated that the cost would be about 0.05% the cost of
a conventional weapon to produce similar numbers of mass casualties per square kilometer . The

production is relatively easy, using the common technology available for the production of some antibiotics, vaccines,
foods, and beverages. The delivery systems such as spray devices from an airplane, boat or car are commonly available.
The natural lead time provided by the organism's incubation period (3 to 7 days for most potential
organisms) would allow for the terrorists' escape before any investigation starts. In addition, the use of
an endemic infectious agent may cause confusion because of the inability to differentiate a biological
warfare attack from a natural epidemic. For some agents potential exists for secondary or tertiary
transmission by person-to-person transmission or natural vectors. The consequences of biological

weapons use are many. They can rapidly produce mass effect that overwhelms services and the
health care system of the communities. Most of the civilian population is susceptible to infections
caused by these agents. They are associated with high morbidity and mortality rates . The resulting
illness is usually difficult to diagnose and treat early, particularly in areas where the disease is rarely seen. One
kilogram of anthrax powder has the capability to kill up to 100,000 people depending on the

mechanism of delivery (33). The

economic impact of a biological attack has been estimated to be from

478 million/100,000 persons exposed (brucellosis scenario) to 26.2 billion/100,000 persons exposed
(anthrax scenario) (34). ""Top Types of Bioterrorism Attacks A bioterrorist attack may occur in 2 scenarios
- overt and covert. In the past emergency responses were prepared based on overt attacks like bombings and chemical
agents that cause immediate and obvious effects. However, attacks with biological agents are more likely to be covert.
They pose different challenges and require emergency planning with the involvement of the public health
infrastructure. The attack by a biological agent will not have an immediate impact because of the delay between exposure
and onset of illness (i.e., the incubation period). Therefore, the first victims of a bioterrorism action will need to be
identified by physicians or other primary health care providers. Based on the first wave of victims, pubic health officials
will need to determine that an attack has occurred, identify the organism and prevent more casualties through prevention
strategies (e.g. mass vaccination, prophylactic treatment) and infection control procedures (35). The clues to a potential
bioterrorist attack include an outbreak of a rare or new disease, an outbreak of diseases in a non-endemic area, a seasonal
disease during an off season time, a known pathogen with unusual resistance or unusual epidemiologic features, an
unusual clinical presentation or age distribution, a genetically identical pathogen emerging rapidly in different
geographical areas (36).

Cyberterrorism
Cyberterrorists could break into computers and launch an attack on a nuclear state
triggers global nuclear war
Fritz 09 (Jason, May 2009, International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and
Disarmament, Hacking Nuclear Command and Control, Jason is a defense researcher, served as
a cavalry officer in the US Army for 6 years, masters in IR @ Bond University,
icnnd.org/documents/jason_fritz_hacking_nc2.doc, 7/15/15, SM)
In order to see how cyber terrorists could detonate a nuclear weapon it is important to identify the structures
which they would be attempting to penetrate. Nuclear command and control (NC2), sometimes referred to as nuclear
command and control and communications (NC3) includes the personnel, equipment, communications, facilities,
organisation, procedures, and chain of command involved with maintaining a nuclear weapon capability. A Command and
Control Centre is typically a secure room, bunker, or building in a government or military facility that operates as the
agency's dispatch centre, surveillance monitoring centre, coordination office and alarm monitoring centre all in one. A
state may have multiple command and control centres within the government and military branches which can act
independently or, more commonly, be used in the event a higher node is incapable of performing its function. A minimum
of eight states possess a nuclear arsenal, providing eight varying nuclear command and control structures for cyber
terrorist to target. The eight states which possess nuclear weapons are, in order of acquisition, the US, Russia (former
Soviet Union), the UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. South Africa formerly possessed nuclear
weapons, but has since dismantled its arsenal. Israel is also widely believed to have nuclear weapons, but has not officially
confirmed their status as a nuclear state. There are approximately 20,000 active nuclear weapons in the
world. The vast majority of these belong to the US and Russia, stemming from the Cold War.

Nuclear command and control has inherent weaknesses in relation to cyber warfare. The concept
of mutually assured destruction means a state must have the capability to launch nuclear weapons in the event
of a decapitating strike. This requires having nuclear weapons spread out in multiple locations (mobility and
redundancy), so an enemy could not destroy all of their capabilities . Examples of this include land based
mobile launch platforms and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM). This provides terrorists with multiple
locations for attaining access to these weapons. Further, under NATO nuclear weapons sharing, the US has supplied
nuclear weapons to Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey for storage and possible deployment. This

further increases the number of access points for terrorists, allowing them to assess
not only installations and procedures, but also which borders and state specific laws
may be easier to circumvent. The weapons themselves may all be under the complete control of the US, but
the operational plans of terrorists may include items such as reconnaissance, social engineering, and crossing borders
which remain unique between states. The potential collapse of a state also presents a challenge. Following the collapse of
the Soviet Union, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine were in possession of nuclear weapons. These have since been
transferred to Russia, but there was, and still is, considerable concern over the security and integrity of those weapons,
especially in the face of a destabilized government and civilian hardship. Mutually assured destruction also

promotes a hair trigger launch posture and the need for launch orders to be decided on quickly.
The advent of SLBMs increased this high pressure tension, as the ability of a submarine to sneak up close to a states
border before launch significantly reduced response time. These short decision times make it easier for

terrorists to provoke a launch as little time, and little discussion, is given to assess a situation in
full. The desire to reduce the time it takes to disseminate plans to nuclear forces may expand the use of
computers in nuclear command and control, or lead to the introduction of fail-deadly and autonomous
systems. This chapter is by no means comprehensive, However it sheds some light on the operations of
nuclear command and control and the difficulties in defending those systems from cyber terrorism. Many
of the details of nuclear command and control are classified, so the information provided below may be
outdated. However it points towards a pattern, and there is no certainty these systems and procedures
have been updated since entering open source knowledge. Further, terrorists do not have to restrict
themselves to unclassified data, and therefore may be able to obtain up to date information. The United
States The US employs a nuclear deterrence triad consisted of nuclear-capable long range bombers,
SLBMs, and land based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), as well as an arsenal of nonstrategic
(tactical) nuclear weapons. US nuclear command and control covers a geographically dispersed force with
the US President, as Commander in Chief, being the highest authority in the decision to make a nuclear
launch. There is a hierarchy of succession in the event the President cannot perform this duty, such as if
the President were killed in an attack. Additionally, once the order to launch is given, it travels down a
chain of command; the President does not press the button, so to speak, nor is the President physically
present at the launch location. These locations would be targets in a nuclear war, so it is imperative that
the leader not be there. Additionally, multiple independent launch locations make this impossible (except
for cases in which multiple missiles are tied together in a Single Integrated Operational Plan). So it is
theoretically possible to subvert this control by falsifying the order at any number of locations down that
chain of command. The infrastructure that supports the President in his decision to launch nuclear
weapons is the Nuclear Command and Control System (NCCS). The NCCS must support situation
monitoring, tactical warning and attack assessment of missile launches, senior leader decision making,

dissemination of Presidential force-direction orders, and management of geographically dispersed forces

(Critchlow 2006). Key US nuclear command centres include fixed locations, such as the National Military
Command Center (NMCC) and the Raven Rock Mountain Complex (Site R), and mobile platforms, such as
the E-4B National Airborne Operations Center (NAOC) and the Mobile Consolidated Command Center
(MCCC). The US seeks to integrate its nuclear forces into its vision of command, control, computers,
communications, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) hinting towards a greater reliance
on computer technology in maintaining and upgrading its nuclear force, not only to combat against Cold
War style nuclear war, but also against perceived emerging threats from China, Iran and North Korea. In
particular the US recognises these states potential to use nuclear weapons detonated at high altitude to
create an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). The threat of EMP was known during the Cold War, and a
considerable amount of attention has been paid to hardening nuclear systems (Critchlow 2006). The
Minimum Essential Emergency Communications Network (MEECN) links to the ICBMs, bombers, and
submarine forces. Information widely available on the internet shows the US is seeking to upgrade the
MEECNs satellite communications capability through Advanced Extremely High Frequency and the
Transformational Communications Satellite programs. Cyber terrorists may use this knowledge to research
these new forms, or to expose weaknesses in the old system before upgrades are completed. Early
warning systems and communications are essential to assessing whether a nuclear launch has been made
and communicating the orders to launch a retaliatory strike. Falsifying the data provided by either of these
systems would be of prime interest to terrorists. Commands emanating from the NAOC for example,
include Extremely High Frequency and Very Low Frequency/Low Frequency links, and its activation during a
traditional terrorist attack, as happened on 9/11, could provide additional clues as to its vulnerabilities.
Blogging communities have also revealed that the 9/11 terrorist attacks revealed insights into the US
continuity of operations plan as high level officials were noted heading to specific installations (Critchlow
2006). One tool designed by the US for initiating a nuclear launch is the nuclear football. It is a specially
outfitted briefcase which can be used by the President to authorize a nuclear strike when away from fixed
command centres. The President is accompanied by an aide carrying the nuclear football at all times. This
aide, who is armed and possibly physically attached to the football, is part of a rotating crew of Presidential
aides (one from each of the five service branches). The football contains a secure satellite communication
link and any other material the President may need to refer to in the event of its use, sometimes referred
to as the playbook. The attack options provided in the football include single ICBM launches and large
scale pre-determined scenarios as part of the Single Integrated Operational Plan. Before initiating a launch
the President must be positively identified using a special code on a plastic card, sometimes referred to as
the gold codes or the biscuit. The order must also be approved by a second member of the government
as per the two-man rule (Pike 2006). In terms of detecting and analysing a potential attack, that is,
distinguishing a missile attack from the launch of a satellite or a computer glitch, the US employs dual
phenomenology. This means two different systems must be used to confirm an attack, such as radar and
satellite. Terrorists trying to engage a launch by falsifying this data would need to determine which two
systems were being used in coordination at the target location and spoof both systems. Attempting to
falsify commands from the President would also be difficult. Even if the chain of command is identified,
there are multiple checks and balances. For example, doctrine recommends that the President confer with
senior commanders. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the primary military advisor to the
President. However, the President may choose to consult other advisors as well. Trying to identify who
would be consulted in this system is difficult, and falsification may be exposed at any number of steps. The
2006 Quadrennial Defense Review emphasizes that new systems of command and control must be
survivable in the event of cyber warfare attacks. On the one hand, this shows that the US is aware of the
potential danger posed by computer network operations and are taking action to prevent it. On the other
hand, this shows that they themselves see computer network operations as a weakness in their system.
And the US continues to research new ways to integrate computer systems into their nuclear command
and control, such as IP-based communications, which they admit, has not yet been proven to provide the
high degree of assurance of rapid message transmission needed for nuclear command and control
(Critchlow 2006). The US nuclear arsenal remains designed for the Cold War. This means its

paramount feature is to survive a decapitating strike. In order to do so it must maintain hairtrigger posture on early warning and decision-making for approximately one-third of its 10,000
nuclear weapons. According to Bruce G. Blair, President of the Center for Defense Information, and a
former Minuteman launch officer: Warning crews in Cheyenne Mountain, Colo., are allowed only three
minutes to judge whether initial attack indications from satellite and ground sensors are valid or
false. Judgments of this sort are rendered daily, as a result of events as diverse as missiles being tested, or
fired for example, Russias firing of Scud missiles into Chechnya peaceful satellites being lofted into
space, or wildfires and solar reflections off oceans and clouds. If an incoming missile strike is anticipated,
the president and his top nuclear advisors would quickly convene an emergency telephone conference to
hear urgent briefings. For example, the war room commander in Omaha would brief the president on his
retaliatory options and their consequences, a briefing that is limited to 30 seconds. All of the large-scale
responses comprising that briefing are designed for destroying Russian targets by the thousands, and the
president would have only a few minutes to pick one if he wished to ensure its effective implementation.
The order would then be sent immediately to the underground and undersea launch crews, whose own
mindless firing drill would last only a few minutes (Blair 2003). These rapid response times dont leave

room for error. Cyber terrorists would not need deception that could stand up over time; they

would only need to be believable for the first 15 minutes or so. The amount of firepower that could
be unleashed in these 15 minutes, combined with the equally swift Russian response, would be
equivalent to approximately 100,000 Hiroshima bombs (Blair 2008).
Cyberterrorists could directly activate nuclear weaponstriggers nuclear war
Fritz 09 (Jason, May 2009, International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and
Disarmament, Hacking Nuclear Command and Control, Jason is a defense researcher, served as
a cavalry officer in the US Army for 6 years, masters in IR @ Bond University,
icnnd.org/documents/jason_fritz_hacking_nc2.doc, 7/15/15, SM)
Direct control of launch The US uses the two-man rule to achieve a higher level of security in nuclear
affairs. Under this rule two authorized personnel must be present and in agreement during critical stages
of nuclear command and control. The President must jointly issue a launch order with the Secretary of
Defense; Minuteman missile operators must agree that the launch order is valid; and on a submarine, both
the commanding officer and executive officer must agree that the order to launch is valid. In the US, in
order to execute a nuclear launch, an Emergency Action Message (EAM) is needed. This is a preformatted
message that directs nuclear forces to execute a specific attack. The contents of an EAM change daily and
consist of a complex code read by a human voice. Regular monitoring by shortwave listeners and videos
posted to YouTube provide insight into how these work. These are issued from the NMCC, or in the event of
destruction, from the designated hierarchy of command and control centres. Once a command centre has
confirmed the EAM, using the two-man rule, the Permissive Action Link (PAL) codes are entered to arm the
weapons and the message is sent out. These messages are sent in digital format via the secure Automatic
Digital Network and then relayed to aircraft via single-sideband radio transmitters of the High Frequency
Global Communications System, and, at least in the past, sent to nuclear capable submarines via Very Low
Frequency (Greenemeier 2008, Hardisty 1985). The technical details of VLF submarine communication
methods can be found online, including PC-based VLF reception. Some reports have noted a Pentagon
review, which showed a potential electronic back door into the US Navys system for broadcasting
nuclear launch orders to Trident submarines (Peterson 2004). The investigation showed that cyber
terrorists could potentially infiltrate this network and insert false orders for launch . The investigation
led to elaborate new instructions for validating launch orders (Blair 2003). Adding further to the concern of
cyber terrorists seizing control over submarine launched nuclear missiles ; The Royal Navy
announced in 2008 that it would be installing a Microsoft Windows operating system on its nuclear
submarines (Page 2008). The choice of operating system, apparently based on Windows XP, is not as
alarming as the advertising of such a system is. This may attract hackers and narrow the necessary
reconnaissance to learning its details and potential exploits. It is unlikely that the operating system would
play a direct role in the signal to launch, although this is far from certain. Knowledge of the operating
system may lead to the insertion of malicious code, which could be used to gain accelerating privileges,
tracking, valuable information, and deception that could subsequently be used to initiate a launch.
Remember from Chapter 2 that the UKs nuclear submarines have the authority to launch if they believe
the central command has been destroyed. Attempts by cyber terrorists to create the
illusion of a decapitating strike could also be used to engage fail-deadly systems .
Open source knowledge is scarce as to whether Russia continues to operate such a system. However
evidence suggests that they have in the past. Perimetr, also known as Dead Hand, was an automated
system set to launch a mass scale nuclear attack in the event of a decapitation strike against Soviet
leadership and military. In a crisis, military officials would send a coded message to the bunkers,
switching on the dead hand. If nearby ground-level sensors detected a nuclear attack on Moscow, and if a
break was detected in communications links with top military commanders, the system would send lowfrequency signals over underground antennas to special rockets. Flying high over missile fields and other
military sites, these rockets in turn would broadcast attack orders to missiles, bombers and, via radio
relays, submarines at sea. Contrary to some Western beliefs, Dr. Blair says, many of Russia's nucleararmed missiles in underground silos and on mobile launchers can be fired automatically. (Broad 1993)
Assuming such a system is still active, cyber terrorists would need to create a crisis situation in order
to activate Perimetr, and then fool it into believing a decapitating strike had taken place. While this is not
an easy task, the information age makes it easier. Cyber reconnaissance could help locate the machine and learn its inner
workings. This could be done by targeting the computers high of level officialsanyone who has reportedly worked on
such a project, or individuals involved in military operations at underground facilities, such as those reported to be located
at Yamantau and Kosvinksy mountains in the central southern Urals (Rosenbaum 2007, Blair 2008)

Cyberterrorists could unleash a nonnuclear missile to fool detection systems and

trigger a nuclear warBlack Brant proves
Fritz 09 (Jason, May 2009, International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and
Disarmament, Hacking Nuclear Command and Control, Jason is a defense researcher, served as
a cavalry officer in the US Army for 6 years, masters in IR @ Bond University,
icnnd.org/documents/jason_fritz_hacking_nc2.doc, 7/15/15, SM)

Cyber terrorists could cause incorrect information to be transmitted,

received, or displayed at nuclear command and control centres, or shut down these centres
computer networks completely. In 1995, a Norwegian scientific sounding rocket was mistaken by
Russian early warning systems as a nuclear missile launched from a US submarine . A radar operator
used Krokus to notify a general on duty who decided to alert the highest levels. Kavkaz was implemented, all three
chegets activated, and the countdown for a nuclear decision began. It took eight minutes before
the missile was properly identifieda considerable amount of time considering the speed with
which a nuclear response must be decided upon (Aftergood 2000). Creating a false signal in
these early warning systems would be relatively easy using computer network
operations. The real difficulty would be gaining access to these systems as they are most likely on a closed network.
Indirect Control of Launch

However, if they are transmitting wirelessly, that may provide an entry point, and information gained through the internet
may reveal the details, such as passwords and software, for gaining entrance to the closed network. If access was

obtained, a false alarm could be followed by something like a DDoS attack, so the operators
believe an attack may be imminent, yet they can no longer verify it. This could add pressure to the
decision making process, and if coordinated precisely, could appear as a first round EMP burst. Terrorist groups
could also attempt to launch a non-nuclear missile, such as the one used by Norway, in an attempt to
fool the system. The number of states who possess such technology is far greater than the number
of states who possess nuclear weapons. Obtaining them would be considerably easier, especially when enhancing
operations through computer network operations. Combining traditional terrorist methods with cyber
techniques opens opportunities neither could accomplish on their own. For example, radar stations
might be more vulnerable to a computer attack, while satellites are more vulnerable to jamming from a
laser beam, thus together they deny dual phenomenology. Mapping communications networks through
cyber reconnaissance may expose weaknesses, and automated scanning devices created by more
experienced hackers can be readily found on the internet. Intercepting or spoofing communications is a
highly complex science. These systems are designed to protect against the worlds most powerful and well
funded militaries. Yet, there are recurring gaffes, and the very nature of asymmetric warfare is to bypass
complexities by finding simple loopholes. For example, commercially available software for voice-morphing
could be used to capture voice commands within the command and control structure, cut these sound
bytes into phonemes, and splice it back together in order to issue false voice commands (Andersen 2001,
Chapter 16). Spoofing could also be used to escalate a volatile situation in the hopes of starting a
nuclear war. In June 1998, a group of international hackers calling themselves Milw0rm hacked the web
site of Indias Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC) and put up a spoofed web page showing a
mushroom cloud and the text If a nuclear war does start, you will be the first to scream (Denning 1999).
Hacker web-page defacements like these are often derided by critics of cyber terrorism as simply being a
nuisance which causes no significant harm. However, web-page defacements are becoming more common,
and they point towards alarming possibilities in subversion. During the 2007 cyber attacks against Estonia,
a counterfeit letter of apology from Prime Minister Andrus Ansip was planted on his political party website
(Grant 2007). This took place amid the confusion of mass DDoS attacks, real world protests, and
accusations between governments. The 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai illustrate several points. First,
terrorists are using computer technology to enhance their capabilities. To navigate to Mumbai by sea and
to aid in reconnaissance of targets, they used the Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite system and
Google Earth (Bedi 2008, Kahn and Worth 2008). They also used mobile phone SIM cards, purchased in
foreign countries, VoIP phone calls, and online money transfers (Part of 26/11 plot hatched on our soil,
admits Pakistan 2009). Falsified identification and stolen credit cards may have also been aided by online
capabilities. Second, a false claim of responsibility was issued through an e-mail to media outlets. Initial
tracking of the IP address showed the e-mail to have been sent from a computer in Russia. It was later
revealed that the e-mail was sent from Pakistan and routed through Russia (Shashthi 2008). Voicerecognition software was used to allow dictated text to be typed in the Devnagari font (Swami 2008).
Lastly, the Mumbai attacks showed an increasing reliance on information technology by the intended
victims of terrorism. This included Twitter messages, Flickr photos, a map of attack locations on Google
Maps, and live text and video coverage of the attacks (Beaumont 2008). Terrorists could insert

disinformation into these systems in order to enhance destruction, evade capture, or increase
hostility between groups. Terrorist could even clandestinely enlist the aid of their enemy to
enhance destruction. For example, at the height of a terror attack they could claim to have exclusive
video footage of the attack, which requires a codec to be downloaded in order to be viewed. This
codec could contain a Trojan which uses the now infected computer to silently launch DDoS
attacks against their desired targets, such as communications networks. Building an infidel botnet prior to an
attack could take on a wide range of symbolism, from a pdf file about anti-terrorism to an unreleased Hollywood film.

A cyberattack on our electrical grid will have devastating impactsblackouts,

starvation, EMP nuclear threat

Landsbaum 14 (Mark, 9/5/2014, OC Register, Mark Landsbaum: Attack on power grid could
bring dark days, http://www.ocregister.com/articles/emp-633883-power-attack.html, 7/15/15,
SM)
It could be worse. Terrorists pose an imminent threat to the U.S. electrical grid , which could leave
the good ol USA looking like 19th century USA for a lot longer than three days. Dont take my word for it.
Ask Peter Pry, former CIA officer and one-time House Armed Services Committee staffer, who served on
a congressional commission investigating such eventualities. There is an imminent threat from ISIS
to the national electric grid and not just to a single U.S. city, Pry warns. He points to a leaked U.S. Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission report in March that said a coordinated terrorist attack on just nine of the

nations 55,000 electrical power substations could cause coast-to-coast blackouts for up to 18
months. Consider what youll have to worry about then. If you were uncomfortable watching looting and

riots on TV last month in Ferguson, Mo., as police stood by, project such unseemly behavior nationwide. For
18 months. Its likely phones wont be reliable, so you wont have to watch police stand idly by. Chances
are, police wont show up. Worse, your odds of needing them will be excruciatingly more likely if terrorists
attack the power grid using an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) burst of energy to knock out electronic
devices. The Congressional EMP Commission, on which I served, did an extensive study of this, Pry says.
We discovered to our own revulsion that critical systems in this country are distressingly

unprotected. We calculated that, based on current realities, in the first year after a full-scale EMP
event, we could expect about two-thirds of the national population 200 million Americans to
perish from starvation and disease, as well as anarchy in the streets. Skeptical? Consider who is
capable of engineering such measures before dismissing the likelihood. In his 2013 book, A Nation
Forsaken, Michael Maloof reported that the 2008 EMP Commission considered whether a hostile nation

or terrorist group could attack with a high-altitude EMP weapon and determined, any number of
adversaries possess both the ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons capabilities, and could attack
within 15 years. That was six years ago. North Korea, Pakistan, India, China and Russia are all in
the position to launch an EMP attack against the United States now, Maloof wrote last year. Maybe

youll rest more comfortably knowing the House intelligence authorization bill passed in May told the
intelligence community to report to Congress within six months, on the threat posed by man-made
electromagnetic pulse weapons to United States interests through 2025, including threats from foreign
countries and foreign nonstate actors. Or, maybe thats not so comforting. In 2004 and again in 2008,
separate congressional commissions gave detailed, horrific reports on such threats. Now, Congress wants
another report. In his book, Maloof quotes Clay Wilson of the Congressional Research Service, who said,
Several nations, including reported sponsors of terrorism, may currently have a capability to use EMP as a
weapon for cyberwarfare or cyberterrorism to disrupt communications and other parts of the U.S. critical
infrastructure. What would an EMP attack look like? Within an instant, Maloof writes, we will have no
idea whats happening all around us, because we will have no news. There will be no radio, no TV, no cell
signal. No newspaper delivered. Products wont flow into the nearby Wal-Mart. The big trucks will be
stuck on the interstates. Gas stations wont be able to pump the fuel they do have. Some police officers
and firefighters will show up for work, but most will stay home to protect their own families. Power lines will
get knocked down in windstorms, but nobody will care. Theyll all be fried anyway. Crops will wither in the
fields until scavenged since the big picking machines will all be idled, and there will be no way to get the
crop to market anyway. Nothing thats been invented in the last 50 years based on computer
chips, microelectronics or digital technology will work. And it will get worse .

Turns Econ
Cyberterrorism targets vulnerable power grids and has large economic impacts
NBC 13 (2/19/13, NBC, Successful hacker attack could cripple U.S. infrastructure, experts say,
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/19/17019005-successful-hacker-attack-couldcripple-us-infrastructure-experts-say?lite, 7/14/15, SM)
Kevin Mandia, the founder and chief executive of Mandiant, discusses cyber-attacks on US companies and
organizations. A report tying the Chinese military to computer attacks against American interests has sent
a chill through cyber-security experts, who worry that the very lifelines of the United States its energy
pipelines, its water supply, its banks are increasingly at risk. The experts say that a successful hacker

attack taking out just a part of the nations electrical grid, or crippling financial institutions for
several days, could sow panic or even lead to loss of life. I call it cyberterrorism that makes
9/11 pale in comparison, Rep. Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican and chair of the House

Intelligence Committee, told NBC News on Tuesday. An American computer security company, Mandiant,
reported with near certainty that members of a sophisticated Chinese hacking group work out of the
headquarters of a unit of the Chinese army outside Shanghai. The report was first detailed in The New
York Times, which said that the hacking groups focus was increasingly on companies that work with
American infrastructure, including the power grid, gas lines and waterworks. The Chinese embassy in
Washington told The Times that its government does not engage in computer hacking. As reported, the
Chinese attacks constitute a sort of asymmetrical cyberwarfare, analysts said, because they bring the
force of the Chinese government and military against private companies. To us thats crossing a line into
a class of victim thats not prepared to withstand that type of attack, Grady Summers, a Mandiant vice
president, said on the MSNBC program Andrea Mitchell Reports. The report comes as government
officials and outside security experts alike are sounding ever-louder alarms about the vulnerability of the
systems that make everyday life in the United States possible. A new report confirmed by U.S. intelligence
officials has pinpointed a building in Shanghai where those working for the Chinese military launched
cyberattacks against 141 US companies spanning 20 industries. NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports. Outgoing
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned in October that the United States was facing a threat that

amounted to cyber Pearl Harbor and raised the specter of intentionally derailed trains,
contaminated water and widespread blackouts. This is a pre-9/11 moment, Panetta told
business executives in New York. The attackers are plotting. RELATED: Report: Chinese army tied to

widespread U.S. hacking The Times report described an attack on Telvent, a company that keeps
blueprints on more than half the oil and gas pipelines in North and South America and has access to their
systems. A Canadian arm of the company told customers last fall that hackers had broken in, but it
immediately cut off the access so that the hackers could not take control of the pipelines themselves, The
Times reported. Dale Peterson, founder and CEO of Digital Bond, a security company that specializes in
infrastructure, told NBC News that these attacks, known as vendor remote access, are particularly
worrisome. If you are a bad guy and you want to attack a lot of different control systems, you want to be
able to take out a lot, he said. The dirty little secret in these control systems is once you get through
the perimeter, they have no security at all. They dont even have a four-digit pin like your ATM card.
Carlos Barria / Reuters Locals walks in front of 'Unit 61398', a secretive Chinese military unit, in the
outskirts of Shanghai. The unit is believed to be behind a series of hacking attacks, a U.S. computer
security company said. The 34-minute blackout at the Super Bowl earlier this month highlighted weak
spots in the nations power system. A National Research Council report declassified by the government last
fall warned that a coordinated strike on the grid could devastate the country. That report

considered blackouts lasting weeks or even months across large parts of the country, and
suggested they could lead to public fear, social turmoil and a body blow to the economy. Vital
systems do not have to be taken down for very long or across a particularly widespread area, the
experts noted, to cause social disorder and to spread fear and anxiety among the population . Last
fall, after Hurricane Sandy battered the Northeast, it took barely two days for reports of gasoline shortages
to cause hours-long lines at the pumps and violent fights among drivers. Peterson described being in
Phoenix, Ariz., during a three-day gas pipeline disruption when people were waiting in line six hours and
not going to work. You can imagine someone does these things maliciously, with a little more smarts,
something that takes three months to replace. Similarly, hacking attacks last fall against major American
banks believed by some security experts and government officials to be the work of Iran amounted to
mostly limited frustration for customers, but foreshadowed much bigger trouble if future attacks are more
sophisticated. What worries Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder of the computer security company
CrowdStrike, is a coordinated attack against banks that modifies, rather than destroys, financial
data, making it impossible to reconcile transactions. You could wreak absolute havoc on the
worlds financial system for years, he said. It would be impossible to roll that back.

A cyberattack would destroy our critical infrastructure which is key to national

security, the economy, and public health
Chance 12 (Michael, 6/1/12, Forensic Focus, The Role of Cyber Terrorism in the Future,
http://articles.forensicfocus.com/2012/06/01/the-role-of-cyber-terrorism-in-the-future/,
7/15/15, SM)
INTRODUCTION To understand cyberterrorism, one must first be familiar with terrorism. According to the
Code of Federal Regulations terrorism is the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or
property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Code of Federal Regulations Title 28 Section 0.85 Set. (2007).
Government Inst.) This concept is fairly easy to grasp and most Americans have an understanding of what
terrorism is. But when talking about cyberterrorism there seems to be some confusion as to its
components. In February of 2002 Executive Assistant Director of the FBI Dale Watson gave testimony
before congress stating that cyberterrorism-meaning the use of cyber tools to shut down critical

national infrastructures (such as energy, transportation, or government operations) for the

purpose of coercing or intimidating a government or civilian population-is clearly an emerging
threat. (http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/watson020602.htm) While still a form of terrorism it is a

different approach than conventional terrorism. Dorothy Denning, a well-known information security
researcher, provides a more comprehensive definition: Cyberterrorism is the convergence of terrorism
and cyberspace. It is generally understood to mean unlawful attacks and threats of attack against
computers, networks, and the information stored therein when done to intimidate or coerce a government
or its people in furtherance of political or social objectives. Further, to qualify as cyberterrorism, an attack
should result in violence against persons or property, or at least cause enough harm to generate fear. Attacks that lead to

death or bodily injury, explosions, plane crashes, water contamination, or severe economic loss

would be examples. Serious attacks against critical infrastructures could be acts of cyberterrorism,
depending on their impact. Attacks that disrupt nonessential services or that are mainly a costly nuisance
would not. (http://www.cs.georgetown.edu/~denning/infosec/cybert:rror.html) Richard Clarke, a

counterterrorism expert and special advisor to President Bush on cyberspace security, described
our vulnerability to a cyber terrorist attack as a digital Pearl Harbor . One where you would never see it

coming and would have devastating effects. We can no longer turn a blind eye to these possibilities. In moving forward it
is imperative to imagine the ways terrorists could disrupt the nations information infrastructure and the

computer networks that control telecommunications, the electric grid, water supplies and air
traffic. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?

res=9804E1D7123BF934A25752C1A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1) METHODOLOGY This

research was conducted using open source documents that are open to the public. All documents are
unclassified and openly available for viewing. References used for the analysis of the topic were found via
the Internet. Examples of works cited are unclassified government documents found on government
websites using search terms related to the topic. Internationally distributed newspapers were also used to
support the construction of the paper. Other valid and reliable sources used in collecting data were
government websites for agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigations. Additional research was
pursued utilizing college and university websites that posted studies of similar matters. Furthermore, books
written by experts were examined and relevant information was extracted to reinforce the views within this
text. In reviewing the literature it was important to disseminate that which was reputable and worthy of
noting. Information that was not corroborated or from a source that was not credible was examined and
excluded from use based on its merit. Data from respectable scholars and universities were studied and
surveyed. Ideas were compared and contrasted and then used to support my thesis. Inquiries into this
particular field produced numerous results. A logical analysis of the material was conducted and presented
in this paper. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Critical Infrastructure Critical infrastructure is defined by the
USA Patriot Act as systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the

incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security,
national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters .
(United State, 2001) It can be said that this infrastructure represents the backbone of the United
States. Minimizing our vulnerabilities to terrorist threats is a shared responsibility that falls on federal,
state, and local government as well as private industry. According to the National Strategy for the
Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets, we must commit to secure(ing) the
infrastructure and assets vital to our national security, governance, public health and safety, economy, and
public confidence. (United States, 2003. Pg vii). This network is made up of the institutions that our

country relies on to function as a society. It is comprised of agriculture, food, water, public

health, emergency services, government, defense industrial base, information and
telecommunications, energy, transportation, banking and finance, chemical industry and
hazardous material, and postal and shipping. (United States, 2003. Pg 6). These represent the staples
of our nation and its economy. Even though they are separate entities that are self-governing they are
interdependent upon one another. The relationship is complex and the disruption of one could adversely

affect the other. Each sector plays a key role in our daily lives providing services that are invaluable. This
infrastructure is so essential that in 1996 President Clinton devised Executive Order 13010, Critical
Infrastructure Protection, which addresses threats of electronic, radio-frequency, or computer-based
attacks on the information or communications components that control critical infrastructures (cyber
threats) (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo13010.htm) The components of agriculture and food and
water represent the most basic needs of the people of the United States. All citizens require a reliable food
supply and clean drinking water. Without these necessities people would go hungry or even starve. Even something as
simple as washing your hands or brushing your teeth would be impossible. Any threat to these sectors could spread panic
or fear amongst the people.

Generic Turns Econ

Domestic terrorism deters foreign direct investment even small attacks crush
investor confidence
Bandyopadhyay et al 15 (Subhayu Bandyopadhyay is Research Officer at the Federal Reserve
Bank of St. Louis and Research Fellow at IZA, Bonn, Germany. Todd Sandler is Vibhooti Shukla
Professor of Economics and Political Economy at the University of Texas at Dallas. Javed
Younasis Associate Professor of Economics at the American University of Sharjah, United Arab
Emirates. The Toll of Terrorism
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2015/06/bandyopa.htm)
Scaring off investors Increased terrorism in a particular area tends to depress the expected return on
capital invested there, which shifts investment elsewhere. This reduces the stock of productive capital
and the flow of productivity-enhancing technology to the affected nation. For example, from the mid-1970s
through 1991, terrorist incidents reduced net foreign direct investment in Spain by 13.5 percent and in Greece by 11.9
percent (Enders and Sandler, 1996). In fact, the initial loss of productive resources as a result of terrorism

may increase manyfold because potential foreign investors shift their investments to other,
presumably safer, destinations. Abadie and Gardeazabal (2008) showed that a relatively small increase in the
perceived risk of terrorism can cause an outsized reduction in a countrys net stock of foreign direct
investment and inflict significant damage on its economy. We analyzed 78 developing economies over the period 1984
2008 (Bandyopadhyay, Sandler, and Younas, 2014) and found that on average a relatively small increase in a
countrys domestic terrorist incidents per 100,000 persons sharply reduced net foreign direct
investment. There was a similarly large reduction in net investment if the terrorist incidents
originated abroad or involved foreigners or foreign assets in the attacked country. We also found that greater official
aid flows can substantially offset the damage to foreign direct investmentperhaps in part because the increased aid
allows recipient nations to invest in more effective counterterrorism efforts. Most countries that experienced aboveaverage domestic or transnational terrorist incidents during 19702011 received less foreign direct investment or foreign
aid than the average among the 122 in the sample (see table). It is difficult to assess causation, but the table suggests a
troubling association between terrorism and depressed aid and foreign direct investment, both of which are crucial for
developing economies. It is generally believed that there are higher risks in trading with a nation afflicted by terrorism,
which cause an increase in transaction costs and tend to reduce trade. For example, after the September 11 attacks on New
York City and the Washington, D.C., area, the U.S. border was temporarily closed, holding up truck traffic between the
United States and Canada for an extended time. Nitsch and Schumacher (2004) analyzed a sample of 200 countries over
the period 196093 and found that when terrorism incidents in a pair of trading countries double in one year, trade
between them falls by about 4 percent that same year. They also found that when one of two trading partners

suffers at least one terrorist attack, it reduces trade between them to 91 percent of what it would
be in the absence of terrorism. Blomberg and Hess (2006) estimated that terrorism and other internal and
external conflicts retard trade as much as a 30 percent tariff. More specifically, they found that any trading partner that
experienced terrorism experienced close to a 4 percent reduction in bilateral trade. But Egger and Gassebner (2015) found
more modest trade effects. Terrorism had few to no short-term effects; it was significant over the medium term, which
they defined as more than one and a half years after an attack/incident. Abstracting from the impact of transaction costs
from terrorism, Bandyopadhyay and Sandler (2014b) found that terrorism may not necessarily reduce trade, because
resources can be reallocated. If terrorism disproportionately harmed one productive resource (say land) relative to
another (say labor), then resources would flow to the labor-intensive sector. If a country exported labor-intensive goods,
such as textiles, terrorism could actually lead to increased production and exportation. In other words, although terrorism
may reduce trade in a particular product because it increases transaction costs, its ultimate impact may be either to raise
or reduce overall trade. These apparently contradictory empirical and theoretical findings present rich prospects for future
study. Of course terrorism has repercussions beyond human and material destruction and the economic effects discussed
in this article. Terrorism also influences immigration and immigration policy. The traditional gains and losses from the
international movement of labor may be magnified by national security considerations rooted in a terrorism response. For
example, a recent study by Bandyopadhyay and Sandler (2014a) focused on a terrorist organization based in a developing
country. It showed that the immigration policy of the developed country targeted by the terrorist group can be critical to
containing transnational terrorism. Transnational terrorism targeted at well-protected developed countries tends to be
more skill intensive: it takes a relatively sophisticated terrorist to plan and successfully execute such an attack.
Immigration policies that attract highly skilled people to developed countries can drain the pool of highly skilled terrorist
recruits and may cut down on transnational terrorism.

Multiple shocks on econ after terror attacksforeign direct investment,

infrastructure, trade
Sandler and Ender 10 (Todd Sandler, Professor of International Relations and Economics at
the University of Southern California, Walter Enders, Bidgood Chair of Economics and Finance at

the University of Alabama, July 2010,

http://www.utdallas.edu/~tms063000/website/Econ_Consequences_ms.pdf)
Terrorism can impose costs on a targeted country through a number of avenues. Terrorist incidents have
economic consequences by diverting foreign direct investment (FDI), destroying infrastructure,
redirecting public investment funds to security, or limiting trade. If a developing country loses enough
FDI, which is an important source of savings, then it may also experience reduced economic growth. Just as capital may
take flight from a country plagued by a civil war (see Collier et al., 2003), a sufficiently intense terrorist campaign may
greatly reduce capital inflows (Enders and Sandler, 1996). Terrorism, like civil conflicts, may cause spillover costs 2 among
neighboring countries as a terrorist campaign in a neighbor dissuades capital inflows, or a regional multiplier causes lost
economic activity in the terrorism-ridden country to resonate throughout the region .1 In some
instances, terrorism may impact specific industries as 9/11 did on airlines and tourism (Drakos, 2004; Ito and Lee, 2004).
Another cost is the expensive security measures that must be instituted following large attacks e.g., the
massive homeland security outlays since 9/11 (Enders and Sandler, 2006, Chapter 10). Terrorism also raises the

costs of doing business in terms of higher insurance premiums, expensive security precautions,
and larger salaries to at-risk employees.
Terrorism will destroy the US econ along with those of other countries
Weil 7/16 (Dan Weil, 7-16-2015, Celente: Terrorist Attack Would Crash World Economy,
Newsmax, http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/terrorist-gold-silverHomelandSecurity/2011/07/07/id/402861)
Another terrorist attack would create a global economic disaster , says economic and political guru Gerald
Celente, director of The Trends Research Institute. The wise investment strategy in such a scenario would be to buy silver
and gold while selling currencies, he tells King World News. What will another major terror strike mean should an attack
hit one of the major NATO nations? Celente says. The effects this time will go global. Bank holidays will be called,
the U.S. and other fragile economies will crumble, gold and silver will soar, and already troubled
currencies will crash. Economic martial law will be declared, promised as a temporary measure. Once in place it will
remain in place. And dont expect your ATM card to be of much use. With banks closed and economic martial

law in place, restrictions will be set on the amounts, times and frequencies of withdrawals (of
cash). It will be essential to have a stash of cash on hand, Celente says.
A terrorist attack would crush the economy
Bandyopadhyay et al 15 (Subhayu Bandyopadhyay is Research Officer at the Federal Reserve
Bank of St. Louis and Research Fellow at IZA, Bonn, Germany. Todd Sandler is Vibhooti Shukla
Professor of Economics and Political Economy at the University of Texas at Dallas. Javed
Younasis Associate Professor of Economics at the American University of Sharjah, United Arab
Emirates. The Toll of Terrorism
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2015/06/bandyopa.htm)
*modified for ableist language*
New technology has lowered transportation costs and increased trade and capital flows across
nations. But the same technology that has fostered international economic growth has also allowed
terrorism to spread easily among countries whose interests are tightly interwoven . Terrorism is no
longer solely a local issue. Terrorists can strike from thousands of miles away and cause vast
destruction. The effects of terrorism can be terrifyingly direct. People are kidnapped or killed.
Pipelines are sabotaged. Bombers strike markets, buses, and restaurants with devastating effect.
But terrorism inflicts more than human casualties and material losses. It can also cause serious
indirect harm to countries and economies by increasing the costs of economic transactions for
example, because of enhanced security measures to ensure the safety of employees and customers or higher
insurance premiums. Terrorist attacks in Yemen on the USS Cole in 2000 and on the French tanker Limburg in 2002
seriously damaged that countrys shipping industry. These attacks contributed to a 300 percent rise in insurance
premiums for ships using that route and led ships to bypass Yemen entirely (Enders and Sandler, 2012). In this article we
explore the economic burden of terrorism. It can take myriad forms, but we focus on three: national income
losses and growth-[slowing]retarding effects, dampened foreign direct investment, and disparate

effects on international trade.

Turns Privacy/Internet Freedom

Terrorism is used as a justification for increased surveillance empirics prove and
turns case
Haggerty and Gazso 05 (Kevin, Professor of Criminology and Sociology at the University of
Alberta; Amber, Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology at York University, The
Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, Vol. 30, No. 2 ( Spring, 2005),
pp. 169-187 Seeing beyond the Ruins: Surveillance as a Response to Terrorist Threats JSTOR;
accessed 7/17/15 JH @ DDI)
A climate of fear and anxiety helped ease the passage of such laws (Davis, 2001). However, a great deal of
organizational opportunism was also at work. Many of the surveillance proposals adopted in the days after
the attack were recycled from earlier legislative efforts . In previous incarnations these proposals had often
been legitimated as essential for the international "war on drugs" or to address other crimes, such as money laundering.

The September 11 th attacks gave the authorities a new and apparently unassailable legitimation
for long-standing legislative ambitions. Before the dust had settled on Manhattan, the security
establishment had mobilized to expand and intensify their surveillance capabilities, justifying
existing proposals as necessary tools to fight the new war against terrorism . Ultimately, the police,
military and security establishment reaped an unanticipated windfall of increased funding, new technology and loosened
legislative constraints by strategically invoking fears of future attacks. There are several examples of such opportunism.
Since at least 1999, when Congress initially turned down their request, the U.S. Justice Department has lobbied for the
development of new "secret search" provisions. Likewise, prior to the attacks, the FBI and the National
Telecommunications and Information Systems Security Committee had a lengthy shopping list of desired surveillancerelated measures including legal enhancements to their wiretapping capabilities, legal constraints on the public use of
cryptography, and provisions for governmental agents to compel Internet service providers to provide information on
their customers (Burnham, 1997). All of these proposals were recycled and implemented after the
September 11th attacks now justified as integral tools in the "war on terrorism." New provisions
requiring banks to exercise "due diligence" in relation to their large depositors were originally justified by the authorities
as a means to counter the "war on drugs." The opportunism of many of these efforts was inadvertently revealed by an
RCMP Sergeant when, during a discussion about new official antiterrorism powers to monitor financial transactions, he
noted that: "We've been asking for something like this for four years. It's really our best weapon against biker gangs"
[emphasis added] (Corcan, 2001). In Canada, the Federal Privacy Commissioner was particularly alarmed by the
development of what he referred to as a "Big Brother database." This amounts to a detailed computerized record of
information about Canadian travelers. Although justified as a means to counter terrorism, the data will be made available
to other government departments for any purpose they deem appropriate. Such provisions raise the specter of
informational "fishing expeditions." Indeed, the Canadian government has already indicated that this ostensible
anti-terrorist database will be used to help monitor tax evaders and catch domestic criminals. It will also be used to
scrutinize an individual's travel history and destinations, in an effort to try and determine whether they might be a
pedophile or money launderer (Radwanski, 2002). While these are laudable goals, they also reveal how a host of other

surveillance agendas have been furthered by capitalizing on the new anti-terrorism discourse.
Lone wolf terror attacks are used to justify disproportionate increases in
surveillance and military operations abroad
Lennard 14 (Senior News Analyst for Vice News, 10/27/14, Natasha Lennard, Brooklyn-based
Senior News Analyst for Vice News, VICE News, October 27, 2014, 'Lone Wolf' Terrorist Acts
Will Be Used to Justify the Surveillance State https://news.vice.com/article/lone-wolf-terroristacts-will-be-used-to-justify-the-surveillance-state, accessed 7/17/15 JH @ DDI)
The phenomenon of individuals committing violent and murderous acts in the name of an
ideology is nothing new in the US. The FBI's Operation Lone Wolf investigated white supremacists encouraging
autonomous violent acts in the 1990s. Why, then, are we seeing pundits and politicians newly focus on the "lone wolf"
category? There's no simple answer, but we can at the very least see that the old binary, distinguishing terror as the act of
networked groups versus lone madman mass killings a distinction that has tacitly undergirded post-9/11 conceptions of
terrorism doesn't serve the latest iteration of the war on terror. California Senator Dianne Feinstein, speaking on CNN's
State of the Union on Sunday, suggested that "the Internet, as well as certain specific Muslim extremists,

are really firing up this lone-wolf phenomenon." Whether intentionally or not, the Senate
Intelligence Committee chair performed a lot of political work with that one comment.
Crystallizing "lone wolves" as a key threat domestically helps legitimize the US's current military
operation against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. With or without established connections, the Islamic
State's far-reaching tentacles of online influence encouraging individuals worldwide cement the group as a threat to the
homeland which is always useful for politicians struggling to legally justify another protracted war. In this way,
attributing attacks to homegrown "lone wolves" is more useful for current US political interests than attributing them to

madness alone. The assumption

that terror acts were always borne of connected networks

problematically buoyed domestic counter-terror efforts that saw entire communities profiled as
potential threats. Which is not to say that "lone wolf terrorist" is a flawed designation for attacks by ideologically
motivated individuals. In many ways it seems apt, and any challenge is welcome to the all too basic distinction that imbues
group terror with motive while dismissing individual acts as madness. The "lone wolf" straddles the ill-conceived gap
between madman and terrorist node. It's an intersection all too complicated for the inexpert punditry of Fox News: "They
are terrorist acts, to be sure," Megyn Kelly said about Canadian gunman Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, adding "but this guy was
also a nutcase." Furthermore, the assumption that terror acts were always borne of connected networks problematically
buoyed domestic counter-terror efforts that saw entire communities profiled as potential threats. Under the premise that
terror networks ran like arteries through US Muslim communities enabled an era of profile-driven preemptive policing
that has been nothing short of racist. Entire mosques in New York were designated terrorist organizations to enable police
surveillance. The NSA's meta-data collections claim justifiability on the premise that terror was locatable by tracing
networks of communication. The "lone wolf" phenomenon should at least prompt the questioning of the sort of profilebased counter-terror efforts that assumed terror lurked in any network of Muslims, and that the mass hoarding of
communications data was vital to national security. However, the rhetoric surrounding this type of domestic

threat already bodes ill for civil liberties. If the hunt for terrorist networks has been plagued by
ethnic profiling and overreaching spycraft, an established threat of "lone wolf" attacks gives a
defensive imprimatur for unbounded NSA-style surveillance anyone can wield a hatchet with ideological
ire. As Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee Michael McCaul said on This Week, finding such lone
actors in advance of attacks is like "finding a needle in a haystack." And as Feinstein said the same day,
"You have to be able to watch it, and you have to be able to disrupt them." As such, the era of the "lone wolf"
terrorist does not only spell the end of the bunk distinction between motivated group and deranged individual. It ushers
in the dawn of a new era of justification for our totalized state of surveillance and national
security paranoia.
Surveillance would increase after a terrorist attack
Feaver 1/13 (Peter D., 1/13/15, Foreign Policy, 10 Lessons to Remember After a Terrorist
Attack, Peter is a professor of political science and public policy and Bass Fellow @ Duke
University, and director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies and the Duke Program in
American Grand Strategy, http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/13/ten-lessons-to-remember-aftera-terrorist-attack/, 7/16/15, SM)
In particular, it is striking how some of the things that were obvious in the days and weeks after 9/11, but
then were gradually forgotten, have become obvious again: Terrorists succeed when they are abetted
by intelligence failures. Or, put another way, terrorists only need to get lucky once to succeed, whereas
counterterrorism has to be lucky all the time to succeed. Even robust intelligence and law enforcement
may not guarantee 100 percent safety and security. By global standards certainly by the standards of
Western democracies France has a particularly formidable counterterrorist structure. But it failed in this
instance. When terrorists succeed in an attack, citizens demand that the government do more to
protect them even if they have already been doing a lot. And steps that would have seemed
heavy handed before the attack, say aggressive surveillance of suspected terrorists or
visible demonstrations of presence by the security forces, are deemed not just tolerable but necessary.
Moreover, savvy political leaders will understand that one of the benefits of a stronger official response is that it is a hedge
both against dangerously stronger vigilantism and also against additional pressure from some segments of the public to do
more than is wise.

<<Politics DA Link>>
Obama will fight to maintain NSA surveillance Recent
court case proves
Ackerman 6/9 (Spencer Ackerman: National security editor for Guardian,
Obama lawyers asked secret court to ignore public court's decision on
spying, The Guardian, 6/9/2015,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/09/obama-fisa-courtsurveillance-phone-records, Accessed: 7/17/15, RRR)
The Obama administration has asked a secret surveillance court to ignore a
federal court that found bulk surveillance illegal and to once again
grant the National Security Agency the power to collect the phone records of
millions of Americans for six months. The legal request, filed nearly four hours after Barack
Obama vowed to sign a new law banning precisely the bulk collection he asks the secret court to approve, also suggests

the administration may not necessarily comply with any potential

court order demanding that the collection stop. US officials
confirmed last week that they would ask the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance court better known as the Fisa court, a panel that meets in secret as a step in the surveillance
process and thus far has only ever had the government argue before it to turn the domestic bulk
collection spigot back on.
that

<<Elections DA Link>>
Moderate Dems support domestic surveillance curtailing it
causes them to flip flop and vote for the Republicans
Silver 13 [Nate Silver, Nate Silver is the founder and editor in chief of FiveThirtyEight, he is also a statistical genius.
Domestic Surveillance Could Create a Divide in the 2016 Primaries,
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/domestic-surveillance-could-create-a-divide-in-the-2016primaries/?_r=0, June 11th, 2013//Rahul]
A poll released on Monday by the Pew Research Center and The Washington Post found a partisan

shift in the way Americans view the National Security Agencys domestic
surveillance programs. In the survey, slightly more Democrats than Republicans said
they found it acceptable for the N.S.A. to track Americans phone records
and e-mails if the goal is to prevent terrorism. By comparison, when Pew Research asked a

similar question in 2006, Republicans were about twice as likely as Democrats to support the N.S.A.s activities. The poll is
a reminder that many Americans do not hold especially firm views on some issues and instead may adapt them depending
on which party controls the executive branch. When it comes to domestic surveillance, a

considerable number of Democrats seem willing to support actions

under President Obama that they deemed unacceptable under George W. Bush, while some Republicans
have shifted in the opposite direction. What may be just as significant is the way in which
attitudes toward the security state could split voters and elected
officials within each party possibly creating a wedge issue in both
party primaries in 2016. Politicians who are normally associated with being on the far left and the far
right may find common cause with grass-roots voters in their objection to domestic surveillance programs, fighting
against a party establishment that is inclined to support them. Take, for example, the Houses vote

in May 2011 to extend certain provisions of the Patriot Act including the so-called

library records provision that the government has used to defend the legality of sweeping searches of telephone and e-mail
records. The bill passed with 250 yes votes in the House against 153 no votes, receiving more of its support from
Republicans. (In the Senate, the bill passed, 72-23, winning majority support

from both parties.) However, the House vote was not well described by a traditional left-right political

spectrum. In the chart below, Ive sorted the 403 members of the House who voted on the bill from left to right in order of
their overall degree of liberalism or conservatism, as determined by the statistical system DW-Nominate. Members of the
House who voted for the bill are represented with a yellow stripe in the chart, while those who voted against it are
represented in black. The no votes are concentrated at the two ends of the spectrum.

The 49 most liberal members of the House (all Democrats) who voted on the
bill each voted against it. But so did 14 of the 21 Republicans deemed to be the most conservative by DWNominate. By contrast, 46 of the 50 most moderate Republicans voted for the Patriot
Act extension, as did 38 of the 50 most moderate Democrats.

<<China Econ DA>>

CX Questions
Customers are shifting to foreign products now why
does the plan reverse that trend?

1NC
NSA spying shifts tech dominance to China but its fragile
reversing the trend now kills China
Li and McElveen 13
(Cheng Li; Ryan Mcelveen. Cheng Li received a M.A. in Asian studies from the University of
California, Berkeley and a Ph.D. in political science from Princeton University. He is director of
the John L. Thornton China Center and a senior fellow in the Foreign Policy program at
Brookings. He is also a director of the Nationsal Committee on U.S.-China Relations. Li focuses
on the transformation of political leaders, generational change and technological development
in China. "NSA Revelations Have Irreparably Hurt U.S. Corporations in China," Brookings
Institution. 12-12-2013. http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/12/12-nsarevelations-hurt-corporations-china-li-mcelveen//ghs-kw)

The first story about the

NSA appeared in The Guardian on June 5. When Obama and Xi met in
California two days later, the United States had lost all credibility on
the cyber security issue. Instead of providing Obama with the perfect opportunity to confront China
For the Obama administration, Snowdens timing could not have been worse.

about its years of intellectual property theft from U.S. firms, the Sunnylands meeting forced Obama to resort to a
defensive posture. Reflecting on how the tables had turned, the media reported that President Xi chose to stay off-site at a

the Chinese
government turned to official media to launch a public campaign
against U.S. technology firms operating in China through its deCisco (qu Sike hua) movement. By targeting Cisco, the U.S. networking
company that had helped many local Chinese governments develop and improve their IT infrastructures beginning
in the mid-1990s, the Chinese government struck at the very core of U.S.China technological and economic collaboration. The movement began
with the publication of an issue of China Economic Weekly titled Hes Watching You that singled out eight
U.S. firms as guardian warriors who had infiltrated the Chinese
market: Apple, Cisco, Google, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Oracle and
Qualcomm. Cisco, however, was designated as the most horrible of these warriors because of its pervasive
reach into Chinas financial and governmental sectors. For these U.S. technology firms,
China is a vital source of business that represents a fast-growing
slice of the global technology market. After the Chinese official
media began disparaging the guardian warriors in June, the sales
of those companies have fallen precipitously. With the release of its third quarter
earnings in November, Cisco reported that orders from China fell 18 percent
from the same period a year earlier and projected that overall revenue would fall 8 to 10 percent as a result, according to
Reuters. IBM reported that its revenue from the Chinese market fell 22
percent, which resulted in a 4 percent drop in overall profit. Similarly, Microsoft has said that
China had become its weakest market. However, smaller U.S. technology firms working in
nearby Hyatt hotel out of fear of eavesdropping. After the Sunnylands summit,

China have not seen the same slowdown in business. Juniper Networks, a networking rival to Cisco, and EMC Corp, a

the Chinese continue to shun the

may turn to similar but smaller U.S. firms until domestic Chinese
firms are ready to assume their role. In the meantime, trying to completely de-Cisco would
be too costly for China, as Ciscos network infrastructure has become too deeply embedded around the
country. Chinese technology firms have greatly benefited in the
aftermath of the Snowden revelations. For example, the share price of China National
Software has increased 250 percent since June. In addition, the Chinese government continues
to push for faster development of its technology industry , in which it has
invested since the early 1990s, by funding the development of supercomputers
and satellite navigation systems. Still, Chinas current investment in cyber security cannot
storage system maker, both saw increased business in the third quarter. As
guardian warriors, they

compare with that of the United States. The U.S. government spends $6.5 billion annually on cyber security, whereas

The
Chinese governments investment in both cyber espionage and cyber
security will continue to increase, and that investment will
overwhelmingly benefit Chinese technology corporations. Chinas
reliance on the eight American guardian warrior corporations will
diminish as its domestic firms develop commensurate capabilities.
China spends $400 million, according to NetentSec CEO Yuan Shengang. But that will not be the case for long.

Bolstering Chinas cyber capabilities may emerge as one of the goals of Chinas National Security Committee, which was
formed after the Third Plenary Meeting of the 18th Party Congress in November. Modeled on the U.S. National Security
Council and led by President Xi Jinping, the committee was established to centralize coordination and quicken response
time, although it is not yet clear how much of its efforts will be focused domestically or internationally. The Third Plenum
also brought further reform and opening of Chinas economy, including encouraging more competition in the private
sector. The Chinese leadership continues to solicit foreign investment, as evidenced by in the newly established Shanghai

there is no doubt that investments by foreign

technology companies are less welcome than investments from
other sectors because of the Snowden revelations.
Free Trade Zone. However,

The AFF reclaims US tech leadership from China their

evidence
Castro and McQuinn
(Castro, Daniel and McQuinn, Alan. Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. The
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) is a Washington, D.C.-based think
tank at the cutting edge of designing innovation strategies and technology policies to create
economic opportunities and improve quality of life in the United States and around the world.
Founded in 2006, ITIF is a 501(c) 3 nonprofit, non-partisan organization that documents the
beneficial role technology plays in our lives and provides pragmatic ideas for improving
technology-driven productivity, boosting competitiveness, and meeting todays global
challenges through innovation. Daniel Castro is the vice president of the Information
Technology and Innovation Foundation. His research interests include health IT, data privacy,
e-commerce, e-government, electronic voting, information security, and accessibility. Before
joining ITIF, Mr. Castro worked as an IT analyst at the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
where he audited IT security and management controls at various government agencies. He
has a B.S. in Foreign Service from Georgetown University and an M.S. in Information Security
Technology and Management from Carnegie Mellon University. Alan McQuinn is a research
assistant with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Prior to joining ITIF, Mr.
McQuinn was a telecommunications fellow for Congresswoman Anna Eshoo and an intern for
the Federal Communications Commission in the Office of Legislative Affairs. He got his B.S. in
Political Communications and Public Relations from the University of Texas at Austin. Beyond
the USA Freedom Act: How U.S. Surveillance Still Subverts U.S. Competitiveness, ITIF. June
2015. http://www2.itif.org/2015-beyond-usa-freedom-act.pdf//ghs-kw)

it could very well be that

how the United States lost its global technology
leadership to other nations. And clearly one of the factors they would point to is
the long-standing privileging of U.S. national security interests over
CONCLUSION When historians write about this period in U.S. history
one of the themes will be

U.S. industrial and commercial interests when it comes to U.S. foreign policy. This has occurred over the
last few years as

the U.S. government has

done relatively little to address the rising

putting intelligence
gathering first and foremost. Indeed, policy decisions by the U.S.
intelligence community have reverberated throughout the global
economy. If the U.S. tech industry is to remain the leader in the
global marketplace, then the U.S. government will need to set a new
course that balances economic interests with national security interests. The cost of inaction
is not only short-term economic losses for U.S. companies, but a wave of protectionist policies that
will systematically weaken U.S. technology competiveness in years
to come, with impacts on economic growth, jobs, trade balance, and national security through a
weakened industrial base. Only by taking decisive steps to reform its digital
surveillance activities will the U.S. government enable its tech
industry to effectively compete in the global market.
commercial challenge to U.S. technology companies, all the while

Growth is slowing nowinnovation and tech are key to

sustain CCP legitimacy
Ebner 14
(Julia Ebner. Julia Ebner received her MSc in International Relations and Affairs and her MSc in
Political Economy, Development Economics, and Natural Resources from Peking University. She
was a researcher at the European Institute of Asia Studies. "Entrepreneurs: Chinas Next
Growth Engine?," Diplomat. 8-7-2014. http://thediplomat.com/2014/08/entrepreneurs-chinasnext-growth-engine///ghs-kw)

China want to remain an international economic superpower, it will need to

substitute its current growth model one largely based on abundant, cheap labor
with a different comparative advantage that can lay the foundation
for a new, more sustainable growth strategy. Chinese policymakers are hoping
now that an emerging entrepreneurship may fit that bill, with start-ups
and family-run enterprises potentially becoming a major driver of
sustainable growth and thus replacing the countrys current
economic model. In 2014, international conferences on private
entrepreneurship and innovation were organized all across China : The
Should

China Council for the Promotion of International Trade organized its first annual Global Innovation Economic

numerous innovation-related conferences were held at

well-known Chinese universities such as Tsinghua University, Jilin
University and Wuhan University. New Growth Model Needed Although China still ranks
Congress, while

among the fastest growing economies in the world, the countrys growth rates have decreased notably

From the 1990s until the 2008 financial crisis,

Chinas GDP growth was consistently in the double digits with only a brief
over the past few years.

interruption following the Asian financial crisis of 1997. Despite a relatively quick recovery after the global
financial crisis, declining export rates resulting from the economic distress of Chinas main trading partners

Todays GDP growth of 7.8 percent is

just half level recorded immediately before the 2008 crisis, according to
the latest data provided by the World Bank. This recent slowdown in Chinas economic growth
has naturally been a source of concern for the government. A
continuation of the countrys phenomenal economic growth is
needed to maintain both social stability and the Communist Partys
legitimacy. Sustainable economic growth has thus been identified as
one of Chinas key challenges for the coming decade. That challenge is
have left their mark on the Chinese economy.

complicated by demographic trends, which are set to have a strongly negative impact on the Chinese
economy within the next decade. Researchers anticipate that as a consequence of the countrys one-child
policy, introduced in 1977, China will soon experience a sharp decline of its working-age population,
leading to a substantial labor force bottleneck. A labor shortage is likely to mean climbing wages,
threatening Chinas cheap labor edge. The challenge is well described in a recent article published by the

Entrepreneurship is
widely recognized as an important engine for economic growth: It
contributes positively to economic development by fuelling job
markets through the creation of new employment opportunities, by
stimulating technological change through increased levels of
innovation, and by enhancing the market environment through an
intensification of market competition. Entrepreneurship and
innovation have the potential to halt the contraction in China
economic growth and to replace the countrys unsustainable
comparative advantage of cheap labor over the long term. As former
Chinese President Hu Jintao stressed in 2006, if China can transform its current
growth strategy into one based on innovation and entrepreneurship, it could
sustain its growth rates and secure a key role in the international
world order. Indeed, increasing levels of entrepreneurship in the Chinese
International Monetary Fund. Replacing the Cheap Labor Strategy

private sector are likely to lead to technological innovation and

productivity increases. This could prove particularly useful in offsetting the
workforce bottleneck created by demographic trends. Greater
innovation would also make China more competitive and less dependent on
the knowledge and technology of traditional Western trading partners such as the EU and the U.S.

Economic growth is key to prevent CCP collapse and

lashout
Friedberg 10, Professor of Politics and International Affairs Princeton,

Asia Expert CFR (Aaron, Implications of the Financial Crisis for the US-China
Rivalry, Survival, Volume 52, Issue 4, August, p. 31 54)
Despite its magnitude, Beijing's stimulusprogrammewas insufficient to forestall a sizeable spike in
unemployment. The regime acknowledges that upwards of 20 million migrant workers
lost their jobs in the first year of the crisis, with many returning to their villages, and 7m recent college
graduates are reportedly on the streets in search of work.9 Not surprisingly, tough times have been accompanied
by increased social turmoil. Even before the crisis hit, the number of so-called 'mass incidents' (such as
riots or strikes) reported each year in China had been rising. Perhaps because it feared that the steep upward
trend might be unnerving to foreign investors, Beijing stopped publishing aggregate, national statistics in 2005.10 Nevertheless, there is ample, if
fragmentary, evidence that things got worse as the economy slowed . In Beijing, for
example, salary cuts, layoffs, factory closures and the failure of business
owners to pay back wages resulted in an almost 100% increase in
the number of labour disputes brought before the courts.11 Since the early days of the current crisis, the regime has clearly
been bracing itself for trouble. Thus, at the start of 2009, an official news-agency story candidly warned Chinese readers that the country was, 'without a doubt entering

the regime for the first time

summoned all 3,080 county-level police chiefs to the capital to learn the latest riot-control
a peak period of mass incidents'.12 In anticipation of an expected increase in unrest,

for the
moment, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) appears to be weathering the storm. But
tactics, and over 200 intermediate and lower-level judges were also called in for special training.13 Beijing's stimulus was insufficient At least

if in the next several years the economy slumps again or simply fails to return to its previous pace, Beijing's
troubles will mount. The regime probably has enough repressive capacity
to cope with a good deal more turbulence than it has thus far encountered, but a protracted
crisis could eventually pose a challenge to the solidarity of the party's
leadership and thus to its continued grip on political power. Sinologist MinxinPei points out that
the greatest danger to CCP rule comes not from below but from
above. Rising societal discontent 'might be sufficient to tempt some members of the
elite to exploit the situation to their own political advantage' using
'populist appeals to weaken their rivals and, in the process, open[ing] up divisions within the party's seemingly unified
upper ranks'.14 If this happens, all bets will be off and a very wide range of outcomes, from a democratic transition to

a bloody civil war, will

become plausible.

suddenly
Precisely because it is aware of this danger, the regime has been very careful to keep whatever differences exist over
how to deal with the current crisis within bounds and out of view. If there are significant rifts they could become apparent in the run-up to the pending change in leadership

Short of causing the regime to unravel, a sustained economic crisis could

induce it to abandon its current, cautious policy of avoiding conflict with other
countries while patiently accumulating all the elements of 'comprehensive national power'. If they believe that their
backs are to the wall, China's leaders might even be tempted to lash
out, perhaps provoking a confrontation with a foreign power in the hopes of
rallying domestic support and deflecting public attention from their day-to-day troubles. Beijing might also
choose to implement a policy of 'military Keynesianism' , further accelerating its already ambitious
plans for military construction in the hopes of pumping up aggregate demand and resuscitating a sagging domestic economy.15 In sum,
despite its impressive initial performance, Beijing is by no means on solid ground . The
reverberations from the 2008-09 financial crisismay yet shake the regime to its
foundations, and could induce it to behave in unexpected, and perhaps
unexpectedly aggressive, ways .
scheduled for 2012.

Chinese lashout goes nuclear

The Epoch Times, Renxing San, 8/4/2004, 8/4,

http://english.epochtimes.com/news/5-8-4/30931.html
Since the Partys life is above all else, it would not be surprising if the CCP resorts
to the use of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons in its attempt to
extend its life. The CCP, which disregards human life, would not hesitate to kill two hundred
million Americans, along with seven or eight hundred million Chinese, to achieve its
ends. These speeches let the public see the CCP for what it really is. With evil filling its every cell the
CCP intends to wage a war against humankind in its desperate attempt to cling
to life. That is the main theme of the speeches. This theme is murderous and utterly evil. In China we
have seen beggars who coerced people to give them money by threatening to stab themselves with knives
or pierce their throats with long nails. But we have never, until now, seen such a gangster who would use
biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons to threaten the world, that all will die together with him. This
bloody confession has confirmed the CCPs nature: that of a monstrous murderer who has killed 80 million
Chinese people and who now plans to hold one billion people hostage and gamble with their lives.

2NC UQ
NSA spying boosts Chinese tech firms
Kan 13
(Kan, Michael. Michael Kan covers IT, telecommunications, and the Internet in China for the
IDG News Service. "NSA spying scandal accelerating China's push to favor local tech vendors,"
PCWorld. 12-3-2013. http://www.pcworld.com/article/2068900/nsa-spying-scandal-acceleratingchinas-push-to-favor-local-tech-vendors.html//ghs-kw)

the tech services market may be

shrinking for U.S. enterprise vendors. Security concerns over U.S. secret
surveillance are giving the Chinese government and local companies
more reason to trust domestic vendors, according to industry experts. The
country has always tried to support its homegrown tech industry, but lately it is increasingly
favoring local brands over foreign competition. Starting this year, the nations
government tenders have required IT suppliers to source more
products from local Chinese firms, said an executive at a U.S.-based storage supplier that
sells to China. In some cases, the tenders have required 50 percent or more of
the equipment to come from domestic brands, said the executive, who requested
While Chinas demand for electronics continues to soar,

anonymity. Recent leaks by former U.S. National Security Agency contractor, Edward Snowden, about the

China wants to favor

local brands; they feel their technology is getting better, the executive said. Snowden has
just caused this to accelerate incrementally. Last month, other U.S. enterprise
vendors including Cisco and Qualcomm said the U.S. spying scandal has put
strains on their China business. Cisco reported its revenue from the country fell
18 percent year-over-year in the last fiscal quarter. The Chinese government has yet to release an
U.S.s secret spying program arent helping the matter. I think in general

official document telling companies to stay away from U.S. vendors, said the manager of a large data

state-owned telecom operators

have already stopped orders for certain U.S. equipment to power
their networks, he added. Instead, the operators are relying on Chinese
vendors such as Huawei Technologies, to supply their telecommunications equipment.
It will be hard for certain networking equipment made in the U.S. to
enter the Chinese market, the manager said. Its hard for them (U.S.
vendors) to get approval, to get certification from the related
government departments. Other companies, especially banks, are
concerned that buying enterprise gear from U.S. vendors may lead
to scrutiny from the central government, said Bryan Wang, an analyst with Forrester
Research. The NSA issue has been having an impact, but it hasnt been black and
white, he added. In the future, China could create new regulations on where
certain state industries should source their technology from, a
possibility some CIOs are considering when making IT purchases , Wang
said. The obstacles facing U.S. enterprise vendors come at a time
when Chinas own homegrown companies are expanding in the
enterprise market. Huawei Technologies, a major vendor for networking equipment, this August
center, who has knowledge of such developments. But

came out with a new networking switch that will put the company in closer competition with Cisco.

Lenovo and ZTE are also targeting the enterprise market with
products targeted at government, and closing the technology gap
with their foreign rivals, Wang said. Overall in the longer-term, the environment is
positive for local vendors. We definitely see them taking market share
from multinational firms in China, he added. Chinese vendors are also
expanding outside the country and targeting the U.S. market. But last
year Huawei and ZTE saw a push back from U.S. lawmakers concerned with the two companies alleged

ties to the Chinese government. A Congressional panel eventually advised that U.S. firms buy networking
gear from other vendors, calling Huawei and ZTE a security threat.

Europe is shifting to China now

Ranger 15
(Steve Ranger. "Rise of China tech, internet surveillance
revelations form background to CeBIT show," ZDNet. 3-172015. http://www.zdnet.com/article/rise-of-china-techinternet-surveillance-revelations-form-background-tocebit-show///ghs-kw)
CeBIT
technology show in Hannover reflects a gradual but important shift
taking place in the European technology world. Whereas in previous years US
companies would have taken centre stage, this year the emphasis is on China, both
as a creator of technology and as a huge potential market. "German
business values China, not just as our most important trade partner
outside of Europe, but also as a partner in developing sophisticated
technologies," said Angela Merkel as she opened the show. "Especially in the digital
As well as showcasing new devices, from tablets to robotic sculptors and drones, this year's

economy, German and Chinese companies have core strengths ... and that's why cooperation is a natural
choice," she said. Chinese vice premier Ma Kai also attended the show, which featured a keynote from
Alibaba founder Jack Ma. China is CeBIT's 'partner country' this year, with over 600 Chinese companies -

The UK is
also keen on further developing a historically close relationship: the ChinaBritain Business Council is in Hannover to help UK firms set up meetings
with Chinese companies, and to provide support and advice to UK
companies interested in doing business in China. "China is mounting the
including Huawei, Xiaomi, ZTE, and Neusoft - presenting their innovations at the show.

biggest CeBIT partner country showcase ever. Attendees will clearly see that Chinese companies are up

this
activity is a result of the increasingly sophisticated output of
Chinese tech companies who are looking for new markets for their
products. Firms that have found it hard to make headway in the US,
such as Huawei, have been focusing their efforts on Europe instead.
European tech companies are equally keen to access the rapidly
growing Chinese market. Revelations about mass interception of
communications by the US National Security Agency (including allegations
that spies had even tapped Angela Merkel's phone) have not helped US-European relations,
there with the biggest and best of the global IT industry," said a spokesman for CeBIT. Some of

either. So it's perhaps significant that an interview with NSA contractor-turned-whistleblower Edward
Snowden is closing the Hannover show.

2NC UQ: US Failing Now

US tech falling behind other countries
Kevin Ashton 06/2015 [the co-founder and former executive director of
the MIT Auto-ID Center, coined the term Internet of Things. His book How
to Fly a Horse: The Secret History of Creation, Invention, and Discovery was
published by Doubleday earlier this year] "America last?," The Agenda,
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/06/kevin-ashton-internet-ofthings-in-the-us-000102
And, while they were not mentioning it, some key indicators began swinging away from the U.S. In
2005, Chinas high-tech exports exceeded Americas for the first
time. In 2009, just after Wen Jiabao spoke about the Internet of Things, Germanys hightech exports exceeded Americas as well. Today, Germany produces
five times more high tech per capita than the United States. Singapore and

Koreas high-tech exporters are also far more productive than Americas and, according to the most recent

pushing the U.S. down to fifth place in the world s high-tech

for 2013, that may have happened already. This
decline will surprise many Americans, including many American
policymakers and pundits, who assume U.S. leadership simply
transfers from one tech revolution to the next. After all, that next revolution, the
data, are close to

economy. And, as the most recent data are

Internet of Things, was born in America, so perhaps it seems natural that America will lead. Many U.S.
commentators spin a myth that America is No. 1 in high tech, then extend it to claims that Europe is
lagging because of excessive government regulation, and hints that Asians are not innovators and
entrepreneurs, but mere imitators with cheap labor. This is jingoistic nonsense that could not be more
wrong. Not only does Germany, a leader of the European Union, lead the U.S. in high tech, but EU member
states fund CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, which invented the World Wide Web
and built the Large Hadron Collider, likely to be a source of several centuries of high-tech innovation. (U.S.
government intervention killed Americas equivalent particle physics program, the Superconducting Super
Collider, in 1993 an early symptom of declining federal investment in basic research.) Asia, the alleged

Apples iPhone, for example, so often held up as the

epitome of American innovation, looked a lot like a Korean phone , the
LG KE850, which was revealed and released before Apples product. Most of the
imitator, is anything but.

technology in the iPhone was invented in, and is exported by, Asian countries.

2NC Link
If the US loses its tech dominance, Chinese and Indian
innovation will quickly replace it
Fannin 13 (Rebecca Fannin, 7-12-2013, forbes magazine contributor "China Still
Likely To Take Over Tech Leadership If And When Silicon Valley Slips," Forbes,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccafannin/2013/07/12/china-still-likely-to-takeover-tech-leadership-if-and-when-silicon-valley-slips)
Will Silicon Valley continue to maintain its market-leading position for technology innovation ?

Its a question
thats often pondered and debated, especially in the Valley, which has the
most to lose if the emerging markets of China or India take over
leadership. KPMG took a look at this question and other trends in its annual
Technology Innovation Survey, and found that the center of gravity may not
be shifting quite so fast to the East as once predicted. The KPMG survey of
811 technology executives globally found that one-third believe the Valley
will likely lose its tech trophy to an overseas market within just four
years. That percentage might seem high, but it compares with nearly half (44 percent) in last years survey. Its a
notable improvement for the Valley, as the U.S. economy and tech sector pick up. Which country will lead in disruptive
breakthroughs? Here, the U.S. again solidifies its long-standing reputation as the worlds tech giant while China has
slipped in stature from a year ago, according to the survey. In last years poll, the U.S. and China were tied for the top
spot. But today, some 37 percent predict that the U.S. shows the most promise for tech disruptions, little surprise
considering Google GOOG +2.72%s strong showing in the survey as top company innovator in the world with its Google

China, which is progressing from

a reputation for just copying to also innovating or micro-innovating.
India, with a heritage of leadership in outsourcing, a large talent
pool of engineers, ample mentoring from networking groups such as
TiE, and a vibrant mobile communications market, ranked right
behind the U.S. and China two years in a row. Even though Chinas
rank slid in this years tech innovation survey, its Silicon Dragon
tech economy is still regarded as the leading challenger and most
likely to replace the Valley, fueled by the markets huge, fastgrowing and towering brands such as Tencent, Baidu BIDU
-1.13%and Alibaba, and a growing footprint overseas. KPMG partner
Egidio Zarrella notes that China is innovating at an impressive
speed, driven by domestic consumption for local brands that are
unique to the market. China will innovate for Chinas sake, he
observes, adding that with improved research and development
capabilities, China will bridge the gap in expanding globally . For another
glass and driver-less cars. Meanwhile, about one-quarter pick

appraisal of Chinas tech innovation prowess, see Forbes post detailing how Mary Meekers annual trends report singles
out the markets merits, including the fact that China leads the world for the most Internet and mobile communications
users and has a tech-savvy consumer class that embraces new technologies. Besides China, its India that shines in the
KPMG survey.

India scores as the second-most likely country to topple the

U.S. for tech leadership. And, significantly, this emerging tiger
nation ranks first on an index that measures each countrys
confidence in its own tech innovation abilities. Based on ten factors,
India rates highest on talent, mentoring, and customer adoption of
new technologies. The U.S. came in third on the confidence index,
while Israels Silicon Wadi ranked second. Israel was deemed strong in disruptive
technologies, talent and technology infrastructure. The U.S. was judged strongest in tech infrastructure, access to
alliances and partnerships, talent, and technology breakthroughs, and weakest in educational system and government
incentives. Those weaknesses for the U.S. are points that should be underscored in Americas tech clusters and in the
nations capital as future tech leadership unfolds.

A second part of the comprehensive

survey covering tech sectors pinpointed cloud computing and mobile

communications as hardly a fad but here to stay at least for the next
three years as the most disruptive technologies. Both were
highlighted in the 2012 report a well. In a change from last year,
however, big data and biometrics (face, voice and hand gestures
that are digitally read) were identified as top sectors that will see
big breakthroughs. Its brave new tech world.

2NC Chinese Markets Link

Domestic markets are key to Chinese techplan steals
Chinese market share
Lohr 12/2
(Steve Lohr. "In 2015, Technology Shifts Accelerate and
China Rules, IDC Predicts," NYT. 12-2-2014.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/in-2015technology-shifts-accelerate-and-china-rules-idcpredicts///ghs-kw)
Beyond the detail, a couple of larger themes stand out. First is

China. Most of the reporting and

commentary recently on the Chinese economy has been about its slowing growth and challenges. In

information technology, its just the opposite, Frank Gens, IDCs chief analyst, said in an
interview. China has a roaring domestic market in technology. In 2015, IDC
estimates that nearly 500 million smartphones will be sold in China,
three times the number sold in the United States and about one
third of global sales. Roughly 85 percent of the smartphones sold in
China will be made by its domestic producers like Lenovo, Xiaomi,
Huawei, ZTE and Coolpad. The rising prowess of Chinas homegrown smartphone makers will
make it tougher on outsiders, as Samsungs slowing growth and profits recently reflect. More than
680 million people in China will be online next year, or 2.5 times the
number in the United States. And the China numbers are poised to
grow further, helped by its national initiative, the Broadband China Project, intended to give 95
percent of the countrys urban population access to high-speed broadband networks. In all, Chinas
spending on information and communications technology will be
more than $465 billion in 2015, a growth rate of 11 percent. The
expansion of the China tech market will account for 43 percent of
tech-sector growth worldwide.

The Chinese market is key to Chinese tech growth

Mozur 1/28
(Paul Mozur. Reporter for the NYT. "New Rules in China Upset Western Tech Companies," New
York Times. 1-28-2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/29/technology/in-china-newcybersecurity-rules-perturb-western-tech-companies.html//ghs-kw)

servers and mainframes in China were still

produced by multinationals. Still, Chinese companies are catching up
at the lower end. For all enterprise hardware, local brands
represented 21.3 percent revenue share in 2010 in P.R.C. market and
we expect in 2014 that number will reach 43.1 percent , he said, using the
abbreviation for the Peoples Republic of China. Thats a huge jump.
Mr. Yao said 90 percent of high-end

Chinese tech is key to the global industry

Lohr 12/2
(Steve Lohr. "In 2015, Technology Shifts Accelerate and
China Rules, IDC Predicts," NYT. 12-2-2014.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/in-2015-

technology-shifts-accelerate-and-china-rules-idcpredicts///ghs-kw)
Beyond the detail, a couple of larger themes stand out. First is

China. Most of the reporting and

commentary recently on the Chinese economy has been about its slowing growth and challenges. In

information technology, its just the opposite, Frank Gens, IDCs chief analyst, said in an
interview. China has a roaring domestic market in technology. In 2015, IDC
estimates that nearly 500 million smartphones will be sold in China,
three times the number sold in the United States and about one
third of global sales. Roughly 85 percent of the smartphones sold in
China will be made by its domestic producers like Lenovo, Xiaomi,
Huawei, ZTE and Coolpad. The rising prowess of Chinas homegrown smartphone makers will
make it tougher on outsiders, as Samsungs slowing growth and profits recently reflect. More than
680 million people in China will be online next year, or 2.5 times the
number in the United States. And the China numbers are poised to
grow further, helped by its national initiative, the Broadband China Project, intended to give 95
percent of the countrys urban population access to high-speed broadband networks. In all, Chinas
spending on information and communications technology will be
more than $465 billion in 2015, a growth rate of 11 percent. The
expansion of the China tech market will account for 43 percent of
tech-sector growth worldwide.

2NC Tech K2 China Growth

Tech is key to Chinese growth
Xinhua 7/24
(Xinhua. Major Chinese news agency. "Industrial profits decline while high-tech sector shines
in ChinaWCT. 7-24-2015. http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?
id=20150328000036&amp;cid=1102//ghs-kw)
Driven by the country's restructuring efforts amid the economic "new normal" of slow but quality growth,

China's high-tech industry flourished with the value-added output of

the high-tech sector growing 12.3% year-on-year in 2014. The hightech industry accounted for 10.6% of the country's overall industrial
value-added output in 2014, which rose 7% from 2013 to 22.8 trillion yuan (US$3.71
trillion). The fast expansion of the high-tech and modern service
industries shows China's economy is advancing to the "middle and
high end," said Xie Hongguang, deputy chief of the NBS. China should work toward greater
investment in "soft infrastructure"like innovationinstead of "hard infrastructure" to climb the global value
chain, said Zhang Monan, an expert with the China Center for International Economic Exchanges. Indeed,

boosting innovation has been put at the top of the government's

agenda as China has pledged to boost the implementation of the "Made in China 2025" strategy,
which will upgrade the manufacturing sector and help the country achieve a medium-high level of
economic growth.

China transitioning to tech-based economy

Barry

van Wyk Upstart: Chinas emergence in technology and innovation

---- by Barry van Wyk,

The Beijing Axis First published: May 27, 2010 Last updated: June 3, 2010

Significant progress has already been achieved with the MLP, and it is not hard
to identify signs of Chinas rapidly improving innovative abilities . GERD

increased to 1.54 per cent in 2008 from 0.57 per cent in 1995. Occurring at a time when its GDP was
growing exceptionally fast, Chinas GERD now ranks behind only the US and Japan.
The number of triadic patents (granted in all three of the major patent offices in the US, Japan and
Europe) granted to China remains relatively small, reaching 433 in 2005 (compared to 652 for
Sweden and 3,158 for Korea), yet Chinese patent applications are increasing rapidly. Chinese
patent applications to the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO), for example, increased by 44 per
cent in 2005 and by a further 57 per cent in 2006. From a total of about 20,000 in 1998,
Chinas output of scientific papers has increased fourfold to about 112,000 as of
2008, moving China to second place in the global rankings , behind only the US. In
the period 2004 to 2008, China produced about 400,000 papers, with the major focus
areas being material science, chemistry, physics, mathematics and engineering, but new fields like
biological and medical science also gaining prominence.

China transitioning now

Trends in China's Transition toward a Knowledge Economy Authors:
Adam Segal, Ira A. Lipman
Senior Fellow for Counterterrorism and National Security Studies Ernest J. Wilson III January/February
2006 Asian Survey
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9924/trends_in_chinas_transition_toward_a_knowledge_economy.html
During the past decade, China has arguably placed more importance on reforming and
modernizing its information and communication technology (ICT) sector than any other
developing country in the world. Under former Premier Zhu Rongji, the Chinese leadership
was strongly committed to making ICT central to its national goalsfrom transforming Chinese
society at home to pursuing its ambitions as a world economic and political power. In one of his final

speeches, delivered at the first session of the 10th National Peoples Congress in 2003 , Zhu
implored his successors to energetically promote information technology (IT)
applications and use IT to propel and accelerate industrialization so that the
Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can continue to build a well-off society.1

2NC Global Econ I/L

China economic crash goes globaloutweighs the US and
disproves resiliency empirics
Pesek 14
(Writer for Bloomberg, an edited economic publication What to Fear If China Crashes,
Bloomberg View, http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-07-16/what-to-fear-if-chinacrashes)

Few moments in modern financial history were scarier than the week of
Sept. 15, 2008, when first Lehman Brothers and then American
International Group collapsed. Who could forget the cratering stock markets, panicky

bailout negotiations, rampant foreclosures, depressing job losses and decimated retirement accounts -- not

Yet a Chinese crash might make

2008 look like a garden party. As the risks of one increase, it's worth exploring how it
might look. After all, China is now the world's biggest trading nation , the
second-biggest economy and holder of some $4 trillion of foreigncurrency reserves. If China does experience a true credit crisis, it would
be felt around the world. "The example of how the global financial crisis began in one poorlyto mention the discouraging recovery since then?

understood financial market and spread dramatically from there illustrates the capacity for misjudging

Lehman and AIG,

remember, were just two financial firms out of dozens. Opaque dealings and
contagion risk," Adam Slater wrote in a July 14 Oxford Economics report.

off-balance-sheet investment vehicles made it virtually impossible even for the managers of those

The term
"shadow banking system" soon became shorthand for potential
instability and contagion risk in world markets. Well, China is that and
more. China surpassed Japan in 2011 in gross domestic product and it's gaining on the U.S. Some World
companies to understand their vulnerabilities -- and those of the broader financial system.

Bank researchers even think China is already on the verge of becoming No. 1 (I'm skeptical). China's worldtrade weighting has doubled in the last decade. But the real explosion has been in the financial sector.
Since 2008, Chinese stock valuations surged from $1.8 trillion to $3.8 trillion and bank-balance sheets and
the money supply jumped accordingly. China's broad measure of money has surged by an incredible $12.5
trillion since 2008 to roughly match the U.S.'s monetary stock. This enormous money buildup fed untold
amounts of private-sector debt along with public-sector institutions. Its scale, speed and opacity are
fueling genuine concerns about a bad-loan meltdown in an economy that's 2 1/2 times bigger than
Germany's. If that happens, at a minimum it would torch China's property markets and could take down
systemically important parts of Hong Kong's banking system. The reverberations probably wouldn't stop
there, however, and would hit resource-dependent Australia, batter trade-driven economies Japan,
Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan and whack prices of everything from oil and steel to gold and corn.
"Chinas

importance for the world economy and the rapid growth of its financial
mean that there are widespread concerns that a financial crisis in China
would also turn into a global crisis," says London-based Slater. "A bad asset problem on
system,

this scale would dwarf that seen in the major emerging financial crises seen in Russia and Argentina in
1998 and 2001, and also be more severe than the Japanese bad loan problem of the 1990s." Such risks
belie President Xi Jinping's insistence that China's financial reform process is a domestic affair, subject
neither to input nor scrutiny by the rest of the world. That's not the case. Just like the Chinese pollution
that darkens Asian skies and contributes to climate change, China's financial vulnerability is a global
problem. U.S. President Barack Obama made that clear enough in a May interview with National Public
Radio. We welcome Chinas peaceful rise," he said. In many ways, it would be a bigger national security
problem for us if China started falling apart at the seams. China's ascent obviously preoccupies the White
House as it thwarts U.S. foreign-policy objectives, taunts Japan and other nations with territorial claims in
the Pacific and casts aspersions on America's moral leadership. But China's frailty has to be on the minds

The potential for things careening out of control in

China are real. What worries bears such as Patrick Chovanec of Silvercrest Asset Management in
of U.S. policy makers, too

New York, is Chinas unaltered obsession with building the equivalent of new Manhattans almost
overnight even as the nation's financial system shows signs of buckling. As policy makers in Beijing
generate even more credit to keep bubbles from bursting, the shadow banking system continues to grow.
The longer China delays its reckoning, the worst it might be for China -- and perhaps the rest of us.

CCP collapse causes the second Great Depression

BHANDARI. 10.

Maya. Head of Emerging Markets Analysis, Lombard Street Research. If the

Chinese Bubble Bursts THE INTERNATIONAL ECONOMY.
http://www.international-economy.com/TIE_F10_ChinaBubbleSymp.pdf
The latest financial crisis proved the central role of China in driving
global economic outcomes. China is the chief overseas surplus
country corresponding to the U.S. deficit, and it was excess ex ante Chinese savings which prompted
ex post U _S. dis-saving. The massive ensuing build-up of debt triggered a Great
Recession almost as bad as the Great Depression. This causal direction, from
excess saving to excess spending, is confirmed by low global real interest rates through much of the

Had over-borrowing been the cause rather than effect,

interest rates would have been bid up to attract the required
capital. A prospective hard landing in China might thus be expected to have
serious global implications. The Chinese economy did slow sharply over the last eighteen
Goldilocks period.
then real

months, but only briefly, as large-scale Irhind-the-scenes stimulus meant that it quickly retumed to
overheating. Given its 910 percent "trend" growth rate, and 30 per. cent import ratio, China is nearly
twice as powerful a global growth locomotive as the United States, based on its implied import gain. So

surrounding export hubs, whose growth prospects are a "second derivative" of what
transpires in China, would suffer most directly from Chinese slowing , the
knock to global growth would be significant. Voracious Chinese demand
has also been a crucial driver of global commodity prices, particularly
metals and oil, so they too may face a hard landing if Chinese
demand dries up.
while the

CCP collapse deals a massive deflationary shock to the

world.
ZHAO. 10.
Chen. Chief Global Strategist and Managing Editor for Global Investment
Strategy, BCA Research Group. If the Chinese Bubble Bursts THE
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMY. http://www.internationaleconomy.com/TIE_F10_ChinaBubbleSymp.pdf

At the onset, I believe the odds of a China asset bub- ble bursting are very low. It is difficult to argue that
Chinese asset markets, particularly real estate, are indeed already in a 'bubble. " Property prices in tier two
and tier three cities are actually quite cheap, but for pur- poses of discussion, there is always the danger
that asset values could get massively inflated over the next few years. If so, a crash would be inevitable. In
fact, China experienced a devastating real estate meltdown and "growth recession" in 199394, when
then-premier Zhu Rongii initiated a credit crackdown to rein in spreading inflation and real estate
speculation. Property prices in major cities dropped by over 40 per- cent and private sector GDP growth
dropped to 3 per. cent from double-digit levels. Non-performing loans soared to 30 pernt of total banking
sector assets. It took more than seven years for the government to clean up the financial mess and

If another episode of a bursting asset bubble

were to happen in China, the damage to the banking sector could be
rather severe. History has repeatedly show-n that credit inflation
begets asset bubbles and, almost by definition, a bursting asset bubble
always leads to a banking crisis and severe credit contraction. In China's
recapitalize the banking system.

case, bank credit is the lifeline for large state-owned companies, and a credit crunch could choke off
growth of these enterprises quickly. The big difference between today's situation and the early 1990s,
however, is that the Chinese authorities have accumulated '.ast reserves _ China also runs a huge cun-ent
account surplus. In the early 1990s, China's reserves had dwindled to almost nothing and the current
account was in massive deficit. As a real estate meltdown led to a collapse in the Chinese currency in 1992
93. In other words, Beijing today has a lot of resources at its disposal to stimulate the economy or to
recapitalize the banking system, whenever necessary. Therefore, the impact of a bursting bubble on
growth could be very sham and even severe, but it would be short-lived because of supp-an from public
sector spending _ A

bursting China bubble would also be felt acutely in

commodity prices. The commodity story has been built around the China
story. Naturally, a bursting China bub- ble would deal a devastating blow
to the commodities as well as commodity producers such as Latin America, Australia, and
Canada, among others. Asia as a whole, and Japan in particular, would also
be acutely affected by a "growth recession" in China. The economic integration
between China and the rest of Asia is welldocumented but it is important
to note that there has been virtually no domestic spending in Japan in recent years and the country's

A bursting China
bubble could seriously impair Japan's economic and asset market
performance Finally, a bursting China bubble would be a mas- sive
deflationary shock to the world economy. With China in growth recession, global
saving excesses could surge and world aggregate demand would
vastly defi- cient. Bond yields could move to new lows and stocks
would drop, probably precipitouslyin short, investors would face very bleak and
frightening prospects.
economic growth has been leveraged almost entirely on exports to China

2NC US Econ I/L

Chinese growth turns the case --- strong Chinese
technological power forms linkages with US companies --drives growth of US companies
NRC 10 National Research Council The Dragon and the Elephant: Understanding the
Development of Innovation Capacity in China and India: Summary of a Conference
www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12873&page=13
Wadhwa found in his surveys that companies go offshore for reasons of cost and
where the markets are. Meanwhile, Asian immigrants are driving enterprise growth in the
United States. Twenty-five percent of technology and engineering firms launched in the last decade
and 52% of Silicon Valley startups had immigrant founders. Indian immigrants accounted for onequarter of these. Among Americas new immigrant entrepreneurs, more than 74 percent have a
masters or a PhD degree. Yet the backlog of U.S. immigration applications puts
this stream of talent in limbo. One million skilled immigrants are waiting for the annual
quota of 120,000 visas, with caps of 8,400 per country. This is causing a reverse brain
drain from the United States back to countries of origin, the majority to India
and China. This endangers U.S. innovation and economic growth. There is a high likelihood,
however, that returning skilled talent will create new linkages to U.S.

companies, as they are doing within General Electric, IBM, and other
companies. Jai Menon of IBM Corporation began his survey of IBMs view of global talent
recruitment by suggesting that aa. IBM pursues growth of its operations as a global entity. There are
372,000 IBMers in 172 countries; 123,000 of these are in the Asia-Pacific region. Eighty percent of the
firms R&D activity is still based in the United States. IBM supports open standards development and
networked business models to facilitate global collaboration. Three factors drive the firms decisions
on staff placement and location of recruitment -- economics, skills and environment. IBM India has
grown its staff tenfold in five years; its $6 billion investment in three years represents a tripling of
resources in people, infrastructure and capital. Increasingly, as Vivek Wadhwa suggested, people get
degrees in the United States and return to India for their first jobs. IBM follows a comparable

approach in China, with 10,000+ IBM employees involved in R&D, services

and sales. In 2006, for the first time the number of service workers overtook the number of

agricultural laborers worldwide. Thus the needs of a service economy comprise an issue looming for
world leaders.

CCP collapse hurts US economy

Karabell 13
(Zachary. American author, historian, money manager and economist. Karabell is President of
River Twice Research, where he analyzes economic and political trends. He is also a Senior
Advisor for Business for Social Responsibility. Previously, he was Executive Vice President,
Head of Marketing and Chief Economist at Fred Alger Management, a New York-based
investment firm, and President of Fred Alger and Company, as well as Portfolio Manager of the
China-US Growth Fund, which won both a Lipper Award for top performance and a 5-star
designation from Morningstar, Inc.. He was also Executive Vice President of Alger's Spectra
Funds, a no-load family of mutual funds that launched the $30 million Spectra Green Fund,
which was based on the idea that profit and sustainability are linked. At Alger, he oversaw the
creation, launch and marketing of several funds, led corporate strategy for acquisitions, and
represented the firm at public forums and in the media. Educated at Columbia, Oxford, and
Harvard, where he received his Ph.D., he is the author of several books. The U.S. cant afford
a Chinese economic collapse. Reuters. http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/2013/03/07/theu-s-cant-afford-a-chinese-economic-collapse/)
Is China about to collapse? That question has been front and center in the past weeks as the country
completes its leadership transition and after the exposure of its various real estate bubbles during a widely
watched 60 Minutes expos this past weekend. Concerns about soaring property prices throughout China
are hardly new, but they have been given added weight by the government itself. Recognizing that a rapid
implosion of the property market would disrupt economic growth, the central government recently
announced far-reaching measures designed to dent the rampant speculation. Higher down payments,

limiting the purchases of investment properties, and a capital gains tax on real estate transactions
designed to make flipping properties less lucrative were included. These measures, in conjunction with the
new governments announcing more modest growth targets of 7.5 percent a year, sent Chinese equities
plunging and led to a slew of commentary in the United States saying China would be the next shoe to
drop in the global system. Yet there is more here than simple alarm over the viability of Chinas economic
growth. There is the not-so-veiled undercurrent of rooting against China. It is difficult to find someone who
explicitly wants it to collapse, but the tone of much of the discourse suggests bloodlust. Given that China
largely escaped the crises that so afflicted the United States and the eurozone, the desire to see it stumble
may be understandable. No one really likes a global winner if that winner isnt you. The need to see China
fail verges on jingoism. Americans distrust the Chinese model, find that its business practices verge on the
immoral and illegal, that its reporting and accounting standards are sub-par at best and that its system is
one of crony capitalism run by crony communists. On Wall Street, the presumption usually seems to be
that any Chinese company is a ponzi scheme masquerading as a viable business. In various conversations
and debates, I have rarely heard Chinas economic model mentioned without disdain. Take, as just one
example, Gordon Chang in Forbes: Beijings technocrats can postpone a reckoning, but they have not

consequences of a Chinese
collapse, however, would be severe for the United States and for the
world. There could be no major Chinese contraction without a concomitant
contraction in the United States. That would mean sharply curtailed Chinese
purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds, far less revenue for companies like
General Motors, Nike, KFC and Apple that have robust business in China (Apple made $6.83
billion in the fourth quarter of 2012, up from $4.08 billion a year prior), and far fewer Chinese
imports of high-end goods from American and Asian companies. It would also
mean a collapse of Chinese imports of materials such as copper, which would
in turn harm economic growth in emerging countries that continue to be
a prime market for American, Asian and European goods. China is now
the worlds second-largest economy, and property booms have been one aspect of its
repealed the laws of economics. There will be a crash. The

growth. Individual Chinese cannot invest outside of the country, and the limited options of Chinas stock
exchanges and almost nonexistent bond market mean that if you are middle class and want to do more
than keep your money in cash or low-yielding bank accounts, you buy either luxury goods or apartments.
That has meant a series of property bubbles over the past decade and a series of measures by state and
local officials to contain them. These recent measures are hardly the first, and they are not likely to be the
last. The past 10 years have seen wild swings in property prices, and as recently as 2011 the government
took steps to cool them; the number of transactions plummeted and prices slumped in hot markets like
Shanghai as much as 30, 40 and even 50 percent. You could go back year by year in the 2000s and see
similar bubbles forming and popping, as the government reacted to sharp run-ups with restrictions and
then eased them when the pendulum threatened to swing too far. China has had a series of property
bubbles and a series of property busts. It has also had massive urbanization that in time has absorbed the
excess supply generated by massive development. Today much of that supply is priced far above what
workers flooding into Chinas cities can afford. But that has always been true, and that housing has in time
been purchased and used by Chinese families who are moving up the income spectrum, much as U.S.
suburbs evolved in the second half of the 20th century. More to the point, all property bubbles are not
created equal. The housing bubbles in the United States and Spain, for instance, would never had been so
disruptive without the massive amount of debt and the financial instruments and derivatives based on
them. A bursting housing bubble absent those would have been a hit to growth but not a systemic crisis. In
China, most buyers pay cash, and there is no derivative market around mortgages (at most theres a small
shadow market). Yes, there are all sorts of unofficial transactions with high-interest loans, but even there,
the consequences of busts are not the same as they were in the United States and Europe in recent years.
Two issues converge whenever China is discussed in the United States: fear of the next global crisis, and
distrust and dislike of the country. Concern is fine; we should always be attentive to possible risks. But
Chinas property bubbles are an unlikely risk, because of the absence of derivatives and because the
central government is clearly alert to the markets behavior. Suspicion and antipathy, however, are not
constructive. They speak to the ongoing difficulty China poses to Americans sense of global economic
dominance and to the belief in the superiority of free-market capitalism to Chinas state-managed
capitalism. The U.S. system may prove to be more resilient over time; it has certainly proven successful to

Its success does not require Chinas failure, nor will Chinas
success invalidate the American model. For our own self-interest we
should be rooting for their efforts, and not jingoistically wishing for them
to fail.
date.

2NC Impact UQ
Latest data show Chinese economy is growing now
ignore stock market claims which dont accurately reflect
economic fundamentals
Miller and Charney 7/15
(Miller, Leland R. and Charney, Craig. Mr. Miller is president and Mr. Charney is research
director of China Beige Book International, a private economic survey. Chinas Economy Is
Recovering, Wall Street Journal, 7/15/2015. http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-economy-isrecovering-1436979092//ghs-kw)

China released second-quarter statistics Wednesday that showed the

economy growing at 7%, the same real rate as the first quarter but
with stronger nominal growth. That result, higher than expected and
coming just after a stock-market panic, surprised some commentators and even aroused
suspicion that the government cooked the numbers for political reasons. While official data is indeed

our firm's latest research confirms that the Chinese economy

is improving after several disappointing quarters -- just not for the reasons
given by Beijing. The China Beige Book (CBB), a private survey of more than 2,000
Chinese firms each quarter, frequently anticipates the official story.
unreliable,

We documented the 2012 property rebound, the 2013 interbank credit crunch and the 2014 slowdown in

The modest but broadbased improvement in the Chinese economy that we tracked in the second quarter
may seem at odds with the headlines of carnage in the country's
financial markets. But stock prices in China have almost nothing to
do with the economy's fundamentals. Our data show sales revenue,
capital expenditure, new domestic orders, hiring, wages and profits
were all better in the second quarter, making the improvement
unmistakable -- albeit not outstanding in any one category. In the labor market, both
employment and wage growth strengthened, and prospects for
hiring look stable. This is not new: Our data have shown the labor market remarkably steady
over the past year, despite the economy's overall deceleration. Inflation data are also a
reason for optimism. Along with wages, input costs and sales prices
grew faster in the second quarter. The rate is still slower than a year ago, but at least
capital expenditure before any of them showed up in official statistics.

this is a break from the previously unstoppable tide of price deterioration. While it is just one quarter, our

data suggest deflation may have peaked. With the explosive stock market run-up occupying
all but the final weeks of the quarter, it might seem reasonable to conclude that this rally was the impetus
behind the better results. Not so. Of all our indicators, capital expenditure should have responded most

The strength of the

second-quarter performance is instead found in widespread
expanding sales volumes, which firms were able to accomplish
without sacrificing profit margins. The fact that stronger sales,
rather than greater investment, was the driving force this quarter is
itself an encouraging sign in light of China's longstanding problem of
excess investment and inadequate consumption. These gains also
track across sectors, highlighted by a welcome resurgence in both
property and retail. Property saw its strongest results in 18 months,
buoyed by stronger commercial and residential realty as well as
transportation construction. Six of our eight regions were better
than last quarter, led by the Southwest and North. The results were also an improvement over
positively to a boom in equities prices, but the uptick was barely noticeable.

the second quarter of last year, if somewhat less so, with residential construction the sector's major
remaining black eye.

Retailers, meanwhile, reported a second consecutive

quarter of improvement, both on-quarter and on-year, with growth

accelerating. For the first time in 18 months, the retail sector also
had faster growth than manufacturing, underscoring the danger of treating
manufacturing as the bellwether for the economy.

Chinas economy is stabilizing now but its fragile

AFP and Reuters 7/15
(Agence France-Presse and Reuters on Deutsche Welle. "China beats expectations on economic
growth," DW. 07-15-2015. http://www.dw.com/en/china-beats-expectations-on-economicgrowth/a-18584453//ghs-kw)
Slowing growth in key areas like foreign trade, state investment and domestic demand had prompted

economists to predict a year-on-year GDP increase of just under 7 percent

for the April-June quarter. The figure, released by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) on Wednesday,

The government has officially set 7

percent as its target for GDP growth this year. "We are aware that
the domestic and external economic conditions are still complicated,
the global economic recovery is slow and tortuous and the
foundation for the stabilization of China's economy needs to be
further consolidated," NBS spokesman Sheng Laiyun told reporters. However, "the major
indicators of the second quarter showed that the growth was
stabilized and ready to pick up, the economy developed with
positive changes and the vitality of the economic development was
strengthened," Sheng added. Industrial output, including production at factories,
workshops and mines also rose by 6.8 percent in June compared to 6.1 percent in May, the NBS
said. Tough transition, stock market fluctuating The robust growth comes despite a
difficult economic year for China. Figures released on Monday showed a dipped in
foreign trade in the first half of the year - with exports up slightly but imports well down. Public
matched first-quarter growth in China exactly.

investment, for years the driver of double-digit percentage growth in China, is down as the government
seeks to rely more on consumer demand - itself slow to pick up. In recent weeks, the Shanghai stock
market has been falling sharply, albeit after a huge boom in months leading up to the crash.

Surveys prove China is experiencing growth now

Reuters 6/23
(Reuters. "Chinas Economy Appears to Be Stabilizing, Reports Show," International New York
Times. 6-23-2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/24/business/international/chinas-economyappears-to-be-stabilizing-reports-show.html//ghs-kw)

Chinas factory activity showed signs of stabilizing in June, with

nongovernment surveys suggesting that the economy might be
regaining some momentum, while many analysts expected further policy support to ensure a
SHANGHAI
two

more sure-footed recovery. The preliminary purchasing managers index for China published by HSBC and
compiled by Markit, a data analysis firm, edged up to 49.6 in June. It was the surveys highest level in three
months but still below the 50 mark, which would have pointed to an expansion. The final reading for May

The pickup in new orders which returned to positive

territory at 50.3 in June was driven by a strong rise in the new export
orders subcomponent, suggesting that foreign demand may finally
be turning a corner, Capital Economics analysts wrote in a research note. Todays P.M.I.
was 49.2.

reading reinforces our view that the economy has started to find its footing. But companies stepped up
layoffs, the survey showed, shedding jobs at the fastest pace in more than six years. Annabel Fiddes, an
economist at Markit, said: Manufacturers continued to cut staff. This suggests companies have relatively
muted growth expectations. She said that she expected Beijing to step up their efforts to stimulate

A much rosier picture was painted by a separate

survey, a quarterly report by China Beige Book International, a data analysis firm, describing a
broad-based recovery in the second quarter, led primarily by
Chinas interior provinces. Among major sectors, two developments
growth and job creation.

stand out: a welcome resurgence in retail which saw rising

revenue growth despite a slip in prices and a broad-based
rebound in property, said the reports authors, Leland Miller and Craig Charney.
Manufacturing, services, real estate, agriculture and mining all had
year-on-year and quarterly gains, they said.

2NC US Heg I/L

Chinese growth is key to US hegemony

Yiwei 07 Wang yiwei, Center for American Studies @ Fudan University, China's Rise: An Unlikely Pillar of US Hegemony,
Harvard International Review, Volume 29, Issue 1 Spring7, pp. 60-63.

Chinas rise is taking place in this context. That is to say, Chinese development is merely one facet of
Asian and developing states economic progress in general. Historically, the United States has
provided the dominant development paradigm for the world. But today, China has come up with
development strategies that are different from that of any other nation-state in history and are a
consequence of the global migration of industry along comparative advantage lines. Presently, the
movement of light industry and consumer goods production from advanced industrialized countries to
China is nearly complete, but heavy industry is only beginning to move. Developed countries

dependence on China will be far more pronounced following this movement.

As global production migrates to China and other developing countries, a
feedback loop will emerge and indeed is already beginning to emerge.
Where globalization was once an engine fueled by Western muscle and
steered by Western policy, there is now more gas in the tank but there are
also more hands on the steering wheel. In the past, developing countries were often in a
position only to respond to globalization, but now, developed countries must respond as well.
Previously the United States believed that globalization was synonymous with Americanization, but
todays world has witnessed a United States that is feeling the influence of the world as well. In the
past, a sneeze on Wall Street was followed by a downturn in world markets. But in February 2007,
Chinese stocks fell sharply and Wall Street responded with its steepest decline in several years. In
this way, the whirlpool of globalization is no longer spinning in one direction. Rather, it is generating
feedback mechanisms and is widening into an ellipse with two focal points: one located in the United
States, the historical leader of the developed world, and one in the China, the strongest country in
the new developing world power bloc. Combating Regionalization It is important to extend the
discussion beyond platitudes regarding US decline or the rise of China and the invective-laden
debate over threats and security issues that arises from these. We must step out of a narrowly
national mindset and reconsider what Chinese development means for the United States. One of

the consequences of globalization has been that countries such as China,

which depend on exporting to US markets, have accumulated large dollar
reserves. This has been unavoidable for these countries, as they must purchase dollars in order to
keep the dollar strong and thus avoid massive losses. Thus, the United States is bound to
bear a trade deficit, and moreover, this deficit is inextricably tied to the
dollars hegemony in todays markets. The artificially high dollar and the US
economy at large depend in a very real sense on Chinas investment in the
dollar. Low US inflation and interest rates similarly depend on the
thousands of Made in China labels distributed across the United States. As
Paul Krugman wrote in The New York Times, the situation is comparable to one in which the
American sells the house but the money to buy the house comes from China. Former US treasury
secretary Lawrence Summers even affirms that China and the United States may be in a kind of
imprudent balance of financial terror. Today, the US trade deficit with China is US$200 billion.
China holds over US$1 trillion in foreign exchange reserves and US$350 billion in US bonds. Together,
the Chinese and US economies account for half of global economic growth. Thus, a fantastic situation
has arisen: Chinas rise is actually supporting US hegemony. Taking US hegemony and

Western preeminence as the starting point, many have concluded that the
rise of China presents a threat. The premise of this logic is that the international system

predicated on US hegemony and Western preeminence would be destabilized by the rise of a second
major power. But this view is inconsistent with the phenomenon of one-way
globalization. The so-called process of one-way globalization can more truly

be called Westernization. Todays globalization is still in large part driven

by the West, inasmuch as it is tinged by Western unilateralism and entails the
dissemination of essentially Western standards and ideology. For example, Coca Cola has
become a Chinese cultural icon, Louis Vuitton stores crowd high-end shopping districts in
Shanghai, and, as gender equality progresses, Chinese women look to Western
women for inspiration. In contrast, Haier, the best-known Chinese brand in the United States,
is still relatively unknown, and Wang Fei, who is widely regarded in China as the pop star who was

able to make it in the United States, has less name-recognition there than a first-round American Idol
cut.

2NC Growth Impacts

Chinese growth prevents global economic collapse, war
over Taiwan and CCP collapse
Lewis 08 [Dan, Research Director Economic Research Council, The
Nightmare of a Chinese Economic Collapse, World Finance, 5/13,
http://www.worldfinance.com/news/home/finalbell/article117.html]

In 2001, Gordon Chang authored a global bestseller "The Coming Collapse of China." To suggest that the
worlds largest nation of 1.3 billion people is on the brink of collapse is understandably for many, a deeply
unnerving theme. And many seasoned China Hands rejected Changs thesis outright. In a very real
sense, they were of course right. Chinas expansion has continued over the last six years
without a hitch. After notching up a staggering 10.7 percent growth last year, it is now the 4th largest
economy in the world with a nominal GDP of $2.68trn. Yet there are two Chinas that concern us here; the
800 million who live in the cities, coastal and southern regions and the 500 million who live in the
countryside and are mainly engaged in agriculture. The latter which we in the West hear very little about
are still very poor and much less happy. Their poverty and misery do not necessarily spell an impending
cataclysm after all, that is how they have always have been. But it does illustrate the inequity of Chinese
monetary policy. For many years, the Chinese yen has been held at an artificially low value to boost
manufacturing exports. This has clearly worked for one side of the economy, but not for the purchasing
power of consumers and the rural poor, some of who are getting even poorer. The central reason for this
has been the inability of Chinese monetary policy to adequately support both Chinas. Meanwhile, rural

unrest in China is on the rise fuelled not only by an accelerating income gap with
the coastal cities, but by an oft-reported appropriation of their land for little or no
compensation by the state. According to Professor David B. Smith, one of the Citys most accurate

and respected economists in recent years, potentially far more serious though is the impact that Chinese
monetary policy could have on many Western nations such as the UK. Quite simply, Chinas undervalued
currency has enabled Western governments to maintain artificially strong currencies, reduce inflation and
keep interest rates lower than they might otherwise be. We should therefore be very worried about how
vulnerable Western economic growth is to an upward revaluation of the Chinese yuan. Should that
revaluation happen to appease Chinas rural poor, at a stroke, the dollar, sterling and the euro would
quickly depreciate, rates in those currencies would have to rise substantially and the yield on government
bonds would follow suit. This would add greatly to the debt servicing cost of budget deficits in the USA, the
UK and much of euro land. A reduction in demand for imported Chinese goods would quickly entail a
decline in Chinas economic growth rate. That is alarming. It has been calculated that to keep

Chinas society stable ie to manage the transition from a rural to an urban

societywithout devastating unemployment - the minimum growth rate is 7.2 percent.
Anything less than that and unemployment will rise and the massive shift in
population from the country to the cities becomes unsustainable. This is when real
discontent with communist party rulebecomes vocal and hard to ignore. It doesnt
end there. That will at best bring a global recession. The crucial point is that
communist authoritarian states have at least had some success in keeping a lid on
ethnic tensions so far. But when multi-ethnic communist countries fall apartfrom
economic stress and the implosion of central power, history suggests that they dont
become successful democracies overnight. Far from it. Theres a very real chance
that China might go the way of Yugoloslavia or the Soviet Union chaos, civil
unrestand internecine war. In the very worst case scenario,a Chinese government might
seek to maintain national cohesion by going to war with Taiwan whom America is
pledged to defend.

Chinese economic growth prevents global nuclear war

Kaminski 7 (Antoni Z., Professor Institute of Political Studies, World
Order: The Mechanics of Threats (Central European Perspective), Polish
Quarterly of International Affairs, 1, p. 58)

As already argued, the economic advance of China has taken place with relatively few corresponding
changes in the political system, although the operation of political and economic institutions has seen
some major changes. Still, tools are missing that would allow the establishment of political and legal
foundations for the modem economy, or they are too weak. The tools are efficient public administration,
the rule of law, clearly defined ownership rights, efficient banking system, etc. For these reasons, many

an economic crisis in China. Considering the importance of the state for the
development of the global economy, the crisis would have serious global
repercussions. Its political ramifications could be no less dramatic owing to the special position the
experts fear

military occupies in the Chinese political system, and the existence of many potential vexed issues in East
Asia (disputes over islands in the China Sea and the Pacific).

A potential hotbed of conflict is

Taiwan's status. Economic recession and the related destabilization of internal

could lead to apolitical, or even military crisis. The likelihood of the
global escalation of the conflict is high, as the interests of Russia, China,
Japan, Australia and, first and foremost, the US clash in the region.
also

policies

Chinas economic rise is good --- theyre on the brink of

collapse --- causes CCP instability and lashout --- also
tubes the global economy, US primacy, and Sino relations
Mead 9 Walter Russell Mead, Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow in U.S.

Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, Only Makes You Stronger,
The New Republic, 2/4/9, http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=571cbbb92887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8
The greatest danger both to U.S.-China relations and to American power
itself is probably not that China will rise too far, too fast; it is that the current
crisis might end China's growth miracle. In the worst-case scenario, the turmoil in the
international economy will plunge China into a major economic downturn. The
Chinese financial system will implode as loans to both state and private enterprises go bad.
Millions or even tens of millions of Chinese will be unemployed in a country without
an effective social safety net. The collapse of asset bubbles in the stock and property
markets will wipe out the savings of a generation of the Chinese middle class. The
political consequences could include dangerous unrest--and a bitter climate of
anti-foreign feeling that blames others for China's woes. (Think of Weimar

Germany, when both Nazi and communist politicians blamed the West for Germany's economic
travails.) Worse, instability could lead to a vicious cycle , as nervous investors moved
their money out of the country, further slowing growth and, in turn, fomenting evergreater bitterness. Thanks to a generation of rapid economic growth, China has so far been
able to manage the stresses and conflicts of modernization and change; nobody
knows what will happen if the growth stops.

Growth decline threatens CCP rule---theyll start

diversionary wars in response
Shirk 7 Susan L. Shirk is an expert on Chinese politics and former Deputy
Assistant Secretary of State during the Clinton administration. She was in the
Bureau of East Asia and Pacific Affairs (People's Republic of China, Taiwan,
Hong Kong and Mongolia). She is currently a professor at the Graduate School

of International Relations and Pacific Studies at the University of California,

San Diego. She is also a Senior Director of Albright Stonebridge Group, a
global strategy firm, where she assists clients with issues related to East Asia.
China: Fragile Superpower, Book
By sustaining high rates of economic growth, Chinas leaders create
new jobs and limit the number ofunemployed workers who might go
to the barricades. Binding the public to the Party through nationalism also helps preempt opposition. The trick is to find a
foreign policy approach that can achieve both these vital objectives simultaneously. How long can it last? Viewed objectively, Chinas
communist regime looks surprisingly resil- ient. It may be capable of surviving for years to come so long as the economy continues to grow
and create jobs. Survey research in Beijing shows wide- spread support (over 80 percent) for the political system as a whole linked to
sentiments of nationalism and acceptance of the CCPs argument about stability first.97 Without making any fundamental changes in the
CCP- dominated political systemleaders from time to time have toyed with reform ideas such as local elections but in each instance have
backed away for fear of losing controlthe Party has bought itself time. As scholar Pei Minxin notes, the ability of communist regimes to use
their patronage and coercion to hold on to power gives them little incentive to give up any of that power by introducing gradual
democratization from above. Typically, only when communist systems implode do their political fun- damentals change.98 As Chinas leaders

the greatest political risk lying ahead of them is the possibility

of an economic crash that throws millions of workers out of their
jobs or sends millions of depositors to withdraw their savings from the shaky banking system. A massive
environmental or public health disaster also could trigger regime collapse,
especially if peoples lives are endangered by a media cover-up imposed by Party authorities. Nationwide rebellion
becomes a real possibility when large numbers of people are upset
about the same issue at the same time. Another dangerous scenario is a domesticor international
crisis in which the CCP leaders feel compelled to lash out against
Japan, Taiwan, or the United States because from their point of view not lashing
out might endanger Party rule.
well know,

Chinese Growth Key to Military Restraint on TaiwanDecline of Economic Influence Causes China to Resort to
Military Aggression
Lampton, 3 (David, Director Chinese Studies, Nixon Center, FDCH, 3/18)
The Chinese realize that power has different faces--military, economic, and
normative (ideological) power. Right now, China is finding that in the era of
globalization, economic power (and potential economic power) is the form of

power it has in greatest abundance and which it can use most effectively. As long as
economic influence continues to be effective for Beijing, as it now seems to be in
dealing with Taiwan, for example, China is unlikely to resort to military intimidation
as its chief foreign policy instrument.

Decline causes lashout- nationalists target the US and

Taiwan
Friedberg professor of IR at Princeton2011 (July/August, Aaron L.,
professor of politics and international affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University,
Hegemony with Chinese Characteristics, The National Interest, lexis)

fears of aggression are heightened by an awareness that anxiety

over a lack of legitimacy at home can cause nondemocratic
governments to try to deflect popular frustration and discontent
toward external enemies. Some Western observers worry, for example, that if Chinas
economy falters its rulers will try to blame foreigners and even
manufacture crises with Taiwan, Japan or the United States in order
to rally their people and redirect the populations anger. Whatever
Beijings intent, such confrontations couldeasilyspiral out of
control.Democratic leaders are hardly immune to the temptation of foreign adventures. However,
Such

because the stakes for them are so much lower (being voted out of office rather than being overthrown
and imprisoned, or worse), they are less likely to take extreme risks to retain their hold on power.

2NC China-India War Impact

Economic collapse will crush party legitimacy and ignite
social instability Li 9 (Cheng, Dir. of Research, John L. Thornton China
Center, Chinas Team of Rivals Brookings Foundation
Article
series,Marcyhttp://www.brookings.edu/articles/2009/03_ch
ina_li.aspx)
The two dozen senior politicians who walk the halls of Zhongnanhai, the compound of the Chinese
Communist Partys leadership in Beijing, are worried. What was inconceivable a year ago now

threatens their rule: an economy in freefall. Exports, critical to Chinas searing

economic growth, have plunged. Thousands of factories and businesses,

especially those in the prosperous coastal regions, have closed. In the last six
months of 2008, 10 million workers, plus 1 million new college graduates,
joined the already gigantic ranks of the countrys unemployed. During the
same period, the Chinese stock market lost 65 percent of its value,
equivalent to $3 trillion. The crisis, President Hu Jintao said recently, is a test
of our ability to control a complex situation, and also a test of our partys
governing ability.With this rapid downturn, the Chinese Communist Party suddenly
looks vulnerable. Since Deng Xiaoping initiated economic reforms three decades ago, the partys
legitimacy has relied upon its ability to keep the economy running at breakneck
pace.If China is no longer able to maintain a high growth rate or provide jobs for its
ever growing labor force, massive public dissatisfaction and social unrest could erupt .
No one realizes this possibility more than the handful of people who steer Chinas massive economy.
Double-digit growth has sheltered them through a SARS epidemic, massive earthquakes, and
contamination scandals. Now, the crucial question is whetherthey are equipped to handle an
economic crisis of this magnitudeand survive the political challenges it will bring . This year
marks the 60th anniversary of the Peoples Republic, and the ruling party is no longer led by one
strongman, like Mao Zedong or Deng Xiaoping. Instead, the Politburo and its Standing Committee,
Chinas most powerful body, are run by two informal coalitions that compete against each
other for power, influence, and control over policy. Competition in the Communist Party is, of course,
nothing new. But the jockeying today is no longer a zero-sum game in which a winner
takes all. It is worth remembering that when Jiang Zemin handed the reins to his successor, Hu Jintao, in
2002, it marked the first time in the republics history that the transfer of power didnt involve bloodshed
or purges. Whats more, Hu was not a protg of Jiangs; they belonged to competing factions. To borrow a

post-Deng China has been run by a team

of rivals. This internal competition was enshrined as party practice a little more than a year ago. In
phrase popular in Washington these days,

October 2007, President Hu surprised many China watchers by abandoning the partys normally
straightforward succession procedure and designating not one but two heirs apparent. The Central
Committee named Xi Jinping and Li Keqiangtwo very different leaders in their early 50s
to the nine-member Politburo Standing Committee, where the rulers of China are groomed. The future
roles of these two men, who will essentially share power after the next party congress meets in 2012, have
since been refined: Xi will be the candidate to succeed the president, and Li will succeed
Premier Wen Jiabao. The two rising stars share little in terms of family background, political association,
leadership skills, and policy orientation. But they are each heavily involved in shaping economic policy
and they are expected to lead the two competing coalitions that will be relied upon to

craft Chinas political and economic trajectory in the next decade and beyond.

Regime collapse causes China-India war

Cohen 02 (Stephen, Senior Fellow Brookings Institution, Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear War in South Asia: An
Unknowable Future, May, http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/views/speeches/cohens20020501.pdf)

A similar argument may be made with respect to China. China is a country that has had its share of
upheavals in the past. While there is no expectation today of renewed internal turmoil, it is important to
remember that closed authoritarian societies are subject to deep crisis in moments of sudden change. The
breakup of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, and the turmoil that has ravaged many members of the
former communist bloc are examples of what could happen to China. A severe economic crisis, rebellions
in Tibet and Xinjiang, a reborn democracy movement and a party torn by factions could be the ingredients
of an unstable situation. A vulnerable Chinese leadership determined to bolster its shaky position by an
aggressive policy toward India or the United States or both might become involved in a major crisis with
India, perhaps engage in nuclear saber-rattling. That would encourage India to adopt a stronger nuclear
posture, possibly with American assistance.

Causes nuclear use

Jonathan S. Landay, National Security and Intelligence Correspondent, -2K [Top Administration
Officials Warn Stakes for U.S. Are High in Asian Conflicts, Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, March 10, p.
Lexis]
Few if any experts think China and Taiwan, North Korea and South Korea, or India and

Pakistan are spoiling to fight. But even a minor miscalculation by any of them could
destabilize Asia, jolt the global economy and even start a nuclear war. India, Pakistan
and China all have nuclear weapons, and North Korea may have a few , too. Asia lacks
the kinds of organizations, negotiations and diplomatic relationships that helped keep
an uneasy peace for five decades in Cold War Europe. Nowhere else on Earth are the stakes
as high and relationships so fragile, said Bates Gill, director of northeast Asian policy studies at the
Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. We see the convergence of great power interest overlaid
with lingering confrontations with no institutionalized security mechanism in place. There are elements for
potential disaster. In an effort to cool the regions tempers, President Clinton, Defense Secretary William
S. Cohen and National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger all will hopscotch Asias capitals this month. For
America, the stakes could hardly be higher. There are 100,000 U.S. troops in Asia committed to defending
Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, and the United States would instantly become embroiled if Beijing moved
against Taiwan or North Korea attacked South Korea. While Washington has no defense

commitments to either India or Pakistan, a conflict between the two could end the
global taboo against using nuclear weapons and demolishthe already shaky
international nonproliferation regime. In addition, globalization has made a stable Asia _ with its

massive markets, cheap labor, exports and resources _ indispensable to the U.S. economy. Numerous U.S.
firms and millions of American jobs depend on trade with Asia that totaled $600 billion last year, according
to the Commerce Department.

2NC Bioweapons Impact

The CCP would lash out for power, and they would use
bioweapons
Renxin 05Renxin, Journalist, 8-3-2K5 (San, CCP Gambles Insanely to Avoid Death, Epoch Times,
www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-8-3/30931.html)

Since the Partys life is above all else, it would not be surprising if
the CCP resorts to the use of biological, chemical, and nuclear
weapons in its attempt to postpone its life. The CCP,that disregards human
life, would not hesitate to kill two hundred million Americans, coupled
with seven or eight hundred million Chinese, to achieve its ends . The

speech, free of all disguises, lets the public see the CCP for what it really is: with evil filling its every cell,

the CCP intends to fightall of mankind in its desperate attempt to

clingto life. And that is the theme of the speech. The theme is murderous and utterly evil. We did
witness in China beggars who demanded money from people by threatening to stab themselves with
knives or prick their throats on long nails. But we have never, until now, seen a rogue who blackmails the
world to die with it by wielding biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. Anyhow, the bloody confession
affirmed the CCPs bloodiness: a monstrous murderer, who has killed 80 million Chinese people, now plans
to hold one billion people hostage and gamble with their lives. As the CCP is known to be a clique with a
closed system, it is extraordinary for it to reveal its top secret on its own. One might ask: what is the CCPs
purpose to make public its gambling plan on its deathbed? The answer is: the speech would have the
effect of killing three birds with one stone. Its intentions are the following: Expressing the CCPs resolve
that it not be buried by either heaven or earth (direct quote from the speech). But then, isnt the CCP
opposed to the universe if it claims not to be buried by heaven and earth? Feeling the urgent need to
harden its image as a soft egg in the face of the Nine Commentaries. Preparing publicity for its final battle
with mankind by threatening war and trumpeting violence. So, strictly speaking, what the CCP has leaked
out is more of an attempt to clutch at straws to save its life rather than to launch a trial balloon. Of course,
the way the speech was presented had been carefully prepared. It did not have a usual opening or
ending, and the audience, time, place, and background related to the speech were all kept unidentified.
One may speculate or imagine as one may, but never verify. The aim was obviously to create a mysterious
setting. In short, the speech came out as something one finds difficult to tell whether it is false or true.

Outweighs and causes extinction

Ochs 2Past president of the Aberdeen Proving Ground Superfund Citizens Coalition, Member of the
Depleted Uranium Task force of the Military Toxics Project, and M of the Chemical Weapons Working Group
[Richard Ochs, , June 9, 2002, Biological Weapons Must Be Abolished Immediately,
http://www.freefromterror.net/other_articles/abolish.html]

genetically engineered biological

weapons, many without a known cure or vaccine, are an extreme
danger to the continued survival of life on earth. Any perceived military value or
Of all the weapons of mass destruction, the

deterrence pales in comparison to the great risk these weapons pose just sitting in vials in laboratories.
While a nuclear winter, resulting from a massive exchange of nuclear weapons, could also kill off

are easier to
control. Biological weapons, on the other hand, can get out of
control very easily, as the recent anthrax attacks has demonstrated. There is no way to
guarantee the security of these doomsday weapons because very tiny amounts can be stolen or
accidentally released and then grow or be grown to horrendous proportions. The
most of life on earth and severely compromise the health of future generations, they

Black Death of the Middle Ages would be small in comparison to the potential damage bioweapons could
cause. Abolition of chemical weapons is less of a priority because, while they can also kill millions of people
outright, their persistence in the environment would be less than nuclear or biological agents or more
localized. Hence, chemical weapons would have a lesser effect on future generations of innocent people
and the natural environment. Like the Holocaust, once a localized chemical extermination is over, it is over.
With nuclear and biological weapons, the killing will probably never end. Radioactive elements last tens of
thousands of years and will keep causing cancers virtually forever. Potentially worse than that, bio-

agents by the hundreds with no known cure could wreck

even greater calamity on the human race than could persistent radiation. AIDS and
engineered

ebola viruses are just a small example of recently emerging plagues with no known cure or vaccine. Can

we imagine hundreds of such plagues? HUMAN EXTINCTION IS NOW POSSIBLE. Ironically,

the Bush administration has just changed the U.S. nuclear doctrine to allow nuclear retaliation against
threats upon allies by conventional weapons. The past doctrine allowed such use only as a last resort when
our nations survival was at stake. Will the new policy also allow easier use of US bioweapons? How
slippery is this slope?

2NC AT Collapse Good

Reject their collapse good argumentstheyre racist and
incoherentChinese collapse decimates the U.S. for
several reasons
Karabell, 13PhD @ Harvard, President of River Twice Research
Zachary, The U.S. cant afford a Chinese economic collapse, The Edgy
Optimist, a Reuters blog run by Karabell, March 7,
http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/2013/03/07/the-u-s-cant-afford-achinese-economic-collapse/ --BR
Is China about to collapse? That question has been front and center
in the past weeks as the country completes its leadership transition and after the exposure of its various

Concerns about
are hardly new, but they have been given
added weight by the government itself. Recognizing that a rapid implosion of the
real estate bubbles during a widely watched 60 Minutes expos this past weekend.
soaring property prices throughout China

property market would disrupt economic growth, the central government recently announced far-reaching
measures designed to dent the rampant speculation. Higher down payments, limiting the purchases of
investment properties, and a capital gains tax on real estate transactions designed to make flipping
properties less lucrative were included. These measures, in conjunction with the new governments
announcing more modest growth targets of 7.5 percent a year, sent Chinese equities plunging and led to a
slew of commentary in the United States saying China would be the next shoe to drop in the global system.

Yet there is more here than simple alarm over the viability of Chinas
economic growth. There is the not-so-veiled undercurrent of rooting
against China. It is difficult to find someone who explicitly wants it to
collapse, but the tone of much of the discourse suggests bloodlust.
Given that China largely escaped the crises that so afflicted the
United States and the eurozone, the desire to see it stumble may be
understandable. No one really likes a global winner if that winner
isnt you. The need to see China fail verges on jingoism . Americans
distrust the Chinese model, find that its business practices verge on
the immoral and illegal, that its reporting and accounting standards
are sub-par at best and that its system is one of crony capitalism run
by crony communists. On Wall Street, the presumption usually
seems to be that any Chinese company is a ponzi scheme
masquerading as a viable business. In various conversations and
debates, I have rarely heard Chinas economic model mentioned
without disdain. Take, as just one example, Gordon Chang in Forbes:
Beijings technocrats can postpone a reckoning, but they have not
repealed the laws of economics. There will be a crash. The
consequences of a Chinese collapse, however, would be severe for
the United States and for the world. There could be no major Chinese
contraction without a concomitant contraction in the United States.
That would mean sharply curtailed Chinese purchases of U.S.
Treasury bonds, far less revenue for companies like General Motors,
Nike, KFC and Apple that have robust business in China (Apple made $6.83
billion in the fourth quarter of 2012, up from $4.08 billion a year prior), and far fewer Chinese
imports of high-end goods from American and Asian companies. It
would also mean a collapse of Chinese imports of materials such as
copper, which would in turn harm economic growth in emerging
countries that continue to be a prime market for American, Asian

and European goods. China is now the worlds second-largest economy, and property booms
have been one aspect of its growth. Individual Chinese cannot invest outside of the country, and the
limited options of Chinas stock exchanges and almost nonexistent bond market mean that if you are
middle class and want to do more than keep your money in cash or low-yielding bank accounts, you buy
either luxury goods or apartments. That has meant a series of property bubbles over the past decade and
a series of measures by state and local officials to contain them. These recent measures are hardly the
first, and they are not likely to be the last. The past 10 years have seen wild swings in property prices, and
as recently as 2011 the government took steps to cool them; the number of transactions plummeted and
prices slumped in hot markets like Shanghai as much as 30, 40 and even 50 percent. You could go back
year by year in the 2000s and see similar bubbles forming and popping, as the government reacted to
sharp run-ups with restrictions and then eased them when the pendulum threatened to swing too far.
China has had a series of property bubbles and a series of property busts. It has also had massive
urbanization that in time has absorbed the excess supply generated by massive development. Today much
of that supply is priced far above what workers flooding into Chinas cities can afford. But that has always
been true, and that housing has in time been purchased and used by Chinese families who are moving up
the income spectrum, much as U.S. suburbs evolved in the second half of the 20th century. More to the
point, all property bubbles are not created equal. The housing bubbles in the United States and Spain, for
instance, would never had been so disruptive without the massive amount of debt and the financial
instruments and derivatives based on them. A bursting housing bubble absent those would have been a hit
to growth but not a systemic crisis. In China, most buyers pay cash, and there is no derivative market
around mortgages (at most theres a small shadow market). Yes, there are all sorts of unofficial
transactions with high-interest loans, but even there, the consequences of busts are not the same as they

Two issues converge whenever

China is discussed in the United States: fear of the next global crisis,
and distrust and dislike of the country. Concern is fine; we should
always be attentive to possible risks. But Chinas property bubbles are an unlikely risk,
were in the United States and Europe in recent years.

because of the absence of derivatives and because the central government is clearly alert to the markets

Suspicion and antipathy, however, are not constructive. They

speak to the ongoing difficulty China poses to Americans sense of
global economic dominance and to the belief in the superiority of
free-market capitalism to Chinas state-managed capitalism. The
U.S. system may prove to be more resilient over time; it has
certainly proven successful to date. Its success does not require
Chinas failure, nor will Chinas success invalidate the American
model. For our own self-interest we should be rooting for their
efforts, and not jingoistically wishing for them to fail.
behavior.

2NC AT Collapse Inevitable

Status quo isnt sufficient to trigger collapse because the
US is lagging behind
Forbes, 7/9/2014

US Finance/Economics News Report Service

(John Kerry In Beijing: Four Good Reasons Why The Chinese View American
Leaders As Empty
Suits,http://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfingleton/2014/07/09/john-kerryin-beijing-four-good-reasons-why-the-chinese-treat-american-leaders-asjackasses/)
2. American policymakers have procrastinated in meeting the Chinese
challenge because they have constantly for more than a decade now been
misled by siren American voices predicting an imminent Chinese financial
collapse. China is a big economy and large financial collapses are not
inconceivable. But even the most disastrous such collapse would be unlikely
to stop the Chinese export drive in its tracks. American policymakers have
failed to pay sufficient attention to the central objective of Chinese policy,
which is to take over from the United States, Japan and Germany as the
worlds premier source of advanced manufactured products.

Consensus exists and the best markers point to a slow

decline, and the worst markers make sense in the context
of china
Huang, 2/11, a senior associate in the Carnegie Asia Program, where his

research focuses on Chinas economic development and its impact on Asia

and the global economy (Yukon, Do Not Fear a Chinese Property Bubble,
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
http://carnegieendowment.org/2014/02/11/do-not-fear-chinese-propertybubble/h0oz)
Yet when analysts drill into the balance sheets of borrowers and
banks, they find little evidence of impending disaster. Government debt
ratios are not high by global standards and are backed by valuable assets
at the local level. Household debt is a fraction of what it is in the wes t, and it
is supported by savings and rising incomes. The profits and cash positions of most
firms for which data are available have not deteriorated significantly while
sovereign guarantees cushion the more vulnerable state enterprises. The consensus, therefore, is
that Chinas debt situation has weakened but is manageable. Why are
the views from detailed sector analysis so different from the red flags signalled by the broader macro debt
indicators? The answer lies in the role that land values play in shaping these trends. Take the two most
pressing concerns: rising debt levels as a share of gross domestic product and weakening links between
credit expansion and GDP growth. The first relates to the surge in the ratio of total credit to GDP by about
50-60 percentage points over the past five years, which is viewed as a strong predictor of an impending
crash. Fitch, a rating agency, is among those who see this as the fallout from irresponsible shadow-banking
which is being channelled into property development, creating a bubble. The second concern is that the
credit impulse to growth has diminished, meaning that more and more credit is needed to generate the
same amount of GDP, which reduces prospects for future deleveraging. Linking these two concerns is the
price of land including related mark-ups levied by officials and developers. But its significance is not well
understood because Chinas property market emerged only in the late 1990s, when the decision was made
to privatise housing. A functioning resale market only began to form around the middle of the last decade.
That is why the large stimulus programme in response to the Asia financial crisis more than a decade ago
did not manifest itself in a property price surge, whereas the 2008-9 stimulus did. Over the past decade,

no other factor has been as important as rising property values in influencing growth patterns and
perceptions of financial risks. The weakening impact of credit on growth is largely explained by the
divergence between fixed asset investment (FAI) and gross fixed capital formation (GFCF). Both are
measures of investment. FAI measures investment in physical assets including land while GFCF measures
investment in new equipment and structures, excluding the value of land and existing assets. This latter
feeds directly into GDP, while only a portion of FAI shows up in GDP accounts. Until recently, the difference
between the two measures did not matter in interpreting economic trends: both were increasing at the
same rate and reached about 35 per cent of GDP by 2002-03. Since then, however, they have diverged
and GFCF now stands at 45 per cent of GDP while the share of FAI has jumped to 70 per cent. Overall
credit levels have increased in line with the rapid growth in FAI rather than the more modest growth in
GFCF. Most of the difference between the ratios is explained by rising asset prices. Thus a large share of
the surge in credit is financing property related transactions which explains why the growth impact of

Is the increase in property and underlying land prices

sustainable, or is it a bubble? Part of the explanation is unique to China. Land in China is
credit has declined.

an asset whose market value went largely unrecognised when it was totally controlled by the State. Once a
private property market was created, the process of discovering lands intrinsic value began, but
establishing such values takes time in a rapidly changing economy. The Wharton/NUS/Tsinghua Land

Price Index indicates that from 2004-2012, land prices have increased
approximately fourfold nationally, with more dramatic increases in major cities such as

Beijing balanced by modest rises in secondary cities. Although this may seem excessive, such growth rates
are similar to what happened in Russia after it privatised its housing stock. Once the economy stabilised,

Could investors have

overshot the mark in China? Possibly, but the land values should be
high given Chinas large population, its shortage of plots that are suitable for
housing prices in Moscow increased six fold in just six years.

construction and its rapid economic growth. Nationally, the ratio of incomes to housing prices has
improved and is now comparable to the levels found in Australia, Taiwan and the UK. In Beijing and

Much of the
recent surge in the credit to GDP ratio is actually evidence of
financial deepening rather than financial instability as China moves
toward more market-based asset values. If so, the higher credit ratios
are fully consistent with the less alarming impressions that come
from scrutiny of sector specific financial indicators.
Shanghai prices are similar to or lower than Delhi, Singapore and Hong Kong.

2NC AT Stocks
Chinas stock market is loosely tied to its economy
structural factors are fine and stock declines dont
accurately reflect growth
Rapoza 7/9
(Kenneth Rapoza. Contributing Editor at Forbes. "Don't Mistake China's Stock Market For
China's Economy," Forbes. 7-9-2015. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/07/09/dontmistake-chinas-stock-market-for-chinas-economy///ghs-kw)

Chinas A-share market is rebounding, but whether or not it has hit

bottom is beside the point. What matters is this: the equity market in China
is a more or less a gambling den dominated by retail investors who
make their investment decisions based on what they read in investor
newsletters. Its a herd mentality. And more importantly, their
trading habits do not reflect economic fundamentals. The countrys
stock market plays a smaller role in its economy than the U.S. stock
market does in ours, and has fewer linkages to the rest of the
economy, says Bill Adams, PNC Financials senior international economist in Pittsburgh. The fact
that the two are unhinged limits the potential for Chinas equity
correction or a bubble to trigger widespread economic distress.
The recent 25% decline in the Deutsche X-Trackers China A-Shares
(ASHR) fund, partially recuperated on Thursday, is not a signal of an impending
Chinese recession. PNCs baseline forecast for Chinese real GDP
growth in 2015 remains unchanged at 6.8% despite the correction, a
correction which has been heralded by the bears as the beginning of the end for Chinas capitalist

Chinas economy, like its market, is transforming. China is moving

away from being a low-cost producer and exporter, to becoming a
consumer driven society. It wants to professionalize its financial
services sector, and build a green-tech economy to help eliminate its
pollution problems. Its slowly opening its capital account and taking
steps to reforming its financial markets. There will be errors and surprises, and
anyone who thinks otherwise will be disappointed. Over the last four weeks, the Chinese
government misplayed its hand when it decided to use tools for the
economy mainly an interest rate reduction and reserve ratio
requirement cuts for banks in an effort to provide the market with more liquidity. It worked for a
experiment.

little while, and recent moves to change rules on margin, and even utilize a circuit-breaker mechanism to
temporarily delist fast-tanking companies from the mainland stock market, might have worked if the

The timing was terrible. And it pushed

people into panic selling, turning China into the biggest financial market headline this side of
Greece crisis didnt pull the plug on global risk.

Athens. For better or for worse, Beijing now has no choice but to go all-in to defend equities, some

Chinas real economy is doing much better than

the Shanghai and Shenzhen exchanges suggest. According to China Beige Book,
the Chinese economy actually recovered last quarter. Markets are
focusing on equities and PMI indicators from the state and HSBC as
a gauge, but it should become clear in the coming weeks that
Chinas stock market is not a reflection of the fundamentals. The Good,
investors told FORBES. But

The Bad and the Ugly To get a more detailed picture of what is driving Chinas growth slowdown, it is
necessary to look at a broader array of economic and financial indicators. The epicenter of Chinas
problems are the industrial and property sectors. Shares of the Shanghai Construction Group, one of the
largest developers listed on the Shanghai stock exchange, is down 42.6% in the past four weeks, two times
worse than the Shanghai Composite Index. China Railway Group is down 33%, also an underperformer.
Growth in real industrial output has declined from 14% in mid-2011 to 5.9% in April, growth in fixed-asset

investment declined 50% over the same period and electricity consumption by primary and secondary
industries is in decline. Chinas trade with the outside world is also falling, though this data does not
always match up with other countries trade figures. Real estate is in decline as Beijing has put the breaks
on its housing bubble. Only the east coast cities are still seeing price increases, but construction is not
booming in Shanghai anymore. The two main components of that have prevented a deeper downturn in
activity are private spending on services, particularly financial services, and government-led increases in
transportation infrastructure like road and rail. Retail sales, especially e-commerce sales that have
benefited the likes of Alibaba and Tencent, both of which have outperformed the index, have been growing
faster than the overall economy. Electricity consumption in the services sector is expanding strongly.
Growth in household incomes is outpacing GDP growth. China has begun the necessary rebalancing
towards a more sustainable, consumption-led growth model, says Jeremy Lawson, chief economist at
Standard Life Investments in the U.K. He warns that its still too early to claim success. Since 2011,
developed markets led by the S&P 500 have performed better than China, but for one reason and one
reason only: The central banks of Europe, the U.K., Japan and of course the U.S. have bought up assets in
unprecedented volumes using printed money, or outright buying securities like the Feds purchase of
bonds and mortgage backed securities. Why bemoan Chinas state intervention when central bank
intervention has been what kept southern Europe afloat, and the U.S. stock market on fire since March

Companies in China are still making money. I think people have no

clue on China, says Jan Dehn, head of research at Ashmore in London, a $70 billion emerging
market fund manager with money at work in mainland China securities. They dont see the
big picture. And they forget it is still an emerging market. The
Chinese make mistakes and will continue to make mistakes like all
governments. However, they will learn from their mistakes. The
magnitude of most problems are not such that they lead to
systematic meltdown. Each time the market freaks out, value
often deep value starts to emerge. Long term, these volatile
episodes are mere blips. They will not change the course of internationalization and maturing
of the market, Dehn told FORBES. China is still building markets. It has a large
environmental problem that will bode well for green tech firms like BYD. Its middle class is not
shrinking. Its billionaires are growing in numbers. They are
reforming all the time. And in the long term, China is going to win. Markets are impatient and
2009?

love a good drama. But investing is not a soap opera. Its not Keeping up with the Kardashians youre
buying, youre buying the worlds No. 2 economy, the biggest commodity consumer in the world, and
home to 1.4 billion people, many of which have been steadily earning more than ever. Chinas transition
will cause temporary weakness in growth and volatility, maybe even crazy volatility. But you have to break

Why The Stock Market Correction Wont

Hurt China The Chinese equity correction is healthy and unlikely to
have major adverse real economy consequences for several reasons:
First, Chinas A-shares are still up 79% over the past 12 months. A
reversal of fortunes was a shoo-in to occur. Second, Chinese banks
are basically not involved in providing leverage and show no signs of
stress. The total leverage in Chinese financial markets is about four
trillion yuan ($600 billion). Stock market leverage is concentrated in the informal sector
eggs to make an omelette, says Dehn.

with trust funds and brokerages accounting for a little over half of the leverage. Margin financing via
brokerages is down from 2.4 trillion yuan to 1.9 trillion yuan and lets not forget that Chinese GDP is about

Third, there is very little evidence that the moves in the

stock market will have a major impact on the real economy and
consumption via portfolio loss. Stocks comprise only 15% of total
wealth. Official sector institutions are large holders of stocks and
their spending is under control of the government. As for the retail
investor, they spend far less of their wealth than other countries. China
has a 49% savings rate. Even if they lost half of it, they would be
saving more than Americans, the highly indebted consumer society
the world loves to love. During the rally over the past twelve months, the stock
market bubble did not trigger a boost in consumption indicating that
higher equity gains didnt impact spending habits too much. The
70 trillion yuan.

Chinese stock market is only 5% of total social financing in China.

Stock markets only finance 2% of Chinese fixed asset investment.
Only 1% of company loans have been put up with stocks as
collateral, so the impact on corporate activity is going to be limited.
The rapid rally and the violent correction illustrate the challenges of capital account liberalization, the
need for a long-term institutional investor base, index inclusion and deeper financial markets, including
foreign institutional investors, Dehn says. The A-shares correction is likely to encourage deeper financial
reforms, not a reversal.

<<Gender Privacy K
Links>>

Privacy
Fineman 94 its in the 1NC shell

Democracy
Representations of democracy exclude the non-male--the public/private split inhibits participation
Romany 93 (Celina Romany, A Professor of Law, Practicing Attorney,
Mediator and Arbitrato, 1993, Women as Aliens: A Feminist Critique of the
Public/Private Distinction in International Human Rights Law. Pg. 100101. //MV)
Both the family and the state are units of government within which
actors play fiduciary roles, while the market is deemed pre-political.
Both the family and the state lack the relative freedom from rules
which the market enjoys since family and state decisions are
informed by "overarching ideals. '71 Both the family and the state share similar
discourses whereby political philosophy refers to family ideals while family theorists allude to political

The
dichotomization of the public and private spheres cripples women's
citizenship. It inhibits the authoritative speech and dialogue that
derive from self-determination and thus impairs the successful
participation of women in democratic life.73 ii. "Private" Terror in the Patriarchal
Family The family, through canonization, becomes the refuge for the
flour- ishing of those spheres of privacy and freedom which lie at the
core of the non-political foundations of the liberal state. At the root
of the enshrinement of family in conventional human rights law lies
a con- vergence of narratives which legitimates a hierarchical
ordering of intimate relations; this convergence is hidden behind the
notion that the family as a social unit is beyond the purview of the
state. Love and intimacy become guards on the borders that place the family unit "beyond justice."
ideals, sharing an arsenal of linguistic imagery of the market as a cornerstone of consent.72

<<Neolib K Links>>

Democracy Promotion Link

The aff uses the plan as a vehicle for Internet-based
democracy promotion their narrative of backsliding and
freedom of information relies on an inaccurate historical
reading of the fall of the Soviet Union that makes global
failure of democracy inevitable, while re-entrenching
global inequality the Internet is not a vehicle for
democracy, and their rhetoric only emboldens dictators
and ensures massive violence
Morozov 11
(Evgeny Morozov, contributing editor at the New Republic and the author of
To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism, The
Net Delusion, pgs. ix-xvii)
For anyone who wants to see democracy prevail

in the most hostile and unlikely

The
seemingly inexorable march of freedom that began in the late 1980s has not only come to a halt
but may have reversed its course. Expressions like freedom recession have begun to break out of the thinktank circuit and enter the public conversation. In a state of quiet desperation, a growing number of Western
policymakers began to con- cede that the Washington Consensusthat set
of dubious policies that once promised a neoliberal paradise at deep discounts has been superseded by the Beijing
environments, the first decade of the new millennium was marked by a sense of bitter disappointment, if not utter disillusionment.

Consensus, which boasts of delivering quick- and-dirty prosperity without having to bother with those pesky institutions of democracy. The
West has been slow to discover that the fight for democracy wasnt won back in 1989. For two decades it has been resting on its laurels,

a laissez-faire approach to
democratization has proved rather toothless against resurgent
authoritarianism, which has masterfully adapted to this new, highly globalized world. Todays authoritarianism is of the
expecting that Starbucks, MTV, and Google will do the rest just fine. Such

hedonism- and consumerism-friendly variety, with Steve Jobs and Ashton Kutcher commanding far more respect than Mao or Che Guevara. No
wonder the West appears at a loss. While the Soviets could be liberated by waving the magic wand of blue jeans, exquisite coffee machines,
and cheap bubble gum, one cant pull the same trick on China. After all, this is where all those Western goods come from. Many of the signs
that promised further democratization just a few years ago never quite materialized. The so-called color revolutions that swept the former
Soviet Union in the last decade produced rather ambiguous results. Ironically, its the most authoritarian of the former Soviet republics
Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstanthat found those revolutions most useful, having discovered and patched their own vulnerabilities. My own
birthplace, Belarus, once singled out by Condoleezza Rice as the last outpost of tyranny in Europe, is perhaps the shrewdest of the lot; it
continues its slide into a weird form of authoritarianism, where the glorification of the Soviet past by its despotic ruler is fused with a growing

The wars in Iraq and

Afghanistan, which were started, if anything, to spread the gospel of
freedom and democracy, have lost much of their initial emancipatory
potential as well, further blurring the line between regime change
and democracy promotion. Coupled with Washingtons unnecessary abuses of human rights and rather
appreciation of fast cars, expensive holidays, and exotic cocktails by its largely carefree populace.

frivolous interpretations of international law, these two wars gave democracy promotion such a bad name that anyone eager to defend it is
considered a Dick Cheney acolyte, an insane idealist, or both. It is thus easy to forget, if only for therapeutic purposes, that the West still has
an obligation to stand up for democratic values, speak up about violations of human rights, and reprimand those who abuse their office and
their citizens. Luckily, by the twenty-first century the case for promoting democracy no longer needs to be made; even the hardest skeptics

there is still very

little agreement on the kind of methods and policies the West needs
to pursue to be most effective in promoting democracy. As the last few decades
have so aptly illustrated, good intentions are hardly enough. Even the most noble attempts may
easily backfire, entrenching authoritarianism as a result. The images of horrific prisoner abuse
agree that a world where Russia, China, and Iran adhere to democratic norms is a safer world. That said,

at Abu Ghraib were the result, if only indirectly, of one particular approach to promoting democracy. It did not exactly work as advertised.
Unfortunately, as the neoconservative vision for democratizing the world got discredited, nothing viable has come to fill the vacuum. While
George Bush certainly overdid it with his excessive freedom- worshiping rhetoric, his successor seems to have abandoned the rhetoric, the

Obamas
silence than just his reasonable attempt to present himself as anti-Bush. Most likely his silence is a sign of an
extremely troubling bipartisan malaise: the growing Western fatigue
spirit, as well as any desire to articulate what a post-Bush freedom agenda might look like. But there is more to

with the project of promoting democracy. The project suffers not just
from bad publicity but also from a deeply rooted intellectual crisis. The
resilience of authoritarianism in places like Belarus, China, and Iran is not for lack of trying by their Western partners to stir things up with an

most such Western initiatives flop, boosting

the appeal of many existing dictators, who excel at playing up the
threat of foreign mingling in their own affairs. To say that there is no good blueprint for
dealing with modern authoritarian- ism would be a severe understatement. Lost in their own strategizing, Western leaders
are pining for something that has guaranteed effectiveness. Many of them look back to the most impressive and most
unambiguous triumph of democracy in the last few decades: the peaceful dissolution of the Soviet
Union. Not surprisinglyand who can blame them for seeking to bolster their own self-confidence?they tend to exaggerate their own
role in precipitating its demise. As a result, many of the Western strategies tried back then, like
expectation of a democratic revolution. Alas,

smuggling in photocopiers and fax machines, facilitating the flow of samizdat, and supporting radio broadcasts by Radio Free Europe and the

are given much more credit than they deserve. Such

belated Cold War triumphalism results in an egregious logical
fallacy. Since the Soviet Union eventually fell, those strategies are
presumed to have been extremely effectivein fact, crucial to the whole endeavor. The
implications of such a view for the future of democracy promotion are tremendous, for they
suggest that large doses of information and communications
technology are lethal to the most repressive of regimes. Much of the
present excitement about the Internet, particularly the high hopes
that are pinned on it in terms of opening up closed societies, stems
from such selective and, at times, incorrect readings of history,
rewritten to glorify the genius of Ronald Reagan and minimize the
role of structural conditions and the inherent contradictions of the
Soviet system. Its for these chiefly historical reasons that the Internet excites so many seasoned and sophisticated decision
makers who should really know better. Viewing it through the prism of the Cold War,
they endow the Internet with nearly magical qualities ; for them, its the ultimate
cheat sheet that could help the West finally defeat its authoritarian adversaries. Given that its the only ray of
light in an otherwise dark intellectual tunnel of democracy
promotion, the Internets prominence in future policy planning is
assured. And at first sight it seems like a brilliant idea. Its like Radio Free Europe on steroids. And its cheap, too: no need to pay for
Voice of America,

expensive programming, broadcasting, and, if everything else fails, propaganda. After all, Internet users can discover the truth about the
horrors of their regimes, about the secret charms of democracy, and about the irresistible appeal of universal human rights on their own, by
turning to search engines like Google and by following their more politically savvy friends on social networking sites like Facebook. In other

By this logic, authoritarianism

becomes unsustainable once the barriers to the free flow of
information are removed. If the Soviet Union couldnt survive a platoon of pamphleteers, how can China survive an
words, let them tweet, and they will tweet their way to freedom.

army of bloggers? Its hardly surprising, then, that the only place where the West (especially the United States) is still unabashedly eager to
promote democracy is in cyberspace. The Freedom Agenda is out; the Twitter Agenda is in. Its deeply symbolic that the only major speech
about freedom given by a senior member of the Obama administration was Hillary Clintons speech on Internet freedom in January 2010. It
looks like a safe bet: Even if the Internet wont bring democracy to China or Iran, it can still make the Obama administration appear to have
the most technologically savvy foreign policy team in history. The best and the brightest are now also the geekiest. The Google Doctrinethe
enthusiastic belief in the liberating power of technology accompanied by the irresistible urge to enlist Silicon Valley start-ups in the global fight
for freedomis of growing appeal to many policymakers. In fact, many of them are as upbeat about the revolutionary potential of the Internet

What could possibly go wrong here?

As it turns out, quite a lot. Once burst, stock bubbles have few lethal consequences; democracy
bubbles, on the other hand, could easily lead to carnage. The idea that
the Internet favors the oppressed rather than the oppressor is marred
by what I call cyber-utopianism: a naive belief in the emancipatory
nature of online communication that rests on a stubborn refusal to acknowledge its downside. It stems from
as their colleagues in the corporate sector were in the late 1990s.

the starry- eyed digital fervor of the 1990s, when former hippies, by this time ensconced in some of the most prestigious universities in the
world, went on an argumentative spree to prove that the Internet could deliver what the 1960s couldnt: boost democratic participation,
trigger a renaissance of moribund communities, strengthen associational life, and serve as a bridge from bowling alone to blogging together.
And if it works in Seattle, it must also work in Shanghai. Cyber-utopians ambitiously set out to build a new and improved United Nations, only
to end up with a digital Cirque du Soleil. Even if trueand thats a gigantic if their theories proved difficult to adapt to non-Western and
particularly nondemocratic contexts. Democratically elected governments in North America and Western Europe may, indeed, see an Internetdriven revitalization of their public spheres as a good thing; logically, they would prefer to keep out of the digital sandboxat least as long as

Authoritarian governments, on the other hand, have

invested so much effort into suppressing any form of free expression
nothing illegal takes place.

and free assembly that they would never behave in such a civilized fashion. The early theorists of the
Internets influence on politics failed to make any space for the state, let alone a brutal authoritarian state with no
tolerance for the rule of law or dissenting opinions. Whatever book lay on the cyber-utopian bed- side table in the early
1990s, it was surely not Hobbess Leviathan. Failing to anticipate how authoritarian governments would respond to the Internet, cyberutopians did not predict how useful it would prove for propaganda
purposes, how masterfully dictators would learn to use it for surveillance, and how sophisticated
modern systems of Internet censorship would become. Instead most cyber-utopians
stuck to a populist account of how technology empowers the people, who, op- pressed by years of authoritarian rule, will inevitably rebel,
mobilizing themselves through text messages, Facebook, Twitter, and whatever new tool comes along next year. (The people, it must be

in their refusal to see the downside of the

new digital environment, cyber-utopians ended up belittling the role
of the Internet, refusing to see that it penetrates and re- shapes all walks of political life, not just the ones conducive to
democratization. I myself was intoxicated with cyber-utopianism until recently. This book is an attempt to
come to terms with this ideology as well as a warning against the
pernicious influence that it has had and is likely to continue to have on
democracy promotion. My own story is fairly typical of idealistic young people who think they are onto
something that could change the world. Having watched the deterioration of democratic freedoms in my native Belarus, I
was drawn to a Western NGO that sought to promote democracy and
media reform in the former Soviet bloc with the help of the Internet. Blogs, social networks,
noted, really liked to hear such theories.) Paradoxically,

wikis: We had an arsenal of weapons that seemed far more potent than police batons, surveillance cameras, and
handcuffs. Nevertheless, after I spent a few busy years circling the former Soviet region and meeting with activists and
bloggers, I lost my enthusiasm. Not only were our strategies failing, but we also noticed a significant push back from the
governments we sought to challenge. They were beginning to experiment with censorship, and some went so far as to
start aggressively engaging with new media themselves, paying bloggers to spread propaganda and troll social
networking sites looking for new information on those in the opposition. In the meantime, the Western obsession with the
Internet and the monetary support it guaranteed created numerous hazards typical of such ambitious development

predictably, many of the talented bloggers and new media

entrepreneurs preferred to work for the extremely well-paid but
largely ineffective Western-funded projects instead of trying to
create more nimble, sustainable, and, above all, effective projects of
their own. Thus, everything we didwith generous funding from Washington and Brusselsseemed
to have produced the results that were the exact opposite of what
my cyber-utopian self wanted. It was tempting to throw my hands up in despair and give up on the Internet
projects. Quite

altogether. But this would have been the wrong lesson to draw from these disappointing experiences. Similarly, it would be wrong for Western
policymakers to simply dismiss the Internet as a lost cause and move on to bigger, more important issues. Such digital defeatism would only
play into the hands of authoritarian governments, who would be extremely happy to continue using it as both a carrot (keeping their populace
entertained) and a stick (punishing those who dare to challenge the official line). Rather, the lesson to be drawn is that the Internet is here to
stay, it will continue growing in importance, and those concerned with democracy promotion need not only grapple with it but also come up
with mechanisms and procedures to ensure that an- other tragic blunder on the scale of Abu Ghraib will never happen in cyberspace. This is
not a far-fetched scenario. How hard is it to imagine a site like Facebook inadvertently disclosing the private information of activists in Iran or
China, tipping off governments to secret connections between the activists and their Western funders? To be truly effective, the West needs
to do more than just cleanse it- self of cyber-utopian bias and adopt a more realist posture. When it comes to concrete steps to promote

cyber-utopian convictions often give rise to an equally flawed

approach that I dub Internet-centrism. Unlike cyber-utopianism,
Internet-centrism is not a set of beliefs; rather, its a philosophy of
action that informs how decisions, including those that deal with
democracy promotion, are made and how long-term strategies are
crafted. While cyber-utopianism stipulates what has to be done,
Internet-centrism stipulates how it should be done. Internetcentrists like to answer every question about democratic change by first reframing it in terms of the Internet rather than the context
in which that change is to occur. They are often completely oblivious to the highly
political nature of technology, especially the Internet, and like to come
up with strategies that assume that the logic of the Internet , which, in most
cases, they are the only ones to perceive, will shape every environment than it penetrates rather than vice
versa. While most utopians are Internet-centrists, the latter are not necessarily utopians. In fact, many of them like
to think of themselves as pragmatic individuals who have abandoned
grand theorizing about utopia in the name of achieving tangible
results. Sometimes, they are even eager to acknowledge that it takes more than bytes to foster, install, and consolidate a healthy
democracy,

Their realistic convictions, however, rarely make up for

their flawed methodology, which prioritizes the tool over the
environment, and, as such, is deaf to the social, cultural, and political subtleties and indeter- minacies. Internetcentrism is a highly disorienting drug; it ignores context and entraps policymakers into believing that
they have a useful and powerful ally on their side. Pushed to its extreme, it leads to hubris,
arrogance, and a false sense of confidence, all bolstered by the dangerous illusion of having
democratic regime.

established effective command of the Internet. All too often, its practitioners fashion themselves as possessing full mastery of their favorite
tool, treating it as a stable and finalized technology, oblivious to the numerous forces that are constantly reshaping the Internet not all of

Treating the Internet as a constant, they fail to see their

own responsibility in preserving its freedom and reining in the ever-powerful intermediaries,
them for the better.

companies like Google and Facebook. As the Internet takes on an even greater role in the politics of both authoritarian and democratic states,

All by itself, however, the

Internet provides nothing certain. In fact, as has become obvious in too many contexts, it
empowers the strong and disempowers the weak. It is impossible to
place the Internet at the heart of the enterprise of democracy
promotion without risking the success of that very enterprise. The premise
of this book is thus very simple: To salvage the Internets promise to aid the fight
against authoritarianism, those of us in the West who still care about the future of democracy
will need to ditch both cyber-utopianism and Internet-centrism.
Currently, we start with a flawed set of assumptions (cyber-utopianism)
and act on them using a flawed, even crippled, methodology (Internet-centrism).
The result is what I call the Net Delusion. Pushed to the extreme, such logic is poised to have
significant global consequences that may risk undermin- ing the very
project of promoting democracy. Its a folly that the West could do without. Instead, well need to opt for
the pressure to forget the context and start with what the Internet allows will only grow.

policies informed by a realistic assessment of the risks and dangers posed by the Internet, matched by a highly scrupulous and unbiased
assessment of its promises, and a theory of action that is highly sensitive to the local context, that is cognizant of the complex connections
between the Internet and the rest of foreign policymaking, and that originates not in what technology allows but in what a certain geopolitical

giving in to cyber-utopianism and Internet-centrism

is akin to agreeing to box blindfolded. Sure, every now and then we
may still strike some powerful blows against our authoritarian
adversaries, but in general this is a poor strategy if we want to win. The
environment requires. In a sense,

struggle against authoritarianism is too important of a battle to fight with a voluntary intellectual handicap, even if that handicap allows us to
play with the latest fancy gadgets.

Privacy Rights Link

Privacy cements neoliberalism ensuring economic
inequality the right to be left alone drives excessive
concern for personal well-being and prevents collective
solidarity
Sevignani, 12 (Sebastian Sevignani studied media and communication,

philosophy, and theology at the University of Salzburg. He obtained a

master's degree in communication studies (Mag. phil.) in 2009. From 2007
until 2010, he worked at the University of Salzburg's Department of
Communication Studies as scholar in the Media Economics Research Group
(Abteilung fr Medienkonomie). He has started work on his doctoral thesis,
which focuses on the social possibilities/ potentials of the media in
(knowledge-based) capitalism. Sebastian. "The Problem of Privacy in
Capitalism and the Alternative Social Networking Site Diaspora*." Journal for
a Global Sustainable Information Society 12.2 (2012): 603-04. Web. 16 July
2015. <http://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/issue/view/25>.)
The starting point of the modern privacy debate was an article by
Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis published in 1890. The motive for
writing this article was an infringement during the wedding of Warrens daughter by the press. In this
article,

privacy is defined as the right to be left alone (Warren and

Brandeis 1890/1984, 76). The right to be left alone is identical
with the liberal core value of negative freedom (Rssler 2001, 20f.),
and as such it determines most of the subsequent theoretical work
on privacy and situates it within the liberal tradition. The plethora of
values that are associated with privacy, such as the value of
freedom, autonomy, personal well-being and so forth, mostly stem
from this very kind of thinking. Serving these values, informational privacy is today most
often defined either as control over the flow of information or over the access to information. For Alan F.
Westin, privacy is the claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to determine for themselves when, how,
and to what extent information about them is communicated to others (Westin 1967, 7). Westin focuses
on the control of information, which makes him a prototypical proponent of control-theories of privacy
(Tavani 2008, 142f.). On the other hand, there are access-theories of privacy (Tavani 2008, 141f.).
Gavinson, for instance, relates privacy to our concern over our accessibility to others: the extent to which
we are known to others, the extent to which others have physical access to us, and the extent to which we
are the subject of others' attention (Gavinson 1980/1984, 347). If we combine these two major strands of

one can speak of privacy as individual control over

access to personal information (Moor 1997; Tavani 2008). Some authors
privacy approaches,

challenge the non-determination of privacy as control definitions (e.g., Wacks 2010, 40f.; Solove 2008,
25); they argue that these theories fail to define the content of privacy. In fact, control theories deal with
the freedom to choose privacy (Wacks 2010, 41), rather than a determination of the content to be
deemed private. Here, privacy is what is subjectively seen as private; such theories, therefore, foster
individuals exclusive control over their data, and do not want to and cannot lay claim to privacy within a
good society and a happy fulfilled life (Jaggar 1983, 174). Access theories differ on this point; these
theories can denote a realm of privacy that is not at the disposal of the individuals choice by any means
(Fuchs 2011b, 223). For instance, such determinations of privacy could include the agreement that
individuals bodies, homes or financial issues such as bank secrecy, are inherently private. In access
theories, privacy is what is objectively private and, therefore, theories as these can conjure up constraints

It is crucial to understand
that access theories may allow thinking about what privacy should
be in a good society, but not as a matter of necessity. In fact, access
theories of privacy are also most often situated within the liberal
to individuals control over their data in terms of certain values.

tradition and have a limited notion of societal issues as the stress is

on the individual control aspect. A resemblance between privacy and
property is often noted in the literature (Lyon 1994, 186; Laudon 1996, 93; Brenkert
1979, 126; Habermas 1991, 74; Goldring 1984, 308f.; Lessig 2002, 250; Hettinger 1989, 45; Geuss 2001,
103; Sofsky 2007, 95f.; Solove 2008, 26-28; Moore 2008, 420; Kang 1998; Litman 2000; Westin 1967, 324325; Varian 1997; Samuelson 2000), but has rarely been analysed critically
(exception: Fuchs 2011b). A broad notion that expresses its fundamental character for human life and fits
in with various kinds of property, understands property as a social relation with regard to (tangible and/or

Macpherson speaks about three possible

forms: private property, state property, and common property. He
points out that private property and state property are of similar
structure, since in both the social relation with regard to things is
exclusionary (Macpherson 1978, 5). Macpherson further remarks
upon three shifts in the property notion, which took place when
capitalism and market society appeared (Macpherson 1978, 9f.). These shifts include
relevant and, as we shall see, ideological identifications: private property, based on a
relation of exclusion, is taken for property as such; property in the
consumable means of life is identified with property in producing
these means of life; and property in producing the means of life is
identified with a specific property in producing the means of life,
namely property of the labour force. These shifts are not arbitrary;
rather, Macpherson argues that they are needed by market society
and capitalism (Macpherson 1978, 9). Nowadays, private property is commonly associated with
intangible) things (Pedersen 2010c).

four aspects: the right to use, to abuse, to alienate or exchange something, as well as the right to receive
the fruits that the usage of something generates (Munzer 2005, 858). Private property can be or probably
has always been constrained by state or society (Christman 1996). However, it may be called an absolute
right in two senses: it is a right to dispose of, or alienate, as well as to use; and it is a right which is not
conditional on the owners performance of any social function (Macpherson 1978, 10). CC: Creative

A relation of exclusion lies behind

privacy as well as in the case of private property. I will now point to
some similarities between both concepts on a phenomenological
level. In the next section, the resemblance is then explored more systematically using Marxian theory.
Most often, privacy is defined as an individuals right against others and
society (ensuring negative freedom), so one may conclude that an
opposition against the common lies behind the privacy discourse.
In the age of the Internet, just as the individual concerned about
privacy wants to control who gets access to what and when, the
copyright holder wants to control who get access to what and when
Commons License, 2012. 604 Sebastian Sevignani

(Lessig 2002, 250). Consequently, there is much discussion about how, on the one hand, to understand,
justify, and criticize intangible private property, and on the other hand, to analyse, welcome, or mourn the

Further
similarities between privacy and private property can be found in
their dependence on peoples class status (Goldring 1984, 313;
Papacharissi 2010). It makes an important difference if one has
private property only in things that one needs for life, or if one has
much more private property than he or she needs for life. There are
rich private property owners who possess far more housing space
than they can ever use. On the other hand, there are poor private
property owners, being on welfare, who only possess their labour
power. In terms of privacy, there are, for instance, people who rely
on sharing the flat with other people that brings along several
constraints in temporarily withdrawing from other people, or they
may be forced to report their whole private life to state authorities
blurring between the public and private realm online (with respect to SNS: boyd 2007).

(Gilliom 2001). However, there are people who have far more
privacy. For instance, people who live in castles are well protected
from any unappreciated intrusions, be they from other people,
noise, or anything else. These people may be able to circumvent
reporting their financial status to state authorities, using the law
effectively on their behalf by means of tax and investment
consultants. As much as private property, privacy is also good for different
things depending on ones class status. In capitalism, all people rely on having
private property in order to satisfy their material and cultural needs. For the rich and powerful, private
property ensures that they have the right to own the means of production and use them for their own
purpose. For the poor, private property is essential because only via private property can they reproduce

In capitalism, all humans

also rely on having privacy in order to be competitive within a
society that forces them to compete, and at the same time to allow
for spaces of escape from that competition (Geuss 2001, 88). Rich
and powerful peoples call for privacy is not only about
individuation, but moreover about ensuring the sanctity of their
wealth while hiding its origin (one thinks of bank secrecy, for
instance). The poorer people also call for privacy in order to protect
their lives against overexploitation and other forms of powerful
abuse by the rich (Demirovic 2004). Not surprisingly, we know of theories that draw
their labour power and ensure that they will make ends meet.

consequences from the outlined close connection between the individualistic control theory of privacy and
private property by conceptualising the right to privacy as a right to property (Laudon 1996, 93; Lessig
2002; Kang 1998; Varian 1997). Property, according to the previously outlined identifying processes, is for
these authors always to be understood as private property. Privacy as property would strengthen the
individual control of personal data (Laudon 1996, 93; 97) and would prevent privacy invasions that occur

The privacy as
property-approach demands that everyone possesses information
about themselves that would be valuable under some circumstances
to others for commercial purposes. Everyone possesses his or her
own reputation and data image. In this sense, basing privacy on the
value of ones name is egalitarian. Even the poor possess their
identity. In the current regime of privacy protection, not even the wealthy can protect their personal
when personal data is accessed non-consensually (Laudon 1996, 99).

information (Laudon 1996, 102). Admittedly, with other political implications in mind, Lessig says, in the
context of privacy as property, that property

talk [...] would strengthen the

rhetorical force behind privacy (Lessig 2002, 247). If privacy is
property, then it becomes possible to speak about theft regarding
the non-consensual usage of personal data (Lessig 2002, 255).

Privacy is rooted in possessive individualism and property

relations that sustain neoliberalism their discourse only
ensures economic domination and alienation
Sevignani, 12 (Sebastian Sevignani studied media and communication,
philosophy, and theology at the University of Salzburg. He obtained a
master's degree in communication studies (Mag. phil.) in 2009. From 2007
until 2010, he worked at the University of Salzburg's Department of
Communication Studies as scholar in the Media Economics Research Group
(Abteilung fr Medienkonomie). He has started work on his doctoral thesis,
which focuses on the social possibilities/ potentials of the media in
(knowledge-based) capitalism. Sebastian. "The Problem of Privacy in
Capitalism and the Alternative Social Networking Site Diaspora*." Journal for

a Global Sustainable Information Society 12.2 (2012): 608-10. Web. 16 July

2015. <http://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/issue/view/25>.)
the properties of the dominant
privacy notion competitive individualism, exclusive control,
exchangeable private property have their very origin in the
commodity exchange. The commodity exchange hides human
sociality. Value appears as property of things and not as a social
relation. Hence, it is important to own things for realising their
value. But sociality asserts itself behind peoples back and establishes pressures to perform that are
By employing Marxs theory, I have thus far shown that

not controlled by the individuals. They perceive themselves as competitors. C.B. Macpherson (1962)
detected the great influence of the outlined objective forms of thought within the most influential
philosophical and political thinking, from Hobbes to Locke, and labelled it possessive individualism.

Possessive individualism denotes a kind of thinking and a social

practice. Within capitalism it is useful and necessary that the
individual perceives herself or himself as essentially the proprietor
of his own person and capacities, for which he owes nothing to
society (Macpherson, 1962, 263) and enters into self-interested
relations with other individuals (Macpherson 1962, 263). The value
associated with privacy comes from these kinds of objective forms of
thought. Admittedly, there has been much critique of this kind of privacy

(Habermas 1991, 74; Lyon 1994, 186, 196; Etzioni 1999, 194), but for the evaluation of these critiques, it is
important to keep in mind that privacys origin in possessive individualism is not arbitrary; rather, this style

privacy originates from material, capitalist practices. There are

also several newer privacy theories that do not proceed from the
liberal individualistic point of view (for instance: Solove 2008, 9198); however, the dominant mode of production in society remains
bound to that point of view. We cannot simply define privacy
differently without leaving social practices as they are. 3.5. The Political
of

Aspect: Privacy and Class Domination Ideology was defined as a specific form of human association

it is in
the associational form of commodi- ty exchange that ideology is
falsified and thus makes privacy one-sided and individualistic. But what
that evokes a false consciousness and a structure of political domination. I have shown that

about the political dimension of ideology? I am stuck for an answer that addresses why ideology and
therefore ideological notions of privacy are tied to implicit class domination and are therefore problematic.
Marx gives an answer to this question within his capital theory. It is important to stress that there is a
logical unity between the value theory and capital theory in Marx. The unity exists because commodity
exchange and exploitation take place in capitalist reality at the same time. This means that commodity
exchange and its objective forms of thought are necessarily interwoven with capitalism, i.e. we cannot

the dominant notion of privacy is related to

the maintenance of political domination. Marx describes capital as self-processing
separate them. And it also means that

value (Marx 1867/1976, 257); in short, M-C-M: in the sphere of circulation, money (M) is invested for a
specific commodity production (C) and results then, if the sale was successful, in more money (M). Why
are investments profitable? Marx gives the following answer. Self-processing value is possible due to the
commodification of the workforce. The workforce is a certain commodity as it is able to produce more
value than it costs to reproduce. For instance, food and opportunities for regeneration, such as free time,
sleeping, etc. that have to be produced, are reproduction costs of the workforce. The difference between
these costs and the surplus produced by workers is appropriated by the buyers of the workforce. In this

capitalists are steadily able to appropriate the societallyproduced surplus by workers. They become therefore richer and
more powerful than workers. Consequently, a structural class
division in society becomes inevitable. Why is such appropriation
legitimate? It is legitimate because the principle of equivalence, do
ut des, I give that you may give, no one cheats anyone, remains
intact and therefore the mutual recognition as private property
manner,

owners is not affected. On the contrary, fair commodity exchange

and therefore the ideological notion of privacy is presupposed for a
capitalist class society. Not surprisingly, class society affects the
privacy issue, as argued in section 2. Marx argues that besides commodity exchange, i.e. labour
performed privately and in isolation, capitalism needs to work out a complete separation between the
workers and the ownership of the conditions for the realization of their labour (Marx 1867/1976, 874). In
the prehistory of capitalism, this separation took place through a violent process of expropriation of great
segments of the population, to which Marx refers as primitive accumulation of capital (Marx 1867/1976,
part eight). Thereby, workers were set free, but this liberation was of ambiguous character. It resulted in
a dual sense of freedom (Marx 1867/1976, 270-272), namely, workers are free of personal dependences,
for instance, from their overlords in feudalism, but also free from the ownership of the condition for the
realisation of their labour. Workers are on the one hand free to engage in contracts. This freedom is
precisely the freedom of commodity exchange. On the other hand, workers are forced to engage in
contracts and to sell their labour power on the markets to make ends meet. This freedom is also set in
commodity exchange as it is a freedom to choose regardless of ones social status. Hence, workers are
forced to maintain their status as a subaltern class because the capitalist can steadily appropriate the
societal surplus that is produced by the workers (Marx 1867/1976, 729f.). This fair exploitation process is,
according to Marx, a structural reason for domination in society. The capitalist quality of society as class
society is expressed by the right to have others work for you and the right to private property in labours
terms of realisation. These rights are identified with the right to private property in general in an
ideological manner (Macpherson 1978). Todays uni- tary legal frameworks for different sorts of private
property are only possible because commodity exchange and appropriation of societally produced surplus
are not divisible (Rmer 1978, 140). The universal right to private property, to use, abuse, alienate or
exchange something, and the right to receive the fruits that the usage of something generates, does not
matter if only the things owned are needed for life, or the conditions within which labour can be realised
(means of production) are private property, or if private property is extended to the labour force (Munzer
2005, 858). In terms of privacy, Niels van Dijk (2010, 64) points to an interesting difference in legislation
between Europe and the U.S. While in the U.S. tradition, personal data is predominantly seen as a
commodity and therefore exchangeable (privacy as property), in Europe there is little room for
propertization of personal data (van Dijk 2010, 64), because privacy is conceptualized as a persona right
and important for the individuals dignity (McGeveran 2009; Shepherd 2012). But human dignity is
generally seen as inalienable. In the discussion on the question whether privacy should or should not be
alienable, exchangeable, and tradable on the markets, it is crucial to understand that in capitalism any
commodification process presupposes rights that cannot be alienated or exchanged. The labourer must not
become a slave, cannot alienate his or her whole person because this would reverse the double freedom of
the labourer (Pateman 2002, 33). This is a feature of capitalist progress in comparison to previous forms of
society. According to Marx, this means that domination, which still exists, is mediated through basic
freedoms of the individual. Macpherson (1962, 264; see also Pateman 2002) argues that alienability of the
labour force presupposes itself a universal, inalienable right of self-ownership that originates from the
practice of commodity exchange and contains, as already outlined, the circulation sphere-based rights of
freedom, equality, property, and self-interest (Marx 1867/1976, 280). In terms of privacy, I conclude that

approaches to privacy as an inalienable right may be helpful but are

ultimately not sufficient to be an alternative to capitalist class
domination particularly if they operate with the notion of autonomy
and privacy as self-possession. Carole Pateman argues that the double freedom assigned

to the worker in capitalism is a political fiction (Pateman and Mills 2007, 17f.) since the inalienable part of
the individual that enters into employment contracts cannot be separated from the individuals alienable
aspects. When employers buy work force, it is demanded that the worker brings in his or her knowledge,
skills, etc., which in fact is his or her person. Labour cannot be separated from person-being and
personbecoming (Marx 1976, 283). The same applies to privacy and personal data. It is a fiction to assume
that users can exchange their personal data and that this exchange would not affect their person, which
also has to be conceptualised as non-alienable in order to speak meaningfully of free and voluntary
exchanges on privacy markets. Pateman argues that contracts, although entered voluntarily, enable
superiority and subordination. Hence, there is also a subordination of the users at stake when they accept
commercial SNSs terms of use. Such subordination is a precondition for exploitation and class domination
ultimately. Ellerman refers to this fiction as a personthing mismatch (Ellerman 2005, 463) as if aspects of

The political fiction of severability of

person and work force or person and personal data can easily be
understood as ideology and fetishism in the sense that I have
outlined it here. Whereas privacy can, though ought not, be seen as an
inalienable right, private property rea- sonably cannot (Andrew 1985, 529; Pateman 2002, 20-21;
Litman 2000, 1295-1297). The closer privacy comes to private property, the
more privacy is alienable or exchangeable, becoming itself a
personality could be alienated like things.

commodity. It does then not only contribute to the capitalist

ideology, but also directly to exploitation. In Table 1, I summarise what we can learn
from Marx in terms of understanding privacy in (informational) capitalism.