NSA Decryption AFF

1AC

Contention One: Inherency

The Secure Data Act has been introduced several times
but with no hope for passing even tacking on antidecryption measures to other bills has stalled
Bennett 6/2/15 [Cory: covers cybersecurity for The Hill, Senators push

amendment to bar encryption 'backdoors', The Hill, June 2, 2015

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/243725-senators-push-for-amendmentto-bar-encryption-backdoors // emb].
Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) want to amend the Senates
surveillance reform bill so it would forbid the government from
compelling companies to install access points into their encryption.
As the Senate moves toward a final vote Tuesday on its reform bill, the USA Freedom Act, Paul and
Wyden are pushing for their colleagues to vote on a slate of
amendments they say would enhance the privacy provisions in the
bill. One of the main additions they want to see is a provision barring the
government from requiring so-called backdoors in encryption an
access point known only to law enforcement. But it appears the upper chamber will only
vote on amendments offered by Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell (R-Ky.). Privacy groups have alleged that McConnells
amendments will simply water down the reform bill, which the Republican
leader initially opposed. Paul has been leading the charge against extending any of the National Security
Agencys spying powers authorized under the Patriot Act. He blocked any short-term extension of the law
and has repeatedly delayed votes on the reform bill, which he believes doesnt go far enough. Wyden,
also a vocal NSA critic, has joined Paul to press for votes on privacy-focused amendments to the USA
Freedom Act. A measure barring backdoors has been one of the most sought-after provisions among techsavvy lawmakers and the privacy community in recent years. A bipartisan group of lawmakers is fighting

Government officials argue that

investigators need some way to legitimately access encrypted data
on devices and social media platforms. Technologists and numerous lawmakers
counter that any form of guaranteed access makes encryption inherently vulnerable. Wyden and
others have several times introduced the Secure Data Act, a standalone bill that would prohibit the government from mandating
backdoors. But the measure hasnt seen any movement , causing
lawmakers to try and tack it on to other surveillance and cyber bills.
with the Obama administration over the concept.

The NSA is winning the encryption war theyve cracked

most of what guards banking, trade secrets, medical
records, emails, internet comm
Larson 13 [Jeff: Data Editor at ProPublica. Won the Livingston Award,
Revealed: The NSAs Secret Campaign to Crack, Undermine Internet
Security, ProPublica, September 5, 2013
http://www.propublica.org/article/the-nsas-secret-campaign-to-crackundermine-internet-encryption // emb].
The National Security Agency is winning its long-running secret war on
encryption, using supercomputers, technical trickery, court orders
and behind-the-scenes persuasion to undermine the major tools
protecting the privacy of everyday communications in the Internet

age, according to newly disclosed documents. This story has been reported in partnership between The
New York Times, the Guardian and ProPublica based on documents obtained by The Guardian. The
agency has circumvented or cracked much of the encryption, or
digital scrambling, that guards global commerce and banking
systems, protects sensitive data like trade secrets and medical
records, and automatically secures the e-mails, Web searches,
Internet chats and phone calls of Americans and others around the
world, the documents show. Many users assume or have been assured by Internet companies
that their data is safe from prying eyes, including those of the government, and the N.S.A. wants to keep it

The agency treats its recent successes in deciphering

protected information as among its most closely guarded secrets,
restricted to those cleared for a highly classified program codenamed Bullrun, according to the documents, provided by Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A.
that way.

contractor.

PLAN: The United States Congress should implement the

Secure Data Act of 2015.

Advantage One: Cyberwar

NSA backdoors that aim to subvert encryption systems
are easily exploitable by other actors this is empirically
proven. Legal restrictions are critical to restore strong
encryption systems.
Bruce Schneier 14 the Chief Technology Officer of Resilient Systems, a
fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center, and a board member of EFF. Stop the
Hysteria over Apple Encryption, 10/3/14
https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2014/10/stop_the_hysteria_ov.html

Last week Apple announced that it is closing a serious security vulnerability in the iPhone. It used to be
that the phone's encryption only protected a small amount of the data, and Apple had the ability to bypass
security on the rest of it. From now on, all the phone's data is protected. It can no longer be accessed by
criminals, governments, or rogue employees. Access to it can no longer be demanded by totalitarian
governments. A user's iPhone data is now more secure . To hear U.S. law enforcement respond, you'd think
Apple's move heralded an unstoppable crime wave. See, the FBI had been using that vulnerability to get
into peoples' iPhones. In the words of cyberlaw professor Orin Kerr, "How is the public interest served by a
policy that only thwarts lawful search warrants?" Ah, but that's the thing :

You can't build a

"back door" that only the good [folks] guys can walk through.
Encryption protects against cybercriminals, industrial competitors,
the Chinese secret police and the FBI. You're either vulnerable to
eavesdropping by any of them, or you're secure from eavesdropping
from all of them. Back-door access built for the good [folks] guys is
routinely used by the bad [folks] guys. In 2005, some unknown group
surreptitiously used the lawful-intercept capabilities built into the
Greek cell phone system. The same thing happened in Italy in 2006.
In 2010, Chinese hackers subverted an intercept system Google had
put into Gmail to comply with U.S. government surveillance
requests. Back doors in our cell phone system are currently being
exploited by the FBI and unknown others. This doesn't stop the FBI and Justice
Department from pumping up the fear. Attorney General Eric Holder threatened us with kidnappers and
sexual predators . The former head of the FBI's criminal investigative division went even further, conjuring
up kidnappers who are also sexual predators. And, of course, terrorists. FBI Director James Comey claimed
that Apple's move allows people to "place themselves beyond the law" and also invoked that now
overworked "child kidnapper." John J. Escalante, chief of detectives for the Chicago police department now
holds the title of most hysterical: "Apple will become the phone of choice for the pedophile." It's all bluster.
Of the 3,576 major offenses for which warrants were granted for communications interception in 2013,
exactly one involved kidnapping. And, more importantly,

there's no evidence that

encryption hampers criminal investigations in any serious way.

In

2013, encryption foiled the police nine times, up from four in 2012and the investigations proceeded in
some other way. This is why the FBI's scare stories tend to wither after public scrutiny. A former FBI
assistant director wrote about a kidnapped man who would never have been found without the ability of
the FBI to decrypt an iPhone, only to retract the point hours later because it wasn't true. We've seen this
game before. During the crypto wars of the 1990s, FBI Director Louis Freeh and others would repeatedly
use the example of mobster John Gotti to illustrate why the ability to tap telephones was so vital. But the
Gotti evidence was collected using a room bug, not a telephone tap. And those same scary criminal tropes
were trotted out then, too. Back then we called them the Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse : pedophiles,
kidnappers, drug dealers, and terrorists. Nothing has changed. Strong encryption has been around for
years. Both Apple's FileVault and Microsoft's BitLocker encrypt the data on computer hard drives. PGP
encrypts email. Off-the-Record encrypts chat sessions. HTTPS Everywhere encrypts your browsing. Android
phones already come with encryption built-in. There are literally thousands of encryption products without
back doors for sale, and some have been around for decades. Even if the U.S. bans the stuff, foreign
companies will corner the market because many of us have legitimate needs for security. Law enforcement
has been complaining about "going dark" for decades now. In the 1990s, they convinced Congress to pass
a law requiring phone companies to ensure that phone calls would remain tappable even as they became

digital. They tried and failed to ban strong encryption and mandate back doors for their use. The FBI tried
and failed again to ban strong encryption in 2010. Now, in the post-Snowden era, they're about to try

Strong encryption protects us from a panoply of

threats. It protects us from hackers and criminals. It protects our
businesses from competitors and foreign spies. It protects people in
totalitarian governments from arrest and detention. This isn't just me talking:
The FBI also recommends you encrypt your data for security. As for law enforcement? The
recent decades have given them an unprecedented ability to put us
under surveillance and access our data. Our cell phones provide them with a detailed
again. We need to fight this.

history of our movements. Our call records, email history, buddy lists, and Facebook pages tell them who
we associate with. The hundreds of companies that track us on the Internet tell them what we're thinking
about. Ubiquitous cameras capture our faces everywhere. And most of us back up our iPhone data on
iCloud, which the FBI can still get a warrant for.

surveillance.

It truly is the golden age of

After considering the issue, Orin Kerr rethought his position, looking at this in terms of

a technological-legal trade-off. I think he's right.

Given everything that has made it

easier for governments and others to intrude on our private lives,

we need both technological security and legal restrictions to restore
the traditional balance between government access and our
security/privacy . More companies should follow Apple's lead and make encryption the easy-touse default. And let's wait for some actual evidence of harm before we acquiesce to police demands for
reduced security.

NSA decryption renders the US vulnerable to cyber attack

Bamford, De Chant 15 [James: documentary producer for PBS and the
author of The Puzzle Palace, Body of Secrets, A Pretext for War, and The
Shadow Factory; Tim De Chant: senior digital editor at NOVA and editor of
NOVA Next, Exclusive: Edward Snowden on Cyber Warfare, PBS, Exclusive:
Edward Snowden on Cyber Warfare, January 8, 2015
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/military/snowden-transcript/ ]
Snowden: The community of technical experts who really manage the
internet, who built the internet and maintain it, are becoming
increasingly concerned about the activities of agencies like the NSA or Cyber Command,
because what we see is that defense is becoming less of a priority than
offense. There are programs weve read about in the press over the
last year, such as the NSA paying RSA $10 million to use an insecure
encryption standard by default in their products. Thats making us
more vulnerable not just to the snooping of our domestic agencies,
but also foreign agencies. We saw another program called Bullrun which subverted the
which subvertsit

continues to subvert similar encryption standards that

are used for the majority of e-commerce all over the world. You
cant go to your bank and trust that communication if those
standards have been weakened, if those standards are vulnerable.
And this is resulting in a paradigm where these agencies wield tremendous power over
the internet at the price of making the rest of their nation incredibly
vulnerable to the same kind of exploitative attacks , to the same
sort of mechanisms of cyber-attack.

And that means while we may have a real advantage

when it comes to eavesdropping on the military in Syria or trade negotiations over the price of shrimp in Indonesiawhich
is an actually real anecdoteor even monitoring the climate change conference, it means it results. It means we end up

living in an America where

we no longer have a National Security Agency. We

have a national surveillance agency . And until we reform our laws and
until we fix the excesses of these old policies that we inherited in
the post-9/11 era, were not going to be able to put the security
back in the NSA.

Bamford: Thats great. Just along those lines, from what you know about the project Bullrun

and so forth, how secure do you think things like AES, DES, those things are, the advanced encryption standard?
Snowden: I dont actually want to respond to that one on camera, and the answer is I actually dont know. But yeah, so
lets leave that one. Bamford: I mean, that would have been the idea to weaken it. Snowden: Right. The idea would be to
weaken it, but which standards? Like is it AES? Is it the other ones? DES was actually stronger than we thought it was at
the time because the NSA had secretly manipulated the standard to make it stronger back in the day, which was weird,
but that shows the difference in thinking between the 80s and the 90s. It was the S-boxes. Thats what it was called. The
S-boxes was the modification made. And today, where they go, oh, this is too strong, lets weaken it. The NSA was actually

we see that
their priority is weakening our security, just so they have a better
chance of keeping an eye on us.
concerned back in the time of the crypto-wars with improving American security. Nowadays,

A major grid cyber attack is coming before 2025 causes

nuclear-level death and crashes the economy deterrence
fails in cyberspace
Tucker 14
Patrick, technology editor for Defense One, Major Cyber Attack Will Cause Significant Loss of Life By 2025,
Experts Predict, 10/29/14, http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2014/10/cyber-attack-will-causesignificant-loss-life-2025-experts-predict/97688/ SJE

A major cyber attack will happen between now and 2025 and it will
be large enough to cause significant loss of life or property
losses/damage/theft at the levels of tens of billions of dollars , according
to more than 60 percent of technology experts

interviewed by the Pew Internet

and American Life Project. But other experts interviewed for the project Digital Life in 2015, released
Wednesday, said the current preoccupation with cyber conflict is product of software merchants looking to
hype public anxiety against an eternally unconquerable threat. Its the old phantom of the cyber Pearl
Harbor, a concept commonly credited to former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta but that is actually as old
as the world wide web. It dates back to security expert Winn Schwartaus testimony to Congress in 1991,
when he warned of an electronic Pearl Harbor and said it was waiting to occur. More than two decades
later, were still waiting. The Pew report offers, if nothing else, an opportunity to look at how the cyber

A key concern
for many of the experts Pew interviewed is infrastructure, where very real
landscape has changed and how it will continue to evolve between now and 2025.

cyber vulnerabilities do exist and are growing. Stewart Baker, former general
counsel for the National Security Agency and a partner at Washington, D.C.-based law firm Steptoe &

Attacking the power grid or other

industrial control systems is asymmetrical and deniable and devilishly
effective. Plus, it gets easier every year. We used to worry about Russia
and China taking down our infrastructure. Now we have to worry about Iran and
Syria and North Korea. Jeremy Epstein, a senior computer scientist working with the National
Science Foundation as program director for Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace, said, Damages in
the billions will occur to manufacturing and/or utilities but because it
ramps up slowly, it will be accepted as just another cost (probably passed on to taxpayers through
government rebuilding subsidies and/or environmental damage), and there will be little
motivation for the private sector to defend itself. Today, cities around
the world use supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems to manage
water, sewage, electricity, and even traffic lights. Last October, researchers Chris
Sistrunk and Adam Crain found that these systems suffer from 25 different
security vulnerabilities. And its not unusual for them to have the same security passwords
Johnson told Pew, Cyberwar just plain makes sense.

that came direct from the manufacturer. As writers Indu B. Singh and Joseph N. Pelton pointed out in The

the failure to take even the most basic security precautions

leaves these systems open to remote hacking. Its one reason why many security watchers
Futurist magazine,

were hopeful that the Obama administrations Cybersecurity Framework, released earlier this year, would force companies that preside over
infrastructure components to take these precautions, but many in the technology community were disappointed that the guidelines did not
include hard mandates for major operators to fix potential security flaws. But some political leaders say that the response from industry to
cyber threats has outpaced that of government. Just ask Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who said
that private businesses were increasingly asking government to defend them from cyber attacks from other nation state actors, and even
launch first strikes against those nations. Most of the offensive talk is from the private sector, they say weve had enough, Rogers said at a
recent Washington Post cyber security summit. Its worth noting that the Pew survey was made public one day after the group FireEye released
a major report stating that a Russian-government affiliated group was responsible for hacking into the servers of a firm keeping classified U.S.
military data. In his remarks at the summit, Rogers singled out Russia as a prime target for future, U.S.-lead cyber operations. But

SCADA vulnerabilities look quaint compared to the exploitable

security gaps that will persist across the Internet of Things as more
infrastructure components are linked together. Current threats
include economic transactions, power grid, and air traffic control.
This will expand to include others such as self-driving cars, unmanned aerial vehicles,
and building infrastructure, said Mark Nall, a program manager for NASA.

Grid terrorism causes nuclear war

Habiger 10 2/1/2010 (Eugue Retired Air Force General, Cyberwarfare
and Cyberterrorism, The Cyber Security Institute, p. 11-19)
However, from a strategic defense perspective, there are enough warning signs to warrant preparation. In addition to the
threat of cyberwar, the limited resources required to carry out even a large scale cyberattack also makes likely the
potential for a significant cyberterror attack against the United States. However, the lack of a long list of specific

There is strong evidence to suggest

that al Qaeda has the ability to conduct cyberterror attacks against the
incidences of cyberterrorism should provide no comfort.

United States and its allies. Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are extremely active in cyberspace, using these
technologies to communicate among themselves and others, carry out logistics, recruit members, and wage information
warfare. For example, al Qaeda leaders used email to communicate with the 911 terrorists and the 911 terrorists used
the Internet to make travel plans and book flights. Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda members routinely post videos
and other messages to online sites to communicate. Moreover, there is evidence of efforts that al Qaeda and other
terrorist organizations are actively developing cyberterrorism capabilities and seeking to carry out cyberterrorist attacks.
For example, the Washington Post has reported that U.S. investigators have found evidence in the logs that mark a
browser's path through the Internet that al Qaeda operators spent time on sites that offer software and programming
instructions for the digital switches that run power, water, transport and communications grids. In some interrogations . . .
al Qaeda prisoners have described intentions, in general terms, to use those tools.25 Similarly, a 2002 CIA report on the
cyberterror threat to a member of the Senate stated that al Qaeda and Hezbollah have become "more adept at using the
internet and computer technologies.26 The FBI has issued bulletins stating that, U. S. law enforcement and intelligence
agencies have received indications that Al Qaeda members have sought information on Supervisory Control And Data
Acquisition (SCADA) systems available on multiple SCADArelated web sites.27 In addition a number of jihadist websites,
such as 7hj.7hj.com, teach computer attack and hacking skills in the service of Islam.28 While al Qaeda may lack the
cyberattack capability of nations like Russia and China, there is every reason to believe its operatives, and those of its ilk,
are as capable as the cyber criminals and hackers who routinely effect great harm on the worlds digital infrastructure
generally and American assets specifically. In fact, perhaps, the most troubling indication of the level of the cyberterrorist
threat is the countless, serious nonterrorist cyberattacks routinely carried out by criminals, hackers, disgruntled insiders,
crime syndicates and the like. If runofthemill criminals and hackers can threaten powergrids, hack vital military
networks, steal vast sums of money, take down a citys of traffic lights, compromise the Federal Aviation Administrations
air traffic control systems, among other attacks, it is overwhelmingly likely that terrorists can carry out similar, if not more

even if the worlds terrorists are unable to breed

these skills, they can certainly buy them. There are untold numbers of cybermercenaries
malicious attacks. Moreover,

around the worldsophisticated hackers with advanced training who would be willing to offer their services for the right
price. Finally, given the nature of our understanding of cyber threats, there is always the possibility that we have already
been the victim or a cyberterrorist attack, or such an attack has already been set but not yet effectuated, and we dont

a welldesigned cyberattack has the capacity cause widespread

chaos, sow societal unrest, undermine national governments, spread paralyzing fear and
anxiety, and create a state of utter turmoil, all without taking a single life. A sophisticated cyberattack could throw
know it yet. Instead,

a nations banking and finance system into chaos causing markets to crash, prompting runs on banks, degrading
confidence in markets, perhaps even putting the nations currency in play and making the government look helpless and
hapless. In todays difficult economy, imagine how Americans would react if vast sums of money were taken from their
accounts and their supporting financial records were destroyed. A truly nefarious cyberattacker could carry out an attack
in such a way (akin to Robin Hood) as to engender populist support and deepen rifts within our society, thereby making

A modestly advanced enemy could use a

cyberattack to shut down (if not physically damage) one or more regional power grids. An
entire region could be cast into total darkness, powerdependent systems could be shutdown. An attack on
one or more regional power grids could also cause cascading effects that could
efforts to restore the system all the more difficult.

jeopardize our entire national grid. When word leaks that the
blackout was caused by a cyberattack, the specter of a foreign
enemy capable of sending the entire nation into darkness would only increase the fear,
turmoil and unrest. While the finance and energy sectors are considered prime targets for a cyberattack, an
attack on any of the 17 delineated critical infrastructure sectors could have a major impact on the United States. For
example, our healthcare system is already technologically driven and the Obama Administrations ehealth efforts will only
increase that dependency. A cyberattack on the U.S. ehealth infrastructure could send our healthcare system into chaos
and put countless of lives at risk. Imagine if emergency room physicians and surgeons were suddenly no longer able to
access vital patient information. A cyberattack on our nations water systems could likewise cause widespread disruption.
An attack on the control systems for one or more dams could put entire communities at risk of being inundated, and could
create ripple effects across the water, agriculture, and energy sectors. Similar water control system attacks could be used
to at least temporarily deny water to otherwise arid regions, impacting everything from the quality of life in these areas to
agriculture. In 2007, the U.S. Cyber Consequences Unit determined that the destruction from a single wave of
cyberattacks on critical infrastructures could exceed $700 billion, which would be the rough equivalent of 50 Katrina
esque hurricanes hitting the United States all at the same time.29 Similarly, one IT security source has estimated that the
impact of a single day cyberwar attack that focused on and disrupted U.S. credit and debit card transactions would be
approximately $35 billion.30 Another way to gauge the potential for harm is in comparison to other similar noncyberattack
infrastructure failures. For example, the August 2003 regional power grid blackout is estimated to have cost the U.S.
economy up to $10 billion, or roughly .1 percent of the nations GDP. 31 That said, a cyberattack of the exact same
magnitude would most certainly have a much larger impact. The origin of the 2003 blackout was almost immediately
disclosed as an atypical system failure having nothing to do with terrorism. This made the event both less threatening and
likely a single time occurrence. Had it been disclosed that the event was the result of an attack that could readily be
repeated the impacts would likely have grown substantially, if not exponentially. Additionally, a cyberattack could also be
used to disrupt our nations defenses or distract our national leaders in advance of a more traditional conventional or

Many military leaders actually believe that such a

disruptive cyber preoffensive is the most effective use of offensive
cyber capabilities. This is, in fact, the way Russia utilized cyberattackerswhether government assets,
strategic attack.

governmentdirected/ coordinated assets, or allied cyber irregularsin advance of the invasion of Georgia. Widespread
distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks were launched on the Georgian governments IT systems. Roughly a day later
Russian armor rolled into Georgian territory. The cyberattacks were used to prepare the battlefield; they denied the
Georgian government a critical communications tool isolating it from its citizens and degrading its command and control
capabilities precisely at the time of attack. In this way, these attacks were the functional equivalent of conventional air
and/or missile strikes on a nations communications infrastructure.32 One interesting element of the Georgian
cyberattacks has been generally overlooked: On July 20th, weeks before the August cyberattack, the website of Georgian
President Mikheil Saakashvili was overwhelmed by a more narrowly focused, but technologically similar DDOS attack.33
This should be particularly chilling to American national security experts as our systems undergo the same sorts of
focused, probing attacks on a constant basis. The ability of an enemy to use a cyberattack to counter our offensive
capabilities or soften our defenses for a wider offensive against the United States is much more than mere speculation. In
fact, in Iraq it is already happening. Iraq insurgents are now using offtheshelf software (costing just $26) to hack U.S.
drones (costing $4.5 million each), allowing them to intercept the video feed from these drones.34 By hacking these
drones the insurgents have succeeded in greatly reducing one of our most valuable sources of realtime intelligence and
situational awareness. If our enemies in Iraq are capable of such an effective cyberattack against one of our more
sophisticated systems, consider what a more technologically advanced enemy could do. At the strategic level, in 2008, as
the United States Central Command was leading wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, a cyber intruder compromised the
security of the Command and sat within its IT systems, monitoring everything the Command was doing. 35 This time the
attacker simply gathered vast amounts of intelligence. However, it is clear that the attacker could have used this access
to wage cyberwaraltering information, disrupting the flow of information, destroying information, taking down systems
against the United States forces already at war. Similarly, during 2003 as the United States prepared for and began the
War in Iraq, the IT networks of the Department of Defense were hacked 294 times.36 By August of 2004, with America at
war, these ongoing attacks compelled thenDeputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz to write in a memo that, "Recent
exploits have reduced operational capabilities on our networks."37 This wasnt the first time that our national security IT
infrastructure was penetrated immediately in advance of a U.S. military option.38 In February of 1998 the Solar Sunrise
attacks systematically compromised a series of Department of Defense networks. What is often overlooked is that these
attacks occurred during the ramp up period ahead of potential military action against Iraq. The attackers were able to
obtain vast amounts of sensitive informationinformation that would have certainly been of value to an enemys military
leaders. There is no way to prove that these actions were purposefully launched with the specific intent to distract
American military assets or degrade our capabilities. However, such ambiguitiesthe inability to specifically attribute
actions and motives to actorsare the very nature of cyberspace. Perhaps, these repeated patterns of behavior were
mere coincidence, or perhaps they werent. The potential that an enemy might use a cyberattack to soften physical
defenses, increase the gravity of harms from kinetic attacks, or both, significantly increases the potential harms from a
cyberattack. Consider the gravity of the threat and risk if an enemy, rightly or wrongly, believed that it could use a
cyberattack to degrade our strategic weapons capabilities. Such an enemy might be convinced that it could win a war

The effect of this would be to

undermine our deterrencebased defenses, making us significantly more at
risk of a major war.
conventional or even nuclearagainst the United States.

Advantage Two: Tech

Competitiveness
NSA decryption has sacrificed US tech competitiveness.
Foreign customers are shunning US companies and
governmental failure to curtail the policy has resulted in
massive competitiveness gaps
Daniel Castro and Alan McQuinn June 2015, [Beyond the USA
Freedom Act: How U.S. Surveillance Still Subverts U.S. Competitiveness
http://www2.itif.org/2015-beyond-usa-freedom-act.pdf?
_ga=1.114044933.369159037.1433787396 -kw]
Almost two years ago, ITIF described how revelations about pervasive digital surveillance by the U.S. intelligence
community could severely harm the competitiveness of the United States if foreign customers turned away from U.S.-

U.S. policymakers have failed to take

sufficient action to address these surveillance concerns ; in some cases, they
made technology and services.1 Since then,

have even fanned the flames of discontent by championing weak information security practices. 2 In addition, other
countries have used anger over U.S. government surveillance as a cover for implementing a new wave of protectionist

The combined result is a set of policies

both at home and abroad that sacrifices robust competitiveness of
policies specifically targeting information technology.

the U.S. tech sector for vague and unconvincing promises of

improved national security. ITIF estimated in 2013 that even a
modest drop in the expected foreign market share for cloud
computing stemming from concerns about U.S. surveillance could
cost the United States between $21.5 billion and $35 billion by
2016.3 Since then , it has become clear that the U.S. tech industry
as a whole, not just the cloud computing sector, has
underperformed as a result of the Snowden revelations. Therefore,
the economic impact of U.S. surveillance practices will likely far
exceed ITIFs initial $35 billion estimate. This report catalogues a wide range of specific
examples of the economic harm that has been done to U.S. businesses. In short, foreign customers
are shunning U.S. companies . The policy implication of this is clear:
Now that Congress has reformed how the National Security Agency
(NSA) collects bulk domestic phone records and allowed private
firmsrather than the governmentto collect and store approved
data, it is time to address other controversial digital surveillance
activities by the U.S. intelligence community. The U.S. governments
failure to reform many of the NSAs surveillance programs has
damaged the competitiveness of the U.S. tech sector and cost it a
portion of the global market share. 5

This includes programs such as PRISMthe

controversial program authorized by the FISA Amendments Act, which allows for warrantless access to privateuser data on

Bullrun the NSAs program to

undermine encryption standards both at home and abroad. Foreign
companies have seized on these controversial policies to convince
their customers that keeping data at home is safer than sending it
popular online services both in the United States and abroadand

abroad, and foreign governments have pointed to U.S. surveillance

as justification for protectionist policies that require data to be kept
within their national borders. In the most extreme cases, such as in China, foreign governments are
using fear of digital surveillance to force companies to surrender valuable intellectual property, such as source code.6 In
the short term, U.S. companies lose out on contracts, and over the long term, other countries create protectionist policies
that lock U.S. businesses out of foreign markets. This not only hurts U.S. technology companies, but costs American jobs
and weakens the U.S. trade balance

Scenario One: Economy

Two Internal Links First is the tech sector
The US economy hinges on the tech sector it produces
2.7 trillion annually and supports a fourth of US jobs
Muro et al 15
Mark, senior fellow and director of policy for the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings, Jonathan
Rothwell, fellow at the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings, Scott Andes, Masters in Public Policy from
Carnegie Mellon, Kenan Fikri, M.S. in local economic development from the London School of Economics,
and Siddharth Kulkarni, senior research assistant at the Metropolitan Policy Program, Americas Advanced
Industries: What They Are, Where They Are, and Why They Matter, The Brookings Institution, February
2015 SJE

Advanced industries represent a sizable economic anchor for the

U.S. economy and have led the post-recession employment
recovery . Modest in size, the sector packs a massive economic punch. As an
employer and source of economic activity the advanced industry sector plays a major role in the U.S.

the nations 50 advanced industries (see nearby box for selection

employed 12.3 million U.S. workers. That amounts to about 9

economy. As of 2013,
criteria)

percent of total U.S. employment.

And yet, even with this modest employment base,

U.S. advanced industries produce $2.7 trillion in value added annually 17

percent of all U.S. gross domestic product ( GDP ). That is more than any other
sector, including healthcare, finance, or real estate. At the same time, the sector employs
80 percent of the nations engineers; performs 90 percent of privatesector R&D; generates approximately 85 percent of all U.S. patents; and
accounts for 60 percent of U.S. exports. Advanced industries also support unusually
extensive supply chains and other forms of ancillary economic activity. On a per worker basis, advanced
industries purchase $236,000 in goods and services from other businesses annually, compared with
$67,000 in purchasing by other industries. This spending sustains and creates more jobs. In fact, 2.2 jobs
are created domestically for every new advanced industry job0.8 locally and 1.4 outside of the region.

27.1
million U.S. workers owe their jobs to economic activity supported
by advanced industries. Directly and indirectly, then, the sector supports almost 39 million
jobsnearly one-fourth of all U.S. employment. In terms of the sectors growth and
change, the total number of jobs in the sector has remained mostly flat since 1980 but its output
has soared. From 1980 to 2013 advanced industries expanded at a rate of 5.4 percent annually30
This means that in addition to the 12.3 million workers employed by advanced industries, another

percent faster than the economy as a whole. Since the Great Recession, moreover, both employment and

The sector has added nearly one million jobs

since 2010, with employment and output growth rates 1.9 and 2.3 times higher, respectively, than in
output have risen dramatically.

the rest of the economy. Advanced services led this post-recession surge, and created 65 percent of the
new jobs. Computer systems design alone generated 250,000 new jobs. Certain advanced manufacturing
industriesespecially those involved in transportation equipmenthave also added thousands of jobs
after decades of losses.

NSA decryption hampers the entirety of the economic

sector it demolishes trust in financial markets
WashingtonsBlog 13, 7-31-2013, "NSA Spying Directly Harms Internet
Companies, Silicon Valley, California ... And the Entire U.S. Economy,"
Washington's Blog, http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/07/nsa-spying-

directly-harms-internet-companies-silicon-valley-california-and-the-entirenational-economy.html
Mass surveillance by the NSA may directly harm the bottom of line
of Internet companies, Silicon Valley, California and the entire
national economy . Money News points out: The company whose shares you
own may be lying to you while Uncle Sam looks the other way.
Lets step through this. I think you will see the problem. Fact 1: U.S.
financial markets are the envy of the world because we have fair
disclosure requirements, accounting standards and impartial courts.
This is the foundation of shareholder value. The company may lose money, but they
at least told you the truth. Fact 2: We now know multiple public
companies, including Microsoft (MSFT), Google (GOOG), Facebook
(FB) and other, gave their user information to NSA. Forget the
privacy implications for a minute. Assume for the sake of argument
that everything complies with U.S. law. Even if true, the businesses
may still be at risk. Fact 3: All these companies operate globally.
They get revenue from China, Japan, Russia, Germany, France and
everywhere else. Did those governments consent to have their
citizens monitored by the NSA? I think we can safely say no.
Politicians in Europe are especially outraged. Citizens are angry with the
United States and losing faith in American brand names. Foreign
companies are already using their non-American status as a
competitive advantage. Some plan to redesign networks specifically to bypass U.S.
By yielding to the NSA, U.S. companies likely broke laws
elsewhere. They could face penalties and lose significant revenue .
Right or wrong, their decisions could well have damaged the business.
companies.

Securities lawyers call this materially adverse information and companies are required to disclose it. But
they are not. Only chief executives and a handful of technical people know when companies cooperate
with the NSA. If the CEO cant even tell his own board members he has placed the company at risk, you
can bet it wont be in the annual report. The government also gives some executives immunity documents,
according to Bloomberg. Immunity is unnecessary unless someone thinks they are breaking the law. So
apparently, the regulators who ostensibly protect the public are actively helping the violators. This is a new
and different investment landscape. Public companies are hiding important facts that place their investors
at risk. If you somehow find out, you will have no recourse because regulators gave the offender a get out
of jail free card. The regulatory structure that theoretically protects you knowingly facilitates deception
that may hurt you, and then silences any witnesses. This strikes to the very heart of the U.S. financial
system. Our markets have lost any legitimate claim to full and fair disclosure. Every prospectus,
quarterly report and news release now includes an unwritten NSA asterisk. Whenever a CEO speaks, we
must assume his fingers are crossed. Every individual investor or money manager now has a new risk
factor to consider. Every disclosure by every company is in doubt. The rule of law that gave us the mosttrusted markets in the world may be just an illusion. In a subsequent article, Money News wrote:
Executives at publicly traded companies are lying to shareholders and probably their own boards of
directors. They are exposing your investments to real, material, hard-dollar losses and not telling you. The
government that allegedly protects you, Mr. Small Investor, knows all this and actually encourages more of
it. Who lies? Ah, theres the problem. We dont know. Some people high in the government know. The CEOs
themselves and a few of their tech people know. You and I dont get to know. We just provide the money.
Since we dont know which CEOs are government-approved liars, the prudent course is to assume all CEOs
are government-approved liars. We can no longer give anyone the benefit of the doubt. If you are a money
manager with a fiduciary responsibility to your investors, you are hereby on notice. A CEO may sign those
Securities and Exchange Commission filings where you get corporate information with his fingers crossed.
Your clients pay you to know the facts and make good decisions. Youre losing that ability. For example,
consider a certain U.S. telecommunications giant with worldwide operations. It connects American
businesses with customers everywhere. Fast-growing emerging markets like Brazil are very important to its
future growth. Thanks to data-sharing agreements with various phone providers in Brazil, this company
has deep access to local phone calls. One day someone from NSA calls up the CEO and asks to tap into
that stream. He says OK, tells his engineers to do it and moves on. A few years later, Edward Snowden

informs Brazilian media that U.S. intelligence is capturing these data. They tell the Brazilian public. It is not
happy. Nor are its politicians, who are already on edge for entirely unrelated reasons What would you say
are this companys prospects for future business in Brazil? Your choices are slim and none. They wont
be the only ones hurt. If the U.S. government wont identify which American company cheated its Brazilian
partners, Brazil will just blame all of them. The company can kiss those growth plans good-bye. This isnt a

The legality of cooperating with the NSA

within the United States is irrelevant. Immunity letters in the United
States do not protect the company from liability elsewhere.
Shouldnt shareholders get to know when their companys CEO takes
these risks? Shouldnt the directors who hire the CEO have a say in
the matter? Yes, they should. We now know that they dont. The
fantasy. It is happening right now.

trust that forms the bedrock under U.S. financial markets is

crumbling. [A theme we frequently explore. ] If we cannot believe
CEOs when they swear to tell the truth, if companies can hide
material risks, if boards cannot know what the executives they hire
are actually doing, any pretense of fair markets is gone. When
nothing is private, people and businesses soon cease to trust each
other. Without trust, modern financial markets cannot function
properly.

If U.S. disclosure standards are no better than those in the third world, then every domestic

stock is overvalued. Our rule of law premium is gone. This means a change for stock valuations and it
wont be bullish.

Second internal link is California

NSA decryption tanks Californian economy
Mathews 13 Joe Mathews. July 13, 2013. The San Diego Union-Tribune. Could
NSA spying hurt California economy?
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/jul/13/could-nsa-spying-hurt-californiaeconomy/all/?print

California and its businesses have a problem. Its called the National
Security Agency. That may sound provincial. The debate over the massive NSA
surveillance programs disclosed by Edward Snowden is a national
and global matter, not just a California concern. But the disclosures and the U.S.
governments reaction to them hit at the heart of Californias economic life .
Whether you believe the massive collection of phone and electronic
records is a scary invasion of privacy or a necessary defense against
terrorism, you should worry about our states exposure to the
fallout. The problem for California is not that the feds are collecting all of our communications. It is
that the feds are (totally unapologetically) doing the same to foreigners, especially
in communications with the U.S. California depends for its livelihood
on people overseas as customers, trade partners, as sources of
talent. Our leading industries shipping, tourism, technology, and entertainment could not survive,

much less prosper, without the trust and goodwill of foreigners. We are home to two of the worlds busiest
container ports, and we are a leading exporter of engineering, architectural, design, financial, insurance,
legal, and educational services. All of our signature companies Apple, Google, Facebook, Oracle, Intel,
Hewlett-Packard, Chevron, Disney rely on sales and growth overseas. And our families and workplaces
are full of foreigners; more than one in four of us were born abroad, and more than 50 countries have
diaspora populations in California of more than 10,000. Hollywood and Silicon Valley are as important as
Washingtons politicians and foreign policy wonks, if not more so, in shaping the image of the United States

But news that our government is collecting our foreign

friends phone records, emails, video chats, online conversations,
overseas.

photos, and even stored data, tarnishes the California and American
brands. The response from Americas leaders? With respect to the
Internet and emails, this does not apply to U.S. citizens and it does
not apply to people living in the United States, said President
Obama, as if the privacy and trust of foreigners were of no
consequence. Similarly, James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, said that the Prism
program, which taps into online communications, could not be used to intentionally target any U.S.
citizen. Such statements should be chilling to Californians. Will tourists balk at visiting us because they

Will overseas business owners think twice about

trading with us because they fear that their communications might
be intercepted and used for commercial gain by American
competitors? Most chilling of all: Will foreigners stop using the
products and services of California technology and media companies
fear U.S. monitoring?

Facebook, Google, Skype, and Apple among them that have been accomplices (they say unwillingly)

to the federal surveillance? The answer to that last question: Yes.

Its already happening. Asian governments and businesses are now
moving their employees and systems off Googles Gmail and other
U.S.-based systems, according to Asian news reports. German prosecutors are investigating
some of the American surveillance. The issue is becoming a stumbling block in
negotiations with the European Union over a new trade agreement.
Technology experts are warning of a big loss of foreign business . John
Dvorak, the PCMag.com columnist, wrote recently, Our companies have billions and
billions of dollars in overseas sales and none of the American
companies can guarantee security from American spies. Does
anyone but me think this is a problem for commerce? Unfortunately,
California is in a poor position to do anything about all of this, since we are part of the United States. As
USCs Abraham F. Lowenthal observed in his indispensable book, Global California, California has the
power as well as the global links and interests of a nation but it lacks the legal attributes and policy
instruments of a sovereign country. Being an American state is an enormous headache at times like

the U.S. government is violating the privacy of foreigners

who do business with us, when coal-producing states block
renewable energy legislation, and when Congress, in the name of
immigration reform, wants to further militarize the border between
California and its most important export market, Mexico . It doesnt help
these when

when our own U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein is backing the surveillance without acknowledgment of the huge
potential costs to her state. Its time for her and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who has been nearly

protecting California industry,

and the culture of openness and trust that is so vital to it, is at least
as important as protecting massive government data-mining . Such
as tone-deaf on this issue, to be forcefully reminded that

reminders should take the force not merely of public statements but of law. California has a robust history
of going its own way on vehicle standards, energy efficiency, immigration, marijuana. Now is the time
for another departure this one on the privacy of communications. Im not a big fan of ballot measures,
since they often only add more complexity to Californias complicated system. But on this issue, we need

to make plain that California

considers the personal data and communications of all people, be
they American or foreign, to be private and worthy of protection.
Such a measure wouldnt stop NSA surveillance, nor should it. But it
would give California-based companies some leverage to resist the
most invasive surveillance demands of federal agencies. And it would
send an unmistakable message to Californias friends that we care about
protecting their privacy and keeping their business.
laws, perhaps even a state constitutional amendment,

California economy key to US economy

Roth 15 Bill Roth (economist and the Founder of Earth 2017. He coaches business owners
and leaders on proven best practices in pricing, marketing and operations that make money
and create a positive difference) March 19th, 2015. Climate Change Puts California Economy at
Risk of Collapse http://www.triplepundit.com/2015/03/climate-change-threatens-californiaeconomic-collapse/

California anchors U.S. economy This is not an article about California. It is about you, in
whatever state you live. Californias economy is so large and impacts so many
other businesses that its potential collapse due to a water crisis will impact the
pocketbooks of most Americans. California has a $2.2 trillion annual
economy. That makes California the seventh largest economy in the
world. For all the greatness of Texas, the California economy is
approximately twice the size. Californias companies are the worlds
technology leaders. Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Cisco, Disney,
Hewlett Packard, Tesla and Solar City all have their corporate
headquarters in California. Little know Atomic General located in San
Diego is a world leader in military drones. San Francisco and San
Diego rank No. 1 and No. 3 among the top 10 biopharma clusters in
the U.S. California is also a global breadbasket: It is the worlds fifth
largest supplier of food. The California agriculture industry is highly efficient, and the state is the largest
food producer in the U.S., with only four percent of U.S. farms. Californias crop diversity is world class, with the state
growing over 450 different crops. Crops exclusively grown by California in the U.S. include almonds, artichokes, dates,
olives, raisins, pistachios and clover. The state also produces more than 86 percent of all lemons and 94 percent of all
processed tomatoes in the U.S. You might want to drink to Californias agricultural success by having a glass of California

Whether you are a Democrat or

Republican, the state anchors your government spending plan as
California is the largest federal tax payer among U.S. states. The
state also pays more in federal taxes than it receives in federal
spending.
wine, as the state is the worlds fourth largest wine producer.

US key to world economy

Lagrade 13 September 13, 2013. International Monetary Fund. Strong U.S. Economy,
Strong Global EconomyTwo Sides of Same Coin
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2013/new091913a.htm
Signs of global economic recovery, but growth remains subdued U.S. recovery taking hold, private sector
leading the way Job creation key ingredient of domestic and global economic recovery In a world of
increasing economic interconnections,

the United Statess stake in the global

recovery is greater than ever , IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said in a speech
to business leaders at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington, D.C. What happens
elsewhere in the worldbe it the success of recovery in Europe or the continued smooth
functioning of supply chains in Asiamatters increasingly for the United States,
Lagarde said. The converse is also true. What happens here matters
increasingly for the global economy. Her remarks, which focused on the
interplay between the global economy and the U.S. economy, also
highlighted the need to find joint solutions to secure a lasting,
balanced and widely shared global recovery. Job creation is a
critical ingredient of any economic recovery, domestic or global, she
emphasized. Businesses have a key role to play, Lagarde said, but at the same
time, policymakers have an important responsibility to help shape
the environment in which businesses and citizens can thriveand
jobs can be created. Lagarde said that global growth remains subdued, while acknowledging
that the global economic environment is changing. She emphasized that economies are moving at

different speeds and that the fruits of growth are not evenly shared, both in the United States and other
countries. The U.S. economy is growing and, after a long time, so is the Euro Area. In Japan, aggressive
policy support and the ongoing reform process is helping to spur growth. The emerging market economies,
on the other hand, are slowing. For some, this may be a shift toward more balanced and sustainable
growth, Lagarde told the audience. For others, it reflects the need to address imbalances that have made
them more vulnerable to the recent market turbulence. Reinforcing the point about global
interconnections, Lagarde cited the IMFs recent spillover analysis, which suggests that if the worlds five
major economies were to work together to adopt a more rigorous, comprehensive, and compatible set of
policies, it could boost global GDP by about 3 percent over the longer run. U.S. recovery gaining strength

the U.S. economy is gaining strength, calling this good

news for Americaand good news for the world economy . Although growth
Lagarde noted that

is still modestwell under 2 percentit should accelerate by a full percentage point next year, Lagarde

the private sector is playing a key role as the engine of

growth and job creation. Despite signs of strengthening, the latest jobs data present a
said, adding that

mixed picture, with employment remaining well below pre-crisis levels. The issue of jobs remains
paramount, said Lagarde, noting that jobs and growth is an increasingly important component of the IMFs
policy advice. Lagarde highlighted three key recommendations for U.S. policymakers, drawn from the
IMFs most recent assessment of the U.S. economy. Fix public finances. Fiscal consolidation could be
slower in the short run, but more action is needed to reduce long-run pressures on the budget. Lagarde
also warned that political uncertainty over the budget and debt ceiling were not helpful to the recovery. It
is essential to resolve this, and the earlier the better, she said, for confidence, for markets, and for the
real economy. Appropriately calibrate monetary policy. When the time comes, exit from unconventional
monetary policy should be gradual, tied to progress in economic recovery and unemployment, and should
be clearly communicated and in a dialogue. Complete financial sector reform. While there has been
progress on this front, attention needs to focus on the outstanding danger zones, such as derivatives and

the
U.S. in the global economy, noting that the economy accounts for 11 percent of
global trade and 20 percent of global manufacturing. The countrys
global financial ties run deep too, she said. Foreign banks hold about
$5.5 trillion of U.S. assets, and U.S. banks hold $3 trillion of foreign
assets. While these interconnections have great benefits for the United States, they are not
shadow banking. Global interconnections and role of IMF Lagarde underscored the unique role of

without risks, Lagarde cautioned, referring to the collapse of Lehman Brothers five years ago that ushered
in a harsh new reality across sectors, countries, and the world. That is why an effective IMF

is

important for the global membership. Our policy advice, for exampleincluding in
core areas like exchange rates or external imbalanceshas helped to prevent or to ease the hardship of
crises around the world, said Lagarde. That, in turn, has helped reduce the possible negative fallout for
the U.S. and for all countries.

Economic collapse leads to a WW3

Kreitner 11 Ricky Kreitner (Business Insider Politics) August 8, 2011. Business
Insider. Serious People Are Starting To Realize That We May Be Looking At World War
III http://www.businessinsider.com/serious-people-are-starting-to-realize-that-wemay-be-looking-at-world-war-iii-2011-8
The statement released Friday by Standard & Poor's explaining its downgrade of the United States' credit
rating expressed greater concern about the inability of the American political system to handle
troublesome economic realities than it did about those economic realities themselves. It read: "The
downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking
and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree
more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011." Thus,
what directly prompted the historic decision to downgrade the U.S. credit rating was worsening political
dysfunction, not the "economic challenges" which Standard & Poor's described as "ongoing." The political,
even geopolitical, repercussions of those challenges can only be expected to grow. Noting liberal despair
over

the government's inability to combat economic depression , and

conservative skepticism that traditional tools will be effective, John Judis of The New Republic argues that a
global depression far longer and more severe than anyone expected now seems nearly impossible to
avoid. Judis believes that the coming "depression"

will be accompanied by geopolitical

upheaval and institutional collapse. "As the experience of the 1930s testified , a
prolonged global downturn can have profound political and

geopolitical repercussions . In the U.S. and Europe, the downturn has already inspired
unsavory, right-wing populist movements. It could also

bring about trade wars and

intense competition over natural resources, and the eventual

breakdown of important institutions like European Union and the
World Trade Organization. Even a shooting war is possible ." Daniel
Knowles of the Telegraph has noticed a similar trend. In a post titled, "This Really Is Beginning To Look Like

we could be witnessing the transition from

recession to global depression that last occurred two years after the
1929 market collapse, and eight years before Germany invaded
Poland, triggering the Second World War: "The difference today is that so far, the
1931," Knowles argues that

chain reaction of a default has been avoided by bailouts. Countries are not closing down their borders or

But the
fundamental problem the spiral downwards caused by confidence
crises and ever rising interest rates is exactly the same now as it
was in 1931. And as Italy and Spain come under attack, we are reaching the limit of how much that
sticking plaster can heal. Tensions between European countries unseen in
decades are emerging." Knowles wrote that post three days ago. Since then it has become
arming their soldiers they can agree on some solution, if not a good solution.

abundantly obvious that Europe will soon become unwilling or unable to continue bailing out every country
with a debt problem. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy continues to chug along, to the extent it is chugging at
all, on the false security offered by a collective distaste for one ratings agency and its poor mathematics.
That can't continue forever. The next few months will show S&P's downgrade to have been too little and

The American
political crisis will only worsen; the "super-committee" will utterly
fail, true to design. Soon enough, we may all wake up to a "reckoning"
truly deserving of the name.
too late, rather than too drastic and too soon. The Eurozone will fall apart.

Scenario Two: Hegemony

Tech Competitiveness Key to Heg outweighs other
internal links
Rocco Leonard Martino, internet & software entrepreneur, ORBIS, Winter
2007, p. 267-70
Much of the foreign policy discussion in the United States
today is focused upon the dilemma posed by the Iraq War and the threat posed by
Islamist terrorism. These problems are, of course, both immediate and important. However,

America also faces other challenges to its physical security and

economic prosperity, and these are more long-term and probably
more profound. There is, first, the threat posed by our declining
competitiveness in the global economy, a threat most obviously
represented by such rising economic powers as China and India . There
is, second, the threat posed by our increasing dependence on oil imports from the Middle East. Moreover,
these two threats are increasingly connected, as China and India themselves are greatly increasing their
2
demand for Middle East oil. The United States of course faced great challenges to its security and
economy in the past, most obviously from Germany and Japan in the first half of the twentieth century and
from the Soviet Union in the second half. Crucial to America's ability to prevail over

these past challenges was our technological and industrial leadership, and
especially our ability to continuously recreate it. Indeed, the United
States has been unique among great powers in its ability to keep on
creating and recreating new technologies and new industries,
generation after generation. Perpetual innovation and technological

leadership might even be said to be the American way of

maintaining primacy in world affairs. They are almost certainly what
America will have to pursue in order to prevail over
contemporary challenges

the

involving economic competitiveness and energy dependence.

The computer is the first machine in history that was invented as an adjunct of the mind. All prior
machines were adjuncts of physical strength and capabilities, such as movement. Hence it is no surprise
that,

since the invention of the computer, the generation of wealth

has shifted from physical labor and associated industries to mental

pursuits and related inventions and industries . Where in the 1960s the United
States was concerned that the Soviet Union might overtake it in essential industries such as steel and
chemicals, today it is Ireland, India, and China that are building economies based on mental pursuits
reflected and augmented by electronic devices and applications, including instant information and instant
communication. The Soviet Union's passage into history left the United States the world's only

Will the United States, too, be eclipsed in a new world order,

where ideas and innovations are of paramount importance in
economic growth and national economic security? U.S. prosperity
and security depends on new inventions that will create the new
industries and new jobs the new world order needs. The United
States is eminently positioned for this role.
superpower.

Hegemony key to solve ISIS creates coalitions

Davis 14 (Chris Davis, The Strategy to Defeat ISIS: Mississippi Senator
Asks For More Details From Pres. Obama, 9/16/14,

http://www.newsms.fm/strategy-defeat-isis-mississippi-senator-asks-detailspres-obama/)/
WASHINGTON, D.C.A well-funded, well-equipped, and sophisticated army is
how Sen. Roger Wicker described ISIS, the Islamic state, to the Senate Monday, asking the
president to provide more information on his plan to defeat the group before it grows bigger and threatens
more Americans. Wicker said he believes Congress should support the Commander-in-Chief, but before
they can, they need to know how an airstrike campaign, without soldiers actually on the ground, will be
effective in putting down such a large movement. Wicker is a senior member of the Senate Armed Forces
Committee. His comments addressed the skepticism that some DC lawmakers feel after Pres. Obamas
speech last week. That skepticism is also being reflected in polls, some of which indicate that a majority of
the American people are not sure about how effective the presidents plan may be. Congress and the
American people are now seeking specifics about the new strategy. I am hopeful that the new plan is

U.S. leadership and the

projection of military might are critical to defeating the ISIS
extremists, said Wicker. It is clear that our efforts to date have been insufficient to overthrow this
well-funded, well-equipped, and sophisticated army. It will take more than limited
airstrikes and the modest deployment of military advisers to curb
the rapid spread of ISIS across northern Iraq and Syria. The United
States must be committed to building a coalition that fosters
regional cooperation, dismantles the groups considerable financial
network, and assists the Iraqi, Kurdish, and Free Syrian forces. And I
strong enough and broad enough to be successful long-term.

want to help the President in his request for authorization to train and equip these forces. This coalition
needs to include Muslim-majority nations who are all-in with a demonstrated resolve to defeat the Islamic
terrorists in their own neighborhood. I believe Congress should support our commander-in-chief in the
fight against ISIS

a fight that can result in victory and a peace that can be

sustained. I look forward to hearing more details about the Presidents plans when Secretary Hagel

and General Martin Dempsey testify before the Armed Services Committee tomorrow. There are still
questions to be answered. For example: If public opinion turns, will the Administration lose its resolve? How
long will it take to win, how long will it take to crush ISIS? What is the definition of success? What is the
definition of victory in this case? If we accomplish our objectives, will we once again abandon our gains as
we did after the surge in Iraq? What is the plan to eliminate the terrorist groups financial network? And are
the President and congressional leaders willing to find a solution to defense sequestration in order to fulfill
the mission, if more resources are required? And, more resources will be required, Mr. President.
Addressing these questions is important to understanding the specific goals and aims of the Presidents
strategy, which are yet to be fleshed out. Americans and Congress deserve this clarity. Wicker also
addressed what he believes is the need for the Senate to pass the National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) in order to provide the nations armed forces with the resources they require to fulfill their
missions. Congress has the responsibility to provide the resources that our U.S. military needs for its
missions. We do this through our appropriations, through the power of the purse, and the National
Defense Authorization Act, which has garnered bipartisan support for the past 52 years. An annual
blueprint of the military priorities is vital to making sure that our troops have what they need to protect our
national security interests at home and abroad. This years bill, for example, includes a provision to stave
off drastic cuts to the U.S. Army, which would put troop strength at levels not seen since before World War
II. Well-trained units like the 155thHeavy Brigade Combat Team in my home state of Mississippi should not
be jeopardized by shortsighted and ill-considered proposals by the Obama Administration. Instead, under
the committee bill an independent commission would have the opportunity to make recommendations on
force structure and size before the National Guard personnel could be cut or the Apache attack helicopters
could be transferred. In conclusion, Mr. President, we have work to do. The Senate Armed Services
Committee and the House of Representatives have passed the defense authorization bill. It is time for the
Senate to follow suit. America has the most formidable fighting force in the world, and this presence must
remain resilient as dangerous groups like ISIS put our interests at risk. The rapid rise of these barbaric
terrorists is a wake-up call for U.S. leadership. Now that the President has declared his intention to
degrade and destroy ISIS militants, we must ensure that the mission is fulfilled.

ISIS will weaponoize the bubonic plague

Doornbos, Moussa 14

(Found: The Islamic States Terror Laptop of Doom

http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/08/28/found-the-islamic-states-terror-laptop-ofdoom/)

Abu Ali, a commander of a moderate Syrian rebel group

in northern Syria, proudly shows a black laptop partly covered in dust. We
took it this year from an ISIS hideout, he says. Abu Ali says the fighters from the Islamic
ANTAKYA, Turkey

State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), which have since rebranded themselves as the Islamic State, all fled
before he and his men attacked the building. The attack occurred in January in a village in the Syrian
province of Idlib, close to the border with Turkey, as part of a larger anti-ISIS offensive occurring at the
time. We found the laptop and the power cord in a room, he continued, I took it with me. But I have no
clue if it still works or if it contains anything interesting. As we switched on the Dell laptop, it indeed still
worked. Nor was it password-protected. But then came a huge disappointment: After we clicked on My
Computer, all the drives appeared empty. Appearances, however, can be deceiving. Upon closer

Buried in the hidden files section of

the computer were 146 gigabytes of material, containing a total of 35,347 files in
2,367 folders. Abu Ali allowed us to copy all these files which included documents in
French, English, and Arabic onto an external hard drive. The
laptops contents turn out to be a treasure trove of documents that
provide ideological justifications for jihadi organizations and
practical training on how to carry out the Islamic States deadly
campaigns. They include videos of Osama bin Laden, manuals on how to make
bombs, instructions for stealing cars, and lessons on how to use
disguises in order to avoid getting arrested while traveling from one
jihadi hot spot to another. But after hours upon hours of scrolling
through the documents, it became clear that the ISIS laptop contains
more than the typical propaganda and instruction manuals used by
jihadists. The documents also suggest that the laptops owner was
teaching himself about the use of biological weaponry, in
preparation for a potential attack that would have shocked the
world. The information on the laptop makes clear that its owner is a
Tunisian national named Muhammed S. who joined ISIS in Syria and
who studied chemistry and physics at two universities in Tunisias
northeast. Even more disturbing is how he planned to use that education: The ISIS laptop
contains a 19-page document in Arabic on how to develop biological
weapons and how to weaponize the bubonic plague from infected
animals. The ISIS laptop contains a 19-page document in Arabic on how to develop biological weapons
and how to weaponize the bubonic plague from infected animals. The advantage of
biological weapons is that they do not cost a lot of money, while the
human casualties can be huge, the document states. The document
includes instructions for how to test the weaponized disease safely,
before it is used in a terrorist attack. When the microbe is injected in small mice, the
symptoms of the disease should start to appear within 24 hours, the document says. The laptop
also includes a 26-page fatwa, or Islamic ruling, on the usage of
weapons of mass destruction. If Muslims cannot defeat the kafir
[unbelievers] in a different way, it is permissible to use weapons of
mass destruction, states the fatwa by Saudi jihadi cleric Nasir al-Fahd, who is currently
imprisoned in Saudi Arabia. Even if it kills all of them and wipes them and
their descendants off the face of the Earth. When contacted by
phone, a staff member at a Tunisian university listed on
Muhammeds exam papers confirmed that he indeed studied
chemistry and physics there. She said the university lost track of him after 2011, however.
inspection, the ISIS laptop wasnt empty at all:

Out of the blue, she asked: Did you find his papers inside Syria? Asked why she would think that
Muhammeds belongings would have ended up in Syria, she answered, For further questions about him,
you better ask state security. An astonishing number of Tunisians have flocked to the Syrian battlefield
since the revolt began. In June, Tunisias interior minister estimated that at least 2,400 Tunisians were
fighting in the country, mostly as members of the Islamic State. This isnt the first time that jihadists have
attempted to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Even before the 9/11 attacks, al Qaeda had

experimented with a chemical weapons program in Afghanistan. In 2002, CNN obtained a tape showing al
Qaeda members testing poison gas on three dogs, all of which died. Nothing on the ISIS laptop, of course,
suggests that the jihadists already possess these dangerous weapons. And any jihadi organization
contemplating a bioterrorist attack will face many difficulties: Al Qaeda tried unsuccessfully for years to get
its hands on such weapons, and the United States has devoted massive resources to preventing terrorists
from making just this sort of breakthrough. The material on this laptop, however, is a reminder that
jihadists are also hard at work at acquiring the weapons that could allow them to kill thousands of people
with one blow. The real difficulty in all of these weapons [is] to actually have a workable distribution
system that will kill a lot of people, said Magnus Ranstorp, research director of the Center for Asymmetric
Threat Studies at the Swedish National Defence College. But to produce quite scary weapons is certainly
within [the Islamic States] capabilities. The Islamic States sweeping gains in recent months may have
provided it with the capacity to develop such new and dangerous weapons. Members of the jihadi group
are not solely fighting on the front lines these days they also control substantial parts of Syria and Iraq.
The fear now is that men like Muhammed could be quietly working behind the front lines for instance, in
the Islamic State-controlled University of Mosul or in some laboratory in the Syrian city of Raqqa, the
groups de facto capital to develop chemical or biological weapons. In short, the longer the caliphate
exists, the more likely it is that members with a science background will come up with something horrible.

The documents found on the laptop of the Tunisian jihadist,

meanwhile, leave no room for doubt about the groups deadly
ambitions. Use small grenades with the virus, and throw them in
closed areas like metros, soccer stadiums, or entertainment
centers, the 19-page document on biological weapons advises.
Best to do it next to the air-conditioning. It also can be used during
suicide operations.

Bioterror causes extinction

Doornbos 14
HARALD DOORNBOS IS A JOURNALIST BASED IN ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN. and,
JENAN MOUSSA AUGUST 28, 2014. EXCLUSIVE Found: The Islamic State's
Terror Laptop of
Doom,http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/08/28/found_the_islamic_sta
te_terror_laptop_of_doom_bubonic_plague_weapons_of_mass_destruction_exc
lusive
A laptop reportedly recovered from an Islamic State jihadist
contained a hidden trove of secret plans, including weaponizing the
bubonic plague, and lessons on disguise, bomb-making and stealing
cars. A man identified by ForeignPolicy.com as Abu Ali, a commander of a moderate Syrian rebel group
in northern Syria, told the publication the black laptop was seized earlier this year in a
raid on an ISIS hideout in the Syrian province of Idlib, close to the border with Turkey, and
belonged to a Tunisian jihadist. "We found the laptop and the power cord in a room," Ali told
ForeignPolicy.com. "I took it with me." Initially, it appeared the computer had been scrubbed, but on closer
inspection, thousands of secret files were discovered on the hard drive ,
which was not password protected, Ali said. ForeignPolicy.com was permitted to copy of thousands of files,
which were in French, English, and Arabic. The information included videos of Usama bin Laden, ideological
justifications for jihad and tutorials on how to carry out the Islamic State's deadly campaigns. But most

the computer's owner, identified as a Tunisian

national named Muhammed S. who joined ISIS in Syria after studying
chemistry and physics at two universities in Tunisia, was teaching
himself how to manufacture biological weapons , in preparation for a
potential attack that could have been catastrophic on a global scale.
A 19-page document in Arabic included instructions on how to develop
biological weapons and how to weaponize the bubonic plague from
infected animals. "The advantage of biological weapons is that they
do not cost a lot of money, while the human casualties can be huge ,"
the document states. The document includes instructions for testing the
weaponized plague before using it to attack. "When the microbe is injected in
chilling were files that indicated

small mice, the symptoms of the disease should start to appear within 24 hours," the document says.
While some Islamic scholars have said the use of weapons of mass destruction is prohibited, the material
on the seized computer included a fatwa, or Islamic ruling, permitting it. "If

Muslims [ISIS]
cannot defeat the kafir [unbelievers] in a different way, it is permissible
to use weapons of mass destruction," states the fatwa by Saudi jihadi cleric Nasir alFahd, who is currently imprisoned in Saudi Arabia. "Even if it kills all of them and wipes
them and their descendants off the face of the Earth."

Theres no alternative to heg solves conflict best

Brookes 11 PhD Candidate @ Georgetown, M.A. from Johns Hopkins,

serving his third term as a congressionally appointed member of the U.S.China Economic and Security Review Commission
Peter, Why the World Needs a Strong America, FSM,
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.9986/pub_detail.asp
Its funny, but sometimes you dont miss something until its gone . While this
old chestnut gets rolled out most often when referring to a trying but departed friend, it might also
be said of the potential for the decline, or withdrawal, of a powerful America from
the world stage. Some say American clout is waningthat weve declined relative to others,
especially with the rise (or re-rise) of China, Russia, India and Brazil, which have been developing into
major powers n recent years. Indeed, there seems to be plenty of people out there, especially abroadand
perhaps a few at home, sadlywho would welcome the absolute decline of American strength and
influence across the globe. To those who naively feel this way, another old adage applies: Be careful what

the United States is the global

balance of power. When the 911 call for the crisis de jour comes in, the first thing the world
you wish for. Go-to Gal It turns out that on security issues,

wants to know is what Washington thinksand what is it willing to do. While it has never been our

we have been a force for stability, providing American can-do spirit to

the
world doesnt look to other big powers like China or Russia when
there is a pressing problem for the so-called international community, knowing
Beijing and Moscow are willing to look the other way unless theyre directly
affected, or happy to let someone else to the heavy-lifting, usually Washington. The world, instead,
looks to the United States as the country with the will and capability to make things happen
and to do so in some of the planets toughest neighborhoods. This, of course, comes courtesy
of the worlds best military. Its the only one with a true global, we-can-get-there-supplypreference,

problems and places that many Americans have never even heard of, much less been to. Fact is

ourselves-get-the-job-done-and-get-home type of mobility and sustainability that is the envy of all other
armed forces. But its not just U.S. military muscle that makes us unique. We also have strong diplomatic
forces in embassies, consulates and international institutions that span the globe, giving us sway and a say

It doesnt hurt that we also have the worlds largest

and arguably most innovative economy, based on the free market. In fact, its a
major source of our strength, bolstering our efforts around the
globe. Were the hardest workers, too. We spend more time in the office, the factory and in the farm
on important issues.

field than just about anyone else. Even the U.N. has said the United States, leads the world in
productivity. Fortunately, we also have the worlds finest intelligence services, from the Central
Intelligence Agency to the Defense Intelligence Agency. They dont always get it right, but intelligence is a
tough business and they get it right a lot more than they get it wrongby a long stretch. The fact is that
you dont pull off first-rate diplomacy or military operations without top-notch intelligence, collected from
the ground by daring spies, in the air by manned and unmanned aircraft or from space by advanced eye
in the sky satellites. For instance, without great, painstaking intelligence work, there would have been no
special forces raid on Osama bin Ladens compound in Pakistan in May. Period. Our diplomatic, military and
intelligence professionals do it so well so often, people just take it for granted theyll get it right. Its on
those rare times where they get it wrong that you hear about it from Capitol Hill or read about it in the
newspapers. And while enemiesand sometimes friends and alliescriticize Lady Liberty for being big,
powerful and out and about, the truth is this country of ours has provided, and continues to provide, a
world of good. Regional Role While few take the time to realize all America does, much less acknowledge
our often-selfless contributions, the fact is were making a difference in so many places
around the world. Lets start with the Korean Peninsula. Ever since the cease-fire between North Korean

and Chinese forces and the United Nations, led by the Americans, was concluded in 1953, weve been a
stabilizing force reducing the risk of another conflict on the divided Korean peninsula. Even today, 25,000
U.S. troops (far from home) help keep the peace across the misnamed demilitarized zone (DMZ)
against a North Korean regime, which still harbors dreams of unitingmilitarily, if necessarythe North
and South under its despotic rule. Without the presence of American forces, a second Korean war has been
and still isa distinct possibility. It's easy to assume that another war would be even more horrific than
the last, especially considering North Korea now has nuclear weapons. And what about Japan, where

Japanese
security since the end of World War II. This has not only allowed Japan to prosper economically and
45,000 U.S. troops are stationed? The U.S. military has also played a huge role in

politicallylike South Koreabut it helped stabilize Asia in the aftermath of war, too. The presence of U.S.
forces and the extension of our strategic nuclear deterrent has also kept both Japan and South Korea from
developing a nuclear option that many believe they might have taken in light of North Korean atomic

Americas military might, diplomatic presence and economic engagement is a

source of comfort to many in East Asia due to Chinas growing powerand serious
actions. Plus,

questions about its intentions in the region. Perhaps most troubling is Beijings unprecedented military
buildup, supported by the worlds second largest defense budget. Its military spending has been growing
at a double-digit rate, meaning 10 percent or more, for the last two decades, raising eyebrows across the
region. Despite the absence of a threat to China, Beijing is developing a highly potent military, capable of
projecting power in the air and on the seas well into the Pacific, dwarfing other regional militaries,

In South Asia, the United States has also

played a key diplomatic role in keeping rivals India and Pakistan from
unleashing the dogs of war in South Asiapossibly leading to history's first nuclear
(weapons) exchangeor, worse yet, war. Talk about Fourth of July fireworks. In
Afghanistan, the Taliban would likely still have al Qaeda as honored
guest, helping them scheme how they would create a global Islamist caliphate stretching from Spain in
especially cross-Strait rival Taiwan.

Europe to Indonesia in Asia, using terrorism as a key tool. And what about the Middle East? Of course, in
the mother of all terror battles, our brave young men and women put the hurt on al Qaeda in Iraq,
stemming the momentum of the extremist group that had only been gaining steam since 9/11. Next door,
the United States has been the bulwark against Irans rise in the region since
the fall of the Shah in 1979. Today, it serves as the driving force to counter its nuclear program. Without
U.S. leadership, wed already be dealing with atomic ayatollahs. Plus, for years, weve been the country
that has guaranteed the free flow of oil shipped through the Persian Gulfs Strait of Hormuz, where as
much as 40 percent of the worlds black gold flows to markets across the globe, courtesy of the U.S. Navy.
Today, the likelihood of a major war in Europe is thankfully just about nil, but considering weak European

absent American military might, NATO might be little

more than a paper tiger in the face of an increasingly growly Russian bear. Moscow, which has
defense spending,

ambitions of being a major power broker internationally, is already breathing down the neck of its "near
abroad" neighbors, especially in its old Soviet Union-era stompin grounds like Georgia and Ukraine. It
doesnt end there. Transnational Trouble If it werent for our spooks and special operations forces, Osama
bin Laden would still be stalking the Earth, calling the shots for al Qaeda and its affiliates around the world
against a slew of countries that have suffered at his hands and those of his terror cohorts. While killing bin
Laden may not be the knockout punch to al Qaeda that we all hope it is, it was certainly a major body
blow, and the group will likely be shaking it off on the canvas for a bit. American drone strikes in the
Pakistani tribal areas on the Taliban and in Yemen on al Qaeda factions make sure the terrorists know that
theyre never completely out of reach of the long arm of Lady Liberty. Weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
would be more common than they are today without U.S. efforts like the Bush-era Proliferation Security
Initiative, which joins states together to fight the spread of these deadly technologies and weapons. For
instance, American efforts in recent years led directly to Libya surrendering its nuclear program, and
without our uncovering the network of Pakistan's prodigious proliferator, A.Q. Khan, hed still be going door
to door, hawking his nuclear wares to who-knows-who. Not surprisingly, our cutting-edge engineers and
scientists are developing the worlds most prodigious ballistic missile defense system to protect the
American homeland, our deployed troops, allies and friends that face the growing WMD and missile threat.
Why be held hostage to North Korea, which can likely hit the West Coast of the United States with a
nuclear missile, or Iran, which will have an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that can reach out an
touch us as soon as 2015? Moreover, our Navy patrols the worlds oceans, providing freedom of the seas
free of charge. It also protects international shipping against sea banditry and modern-day piracy, a
growing problem especially in Southeast Asia and off the Horn of Africa. But thats not all. Uncle Sugar In
addition, U.S. intelligence assets, especially satellites, provide critical information to the international
community, including early warning of crises and ongoing support during hostilities or humanitarian

Washington has also been key in conducting

humanitarian relief operations to tsunami victims in Southeast Asia and
Japan and to those struggling in the aftermath of the devastating earthquakesin Pakistan and
emergencies on a scale no one else can.

Haiti. In addition, the American medical ship USNS Mercy and other U.S. Navy ships ply the Seven Seas
performing numerous humanitarian missions around the world every year, bringing much-needed help to
those without access to basic medical care. Of course, there are other generous gifts from Uncle Sam,
starting with the lions share of the United Nations budget. We also fund half the operations of the World
Food Program, feeding more than 100 million people in nearly 80 countries. Moreover, we also contribute
to U.N. programs which fight HIV/AIDS; vaccinates, educates and protects children across the globe; battles
human trafficking; combats child labor; and supports international peacekeeping. Were also the worlds
trainer, providing military, counterterror and counternarcotics education, and equipment to some 130
countries around the world, especially in places like Latin America and the Middle East, where the need
runs high. Colombia, which came close to falling to the narcoterrorist group, the FARC, turned into the
counterterror and counterinsurgency success story it is today because of American assistance and training.
Colombia isnow helping Mexico with its drug cartel problem. The United States even created African
Command [AFRICOM]which supports and trains armed forces in African states so that they can
appropriately respond to possible crises or disasters on that continent. The U.S. government has also
funded new technologies, often through military research and development, that have primed the pumps
of the private sector, stirred further innovations and made life better for so many, from the Internet to the
microwave oven to GPS. But what about a world without todays America? Absent America Singapores
former prime minister, Lee Kwan Yew, had it right when he told the Wall Street Journal recently, The

world has developed because of the stability America established If

that stability is rocked, we are going to have a different situation. By different, its unlikely Lee believes
things will be better. Unfortunately, in the role of providing for global stability and public goods,

there

is nobody else to relieve the United States of this duty at least for the
moment. Nor are any of the prospective candidates looking good . While
some would like to see the United Nations in this role, it has been nothing short of a
disappointment. While some at the U.N. mean well, it is hamstrung by its own diversity of values
and interests, leaving it often quite feckless in dealing with the matters that everyone agrees requires

China and Russia seem to be aspiring for a U.S.-type role,

although its unlikely that the world would be happy with their style,
or manner, of international leadership or approach to world
problems such as human or political rights or security issues. Indeed,
absent predominant U.S. leadership, diplomatic influence, free market economics and
military might, life aboard Planet Earth would be pretty grim , indeed.
action.

Solvency
The Secure Data Act would prevent mandated NSA
backdoors and bolster trust in Congress ability to restrict
surveillance
Wicklander 15 [Carl: politics writer Bipartisan Secure Data Act Has Votes
to Pass House, But Will Lawmakers Drag Their Feet?, Independent Voter
Network, February 9, 2015, http://ivn.us/2015/02/09/bipartisan-secure-dataact-votes-pass-house-will-lawmakers-drag-feet/ // emb].
Last week, a bipartisan group of legislators introduced a bill intended
to protect Americans privacy and online data. In a press release, U.S.
Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), and Zoe Lofgren (DCalif.) announced that the purpose of the Secure Data Act of 2015 is not
to restrict the ability of intelligence agencies to collect data in general. However, they do intend to reassert the role of Congress in regulating these activities: Congress
has allowed the Administrations surveillance authorities to go
unchecked by failing to enact adequate reform. . . . With threats to
our homeland ever prevalent, we should not tie the hands of the
intelligence community. But unwarranted, backdoor surveillance is
indefensible. The Secure Data Act is an important step in rebuilding
public trust in our intelligence agencies and striking the appropriate
balance between national security and civil liberty. The bill is an
attempt to specifically guard against backdoor searches, including those
where identifiers such as phone numbers and e-mail addresses known to belong to Americans are
employed to conduct the searches. For years, privacy advocates have denounced these types of searches
as a way to skirt the law. According to the Register, a UK-based tech site, Under

the proposed
Secure Data Act, developers cannot be forced to insert security
holes into devices and code. An ACLU lawyer quoted in the story said that the previous
bills success might indicate that at least in the House they know how important it is to secure encryption
efforts. Massie, Lofgren, and Sensenbrenner tried to pass a similar version of the Secure Data Act near
the end of the 113th Congress. The legislation passed with broad support, 293-123, but was not included
in the omnibus bill that passed at the end of the session. A Senate version of the Secure Data Act was
introduced by Oregon U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D) in January. His bill is still waiting to move through the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Regaining the peoples trust may be one of

Polls have
consistently shown that Americans do not approve of the current
methods of surveillance and data collection. Previous bills have
passed Congress seeking to limit the power and authority of
agencies like the National Security Agency. However, the final
products were severely watered down versions of the initial
legislation. Even extensively supported bills such as the previous
Secure Data Act failed to get anywhere in both chambers of
Congress.
the harder obstacles when it comes to regulations on spying and surveillance.

The Secure Data Act is critical to preventing malicious

hacking via backdoors and restoring US tech
competitiveness
McQuinn 14 [Alan: research assistant with the Information Technology and
Innovation Foundation (ITIF), The Secure Data Act could help law

enforcement protect against cybercrime, The Hill, December 19, 2014

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/227594-the-secure-dataact-could-help-law-enforcement-protect-against // emb]
Last Sunday, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) wrote an op-ed describing the role that U.S. law enforcement should play in
fostering stronger data encryption to make information technology (IT) systems more secure. This op-ed explains Wydens

the Secure Data Act, which would prohibit the government

from mandating that U.S. companies build backdoors in their
products for the purpose of surveillance. This legislation responds directly to recent
introduction of the

comments by U.S. officials, most notably the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey, chastising Apple
and Google for creating encrypted devices to which law enforcement cannot gain access. Comey and others have argued
that U.S. tech companies should design a way for law enforcement officials to access consumer data stored on those
devices. In this environment,

the Secure Data Act is a homerun for security and

privacy and is a good step towards reasserting U.S. competitiveness

in building secure systems for a global market.

By adopting its position on the issue

the FBI is working against its own goal of preventing cybercrime as well as broader government efforts to improve
cybersecurity. Just a few years ago, the Bureau was counseling people to better encrypt their data to safeguard it from

Creating backdoor access for law enforcement fundamentally

weakens IT systems because it creates a new pathway for malicious
hackers, foreign governments, and other unauthorized parties to
gain illicit access. Requiring backdoors is a step backwards for
companies actively working to eliminate security vulnerabilities in
their products. In this way, security is a lot like a ship at sea, the
more holes you put in the systemgovernment mandated or not
the faster it will sink. The better solution is to patch up all the holes
hackers.

in the system and work to prevent any new ones. Rather than
decreasing security to suit its appetite for surveillance , the FBI should
recognize that better security is needed to bolster U.S. defenses against
online threats. The Secure Data Act is an important step in that
direction because it will stop U.S. law enforcement agencies from
requiring companies to introduce vulnerabilities in their products. If
this bill is enacted, law enforcement will be forced to use other means to solve crimes, such as by using metadata from

This will also allow

U.S. tech companies, with the help of law enforcement, to continue
to strengthen their systems, better detect intrusions, and identify
emerging threats. Law enforcement, such as the recently announced U.S. Department of Justice
cellular providers, call records, text messages, and even old-fashioned detective work.

Cybersecurity Unita unit designed solely to deter, investigate, and prosecute cyber criminals, should work in
cooperation with the private sector to create a safer environment online.

A change of course is also

necessary to restore the ability of U.S. tech companies to compete

globally, where mistrust has run rampant following the revelations
of mass government surveillance . With the 113th Congress at an end, Wyden has promised to
reintroduce the Data Secure Act again in the next Congress. Congress should move expediently to advance Senator
Wydens bill to promote security and privacy in U.S. devices and software. Furthermore, as Congress marks up the
legislation and considers amendments, it should restrict not just government access to devices, but also government
control of those devices. These efforts will move the efforts of our law enforcement agencies away from creating cyber
vulnerabilities and allow electronics manufacturers to produce the most secure devices imaginable.

FYIs / Relevant Background

Info

What is Bullrun?
This is what it is.
Perlroth and Shane 13 [Nicole: technology reporter for The New York
Times, covers cyberattacks, hackers and the cybersecurity industry for The
Timess business news section, winner of the Society of American Business
Editors and Writers award for best technology coverage in 2013, and was
voted the top cybersecurity journalist by the SANS Institute in 2014 and
Scott: American journalist, currently employed by The New York Times,
reporting principally about the United States intelligence community, N.S.A.
Able to Foil Basic Safeguards of Privacy on Web, The New York Times,
September 5, 2013,
http://ctvoterscount.org/CTVCdata/13/09/NYTimes20130905.pdf // emb].
The National Security Agency is winning its long-running secret war
on encryption, using supercomputers, technical trickery, court
orders and behind the-scenes persuasion to undermine the major
tools protecting the privacy of everyday communications in the
Internet age, according to newly disclosed documents. The agency
has circumvented or cracked much of the encryption, or digital scrambling,
that guards global commerce and banking systems, protects
sensitive data like trade secrets and medical records, and
automatically secures the e-mails, Web searches, Internet chats and
phone calls of Americans and others around the world, the documents
show. Many users assume or have been assured by Internet
companies that their data is safe from prying eyes, including
those of the government, and the N.S.A. wants to keep it that way.
The agency treats its recent successes in deciphering protected information as among its most closely

restricted to those cleared for a highly classified

program code-named Bullrun, according to the documents, provided by Edward J.
Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor. Beginning in 2000, as encryption tools were gradually
blanketing the Web, the N.S.A. invested billions of dollars in a clandestine
campaign to preserve its ability to eavesdrop. Having lost a public battle in the
guarded secrets,

1990s to insert its own back door in all encryption, it set out to accomplish the same goal by stealth.

The agency, according to the documents and interviews with industry officials, deployed
custom-built, superfast computers to break codes, and began
collaborating with technology companies in the United States and
abroad to build entry points into their products . The documents do not identify
which companies have participated. The N.S.A. hacked into target computers to
snare messages before they were encrypted. In some cases, companies
say they were coerced by the government into handing over their
master encryption keys or building in a back door. And the agency
used its influence as the worlds most experienced code maker to
covertly introduce weaknesses into the encryption standards
followed by hardware and software developers around the world.
For the past decade, N.S.A. has led an aggressive, multipronged
effort to break widely used Internet encryption technologies, said a

2010 memo describing a briefing about N.S.A. accomplishments for employees of its British counterpart,
Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ. Cryptanalytic capabilities are now coming online.
Vast amounts of encrypted Internet data which have up till now been discarded are now exploitable.
When the British analysts, who often work side by side with N.S.A. officers, were first told about the

program, another memo said, those not already briefed were gobsmacked!

An intelligence

budget document makes clear that the effort is still going strong.
We are investing in groundbreaking cryptanalytic capabilities to defeat adversarial cryptography and
exploit Internet traffic, the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., wrote in his budget
request for the current year. In recent months, the documents disclosed by Mr. Snowden have described
the N.S.A.s reach in scooping up vast amounts of communications around the world. The encryption
documents now show, in striking detail, how the agency works to ensure that it is actually able to read the
information it collects. The agencys success in defeating many of the privacy protections offered by
encryption does not change the rules that prohibit the deliberate targeting of Americans e-mails or phone
calls without a warrant. But it shows that the agency, which was sharply rebuked by a federal judge in
2011 for violating the rules and misleading the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, cannot
necessarily be restrained by privacy technology .

N.S.A. rules permit the agency to

store any encrypted communication, domestic or foreign, for as long
as the agency is trying to decrypt it or analyze its technical
features.

Kid tested, mother approved

We need to wake up from the dream of Project Bullrun.
We can no longer live in the past, but must reform our
internet security

Granneman 13
Joseph, resident expert on information security management. He has more
than 20 years of technology experience, How to protect corporate data after
the NSA Bullrun revelations, http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/tip/How-toprotect-corporate-data-after-the-NSA-Bullrun-revelations //NA
The shocking news of project Bullrun has served as a much-needed
wake-up call for all of us in the information security field. The
technologies that we trusted to keep us secure have instead been
used for mass surveillance. Even worse, the types of attacks
highlighted in the NSA Bullrun documentation could be performed by
many other malicious actors on the Internet. Companies must respond by developing new
mitigation strategies, such as the use of open source infrastructure, internal private key management and
private cloud hosting, to protect critical data assets .

Bullrun has shown that the threat

landscape on the Internet has evolved and information security must
evolve with it.

Terms
Backdoor
How backdoors work
Tech blog 11 (How Hackers Use Backdoors to Access a Network;
http://www.thrivenetworks.com/blog/category/client-services/)
Backdoors are a method that hackers use to establish unauthorized
access to a network from a remote location. Hackers use backdoors
as a means of gaining repeated access to a network without being
logged by the systems administrator. This type of network intrusion hides its
presence while the hacker is actually using the network without the knowledge of others. How
Backdoors Work Hackers gain access to a network by creating backdoors
on compromised systems. This is accomplished by searching for
vulnerabilities in the network such as unused accounts which have passwords that are easy to
crack. Once the intruder is in they change the password to a different password that is difficult to break.
When the systems administrator monitors the network, the account where the hacker modified the

This makes it difficult to determine which accounts

are unused and should be locked from the network. Although a backdoor
is capable of hiding a hackers initial entry from the systems log , the
intruder can still continue to access the network despite the fact that the
password does not appear.

systems administrator has detected unauthorized access in the systems log. This is especially true if the
default passwords created by the manufacturer are left on the system .

A backdoor is used by
hackers to install malware for the purpose of stealing information from
a network such as company trade secrets or customer financial data . Backdoors can also be
used to launch Denial of Service attacks which can bring down an
entire company network. DoS attacks are performed by sending an excessive amount of
information packets over a network which results in network failure. How Hackers Find Network

to create a backdoor on a network the hacker must

find the weak points in the system. The weak points are known as vulnerabilities
Vulnerabilities In order

which are the perfect location for an exploit. Often these are unused accounts on a network perhaps once
used by a former employee that left the company or other type of situation.

Vulnerabilities in a

network system can be detected by using specialized software that the hacker activates from a
remote location to sniff around the system and identify the weaknesses. The typical target is unused
accounts or services or even accounts that have been disabled. The hacker can choose one of these
components and remove it and then install a new system under the same name. This helps the hackers
point of entry to remain anonymous when the systems administrator performs a security inspection of the

Once the hacker installs the system to gain access to the

network the files are hidden deep in system directories using names that
are not conspicuous to a systems administrator. The same method is used when
accessing a port to establish backdoor access. This allows the hacker
to escape detection on the systems log when the administrator reviews it. A backdoor
can also provide the hacker with access other components of a network by creating an account
network.

that allows system privileges. An account that has system privileges is similar to your PC administrator
account. It allows you to change passwords and privileges for other accounts and basically have full access

There are many different types of backdoors

but the type that allows the hacker full access is the most
hazardous. Keeping hackers out of network requires careful monitoring of the system and consistent
to the network and its components.

review of the event log that provides a report of events on the network. A systems administrator that is on
top of how network criminals operate and the latest techniques they use will be able to adequately protect
the network from intrusion. Allow Thrive Networks to monitor your network and save you from potential
intrusions. Contact us today for more information!

Decryption
The definition of decryption is to decode or to decifer
Oxford Dictionary 15
[http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/decryption
] Syllabification: decryption Definition of decryption in English: noun
the process of changing information that is in code into ordinary
language so that it can be understood by anyone

Decryption converts encrypted data back into its original form

Rouse NO DATE Mary Rouse. Search Security. Data encryption/decryption IC
http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/definition/data-encryption-decryption-IC S.H
Decryption is the process of converting encrypted data back into its
original form, so it can be understood. Encryption and decryption
should not be confused with encoding and decoding, in which data is
converted from one form to another but is not deliberately altered so as to
conceal its content. An integrated circuit, sometimes called a chip or
microchip, is a semiconductor wafer on which thousands or millions of tiny
resistors, capacitors, and transistors are fabricated. These devices can
perform dozens of tasks in electronics and computing.

Encryption -

The definition of encryption is to encode

Oxford Dictionary 15
[http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/encryption
] Syllabification: encryption Definition of encryption in English: noun
The process of converting information or data into a code, especially
to prevent unauthorized access: I use encryption to protect

sensitive information transmitted online

Origin of Encryption
Sans Institute 1 SANS Institute InfoSec Reading Room
http://www.massconfusion.com/crypto/Lecture/intro2.shtm l
Encryption, process of converting messages, information, or data
into a form unreadable by anyone except the intended recipient .
Encrypted data must be deciphered, or decrypted, before it can be
read by the recipient. The root of the word encryptioncryptcomes from the Greek word
kryptos, meaning hidden or secret. In its earliest form, people have been attempting to
conceal certain information that they wanted to keep to their own possession by
substituting parts of the information with symbols, numbers and pictures,
this paper highlights in chronology the history of Cryptography throughout centuries. For different reason

Assyrians were interested

in protecting their trade secret of manufacturing of the pottery. The Chinese
were interested in protecting their trade secret of manufacturing silk. The Germans
humans have been interested in protecting their messages. The

were interested in protecting their military secrets by using their famous Enigma machine. With the

advancement of computers and interconnectivity, the United States

governmental institutions and industries are subject to cyber

attacks, intrusion and industrial espionage. The following are chronological history
of cryptography

GCHQ this is the Governmental Communications

Headquarters, Great Britains version of Project Bullrun
NSA National Security Administration

Inherency

NSA Decryption Works Now

The NSA can crack encryption codes in virtually real time
BUCHANAN 13(Matt Buchanan was a science and technology editor for newyorker.com from 2013 to 2014

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/how-the-n-s-a-cracked-the-web mm
Cryptographic and security experts have been able to piece together
some ideas about the extent of the agencys capabilities. Mike Janke,
the C.E.O. of the encrypted-communications company Silent Circle
which shut down its encrypted e-mail service a few weeks ago said
over the phone that, based on information and literature he has
seen, he believes the N.S.A. developed a massive push-button
scale ability to defeat or circumvent S.S.L. encryption in virtually
real time.

He added, the reality of it is that most of the security world has known that lower level

encryptionS.S.L., H.T.T.P.S., V.P.N.sare highly susceptible to being defeated because of their

documents, wrote that the N.S.A.

has circumvented common Web encryption primarily by cheating,
not by mathematics. Instead of busting the algorithms that power
encryption schemes, Schneier is suggesting that the N.S.A. has
found a way around it. Matthew Green, a prominent crypto researcher, suggests
that the N.S.A. may have compromised the encryption software that
implements the algorithms that determine how data is scrambledin
particular, software made by Microsoft and used by many Web
servers for encryption. The Times writes that the the agency maintains an
internal database of encryption keys for specific commercial
products, called a Key Provisioning Service, which can automatically
decode many messages. Intriguingly, it adds, independent cryptographers say many are
architecture. Bruce Schneier, who has seen the Snowden

probably collected by hacking into companies computer servers, where they are stored. If the agency
possesses the keys, there is no need to crack the encryption algorithm.

NSA Winning Encryption War

The NSA is winning the encryption war theyve cracked
most of what guards banking, trade secrets, medical
records, emails, internet comm
Larson 13 [Jeff: Data Editor at ProPublica. Won the Livingston Award,
Revealed: The NSAs Secret Campaign to Crack, Undermine Internet
Security, ProPublica, September 5, 2013
http://www.propublica.org/article/the-nsas-secret-campaign-to-crackundermine-internet-encryption // emb].
The National Security Agency is winning its long-running secret war on
encryption, using supercomputers, technical trickery, court orders
and behind-the-scenes persuasion to undermine the major tools
protecting the privacy of everyday communications in the Internet
age, according to newly disclosed documents. This story has been reported in partnership between The
New York Times, the Guardian and ProPublica based on documents obtained by The Guardian. The
agency has circumvented or cracked much of the encryption, or
digital scrambling, that guards global commerce and banking
systems, protects sensitive data like trade secrets and medical
records, and automatically secures the e-mails, Web searches,
Internet chats and phone calls of Americans and others around the
world, the documents show. Many users assume or have been assured by Internet companies
that their data is safe from prying eyes, including those of the government, and the N.S.A. wants to keep it

The agency treats its recent successes in deciphering

protected information as among its most closely guarded secrets,
restricted to those cleared for a highly classified program codenamed Bullrun, according to the documents, provided by Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A.
that way.

contractor.

Tech Companies Cooperate Now

The NSA has created a decryption backdoor tech
companies have cooperated with the NSA to build
permanent entry points into their encryption products
Larson 13 [Jeff: Data Editor at ProPublica. Won the Livingston Award,
Revealed: The NSAs Secret Campaign to Crack, Undermine Internet
Security, ProPublica, September 5, 2013
http://www.propublica.org/article/the-nsas-secret-campaign-to-crackundermine-internet-encryption // emb].
Beginning in 2000, as encryption tools were gradually blanketing the Web, the N.S.A. invested
billions of dollars in a clandestine campaign to preserve its ability to
eavesdrop. Having lost a public battle in the 1990s to insert its own
back door in all encryption, it set out to accomplish the same goal
by stealth. The agency, according to the documents and interviews
with industry officials, deployed custom-built, superfast computers
to break codes, and began collaborating with technology companies
in the United States and abroad to build entry points into their
products. The documents do not identify which companies have participated. The N.S.A.
hacked into target computers to snare messages before they were
encrypted. And the agency used its influence as the worlds most
experienced code maker to covertly introduce weaknesses into the
encryption standards followed by hardware and software developers
around the world. For the past decade, N.S.A. has led an
aggressive, multipronged effort to break widely used Internet
encryption technologies, said a 2010 memo describing a briefing about N.S.A.
accomplishments for employees of its British counterpart, Government Communications Headquarters, or

Cryptanalytic capabilities are now coming online. Vast amounts

of encrypted Internet data which have up till now been discarded are
now exploitable.
GCHQ.

Government Likes Backdoors

Government currently pushing for backdoors
Castillo 6/16/15 [Andrea, program manager for the Technology Policy
Program at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, coauthor of
Bitcoin: A Primer for Policymakers (Mercatus), Giving Government 'Backdoor'
Access to Encrypted Data Threatens Personal Privacy and National Security,
Reason.com, http://reason.com/archives/2015/06/16/crypto-wars-weakenencryption-security //NA
The "Crypto Wars" are here again, which means federal officials are doing all they can to limit the
technological tools that keep our personal data secure.

President Obama and leaders

from the National Security Agency (NSA), FBI, and Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) have been pressuring the technology
community to build "backdoors" that allow government access to
encrypted data. The War on Terror provides plenty of rhetorical
ammunition to these anti-encryption officials, who seem to believe
that purposefully sabotaging our strongest defenses against
"cyberterrorists" is an effective way to promote national security.
But they are dangerously wrong, as recent revelations of decades-old security
vulnerabilities imposed by encryption restrictions make all too clear. Encryption allows people to securely
send data that can only be accessed by verified parties. Mathematical techniques convert the content of a
message into a scrambled jumble, called a ciphertext, which looks like nonsense in electronic transit until
it is decoded by the intended recipient. Simple ciphers have been used to secure communications since
the days of the Egyptian Old Kingdom, when a particularly devoted scribe took to fancying up the tomb of
Khnumhotep II with cryptic funeral prose. Our own Thomas Jefferson regularly used ciphers in
communications with James Madison, John Adams, and James Monroe to "keep matters merely personal to
ourselves." State military and research offices were the main 20th century beneficiaries of advanced
encryption techniques until the development of public-key cryptography in the 1970s, which afforded
commercial and private users a means to protect their data against unwanted infiltration. Now, what was
once a mere means to share secrets has become an indispensable component of personal and national

An estimated 40 million cyberattacks occurred in 2014,

imposing millions in costs and weeks of frustration for organizations
and individual users alike. Many of these costly breaches could be prevented through
encryption techniques that regulate data access, authenticate users, and secure sensitive information. A
secret report from the U.S. National Intelligence Councilironically,
leaked by Edward Snowden thanks to the governments own poor authentication practices
even made the case that encryption was the "best defense" to protect private data. Yet
intelligence agencies and their allies have consistently set out to
limit encryption technologies (many of which they developed or relied upon themselves
previously). The seeds of the first Crypto Wars were sown during the Cold
War, when the U.S. imposed strong export controls on encryption techniques to keep them away from
data security.

the Ruskies. Only a small set of relatively weak techniques approved by the Commerce and State

But this practice was dangerously

self-defeating. Compelling foreign users to settle for weakened
encryption standards ultimately made U.S. users more vulnerable by
introducing unnecessary fragility.
Departments could be used in international business.

NSA directors / other governmental officials want to

continue decrypting
Gross 15 [Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S.
government for the IDG News Service, an international news agency,

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2887792/nsa-director-wants-govt-access-toencrypted-communications.html]
It probably comes as no surprise that the director of the U.S. National Security
Agency wants access to encrypted data on computers and other
devices. The U.S. should be able to craft a policy that allows the
NSA and law enforcement agencies to read encrypted data when
they need to, NSA director Michael Rogers said during an
appearance at a cybersecurity policy event Monday. Asked if the
U.S. government should have backdoors to encrypted devices,
Rogers said the U.S. government needs to develop a framework.
You dont want the FBI and you dont want the NSA unilaterally
deciding, So, what are we going to access and what are we not
going to access? Rogers said during his appearance at the New
America Foundation. That shouldnt be for us. I just believe that
this is achievable. Well have to work our way through it. Justsecurity.org
has a transcript of an exchange between Rogers and Yahoo CISO Alex Stamos at Mondays event. Rogers isnt the first

In
September, after Apple and Google announced encryption features
on their smartphone OSes, both FBI Director James Comey and
Attorney General Eric Holder raised concerns that additional
encryption tools would hinder law enforcement investigations. Stamos
questioned whether it is a good idea to build backdoors in encryption. If were going to build
defects/backdoors or golden master keys for the U.S. government,
do you believe we should do so .... for the Chinese government, the
Russian government, the Saudi Arabian government, the Israeli
government, the French government? he said, according to the Justsecurity transcript.
member of President Barack Obamas administration to call for encryption workarounds in recent months.

Rogers objected to using the word backdoor. When I hear the phrase backdoor, I think, Well, this is kind of shady.
Why would you want to go in the backdoor?

It would be very public, he said. Again,

my view is: We can create a legal framework for how we do this. It
isnt something we have to hide, per se. An NSA spokeswoman wasnt immediately
available for further comment.

1AC - Secure Data Act not passing

The Secure Data Act has been introduced several times
but with no hope for passing even tacking on antidecryption measures to other bills has stalled
Bennett 6/2/15 [Cory: covers cybersecurity for The Hill, Senators push
amendment to bar encryption 'backdoors', The Hill, June 2, 2015
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/243725-senators-push-for-amendmentto-bar-encryption-backdoors // emb].
Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) want to amend the Senates
surveillance reform bill so it would forbid the government from
compelling companies to install access points into their encryption.
As the Senate moves toward a final vote Tuesday on its reform bill, the USA Freedom Act, Paul and
Wyden are pushing for their colleagues to vote on a slate of
amendments they say would enhance the privacy provisions in the
bill. One of the main additions they want to see is a provision barring the
government from requiring so-called backdoors in encryption an
access point known only to law enforcement. But it appears the upper chamber will only
vote on amendments offered by Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell (R-Ky.). Privacy groups have alleged that McConnells
amendments will simply water down the reform bill, which the Republican

leader initially opposed. Paul has been leading the charge against extending any of the National Security
Agencys spying powers authorized under the Patriot Act. He blocked any short-term extension of the law
and has repeatedly delayed votes on the reform bill, which he believes doesnt go far enough. Wyden,
also a vocal NSA critic, has joined Paul to press for votes on privacy-focused amendments to the USA
Freedom Act. A measure barring backdoors has been one of the most sought-after provisions among techsavvy lawmakers and the privacy community in recent years. A bipartisan group of lawmakers is fighting

Government officials argue that

investigators need some way to legitimately access encrypted data
on devices and social media platforms. Technologists and numerous lawmakers
counter that any form of guaranteed access makes encryption inherently vulnerable. Wyden and
others have several times introduced the Secure Data Act, a standalone bill that would prohibit the government from mandating
backdoors. But the measure hasnt seen any movement , causing
lawmakers to try and tack it on to other surveillance and cyber bills.
with the Obama administration over the concept.

Current Laws Inadequate

Current laws have not kept pace with tech innovations,
leaving financial sectors vulnerable to cyberattack.
Keating et al 6/15/15 [Frank Keating: former governor of Oklahoma

from 1995 to 2003 and is currently president and CEO of the American
Bankers Association; Richard Hunt: president and CEO of the Consumer
Bankers Association; Jim Nussle:congressman from Iowa from 1991 to 2007
and is currently president and CEO of the Credit Union National Association;
Tim Pawlenty: governor of Minnesota from 2003 to 2011 and is currently
president and CEO of the Financial Services Roundtable; Camden R. Fine:
president and CEO of the Independent Community Bankers of America; D.
Dan Berger: president and CEO of the National Association of Federal Credit
Unions; and Jim Aramanda: president and CEO of The Clearing House. Their
organizations are members of the Financial Services Data Security Coalition,
Congress must act against cyber crime, The Hill, June 15, 2015,
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/244848-congress-must-actagainst-cyber-crime // emb].
When consumer expectations dont match reality, things can go terribly wrong. Americans expect
companies with which they do business to protect their sensitive personal and financial data. Yet, the

American consumers are under constant threat of identity

theft and fraud due to lax security practices that leave the door
open to cyber criminals. Based on recent press reports, literally hundreds of millions of debit
reality is

and credit card accounts have been compromised at major retail locations. It is important to remember
that behind each of these compromised accounts are everyday Americans who now have to deal with the
raw and frightening consequences of having their virtual identity stolen. In 2014 alone, criminals stole $16
billion from more than 12.7 million fraud victims and, not surprisingly, two-thirds of those victims can be
traced to data breaches. The stakes are high. And consumers are paying the price. In some sectors,
where the nature and sensitivity of consumer data has always been obvious, such as banking and health

Congress long ago aligned consumer expectations with federal

requirements to keep customer information safe. The reality of
todays interconnected, data-driven world means other less-obvious
sectors like retail handle and store much of the same sensitive data.
As is often the case, technology and innovation have far outpaced
the existing body of laws and regulations designed to keep
consumers safe. Expectations that sensitive personal and financial data is being kept safe are not
being met, and Congress needs to act. Despite the alarming rise in the number and
sophistication of cyber threats and merchant data breaches, no federal standard for
protecting consumer data at retailers and other firms that handle
sensitive financial information exists. Sens. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Tom Carper (D-Del.)
care,

and Reps. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) and John Carney (D-Del.) have stepped in to help. With
approximately 200 million electronic payment transactions daily 2,300 transactions per second Blunt,
Carper, Neugebauer and Carney want to ensure a customers sensitive personal and financial information
are secure at every point in the payment process. That is why they have introduced S. 961/H.R. 2205, the
Data Security Act of 2015 bills that provide a reasonable, flexible and scalable solution to better protect
consumers and their hard-earned money. These bills recognize todays savvy cyber criminals are seeking
out the weakest link in the payment system. Businesses of any shape and size are susceptible to breaches
that can result in drained accounts, racked up credit card bills, and stolen identities. Thats why these
measures are modeled after existing law that provides a successful framework used by the financial
sector, a diverse industry in which one-size-fits-all regulations rarely work. Rather, the standards can be
tailored to avoid unnecessary burdens on small businesses and take into consideration the size, scope, and
type of financial information businesses hold. When it comes to ensuring consumer expectations of data
security are met, bank-like should be the baseline standard by which other industries are measured.
Securing consumer information should be a priority for every industry. Blunt, Carper, Neugebauer and

Carney have adeptly crafted bills that would ensure all parties in the custody of sensitive consumer
information take reasonable precautions to protect this information before a breach occurs. Its time to do
whats best for consumers. We urge everyone involved in the payment system and entrusted with
consumers financial information to rally behind effective legislation to better protect consumers and
strongly support the Data Security Act of 2015.

ADV Backdoors

Uniqueness

Cyber War Coming

A cyberwar is coming. It is not an issue of if but when the
war begins
Kelly 13 [Samantha Murphy, Deputy Tech Editor for Mashable, Experts Say
Looming Cyber Warfare Attacks Could Be 'Catastrophic', Mashable,
http://mashable.com/2013/01/30/cyber-warfare/ //NA]
Security experts urged businesses and government officials to
prepare for the worst as looming cyber warfare concerns continue to
bubble up and could even result in the loss of human lives in the
future. People gathered on Wednesday at the 2013 Kaspersky Cyber-Security Summit in New York City
to discuss the future of cyber warfare and how preventative measures must be taken to cut down on

"It's not the question of if a major cyber warfare attack will

happen it's an issue of when and how bad it will be," Eugene
Kaspersky, founder and CEO of Kaspersky Lab, told attendees.
"Some enterprises are facing thousands of attacks a day, while
others wonder if they are going to be hacked or not. This will occur across all
industries and infrastructures, and we have to think and accept that as a reality.
We live in a dangerous world."
impact.

Decryption => Crypto-Arms Race

Americas use of Bullrun legitimizes it for the
international community causes a crypto-arms race with
Russia & China
Castillo 15
Andrea, program manager for the Technology Policy Program at the Mercatus Center at George Mason
University, Giving Government 'Backdoor' Access to Encrypted Data Threatens Personal Privacy and
National Security,6/16/15 http://reason.com/archives/2015/06/16/crypto-wars-weaken-encryption-security
SJE

Export controls on encryption were easier to enforce before the advent of

personal computing, when only institutional (and usually government-connected) organizations
operating huge supercomputers would be effected by such bansalthough academics did not exactly hide
their discontent at the inconvenience dealt to their research projects. The rise of the home computer

The export ban on encryption imposed

arbitrary boundaries on a network that is borderless by definition.
dramatically changed the calculus.

Enter the cypherpunks: a ragtag, homebrew crew of anti-authoritarian hackers hell-bent on subverting
spooks and protecting privacy on the Net. These luminaries developed the tools and rhetoric to make bad
laws irrelevant by making them unenforceable. For example, Phil Zimmermans Pretty Good Privacy (PGP)
program, a mainstay of modern email delivery, which Zimmerman posted to Usenet in 1991. After a threeyear criminal investigation, the U.S. Attorney's Office decided not to prosecute Zimmerman for sharing the
encryption protocol. Throughout the '90s, federal officials continued to ease strict export restrictions, and

Snowden's 2013 revelations, however,

made it clear that the so-called "Crypto Wars" were actually far from
settled. Snowden revealed that the NSA worked with foreign spooks
to compromise encryption by controlling international standards for their own purposes and
even out-and-out colluded with technology firms through the "BULLRUN" program.
Only after these outrageous methods were exposed to the world did
the forces of surveillance bother attempting to legitimize these
practices through less illegal public meansalbeit with the rhetorical gall of concealing obvious
spying ambitions in the more reasonable garb of genuine law enforcement
concerns. Proposed new encryption-weakening schemes tend to take one of two major forms. First,
the future of encryption seemed secure. Edward

messaging service providers such as WhatsApp that allow users to communicate though end-to-end
encryption, which conceals data content even from the service provider itself, could be compelled to issue
a dummy key to users while sneaking a real key to the NSA for intercepting or changing the content.
Alternatively, the government could mandate a "key escrow" arrangement, creating a master key for
officials capable of unlocking any of the encrypted data. Functionally, compelling backdoors to be baked
into encryption standards that governments can use to access private data at any time is no different than
surreptitiously breaking encryption behind the scenes. If mandated through law, such schemes would
present blatant constitutional threats. For now, agency heads opt for a softer touch, ham-handedly sweettalking Silicon Valley into doing their dark bidding "voluntarily." We may be superficially saved from the
more dramatic end of this spectrum of measures by officials own technical illiteracy: computer science
experts doubt that such hijinx are even technically feasible to the seamless degree that officials imagine.
And even if these proposals do "work," they would be likely to introduce more unforeseen vulnerabilities

foreign countries such as China and Russia

are unlikely to simply comply with America's dramatic decryption
measures without pursuing these very same policies themselves
into the fabric of the Internet. Besides,

(something Obama, of course, opposes).

Links Backdoors

Decryption Backdoors
Backdoors that aim to subvert encryption systems are
easily exploitable by other actors this is empirically
proven. Legal restrictions are critical to restore strong
encryption systems (1ac)
Bruce Schneier 14 the Chief Technology Officer of Resilient Systems, a
fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center, and a board member of EFF. Stop the
Hysteria over Apple Encryption, 10/3/14
https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2014/10/stop_the_hysteria_ov.html

Last week Apple announced that it is closing a serious security vulnerability in the iPhone. It used to be
that the phone's encryption only protected a small amount of the data, and Apple had the ability to bypass
security on the rest of it. From now on, all the phone's data is protected. It can no longer be accessed by
criminals, governments, or rogue employees. Access to it can no longer be demanded by totalitarian
governments. A user's iPhone data is now more secure . To hear U.S. law enforcement respond, you'd think
Apple's move heralded an unstoppable crime wave. See, the FBI had been using that vulnerability to get
into peoples' iPhones. In the words of cyberlaw professor Orin Kerr, "How is the public interest served by a
policy that only thwarts lawful search warrants?" Ah, but that's the thing :

You can't build a

"back door" that only the good guys can walk through. Encryption
protects against cybercriminals, industrial competitors, the Chinese
secret police and the FBI. You're either vulnerable to eavesdropping
by any of them, or you're secure from eavesdropping from all of
them. Back-door access built for the good guys is routinely used by
the bad guys. In 2005, some unknown group surreptitiously used the
lawful-intercept capabilities built into the Greek cell phone system.
The same thing happened in Italy in 2006. In 2010, Chinese hackers
subverted an intercept system Google had put into Gmail to comply
with U.S. government surveillance requests. Back doors in our cell
phone system are currently being exploited by the FBI and unknown
others. This doesn't stop the FBI and Justice Department from pumping up the fear. Attorney General
Eric Holder threatened us with kidnappers and sexual predators . The former head of the FBI's criminal
investigative division went even further, conjuring up kidnappers who are also sexual predators. And, of
course, terrorists. FBI Director James Comey claimed that Apple's move allows people to "place themselves
beyond the law" and also invoked that now overworked "child kidnapper." John J. Escalante, chief of
detectives for the Chicago police department now holds the title of most hysterical: "Apple will become the
phone of choice for the pedophile." It's all bluster. Of the 3,576 major offenses for which warrants were
granted for communications interception in 2013, exactly one involved kidnapping. And, more importantly,

there's no evidence that encryption hampers criminal investigations

in any serious way.

In 2013, encryption foiled the police nine times, up from four in 2012and

the investigations proceeded in some other way. This is why the FBI's scare stories tend to wither after
public scrutiny. A former FBI assistant director wrote about a kidnapped man who would never have been
found without the ability of the FBI to decrypt an iPhone, only to retract the point hours later because it
wasn't true. We've seen this game before. During the crypto wars of the 1990s, FBI Director Louis Freeh
and others would repeatedly use the example of mobster John Gotti to illustrate why the ability to tap
telephones was so vital. But the Gotti evidence was collected using a room bug, not a telephone tap. And
those same scary criminal tropes were trotted out then, too. Back then we called them the Four Horsemen
of the Infocalypse : pedophiles, kidnappers, drug dealers, and terrorists. Nothing has changed. Strong
encryption has been around for years. Both Apple's FileVault and Microsoft's BitLocker encrypt the data on
computer hard drives. PGP encrypts email. Off-the-Record encrypts chat sessions. HTTPS Everywhere
encrypts your browsing. Android phones already come with encryption built-in. There are literally
thousands of encryption products without back doors for sale, and some have been around for decades.
Even if the U.S. bans the stuff, foreign companies will corner the market because many of us have
legitimate needs for security. Law enforcement has been complaining about "going dark" for decades now.
In the 1990s, they convinced Congress to pass a law requiring phone companies to ensure that phone calls
would remain tappable even as they became digital. They tried and failed to ban strong encryption and
mandate back doors for their use. The FBI tried and failed again to ban strong encryption in 2010. Now, in

Strong encryption
protects us from a panoply of threats. It protects us from hackers
and criminals. It protects our businesses from competitors and
foreign spies. It protects people in totalitarian governments from
arrest and detention. This isn't just me talking: The FBI also recommends you encrypt your
data for security. As for law enforcement? The recent decades have given
them an unprecedented ability to put us under surveillance and
access our data. Our cell phones provide them with a detailed history of our movements. Our call
the post-Snowden era, they're about to try again. We need to fight this.

records, email history, buddy lists, and Facebook pages tell them who we associate with. The hundreds of
companies that track us on the Internet tell them what we're thinking about. Ubiquitous cameras capture
our faces everywhere. And most of us back up our iPhone data on iCloud, which the FBI can still get a
warrant for.

It truly is the golden age of surveillance.

After considering the issue,

Orin Kerr rethought his position, looking at this in terms of a technological-legal trade-off. I think he's right.

Given everything that has made it easier for governments and

others to intrude on our private lives, we need both technological
security and legal restrictions to restore the traditional balance
between government access and our security/privacy . More companies
should follow Apple's lead and make encryption the easy-to-use default. And let's wait for some actual
evidence of harm before we acquiesce to police demands for reduced security.

NSA-build backdoors are the problem from hell they

make all data insecure and exploitable by external parties
Simonite 14 [Tom: MIT Technology Reviews San Francisco bureau chief
and enjoy a diverse diet of algorithms, Internet, and human-computer
interaction with chips on the side. I lead our coverage of new ideas from
Silicon Valley, whether they spring from tech giants, new startups, or
academic labs. SURVEILLANCE COSTS: THE NSAS IMPACT ON THE
ECONOMY, INTERNET FREEDOM, AND CYBERSECURITY July 28, 2014
https://www.newamerica.org/oti/surveillance-costs-the-nsas-impact-on-theeconomy-internet-freedom-and-cybersecurity/]
In 2011, General Michael Hayden, who had earlier been director of
both the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence
Agency, described the idea of computer hardware with hidden
backdoors planted by an enemy as the problem from hell. This
month, news reports based on leaked documents said that the NSA itself has used that
tactic, working with U.S. companies to insert secret backdoors into
chips and other hardware to aid its surveillance efforts. That revelation
particularly concerned security experts because Haydens assessment is widely held
to be true . Compromised hardware is difficult, and often impossible,
to detect. Hardware can do things such as access data in ways
invisible to the software on a computer, even security software. The
possibility that computer hardware in use around the world might be
littered with NSA backdoors raises the prospect that other nations
agencies are doing the same thing, or that groups other than the NSA
might find and exploit the NSAs backdoors . Critics of the NSA say
the untraceable nature of hardware flaws, and the potential for
building them into many systems, also increases the risk that
intelligence agencies that place them will be tempted to exceed

legal restrictions on surveillance. Hardware is like a public good

because everybody has to rely on it, says Simha Sethumadhavan, an associate
professor at Columbia University who researches ways to detect backdoors in computer chips. If
hardware is compromised in some way, you lose security in a very
fundamental way. Despite a few allegations against various governments, there are no publicly
confirmed cases of backdoors in computer hardware being deployed. However, in recent years

security researchers have repeatedly demonstrated the power and

stealth of compromised hardware, mostly by embedding backdoors
into the firmware of PC components. One presentation at the Black Hat security

conference last year showed off a way to backdoor a new PC so that even switching the hard drive wont
close the door (see A

Computer Infection That Can Never Be Cured ). U.S.

officials and policy makers have also spoken strongly about the
possibility that such tactics might be in use by China, citing that
governments attitude toward the U.S. and the fact that a large
proportion of all computer hardware is manufactured in the country
(see Why the U.S. Is So Afraid of Huawei ). However, until the recent reports, including a
major piece in the New York Times earlier this month, there had never been specific public claims that a
government was inserting secret vulnerabilities into computer hardware. The Times report says, however,

the NSA inserted backdoors into some encryption chips that

businesses and governments use to secure their data, and that the
agency worked with an unnamed U.S. manufacturer to add
backdoors to computer hardware about to be shipped to an overseas
target. There has always been a lot of speculation and hinting
about hardware being backdoored, says Steve Weis, CTO and cofounder of
PrivateCore, a startup whose software for cloud servers can offer protection against some kinds of
malicious hardware. This builds the case for that being right. Weis believes that many
companies in the U.S. and elsewhere will now think again about
where their hardware comes from, and who has access to it. But
scoping out potential problems is not straightforward for many
companies, which now put data, software, and hardware in thirdparty locations to be run by cloud-hosting providers. PrivateCores
software for servers powering cloud services offers some protection
against malicious hardware by encrypting data in a systems RAM, or
short-term memory. Data there is not usually encrypted, making
RAM a good place for bad hardware attached to a system to covertly
copy data and send it back to an attacker. Weis says that in internal tests his
that

technology defeated hardware attached to a server that attempted to copy data and send it out over the
Internet, and that these results have been validated by rigorous tests commissioned from an outside
security firm. However, the protection has its limits. The one component we trust is an Intel processor,

Compromised chips are the most

covert of backdoors, says Columbias Sethumadhavan. There is essentially no
way for the buyer of a completed chip to check that it doesnt have a
backdoor, he says, and there are a multitude of ways that a design can
be compromised. Making a chip is a global process with hundreds
of steps and many different companies involved, says Sethumadhavan. Each
says Weis. We cant really get around that today.

and every step in the process can be compromised. Chipmakers usually buy third-party IP blocks to
integrate into a final design. Slipping extra circuits into one of those outside designs would be the easiest
way to backdoor a chip, says Sethumadhavan, because tools dont exist to screen for them. Right now
theres relatively little security validation thats going on, he says. You

pretty much trust

the IP vendor youre working with. He estimates that tweaking a design block to
include a backdoor would cost in the vicinity of only tens of thousands of dollars. The Columbia group is
currently working with a commercial fab company to test software it designed that can scan designs for
possible backdoors. They are trying out the tool on their line, Sethumadhavan explains. Called FANCI, the
tool analyzes a chip design, simulates how its circuits would operate, and looks for connections or circuits

that almost never become active. Such circuits are suspected of being part of a backdoor, because chip
designers avoid wasting space or circuitry in designs since manufacturing chips is expensive. The tool
shows that even the trickiest of hardware backdoors can be hunted for, says Sethumadhavan; despite that,
organizations determined to spread backdoors continue to have many opportunities to do so. The most
advanced research on detecting backdoors is likely being conducted by the NSA itself, inasmuch as the
agency is also tasked with defending U.S. government systems. But nothing has been publicly said, or
leaked, about how much progress the NSA is making. A statement from defense research agency DARPA
late last year, in which it announced a new program to develop ways to detect backdoors, suggests
the problem remains hellish even for the Department of Defense. DoD relies on millions of devices to
bring network access and functionality to its users, said Tim Fraser, DARPA program manager. Rigorously
vetting software and firmware in each and every one of them is beyond our present capabilities, and the
perception that this problem is simply unapproachable is widespread.

The NSAs decryption program is exploitable by hackers

and hostile states
Ranger 2/23/15 [Steve Ranger: UK editor of TechRepublic, and has been

writing about the impact of technology on people, business and culture for
more than a decade., The undercover war on your internet secrets: How
online surveillance cracked our trust in the web,
http://www.techrepublic.com/article/the-undercover-war-on-your-internetsecrets-how-online-surveillance-cracked-our-trust-in-the-web/
Of course, it's often argued that all of this activity is simply the NSA
and GCHQ doing their job: they break codes and have done so for decades, to make sure that
criminals, terrorists, and others cannot plot in secret. If this means exploiting
weaknesses in software in order to eavesdrop on those who are
plotting crime, then so be it. As GCHQ told a government enquiry set up after the Snowden
revelations: "Our goal is to be able to read or find the communications of intelligence targets." From that
perspective, they're doing nothing more than the code-breakers of Bletchley Park did back in WWII
cracking codes in secret to fight the country's enemies. But many argue that the analogy doesn't hold:
Bletchley worked on cracking codes used by, and only by, the Nazis. What the NSA and GCHQ have been
doing is breaking the codes used by everyone, good and bad, both outside of the US and inside it. By doing
so,

they risk undermining the security of all communications and

transactions. Those weaknesses and backdoors created or
discovered by the NSA and its colleagues elsewhere can be used by
hackers and hostile states as easily as they can by our own
intelligence agencies. Access for them to spy on the few
automatically means insecurity for the rest of us. As Snowden told the recent
CeBIT conference in Germany: "When we talk about security and surveillance,
there is no golden key that allows only good guys to read the
communications of only terrorists." Some privacy advocates also argue that no

government should ever have such a capability to trawl through the lives of individuals. "It produces an
inescapable prison. We can't let this happen. We have to, as a matter of civic hygiene, prevent it from
happening," Phil Zimmermann, the creator of the PGP encryption algorithm, said recently. And if the
Snowden revelations themselves were an embarrassment for the intelligence agencies, the consequences

One document revealed

that the NSA had been systematically scooping up unencrypted
traffic travelling between the distributed datacentres of internet
companies, giving them access to vast amount of customers' email,
video chats, browsing history, and more. In response the big internet companies
for their intelligence gathering capabilities have been far worse.

such as Yahoo and Google rapidly starting encrypting this traffic to shut out the watchers. As one
cryptography expert, Matthew Green from Johns Hopkins University, noted at the time: "Good job NSA. You

Encryption has only really become a

big issue again because Snowden showed the world how insecure
the infrastructure was and how it was being abused by intelligence agencies and so
turned Yahoo into an encryption powerhouse."

companies started reacting," said Gus Hosein, the executive director of campaigning group Privacy
International. Perhaps surprisingly, given the decade-long assault on encryption, it seems the
fundamentals of it remain strong, so long as it has been well implemented. As Snowden said: "Encryption

works. Properly implemented, strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on," before
adding the caveat: "Unfortunately, endpoint security is so terrifically weak that NSA can frequently find
ways around it." Encrypting data links between datacentres was only the beginning. As the revelations
continued to tumble out, more companies decided it was time to increase the privacy of their services,
which meant even more encryption.

The NSA infiltrates networks by subverting security

software through reverse engineering
Fishman & Marquis-Boire 6/22/15 (Andrew & Morgan, Journalism

and Researcher for The Intercept & Senior Researcher and Technical Advisor
at the Citizen Lab at the University of Torontos Munk School of Global Affairs,
POPULAR SECURITY SOFTWARE CAME UNDER RELENTLESS NSA AND GCHQ
ATTACKS, The Intercept, https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/22/nsagchq-targeted-kaspersky/, ST)
The National Security Agency and its British counterpart,
Government Communications Headquarters, have worked to subvert
anti-virus and other security software in order to track users and
infiltrate networks, according to documents from NSA whistleblower
Edward Snowden. The spy agencies have reverse engineered
software products, sometimes under questionable legal authority,
and monitored web and email traffic in order to discreetly thwart
anti-virus software and obtain intelligence from companies about
security software and users of such software. One security software
maker repeatedly singled out in the documents is Moscow-based
Kaspersky Lab, which has a holding registered in the U.K., claims
more than 270,000 corporate clients, and says it protects more than
400 million people with its products. British spies aimed to thwart
Kaspersky software in part through a technique known as software
reverse engineering, or SRE, according to a top-secret warrant
renewal request. The NSA has also studied Kaspersky Labs software
for weaknesses, obtaining sensitive customer information by
monitoring communications between the software and Kaspersky
servers, according to a draft top-secret report. The U.S. spy agency
also appears to have examined emails inbound to security software
companies flagging new viruses and vulnerabilities. The efforts to
compromise security software were of particular importance
because such software is relied upon to defend against an array of
digital threats and is typically more trusted by the operating system
than other applications, running with elevated privileges that allow
more vectors for surveillance and attack. Spy agencies seem to be
engaged in a digital game of cat and mouse with anti-virus software
companies; the U.S. and U.K. have aggressively probed for
weaknesses in software deployed by the companies, which have
themselves exposed sophisticated state-sponsored malware. Anti-virus
software is an ideal target for a would-be attacker, according to Joxean Koret, a researcher with Coseinc, a
Singapore-based information security consultancy .

If you write an exploit for an antivirus product youre likely going to get the highest privileges (root,
system or even kernel) with just one shot, Koret told The Intercept
in an email. Anti-virus products, with only a few exceptions, are
years behind security-conscious client-side applications like
browsers or document readers. It means that Acrobat Reader,

Microsoft Word or Google Chrome are harder to exploit than 90

percent of the anti-virus products out there. According to a top-secret
GCHQ warrant renewal request written in 2008 and published today by The
Intercept, the British spy agency viewed Kaspersky software as an obstruction
to its hacking operations and needed to reverse engineer it to find ways to
neutralize the problem. Doing so required obtaining a warrant. Personal
security products such as the Russian anti-virus software Kaspersky continue
to pose a challenge to GCHQs CNE [Computer Network Exploitation]
capability and SRE is essential in order to be able to exploit such software
and to prevent detection of our activities, the warrant renewal request said. Examination of
Kaspersky and other such products continues. The warrant renewal request also states that GCHQ reverse
engineers anti-virus programs to assess their fitness for use by government agencies. The requested
warrant, provided under Section 5 of the U.K.s 1994 Intelligence Services Act, must be renewed by a
government minister every six months. The document published today is a renewal request for a warrant
valid from July 7, 2008 until January 7, 2009. The request seeks authorization for GCHQ activities that
involve modifying commercially available software to enable interception, decryption and other related
tasks, or reverse engineering software. Software reverse engineering, or reversing, is a collection of
techniques for deciphering and analyzing how a program operates. The process can be as simple as
observing the flow of data into and out of the program, or as complex as analyzing the machine code 1s
and 0s to look into the softwares inner workings, including portions of the code that are not explained in
the manual or other program documentation. Put simply, it often means taking thousands of commands
that instruct the computer exactly what to do and working backwards to translate them into a format
thats more intelligible to a human being. Reversing is a common, often benign practice among software
developers that can be used to enable software from different companies to interoperate or to identify
security vulnerabilities before they can be exploited by third parties. Software makers, fearing piracy,
hacking and intellectual property theft, often forbid the practice in licensing agreements and sometimes
protect the most sensitive inner workings of their software with encryption. Governments have passed
laws, with digital media in mind, that strictly circumscribe tampering with this encryption. Software
companies have also sued to block reverse engineering as copyright infringement, arguing that it is illegal
to make a copy of a program in violation of their restrictions on such copying. GCHQ felt it needed legal
cover to conduct reverse engineering, writing in the warrant renewal application that the practice could
otherwise be unlawful and amount to a copyright infringement or breach of contract. As we explore in
a related story today, the warrant is legally questionable on several grounds, in that it applies ISA section 5
to intellectual property for the first time, and GCHQ may be applying ISA section 5 to certain categories of
domestic policing. It is unclear what GCHQ accomplished in its analysis of Kaspersky software, but GCHQ
has repeatedly reverse engineered software to discover vulnerabilities. Rather than report the
vulnerabilities to the companies, spy agencies have quietly stockpiled numerous exploits for a wide range

The NSA, like GCHQ,

has studied Kaspersky Labs software for weaknesses. In 2008, an
NSA research team discovered that Kaspersky software was
transmitting sensitive user information back to the companys
servers, which could easily be intercepted and employed to track
users, according to a draft of a top-secret report. The information was
of commercial hardware and software, using them to hack adversaries.

embedded in User-Agent strings included in the headers of Hypertext Transfer Protocol, or HTTP,
requests. Such headers are typically sent at the beginning of a web request to identify the type of software
and computer issuing the request.

Bullrun intentionally inserts vulnerabilities into

international software companies these create
exploitable loopholes in corporations, governments, etc.
Paganini 13 [Pierluigi: Chief Information Security Officer at Bit4Id, firm
leader in identity management, member of the ENISA (European Union
Agency for Network and Information Security), cyber security expert with
over 20 years experience in the field, he is Certified Ethical Hacker at EC
Council in London, NSA Bullrun program, encryption and false perception of
security, Security Affairs, September 7, 2013,

http://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/17577/intelligence/nsa-bullrun-programfalse-perception-security.html // emb].
The most disturbing revelation involves the NSAs efforts to deliberately weaken
international encryption standards developers use to make their
encryption secure, according to a classified NSA memo obtained by NYT the fatal
weakness discovered by two Microsoft cryptographers in 2007 in a
2006 standard was intentionally engineered by the NSA. Basically,
the NSA asks companies to subtly change their products in
undetectable ways: making the random number generator less
random, leaking the key somehow, adding a common exponent to a
public-key exchange protocol, and so on,If the backdoor is discovered,
its explained away as a mistake. And as we now know, the NSA has
enjoyed enormous success from this program. said cryptographer Bruce
Schneier. Some of the methods involved the deployment of custombuilt, supercomputers to break codes in addition to collaborating
with technology companies at home and abroad to include
backdoors in their products. The Snowden documents dont identify the companies that
participated. The Bullrun program, according to the documents, actively engages
the U.S. and foreign IT industries to covertly influence and/or
overtly leverage their commercial products designs to make them
exploitable. By this year, the Times reports, the program had found ways
inside some of the encryption chips that scramble information for
businesses and governments, either by working with chipmakers to
insert back doors or by surreptitiously exploiting existing security
flaws. We are therefore assuming that the U.S. Government has deliberately
prompted to enter bugs in software solutions sold worldwide, the
knowledge of those flaws could then have been sold in the black
market of zero-day vulnerabilities about which so much has been
discussed. At that point, probably the same U.S. Intelligence would
offer big bucks to buy back the zero-day to cover traces of the
shocking activities.

Creating backdoors only furthers the risk of a hack by a

third party
Timm 6/9/15 Trevor, Guardian US columnist and executive director of the
Freedom of the Press Foundation, a non-profit that supports and defends
journalism dedicated to transparency and accountability,If the FBI has a
backdoor to Facebook or Apple encryption, we are less safe, The Guardian,
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/09/fbi-facebookbackdoor-apple-encryption-less-safe-privacy //NA
Fresh off news of yet another massive government data breach, the
FBI is yet again trying to scare Americans into believing encryption
is dangerous rather than what it actually is: one of the best ways to
better protect our private information from criminal hackers. Last
week, FBI official Michael B. Steinbach ignorantly told Congress that
tech companies like Apple and Google should prevent encryption
above all else since terrorists are using encrypted communications
tools. (So are hundreds of millions of ordinary citizens.) Then on Monday, US officials

relayed breathless assertions to the Los Angeles Times, claiming

members of ISIS were now using encrypted text messaging apps to
communicate, insinuating theres an even more urgent imperative to make them illegal.
Privacy, above all other things, including safety and freedom from
terrorism, is not where we want to go, Steinbach said last week.
What the FBI doesnt seem to get or more likely, what its officials are purposefully
ignoring is that encryption isnt primarily about privacy. Its about
security. Encryption is something we should be encouraging all citizens, companies and our own
government to be using to mitigate against everything from criminals stealing your iPhone to the many
massive data breaches conducted by faceless foreign criminal operations that have made national
headlines in the past year. The government knows this even if not admitting it; a classified document in

Yet the agency is in the

midst of a push to force tech companies to install backdoors in
encryption, the fastest way to weaken Americas cybersecurity . FBI
the Snowden archive details how encryption is vital to security.

director Jim Comey first started making the push last year, and it has been widely ridiculed by technical
experts, but the chorus inside government seems to have only gotten louder even as officials claim
cyberattacks are the number one threat the nation faces.

stop using end-to-end encryption

The idea that terrorists will

where a message is unintelligible from when it

is
preposterous. As Johns Hopkins cryptography professor Matthew
Green tweeted, You could strangle the whole U.S. tech industry,
and ISIS would *still* be able to communicate with their followers
using encryption. There are plenty of open-source encryption programs that have been around
for 20 years and are too prevalent to rein in, plus the code itself is protected by the First Amendment.
Forcing big companies to backdoor their products will just hurt the
millions of ordinary people worldwide who depend on encryption for
protection from snoopers, criminals and foreign governments. That
leaves the sender until it reaches its recipient if the US bans companies from using it

includes tech companies Chinese users, who can use encryption to protect themselves from their own
authoritarian government. Just weeks after the FBI unveiled its anti-encryption plans last year, China
announced it too wants to pass a counter-terrorism law that would force companies like Apple and
Google to hand over encryption keys. Without a hint of irony, the Obama administration condemned the
move. Heres how Reuters reported it in March: In an interview with Reuters, Obama said he was
concerned about Beijings plans for a far-reaching counterterrorism law that would require technology firms
to hand over encryption keys, the passcodes that help protect data, and install security backdoors in
their systems to give Chinese authorities surveillance access. This is something that Ive raised directly
with President Xi, Obama said. We have made it very clear to them that this is something they are going
to have to change if they are to do business with the United States. Read that opening paragraph again
and try to explain how its any different than what the US is proposing. Yes, China will almost certainly use
its counter-terrorism powers for all sorts of things beyond terrorism. But wed be kidding ourselves if we
didnt think the US will use its own backdoor powers to do the exact same thing, as theyve done over

The FBI is going to have to decide

which is more important: strong cybersecurity, or the ability to read
every message thats sent all of the time. Because attempting to
force backdoors into encryption compromises the safety of its own
citizens and gives authoritarian powers like China and Russia an
excuse to force Apple and Google and whomever to hand them the
keys to the encrypted communications too. Apple CEO Tim Cook has commendably
and over again with the Patriot Act in the last decade.

been speaking out in public on this issue, forcefully defending the use of encryption on iPhones as

Its time for the other tech company CEOs to step

up and ask the FBI why its saying cyberattacks are the greatest
threat we face on one hand, and then saying they want to make us
all even more vulnerable to attacks on the other.
essential in the 21st Century.

Third party hackers hack into back doors- Empirics prove

IEEE 14

IEEE-USA Committee on Communications Policy (CCP), Institute of Electrical

and Electronics Engineers, Terry Davis, MicroSystems Automation Group, Jon
M. Peha, Carnegie Mellon University, Eric Burger, Georgetown University, L.
Jean Camp, Indiana University Bloomington - School of Informatics and
Computing, Dan Lubar, RelayServices, Risking it All: Unlocking the Backdoor
to the Nation's Cybersecurity, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
abstract_id=2468604 //NA
Government policies can affect greatly the security of commercial
products, either positively or negatively. There are a number of
methods by which a government might affect security negatively as a means of facilitating legal
government surveillance. One inexpensive method is to exploit pre-existing
weaknesses that are already present in commercial software, while
keeping these weaknesses a secret. Another method is to motivate
the designer of a computer or communications system to make those
systems easier for government agencies to access. Motivation may
come from direct mandate or financial incentives. There are many ways that a
designer can facilitate government access once so motivated. For example, the system
may be equipped with a backdoor. The company that creates it
and, presumably, the government agency that requests it would
know the backdoor, but not the products (or services) purchaser(s). The hope is that the
government agency will use this feature when it is given authority to do so, but no one else will. However,

creating a backdoor introduces the risk that other parties will find
the vulnerability, especially when capable adversaries, who are
actively seeking security vulnerabilities, know how to leverage such
weaknesses. History illustrates that secret backdoors do not remain
secret and that the more widespread a backdoor, the more
dangerous its existence. The 1988 Morris worm, the first widespread
Internet attack, used a number of backdoors to infect systems and
spread widely. The backdoors in that case were a set of secrets then
known only by a small, highly technical community . A single, putatively
innocent error resulted in a large-scale attack that disabled many systems. In recent years,
Barracuda had a completely undocumented backdoor that allowed
high levels of access from the Internet addresses assigned to
Barracuda. However, when it was publicized, as almost inevitably happens, it became extremely
unsafe, and Barracudas customers rejected it. One example of how attackers can
subvert backdoors placed into systems for benign reasons occurred
in the network of the largest commercial cellular operator in Greece.
Switches deployed in the system came equipped with built-in
wiretapping features, intended only for authorized law enforcement
agencies. Some unknown attacker was able to install software, and
made use of these embedded wiretapping features to surreptitiously
and illegally eavesdrop on calls from many cell phones including
phones belonging to the Prime Minister of Greece, a hundred high-ranking
Greek dignitaries, and an employee of the U.S. Embassy in Greece before the security breach finally was

In essence, a backdoor created to fight crime was used to

commit crime.
discovered.

 Cyber Attacks
Bullrun makes the US vulnerable to cyberattacks builds
in backdoors that could be exploited by hackers
Harris & Gross 14
Shane Harris, winner of the 2010 Gerald R. Ford Prize for Distinguished Reporting on National Defense, and
Terry Gross, host and co-executive producer of NPRs Fresh Air, An In-Depth Look At The U.S. Cyber War,
The Military Alliance And Its Pitfalls, NPR, 11/17/14, http://www.npr.org/2014/11/17/364718523/an-indepth-look-at-the-u-s-cyber-war-the-military-alliance-and-its-pitfalls SJE
GROSS: So getting back to the military Internet complex, this seemingly cooperative relationship between

the NSA has helped

companies find weaknesses in their products that leave them
vulnerable to cyberattacks. But at the same time, the NSA has sometimes paid
companies not to fix some of those vulnerabilities. What's that about? HARRIS: This
private industry and the intelligence agency, you write that

really gets to the heart of - there are two conflicting missions within the NSA. On the one hand, the NSA's
mission is to protect information and protect computer networks so that the data - and in many cases the
government secrets inside official networks - can't be stolen. On the other hand, the NSA is a spying
agency. Its job is to go out and try and break into computer systems in other countries and steal

The technology that the NSA is spying on is

largely commercial technology. So, you know, we use Microsoft in this country for our operating
systems in millions of computers. People use it in other countries as well. There's
information about our adversaries.

telecommunications equipment that's sold in this country that's also used in foreign countries that we're

the NSA wants to know how

finds ways into that technology that are not widely known
that sort of are hidden flaws and vulnerabilities that it could take
advantage of to spy on it, it doesn't necessarily want that information to
be put out there because if that hole were patched, the NSA couldn't
get into it. So there's this conflicting mission of on the one hand, the NSA trying to ramp up
trying to spy on. So this sort of off-the-shelf technology is something that
to be able to manipulate and get into. If it

cybersecurity and defend information, on the other hand, trying to keep computer systems around the
world just weak enough, at least maybe in the places that they know about, so that they can manipulate
them and perhaps have, you know, exclusive or kind of privileged access to them when they want them.
Those two missions are very much at conflict with each other. GROSS: Yeah, and in addition to the NSA
preserving some of those vulnerabilities so it can get access to information,

there are other possible

consequences of leaving those vulnerabilities. What are those consequences?

HARRIS: Well, one is that the NSA won't be the only one that finds out about the vulnerability. So there was
a case number of years ago that I think illustrates this point pretty compellingly. There was a standard that
was being developed for encryption technology in the United States. And encryption is just the - it's a way
of scrambling data so that if I send you an email and we're sending it to each other encrypted, only you

The NSA got

involved with the writing of an encryption standard that eventually was
widely used in a commercial product. And it inserted weaknesses
into that recipe, if you like, that only it knew about - or that only the NSA thought that they knew
about. That encryption was then pushed out with this - kind of this
weakness in it. Pretty soon after it went on the market, smart
technologists started looking at this algorithm and saying there's
something wrong with this. There are flaws here that don't make any sense. And it wasn't widely
known outside that community, but a smart hacker in another country could
and I can unscramble it because we have the keys to decipher the encryption.

catch on to that and see that the algorithm had a weakness and
also exploit that as well.

So

NSA weakening this encryption algorithm

ostensibly to make sure that it had the ability to decipher messages of what it would say are the bad guys if it ever needed to do that because the bad guys could be using this encryption just the same way you

ended up weakening it in a way that those bad - those other bad

guys could've found out about it. I think that's a good example of how , by
and I might -

weakening something in the name of security, the NSA is also

undermining the very security of that technology and putting all of
us at greater risk.

NSA decryption has severely hampered national security,

which renders the US vulnerable to cyber attack (1AC)
Bamford, De Chant 15 [James: documentary producer for PBS and the
author of The Puzzle Palace, Body of Secrets, A Pretext for War, and The
Shadow Factory; Tim De Chant: senior digital editor at NOVA and editor of
NOVA Next, Exclusive: Edward Snowden on Cyber Warfare, PBS, Exclusive:
Edward Snowden on Cyber Warfare, January 8, 2015
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/military/snowden-transcript/ ]
Snowden: The community of technical experts who really manage the
internet, who built the internet and maintain it, are becoming
increasingly concerned about the activities of agencies like the NSA or Cyber Command,
because what we see is that defense is becoming less of a priority than
offense. There are programs weve read about in the press over the
last year, such as the NSA paying RSA $10 million to use an insecure
encryption standard by default in their products. Thats making us
more vulnerable not just to the snooping of our domestic agencies,
but also foreign agencies. We saw another program called Bullrun which subverted the
which subvertsit

continues to subvert similar encryption standards that

are used for the majority of e-commerce all over the world. You
cant go to your bank and trust that communication if those
standards have been weakened, if those standards are vulnerable.
And this is resulting in a paradigm where these agencies wield tremendous power over
the internet at the price of making the rest of their nation incredibly
vulnerable to the same kind of exploitative attacks , to the same
sort of mechanisms of cyber-attack.

And that means while we may have a real advantage

when it comes to eavesdropping on the military in Syria or trade negotiations over the price of shrimp in Indonesiawhich
is an actually real anecdoteor even monitoring the climate change conference, it means it results. It means we end up
living in an America where

we no longer have a National Security Agency. We

have a national surveillance agency . And until we reform our laws and
until we fix the excesses of these old policies that we inherited in
the post-9/11 era, were not going to be able to put the security
back in the NSA.

Bamford: Thats great. Just along those lines, from what you know about the project Bullrun

and so forth, how secure do you think things like AES, DES, those things are, the advanced encryption standard?
Snowden: I dont actually want to respond to that one on camera, and the answer is I actually dont know. But yeah, so
lets leave that one. Bamford: I mean, that would have been the idea to weaken it. Snowden: Right. The idea would be to
weaken it, but which standards? Like is it AES? Is it the other ones? DES was actually stronger than we thought it was at
the time because the NSA had secretly manipulated the standard to make it stronger back in the day, which was weird,
but that shows the difference in thinking between the 80s and the 90s. It was the S-boxes. Thats what it was called. The
S-boxes was the modification made. And today, where they go, oh, this is too strong, lets weaken it. The NSA was actually

we see that
their priority is weakening our security, just so they have a better
chance of keeping an eye on us.
concerned back in the time of the crypto-wars with improving American security. Nowadays,

Project Bullrun weakens US ability to find in cyber wars

Castillo 6/16/15 [Andrea, program manager for the Technology Policy

Program at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, coauthor of

Bitcoin: A Primer for Policymakers (Mercatus), Giving Government 'Backdoor'
Access to Encrypted Data Threatens Personal Privacy and National Security,
Reason.com, http://reason.com/archives/2015/06/16/crypto-wars-weakenencryption-security //NA]]
A timely case in point is the recent revelations of security vulnerabilities in thousands of Web browsers and
mail serversvulnerabilities that were directly introduced by the artificially weak encryption programs
compelled by the earlier export ban. In March, a massive vulnerability affecting the Secure Sockets Layer
(SSL) and Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocols ubiquitous to most users Internet experiences, called
"FREAK," was discovered. Later in May, researchers discovered a similar TLS vulnerability, LOGJAM, which
attacked a different kind of key exchange technique. These dual security bugs exposed countless Internet
users to potential "man-in-the middle-attacks," allowing malicious hackers (or tight-lipped intelligence
agents) access to supposedly secure data for decades. Export controls on encryption were easier to
enforce before the advent of personal computing, when only institutional (and usually governmentconnected) organizations operating huge supercomputers would be effected by such bansalthough
academics did not exactly hide their discontent at the inconvenience dealt to their research projects. The
rise of the home computer dramatically changed the calculus. The export ban on encryption imposed
arbitrary boundaries on a network that is borderless by definition. Enter the cypherpunks: a ragtag,
homebrew crew of anti-authoritarian hackers hell-bent on subverting spooks and protecting privacy on the
Net. These luminaries developed the tools and rhetoric to make bad laws irrelevant by making them
unenforceable. For example, Phil Zimmermans Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) program, a mainstay of modern
email delivery, which Zimmerman posted to Usenet in 1991. After a three-year criminal investigation, the
U.S. Attorney's Office decided not to prosecute Zimmerman for sharing the encryption protocol.
Throughout the '90s, federal officials continued to ease strict export restrictions, and the future of

Edward Snowden's 2013 revelations, however,

made it clear that the so-called "Crypto Wars" were actually far from
settled. Snowden revealed that the NSA worked with foreign spooks
to compromise encryption by controlling international standards for
their own purposes and even out-and-out colluded with technology
firms through the "BULLRUN" program. Only after these outrageous
methods were exposed to the world did the forces of surveillance
bother attempting to legitimize these practices through less illegal
public meansalbeit with the rhetorical gall of concealing obvious spying ambitions in the more
encryption seemed secure.

reasonable garb of genuine law enforcement concerns. Proposed new encryption-weakening schemes tend
to take one of two major forms. First, messaging service providers such as WhatsApp that allow users to
communicate though end-to-end encryption, which conceals data content even from the service provider
itself, could be compelled to issue a dummy key to users while sneaking a real key to the NSA for
intercepting or changing the content. Alternatively, the government could mandate a "key escrow"
arrangement, creating a master key for officials capable of unlocking any of the encrypted data.
Functionally, compelling backdoors to be baked into encryption standards that governments can use to
access private data at any time is no different than surreptitiously breaking encryption behind the scenes.
If mandated through law, such schemes would present blatant constitutional threats. For now, agency
heads opt for a softer touch, ham-handedly sweet-talking Silicon Valley into doing their dark bidding
"voluntarily." We may be superficially saved from the more dramatic end of this spectrum of measures by
officials own technical illiteracy: computer science experts doubt that such hijinx are even technically
feasible to the seamless degree that officials imagine. And even if these proposals do "work," they would
be likely to introduce more unforeseen vulnerabilities into the fabric of the Internet. Besides, foreign
countries such as China and Russia are unlikely to simply comply with America's dramatic decryption
measures without pursuing these very same policies themselves (something Obama, of course, opposes).
As more of our lives come to rely on digitized data maintenance, encryption becomes all the more critical

The prospect of intentionally weakening

these techniques in an effort to crack down on shadowy
cybercriminals should be as unthinkable today as a proposal to
cripple real-world keys, locks, and walls to root out property thieves.
to protect our livelihoods and security.

Exploitable (Laundry List)

Bullrun creates loopholes that can be exploited by
hackers, cybercriminals, terrorists, and China
Paganini 13 [Pierluigi: Chief Information Security Officer at Bit4Id, firm

leader in identity management, member of the ENISA (European Union

Agency for Network and Information Security), cyber security expert with
over 20 years experience in the field, he is Certified Ethical Hacker at EC
Council in London, NSA Bullrun program, encryption and false perception of
security, Security Affairs, September 7, 2013,
http://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/17577/intelligence/nsa-bullrun-programfalse-perception-security.html // emb].
The repercussions are critical, the diffusion of the defective
encryption standard has exposed the same data accessed by NSA to
the concrete risk of stealing operated by third party actors such as
foreign state-sponsored hackers and cybercriminals. The encryption
technologies that the NSA has exploited to enable its secret dragnet
surveillance are the same technologies that protect our most
sensitive information, including medical records, financial
transactions, and commercial secrets, Even as the NSA demands more powers to
invade our privacy in the name of cybersecurity, it is making the internet less secure
and exposing us to criminal hacking, foreign espionage, and
unlawful surveillance. The NSAs efforts to secretly defeat encryption
are recklessly shortsighted and will further erode not only the United States
reputation as a global champion of civil liberties and privacy but the economic
competitiveness of its largest companies. commented Christopher Soghoian,
principal technologist of the ACLUs Speech, Privacy and Technology Project . Suddenly the IT
world discovered that has perceived a false sense of security, the
repercussion on the global security market are enormous, customers
have put their trust in the wrong companies, too often they have
been deceived by false myths and new paradigms (e.g. Cloud computing)
designed to facilitate the surveillance operated by intelligence agencies. Bullrun program is
the last revelation on a nefarious policy conducted by one of the
major security agencies, ironically because of its willingness to supervise each and every date
of the largest Internet has made it unsafe. Chasing the concept of security NSA has
actually opened loopholes in the global information systems that
could have benefited powers such as China or terrorist groups.

Med Industry
Backdoors are responsible for hacks on the entire health
sector hardware and medical equipment are already
equipped with exploitable malware which means they can
be exploited from afar
Storm 6/9/15 [Darlene: @SecurityIsSexy Hi. I'm Darlene Storm. I blog
security for Computerworld's Security Is Sexy. MEDJACK: Hackers hijacking
medical devices to create backdoors in hospital networks June 9, 2015
http://www.channelworld.in/news/medjack%3A-hackers-hijacking-medicaldevices-to-create-backdoors-in-hospital-networks]
After the Office of Personnel Management breach, medical data was labeled as the
"holy grail" for cybercriminals intent on espionage. "Medical
information can be worth 10 times as much as a credit card number, "
reported Reuters. And now to steal such information, hospital networks are getting
pwned by malware-infected medical devices. TrapX, a deceptionbased cybersecurity firm, released a report about three real-world
targeted hospital attacks which exploited an attack vector the
researchers called MEDJACK for medical device hijack . "MEDJACK has
brought the perfect storm to major healthcare institutions globally ,"
they warned. "Medical devices complimented by the MEDJACK attack
vector may be the hospital's weakest link in the chain'." In three
separate hospitals, TrapX found "extensive compromise of a variety
of medical devices which included X-ray equipment, picture archive
and communications systems (PACS) and blood gas analyzers (BGA)." But
"there are many other devices that present targets for MEDJACK. This
includes diagnostic equipment (PET scanners, CT scanners, MRI machines, etc.), therapeutic equipment
(infusion pumps, medical lasers and LASIK surgical machines), and life support equipment (heart - lung
machines, medical ventilators, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation machines and dialysis machines)
and much more." Hospital lab blood gas analyzer attack Blood gas analyzers are often used in critical care

An unnamed hospital had "a very strong

industry suite of cyber defense products" which did not detect an
attack, yet TrapX found that attackers were moving laterally through
the networks due to three malware-infected blood gas analyzers
that had "enabled backdoors into the hospital networks ." The
attackers were exfiltrating confidential hospital data to a location
within the European Community. TrapX found Zeus and Citadel
malware being used to find additional passwords within the hospital
as well as other worm variants. TrapX believes the lateral movement
"may have enabled the infection of one of the hospital IT
department's workstations." When the TrapX Lab team used a Nova Biomedical CCX
(Critical CareExpress) unit to recreate the attack in a simulated attack environment, they discovered the
data was not encrypted. They "determined that once an attacker has
established a backdoor within our target blood gas analyzer, or any
other medical device, almost any form of manipulation of the
unencrypted data stored and flowing through the device is possible.
In summary, it is the position of TrapX Labs that the MEDJACK attack vector has
the potential to distort or change internal data." The report explained that
situations or during surgery, the report said.

medical devices "are closed devices, running out-of-date, closed, often times modified and likely insecure

the MEDJACK attack

vector presents a highly vulnerable target to attackers on a global
basis. The defenders cannot easily get in to detect or remediate an
attack. On the other hand the attackers have an open door." So after
"the attacker can get into the network and bypass existing security,
they have a time window to infect a medical device and establish a
backdoor within this protected (and safe) harbor." Although hospitals tend to
operating systems such as Windows 2000, Windows XP or Linux. That's why

install medical devices behind a firewall and the internal network runs antivirus and other endpoint and

medical devices are "key pivot points for

attackers within healthcare networks." Healthcare IT teams cannot access the internal
intrusion security, TrapX said

software in medical devices, so they depend on manufacturers to build and maintain security in those
devices. Yet manufacturers have not developed "the requisite software to detect most of the software

During a
different persistent attack at another hospital, the attacker moved
laterally through the networks looking for other targets. But the
"source of this lateral movement was the picture archive and
communications systems (PACS) that provided the radiology
department with the storage and access to images derived from
multiple sources. These image sources included CT scanners, MRI
scanners, portable x-ray machines (c-arms), X-ray and ultrasound
equipment." The PACS system also tried to act as a botnet and
connect to Command and Control. The lateral movement "appears to
have enabled the infection of a key nurse's workstation" and
confidential hospital data was being exfiltrated to Guiyang, China.
It's believed to have all started after an end-user in the hospital
surfed to a malicious website. Malware-infected X-Ray systems In the third realworld attack observed by TrapX, critical medical device components were
again infected with advanced malware. This time the attacker
installed a backdoor in one of the hospital X-ray systems . TrapX general
manager Carl Wright told SCMagazine: "Our scientists have observed that
you could manufacture an attack, designed specifically for several
models of a specific medical device, and then launch that attack.
That, combined with the difficulty in diagnosis and remediation, and
the very high value of healthcare data, create a near perfect target
for organized crime." Attacker could remotely hack hospital drug
pump, tweak amount to fatal dose We've heard about potentially
lethal attacks on medical devices like insulin pumps and
pacemakers, which got the feds pressed into protecting wireless
medical devices from hackers; a couple years later, DHS started
investigating 24 potentially deadly cyber flaws in medical devices .
Now there's more bad news on the medical device scene as
vulnerabilities in drug infusion pumps could be remotely exploited
by an attacker who could up the dose into a fatal dose. Security
researcher Billy Rios has discovered vulnerabilities in "at least five
models" of Hospira drug infusion pumps; he told Wired, "This is the
first time we know we can change the dosage." After testing the
infusion pumps, Rios discovered the following Hospira models are vulnerable:
the standard PCA LifeCare pumps, PCA3 LifeCare and PCA5 LifeCare pumps; the
payloads delivered by the MEDJACK attack." Hospital radiology aka the PAC pivot attack

Symbiq line of pumps and the Plum A+ model of pumps. Wired added that there are "at least 325,000"
Plum A+ drug infusion pumps currently installed in hospitals worldwide. Although Rios hasn't tested other
models for the vulnerabilities, "he suspects that the company's Plum A+3 and its Sapphire and
SapphirePlus models are equally vulnerable too

Hacks in hospitals to get personal information

Higgins 6/8/15 (Kelly Jackson, Executive Editor at DarkReading.com. She
is an award-winning veteran technology and business journalist with more
than two decades of experience in reporting and editing for various
publications; Hospital Medical Devices Used As Weapons In Cyberattacks;
http://www.darkreading.com/vulnerabilities---threats/hospital-medicaldevices-used-as-weapons-in-cyberattacks/d/d-id/1320751?)
Insulin pumps, heart monitors, x-ray communications systems and
other medical devices already have been proven vulnerable to
cyberattack by security researchers, but a new report confirms that hospital medical
devices are being abused by cybercriminals and possibly cyberspies as a steppingstone within healthcare networks to nab valuable healthcare identities and
information. A report by TrapX scheduled to publish next week reveals three cases where
hospitals were hit by data breaches after their medical devices had
been infected with malware backdoors to move laterally within the healthcare
network. In all three cases, the hospitals were unaware that these devices--a
blood gas analyzer, a picture archive and communications system
(PACS) and an x-ray system--were infiltrated with malware. The devices

were spotted when TrapX installed its sensor-based technology in the hospitals, which TrapX declined to
identify by name. Ransomware, as well as Zeus, Citadel, and even Conficker, malware were discovered on
the devices. While none of these real-world hacks of the medical devices appeared to be used for sabotage
per se, TrapX says the malware on them indeed could be used for remote control of the devices. "We did
see multiple types of malware and ransomware resident on these [medical] devices," says Greg Enriquez,

The hospital's security teams were unable to see the

malware themselves via their traditional security scans and tools because
the systems are closed devices, he says. "They're not open to security teams to
scan or to use typical security products on," he says. "That's the
challenge hospital professionals have in security: often these devices are behind secondary firewalls
CEO of TrapX.

managed by the manufacturer of the device, and the security team doesn't have access." Billy Rios, a
security researcher who has studied various types of consumer and medical system vulnerabilities, says
malware attacks on medical devices are "pretty common." Some of these devices are based on Windows,
for example, Rios says, so they are often susceptible to Windows exploits. "There have been previously
reported cases where these devices have become infected by run-of-the-mill malware. While this malware
isn't custom-made for medical devices, it shows that the devices are vulnerable to exploitation," says Rios,

The attacks on the three hospitals were

targeted in nature. In one case, three blood-gas analyzers were
infected with malware within the hospital, which had in place a firewall, heuristicswho is founder of Laconicly LLC.

based intrusion detection, endpoint security, and antivirus tools, as well as an experienced security team.
The hospital had no clue of the infections until TrapX installed its sensors, and noticed several alerts about

Each system had a backdoor that gave

them access to the internal network, and hospital data records had
been exfiltrated to somewhere in the European Community , TrapX says.
malicious activity in the hospital network.

Zeus and Citadel Trojans were in place to grab passwords, and a worm was also found to spread and
propagate the malware. "The devices had an early version of Windows," Enriquez says, which made them

In the second case, a hospital's picture archive and

communications system (PACS) used to share imaging records from
MRI, CT, ultrasound, x-ray systems with physicians and others, was
infected with malware. As with the other hacked hospital, this one also had the proper security
tools and staff in place, but had no clue that the PACS had been compromised. In this case, data was
being siphoned out and sent to a location in Guiyang, China , via an SSLencrypted port 443, suggesting a possible cyber espionage attack . "We clearly
more vulnerable.

saw it going to China," Enriquez says. "Where it goes from there, how it gets routed that's unknown at
this point." The attack began with a user at the hospital visiting a malicious website that injected a Java
exploit into the user's browser and provided remote access to the attackers, and ultimately, the injection of

malware backdoor on the PACS, according to TrapX. In the third hospital, one of the x-ray systems was

the company said. "I

believe these medical providers were targeted. They are being targeted for a
number of reasons: personal information is worth ten times more on the black market than a
found harboring a backdoor for a "pivot" attack on the hospital network,

credit card number, and the personal information they have may have value to a nation-state," Enriquez
says. TrapX's "Anatomy of an Attack Medical Device Hijack (MEDJACK)," will be released on June 15. The
company says hospitals should include language in their contracts with medical equipment makers that
covers malware infections. "They must include very specific language about the detection, remediation
and refurbishment of the medical devices sold to the hospitals which are infected by the malware. They
must have a documented test process to determine if they are infected, and a documented standard
process to remediate and rebuild them when malware and cyber attackers are using the devices," says
Mosh Ben Simon, co-founder and vice president of TrapX Security and general manager of TrapX Labs, in
the report.

Hardware
US hardware companies represent almost the entire harddrive market the NSA has secured backdoors in the
hard-drive firmware which allows the NSA access to any
and all data on the machine
Btarunr 2/16/15 [Editor & Senior Moderator for techpowerup.com NSA
Hides Spying Backdoors into Hard Drive Firmware
http://www.techpowerup.com/209925/nsa-hides-spying-backdoors-into-harddrive-firmware.html // mm]

Russian cyber-security company Kaspersky Labs exposed a

breakthrough U.S. spying program, which taps into one of the most
widely proliferated PC components - hard drives. With the last 5
years seeing the number of hard drive manufacturing nations reduce
from three (Korean Samsung, Japanese Hitachi and Toshiba, and
American Seagate and WD) to one (American Seagate or WD),
swallowing-up or partnering with Japanese and Korean businesses as
US-based subsidiaries or spin-offs such as HGST, a shadow of
suspicion has been cast on Seagate and WD. According to Kaspersky, American
cyber-surveillance agency, the NSA, is taking advantage of the
centralization of hard-drive manufacturing to the US, by making WD
and Seagate embed its spying back-doors straight into the harddrive firmware, which lets the agency directly access raw data,
agnostic of partition method (low-level format), file-system (highlevel format), operating system, or even user access-level. Kaspersky
says it found PCs in 30 countries with one or more of the spying
programs, with the most infections seen in Iran, followed by Russia,
Pakistan, Afghanistan, China, Mali, Syria, Yemen and Algeria.
Kaspersky claims that the HDD firmware backdoors are already
being used to spy on foreign governments, military organizations,
telecom companies, banks, nuclear researchers, the media, and
Islamic activities . Kaspersky declined to name the company which designed the malware, but said that it
has close ties to the development of Stuxnet, the cyber-weapon used by NSA to destabilize Iran's uranium-enrichment

the new backdoor is perfect in design. Each time

you turn your PC on, the system BIOS loads the firmware of all
hardware components onto the system memory, even before the OS
is booted. This is when the malware activates, gaining access to
critical OS components, probably including network access and filesystem. This makes HDD firmware the second most valuable real-estate for hackers, after system BIOS. Both WD
facilities. Kaspersky claims that

and Seagate denied sharing the source-code of their HDD firmware with any government agency, and maintained that

Former NSA operatives

stated that it's fairly easy for the agency to obtain source-code of
critical software. This includes asking directly and posing as a software developer. The
government can seek source-code of hard drive firmware by simply
telling a manufacturer that it needs to inspect the code to make sure
their HDD firmware is designed to prevent tampering or reverse-engineering.

it's clean, before it can buy PCs running their hard-drives. What is, however, surprising is how "tampered" HDD
firmware made it to mass-production. Seagate and WD have manufacturing facilities in countries like Thailand and China,
located in high-security zones to prevent intellectual property theft or sabotage. We can't imagine tampered firmware
making it to production drives without the companies' collaboration.

International Standards
The NSA has deliberately created vulnerabilities in
international encryption standards
Ranger 2/23/15 [Steve Ranger: UK editor of TechRepublic, and has been

writing about the impact of technology on people, business and culture for
more than a decade., The undercover war on your internet secrets: How
online surveillance cracked our trust in the web,
http://www.techrepublic.com/article/the-undercover-war-on-your-internetsecrets-how-online-surveillance-cracked-our-trust-in-the-web/
A 2013 NSA budget request revealed in another of the Snowden documents shows
that the NSA's plans included creating backdoors into commercial
encryption systems and influencing the standards and specifications
used as the foundations of privacy technologies with the intention of
making their access easier. The document states: "Resources in this
project are used to... insert vulnerabilities into commercial
encryption systems, IT systems, networks and endpoint communications devices used by
targets." The list goes on: another cryptography budget request published by The Intercept states: " This
project enables the defeat of strong commercial data security
systems; develops capabilities to exploit emerging information
systems and technologies that are employed or may be employed by
SIGINT targets; develops analytic algorithms, processes, and
procedures to exploit emerging information systems technologies;
and develops initial recognition, exploitation, and prototype
solutions against new technology targets." And last year the US
National Institute of Standards and Technology was forced to remove
a cryptographic algorithm from its list of random number generators
after allegations that the NSA had deliberately weakened it to make
it easier to crack.

The NSA intentionally inserts weaknesses into

international encryption standards
Larson 13 [Jeff: Data Editor at ProPublica. Won the Livingston Award,
Revealed: The NSAs Secret Campaign to Crack, Undermine Internet
Security, ProPublica, September 5, 2013
http://www.propublica.org/article/the-nsas-secret-campaign-to-crackundermine-internet-encryption // emb].
N.S.A. documents show that the agency maintains an internal
database of encryption keys for specific commercial products, called
a Key Provisioning Service, which can automatically decode many
messages. If the necessary key is not in the collection, a request
goes to the separate Key Recovery Service, which tries to obtain it.
How keys are acquired is shrouded in secrecy, but independent
cryptographers say many are probably collected by hacking into
companies computer servers, where they are stored. To keep such methods
secret, the N.S.A. shares decrypted messages with other agencies only if the keys could have been
acquired through legal means. Approval to release to non-Sigint agencies, a GCHQ document says, will

the N.S.A.
has been deliberately weakening the international encryption
depend on there being a proven non-Sigint method of acquiring keys. Simultaneously,

standards adopted by developers. One goal in the agencys 2013

budget request was to influence policies, standards and
specifications for commercial public key technologies, the most
common encryption method. Cryptographers have long suspected that the agency
planted vulnerabilities in a standard adopted in 2006 by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, the United States encryption
standards body, and later by the International Organization for
Standardization, which has 163 countries as members. Classified N.S.A. memos
appear to confirm that the fatal weakness, discovered by two
Microsoft cryptographers in 2007, was engineered by the agency.
The N.S.A. wrote the standard and aggressively pushed it on the
international group, privately calling the effort a challenge in
finesse. Eventually, N.S.A. became the sole editor, the memo says.
Even agency programs ostensibly intended to guard American
communications are sometimes used to weaken protections. The
N.S.A.s Commercial Solutions Center, for instance, invites the
makers of encryption technologies to present their products and
services to the agency with the goal of improving American
cybersecurity. But a top-secret N.S.A. document suggests that the
agencys hacking division uses that same program to develop and
leverage sensitive, cooperative relationships with specific industry
partners to insert vulnerabilities into Internet security products.

Hackable by China
China able to hack into OPM through NSA installed
backdoors
Watson 6/17 [Patrick, strategic adviser for active investment managers,

Cold War veteran, U.S. Army intelligence officer, trained paratrooper and
expert in Soviet tactics, NSA Failures Expose Yet More Secrets, Endanger
Millions, Newsmax.com,
http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/PatrickWatson/china-hack-NSASecrets/2015/06/17/id/650980/#ixzz3e14LiEel //NA]
Not even halfway through the Year of the Hack, the U.S. government
looks every bit as vulnerable as the private sector it wants to help. The
latest news: As many as 14 million current and former government
employees had their private personnel files exposed to foreign
hackers, reportedly Chinese. Worse, the same hackers may have also
taken the extremely personal security clearance files of military and
intelligence personnel. The consequences of this loss are staggering.
Somebody out there now has all the information they need to expose
and/or blackmail top U.S. intelligence operatives. This is potentially
far worse than the data National Security Agency contractor Edward
Snowden released to journalists two years ago. I pointed out back then
that NSA director Keith Alexander was closing the barn door only after the
cows had escaped. Snowden could not have taken the data if Alexander had
enforced common-sense precautions inside the NSA. General Alexander is
retired now, making big bucks as a consultant to banks and big
corporations. Against all evidence, his clients apparently think Alexander is
some kind of cybersecurity pro. If the fact that Alexander gave Snowden the
keys to the kingdom isnt enough to disprove that claim, the latest
government hack ought to do it. NSA isnt just a spy agency. Its
statutory mission includes keeping all the governments electronic
information secure. We now know that it failed miserably under Keith
Alexanders watch, and again under his successor Admiral Mike Rogers. Of
course, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), from which
someone stole millions of employee files, is not blameless. It
appears to have been remarkably careless by, for example, not
encrypting Social Security numbers. Thats exactly the kind of mistake
NSA is supposed to help other agencies avoid. Oops. Encrypting the
records might not have helped, given that NSA has intentionally
baked back door weaknesses into many security protocols. Any
number of Snowden-like individuals could have shared the keys with
China and not informed the media. Nevertheless, it would have been
better than nothing. So, to sum up: China (or somebody) has
confidential files on millions of government workers, retirees,
service members and intelligence agents, who are all subject to
identity theft and blackmail.

China Has Access to 80% of Communications Will hack

backdoors for the remaining 20%
Tree 12 (Tree, Oliver, [Journalist at IB Times and Newsweek], China Has

'Back Door' Access to 80% of World Communications, Claims Expert,

7/16/12, http://www.ibtimes.com/china-has-back-door-access-80-worldcommunications-claims-expert-723527)
The Chinese government has access to 80 percent of the world's
communications, a former pentagon analyst has claimed. Using equipment supplied
by Chinese electronics giants Huawei Technologies and ZTE
corporation, the People's Liberation Army and the government have
back door access to a vast majority of the world's electronic information, including sensitive
military and intelligence data, Michael Maloof claims. The two companies give the Chinese remote
electronic backdoor access through the equipment they have installed in telecommunications networks in
140 countries, Maloof wrote in WND.com. The Chinese companies service 45 of the world's 50 largest
telecom operators...proprietary information could be not only spied upon but also could be altered and in
some cases could be sabotaged. That's coming from technical experts who know Huawei, they know the
company and they know the Chinese. Since that story came out I've done a subsequent one in which
sources tell me that it's giving Chinese access to approximately 80 percent of the world telecoms. The

the Chinese are working on securing access

to the remaining 20 percent. U.S. corporate communications via
virtual private networks, or VPNs, are particularly vulnerable , according
former analyst went on to claim that

to Maloof, with VPN providers routing their communications via countries such as Mexico especially open to
being spied on. Any U.S. company that deals with a Mexican company or any foreign company in a country
where Huawei has installed network equipment is potentially entirely compromised, Maloof quoted a

The report follows months of speculation over the Chinese

government's involvement in a five year hacking and data gathering
attack revealed last year. In August, it emerged that hackers had infiltrated
organizations ranging from international entities like the United
Nations and the International Olympic Committee to U.S. defense firms and the
Associated Press, according to an analysis conducted by the security firm McAfee. 49 of the 72
cyberattack targets were in the U.S. Dmitri Alperovitch, McAfee's vice president of
source as saying.

threat research, said evidence pointed to a nation-state having carried out the attacks but declined to

experts said that the attacks appear to have

emanated from China. James A. Lewis, a cybersecurity expert, pointed to Taiwan's prominence
specify further. Outside

among targeted countries and the hack of the International Olympic Committeee shortly before the 2008
games in Beijing. This isn't the first we've seen, Lewis told the Washington Post.

This has been

going on from China since at least 1998.

China Has Hacked US Backdoors and will do it again

Perez and Prokupecz 6/23/15 (Perez, Evan, [CNN Justice reporter],

Prokupecz, Shimon, [CNN Law Enforcement reporter and producer], U.S. data
hack may be 4 times larger than the government originally said,
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/22/politics/opm-hack-18-milliion/)
FBI Director James Comey gave the 18 million estimate in a closed-door briefing to Senators in recent
weeks, using the OPM's own internal data, according to U.S. officials briefed on the matter. Those affected
could include people who applied for government jobs, but never actually ended up working for the
government. Can Washington keep your data secure? The same hackers who accessed OPM's data are
believed to have last year breached an OPM contractor, KeyPoint Government Solutions, U.S. officials said.
When the OPM breach was discovered in April, investigators found that KeyPoint security credentials were
used to breach the OPM system. Some investigators believe that after that intrusion last year, OPM officials
should have blocked all access from KeyPoint, and that doing so could have prevented more serious
damage. But a person briefed on the investigation says OPM officials don't believe such a move would
have made a difference. That's because the OPM breach is believed to have pre-dated the KeyPoint breach.

Hackers are also believed to have built their own backdoor access to
the OPM system, armed with high-level system administrator access to the

system. One official called it the "keys to the kingdom." KeyPoint did not respond to CNN's request for
comment. U.S. investigators believe the Chinese government is behind
the cyber intrusion, which are considered the worst ever against the
U.S. government. Why would China hack the U.S. government? OPM has so far stuck by the 4.2
million estimate, which is the number of people so far notified that their information was compromised. An
agency spokesman said the investigation is ongoing and that it hasn't verified the larger number.

Impacts Cyber Attack

The Internet
NSA has hegemony on decryption, which undermines the
very fabric of the internet
Heyes 13 [J.D.: Ashford University Political Science, 2009 2012 with a

focus on monetary and government policy, NSA pays tech companies

millions to engineer backdoors into encryption protocols, September 13,
2013,
http://www.naturalnews.com/042038_NSA_tech_companies_encryption_proto
cols.html#
mm ]
U.S. and British intelligence agencies have successfully cracked
much of the online encryption relied upon by hundreds of millions of
people to protect the privacy of their personal data, online
transactions and emails, according to top-secret documents revealed
by former contractor Edward Snowden. The files show that the National
Security Agency and its UK counterpart GCHQ have broadly
compromised the guarantees that internet companies have given
consumers to reassure them that their communications, online
banking and medical records would be indecipherable to criminals or
governments. If need be, the use of 'brute force' to break encryption
In other words, those little privacy spiels that social media and tech
companies put on their sites to "assure you" that your privacy is
"guaranteed" - are lies. And what's more, they are governmentsanctioned lies. The files that Snowden - who is currently in Russia, having been granted
temporary political asylum by President Vladimir Putin - provided show that the agencies use a
number of methods in their systematic, continual assault on what
they perceive as one of the biggest threats to their ability to access
billions of bytes of Internet traffic - "the use of ubiquitous encryption
across the Internet." The paper said the methods include covert measures
ensuring NSA control over the establishment of international
encryption standards, use of supercomputers to break encryption
protocols and protections using "brute force," and - the most closely
guarded of all secrets - "collaboration with technology companies
and Internet service providers themselves." Through the
establishment of these covert and unconstitutional partnerships private firms have as much legal obligation to protect your privacy
as the government does - these agencies have had placed into
commercial encryption software the ability to penetrate it in what
are known as "backdoors" or "trapdoors." According to the files
provided by Snowden: -- A decade-long NSA program targeting
encryption technologies made a huge breakthrough in 2010, which
then made "vast amounts" of data collected through Internet cable
taps finally "exploitable." -- The NSA spends $250 million taxpayer dollars annually on a
program that, among other goals, works through tech companies to "covertly influence" the design of their
products. -- The secrecy of the programs' capabilities to thwart encryption is extremely closely guarded,
and analysts are warned: "Do not ask about or speculate on sources or methods." -- The NSA describes its
strong decryption programs as the "price of admission for the U.S. to maintain unrestricted access to and
use of cyberspace." -- A GCHQ team has been developing ways to access encrypted traffic on each of the
"big four" service providers: Hotmail, Google, Yahoo and Facebook. As usual, both agencies insist they
need to defeat all encryption in order to maintain national security and combat terrorism and the ability of
foreign governments to gather intelligence. But, of course, there is another aspect to this, and security

experts have pointed it out: The agencies are attacking the essence of the Internet itself, as well as the

'We had to comply' "Cryptography forms the basis

for trust online," Bruce Schneier, an encryption specialist and fellow
at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, told The
Guardian. "By deliberately undermining online security in a shortsighted effort to eavesdrop, the NSA is undermining the very fabric
of the internet." Classified briefings between the agencies celebrate their success at "defeating
privacy of all of its users.

network security and privacy," he said. "For the past decade, NSA has lead [sic] an aggressive, multipronged effort to break widely used internet encryption technologies," a 2010 GCHQ document stated.
"Vast amounts of encrypted internet data which have up till now been discarded are now exploitable." The
paper and others have also reported previously that Microsoft has cooperated with NSA to circumvent
encryption in its Outlook mail program, saying it was obliged to comply with "existing or future lawful
demands" when designing its products.

We are at risk. Undermining online security threatens the

internet
Ball, Borger, and Greenwald 13 [James Ball, award-winning data
journalist working on the Guardian's investigations team, Julian Borger, the
Guardian's diplomatic editor. He was previously a correspondent in the US,
the Middle East, eastern Europe and the Balkans, and Glenn Greenwald,
journalist, constitutional lawyer, and author of four New York Times bestselling books on politics and law , Revealed: how US and UK spy agencies
defeat internet privacy and security September 5, 2013
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa-gchq-encryption-codessecurity ]]
The agencies insist that the ability to defeat encryption is vital to
their core missions of counter-terrorism and foreign intelligence
gathering. But security experts accused them of attacking the
internet itself and the privacy of all users. "Cryptography forms the basis for trust

online," said Bruce Schneier, an encryption specialist and fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet
and Society. "By

deliberately undermining online security in a shortsighted effort to eavesdrop, the NSA is undermining the very fabric
of the internet." Classified briefings between the agencies celebrate their success at "defeating
network security and privacy".

Cyberwar 2025
A major cyber attack is coming before 2025 causes
nuclear-level death and crashes the economy deterrence
fails in cyberspace (1AC)
Tucker 14
Patrick, technology editor for Defense One, Major Cyber Attack Will Cause Significant Loss of Life By 2025,
Experts Predict, 10/29/14, http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2014/10/cyber-attack-will-causesignificant-loss-life-2025-experts-predict/97688/ SJE

A major cyber attack will happen between now and 2025 and it will
be large enough to cause significant loss of life or property
losses/damage/theft at the levels of tens of billions of dollars , according
to more than 60 percent of technology experts

interviewed by the Pew Internet

and American Life Project. But other experts interviewed for the project Digital Life in 2015, released
Wednesday, said the current preoccupation with cyber conflict is product of software merchants looking to
hype public anxiety against an eternally unconquerable threat. Its the old phantom of the cyber Pearl
Harbor, a concept commonly credited to former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta but that is actually as old
as the world wide web. It dates back to security expert Winn Schwartaus testimony to Congress in 1991,
when he warned of an electronic Pearl Harbor and said it was waiting to occur. More than two decades
later, were still waiting. The Pew report offers, if nothing else, an opportunity to look at how the cyber

A key concern
for many of the experts Pew interviewed is infrastructure, where very real
landscape has changed and how it will continue to evolve between now and 2025.

cyber vulnerabilities do exist and are growing. Stewart Baker, former general
counsel for the National Security Agency and a partner at Washington, D.C.-based law firm Steptoe &

Attacking the power grid or other

industrial control systems is asymmetrical and deniable and devilishly
effective. Plus, it gets easier every year. We used to worry about Russia
and China taking down our infrastructure. Now we have to worry about Iran and
Syria and North Korea. Jeremy Epstein, a senior computer scientist working with the National
Science Foundation as program director for Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace, said, Damages in
the billions will occur to manufacturing and/or utilities but because it
ramps up slowly, it will be accepted as just another cost (probably passed on to taxpayers through
government rebuilding subsidies and/or environmental damage), and there will be little
motivation for the private sector to defend itself. Today, cities around
the world use supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems to manage
water, sewage, electricity, and even traffic lights. Last October, researchers Chris
Sistrunk and Adam Crain found that these systems suffer from 25 different
security vulnerabilities. And its not unusual for them to have the same security passwords
Johnson told Pew, Cyberwar just plain makes sense.

that came direct from the manufacturer. As writers Indu B. Singh and Joseph N. Pelton pointed out in The

the failure to take even the most basic security precautions

leaves these systems open to remote hacking. Its one reason why many security watchers
Futurist magazine,

were hopeful that the Obama administrations Cybersecurity Framework, released earlier this year, would force companies that preside over
infrastructure components to take these precautions, but many in the technology community were disappointed that the guidelines did not
include hard mandates for major operators to fix potential security flaws. But some political leaders say that the response from industry to
cyber threats has outpaced that of government. Just ask Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who said
that private businesses were increasingly asking government to defend them from cyber attacks from other nation state actors, and even
launch first strikes against those nations. Most of the offensive talk is from the private sector, they say weve had enough, Rogers said at a
recent Washington Post cyber security summit. Its worth noting that the Pew survey was made public one day after the group FireEye released
a major report stating that a Russian-government affiliated group was responsible for hacking into the servers of a firm keeping classified U.S.
military data. In his remarks at the summit, Rogers singled out Russia as a prime target for future, U.S.-lead cyber operations. But

SCADA vulnerabilities look quaint compared to the exploitable

security gaps that will persist across the Internet of Things as more
infrastructure components are linked together. Current threats
include economic transactions, power grid, and air traffic control.

This will expand to include others such as self-driving cars, unmanned aerial vehicles,
and building infrastructure, said Mark Nall, a program manager for NASA.

Hacking Nukes
Hacking into Nuclear Technology can Lead To Nuclear War
AP 15 May 8, 2015 Komado Are American nukes wide open to hackers?
http://www.komando.com/happening-now/307576/are-american-nukes-wide-open-tohackers/all

Retired Gen. James Cartwright, who ran Strategic Command from 2004 to 2007 followed
by a stint as the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , is making the case that
we need to "de-alert" the U.S., and Russian, nuclear arsenal. In other
words, instead of being ready to launch in minutes, a launch would take 24 to 72 hours
to go through. This would give both sides more time to look at a
developing situation before responding. That's especially helpful because he
believes that the control systems around the nuclear arsenals are
vulnerable to hackers. To be clear, the actual nuclear launch system is fairly secure, since it
runs off very old technology, including floppy disks. However, hackers might trick the
systems that warn about incoming threats, or trick the nuclear
missile crews into thinking they were sent legitimate launch codes.
No one in the government is really forthcoming about how likely this is, and that's often a worry. Two
years ago, the Pentagon issued a report saying that most of the
systems hadn't been checked to see how they'd handle a
cyberattack. Even if hackers aren't involved, there's a worry that a
lot of the hardware, especially on the Russian side , is getting old and probably
unreliable. If it starts breaking down it, there is a chance that it could
trigger a false alert that leads to something terrible. This exact scenario almost
happened a few times during the Cold War, with one of the most
recent incidents happening on September 26, 1983. Lieutenant Colonel
Stanislav Petrov of the Soviet Air Defense Forces was monitoring the warning system when it said an
American ICBM was incoming. Instead of immediately launching a
retaliatory nuclear attack, Col. Petrov decided to investigate further
as the warning system was new and a bit buggy. Plus, he was sure that an
American first strike would involved a lot more missiles. It did turn out to be a computer
error, as was the warning later that same day about four incoming American missiles . If he had
reacted without hesitation, a nuclear holocaust could have resulted.
So, what do you think? Should the U.S and Russia "de-alert" their nuclear arsenals? Do you think it's even
possible?

Nukes
Cyberattack Causes Nuclear War
Gady 15 Franz-Stefan Gady May 04, 2015 The Diplomat Could Cyber Attacks Lead to
Nuclear War? http://thediplomat.com/2015/05/could-cyber-attacks-lead-to-nuclear-war/

cyberattack causing an
accidental nuclear war between the United States and Russia,
retired U.S. Gen. James Cartwright recently stated in an Associated Press interview.
Short fuses on U.S. and Russian strategic forces have particularly
increased the risk of accidental nuclear war, according to Cartwright ,
while the sophistication of the cyberthreat [to nuclear weapons] has increased
exponentially. One-half of their [U.S. and Russian] strategic arsenals are continuously maintained on high
De-alerting nuclear arsenals could help reduce the likelihood of a

alert. Hundreds of missiles carrying nearly 1,800 warheads are ready to fly at a moments notice, a policy report

At the brink of conflict,

nuclear command and warning networks around the world may be
besieged by electronic intruders whose onslaught degrades the
coherence and rationality of nuclear decision-making, the report further points
out. The War Games-like scenario could unfold in one of the following
three ways: First, sophisticated attackers from cyberspace could
spoof U.S. or Russian early warning networks into reporting that
nuclear missiles have been launched, which would demand
immediate retaliatory strikes according to both nations nuclear warfare doctrines. Second,
online hackers could manipulate communication systems into issuing
unauthorized launch orders to missile crews. Third and last, attackers
could directly hack into missile command and control systems
launching the weapon or dismantling it on site . To reduce the likelihood of such an
scenario ever occurring, Cartwright proposes that Moscow and Washington should adjust their nuclear war
compiled by a study group chaired by the retired U.S. general summarized.

contingency plan timetables from calling for missiles to be launched within 3 to 5 minutes to 24 to 72 hours.

Reducing the lead time to prepare nuclear missiles for launch would not
diminish the deterrent value of the weapons, Cartwright, who headed Strategic Command from 2004 to 2007 and was
vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff before retiring in 2011, emphasized. However, the Obama White House has so far
rejected the idea, particularly due to the recent deterioration of U.S.-Russia relations. Also, Robert Scher, Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans, and Capabilities, testified in Congress this month arguing it did not make any
great sense to de-alert forces because nuclear missiles needed to be ready and effective and able to prosecute the
mission at any point in time

War Generic
Cyber war would be costly
Strickland 8 [Jonathan, senior writer for the electronics and computer
channels, Is cyberwar coming?, HowStuffWorks.com,
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/cyberwar.htm //NA]
Listen up, soldier! Not every battle takes place over rugged terrain, on the
open sea or even in the air. These days, you'll find some of the fiercest
fighting going on between computer networks. Rather than using bullets and
bombs, the warriors in these confrontations use bits and bytes. But don't think that digital weaponry

Consider all the

different systems in the United States connected to the Internet:
Emergency services Financial markets and bank systems Power
grids Water and fuel pipelines Weapons systems Communication
networks. That's just the beginning. Think about all the services and systems
that we depend upon to keep society running smoothly . Most of them run on
doesn't result in real world consequences. Nothing could be further from the truth.

computer networks. Even if the network administrators segregate their computers from the rest of the
Internet, they could be vulnerable to a cyber attack. Cyber warfare is a serious concern.
Unlike traditional warfare, which requires massive amounts of resources such as personnel, weapons and

cyber warfare only needs someone with the right knowledge

and computer equipment to wreak havoc. The enemy could be
anywhere -- even within the victim nation's own borders. A powerful
attack might only require half a dozen hackers using standard laptop
computers. Another frightening aspect of cyber warfare is that a
cyber attack can come as part of a coordinated assault on a nation
or it could just be a malicious hacker's idea of a joke. By the time a
target figures out the nature of the attack, it may be too late. No matter
what the motive, cyber attacks can cause billions of dollars in damages. And
many nations are woefully unprepared to deal with cyber attacks. With that in mind, the
question isn't will there be a cyberwar -- the question is when will
there be one?
equipment,

Cybersecurity puts US at a disadvantage in cyberwar.

Impacts are economic decline, collapsed technology, and
national security
Gewirtz 6/22/15 [David, author, US policy advisor, computer scientist,
Why the next World War will be a cyberwar first, and a shooting war
second, ZDnet, http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-next-world-war-will-be-acyberwar-first-and-a-shooting-war-a-distant-second/ //NA]
Everything we do revolves around the Internet. Older technologies are finding

themselves eclipsed by their Internet-based substitute solutions. Even technologies historically unrelated
to networking (like medical instruments) are finding themselves part of the Internet, whether as a way to
simply update firmware, or using the network to keep track of telemetry and develop advanced analytics.

Whether we're talking about social networking, financial systems,

communications systems, journalism, data storage, industrial
control, or even government security -- it is all part of the Internet.
That makes the world a very, very dangerous place. Historically,
wars are fought over territory or ideology, treasure or tradition,
access or anger. When a war begins, the initial aggressor wants
something, whether to own a critical path to the sea or strategic oil

fields, or "merely" to cause damage and build support among certain

constituencies. At first, the defender defends, protecting whatever
has been attacked. Over time, however, the defender also seeks
strategic benefit, to not only cause damage in return, but to gain
footholds that will lead to an end to hostilities, a point of leverage
for negotiation, or outright conquest. Shooting wars are very
expensive and very risky. Tremendous amounts of material must be
produced and transported, soldiers and sailors must be put into
harm's way, and incredible logistics and supply chain operations
must be set up and managed on a nationwide (or multi-national level).
Cyberwar is cheap. The weapons are often co-opted computers run
by the victims being targeted. Startup costs are minimal. Individual
personnel risk is minimal. It's even possible to conduct a cyberwar
without the victims knowing (or at least being able to prove) who
their attackers are. Cyberwar can be brutal, anonymous -- and
profitable. But the damage done by a cyberwar can be huge,
especially economically. Let's follow that idea for a moment. One of
the big reasons the U.S. won the Cold War (and scored highly in many of its other
conflicts) is because it had the economic power to produce goods for
war, whether capital ships or food for troops. An economically strong
nation can invest in weapons R&D, creating a technological
generation gap in terms of leverage and per-capita effectiveness
compared to weaker nations. But cyberwar can lay economic waste
to a nation. Worse, the more technologically powerful a nation is,
the more technologically dependent that nation becomes. Cyberwar
can level the playing field, forcing highly connected nations to
thrash, to jump at every digital shadow while attackers can co-opt
the very resources of the defending nation to force-multiply their
attacks. Sony is still cleaning up after the hack that exposed many confidential aspects of its
relationship with stars and producers. Target and Home Depot lost millions of credit cards. The
Snowden theft, while not the result of an outside hack, shows the
economic cost of a national security breach: nearly $47 billion.
Cyberwar can also cause damage to physical systems, ranging from
electric power stations to smart automobiles. And when a breach
can steal deeply confidential information of a government's most
trusted employees, nothing remains safe or secret. The U.S. Office of
Personnel Management was unwittingly funneling America's personnel data to its hackers for more than a
year. Can you imagine? We think China was responsible for the OPM hack. Despite the gargantuan nation's
equally gargantuan investments in America (or, perhaps, because of them), China has been accused of
many of the most effective and persistent penetrations perpetrated by any nation.

Cyber Terror
Terrorists are using viruses to open US installed back
doors and hack the systems. This allows them to be able
to attack the US power grid system

Kredo 6/24 [Adam, senior writer for the Washington Free Beacon. Formerly
an award-winning political reporter for the Washington Jewish, The
Washington Free Beacon, U.S. Power Grid Being Hit With Increasing Hacking
Attacks, Government Warns, http://freebeacon.com/national-security/u-spower-grid-being-hit-with-increasing-hacking-attacks-government-warns/ //NA
Major attacks on the U.S. power grid system are increasing, with
hackers stepping up efforts to penetrate critical systems and to
implant malicious software that could compromise the power grid
and result in a nationwide crisis, according to a government report.
While experts have long signaled that the U.S. power grid and
related systems are vulnerable to physical attacks by terrorists and
other individuals, the U.S. government is now warning that sensitive
computer systems that maintain the grid are increasingly being
attacked, according to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report that was not made public until
the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) disclosed it this month. The report warns that hackers
potentially affiliated with terrorist groups or rogue nations have the
ability to insert harmful malware into the internal systems governing
the U.S. grid, which increasingly are being hooked into the Internet. These types of computer
viruses are able to comb internal systems for private information in a clandestine manner; they can also be
used to wrest control of certain computers away from their owners. In recent years, new threats have
materialized as new vulnerabilities have come to light, and a number of major concerns have emerged
about the resilience and security of the nations electric power system, the report says. In particular, the
cyber security of the electricity grid has been a focus of recent efforts to protect the integrity of the
electric power system. The threat is compounded by the revelation that many power companies
are only living up to the minimum standards set for cyber security by the U.S. government. Although
malware intrusions may not have resulted in a significant disruption of grid operations so far, they still
have been possible even with mandatory standards in place, the report states. Cyber attacks on the U.S.
grid and power companies are becoming more prevalent. Incidents of reported cyber
intrusions and attacks aimed at undermining the U.S. grid appear to be increasing, according to the
report. While parts of the electric power subsector have mandatory and enforceable cyber and physical
security standards, some have argued that minimum, consensus-based standards are not enough to

the electric grid is not isolated

from attacks on other critical infrastructure sectors on which it
depends (i.e., the natural gas subsector, water, and transportation),
and mandatory and enforceable cyber security standards apply to
only a few of the critical infrastructure sectors, the report states. Experts and
secure the system. The report continues: Further,

government authorities remain concerned about attacks on critical infrastructure. The increasing
frequency of cyber intrusions on industrial control systems of critical infrastructure is a trend of concern to
the electric utility industry, the report warns The National Security Agency reported that it has seen
intrusions into [industrial control] systems by entities with the apparent technical capability to take down
control systems that operate U.S. power grids, water systems and other critical infrastructure. The report
documents a number of recent attacks on U.S. power grid computer systems. In October 2014, for
instance, the Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT) revealed that
several industrial control systems has been infected by a virus capable of gathering information about

Hackers are reported to have used the

BlackEnergy Trojan horse to deliver plug-in modules used for several
purposes, including keylogging, audio recording, and grabbing
screenshots, according to the report. Researchers looking at the
BlackEnergy malware are reported to have identified a plug-in that
how the grid system functions.

can destroy hard disks, and believe that the attackers will activate
the module once they are discovered in order to hide their
presence. Another virus named HAVEX has been used to open socalled back doors into computer systems.

**Terrorist groups have the means and intent to launch

cyberattacks they will shut down banking,
infrastructure, and power systems
Silber and Garrie 15
Mitchell, Executive Managing Director of the Threat Intelligence and Data Analytics practice for the
Americas for K2 Intelligence, and Daniel, Experienced E-Discovery, Cybersecurity, Cyberwarfare, and
Forensic Attorney, Guarding Against a Cyber 9/11, The Wall Street Journal, 4/15/15,
http://www.wsj.com/articles/guarding-against-a-cyber-9-11-1429138821 SJE

The Internet provides an easy, low-cost and low-risk means for nonstate
actors or terrorist groups to amplify the impact of any attack. But a large-scale
cyberattack on critical infrastructure could prove devastating. Whether
its called Cyber 9/11 or Cyber Pearl Harbor, senior U.S. officials, including the president, have warned

attacks launched by foreign hackers that could cripple

incapacitate the country by taking down the power grid, water
infrastructure, transportation networks and the financial system .
Islamic State, aka ISIS, recently released a video threatening another 9/11magnitude attack on the U.S. Clearly well-funded, ISIS has proved to be the
most sophisticated terrorist group so far when it comes to utilization
of digital media for recruitment and propaganda. Last week a French television
network, TV5 Monde, was digitally commandeered by ISIS-inspired hackers who cut
of the possibility of

the transmission of 11 channels and took over the stations website and social-media accounts for 24
hours. A different type of cyberattack occurred in 2010, when Russian-affiliated hackers hit Estonia. The
attack consisted partly of ping attacks, which overwhelmed servers. There were botnet attacks, which
harnessed zombie computers from around the world to flood designated Internet addresses with useless,
network-clogging data as part of a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack. Hackers also infiltrated
specific individual websites to delete content and post their own messages. Although relatively

these coordinated cyberattacks took down servers and

websites related to major government and nongovernment
institutions and communications networkseffectively taking the entire
country offline for two weeks. In a major U.S. city, a combined
physical and cyber terrorist attack could result in hundreds wounded and
killed. It could also impair first responders ability to get to the scene of
the attack, and the ability of local government to communicate with the
citys population in a chaotic and confusing environment.
unsophisticated,

Xtn
Cyber attacks lead to extinction
Wilson 13 Richard Wilson (presented to: Permanent Monitoring Panel on
Mitigation of Terrorist Actions at and Seminar on Planetary Emergencies of the World
Federation of Science) August 24, 2013. The Risks to Human Extinction
http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/publications/pp936.pdf

CYBERTERRORISM is in the news and has been discussed at Erice but never, to my

mind, with the openness and clarit y that the subject demands. Now we live in an interconnected
world and it is possib le to affect other computers. It seems that the only hope is to have a
computer system which NEVER connects with anyone else, and whose programs a re nev er updated
from outside. In addition, one must be sure that no seed was implanted when the equipment was
made which can be accessed from outside. This is a tall order. As we now stand, it seems that all

links to the outside world can be and, in most cases, are recorded, can be used for

sabotage, invasions of privacy and so on. To shut down a nations el ectricity grid seems trivial. My
preferred method of ten years ago was for each of a group of terrorists to take pot shots at the insulators
at isolated transmission line towers in the cross country transmission l ines at exactly the same time.
This is now out of date!

A cyber attack is probably an easier way to

nations electricity!

cut off a

Cutting off a nations electricity can cause

major disruption including major loss of life . The question remains Can it
destroy mankind and make it extinct? I cannot see a direct connection. Once electricity
networks fail, (and arguments between nations on who is responsible for the failures increase )
secondary effects leading to extinction by other means might well
increase (i.e., release of nuclear bombs or dangerous pathogens)

Econ
Cyberhacking destroys the economy
Dodrill 14 (Tara Dodrill, is the author of Power Grid Down: How To Prepare,
Survive & Thrive After The Lights Go Out, The Prepared Family website
creator, and a writer for Off The Grid News, Prepper and Shooter Magazine,
Survival Life, Survival Based, and the host of the Common Sense Prepping
radio show on the Prepper Broadcasting Network. Dodrill is also the Social
Media Manager for Prepper and Shooter Magazine and the Lights Out Saga
movie series. Cyber Hackers Could Cause An Economic Collapse, President
Obama Warnshttp://www.survivalbased.com/survival-blog/5918/cyberhackers-could-cause-an-economic-collapse-president-obama-warns/)
President Barack Obama issued a doomsday warning during a recent fundraising
stop in New York City. The president told a room full of wealthy celebrities and Wall Street types about
a looming disaster scenario which could drastically and negatively impact
America in the near future. During the New York City fundraising stop President Obama told wealthy
business leaders and celebrities that the White House is bracing for a possible doomsday scenario if
cyber hackers are able to gain access to business and government
computer systems. Cyber threats to the United States economy were
apparently in the forefront of the presidents mind during the upscale fundraising
shindig in NYC. A cyber-attack of untold proportion could cripple the economy and
alter life as we know if in America, according to attendees at President Obamas fundraising event.
The U.S. power grid has reportedly been under a constant state of attack by
English-speaking Chinese computer experts nestled in a rather unimposing building in Shanghai. The
alleged cyber-attacks by the computer hackers pose as significant a threat to America
as the two million soldiers in the Chinese army ever could, if the cyber warfare studies by the Mandiant
security firm are accurate. One of the top targets of the Peoples Liberation Army is allegedly Lockheed
Martin, the largest defense contractor in the United States. Government officials have acknowledged the
distinct similarities between the F-35 fighter jet and a version of the plane manufactured in China.

Crippling the power grid would be perhaps the quickest way to

destroy the American economy and decrease the effectiveness of our military at the

same time. The Peoples Liberation Army would not have to step foot on American soil or fire a single shot,

American infrastructure
was noted as some of the most troubling targets of Chinese hackers in an ABC
in order to win a virtual and silent war against the United States.

News report about Chinese cyber hackers. Twenty-something cyber theft experts are reportedly honing
their skills by hacking into business and governmental entities in order to steal either identities or funds.

The Chinese hackers are reportedly targeting the American water supply,
pipelines and the power grid. What purpose other than the wreaking havoc, would hackers
have for attempting to cripple our infrastructure? Analyst Richard Clarke noted during the ABC report that
the only reason someone would want to get into the control system for the power grid would be to cause

Commerce would come to a screeching halt

if the power grid collapsed. If you owe someone a debt, as we most undoubtedly do with
damage, destruction, and disruption.

China, taking away the ability to generate funds defies common sense. But, punishing an entity that
appears to never be able to make good on a debt is a tried and true loan shark tactic. Chinese officials
likely discuss our struggling economy as much as we do ourselves. Former Department of Homeland
Security Secretary Janet Napolitano stated that a cyber-attack was a matter of when not if during a
press gathering shortly after leaving office. The power grid is our most antiquated and vulnerable piece of
infrastructure. The entire system is teetering on the brink of failure. The grid
is often called Americas glass jaw because of the nations reliability on it and also due to its many
weaknesses, such as its vulnerability to a domino effect because it is interconnected. There are about
5,800 power plants and 450,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines in the US, many of them decades
old and a large portion of them connected to one another. Janet Napolitano also uttered this warning about

a major
cyber event that will have a serious effect on our lives, our economy and the
the threat cyber attacks pose to our aging power grid: Our country will, at some point, face

everyday functioning of our society. While we have built systems, protections and a framework to identify
attacks and intrusions, share information with the private sector and across government, and develop
plans and capabilities to mitigate the damage, more must be done, and quickly. After the storm passed
[Hurricane Sandy] FEMA sent teams into impacted areas to set up Disaster Registration Centers and
conduct damage assessments. For the first time, we activated the DHS Surge Capacity Force, an allvolunteer corps that we created in 2011 to leverage the shared talents and experience and capabilities of
employees from across the department. Cyber hacking could prove just as detrimental to the power grid
as the sniper attack in California and the havoc the Tennessee gunman likely intended to unleash during
separate attacks in 2013. On February 11, 2014, cyber hackers exploited the weaknesses of the Network
Time Protocol system crafted to sync computer and laptop clocks. The cyber terrorists were able to send a
massive amount of data to servers which could introduce malicious attack on online networks.
Cloudfare CEO Matthew Prince said on Twitter, Someones got a big, new cannon and the attack is the
start of ugly things to come. An unidentified attendee at the Democratic fundraiser said, The

president is worried that cyber criminals could literally wipe out the
identities of millions of people through some breach of government
systems and that could lead to massive chaos. He said 15 years ago, cyber
terrorism wasnt even on the radar screen, but that it will be one of the biggest concerns for whoever is
president after him. During a meeting while with New York City former Intrepid Museum President Bill
White, President Obama allegedly said that it would take Bonnie and Clyde a thousand years to do what

a trio of
hackers could steal $100 million in a fairly short time and could
possibly take down the banking system one day. The presidents comments
three people in a room with a server can now do. The president also allegedly said that such

during the NYC fundraiser nearly coincided with JPMorgan disclosing a significant cyber-attack had
occurred and the culprits were able to obtain the addresses and names of 76 million customer households.

Are you prepared for a power grid down scenario? Could a cyber attack cause an
economic collapse in America?

US Loses Cyberwar
America is set to lose cyberwar
Hoover 10 [J. Nicholas, Senior Editor, InformationWeek Government,
Former Intelligence Chief: U.S. Would Lose Cyberwar, InformationWeek,

http://www.darkreading.com/risk-management/former-intelligence-chief-us-would-lose-cyberwar/d/did/1087106?

//NA
The risk of a catastrophic cyberattack is approaching the gravity of
the nuclear risk, according to the Bush administration's top spy. "The cyber risk has become so
important that, in my view, it rivals nuclear weapons in terms of seriousness,"
Michael McConnell, former director of national intelligence, said
Tuesday at a hearing of the Senate committee on commerce, transportation, and technology.

McConnell warned in striking terms that the United States was not
prepared either for cyber warfare or cyber criminals. "If the nation
went to war today in a cyberwar, we would lose," he said. "We're the
most vulnerable, we're the most connected, and we have the most to
lose."

A2: China hack wont happen

Chinese hacking can happen they have the personnel
and expertise to execute it
Bennett 6/11/15 [Jonah Bennett, reporter for the Daily Caller News

Foundation, The Daily Caller, The True Impact Of The Chinese OPM Hack Is
Only Just Now Being Realized, http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/11/the-trueimpact-of-the-chinese-opm-hack-is-only-just-now-beingrealized/#ixzz3duL9YjJR //NA]
The recent pillaging of the Office of Personnel Management by
Chinese hackers means that Beijing now likely has access to a long
list of ethnic Chinese with close ties to top-level government
officials. Intelligence officials have surmised that the Chinese are
trying to construct careful and detailed schematics of how the U.S.
government operates by drawing from the stolen records of 4 million
current and former federal employees, The New York Times reports. The
majority of the data was not encrypted, a fact which shocked
investigators. While China hasnt publicly been named as the culprit, classified hearings reveal that
the attribution is not controversial, despite China protesting that any allegations of involvement are

federal employees with access to

national security information are required to list information on
foreign contacts, as well as a list of former boyfriends or girlfriends,
relatives and even detailed financial information. Some of those contacts are
bound to be Chinese. As noted by John Schindler, a former intelligence analyst
with the NSA, part of the reason the leak is so dangerous is because most cases of espionage from
irresponsible and unscientific. Many of those

China can be traced back to ethnic Chinese. Beijing, unlike other intelligence agencies, relies almost
exclusively on its own people to conduct operations. Of the estimated 50 million Chinese living outside
China, 4 million reside in the United States. Aside from the risk stemming from ethnic Chinese, Schindler

pointed out that the disclosure of sensitive information gives Beijing

a wide variety of new attack vectors on Americans. They can target Americans
in their database for recruitment or influence. After all, they know their vices, every last one the
gambling habit, the inability to pay bills on time, the spats with former spouses, the taste for something
sexual on the side (perhaps with someone of a different gender than your normal partner) since all that

China now has the option of

blackmailing any useful contacts into service, or even retaliating
against them for not outright handing over information on all of
their contacts, in order to extend Beijings reach deep into the U.S.
government, especially on nuclear weapons and trade issues. And if you
is recorded in security clearance paperwork, Schindler wrote.

are a Chinese person who didnt report your contacts or relationships with an American, you may have a
problem, James Lewis, a cyber-expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told The New
York Times. The State Department is well aware of the dangers. In 2010, upon request from the State
Department, The New York Times redacted the names of any Chinese citizens mentioned in cables
released by WikiLeaks. The GOP has taken the breach as an opportunity to slam President Barack Obama
for his insufficient handling of the epidemic of Chinese espionage. In particular, Mike Huckabee argued
Monday that in response, the U.S. should hack the Chinese government, in order to humiliate Chinese
families for political corruption, or wipe-out a few critical Chinese computer systems. Sen. Lindsey
Graham also bemoaned the inability of the U.S. to mount proper defenses against foreign intrusion. I fear
the massive data breach at the Office of Personnel Management may turn out to be yet another example
of America being walked over by rivals and adversaries, Graham told Politico. Whats clear is that past
attempts to crack down on Chinese cyberespionage havent been successful.

China has already hacked nearly every major cooperation

in the US. Failure to change cybersecurity ensures that it
continues.
Pagliery 3/13/15 [Jose, Tech reporter, Ex-NSA director: China has hacked

'every major corporation' in U.S., CNN Money,

http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/13/technology/security/chinese-hack-us/ //NA]
The Chinese government -- seeking to steal valuable secrets -- has hacked into
the computers at every major American company, according to the
nation's former spy director. Mike McConnell, who served as director of national
intelligence under President George W. Bush, made the comments during a speech at the University of
Missouri on Thursday. "The

Chinese have penetrated every major corporation

of any consequence in the United States and taken information," he
said. "We've never, ever not found Chinese malware." He said the malware lets Chinese spies extract
information whenever they want. McConnell, who also led the NSA from 1992 until 1996, continues to
investigate hacks as a high-ranking adviser to Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH). He listed victims he has come
across during his investigations: U.S. Congress, Department of Defense, State Department (which is
currently dealing with Russian hackers) and major corporations. The U.S. government has said it has
caught Chinese spies stealing blueprints and business plans. Last year, federal prosecutors took the
unprecedented step of filing formal criminal charges against five Chinese government spies for breaking
into Alcoa (AA), U.S. Steel Corp. (X), Westinghouse and others. But McConnell's assertion is different. It
would mean that no large company can escape the massive theft of American entrepreneurial ideas. In his

McConnell also said that during the final years of the Bush
administration, the Chinese government employed a jaw-dropping
100,000 hackers dedicated solely to breaking into computers . By
speech,

comparison, he said the United States had that many spies -- total. McConnell listed what the Chinese are
stealing: "planning information for advanced concepts, windmills, automobiles, airplanes, space ships,
manufacturing design, software." "If they can take that, before we can take it to market - for free - and it's
unchecked for 15, 20 years, I would say

United States," he said.

that has strategic consequences for the

Hacks Happen Empirical Ev

The OPM hack proves the US is behind in internet safety,
threatening the lives of nearly 14 million workers to
hackers
Gallagher 6/21/15
Sean, IT editor at Ars Technica. Ex-sysadmin, ex-editorial CTO, ex-Navy, EPIC failhow OPM hackers
tapped the mother lode of espionage data, Ars Technica, http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/06/epic-failhow-opm-hackers-tapped-the-mother-lode-of-espionage-data/ //NA
Government officials have been vague in their testimony about the data breaches there was
apparently more than oneat the Office of Personnel Management. But on Thursday, officials from OPM, the
Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of the Interior revealed new
information that indicates at least two separate systems were compromised by attackers
within OPM's and Interior's networks. OPM has not yet revealed the full extent of the data exposed by the attack, but
initial actions by the agency in response to the breaches indicate information of as many as
3.2 million federal employees (both current federal employees and retirees) was exposed. However, new
estimates in light of this week's revelations have soared, estimating as many as 14 million
people in and outside government will be affected by the breachincluding uniformed military
and intelligence personnel. It is, essentially, the biggest potential "doxing" in history . And if true,
personal details from nearly everyone who works for the government in some capacity may now be in the hands of a foreign government. This
fallout is the culmination of years of issues such as reliance on outdated software and contracting large swaths of security work elsewhere
(including China). The OPM breaches themselves are cause for major concerns, but there are signs

that these are not isolated incidents. "We see supporting evidence that these attacks are
related to the group that launched the attack on Anthem [the large health insurer breached
earlier this year]," said Tom Parker, chief technology officer of the information security
company FusionX. "And there was a breach at United Airlines that's potentially correlated as
well." When pulled together into an analytical database, the information could essentially become a
LinkedIn for spies, providing a foreign intelligence organization with a way to find individuals
with the right job titles, the right connections, and traits that might make them more
susceptible to recruitment or compromise . Preliminary evidence points to a group dubbed by Crowdstrike as "Deep
Panda," a Chinese cyber-espionage group. In the past, the group has used Windows PowerShell attacks to implant remote access tools (RATs)
on Windows desktops and servers. It is this malware that investigators are believed to have discovered on OPM's network and in the
Department of the Interior's data center.

Hacking Backdoors V. Easy

Project Bullrun intentionally weakens encryption
standards that can be open to nearly everyone with the
skills to hack a computer
Granneman 13 Joseph, resident expert on information security
management. He has more than 20 years of technology experience, How to
protect corporate data after the NSA Bullrun revelations,
http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/tip/How-to-protect-corporate-data-afterthe-NSA-Bullrun-revelations //NA
In the leaked Bullrun documents, the nation's top crypto-cracking agency is described
as using a number of different methods to secretly decrypt Internet communications, including requiring
tech companies to turn over private encryption keys, compromising endpoints where private encryption

even weakening published encryption standards to

allow for easier brute-force cracking. Bullrun also mentions the
existence of a database of private encryption keys for many
commercial software products that can be used when all other
decryption methods prove unsuccessful. There is even a reference to
forcing American companies to install backdoors into computer
hardware ordered by a foreign intelligence agency. One of the most
troubling aspects of project Bullrun is the confirmation that
backdoors have been installed in commercial hardware and
software. Backdoors pose a particularly high level of risk because
they may be used by anyone, not just the NSA . The best way to mitigate this risk
keys are stored and

is to migrate away from proprietary technologies and utilize open source options wherever possible, with
the highest priority being to migrate infrastructure services to open source equivalents. There are also
excellent open source alternatives for file services, DNS, DHCP, certificate management, Web services,
routing, IDS/IPS, and firewalls. Firewalls should probably be addressed first from this list as they perform
one of the most critical roles in the network. They are also invaluable for monitoring and identifying any
unusual network traffic that could be an indication of backdoors installed in other infrastructure.

A2: Hackers Cant Hack

Hackers always evolving there is a constant threat
Paganini 13 (Pierluigi Paganini is Chief Information Security Officer at Bit4Id, firm leader in identity management, member of
the ENISA (European Union Agency for Network and Information Security)Treat Landscape Stakeholder Group, he is also a Security Evangelist,
Security Analyst and Freelance )Writerhttp://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/17080/hacking/chinese-hackers-that-hit-nyt-evolving-

their-techniques.html

A new series of cyber attacks conducted by Chinese hackers

targeted the US media, it seems that the responsible is the same
group that hit New York Times network late 2012, this time using
improved versions of malware. In 2012 the attacks occurred in
concomitance with the investigation of the journal, published on Oct.
25th, that revealed that the relatives of Wen Jiabao, Chinas prime
minister, had accumulated a fortune worth several billion dollars
through business dealings. On Oct. 25th the AT&T informed The Times
journal of suspect activities related ongoing attacks believed to have
been perpetrated by the Chinese military. Jill Abramson, executive editor of The
Times declared: Computer security experts found no evidence that sensitive e-mails or files from the
reporting of our articles about the Wen family were accessed, downloaded or copied, The news on new
attacks has been published on a blog post by FireEye security firm, the hackers after the disclosure of

FireEye detected
new variants of the malware during the investigation on a cyber
attack against an organization involved in shaping economic policy,
the hackers behind the attack against the NYT deployed updated
versions of the Backdoor.APT.Aumlib and Backdoor.APT.Ixeshe
malware families in May. Security researchers believe that Chinese
hackers are involved in a large-scale cyber espionage operation that
hit also US media, the malicious code used are newer versions of
Aumlib and Ixeshe malware. The technical threat intelligence team
discovered that the actual version of Aumlib encodes certain HTTP
communications, the malware is well known by security experts that
detected it in various targeted attacks in the past. Aumlib has been adopted in
details on the data breach suspended their activities early 2013. Security firm

targeted attacks for years, the previous variants of this malware family generated the following POST
request: POST /bbs/info.asp HTTP/1.1 Sending data via this POST request in clear text with the following
structure: <VICTIM BIOS NAME>|<CAMPAIGN ID>|<VICTIM EXTERNAL IP>|<VICTIM OS>| Recently FireEye
experts downloaded a new variant from the following URL: status[.]acmetoy[.]com/DD/myScript.js or
status[.]acmetoy[.]com/DD/css.css Chinese hackers Aumlib malware traffic From the above traffic is
possible to note the improvement operated by hackers: The POST URI is changed to /bbs/search.asp (as
mentioned, earlier Aumlib variants used a POST URI of /bbs/info.asp.) The POST body is now encoded.

Despite the changes appears minor they could be sufficient to evade

defensive measurement against the malware. The improvements for
the version of Ixeshe used by Chinese hackers is related to the use
of a new network traffic patterns to evade traditional network
security systems. Chinese hackers Ixeshe malware traffic The network traffic for Ixeshe early
versions is encoded with a custom Base64 alphabet, the URI pattern has been largely consistent: /[ACD]

Taiwan FireEye
team noted that the sample has totally different traffic pattern
sufficient to evade classic network traffic signature based defense
systems.. The Base64-encoded data still contains information
including the victims hostname and IP address but also a mark or
campaign tag/code that the threat actors use to keep track of
their various attacks. The mark for this particular attack was [ll65].
A curious particular related to both families of malware detected is
[EW]S[Numbers].jsp?[Base64] Analyzing a recent sample that targeted entities in

that they werent updated at least in last 12 months, Aumlib had not
changed since at least May 2011 meanwhile Ixeshe had not been
improved since at least December 2011. The discovery of FireEye
expert is considerable very important because it highlights a new
change in the techniques, tactics, or procedures (TTPs) of Chinese
hackers, this means the group is continuing the cyber espionage
campaign discovered months ago. The most successful threat
actors evolve slowly and deliberately. So when they do change, pay
close attention. Knowing how attackers strategy is shifting is crucial
to detecting and defending against todays advanced threats. But
knowing the why is equally important.

Impacts Grids

Generic
A cyberwar could wipe out the grid this would cause
chaos, billions in economic loss, and make way for a
terrorist attack
Pizzi 14 [Michael, Digital News Producer, Cyberwarfare greater threat to US
than terrorism, say security experts, Aljazeera America,
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/1/7/defense-leaderssaycyberwarfaregreatestthreattous.html //NA]
Cyberwarfare is the greatest threat facing the United States
outstripping even terrorism according to defense, military, and
national security leaders in a Defense News poll, a sign that hawkish warnings

about an imminent cyber Pearl Harbor have been absorbed in defense circles. That warning, issued by
then Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in Oct. 2012, struck many as a fear-mongering plug for defense
and intelligence funding at a moment when many in the United States, including 32 percent of those polled
by the same Defense News Leadership Poll, believe the government spends too much on defense. But 45

industry leaders polled said cyberwarfare is the gravest

danger to the U.S., underlining the governments shift in priority
and resources towards the burgeoning digital arena of warfare . In
percent of the 352

2010, the Pentagon created the U.S. Cyber Command, under the helm of NSA director Gen. Keith
Alexander, to better prepare the U.S. for a potential attack on digital infrastructure. Later that year, U.S.
Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn said cyberspace had become just

as critical to
military operations as land, sea, air, and space. The nebulous term
"cyberwarfare" refers to full-on conflict between countries or terror
groups featuring digital attacks on computer systems. But its more

devastating, violent impacts are considered by many analysts to be largely theoretical at this point.
Looming fears of cyber attacks on pacemakers of world leaders, for instance, have inspired movie plots
and television shows but are not known to have occurred, noted Morgan Marquis-Boire, a security
researcher at the University of Toronto's Citizen Lab. At the moment, this is all set in the realm of science
fiction." Marquis-Boire said the most kinetic cyberattack to date was probably the Stuxnet worm that
attacked Irans Natanz nuclear enrichment facility in 2010, stoking fears of a cyber-triggered nuclear terror

In the U.S., the most prominent cyber attacks have targeted

websites, including the Syrian Electronic Army's infamous White
House bomb hoax that briefly caused a 140-point drop in the Dow
Jones Industrial Average. But the classic fear is that enemy hackers
from countries like Iran, China, or Russia could infiltrate the U.S.
power grid, shutting down government agencies, crashing planes
into buildings, and grinding the economy to a halt. And though it has yet to
happen, security experts say a large-scale attack on the U.S. power grid
that could inflict mass casualties is within the realm of possibility. The
attack.

North American Electric Reliability Corporation reported in 2009 that the U.S. grid remains susceptible to
infiltration despite substantial government investment in securing it. We

do have a security
problem whereby life is rushing towards the Internet faster than
were developing Internet security, said Marquis-Boire. Many of these
systems werent built in a cyberwarfare age. We werent worried
about cyberwarfare when we built the national power grid, and its
difficult to retrofit security. The impact of such an attack could be
devastating. Massive power outages could not only unleash chaos,
they could also distract from a simultaneous military or terrorist
attack. That latter concern that cyber war tactics might blur with
traditional terrorism were underlined in June 2012, when information security expert Eugene
Kaspersky announced his labs discovery of the Flame virus that targeted computers in Iran. Its not cyber

war, its cyber terrorism and

Im afraid its just the beginning of the game ,

afraid it will be the end of the world

Kaspersky said at a conference in Tel Aviv. Im

as we know it. A few months later, Panetta compounded fears when he warned of a new,
profound sense of vulnerability in the U.S. due to the prospect of cyberwarfare. But with the exception of
several high-profile hacking incidents of websites, the American public has yet to experience any sort of
large-scale attack on U.S. infrastructure, let alone American lives. Despite the improbability of a full-on
cyber conflict, analysts say they are not surprised the nebulous threat posed by cyberwarfare has struck
fear in American hearts. "The

capability is out there to launch a large-scale

cyberattack resulting in loss of life or property damage, and
potential targets are in some sense infinite, because everything is
connected to computers in one way or the other, said Tara Maller, a
research fellow with the National Security Studies program at the
New America Foundation and a former military analyst for the CIA.

A Grid blackout causes a laundry list of impacts: 9 out of

10 people would die, hospitals would stop functioning,
food could no longer be frozen or refrigerated,
transportation shut down, and water systems would shut
off.
Bedard 14
Paul, longtime D.C. reporter, New ISIS threat: America's electric grid; blackout
could kill 9 of 10, Washington Examiner,
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/new-isis-threat-americas-electric-gridblackout-could-kill-9-of-10/article/2552766 //NA
Former top government officials who have been warning Washington
about the vulnerability of the nations largely unprotected electric
grid are raising new fears that troops from the jihadist Islamic State are poised to attack the
system, leading to a power crisis that could kill millions. Inadequate grid security, a porous U.S.-Mexico
border, and fragile transmission systems make the electric grid a target for ISIS, said Peter Pry, one of the
nations leading experts on the grid. Others joining Pry at a press conference later Wednesday to draw

if just a handful of the nations high

voltage transformers were knocked out, blackouts would occur
across the country. By one estimate, should the power go out and
stay out for over a year, nine out of 10 Americans would likely
perish, said Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for
Security Policy in Washington. At the afternoon press conference, Gaffney dubbed the
potential crisis the "grid jihad." A lack of electricity would shut off water
systems, impact city transportation services and shutdown hospitals
and other big facilities. Fresh and frozen foods also would be
impacted as would banks, financial institutions and utilities.
attention to the potential threat said that

Blackouts
Cyberattacks cause blackouts that shut down critical
infrastructure
Conte 15
Andrew, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Experts: Infrastructure Is a 'Legitimate Target' in Battle for Cyber
Supremacy, 2/17/15, http://www.govtech.com/security/GT-Experts-Infrastructure-Is-a-Legitimate-Target-inBattle-for-Cyber-Supremacy.html SJE

Secretaries of the Defense Department, National Security Agency and Cyber

Command have warned of the potential for a cyber 9/11 or online Pearl Harbor a
devastating computer attack that unplugs the power grid, empties
bank accounts and results in loss of life. Ultimately, it absolutely could happen,
Fowler said. Yeah, that thought keeps me up at night, in terms of what portion of our critical
infrastructure could be really brought to its knees. The United States, its allies

and its enemies work daily to build, arm and aim online computer attacks that can be initiated at the first
provocation of war. Until then, the militaries disrupt, spy, steal and cause havoc often with the intention
of sending a message. No one can say how many successful breaches go undetected, but attackers do not

The FBI has caught hackers using computers in Iran

to break into the systems of American Defense contractors, universities
and energy companies. Homeland Security found Russians dropping
destructive software into American systems for power grids,
telecommunications and oil distribution. Insiders with knowledge of the United
always get away clean.

States' offensive infrastructure declined to talk about it, but expert observers say the country leads the
world with capabilities such as the Stuxnet attack on Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities in 2010. As
Russia's military gathered along Ukraine's border last year, security company FireEye of Milpitas, Calif.,
detected bad software erupting from both countries. The data does not reveal specific intent but suggests
strongly that computer network operations are being used as one way to gain competitive advantage in
the conflict, said the company, which has investigated hacks at places such as Target, Sony and Anthem.
In July, when Israel initiated a military campaign in Gaza, malware traffic there jumped dramatically. Before
a country's leaders even consider going to war, they must lay the groundwork for a computer attack, said
Kenneth Geers, a former U.S. representative to NATO's cooperative cyber defense center in Estonia, who
conducted the FireEye research. Because

both weapons systems and critical

infrastructure use computers and networks to run and operate, they
are much more than legitimate targets, said Geers, a private cybersecurity expert
based in Kiev, Ukraine. They are absolutely necessary to attack and undermine on a
daily basis. If things go bad, nobody is going to forgive you for not having done this already.

Infrastructure
NSA decryption threatens cybersecurity: exploits the
internet, threatens global infrastructure, and ensures
vulnerabilities in software.

Cohn and Timm 13 [Cindy, Executive Director of the Electronic Frontier

Foundation and the National Law Journal named Ms. Cohn one of 100 most
influential lawyers in America in 2013, Trevor, Guardian US columnist and
executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, The NSA is Making
Us All Less Safe, Electronic Frontier Foundation,
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/nsa-making-us-less-safe //NA
"Computers are everywhere. They are now something we put our
whole bodies intoairplanes, carsand something we put into our
bodiespacemakers, cochlear implants. They HAVE to be
trustworthy." EFF Fellow Cory Doctorow. Corys right, of course. And thats
why the recent New York Times story on the NSAs systematic effort to
weaken and sabotage commercially available encryption used by
individuals and businesses around the world is so importantand not
just to people who care about political organizing, journalists or
whistleblowers. Thanks to additional reporting, we now know it matters
deeply to companies including Brazils Petrobras and Belgiums Belgacom,
who are concerned about protecting their infrastructure, negotiating
strategies and trade secrets. But really, it matters to all of us. We all live
in an increasingly networked world. And one of the preconditions of
that world has to be basic computer securityfreedom to use strong
technologies that are fully trustworthy. Every casual Internet user,
whether they know it or not, uses encryption daily. Its the s in
https and the little lock you see in your browsersignifying a secure
connectionwhen you purchase something online, when youre at
your banks website or accessing your webmail, financial records,
and medical records. Cryptography security is also essential in the
computers in our cars, airplanes, houses and pockets. What is the
NSA Doing to Make Us Less Safe? By weakening encryption, the NSA
allows others to more easily break it. By installing backdoors and
other vulnerabilities in systems, the NSA exposes them to other
malicious hackerswhether they are foreign governments or
criminals. As security expert Bruce Schneier explained, Its sheer
folly to believe that only the NSA can exploit the vulnerabilities they
create. The New York Times presented internal NSA documents with
some specifics. They are written in bureaucratese, but we have some
basic translations: Insert vulnerabilities into commercial encryption
systems, IT systems, networks and endpoint communications devices used
by targets Sabotage our systems by inserting backdoors and
otherwise weakening them if theres a chance that a target might
also use them. "actively engages US and foreign IT industries to covertly
influence and/or overtly leverage their commercial products' designs"
Secretly infiltrate companies to conduct this sabotage, or work with
companies to build in weaknesses to their systems, or coerce them
into going along with it in secret. Shape the worldwide commercial

cryptography marketplace to make it more tractable to advanced

cryptanalytic capabilities being developed by NSA/CSS Ensure that the
global market only has compromised systems, so that people dont
have access to the safest technology. "These design changes make the
systems in question exploitable through Sigint collection with
foreknowledge of the modification. To the consumer and other adversaries,
however, the systems' security remains intact." Make sure no one
knows that the systems have been compromised. influence policies,
standards and specifications for commercial public key technologies
Make sure that the standards that everyone relies on have
vulnerabilities that are hidden from users. Each of these alone
would be terrible for security; collectively they are a nightmare. They
are also a betrayal of the very public political process we went through in the
1990s to ensure that technology users had access to real security tools to
keep them safe.

Compromised Telecom could threaten US civilian and

military structure. Huawei has the means and capability
to severely damage US infrastructure, and what makes
matters worse is that Huawei works for China

Simonite 12 [Tom, MIT Technology Reviews San Francisco bureau chief, MIT
Technology News, Why the United States Is So Afraid of Huawei,
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/429542/why-the-united-states-is-soafraid-of-huawei/ //NA]
The threat may be theoreticalbut compromised telecom equipment
could quickly cripple a nations civilian and military infrastructure. By
Tom Simonite on October 9, 2012. A Congressional report yesterday warned that Chinese
telecommunications companies Huawei and ZTE pose a threat to
U.S. national security interests and could sell companies equipment
rigged to give the Chinese government control over American
communications networks. The report (PDF), issued by the House of Representatives
Intelligence Committee, cites no direct evidence that either Huawei or ZTE has acted to compromise the
security of any of its clients. However, experts say the possibility is real that surveillance technology could
be built into the routers and switches that underlie the Internet and wireless communications systems

Huawei and ZTEs primary business is selling

high-end computer networking switches and other equipment used
by cell phone carriers, Internet service providers, and other
companies to run communications networks. A switch sees all the
traffic that passes, says Fred Schneider, a professor at Cornell
University who works on cyber security and policy. This digital data could be
anything from phone calls to Internet traffic. If you control the switch, you could set
it up so that any time it handles data, it makes a copy and sends it
someplace else, or you could change the data while en routea yes
to a no. A back door installed in networking hardware could be very
difficult to detect, says Schneider. If you siphon off lots [of data], then
someone who was looking would notice, he says. But if its a small scale, it would
be pretty hard to tell. Thats because part of the Internet is designed to be
fault-tolerant and allow the occasional piece of data to go missing.
It would be hard to distinguish between drops and retries and
and this could be difficult to detect.

something nefarious, says Schneider. A trigger could be built either into the software that
comes installed in switches and network hardware or into the hardware itself, in which case it would be

The simplest kind of attack, and one very

hard to spot, would be to add a chip that waits for a specific signal
and then disables or reroutes particular communications at a critical
time, he says. This could be useful if you were waging some other kind
of attack and you wanted to make it difficult for the adversary to
communicate with their troops, Schneider says. Schneider says many of the companies
more difficult to detect, says Schneider.

that buy the kind of equipment sold by Huawei lack the resources to exhaustively check every aspect of a
devices design or software for potential back doors. The use of strong end-to-end encryption could help
prevent eavesdropping, but nontechnical defensessuch as buying from trusted suppliers or sourcing
equipment from multiple vendors to reduce the consequences if one piece of equipment proves

This weeks report is not the first time that

a government has noted Huaweis potential as a vector for Chinese
espionage. In 2011, the U.S. Commerce Department blocked the
company from bidding to build a new wireless network for first
responders; in March 2012, the Australian government barred
Huawei from bidding for contracts to create part of its new National
Broadband Network. The telcos are very worried about this, says
Dmitri Alperovitch, a cofounder and CTO of Crowdstrike, a security startup
untrustworthycould also be crucial, he says.

thats working on ways for companies to protect against cyber attacks and identify the perpetrators.
However, Huaweis prices are so low that any company that wants to remain competitive has to bear its
products in mind. Huawei is pretty much on par with the western manufacturers from a feature-set
perspective, but much cheaper, Alperovitch says. This weeks report reiterates that trade-off, but it does
not lay down a hard and fast rule against U.S. companies doing business with Huawei. Alperovitch says
China is known to be interested in carrying out electronic espionage against other governments and

The
Chinese are the most pervasive actors in terms of cyber espionage ,
he says. This track record, together with the fact that Huawei has
refused to explain its relationship with the Chinese government or
the role of a Communist Party committee inside the company, means
that its fair to wonder if Huaweis products will remain safe , Alperovitch
says. The question is, if the Chinese government comes to Huawei and
says would you put this code in your router, would Huawei do it ? he
says. In a statement released yesterday, Huawei said the intelligence
committee report failed to provide clear information or evidence to
substantiate the legitimacy of the Committees concerns , and also said
companies, and is a major backer of espionage software spread by e-mail and the Web.

that committee members had been given access to the companys research and manufacturing facilities,
as well as extensive documentation. Company executives have previously said in testimony to the
committee that Huawei makes about 70 percent of its $32 billion in annual revenue outside China,
suggesting that it has little incentive to anger foreign governments. Both Schneider and Alperovitch note
that although this weeks report singles out Huawei, the globalization of supply chains raises wider security
concerns about products from many technology companies. Even if equipment is made in the U.S., for
example, it almost certainly contains components and chips made by other companies in other countries.
There is a broader concern about supply chain, says Alperovitch. Who knows whats being put into your
product at the factory?

China Scenario
Grid is vulnerable now attacks shut down critical
infrastructure outweighs terrorism
Lenzer 14 National Editor and Senior Editor at Forbes Magazine, New York Bureau Chief of The
Boston Globe and Wall Street correspondent of The Economist.
(Robert Lenzner, 11-28-2014, "Chinese Cyber Attack Could Shut Down U.S. Electric Power Grid,"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2014/11/28/chinese-cyber-attack-could-shut-down-u-s-electricpower-grid/2/, Date Accessed: 6-28-2015) //NM
Welcome to the increasingly dangerous world of cyber-warfare. The latest nightmare; a western
intelligence agency of unknown origin (according to the Financial Times of London) is infecting the
internet service providers and sovereign telecoms operations of Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mexico
and Ireland. To what end is not known, though the cyber security company Symantec calls the malware
extremely sophisticated. Then, there are the criminal elements, who have been hacking into the credit
card details of JP Morgan Chase (76 million customers names), and retailers like Home Depot, Target and
EBay. Or the attempts going on by neer-do-well nations to break down the control of energy plants and
factories, at times by criminal elements that act like stalking horses for sovereign nations up to no good. I
wrote about this phenomenon a decade ago for Forbes magazine (The Next Threat) and raised the
problem of private industry, especially public utilities, needing to invest major capital into establishing
cyber defenses against the very real possibility that our enemies could break into the internet
connections of urban public utilities and cause chaos and massive economic injury by closing
down the publics access to electricity. Threats existed as well against the operations of
infrastructure projects like dams, gas pipelines and transportation systems. A DOD research
facility in New Mexico plainly showed me how the nations public utility system could be penetrated
and closed down via their internet connection. Apparently, we have made little or no progress in the
past decade of defending our artificial light and energy. It appears that our enemies (read competitors)
have made exceedingly greater progress in their sophisticated cyber-warfare techniques than
we have achieved in defending ourselves. Now comes Admiral Michael Rogers, the head of the
National Security Agency and the U.S. Cyber Command, who warned last week that China and perhaps
two other unnamed nations had the ability to launch a cyber attack that could shut down the
entire U.S. power grid and other critical infrastructure. Such a dire possibility should well have
gotten a wider prominent play in the media. Yet Admiral Rogers underscored that software detected in
China could seriously damage our nations economic future by interfering with the electric
utility power companies that the citizens of New York, Dallas, Chicago, Detroit and other urban
centers require as the basic life blood of survival. This possibility is a great deal more dangerous
than stealing 76 million names from JP Morgan Chase. This not a Sci-Fi fantasy being perpetrated as a hoax
on the American public. The NSA head flatly predicted that it is only a matter of the when, not
the if, that we are going to see something traumatic. He admitted NSA was watching multiple
nations invest in this dangerous capability. He called the danger a coming trend, where our
vulnerability will be equivalent to a hole in our software systems that are unseen by the
multinational company, the public utility, the telecom giant, the defense manufacturer, the Department of
Defense. NATO took the threat seriously enough to organize mock cyber-wargame trials in Estonia several
days ago that indicated the western nations are aware of the need to fight on a new battlefield where the
enemy cannot be seen physically. It was the largest digital warfare exercise ever attempted, a
trial run to test dealing with a new non-military threat to global security. Consider the financial
damage to our nation from an attack that could shut down the power systems of major cities.
As Forbes pointed out a decade ago, there was a very great need to spend the money building firewalls
around our infrastructures internet communications network. We are in worse shape today, since NSA
chief Rogers plainly told the congressional intelligence committee last week the Chinese intelligence
services that conduct these attacks have little to fear because we have no practical deterrents
to that threat. The cyber threat is real. America had better wake up to the need to defend the
cogwheels of our economy from the electronic reconnaissance attacking our industrial control systems.
Public opinion needs to be aroused by the media and security officials into a threat that no one can see as
it is invisible. It is not Soviet missiles we fear, but inroads by nation states and criminal elements fronting
for them. Our cyber command capabilities are as crucial as our Special Forces in beating back
ISIS and other Islamic terrorists.

Military Scenario
Grid failure shuts down US military operations
Paul Stockton 11, assistant secretary of defense for Homeland Defense and Americas Security Affairs,
Ten Years After 9/11: Challenges for the Decade to Come, http://www.hsaj.org/?fullarticle=7.2.11

The cyber threat to the DIB is only part of a much larger challenge to
DoD. Potential adversaries are seeking asymmetric means to cripple
our force projection, warfighting, and sustainment capabilities, by
targeting the critical civilian and defense supporting assets (within
the United States and abroad) on which our forces depend. This challenge is
not limited to man-made threats; DoD must also execute its missionessential functions in the face of disruptions caused by naturally
occurring hazards.20 Threats and hazards to DoD mission execution
include incidents such as earthquakes, naturally occurring
pandemics, solar weather events, and industrial accidents, as well
as kinetic or virtual attacks by state or non-state actors. Threats can
also emanate from insiders with ties to foreign counterintelligence
organizations, homegrown terrorists, or individuals with a malicious
agenda. From a DoD perspective, this global convergence of unprecedented threats and hazards, and
vulnerabilities and consequences, is a particularly problematic reality of the post-Cold War world.

Successfully deploying and sustaining our military forces are

increasingly a function of interdependent supply chains and
privately owned infrastructure within the United States and abroad, including
transportation networks, cyber systems, commercial corridors, communications pathways, and energy
grids. This infrastructure largely falls outside DoD direct control .
Adversary actions to destroy, disrupt, or manipulate this highly
vulnerable homeland- and foreign-based infrastructure may be relatively
easy to achieve and extremely tough to counter. Attacking such soft,
diffuse infrastructure systems could significantly affect our military
forces globally potentially blinding them, neutering their command and
control, degrading their mobility, and isolating them from their
principal sources of logistics support. The Defense Critical Infrastructure Program
(DCIP) under Mission Assurance seeks to improve execution of DoD assigned missions to make them more
resilient. This is accomplished through the assessment of the supporting commercial infrastructure relied
upon by key nodes during execution. By building resilience into the system and ensuring this support is
well maintained, DoD aims to ensure it can "take a punch as well as deliver one."21 It also provides the
department the means to prioritize investments across all DoD components and assigned missions to the

The
commercial power supply on which DoD depends exemplifies both the
novel challenges we face and the great progress we are making with other federal agencies and the
most critical issues faced by the department through the use of risk decision packages (RDP).22

private sector. Todays commercial electric power grid has a great deal of resilience against the sort of

the grid will

increasingly confront threats beyond that traditional design basis. This
complex risk environment includes: disruptive or deliberate attacks,
either physical or cyber in nature; severe natural hazards such as
geomagnetic storms and natural disasters with cascading regional
and national impacts (as in NLE 11); long supply chain lead times for key
replacement electric power equipment; transition to automated
control systems and other smart grid technologies without robust
security; and more frequent interruptions in fuel supplies to
electricity-generating plants. These risks are magnified by
disruptive events that have traditionally been factored into the grids design. Yet,

globalization, urbanization, and the highly interconnected nature of

people, economies, information, and infrastructure systems . The
department is highly dependent on commercial power grids and
energy sources. As the largest consumer of energy in the United
States, DoD is dependent on commercial electricity sources outside
its ownership and control for secure, uninterrupted power to support
critical missions. In fact, approximately 99 percent of the electricity
consumed by DoD facilities originates offsite, while approximately
85 percent of critical electricity infrastructure itself is commercially
owned. This situation only underscores the importance of our partnership with DHS and its work to
protect the nations critical infrastructure a mission that serves not only the national defense but also the
larger national purpose of sustaining our economic health and competitiveness. DoD has traditionally
assumed that the commercial grid will be subject only to infrequent, weather-related, and short-term
disruptions, and that available backup power is sufficient to meet critical mission needs. As noted in the
February 2008 Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on DoD Energy Strategy, In most cases,

neither the grid nor on-base backup power provides sufficient

reliability to ensure continuity of critical national priority functions
and oversight of strategic missions in the face of a long term (several
months) outage.23 Similarly, a 2009 GAO Report on Actions Needed to Improve the Identification and
Management of Electrical Power Risks and Vulnerabilities to DoD Critical Assets stated that DoD
mission-critical assets rely primarily on commercial electric power
and are vulnerable to disruptions in electric power supplies .24 Moreover,
these vulnerabilities may cascade into other critical infrastructure
that uses the grid communications, water, transportation, and
pipelines that, in turn, is needed for the normal operation of the
grid, as well as its quick recovery in emergency situations . To remedy this

situation, the Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force recommended that DoD take a broad-based
approach, including a focused analysis of critical functions and supporting assets, a more realistic
assessment of electricity outage cause and duration, and an integrated approach to risk management that
includes greater efficiency, renewable resources, distributed generation, and increased reliability. DoD
Mission Assurance is designed to carry forward the DSB recommendations. Yet, for a variety of reasons

DoD has limited ability to manage

electrical power demand and supply on its installations. As noted above,
technical, financial, regulatory, and legal

DHS is the lead agency for critical infrastructure protection by law and pursuant to Homeland Security
Presidential Directive 7. The Department of Energy (DOE) is the lead agency on energy matters. And within
DoD, energy and energy security roles and responsibilities are distributed and shared, with different
entities managing security against physical, nuclear, and cyber threats; cost and regulatory compliance;

production and delivery of electric

power to most DoD installations are controlled by commercial
entities that are regulated by state and local utility commissions.
The resulting paradox: DoD is dependent on a commercial power
system over which it does not and never will exercise control .
and the response to natural disasters. And of course,

[Need Terminal Impact]

Economy
Grid blackouts are tanking the economy
Clark 12 Staff writer International Business Times
(Meagan Clark, 10-30-2012, "Aging US Power Grid Blacks Out More Than Any Other Developed Nation,"
http://www.ibtimes.com/aging-us-power-grid-blacks-out-more-any-other-developed-nation-1631086, Date
Accessed: 6-28-2015) //NM
The United States endures more blackouts than any other developed nation as the number of
U.S. power outages lasting more than an hour have increased steadily for the past decade ,
according to federal databases at the Department of Energy (DOE) and the North American Electric Reliability Corp.
(NERC). According to federal data, the U.S. electric grid loses power 285 percent more often than in

1984, when the data collection effort on blackouts began. Thats costing American businesses
as much as $150 billion per year, the DOE reported, with weather-related disruptions costing the most per
event. Each one of these [blackouts] costs tens of hundreds of millions, up to billions, of dollars
in economic losses per event, said Massoud Amin, director of the Technological Leadership Institute at the
University of Minnesota, who has analyzed U.S. power grid data since it became available in the '80s. The root
causes" of the increasing number of blackouts are aging infrastructure and a lack of
investment and clear policy to modernize the grid. The situation is worsened by gaps in the policies of
federal and local commissioners. And now there are new risks to the grid from terrorism and climate
change's extreme impacts, Amin said. Also, demand for electricity has grown 10 percent over the
last decade, even though there are more energy-efficient products and buildings than ever . And
as Americans rely increasingly on digital devices, summers get hotter (particularly in the southern regions of the U.S.) and
seasonal demand for air conditioning grows, the problem is only getting worse. While customers in Japan lose
power for an average 4 minutes per year, customers in the American upper Midwest lose power for an average 92
minutes per year, and customers in the upper Northwest lose power for an average 214 minutes per year, according to
Amins analysis. Those estimates exclude extreme events like severe storms and fires, though those have been
increasing the past two decades. We used to have two to five major weather events per year [that
knocked out power], from the 50s to the 80s, Amin said. Between 2008 and 2012, major

outages caused by weather increased to 70 to 130 outages per year. Weather used to account
for about 17 to 21 percent of all root causes . Now, in the last five years, its accounting for 68 to 73
percent of all major outages. The power grid, which could be considered the largest machine on earth, was built

after World War II from designs dating back to Thomas Edison, using technology that primarily dates back to the '60s and
'70s. Its 7,000 power plants are connected by power lines that combined total more than 5 million miles, all managed by
3,300 utilities serving 150 million customers, according to industry group Edison Electric Institute. The whole system is
valued at $876 billion. The utility industry has talked for years about updating its infrastructure into a smart grid, a
makeover that could cost between $338 billion and $476 billion, according to the Electric Power Research Institute. A
smart grid would allow utilities to monitor customers use of electricity remotely, from a central location, rather than
requiring on-site monitoring from gauges at homes and businesses. In 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act invested $4.5 billion for electricity delivery and energy reliability modernization effortsmatched by private funding to
reach a total of $8 billion in the electric sector to begin the large task of modernizing Americas aging energy
infrastructure to provide more reliable power. Amin estimates that a smarter grid could reduce costs of outages by about
$49 billion per year and reduce carbon emissions by 12 to 18 percent by 2030. As the electric sector continues deploying
smart grid technologies, resiliency and reliability will continue to improve, a U.S. Departement of Energy official told
IBTimes.

Terrorism
Infrastructure is Exposed To Cyber Threats
Burghardt 15

Tom Burghardt Global Research, May 19, 2015 Global Research The U.S.
Secret State and the Internet: Dirty Secrets and Crypto Wars from Clipper Chip and
ECHELON to PRISM http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-secret-state-and-the-internet-dirtysecrets-and-crypto-wars-from-clipper-chip-to-prism/5357623

President Clintons Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection

released a report that called for a vast increase in funding to protect
US infrastructure along with one of the first of many cyberwar tropes that would come to
dominate the media landscape. In the cyber dimension, the report breathlessly averred, there are
no boundaries. Our infrastructures are exposed to new
vulnerabilitiescyber vulnerabilitiesand new threatscyber threats .
And perhaps most difficult of all, the defenses that served us so well in the past
offer little protection from the cyber threat. Our infrastructures can
now be struck directly by a variety of malicious tools . And when a
commercial market for cheap, accessible encryption software was added to the mix, security mandarins at
Ft. Meade and Cheltenham realized the genie would soon be out of the bottle. After all they reasoned,

NSA and GCHQ were the undisputed masters of military-grade

cryptography who had cracked secret Soviet codes which helped
win the Cold War. Were they to be out maneuvered by some geeks in a garage who did not
share or were perhaps even hostile to the post-communist triumphalism which had decreed
America was now the worlds indispensable nation ? Technological
advances were leveling the playing field, creating new democratic space in the
realm of knowledge creation accessible to everyone; a new mode for
communicating which threatened to bypass entrenched power
centers, especially in government and media circles accustomed to a monopoly over the Official Story.
US spies faced a dilemma. The same technology which created a new business
model worth hundreds of billions of dollars for US tech corporations
also offered the public and pesky political outliers across the political
spectrum, the means to do the same. How to stay ahead of the curve? Why not
control the tempo of product development by crafting regulations, along with steep penalties for
noncompliance, that all communications be accessible to our guardians, strictly for law enforcement
purposes mind you, by including backdoors into commercially available encryption products.

Cyber Terror Collapses Infrastructure-SL

Ellyat 15
(Holly Ellyat assistant producer,cnbc.com, cyber terrorists to target critical infrastructure, January 27, 2015,
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102367777)

A cyberterror attack on vital national infrastructure such as power

facilities, transport networks and the financial sector could be
imminentand international governments are ill-prepared,
cybersecurity experts have warned. "It's not easy to predict what will happen, but the
worst terrorist attacks are not expected," Eugene Kaspersky, the co-founder and chief executive of global

if we face this
cyberterrorism, it will be very unpredictable in a very unpredictable
place, but with very visible damage. Unfortunately, there are many
possible victims." In recent months, the business world and political establishment has seen an
IT security firm Kaspersky Labs, told CNBC. So I am afraid that

uptick in the use of debilitating digital attacks. As well as the Sony attacks, allegedly by North Korea, and

On Monday,
Malaysian Airlines refuted that its website had been hacked by a
the widespread hacking of international news agencies by the "Syrian Electronic Army,"

group calling itself the "Cyber Caliphate" and claiming affiliation

with the Islamic State (ISIS). Now, there are concerns that the next big attack
will be against national critical infrastructure and could cripple a
country's ability to function. Kaspersky told CNBC that each country needed to make a
"very serious audit" of the critical infrastructure within its borders. In order of importance, he noted that

the infrastructure most vulnerable was the power network, "because

if the power plants and power grid don't work, then nothing else
works," followed by telecommunications, financial services and
transportation. "A security strategy needs to be made for all of these components," Kaspersky
said. He warned that governments needed to allocate a good part of their budgets over the next decade to
making critical infrastructure systems more secure.

Grid terrorism causes nuclear war

Habiger 10 2/1/2010 (Eugue Retired Air Force General, Cyberwarfare
and Cyberterrorism, The Cyber Security Institute, p. 11-19)
However, from a strategic defense perspective, there are enough warning signs to warrant preparation. In addition to the
threat of cyberwar, the limited resources required to carry out even a large scale cyberattack also makes likely the
potential for a significant cyberterror attack against the United States. However, the lack of a long list of specific

There is strong evidence to suggest

that al Qaeda has the ability to conduct cyberterror attacks against the
incidences of cyberterrorism should provide no comfort.

United States and its allies. Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are extremely active in cyberspace, using these
technologies to communicate among themselves and others, carry out logistics, recruit members, and wage information
warfare. For example, al Qaeda leaders used email to communicate with the 911 terrorists and the 911 terrorists used
the Internet to make travel plans and book flights. Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda members routinely post videos
and other messages to online sites to communicate. Moreover, there is evidence of efforts that al Qaeda and other
terrorist organizations are actively developing cyberterrorism capabilities and seeking to carry out cyberterrorist attacks.
For example, the Washington Post has reported that U.S. investigators have found evidence in the logs that mark a
browser's path through the Internet that al Qaeda operators spent time on sites that offer software and programming
instructions for the digital switches that run power, water, transport and communications grids. In some interrogations . . .
al Qaeda prisoners have described intentions, in general terms, to use those tools.25 Similarly, a 2002 CIA report on the
cyberterror threat to a member of the Senate stated that al Qaeda and Hezbollah have become "more adept at using the
internet and computer technologies.26 The FBI has issued bulletins stating that, U. S. law enforcement and intelligence
agencies have received indications that Al Qaeda members have sought information on Supervisory Control And Data
Acquisition (SCADA) systems available on multiple SCADArelated web sites.27 In addition a number of jihadist websites,
such as 7hj.7hj.com, teach computer attack and hacking skills in the service of Islam.28 While al Qaeda may lack the
cyberattack capability of nations like Russia and China, there is every reason to believe its operatives, and those of its ilk,
are as capable as the cyber criminals and hackers who routinely effect great harm on the worlds digital infrastructure
generally and American assets specifically. In fact, perhaps, the most troubling indication of the level of the cyberterrorist
threat is the countless, serious nonterrorist cyberattacks routinely carried out by criminals, hackers, disgruntled insiders,
crime syndicates and the like. If runofthemill criminals and hackers can threaten powergrids, hack vital military
networks, steal vast sums of money, take down a citys of traffic lights, compromise the Federal Aviation Administrations
air traffic control systems, among other attacks, it is overwhelmingly likely that terrorists can carry out similar, if not more

even if the worlds terrorists are unable to breed

these skills, they can certainly buy them. There are untold numbers of cybermercenaries
malicious attacks. Moreover,

around the worldsophisticated hackers with advanced training who would be willing to offer their services for the right
price. Finally, given the nature of our understanding of cyber threats, there is always the possibility that we have already
been the victim or a cyberterrorist attack, or such an attack has already been set but not yet effectuated, and we dont

a welldesigned cyberattack has the capacity cause widespread

chaos, sow societal unrest, undermine national governments, spread paralyzing fear and
anxiety, and create a state of utter turmoil, all without taking a single life. A sophisticated cyberattack could throw
know it yet. Instead,

a nations banking and finance system into chaos causing markets to crash, prompting runs on banks, degrading
confidence in markets, perhaps even putting the nations currency in play and making the government look helpless and
hapless. In todays difficult economy, imagine how Americans would react if vast sums of money were taken from their
accounts and their supporting financial records were destroyed. A truly nefarious cyberattacker could carry out an attack
in such a way (akin to Robin Hood) as to engender populist support and deepen rifts within our society, thereby making

A modestly advanced enemy could use a

cyberattack to shut down (if not physically damage) one or more regional power grids. An
entire region could be cast into total darkness, powerdependent systems could be shutdown. An attack on
one or more regional power grids could also cause cascading effects that could
jeopardize our entire national grid. When word leaks that the
blackout was caused by a cyberattack, the specter of a foreign
enemy capable of sending the entire nation into darkness would only increase the fear,
turmoil and unrest. While the finance and energy sectors are considered prime targets for a cyberattack, an
efforts to restore the system all the more difficult.

attack on any of the 17 delineated critical infrastructure sectors could have a major impact on the United States. For
example, our healthcare system is already technologically driven and the Obama Administrations ehealth efforts will only
increase that dependency. A cyberattack on the U.S. ehealth infrastructure could send our healthcare system into chaos
and put countless of lives at risk. Imagine if emergency room physicians and surgeons were suddenly no longer able to
access vital patient information. A cyberattack on our nations water systems could likewise cause widespread disruption.
An attack on the control systems for one or more dams could put entire communities at risk of being inundated, and could
create ripple effects across the water, agriculture, and energy sectors. Similar water control system attacks could be used
to at least temporarily deny water to otherwise arid regions, impacting everything from the quality of life in these areas to
agriculture. In 2007, the U.S. Cyber Consequences Unit determined that the destruction from a single wave of
cyberattacks on critical infrastructures could exceed $700 billion, which would be the rough equivalent of 50 Katrina
esque hurricanes hitting the United States all at the same time.29 Similarly, one IT security source has estimated that the
impact of a single day cyberwar attack that focused on and disrupted U.S. credit and debit card transactions would be
approximately $35 billion.30 Another way to gauge the potential for harm is in comparison to other similar noncyberattack
infrastructure failures. For example, the August 2003 regional power grid blackout is estimated to have cost the U.S.
economy up to $10 billion, or roughly .1 percent of the nations GDP. 31 That said, a cyberattack of the exact same
magnitude would most certainly have a much larger impact. The origin of the 2003 blackout was almost immediately
disclosed as an atypical system failure having nothing to do with terrorism. This made the event both less threatening and
likely a single time occurrence. Had it been disclosed that the event was the result of an attack that could readily be
repeated the impacts would likely have grown substantially, if not exponentially. Additionally, a cyberattack could also be
used to disrupt our nations defenses or distract our national leaders in advance of a more traditional conventional or

Many military leaders actually believe that such a

disruptive cyber preoffensive is the most effective use of offensive
cyber capabilities. This is, in fact, the way Russia utilized cyberattackerswhether government assets,
strategic attack.

governmentdirected/ coordinated assets, or allied cyber irregularsin advance of the invasion of Georgia. Widespread
distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks were launched on the Georgian governments IT systems. Roughly a day later
Russian armor rolled into Georgian territory. The cyberattacks were used to prepare the battlefield; they denied the
Georgian government a critical communications tool isolating it from its citizens and degrading its command and control
capabilities precisely at the time of attack. In this way, these attacks were the functional equivalent of conventional air
and/or missile strikes on a nations communications infrastructure.32 One interesting element of the Georgian
cyberattacks has been generally overlooked: On July 20th, weeks before the August cyberattack, the website of Georgian
President Mikheil Saakashvili was overwhelmed by a more narrowly focused, but technologically similar DDOS attack.33
This should be particularly chilling to American national security experts as our systems undergo the same sorts of
focused, probing attacks on a constant basis. The ability of an enemy to use a cyberattack to counter our offensive
capabilities or soften our defenses for a wider offensive against the United States is much more than mere speculation. In
fact, in Iraq it is already happening. Iraq insurgents are now using offtheshelf software (costing just $26) to hack U.S.
drones (costing $4.5 million each), allowing them to intercept the video feed from these drones.34 By hacking these
drones the insurgents have succeeded in greatly reducing one of our most valuable sources of realtime intelligence and
situational awareness. If our enemies in Iraq are capable of such an effective cyberattack against one of our more
sophisticated systems, consider what a more technologically advanced enemy could do. At the strategic level, in 2008, as
the United States Central Command was leading wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, a cyber intruder compromised the
security of the Command and sat within its IT systems, monitoring everything the Command was doing. 35 This time the
attacker simply gathered vast amounts of intelligence. However, it is clear that the attacker could have used this access
to wage cyberwaraltering information, disrupting the flow of information, destroying information, taking down systems
against the United States forces already at war. Similarly, during 2003 as the United States prepared for and began the
War in Iraq, the IT networks of the Department of Defense were hacked 294 times.36 By August of 2004, with America at
war, these ongoing attacks compelled thenDeputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz to write in a memo that, "Recent
exploits have reduced operational capabilities on our networks."37 This wasnt the first time that our national security IT
infrastructure was penetrated immediately in advance of a U.S. military option.38 In February of 1998 the Solar Sunrise
attacks systematically compromised a series of Department of Defense networks. What is often overlooked is that these
attacks occurred during the ramp up period ahead of potential military action against Iraq. The attackers were able to
obtain vast amounts of sensitive informationinformation that would have certainly been of value to an enemys military
leaders. There is no way to prove that these actions were purposefully launched with the specific intent to distract
American military assets or degrade our capabilities. However, such ambiguitiesthe inability to specifically attribute
actions and motives to actorsare the very nature of cyberspace. Perhaps, these repeated patterns of behavior were
mere coincidence, or perhaps they werent. The potential that an enemy might use a cyberattack to soften physical
defenses, increase the gravity of harms from kinetic attacks, or both, significantly increases the potential harms from a
cyberattack. Consider the gravity of the threat and risk if an enemy, rightly or wrongly, believed that it could use a
cyberattack to degrade our strategic weapons capabilities. Such an enemy might be convinced that it could win a war

The effect of this would be to

undermine our deterrencebased defenses, making us significantly more at
risk of a major war.
conventional or even nuclearagainst the United States.

Nuke War
Grid attacks go nuclear
Andres and Breetz 11
Richard Andres, Professor of National Security Strategy at the National War College and a Senior Fellow and
Energy and Environmental Security and Policy Chair in the Center for Strategic Research, Institute for
National Strategic Studies, at the National Defense University, and Hanna Breetz, doctoral candidate in the
Department of Political Science at The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Small Nuclear Reactorsfor
Military Installations:Capabilities, Costs, andTechnological Implications,
www.ndu.edu/press/lib/pdf/StrForum/SF-262.pdf
The DOD interest in small reactors derives largely from problems with base and logistics vulnerability. Over
the last few years, the Services have begun to reexamine virtually every aspect of how they generate and
use energy with an eye toward cutting costs, decreasing carbon emissions, and reducing energy-related
vulnerabilities. These actions have resulted in programs that have significantly reduced DOD energy
consumption and greenhouse gas emissions at domestic bases. Despite strong efforts, however, two

critical security issues have thus far proven resistant to existing

solutions: bases vulnerability to civilian power outages, and the
need to transport large quantities of fuel via convoys through hostile territory
to forward locations. Each of these is explored below. Grid Vulnerability. DOD is unable to
provide its bases with electricity when the civilian electrical grid is
offline for an extended period of time. Currently, domestic military
installations receive 99 percent of their electricity from the civilian
power grid. As explained in a recent study from the Defense Science Board: DODs key problem with
electricity is that critical missions, such as national strategic awareness and national command
authorities, are almost entirely dependent on the national transmission grid . . . [which]

is
fragile, vulnerable, near its capacity limit, and outside of DOD
control. In most cases, neither the grid nor on-base backup power
provides sufficient reliability to ensure continuity of critical national
priority functions and oversight of strategic missions in the face of a
long term (several months) outage.7 The grids fragility was
demonstrated during the 2003 Northeast blackout in which 50 million people in
the United States and Canada lost power, some for up to a week, when one Ohio utility failed to properly
trim trees. The blackout created cascading disruptions in sewage systems, gas station pumping, cellular
communications, border check systems, and so forth, and demonstrated the interdependence of modern
infrastructural systems.8 More recently, awareness has been growing

that the grid is also

vulnerable to purposive attacks. A report sponsored by the Department of Homeland

Security suggests that a coordinated cyberattack on the grid could result in a third of the country losing
power for a period of weeks or months.9 Cyberattacks on critical infrastructure are not well understood. It

terrorist groups might be able to develop

the capability to conduct this type of attack . It is likely, however, that some
nation-states either have or are working on developing the ability to
take down the U.S. grid. In the event of a war with one of these states, it is possible,
if not likely, that parts of the civilian grid would cease to function,
taking with them military bases located in affected regions. Government
and private organizations are currently working to secure the grid
against attacks; however, it is not clear that they will be successful. Most
is not clear, for instance, whether existing

military bases currently have backup power that allows them to function for a period of hours or, at most, a
few days on their own. If power were not restored after this amount of time, the results could be

military assets taken offline by the crisis would not be

available to help with disaster relief. Second, during an extended blackout, global
disastrous. First,

military operations could be seriously compromised; this disruption would be particularly

serious if the blackout was induced during major combat operations. During the Cold War, this
type of event was far less likely because the United States and Soviet Union shared the common
understanding that blinding an opponent with a grid blackout could escalate to nuclear war.

Americas current

opponents, however, may not share this fear or be deterred by this

DOD should mitigate the

electrical grids vulnerabilities by turning military installations into
islands of energy self-sufficiency. The department has made efforts to do so
by promoting efficiency programs that lower power consumption on bases and by
constructing renewable power generation facilities on selected bases.
possibility. In 2008, the Defense Science Board stressed that

Unfortunately, these programs will not come close to reaching the goal of islanding the vast

Even with massive investment in efficiency and

renewables, most bases would not be able to function for more than
a few days after the civilian grid went offline Unlike other alternative sources of
energy, small reactors have the potential to solve DODs vulnerability to grid outages. Most
bases have relatively light power demands when compared to civilian towns or cities. Small
reactors could easily support bases power demands separate from
the civilian grid during crises. In some cases, the reactors could be
designed to produce enough power not only to supply the base, but
also to provide critical services in surrounding towns during longterm outages. Strategically, islanding bases with small reactors has another benefit. One of
the main reasons an enemy might be willing to risk reprisals by
taking down the U.S. grid during a period of military hostilities
would be to affect ongoing military operations. Without the lifeline
of intelligence, communication, and logistics provided by U.S. domestic bases, American
military operations would be compromised in almost any conceivable
contingency. Making bases more resilient to civilian power outages
would reduce the incentive for an opponent to attack the grid . An
opponent might still attempt to take down the grid for the sake of disrupting civilian systems, but the
powerful incentive to do so in order to win an ongoing battle or war
would be greatly reduced.
majority of bases.

Grid terrorism causes nuclear war

Habiger, 2/1/2010 (Eugue Retired Air Force General, Cyberwarfare and Cyberterrorism, The Cyber
Security Institute, p. 11-19)
However, from a strategic defense perspective, there are enough warning signs to warrant preparation. In addition to the
threat of cyberwar, the limited resources required to carry out even a large scale cyberattack also makes likely the
potential for a significant cyberterror attack against the United States. However, the lack of a long list of specific
incidences of cyberterrorism should provide no comfort. There is strong evidence to suggest that al
Qaeda has the ability to conduct cyberterror attacks against the United States and its allies. Al Qaeda and
other terrorist organizations are extremely active in cyberspace, using these technologies to communicate among
themselves and others, carry out logistics, recruit members, and wage information warfare. For example, al Qaeda leaders
used email to communicate with the 911 terrorists and the 911 terrorists used the Internet to make travel plans and
book flights. Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda members routinely post videos and other messages to online sites to
communicate. Moreover, there is evidence of efforts that al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are actively
developing cyberterrorism capabilities and seeking to carry out cyberterrorist attacks. For example, the Washington Post
has reported that U.S. investigators have found evidence in the logs that mark a browser's path through the Internet that
al Qaeda operators spent time on sites that offer software and programming instructions for the digital switches that run
power, water, transport and communications grids. In some interrogations . . . al Qaeda prisoners have described
intentions, in general terms, to use those tools.25 Similarly, a 2002 CIA report on the cyberterror threat to a member of
the Senate stated that al Qaeda and Hezbollah have become "more adept at using the internet and computer
technologies.26 The FBI has issued bulletins stating that, U. S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies have received
indications that Al Qaeda members have sought information on Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA)
systems available on multiple SCADArelated web sites.27 In addition a number of jihadist websites, such as 7hj.7hj.com,
teach computer attack and hacking skills in the service of Islam.28 While al Qaeda may lack the cyberattack capability of
nations like Russia and China, there is every reason to believe its operatives, and those of its ilk, are as capable as the
cyber criminals and hackers who routinely effect great harm on the worlds digital infrastructure generally and American
assets specifically. In fact, perhaps, the most troubling indication of the level of the cyberterrorist threat is the countless,
serious nonterrorist cyberattacks routinely carried out by criminals, hackers, disgruntled insiders, crime syndicates and
the like. If runofthemill criminals and hackers can threaten powergrids, hack vital military networks, steal vast sums of
money, take down a citys of traffic lights, compromise the Federal Aviation Administrations air traffic control systems,
among other attacks, it is overwhelmingly likely that terrorists can carry out similar, if not more malicious attacks.
Moreover, even if the worlds terrorists are unable to breed these skills, they can certainly buy
them. There are untold numbers of cybermercenaries around the worldsophisticated hackers with advanced training
who would be willing to offer their services for the right price. Finally, given the nature of our understanding of cyber
threats, there is always the possibility that we have already been the victim or a cyberterrorist attack, or such an attack
has already been set but not yet effectuated, and we dont know it yet. Instead,

a welldesigned cyberattack has

the capacity cause widespread chaos, sow societal unrest, undermine national governments, spread
paralyzing fear and anxiety, and create a state of utter turmoil, all without taking a single life. A sophisticated
cyberattack could throw a nations banking and finance system into chaos causing markets to crash, prompting runs on
banks, degrading confidence in markets, perhaps even putting the nations currency in play and making the government
look helpless and hapless. In todays difficult economy, imagine how Americans would react if vast sums of money were
taken from their accounts and their supporting financial records were destroyed. A truly nefarious cyberattacker could
carry out an attack in such a way (akin to Robin Hood) as to engender populist support and deepen rifts within our society,
thereby making efforts to restore the system all the more difficult. A modestly advanced enemy could use a
cyberattack to shut down (if not physically damage) one or more regional power grids. An entire region could
be cast into total darkness, powerdependent systems could be shutdown. An attack on one or more regional power
grids could also cause cascading effects that could jeopardize our entire national grid. When

word leaks that the blackout was caused by a cyberattack, the specter of a foreign enemy
capable of sending the entire nation into darkness would only increase the fear, turmoil and unrest . While
the finance and energy sectors are considered prime targets for a cyberattack, an attack on any of the 17 delineated
critical infrastructure sectors could have a major impact on the United States. For example, our healthcare system is
already technologically driven and the Obama Administrations ehealth efforts will only increase that dependency. A
cyberattack on the U.S. ehealth infrastructure could send our healthcare system into chaos and put countless of lives at
risk. Imagine if emergency room physicians and surgeons were suddenly no longer able to access vital patient
information. A cyberattack on our nations water systems could likewise cause widespread disruption. An attack on the
control systems for one or more dams could put entire communities at risk of being inundated, and could create ripple
effects across the water, agriculture, and energy sectors. Similar water control system attacks could be used to at least
temporarily deny water to otherwise arid regions, impacting everything from the quality of life in these areas to
agriculture. In 2007, the U.S. Cyber Consequences Unit determined that the destruction from a single wave of
cyberattacks on critical infrastructures could exceed $700 billion, which would be the rough equivalent of 50 Katrina
esque hurricanes hitting the United States all at the same time.29 Similarly, one IT security source has estimated that the
impact of a single day cyberwar attack that focused on and disrupted U.S. credit and debit card transactions would be
approximately $35 billion.30 Another way to gauge the potential for harm is in comparison to other similar noncyberattack
infrastructure failures. For example, the August 2003 regional power grid blackout is estimated to have cost the U.S.
economy up to $10 billion, or roughly .1 percent of the nations GDP. 31 That said, a cyberattack of the exact same
magnitude would most certainly have a much larger impact. The origin of the 2003 blackout was almost immediately
disclosed as an atypical system failure having nothing to do with terrorism. This made the event both less threatening and
likely a single time occurrence. Had it been disclosed that the event was the result of an attack that could readily be
repeated the impacts would likely have grown substantially, if not exponentially. Additionally, a cyberattack could also be
used to disrupt our nations defenses or distract our national leaders in advance of a more traditional conventional or
strategic attack. Many military leaders actually believe that such a disruptive cyber preoffensive
is the most effective use of offensive cyber capabilities. This is, in fact, the way Russia utilized
cyberattackerswhether government assets, governmentdirected/ coordinated assets, or allied cyber irregularsin
advance of the invasion of Georgia. Widespread distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks were launched on the
Georgian governments IT systems. Roughly a day later Russian armor rolled into Georgian territory. The cyberattacks were
used to prepare the battlefield; they denied the Georgian government a critical communications tool isolating it from its
citizens and degrading its command and control capabilities precisely at the time of attack. In this way, these attacks
were the functional equivalent of conventional air and/or missile strikes on a nations communications infrastructure.32
One interesting element of the Georgian cyberattacks has been generally overlooked: On July 20th, weeks before the
August cyberattack, the website of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili was overwhelmed by a more narrowly focused,
but technologically similar DDOS attack.33 This should be particularly chilling to American national security experts as our
systems undergo the same sorts of focused, probing attacks on a constant basis. The ability of an enemy to use a
cyberattack to counter our offensive capabilities or soften our defenses for a wider offensive against the United States is
much more than mere speculation. In fact, in Iraq it is already happening. Iraq insurgents are now using offtheshelf
software (costing just $26) to hack U.S. drones (costing $4.5 million each), allowing them to intercept the video feed from
these drones.34 By hacking these drones the insurgents have succeeded in greatly reducing one of our most valuable
sources of realtime intelligence and situational awareness. If our enemies in Iraq are capable of such an effective
cyberattack against one of our more sophisticated systems, consider what a more technologically advanced enemy could
do. At the strategic level, in 2008, as the United States Central Command was leading wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, a
cyber intruder compromised the security of the Command and sat within its IT systems, monitoring everything the
Command was doing. 35 This time the attacker simply gathered vast amounts of intelligence. However, it is clear that the
attacker could have used this access to wage cyberwaraltering information, disrupting the flow of information,
destroying information, taking down systemsagainst the United States forces already at war. Similarly, during 2003 as
the United States prepared for and began the War in Iraq, the IT networks of the Department of Defense were hacked 294
times.36 By August of 2004, with America at war, these ongoing attacks compelled thenDeputy Secretary of Defense Paul
Wolfowitz to write in a memo that, "Recent exploits have reduced operational capabilities on our networks."37 This wasnt
the first time that our national security IT infrastructure was penetrated immediately in advance of a U.S. military
option.38 In February of 1998 the Solar Sunrise attacks systematically compromised a series of Department of Defense
networks. What is often overlooked is that these attacks occurred during the ramp up period ahead of potential military
action against Iraq. The attackers were able to obtain vast amounts of sensitive informationinformation that would have
certainly been of value to an enemys military leaders. There is no way to prove that these actions were purposefully
launched with the specific intent to distract American military assets or degrade our capabilities. However, such
ambiguitiesthe inability to specifically attribute actions and motives to actorsare the very nature of cyberspace.
Perhaps, these repeated patterns of behavior were mere coincidence, or perhaps they werent. The potential that an
enemy might use a cyberattack to soften physical defenses, increase the gravity of harms from kinetic attacks, or both,
significantly increases the potential harms from a cyberattack. Consider the gravity of the threat and risk if an enemy,
rightly or wrongly, believed that it could use a cyberattack to degrade our strategic weapons capabilities. Such an enemy
might be convinced that it could win a warconventional or even nuclearagainst the United States. The effect of

this would be to undermine our deterrencebased defenses, making

of a major war.

us

significantly more at risk

ADV Hegemony

Uniqueness

Heg Low Now

US hegemony is at an all-time low and still declining
Wu 12/30 (Wu Xinbo, executive vice president of Fudan University Institute
of International Education of Humanities, Decline of US Influence a LongTerm Trend, 12/30/14, http://watchingamerica.com/WA/2015/01/12/declineof-us-influence-a-long-term-trend/, LL)

If Barack Obama was already showing signs of weakness in 2013, then 2014 would be the year he fell into utter vulnerability. In todays international community, powerful

the worlds sole superpower is in an

unprecedented position of weakness. This weakness largely reflects the complexity and shift in international
leaders continually emerge, yet the leader of

position that the United States is currently facing through foreign competition. The complexity of foreign competition faced by the U.S. is demonstrated mainly by four

strategic competitive rivals have begun to challenge American

interests. The strong revival of Russias strategy and the economic
and strategic rise of China pose the most threatening geopolitical
challenge for the U.S. since the end of the Cold War. Second, American
allies such as the European Union, Israel and Japan are acting more
independently. Third, the conflict between the U.S. and the Muslim world has no solution. The rise of the Islamic
State set off a new wave of terrorist threats. Fourth, the functions of the
international mechanisms led by the U.S. are being degraded, and
the world needs new forms of global governance. The U.S. is now
facing challenges more threatening and diverse within the
international community, making it nearly impossible to devise an effective response. To some extent, Obamas weakness is a
response to the shift in the international position of the United States. First, although the comprehensive
national power of the U.S. remains first in the world, its lead is
shrinking. Militarily, Russias revival and Chinas modernization of its
military forces have weakened the U.S. military lead. Economically, the U.S.
economy accounted for 22.4 percent of the world economy in 2013,
the lowest since World War II. Second, American influence on global
affairs is in decline. Over the past few years, the number of
countries in disagreement with the U.S. on voting behavior at the
United Nations has been on the rise. Third, U.S. resources for foreign
affairs are shrinking. Under pressure from a huge budget deficit,
cuts in military spending will be a long-term trend for the U.S. The
proportion of total global foreign aid contributed by Americans is
decreasing. Fourth, the United States soft power is in decline. The
financial crisis has damaged the appeal of the U.S. development
model. Domestic political deadlock has greatly reduced the influence
of its political system, while the Edward Snowden incident has
tarnished its global reputation on morality. Together, these
circumstances have caused the international position of the United
States to slip to the lowest point in many years. Evidently, Obamas weakness was not only caused
aspects. First,

by himself or by domestic politics, but was also deeply tied to international politics. Although the next U.S. president may have a more decisive personality than Obama,

the decline of the American lead in its

position and influence is a long-term trend rather than a cyclical
phenomenon. First, American economic recovery is weakening, which indicates that the inherent vitality of the U.S. economic mechanism is in decline.
and the polarization of American politics may dissipate,

In the second half of the 20th century, the recovery time for each of the two U.S. economic recessions was fairly quick, and the economic aggregate was restored to
approximately a third of the worlds value. The recovery this time has been quite long, with its economic aggregate accounting for only about 20 percent of the total.
Second, from an international perspective, the strength and position of the U.S. in the 1990s was drastically elevated when the economic bubbles burst in Russia and
Japan. Today, the coincidental economic situations in Russia and Japan which greatly benefited American strategy and its economy are unlikely to occur again. Third, due to
the economic rise of emerging economies, the U.S. is currently losing its position as an economic superpower. Against this background, both the U.S. and the world must
accept the new role the U.S. has in international affairs. Although the U.S. remains a political and military superpower, Washingtons global approach will begin to change.
The U.S. will concentrate its diplomatic and military intervention overseas on areas of importance or significant interest and will use its military force more cautiously.
Toward global affairs, it will take on a role of mobilization and organization, when, for example, it will mobilize and organize other nations to implement an international
agenda that the U.S supports, rather than lead the fight or fight head-to-head, to further pursue its interests instead of power. U.S. allies and security partners will be
asked to take on more responsibility for security issues, thus developing a more intimate collaboration with the United States.

Emerging

countries such as China will be asked to play a greater role in global

governance, with an increasing number of multilateral mechanisms
operating in the absence of U.S. leadership or even participation.
International politics will gradually become a new normal in the
post-hegemony era.

Decline coming now- US always assumed they were

hegemon and never modernized
Eaglen 14 [Mackenzie Eaglen is a resident fellow in the Marilyn Ware
Center for Security Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, Why
Americas Military Dominance Is Fading, 6/30/14
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-america%E2%80%99s-militarydominance-fading-10772 mm]

It is often said Congress hates to cut or cancel weapons systems, usually for reasons relating to jobs and

Congress is much more likely to curtail

new equipment purchases for the military rather than get rid of or
retire the old stuff. This tendency is increasingly problematic for the
U.S. military. In many capability sets and domains, the traditional margins of U.S.
military technological supremacy are declining across the services.
Too often, policy makers think of this as an emerging challenge that
can be dealt with in the coming years. But, as has been documented previously and
stated by many senior Pentagon officials over the past year, Americas declining military
superiority is now a here-now problem. Frank Kendall,
undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, recently
said, Im very concerned about eroding technological superiority
and where were headed. [] Weve had 20 years since the end of the
Cold War [and] sort of a presumption in the United States that we are
technologically superior militarily. I dont think that thats a safe
assumption. In fact, I think that weve gotten complacent about that
and weve been distracted for the last ten years fighting
counterinsurgencies. U.S. Pacific Command chief Admiral Sam Locklear reiterated the same
point recently, noting Our historic dominance that most of us in this room
have enjoyed is diminishing, no question. Now that defense budgets are in their
fourth year coming down, this preference to fund the old is increasingly
coming at the expense of the new. Paying for yesterdays equipment
is not a static or one-time bill. This is one that only grows as equipment ages and gets
more expensive to maintain. These restrictions are starting to hurt investment in
innovation and tomorrows forces and their battlefield edge.
elections back home. But the record shows that

US Heg is in decline
Ward 14 [Alex: writes for the National Interest on President Obama's

second and final National Security Strategy, Only US Can Prevent Great
Power War August 22, 2014, http://thediplomat.com/2014/08/only-us-canprevent-great-power-war/]
Since the dawn of Pax Americana after World War II, belief in the
United States as the undisputed global hegemon remained fairly
stable. Until now. According to a recent Pew poll, Americans views of
the United States as a global power have reached a 40-year low .
Indeed, only 17 percent believe that America plays a more
important and powerful role than ten years ago. Rightly or wrongly,

this perception exists. Even though most people still find the United
States preferable to China, regional powers can use the widespread
belief that America is declining to make their cases for running the
system. In fact they are already doing so to a degree. For example,
Chinas Global Times reports that 47 percent of people believe
China has achieved major power status. Should both perceptions
keep trending in the same direction the United States is declining
while China rises then the feeling of an historic shift is almost
inevitable.

Links

Decryption Destroys Tech Competitiveness

NSA surveillance and intrusion into corporations destroy
tech competitiveness
Watson 13 *gender modified [Patrick: strategic adviser for active
investment managers Secret NSA Deals Cast Doubt on All US Stocks,
NewsMax Finance, July 3, 2013
http://www.newsmax.com/finance/PatrickWatson/NSA-US-Twitterfacts/2013/07/03/id/513179/ // emb].

Whatever you think about Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency (NSA) data collection he
unveiled is more than a privacy issue. Investors should pay attention , too. The company
whose shares you own may be lying to you while Uncle Sam looks the other way. Let's step through

U.S. financial markets are the envy of

the world because we have fair disclosure requirements, accounting
standards and impartial courts. This is the foundation of shareholder
value. The company may lose money, but they at least told you the
truth. Fact 2: We now know multiple public companies, including
Microsoft (MSFT), Google (GOOG), Facebook (FB) and other, gave their
user information to NSA. Forget the privacy implications for a minute. Assume for the sake of
argument that everything complies with U.S. law. Even if true, the businesses may still be at
risk. Fact 3: All these companies operate globally. They get revenue
from China, Japan, Russia, Germany, France and everywhere else.
Did those governments consent to have their citizens monitored by
the NSA? I think we can safely say no. Politicians in Europe are
especially outraged. Citizens are angry with the United States and losing faith in American brand
this. I think you will see the problem. Fact 1:

names.

Foreign companies are already using their non-American

status as a competitive advantage. Some plan to redesign networks

specifically to bypass U.S. companies. By yielding to the NSA, U.S.
companies likely broke laws elsewhere. They could face penalties
and lose significant revenue. Right or wrong, their decisions could
well have damaged the business. Securities lawyers call this
"materially adverse information" and companies are required to disclose it. But they are
not. Only chief executives and a handful of technical people know
when companies cooperate with the NSA. If the CEO can't even tell
[her/]his own board members [she/]he has placed the company at
risk, you can bet it won't be in the annual report. The government
also gives some executives immunity documents, according to Bloomberg.
Immunity is unnecessary unless someone thinks they are breaking the law. So apparently, the
regulators who ostensibly protect the public are actively helping the
violators. This is a new and different investment landscape. Public
companies are hiding important facts that place their investors at
risk. If you somehow find out, you will have no recourse because
regulators gave the offender a "get out of jail free" card. The
regulatory structure that theoretically protects you knowingly
facilitates deception that may hurt you, and then silences any
witnesses. This strikes to the very heart of the U.S. financial
system . Our markets have lost any legitimate claim to "full and fair

disclosure." Every prospectus, quarterly report and news release

now includes an unwritten NSA asterisk. Whenever a CEO speaks, we must assume
[her/]his fingers are crossed. The rumored Twitter IPO, if it happens, will be an interesting test. Twitter
CEO Dick Costolo will swear the prospectus includes "all material facts" potential investors should know ...
except for the ones subject to secret government orders. I use Twitter myself (@PatrickW) and wish them
well. The company resisted privacy intrusions in the past. I feel sure Mr. Costolo wants to do the right
thing. Yet we now have to wonder. For a company with global ambitions like Twitter, losing public trust and
possible legal action in most of the non-U.S. world sounds to me like a "material" risk. Edward Snowden
may have opened Pandora's box for Wall Street. Every individual investor or money manager now has a
new risk factor to consider. Every disclosure by every company is in doubt. The rule of law that gave us the
most-trusted markets in the world may be just an illusion. Maybe it always was.

Tech competitiveness hampered by Bullrun / NSA

decryption
Kelly 14 [Erin: Washington correspondent with USA Today, University of

Missouri-Columbia School of Journalism Tech companies say NSA spying

harms competitiveness Oct 7, 2014,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/07/wyden-microsofttech-industry-privacy-encryption/16826657/]
U.S. tech companies warn that their ability to compete globally is
being destroyed by government snooping and the mistrust it is
creating worldwide, and they will join with a powerful senator
Wednesday to push Congress for help. "Customers around the world
are raising more questions and expressing serious concern about the
security of their data," Brad Smith, general counsel and executive
vice president for Microsoft Corp., said in an interview with USA TODAY. "I see this
myself in trips to Europe and in a trip just last week to Asia. People
have more qualms about whether their personal information really is
private and beyond the reach of government." Smith is scheduled to participate in
a roundtable discussion of the issue in Silicon Valley on Wednesday led by Senate Finance Committee
Chairman Ron Wyden, D-Ore. Representatives of Google, Facebook, Dropbox and Greylock Partners venture

The tech companies say that European and

Canadian companies are using revelations about the National
Security Agency's mass surveillance of phone records to gain a
competitive advantage against American firms overseas. Foreign
capital firm also will speak.

competitors tell potential customers that American phone and Internet companies may be forced to turn

The erosion of trust in the privacy

of American technology is an especially big threat to companies such
as Dropbox, which has 70% of its users overseas. Wyden said
Congress must act to rein in the NSA or risk losing high-paying
American jobs in the tech industry. A report by the Information
Technology and Innovation Foundation said U.S. tech companies
stand to lose up to $35 billion through 2016 from canceled contracts
and missed opportunities. In June, the German government announced it would cancel a
over consumers' private data to the U.S. government.

contract with Verizon Communications because of the NSA's bulk collection of millions of phone records.
The mass surveillance, which is still going on, came to light last year when former NSA contractor Edward
Snowden leaked the information. "There are serious concerns about the implications for the whole U.S.
technology sector," said Wyden, who also serves on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. "You've
got consumers all over the world raising questions about the security of products that are made in the
United States."

IL Tech Comp K2 Heg

Hegemony is built on the ability to maintain a
technological edge
Carafano 08, Assistant Director, Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute
for International Studies, and Gudgel, assistant, 8 [James, also Ph.D.,Andrew,
Competitive Technologies for National Security: Reviews and
Recommendations, 2/29,
http://heritage.org/Research/Reports/2008/02/Competitive-Technologies-forNational-Security-Review-and-Recommendations]
Technology does not win wars or make nations safe. The search for security is shaped by larger cultural,

technology has
always been the handmaiden of national security. Nations always
look for innovations that can offer them competitive advantages
over their adversaries. Innovation will always be a national security
"wild card." New technologies may unleash or accelerate social and
cultural changes that affect how nations protect themselves on
battlefields and behind the scenes. Over the course of the 20th
century, America's genius was its capacity to ride above the wave of
technological change. That may not be the case in the future.
economic, and political factors and strategic choices. On the other hand,

American prowess is at risk. Congress will have to play an active

role in ensuring that the United States does not lose its competitive
edge. In 2006, The Heritage Foundation organized a series of workshops to examine emerging
technologies that have significant implications for national security. These technologies include
nanotechnology, biotechnology, advanced computing, directed energy, and robotics. This report reflects
the results of these workshops and additional research by Heritage scholars exploring the current and
future uses of these innovations, as well as what policy, guidelines, and programs Congress and the
Administration should undertake to ensure that the United States remains at the forefront of cutting-edge

Congress
should: * Establish a legislative framework that encourages the
development of emerging technologies; the promotion of research,
innovation, and investment; and the protection of U.S. citizens.
technological development. Among the key recommendations of this report are that

Congress should address litigation and civil liberties protection and environmental and public health
standards. It should, for example, consider expanding the scope of the SAFETY Act, which provides liability
protection for the development and deployment of homeland security and counterterrorism equipment and
services, to cover innovations that support other national security missions. Congress should also prompt
the Administration to work with other countries to adopt similar legislation that will facilitate deploying
technologies developed in the U.S. to support national security missions overseas. * Implement visa
issuance and management reforms to ensure that the best and the brightest continue to study and work
within the competitive technology fields in the United States. Congress should, for example, significantly
expand the H1B visa program, end the requirement for 100 percent interviews for visa applications, and
reform and expand the Visa Waiver Program. * Ensure that federal agencies efficiently and effectively
fund research and development on the emerging technologies with significant national security
implications, particularly those that are not being developed aggressively by the private sector, including
nanotechnology and directed energy. * Encourage more interdisciplinary approaches to research that
combine disparate scientific disciplines in both the basic and applied sciences, some creating new methods
of investigation, such as "network" science, which combines studying physical, biological, and social

The Past Is a Poor Prologue

Congress can ill afford to neglect science and technology policy. It
can no longer assume that the United States will maintain a decisive
technological edge over its global competitors. The world has
changed. At the outset of the Cold War in 1947, America stood as the undisputed world leader in
phenomena to understand how complex networks operate.

science and technology. The nation's scientists, bolstered by colleagues that had fled from war-torn
Europe, provided an unparalleled pool of knowledge with access to vast government resources. As a result,
the nation's leaders could rely on the best and brightest for innovation and creativity to maintain the
United States' technological edge. At the same time, government-sponsored research fueled by a decadeslong competition with the Soviet Union funded many of the premier technological innovations of the age.
The 21st century is very different.

The best and the brightest are not located

exclusively in the United States, and the United States is not
necessarily the preferred destination for foreign scientists.
Countries throughout Europe and Asia have recognized the
importance of cutting-edge technologies, both in terms of economic
growth and in terms of military capabilities, and have devoted
enormous resources to their development. Consequently, not only is the United

States seeing its scientific lead shrink, but it is also experiencing difficulty in attracting and retaining the
talent necessary to produce next-generation technologies. Another major change is that the federal
government is no longer the principal player in the research and development that shapes the character of
t modern era. Private-sector innovations in biotechnology and information systems dwarf government
research. These emerging industries are creating products that science-fiction writers never even
imagined, with dual-use capabilities that could potentially transform the fields of homeland security and
defense. In many cases,

national security innovation will come from

adapting commercial off-the-shelf technology . Still another significant

difference from Cold War competition with the Soviet Union is that many of America's
enemies today seek to avoid America's technical prowess, fighting space-

age weapons with ancient tactics like kidnapping, guerilla warfare, and suicide bombers. The technological
advantages of the Cold War era have proven ill-suited to these challenges. Emerging technologies will
have a dramatic impact on the future of our security. In the short term, these technologies will provide
capabilities that include protection and possible immunity against biological agents, better screening at
airports and ports, more efficient information-gathering and information-sharing techniques, and better
armor for our troops. In the long term, the sky is the limit. These fields will be at the center of scientific
advances for years to come and perhaps will redefine not only our national security capabilities, but also
how we conduct our daily lives.

Competitive Tech key to heg loss of US competitiveness

causes economic, military, and foreign policy shift
Inman and Burton 90 [B.R. Inman: etired from public service in 1982

and has subsequently been active in a variety of efforts to revitalize U.S.

industrial competitiveness. He is a member of the Executive Committee of
the Council on Competitiveness. Daniel F. Burton, Jr., is Executive Vice
President of the Council on Competitiveness, Technology and
Competitiveness: The New Policy Frontier, Foreign Affairs, Spring 1990,
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/1990-03-01/technologyand-competitiveness-new-policy-frontier\ ]
International competition has eroded the once commanding U.S.
advantage in technology. It has caused a shift in government and
business relationships in the United States and raised fundamental
questions about the conduct of American foreign policy. Both the public and private
sectors are increasingly concerned with a new set of technological issues related to industrial

This concern has forced a reassessment of national

priorities and caused both industry and government to rethink their
traditional roles in the development and application of technology. The implications for
foreign policy stem from one overriding fact: when it comes to advanced technology, national
competitiveness.

security can no longer be viewed in purely military terms; economic security is also a vital consideration.

military
and commercial technologies, so is it difficult to determine how to manage
international relationships, since important political allies in military technology are often
Moreover, just as it is increasingly difficult to make a meaningful policy distinction between

hard-nosed economic competitors in commercial technology. As a result of these trends a new U.S. public

policy framework is emerging that focuses on industrial competitiveness and technology. This focus raises
some important issues about the evolving roles of business and government in the economy, and forces
new thinking about how U.S. foreign policy can accommodate strategic economic concerns. II Recent

policy debates reflect the concern with the erosion of U.S.

technological superiority and shifting business and government
interests. In many ways the debate about the proper policy for technology mirrors the debate about

the proper role of government in the economy. Should the government intervene to assist certain sectors?
If so, what form should government intervention take? Which sectors should receive public assistance?
How should government policies and institutions be structured to facilitate commercial technology? Recent
technological developments have highlighted questions such as these and generated a lively policy
debate, pitting traditional notions about the proper role of government against the need for prompt,

the implications for U.S.

foreign policy are only beginning to be understood . Indeed some observers
pragmatic policy responses. The answers to these questions and

have complained that Washington suffers from a "technology of the week" syndrome, in which such
diverse technologies as cold fusion, supercomputers and biotechnology emerge unexpectedly as burning
issues and stir tremendous policy debates, only to be forgotten in a few weeks. Five technological debates
profile the changing public policy dialogue: consumer electronics, semiconductors, superconductors, the
FSX fighter airplane and high-definition television (HDTV). These debates do not include all of the
technologies that have engaged the federal government in recent years, but they are indicative of the

The decline of
the American consumer electronics industry was one of the early
signals that the United States was facing a challenge to its technological
leadership. For most of the past century American industry enjoyed a
strong position in consumer electronics. During the past fifteen years, however, U.S.
kinds of issues that are driving public policy deliberations. Consumer Electronics

companies have ceded that market to foreign competitors. The American era of consumer electronics
manufacturing began in 1887 with Thomas Edison's invention of the phonograph. That breakthrough was
followed by a string of other U.S. inventions, including the cathode ray tube (1897), wireless transmission
of speech (1900), radio broadcasting (1920), television receivers (1923), magnetic wire recorders (1946),
the transistor (1947), color televisions (1954), portable radios (1954) and home videocassette recorders
(1963).

Asian countries are outpacing US tech competitiveness

that threatens heg new tech efforts key
Lerner 12 (Lerner, Richard, [National Science Board], New Report Outlines Trends in U.S. Global
Competitiveness in Science and Technology, 1/17/12, https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/news/news_summ.jsp?
cntn_id=122859)

The United States remains the global leader in supporting science

and technology (S&T) research and development, but only by a slim margin that
could soon be overtaken by rapidly increasing Asian investments in knowledge-

intensive economies. So suggest trends released in a new report by the National Science Board (NSB), the
policymaking body for the National Science Foundation (NSF), on the overall status of the science,
engineering and technology workforce, education efforts and economic activity in the United States and
abroad. "This

information clearly shows we must re-examine long-held

assumptions about the global dominance of the American science and
technology enterprise," said NSF Director Subra Suresh of the findings in the Science and
Engineering Indicators 2012 released today. "And we must take seriously new
strategies for education, workforce development and innovation in order for
the United States to retain its international leadership position ," he
said. Suresh oversees NSF's $7 billion dollar budget, which is awarded to the federal agency by Congress
and funds basic research and education across all fields of science and engineering, including some 15
percent of federally supported basic research conducted at America's colleges and universities. According
to the new Indicators 2012, the largest global S&T gains occurred in the so-called "Asia-10"--China, India,
Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand--as those countries
integrate S&T into economic growth. Between 1999 and 2009, for example, the U.S. share of global
research and development (R&D) dropped from 38 percent to 31 percent, whereas it grew from 24 percent
to 35 percent in the Asia region during the same time. In China alone, R&D growth increased a stunning 28
percent in a single year (2008-2009), propelling it past Japan and into second place behind the United
States. "Over the last decade, the world has changed dramatically," said Jos-Marie Griffiths, chair of the
NSB committee that oversees production of the report. "It's now a world with very different actors who
have made advancement in science and technology a top priority. And many of the troubling trends we're

seeing are now very well established." In 2009, President Obama released A Strategy for American
Innovation, which recognized the importance of science and engineering as drivers of innovation and
identified a strong fundamental research base as critical to innovation, economic growth and
competitiveness. "Maintaining
discovery

our role as the world's engine of scientific

and technological innovation [is] absolutely essential to our

future," the president said.

ISIS Scenario

Heg K2 S ISIS
Hegemony key to solve ISIS creates coalitions
Davis 14 (Chris Davis, The Strategy to Defeat ISIS: Mississippi Senator
Asks For More Details From Pres. Obama, 9/16/14,
http://www.newsms.fm/strategy-defeat-isis-mississippi-senator-asks-detailspres-obama/)/
WASHINGTON, D.C.A well-funded, well-equipped, and sophisticated army is
how Sen. Roger Wicker described ISIS, the Islamic state, to the Senate Monday, asking the
president to provide more information on his plan to defeat the group before it grows bigger and threatens
more Americans. Wicker said he believes Congress should support the Commander-in-Chief, but before
they can, they need to know how an airstrike campaign, without soldiers actually on the ground, will be
effective in putting down such a large movement. Wicker is a senior member of the Senate Armed Forces
Committee. His comments addressed the skepticism that some DC lawmakers feel after Pres. Obamas
speech last week. That skepticism is also being reflected in polls, some of which indicate that a majority of
the American people are not sure about how effective the presidents plan may be. Congress and the
American people are now seeking specifics about the new strategy. I am hopeful that the new plan is

U.S. leadership and the

projection of military might are critical to defeating the ISIS
extremists, said Wicker. It is clear that our efforts to date have been insufficient to overthrow this
well-funded, well-equipped, and sophisticated army. It will take more than limited
airstrikes and the modest deployment of military advisers to curb
the rapid spread of ISIS across northern Iraq and Syria. The United
States must be committed to building a coalition that fosters
regional cooperation, dismantles the groups considerable financial
network, and assists the Iraqi, Kurdish, and Free Syrian forces. And I
strong enough and broad enough to be successful long-term.

want to help the President in his request for authorization to train and equip these forces. This coalition
needs to include Muslim-majority nations who are all-in with a demonstrated resolve to defeat the Islamic
terrorists in their own neighborhood. I believe Congress should support our commander-in-chief in the

a fight that can result in victory and a peace that can be

sustained. I look forward to hearing more details about the Presidents plans when Secretary Hagel
fight against ISIS

and General Martin Dempsey testify before the Armed Services Committee tomorrow. There are still
questions to be answered. For example: If public opinion turns, will the Administration lose its resolve? How
long will it take to win, how long will it take to crush ISIS? What is the definition of success? What is the
definition of victory in this case? If we accomplish our objectives, will we once again abandon our gains as
we did after the surge in Iraq? What is the plan to eliminate the terrorist groups financial network? And are
the President and congressional leaders willing to find a solution to defense sequestration in order to fulfill
the mission, if more resources are required? And, more resources will be required, Mr. President.
Addressing these questions is important to understanding the specific goals and aims of the Presidents
strategy, which are yet to be fleshed out. Americans and Congress deserve this clarity. Wicker also
addressed what he believes is the need for the Senate to pass the National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) in order to provide the nations armed forces with the resources they require to fulfill their
missions. Congress has the responsibility to provide the resources that our U.S. military needs for its
missions. We do this through our appropriations, through the power of the purse, and the National
Defense Authorization Act, which has garnered bipartisan support for the past 52 years. An annual
blueprint of the military priorities is vital to making sure that our troops have what they need to protect our
national security interests at home and abroad. This years bill, for example, includes a provision to stave
off drastic cuts to the U.S. Army, which would put troop strength at levels not seen since before World War
II. Well-trained units like the 155thHeavy Brigade Combat Team in my home state of Mississippi should not
be jeopardized by shortsighted and ill-considered proposals by the Obama Administration. Instead, under
the committee bill an independent commission would have the opportunity to make recommendations on
force structure and size before the National Guard personnel could be cut or the Apache attack helicopters
could be transferred. In conclusion, Mr. President, we have work to do. The Senate Armed Services
Committee and the House of Representatives have passed the defense authorization bill. It is time for the
Senate to follow suit. America has the most formidable fighting force in the world, and this presence must
remain resilient as dangerous groups like ISIS put our interests at risk. The rapid rise of these barbaric
terrorists is a wake-up call for U.S. leadership. Now that the President has declared his intention to
degrade and destroy ISIS militants, we must ensure that the mission is fulfilled.

ISIS Bioterror
ISIS can weaponize bubonic plague
Doornbos, Moussa 14
(Found: The Islamic States Terror Laptop of Doom
http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/08/28/found-the-islamic-states-terror-laptop-ofdoom/)
ANTAKYA, Turkey Abu Ali, a commander of a moderate Syrian rebel group
in northern Syria, proudly shows a black laptop partly covered in dust. We
took it this year from an ISIS hideout, he says. Abu Ali says the fighters from the Islamic
State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), which have since rebranded themselves as the Islamic State, all fled
before he and his men attacked the building. The attack occurred in January in a village in the Syrian
province of Idlib, close to the border with Turkey, as part of a larger anti-ISIS offensive occurring at the
time. We found the laptop and the power cord in a room, he continued, I took it with me. But I have no
clue if it still works or if it contains anything interesting. As we switched on the Dell laptop, it indeed still
worked. Nor was it password-protected. But then came a huge disappointment: After we clicked on My
Computer, all the drives appeared empty. Appearances, however, can be deceiving. Upon closer

Buried in the hidden files section of

the computer were 146 gigabytes of material, containing a total of 35,347 files in
2,367 folders. Abu Ali allowed us to copy all these files which included documents in
French, English, and Arabic onto an external hard drive. The
laptops contents turn out to be a treasure trove of documents that
provide ideological justifications for jihadi organizations and
practical training on how to carry out the Islamic States deadly
campaigns. They include videos of Osama bin Laden, manuals on how to make
bombs, instructions for stealing cars, and lessons on how to use
disguises in order to avoid getting arrested while traveling from one
jihadi hot spot to another. But after hours upon hours of scrolling
through the documents, it became clear that the ISIS laptop contains
more than the typical propaganda and instruction manuals used by
jihadists. The documents also suggest that the laptops owner was
teaching himself about the use of biological weaponry, in
preparation for a potential attack that would have shocked the
world. The information on the laptop makes clear that its owner is a
Tunisian national named Muhammed S. who joined ISIS in Syria and
who studied chemistry and physics at two universities in Tunisias
northeast. Even more disturbing is how he planned to use that education: The ISIS laptop
contains a 19-page document in Arabic on how to develop biological
weapons and how to weaponize the bubonic plague from infected
animals. The ISIS laptop contains a 19-page document in Arabic on how to develop biological weapons
and how to weaponize the bubonic plague from infected animals. The advantage of
biological weapons is that they do not cost a lot of money, while the
human casualties can be huge, the document states. The document
includes instructions for how to test the weaponized disease safely,
before it is used in a terrorist attack. When the microbe is injected in small mice, the
symptoms of the disease should start to appear within 24 hours, the document says. The laptop
also includes a 26-page fatwa, or Islamic ruling, on the usage of
weapons of mass destruction. If Muslims cannot defeat the kafir
[unbelievers] in a different way, it is permissible to use weapons of
mass destruction, states the fatwa by Saudi jihadi cleric Nasir al-Fahd, who is currently
imprisoned in Saudi Arabia. Even if it kills all of them and wipes them and
inspection, the ISIS laptop wasnt empty at all:

their descendants off the face of the Earth. When contacted by

phone, a staff member at a Tunisian university listed on
Muhammeds exam papers confirmed that he indeed studied
chemistry and physics there. She said the university lost track of him after 2011, however.
Out of the blue, she asked: Did you find his papers inside Syria? Asked why she would think that
Muhammeds belongings would have ended up in Syria, she answered, For further questions about him,
you better ask state security. An astonishing number of Tunisians have flocked to the Syrian battlefield
since the revolt began. In June, Tunisias interior minister estimated that at least 2,400 Tunisians were
fighting in the country, mostly as members of the Islamic State. This isnt the first time that jihadists have
attempted to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Even before the 9/11 attacks, al Qaeda had
experimented with a chemical weapons program in Afghanistan. In 2002, CNN obtained a tape showing al
Qaeda members testing poison gas on three dogs, all of which died. Nothing on the ISIS laptop, of course,
suggests that the jihadists already possess these dangerous weapons. And any jihadi organization
contemplating a bioterrorist attack will face many difficulties: Al Qaeda tried unsuccessfully for years to get
its hands on such weapons, and the United States has devoted massive resources to preventing terrorists
from making just this sort of breakthrough. The material on this laptop, however, is a reminder that
jihadists are also hard at work at acquiring the weapons that could allow them to kill thousands of people
with one blow. The real difficulty in all of these weapons [is] to actually have a workable distribution
system that will kill a lot of people, said Magnus Ranstorp, research director of the Center for Asymmetric
Threat Studies at the Swedish National Defence College. But to produce quite scary weapons is certainly
within [the Islamic States] capabilities. The Islamic States sweeping gains in recent months may have
provided it with the capacity to develop such new and dangerous weapons. Members of the jihadi group
are not solely fighting on the front lines these days they also control substantial parts of Syria and Iraq.
The fear now is that men like Muhammed could be quietly working behind the front lines for instance, in
the Islamic State-controlled University of Mosul or in some laboratory in the Syrian city of Raqqa, the
groups de facto capital to develop chemical or biological weapons. In short, the longer the caliphate
exists, the more likely it is that members with a science background will come up with something horrible.

The documents found on the laptop of the Tunisian jihadist,

meanwhile, leave no room for doubt about the groups deadly
ambitions. Use small grenades with the virus, and throw them in
closed areas like metros, soccer stadiums, or entertainment
centers, the 19-page document on biological weapons advises.
Best to do it next to the air-conditioning. It also can be used during
suicide operations.

ISIS will use bio weapons against the west

Ryan WallaceJan 05, 2015 (writer for the science times, University of
California, Irvine)
http://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/2395/20150105/biological-warfare-onthe-horizon-isis-soldiers-may-be-infected-with-ebola.htm
It's what national security organizations have feared since day onethe World Health Organization (WHO) announced last week that they
are evaluating jihadist militants associated with ISIS , who may have
contracted the virus responsible for Ebola. While the WHO has yet to
confirm whether or not the fighters are exhibiting symptoms, the current
evaluations of a Mosul hospital 250 miles north of Baghdad are
prompting concerns that the fringe extremist group ISIS may in fact
be able to obtain a biological weapon unlike anything the world has
seen before. Though Mosul has been under ISIS control since late last June,
the Iraqi health ministry has issued a press release denying reports from Iraqi
news outlets that claim the soldier are definitively infected and seeking
treatment in Mosul. "The Ebola virus could be in any area in the world,
including Mosul, where they don't have the measures or techniques to
diagnose the virus" spokesperson for the health ministry Ahmed Rudaini says.

"They are incapable to detect it." Over the past several months, the
world has watched as threats from extremist group ISIS have come
true, from the beheadings of captured prisoners of war to the mass murder
of children's schools. And with the possibility of a global pandemic looming
over our heads, many are demanding action be taken to isolate the potential
vectors as a worst case scenario. Yet, as conflicting reports abound,
international health organizations and the WHO are unable to assess the
health concern on site, and treat the patients as their own. WHO director
Christy Feig told reporters early this weekend that " We [the WHO] have no
official notification from the Iraqi government that it is Ebola." While that
may be true, the possibility that the militants may have contracted the virus
causes a problematic situation for the WHO, in that ISIS does not believe
in modern medicine and an outbreak in an ISIS-controlled area like
Mosul could be a breeding ground for the ever-mutating virus. But
worst of all, aside from the possibility of possible infection of Iraq,
should ISIS isolate the virus for themselves, the entire western
world may find soon enough that the Ebola virus could be the worst
weapon known to [hu]man .

Bioterror Extinction
Bioterror attack coming, probable and causes extinction

Doornbos 14
HARALD DOORNBOS IS A JOURNALIST BASED IN ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN. and,
JENAN MOUSSA AUGUST 28, 2014. EXCLUSIVE Found: The Islamic State's
Terror Laptop of
Doom,http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/08/28/found_the_islamic_sta
te_terror_laptop_of_doom_bubonic_plague_weapons_of_mass_destruction_exc
lusive
A laptop reportedly recovered from an Islamic State jihadist
contained a hidden trove of secret plans, including weaponizing the
bubonic plague, and lessons on disguise, bomb-making and stealing
cars. A man identified by ForeignPolicy.com as Abu Ali, a commander of a
moderate Syrian rebel group in northern Syria, told the publication the black
laptop was seized earlier this year in a raid on an ISIS hideout in the
Syrian province of Idlib, close to the border with Turkey, and belonged to a
Tunisian jihadist. "We found the laptop and the power cord in a room," Ali
told ForeignPolicy.com. "I took it with me." Initially, it appeared the computer
had been scrubbed, but on closer inspection, thousands of secret files
were discovered on the hard drive, which was not password protected,
Ali said. ForeignPolicy.com was permitted to copy of thousands of files,
which were in French, English, and Arabic. The information included videos of
Usama bin Laden, ideological justifications for jihad and tutorials on how to
carry out the Islamic State's deadly campaigns. But most chilling were files
that indicated the computer's owner, identified as a Tunisian national
named Muhammed S. who joined ISIS in Syria after studying chemistry
and physics at two universities in Tunisia, was teaching himself how
to manufacture biological weapons, in preparation for a potential
attack that could have been catastrophic on a global scale. A 19page document in Arabic included instructions on how to develop
biological weapons and how to weaponize the bubonic plague from
infected animals. "The advantage of biological weapons is that
they do not cost a lot of money, while the human casualties can be
huge," the document states. The document includes instructions for
testing the weaponized plague before using it to attack. "When the
microbe is injected in small mice, the symptoms of the disease should start to
appear within 24 hours," the document says. While some Islamic scholars
have said the use of weapons of mass destruction is prohibited, the material
on the seized computer included a fatwa, or Islamic ruling, permitting it. "If
Muslims [ISIS] cannot defeat the kafir [unbelievers] in a different way,
it is permissible to use weapons of mass destruction," states the fatwa
by Saudi jihadi cleric Nasir al-Fahd, who is currently imprisoned in Saudi
Arabia. "Even if it kills all of them and wipes them and their descendants
off the face of the Earth."

Generic Impacts

S Terrorism
Heg solves terrorGives the US a way to incentivize
cooperation
Brooks and Wohlforth 8Prof of Govt @ Dartmouth

Stephen G. Brooks is an Assistant Professor and William C. Wohlforth an

Associate Professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College.
World Out of Balance 2008 p. 145-6
Second, recall thatin the war on terror.
Second, recall that the United States is globalization's key actor, both
politically and economically, and that most states now strongly seek
to benefit from the global economy. As a result, Washington often has
significant potential leverage to encourage other states to take
actions against terrorist groups operating within their borders or in
neigh- boring countries. Consider Pakistan, which is arguably the most im- portant
"front line" country in the battle against global terrorism today. That economic
globalization gave the Bush administration enhanced leverage
concerning the role Pakistan would play in the war on terror shows up
clearly in discussions that occurred in the immediate after- math of 9/11. During his negotiations with the
United States in fall 2001, President Musharraf made four key economic requests: (1) im- proved access
of Pakistan's textiles-which constitute around 60 per- cent of the country's total exports-to the Ll.S.
market; (2) a reduction in Pakistan's massive foreign debt, which amounts to 47.5 percent of Pakistan's
COP and for which debt service payments constitute 35 per- cent of the country's exports; (3) an increase
in the amount of develop- mental assistance loans; and (4) the elimination of the economic sanc- tions
that were put in place after Pakistan's 1998nuclear test. After one such negotiating session in October
2001, Secretary of State Colin Pow- ell told the Pakistani leader: "General, I've got it right here across my
forehead, two words: 'debt relief: Say no more."!'? In response to Musharraf's requests, the Bush
administration promptly revoked the 1998 nuclear sanctions and also arranged for an immediate infusion
of $600 million in developmental assistance. It is also announced in late October 2001 that it would move
to reschedule the $3 billion Pakistan owes the United States while urging its allies to do the same. At least

the Bush administration's economic incentives helped to

promote cooperation from Pakistan and thereby created an
environment less favorable for terrorists both within Pakistan and
also in neighboring Afghanistan. There are many other countries besides Pakistan over
in the short term,

which eco- nomic globalization gives U.S. policymakers potential leverage for fur- thering its

the key question is whether the United

States will use economic globalization to its best advantage in the
war on terror. Unfortunately, there are many discour- aging signs in this regard; this is true
counterterrorism strategy. In the end,

concerning the effort to harness economic globalization's full potential for developing capabilities to
count~ract WMDll3and also with respect to the use of globalization- related leverage for influencing the

Washington does
have sig-nificant potential to make use of economic globalization to
further its counterterrorism strategy. This, in combination with the
fact that rising economic interdependence does not appear to be a
significant motiva-tor for terrorist activity, means that globalization
is, if anything, a net benefit to the United States in the war on
terror.
antiterrorism policies of other states.!" The larger point, however, is that

S Conflict
Hegemony decreases conflict empirics prove
Drezner 5[Daniel W. Drezner: professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy at Tufts University, a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and a contributor to
the Washington Post) http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/002087.html]
Via
Oxblog's Patrick Belton, I see that Gregg Easterbrook has a cover story in The New Republic entitled "The

explosions in Iraq, massacres in Sudan,

the Koreas staring at each other through artillery barrels, a Hobbesian war of all against all in
eastern Congo--combat plagues human society as it has, perhaps, since our distant forebears
realized that a tree limb could be used as a club. But here is something you would
never guess from watching the news: War has entered a cycle of
decline. Combat in Iraq and in a few other places is an exception to a
significant global trend that has gone nearly unnoticed--namely that,
for about 15 years, there have been steadily fewer armed conflicts
worldwide. In fact, it is possible that a person's chance of dying because of war has, in the last
End of War?" It has a killer opening: Daily

decade or more, become the lowest in human history. Is Easterbrook right? He has a few more paragraphs

studies find the number of wars and armed

conflicts worldwide peaked in 1991 at 51, which may represent the most wars happening
simultaneously at any point in history. Since 1991, the number has fallen steadily .
on the numbers: The University of Maryland

There were 26 armed conflicts in 2000 and 25 in 2002, even after the Al Qaeda attack on the United States
and the U.S. counterattack against Afghanistan. By 2004, Marshall and Gurr's latest study shows, the

All told,
there were less than half as many wars in 2004 as there were in
1991. Marshall and Gurr also have a second ranking, gauging the magnitude of fighting. This section of
number of armed conflicts in the world had declined to 20, even after the invasion of Iraq.

the report is more subjective. Everyone agrees that the worst moment for human conflict was World War II;
but how to rank, say, the current separatist fighting in Indonesia versus, say, the Algerian war of
independence is more speculative. Nevertheless, the Peace and Conflict studies name 1991 as the peak
post-World War II year for totality of global fighting, giving that year a ranking of 179 on a scale that rates
the extent and destructiveness of combat. By 2000, in spite of war in the Balkans and genocide in Rwanda,

the
extent and intensity of global combat is now less than half what it
was 15 years ago. Easterbrook spends the rest of the essay postulating
the causes of this -- the decline in great power war, the spread of
democracies, the growth of economic interdependence, and even the
peacekeeping capabilities of the United Nations. Easterbrook makes a lot of good points -the number had fallen to 97; by 2002 to 81; and, at the end of 2004, it stood at 65. This suggests

most people are genuinely shocked when they are told that even in a post-9/11 climate, there has been a
steady and persistent decline in wars and deaths from wars. That said, what bothers me in the piece is

he neglects to mention the biggest reason for

why war is on the decline -- there's a global hegemon called the U nited
States right now. Easterbrook acknowledges that "the most powerful factor must be the end of the
what Easterbrook leaves out. First,

cold war" but he doesn't understand why it's the most powerful factor. Elsewhere in the piece he talks

the
reason the "great powers" get along is that the United States is much,
much more powerful than anyone else. If you quantify power only by relative military
about the growing comity among the great powers, without discussing the elephant in the room:

capabilities, the U.S. is a great power, there are maybe ten or so middle powers, and then there are a lot of
mosquitoes. [If the U.S. is so powerful, why can't it subdue the Iraqi insurgency?--ed. Power is a relative
measure -- the U.S. might be having difficulties, but no other country in the world would have fewer
problems.] Joshua Goldstein, who knows a thing or two about this phenomenon, made this clear in a
Christian Science Monitor op-ed three years ago: We probably owe this lull to the end of the cold war, and
to a unipolar world order with a single superpower to impose its will in places like Kuwait, Serbia, and
Afghanistan. The emerging world order is not exactly benign Sept. 11 comes to mind and Pax

a unipolar world
is inherently more peaceful than the bipolar one where two
Americana delivers neither justice nor harmony to the corners of the earth. But

superpowers fueled rival armies around the world. The long-delayed "peace
dividend" has arrived, like a tax refund check long lost in the mail. The difference in language between
Goldstein and Easterbrook highlights my second problem with "The End of War?" Goldstein rightly refers to

The flip side

of U.S. hegemony being responsible for the reduction of armed
conflict is what would happen if U.S. hegemony were to ever fade
away. Easterbrook focuses on the trends that suggest an ever-decreasing amount of armed conflict -and I hope he's right. But I'm enough of a realist to know that if the U.S. should find its
primacy challenged by, say, a really populous non-democratic country on the other side of the
Pacific Ocean, all best about the utility of economic interdependence, U.N.
peacekeeping, and the spread of democracy are right out the
window. UPDATE: To respond to a few thoughts posted by the commenters: 1) To spell things out a bit
more clearly -- U.S. hegemony important to the reduction of conflict in
two ways. First, U.S. power can act as a powerful if imperfect
constraint on pairs of enduring rivals (Greece-Turkey, India-Pakistan)
that contemplate war on a regular basis. It can't stop every conflict,
but it can blunt a lot of them. Second, and more important to Easterbrook's thesis,
U.S. supremacy in conventional military affairs prevents other middlerange states -- China, Russia, India, Great Britain, France, etc. -from challenging the U.S. or each other in a war. It would be suicide for anyone
to fight a war with the U.S., and if any of these countries waged a war with each other, the prospect
of U.S. intervention would be equally daunting.
the past fifteen years as a "lull" -- a temporary reduction in war and war-related death.

Theres no alternative to heg solves conflict best

Brookes 11 PhD Candidate @ Georgetown, M.A. from Johns Hopkins,
serving his third term as a congressionally appointed member of the U.S.China Economic and Security Review Commission
Peter, Why the World Needs a Strong America, FSM,
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.9986/pub_detail.asp
Its funny, but sometimes you dont miss something until its gone . While this
old chestnut gets rolled out most often when referring to a trying but departed friend, it might also
be said of the potential for the decline, or withdrawal, of a powerful America from
the world stage. Some say American clout is waningthat weve declined relative to others,

especially with the rise (or re-rise) of China, Russia, India and Brazil, which have been developing into
major powers n recent years. Indeed, there seems to be plenty of people out there, especially abroadand
perhaps a few at home, sadlywho would welcome the absolute decline of American strength and
influence across the globe. To those who naively feel this way, another old adage applies: Be careful what

the United States is the global

balance of power. When the 911 call for the crisis de jour comes in, the first thing the world
you wish for. Go-to Gal It turns out that on security issues,

wants to know is what Washington thinksand what is it willing to do. While it has never been our

we have been a force for stability, providing American can-do spirit to

the
world doesnt look to other big powers like China or Russia when
there is a pressing problem for the so-called international community, knowing
Beijing and Moscow are willing to look the other way unless theyre directly
affected, or happy to let someone else to the heavy-lifting, usually Washington. The world, instead,
looks to the United States as the country with the will and capability to make things happen
and to do so in some of the planets toughest neighborhoods. This, of course, comes courtesy
of the worlds best military. Its the only one with a true global, we-can-get-there-supplypreference,

problems and places that many Americans have never even heard of, much less been to. Fact is

ourselves-get-the-job-done-and-get-home type of mobility and sustainability that is the envy of all other
armed forces. But its not just U.S. military muscle that makes us unique. We also have strong diplomatic
forces in embassies, consulates and international institutions that span the globe, giving us sway and a say
on important issues.

It doesnt hurt that we also have the worlds largest

and arguably most innovative economy, based on the free market. In fact, its a
major source of our strength, bolstering our efforts around the
globe. Were the hardest workers, too. We spend more time in the office, the factory and in the farm
field than just about anyone else. Even the U.N. has said the United States, leads the world in
productivity. Fortunately, we also have the worlds finest intelligence services, from the Central
Intelligence Agency to the Defense Intelligence Agency. They dont always get it right, but intelligence is a
tough business and they get it right a lot more than they get it wrongby a long stretch. The fact is that
you dont pull off first-rate diplomacy or military operations without top-notch intelligence, collected from
the ground by daring spies, in the air by manned and unmanned aircraft or from space by advanced eye
in the sky satellites. For instance, without great, painstaking intelligence work, there would have been no
special forces raid on Osama bin Ladens compound in Pakistan in May. Period. Our diplomatic, military and
intelligence professionals do it so well so often, people just take it for granted theyll get it right. Its on
those rare times where they get it wrong that you hear about it from Capitol Hill or read about it in the
newspapers. And while enemiesand sometimes friends and alliescriticize Lady Liberty for being big,
powerful and out and about, the truth is this country of ours has provided, and continues to provide, a
world of good. Regional Role While few take the time to realize all America does, much less acknowledge
our often-selfless contributions, the fact is were making a difference in so many places
around the world. Lets start with the Korean Peninsula. Ever since the cease-fire between North Korean
and Chinese forces and the United Nations, led by the Americans, was concluded in 1953, weve been a
stabilizing force reducing the risk of another conflict on the divided Korean peninsula. Even today, 25,000
U.S. troops (far from home) help keep the peace across the misnamed demilitarized zone (DMZ)
against a North Korean regime, which still harbors dreams of unitingmilitarily, if necessarythe North
and South under its despotic rule. Without the presence of American forces, a second Korean war has been
and still isa distinct possibility. It's easy to assume that another war would be even more horrific than
the last, especially considering North Korea now has nuclear weapons. And what about Japan, where

Japanese
security since the end of World War II. This has not only allowed Japan to prosper economically and
45,000 U.S. troops are stationed? The U.S. military has also played a huge role in

politicallylike South Koreabut it helped stabilize Asia in the aftermath of war, too. The presence of U.S.
forces and the extension of our strategic nuclear deterrent has also kept both Japan and South Korea from
developing a nuclear option that many believe they might have taken in light of North Korean atomic

Americas military might, diplomatic presence and economic engagement is a

source of comfort to many in East Asia due to Chinas growing powerand serious
actions. Plus,

questions about its intentions in the region. Perhaps most troubling is Beijings unprecedented military
buildup, supported by the worlds second largest defense budget. Its military spending has been growing
at a double-digit rate, meaning 10 percent or more, for the last two decades, raising eyebrows across the
region. Despite the absence of a threat to China, Beijing is developing a highly potent military, capable of
projecting power in the air and on the seas well into the Pacific, dwarfing other regional militaries,

In South Asia, the United States has also

played a key diplomatic role in keeping rivals India and Pakistan from
unleashing the dogs of war in South Asiapossibly leading to history's first nuclear
(weapons) exchangeor, worse yet, war. Talk about Fourth of July fireworks. In
Afghanistan, the Taliban would likely still have al Qaeda as honored
guest, helping them scheme how they would create a global Islamist caliphate stretching from Spain in
especially cross-Strait rival Taiwan.

Europe to Indonesia in Asia, using terrorism as a key tool. And what about the Middle East? Of course, in
the mother of all terror battles, our brave young men and women put the hurt on al Qaeda in Iraq,
stemming the momentum of the extremist group that had only been gaining steam since 9/11. Next door,
the United States has been the bulwark against Irans rise in the region since
the fall of the Shah in 1979. Today, it serves as the driving force to counter its nuclear program. Without
U.S. leadership, wed already be dealing with atomic ayatollahs. Plus, for years, weve been the country
that has guaranteed the free flow of oil shipped through the Persian Gulfs Strait of Hormuz, where as
much as 40 percent of the worlds black gold flows to markets across the globe, courtesy of the U.S. Navy.
Today, the likelihood of a major war in Europe is thankfully just about nil, but considering weak European

absent American military might, NATO might be little

more than a paper tiger in the face of an increasingly growly Russian bear. Moscow, which has
defense spending,

ambitions of being a major power broker internationally, is already breathing down the neck of its "near
abroad" neighbors, especially in its old Soviet Union-era stompin grounds like Georgia and Ukraine. It
doesnt end there. Transnational Trouble If it werent for our spooks and special operations forces, Osama
bin Laden would still be stalking the Earth, calling the shots for al Qaeda and its affiliates around the world
against a slew of countries that have suffered at his hands and those of his terror cohorts. While killing bin
Laden may not be the knockout punch to al Qaeda that we all hope it is, it was certainly a major body
blow, and the group will likely be shaking it off on the canvas for a bit. American drone strikes in the
Pakistani tribal areas on the Taliban and in Yemen on al Qaeda factions make sure the terrorists know that

theyre never completely out of reach of the long arm of Lady Liberty. Weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
would be more common than they are today without U.S. efforts like the Bush-era Proliferation Security
Initiative, which joins states together to fight the spread of these deadly technologies and weapons. For
instance, American efforts in recent years led directly to Libya surrendering its nuclear program, and
without our uncovering the network of Pakistan's prodigious proliferator, A.Q. Khan, hed still be going door
to door, hawking his nuclear wares to who-knows-who. Not surprisingly, our cutting-edge engineers and
scientists are developing the worlds most prodigious ballistic missile defense system to protect the
American homeland, our deployed troops, allies and friends that face the growing WMD and missile threat.
Why be held hostage to North Korea, which can likely hit the West Coast of the United States with a
nuclear missile, or Iran, which will have an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that can reach out an
touch us as soon as 2015? Moreover, our Navy patrols the worlds oceans, providing freedom of the seas
free of charge. It also protects international shipping against sea banditry and modern-day piracy, a
growing problem especially in Southeast Asia and off the Horn of Africa. But thats not all. Uncle Sugar In
addition, U.S. intelligence assets, especially satellites, provide critical information to the international
community, including early warning of crises and ongoing support during hostilities or humanitarian

Washington has also been key in conducting

humanitarian relief operations to tsunami victims in Southeast Asia and
Japan and to those struggling in the aftermath of the devastating earthquakesin Pakistan and
Haiti. In addition, the American medical ship USNS Mercy and other U.S. Navy ships ply the Seven Seas
emergencies on a scale no one else can.

performing numerous humanitarian missions around the world every year, bringing much-needed help to
those without access to basic medical care. Of course, there are other generous gifts from Uncle Sam,
starting with the lions share of the United Nations budget. We also fund half the operations of the World
Food Program, feeding more than 100 million people in nearly 80 countries. Moreover, we also contribute
to U.N. programs which fight HIV/AIDS; vaccinates, educates and protects children across the globe; battles
human trafficking; combats child labor; and supports international peacekeeping. Were also the worlds
trainer, providing military, counterterror and counternarcotics education, and equipment to some 130
countries around the world, especially in places like Latin America and the Middle East, where the need
runs high. Colombia, which came close to falling to the narcoterrorist group, the FARC, turned into the
counterterror and counterinsurgency success story it is today because of American assistance and training.
Colombia isnow helping Mexico with its drug cartel problem. The United States even created African
Command [AFRICOM]which supports and trains armed forces in African states so that they can
appropriately respond to possible crises or disasters on that continent. The U.S. government has also
funded new technologies, often through military research and development, that have primed the pumps
of the private sector, stirred further innovations and made life better for so many, from the Internet to the
microwave oven to GPS. But what about a world without todays America? Absent America Singapores
former prime minister, Lee Kwan Yew, had it right when he told the Wall Street Journal recently, The

world has developed because of the stability America established If

that stability is rocked, we are going to have a different situation. By different, its unlikely Lee believes

there
is nobody else to relieve the United States of this duty at least for the
moment. Nor are any of the prospective candidates looking good . While
some would like to see the United Nations in this role, it has been nothing short of a
disappointment. While some at the U.N. mean well, it is hamstrung by its own diversity of values
things will be better. Unfortunately, in the role of providing for global stability and public goods,

and interests, leaving it often quite feckless in dealing with the matters that everyone agrees requires

China and Russia seem to be aspiring for a U.S.-type role,

although its unlikely that the world would be happy with their style,
or manner, of international leadership or approach to world
problems such as human or political rights or security issues. Indeed,
absent predominant U.S. leadership, diplomatic influence, free market economics and
military might, life aboard Planet Earth would be pretty grim , indeed.
action.

S Middle East Conflict

US leadership key to stopping multiple threats in the
Middle East including prolif, terrorism, human rights
abuses & piracy

Flournay & Davidson 12 (Michele, Co-Founder of the Center for a New

American Security and former US Undersecretary of Defense for Policy;
Janine, Professor at George Mason University, former US Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Plans; Obama's New Global Posture Foreign Affairs,
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2012-06-14/obamasnew-global-posture)
The United States strategic posture in the Middle East must be
credible enough to deter threats to stability, such as Iran, without overstepping
the bounds of host nations tolerance for the presence of foreign forces. The United States will thus
continue to deploy its troops on a rotational basis. Instead of maintaining permanent installations, U.S. air
and naval forces will likely spend stints in Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and,

deployments will demonstrate the United States

sustained commitment to its Arab partners and will help them
address shared threats. The United States can and should play a central role in fostering
regional cooperation to address other common challenges, as well. For example, given the
proliferation of ballistic missiles in the region, the United States
should continue to place particular emphasis on working with partners, or groups of partners, to
develop and deploy missile defense systems. Ideally, the United States could build on the robust
bilateral missile defense cooperation it has with Saudi Arabia and
the United Arab Emirates to create a more effective regional missile
defense architecture. The United States should also continue to
coordinate regional efforts to counter piracy, combat terrorism, and
protect freedom of navigation in and around the Persian Gulf . For
example, the U.S. Navy in Bahrain currently provides the physical infrastructure and
leadership for a 25-member combined maritime task force, which is focused on ensuring
safe passage for commercial ships through the Persian Gulf, the
Strait of Hormuz, the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, the Arabian Sea,
and the Indian Ocean. Such activities help ensure the free flow of
trade and oil and promote burden sharing by building up the skills of
regional partners. Looking to the future, the United States would be wise to consider how the
political changes sweeping the region may alter its security relationships there. Military-tomilitary engagements with the regions rising democracies should
promote the development of civilian-led security forces committed to upholding human rights
and the rule of law. Strong U.S. security cooperation with the militaries of
countries going through democratic transitions, most notably Egypt, can provide both a degree of
stability in the bilateral relationships and some leverage to influence
those governments at a time of profound change. Nevertheless, the United
potentially, Iraq. These

States must be prepared to adapt and adjust its military engagement with these countries as new
governments emerge, based on assessments of both the nature and the actions of those governments, the
degree to which U.S. interests and strategies in the region overlap with theirs, and their willingness to
partner with the United States.

US Heg Is Benign
US hegemony is on balance benignother countries are
comparatively worse
Keck 14 (Zachary, Deputy Editor of e-International Relations and has

interned at the Center for a New American Security and in the U.S. Congress,
where he worked on defense issues, 1-24-14, Americas Relative Decline:
Should We Panic?, The Diplomat, http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/americasrelative-decline-should-we-panic/)
Over at the Washington Post, Charles Kenny has a provocative op-ed arguing that Chinas GDP will almost
certainly soon surpass Americas in absolute terms, and this is to the United States benefit (the op-ed is
based on Kennys new book, which can be purchased here). Kennys first argument in support of this claim
is that Americans quality of life will still be better than their Chinese counterparts, and that in fact losing
the title of largest economy doesnt really matter much to Americans quality of life. Fine. Kenny next
concedes that there may be some negative effects, but nonetheless argues that these are limited. For
example, he notes that the dollar may no longer be the worlds reserve currency, but businesses in the
rest of the world still manage to export, even though they must go through the trouble of exchanging
currencies. Similarly, while having the largest GDP has allowed America to maintain the largest and most
powerful military, how much [has] the three-quarters increase in defense spending between 2000 and
2011 enhanced Americas well-being? Thus, lower defense spending could be a net positive. Kenny goes
on to list a number of benefits America will receive from its relative economic decline. For example, this
relative decline is mainly a result of the developing economies becoming larger, healthier, more
educated, more free and less violent. And there is little doubt the United States benefits from that, such
as through increased exports and being able to import the amazing new innovations these newly
empowered countries will no doubt invent. Moreover, economic growth in the developing world also
means that there are more places for Americans to travel in security and comfort. Theres no doubt some
truth to at least some of this. Most notably, China having a larger GDP will not equate to a better quality of
life for Chinese people, and, I suppose, having more vacation spots to choose from also could bring some
amount of joy to the top 1% of Americans who get bored of laying out on the same hundreds of beaches
they currently feel safe to vacation in. Still, Chinas relative rise and the United States relative decline
carries significant risks, for the rest of the world probably more so than for Americans. Odds are, the world
will be worse off if China and especially others reach parity with the U.S. in the coming years. This isnt to
say America is necessarily as benign a hegemon as some in the U.S. claim it to be. In the post-Cold War
era, the U.S. has undoubtedly at times disregarded international laws or international opinions it disagreed
with. It has also used military force with a frequency that would have been unthinkable during the Cold
War or a multipolar era. Often this has been for humanitarian reasons, but even in some of these instances
military action didnt help. Most egregiously, the U.S. overrode the rest of the worlds veto in invading Iraq,
only for its prewar claims to be proven false. Compounding the matter, it showed complete and utter

Still, on
balance, the U.S. has been a positive force in the world, especially
for a unipolar power. Certainly, its hard to imagine many other
countries acting as benignly if they possessed the amount of relative
power America had at the end of the Cold War. Indeed, the British
were not nearly as powerful as the U.S. in the 19th Century and they
incorporated most of the globe in their colonial empire. Even when it
had to contend with another superpower, Russia occupied half a
continent by brutally suppressing its populace. Had the U.S.
collapsed and the Soviet Union emerged as the Cold War victor,
Western Europe would likely be speaking Russian by now. Its
difficult to imagine China defending a rule-based, open international
order if it were a unipolar power, much less making an effort to
uphold a minimum level of human rights in the world. Regardless of
your opinion on U.S. global leadership over the last two decades,
however, there is good reason to fear its relative decline compared
with China and other emerging nations. To begin with, hegemonic
transition periods have historically been the most destabilizing eras
negligence in planning for Iraqs future, which allowed chaos to engulf the nation.

in history. This is not only because of the malign intentions of the

rising and established power(s). Even if all the parties have benign,
peaceful intentions, the rise of new global powers necessitates
revisions to the rules of the road. This is nearly impossible to do in
any organized fashion given the anarchic nature of the international
system, where there is no central authority that can govern
interactions between states. We are already starting to see the
potential dangers of hegemonic transition periods in the Asia-Pacific
(and arguably the Middle East). As China grows more economically
and militarily powerful, it has unsurprisingly sought to expand its
influence in East Asia. This necessarily has to come at the expense
of other powers, which so far has primarily meant the U.S., Japan,
Vietnam and the Philippines. Naturally, these powers have sought to
resist Chinese encroachments on their territory and influence, and
the situation grows more tense with each passing day. Should China
eventually emerge as a global power, or should nations in other
regions enjoy a similar rise as Kenny suggests, this situation will
play itself out elsewhere in the years and decades ahead. All of this
highlights some of the advantages of a unipolar system. Namely,
although the U.S. has asserted military force quite frequently in the
post-Cold War era, it has only fought weak powers and thus its wars
have been fairly limited in terms of the number of casualties
involved. At the same time, Americas preponderance of power has
prevented a great power war, and even restrained major regional
powers from coming to blows. For instance, the past 25 years
havent seen any conflicts on par with the Israeli-Arab or Iran-Iraq
wars of the Cold War. As the unipolar era comes to a close, the
possibility of great power conflict and especially major regional wars
rises dramatically. The world will also have to contend with
conventionally inferior powers like Japan acquiring nuclear weapons
to protect their interests against their newly empowered rivals. But
even if the transitions caused by Chinas and potentially other
nations rises are managed successfully, there are still likely to be
significant negative effects on international relations. In todays
globalized world, it is commonly asserted that many of the
defining challenges of our era can only be solved through
multilateral cooperation. Examples of this include climate change,
health pandemics, organized crime and terrorism, global financial
crises, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, among
many others. A unipolar system, for all its limitations, is uniquely
suited for organizing effective global action on these transnational
issues. This is because there is a clear global leader who can take
the initiative and, to some degree, compel others to fall in line. In
addition, the unipoles preponderance of power lessens the intensity
of competition among the global players involved. Thus, while there
are no shortages of complaints about the limitations of global
governance today, there is no question that global governance has
been many times more effective in the last 25 years than it was
during the Cold War. The rise of China and potentially other powers
will create a new bipolar or multipolar order. This, in turn, will make

solving these transnational issues much more difficult. Despite the

optimistic rhetoric that emanates from official U.S.-China meetings,
the reality is that Sino-American competition is likely to overshadow
an increasing number of global issues in the years ahead. If other
countries like India, Turkey, and Brazil also become significant global
powers, this will only further dampen the prospects for effective
global governance. Therefore, many of the benefits that Kenny
predicts will accompany the rise of developing countries may not
occur, at least in as dramatic a fashion as one might think. For
instance, theres no doubt that a richer developing world should
result in more American exports. However, American exports might
at the same time be constrained by a far less open global trade
environment in a multipolar world. Things we take for granted today,
such as freedom of navigation and airflight, could very well be much
less assured in a bipolar or multipolar future. Theres also the
possibility that the world will divide into spheres of influence, in
which regional hegemonic powers demand highly preferential access
to markets in their home regions. Similarly, the decline of the U.S.
dollar and greater international competition could also result in far
more unstable international financial markets that also inhibit trade.
In short, Kennys no doubt correct that China becoming the largest
economy wont be the doomsday that some in America predict.
Indeed, there will almost certainly be some benefits that come with
it. Still, the rise of China and the rest, should it continue, will also
create new dangers and risks that the world would be wise not to
neglect.

Heg Toolbox

Sustainable
The pursuit of hegemony is inevitable, sustainable, and
prevents great power war US decline causes conflict
escalation and global lashout
Ikenberry, Brooks, and Wohlforth 13 Associate Professor of
Government at Dartmouth College and the Albert G. Milbank Professor of
Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University and Global Eminence
Scholar at Kyung Hee University in Seoul and the Daniel Webster Professor of
Government at Dartmouth College, 13 (John Ikenberry, Stephen G. Brooks,
William C. Wohlforth, January/February 2013, Foreign Affairs, Lean Forward:
In Defense of American Engagement
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138468/stephen-g-brooks-g-johnikenberry-and-william-c-wohlforth/lean-forward)

Of course, even if it is true that the costs of deep engagement fall far below what advocates of
retrenchment claim, they would not be worth bearing unless they yielded greater benefits. In fact, they do.

strategy is that it reduces the risk of a dangerous

conflict. The United States' security commitments deter states with aspirations to
regional hegemony from contemplating expansion and dissuade U.S.
partners from trying to solve security problems on their own in ways that
The most obvious benefit of the current

would end up threatening other states. Skeptics discount this benefit by arguing that U.S. security
guarantees aren't necessary to prevent dangerous rivalries from erupting. They maintain that the high
costs of territorial conquest and the many tools countries can use to signal their benign intentions are
enough to prevent conflict. In other words, major powers could peacefully manage regional multipolarity
without the American pacifier. But that outlook is too sanguine. If Washington got out of East Asia, Japan
and South Korea would likely expand their military capabilities and go nuclear, which could provoke a
destabilizing reaction from China. It's worth noting that during the Cold War, both South Korea and Taiwan
tried to obtain nuclear weapons; the only thing that stopped them was the United States, which used its

were the United States to

leave the Middle East, the countries currently backed by Washington--notably, Israel,
Egypt, and Saudi Arabia--might act in ways that would intensify the region's
security dilemmas. There would even be reason to worry about Europe.
security commitments to restrain their nuclear temptations. Similarly,

Although it's hard to imagine the return of great-power military competition in a post-American Europe, it's
not difficult to foresee governments there refusing to pay the budgetary costs of higher military outlays
and the political costs of increasing EU defense cooperation. The result might be a continent incapable of
securing itself from threats on its periphery, unable to join foreign interventions on which U.S. leaders
might want European help, and vulnerable to the influence of outside rising powers. Given how easily a
U.S. withdrawal from key regions could lead to dangerous competition, advocates of retrenchment tend to
put forth another argument: that such rivalries wouldn't actually hurt the United States. To be sure, few
doubt that the United States could survive the return of conflict among powers in Asia or the Middle East--

states in one or both of these regions to start competing against one another,
would likely boost their military budgets, arm client states, and perhaps even
start regional proxy wars, all of which should concern the United States, in part because its
but at what cost? Were
they

lead in military capabilities would narrow. Greater regional insecurity could also produce cascades of
nuclear proliferation as powers such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan built nuclear
forces of their own. Those countries' regional competitors might then also seek nuclear arsenals. Although
nuclear deterrence can promote stability between two states with the kinds of nuclear forces that the
Soviet Union and the United States possessed, things get shakier when there are multiple nuclear rivals

probability of illicit
transfers, irrational decisions, accidents, and unforeseen crises goes up. The case
with less robust arsenals. As the number of nuclear powers increases, the

for abandoning the United States' global role misses the underlying security logic of the current approach.

Washington dampens
competition in the world s key areas, thereby preventing the emergence of a
hothouse in which countries would grow new military capabilities. For proof that this strategy is
By reassuring allies and actively managing regional relations,

working, one need look no further than the defense budgets of the current great powers: on average, since

1991 they have kept their military expenditures as A percentage of GDP to historic lows, and they have not
attempted to match the United States' top-end military capabilities. Moreover, all of the world's most
modern militaries are U.S. allies, and the United States' military lead over its potential rivals .is by many

grand strategy acts as a hedge

against the emergence regional hegemons. Some supporters of retrenchment argue that the
measures growing. On top of all this, the current

U.S. military should keep its forces over the horizon and pass the buck to local powers to do the dangerous
work of counterbalancing rising regional powers. Washington, they contend, should deploy forces abroad
only when a truly credible contender for regional hegemony arises, as in the cases of Germany and Japan
during World War II and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Yet there is already a potential contender for
regional hegemony--China--and to balance it, the United States will need to maintain its key alliances in
Asia and the military capacity to intervene there. The implication is that the United States should get out of
Afghanistan and Iraq, reduce its military presence in Europe, and pivot to Asia. Yet that is exactly what the
Obama administration is doing. MILITARY DOMINANCE, ECONOMIC PREEMINENCE Preoccupied with security
issues, critics of the current grand strategy miss one of its most important benefits: sustaining an open
global economy and a favorable place for the United States within it. To be sure, the sheer size of its output
would guarantee the United States a major role in the global economy whatever grand strategy it adopted.
Yet the country's military dominance undergirds its economic leadership. In addition to protecting the
world economy from instability, its military commitments and naval superiority help secure the sea-lanes
and other shipping corridors that allow trade to flow freely and cheaply. Were the United States to pull back
from the world, the task of securing the global commons would get much harder. Washington would have
less leverage with which it could convince countries to cooperate on economic matters and less access to
the military bases throughout the world needed to keep the seas open. A global role also lets the United
States structure the world economy in ways that serve its particular economic interests. During the Cold
War, Washington used its overseas security commitments to get allies to embrace the economic policies it
preferred--convincing West Germany in the 1960s, for example, to take costly steps to support the U.S.
dollar as a reserve currency. U.S. defense agreements work the same way today. For example, when
negotiating the 2011 free-trade agreement with South Korea, U.S. officials took advantage of Seoul's desire
to use the agreement as a means of tightening its security relations with Washington. As one diplomat
explained to us privately, "We asked for changes in labor and environment clauses, in auto clauses, and
the Koreans took it all." Why? Because they feared a failed agreement would be "a setback to the political
and security relationship." More broadly, the United States wields its security leverage to shape the overall

Much of what the United States wants from the

economic order is more of the same: for instance, it likes the current
structure of the World Trade Organization and the International
Monetary Fund and prefers that free trade continue. Washington
wins when U.S. allies favor this status quo, and one reason they are
inclined to support the existing system is because they value their
military alliances. Japan, to name one example, has shown interest in the Trans-Pacific
structure of the global economy.

Partnership, the Obama administration's most important free-trade initiative in the region, less because its
economic interests compel it to do so than because Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda believes that his support
will strengthen Japan's security ties with the United States. The United States' geopolitical dominance also
helps keep the U.S. dollar in place as the world's reserve currency, which confers enormous benefits on the
country, such as a greater ability to borrow money. This is perhaps clearest with Europe: the EU'S
dependence on the United States for its security precludes the EU from having the kind of political
leverage to support the euro that the United States has with the dollar. As with other aspects of the global
economy, the United States does not provide its leadership for free: it extracts disproportionate gains.
Shirking that responsibility would place those benefits at risk. CREATING COOPERATION What goes for the
global economy goes for other forms of international cooperation. Here, too, American leadership benefits
many countries but disproportionately helps the United States. In order to counter transnational threats,
such as terrorism, piracy, organized crime, climate change, and pandemics, states have to work together
and take collective action. But cooperation does not come about effortlessly, especially when national
interests diverge. The

United States' military efforts to promote stability and its broader

leadership make it easier for Washington to launch joint initiatives and shape them in
ways that reflect U.S. interests. After all, cooperation is hard to come by in regions where chaos reigns, and
it flourishes where leaders can anticipate lasting stability. U.S.

alliances are about security first, but

they also provide the political framework and channels of communication for cooperation
on nonmilitary issues. NATO, for example, has spawned new institutions, such as the Atlantic Council, a
think tank, that make it easier for Americans and Europeans to talk to one another and do business.
Likewise, consultations with allies in East Asia spill over into other policy issues; for example, when
American diplomats travel to Seoul to manage the military alliance, they also end up discussing the TransPacific Partnership. Thanks to conduits such as this, the United States can use bargaining chips in one

The benefits of these communication channels

are especially pronounced when it comes to fighting the kinds of threats
issue area to make progress in others.

that require new forms of cooperation, such as terrorism and pandemics. With its alliance system in place,
the United States is in a stronger position than it would otherwise be to advance cooperation and share
burdens. For example, the intelligence-sharing network within NATO, which was originally designed to
gather information on the Soviet Union, has been adapted to deal with terrorism. Similarly, after a tsunami
in the Indian Ocean devastated surrounding countries in 2004, Washington had a much easier time
orchestrating a fast humanitarian response with Australia, India, and Japan, since their militaries were
already comfortable working with one another. The operation did wonders for the United States' image in
the region. The United States' global role also has the more direct effect of facilitating the bargains among
governments that get cooperation going in the first place. As the scholar Joseph Nye has written, "The
American military role in deterring threats to allies, or of assuring access to a crucial resource such as oil in
the Persian Gulf, means that the provision of protective force can be used in bargaining situations.
Sometimes the linkage may be direct; more often it is a factor not mentioned openly but present in the
back of statesmen's minds." THE DEVIL WE KNOW Should America come home? For many prominent
scholars of international relations, the answer is yes--a view that seems even wiser in the wake of the

There is little
evidence that the United States would save much money switching to a
smaller global posture. Nor is the current strategy self-defeating: it
has not provoked the formation of counterbalancing coalitions or caused the
country to spend itself into economic decline. Nor will it condemn the U nited
States to foolhardy wars in the future. What the strategy does do is help
prevent the outbreak of conflict in the world's most important regions, keep the
global economy humming, and make international cooperation easier.
Charting a different course would threaten all these benefits. This is not to say
disaster in Iraq and the Great Recession. Yet their arguments simply don't hold up.

that the United States' current foreign policy can't be adapted to new circumstances and challenges.
Washington does not need to retain every commitment at all costs, and there is nothing wrong with
rejiggering its strategy in response to new opportunities or setbacks. That is what the Nixon administration
did by winding down the Vietnam War and increasing the United States' reliance on regional partners to
contain Soviet power, and it is what the Obama administration has been doing after the Iraq war by
pivoting to Asia. These episodes of rebalancing belie the argument that a powerful and internationally
engaged America cannot tailor its policies to a changing world. A grand strategy of actively managing
global security and promoting the liberal economic order has served the United States exceptionally well
for the past six decades, and there is no reason to give it up now. The country's globe-spanning posture is

Were
American leaders to choose retrenchment, they would in essence be
running a massive experiment to test how the world would work without an engaged and
liberal leading power. The results could well be disastrous.
the devil we know, and a world with a disengaged America is the devil we don't know.

Heg sustainablesystem maker-privilege taker status

means we can control assets and conditions and means
conditions that took down past hegemons dont apply to
the US
Beckley 12 research fellow in the International Security Program at

Harvard Kennedy Schools Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
Michael, Chinas Century? Why Americas Edge Will Endure International
Security, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Winter 2011/12), pp. 4178 //mtc
Hegemony is indeed expensive and provocative, but these declinist
arguments tell only part of the story. The United States is both systemmaker and privilege-takerit pays a large share of systemmaintenance costs but takes a disproportionate share of the
benefits.36 The basic claim of the alternative perspective is that these benefits outweigh
the costs. Most obvious, the United States, as hegemon, possesses an array
of tools with which to reward and punish. It can provide, restrict, or
deny access to the U.S. market, technology, foreign aid, support for
membership in international organizations, bribes, and White House
visits. These tit-for-tat bargains with individual states, however, are not as consequential as the United
States power over aspects of the international system itself. In the alternative perspective,

hegemony is not just preponderant power, it is structural power .37 It

is the power to set agendas, to shape the normative frameworks within which states relate to one another,
and to change the range of choices open to others without putting pressure directly on them .

It is, at
less visible and more profound than brute force. Seen in this light, the
United States is neither benevolent nor feeble, but coercive and
capable, and the goods it produces are less collective goods than
private ones, accruing primarily to the hegemon and thus helping
maintain its hegemony.38 Military superiority, for example, allows the
United States to employ force without war, pressuring other countries
into making concessions by shifting military units around or putting
them on alert.39 It also allows the United States to run a protection
racket, garnering influence through the provision of security. As Joseph
Nye explains, Even if the direct use of force were banned among a group of
countries, military force would still play an important political role. For
example, the American military role in deterring threats to allies, or of
assuring access to a crucial resource such as oil in the Persian Gulf,
means that the provision of protective force can be used in
bargaining situations. Sometimes the linkage may be direct; more often it is a factor not
mentioned openly but present in the back of statesmens minds.40 To be sure, the costs of
maintaining U.S. military superiority are substantial. By historical
standards, however, they are exceptionally small.41 Past hegemons
succumbed to imperial overstretch after fighting multifront wars
against major powers and spending more than 10 percent (and often
100 or 200 percent) of their GDPs on defense.42 The United States, by
contrast, spends 4 percent of its GDP on defense and concentrates
its enmity on rogue nations and failed states. Past bids for global mastery were
strangled before hegemony could be fully consolidated. The United States, on the other hand, has
the advantage of being an extant hegemonit did not overturn an
existing international order; rather, the existing order collapsed
around it. As a result, its dominant position is entrenched to the point
that any effort to compete directly with the United States is futile, so
no one tries.43 The dollars global role may handicap American exports, but it also comes with
once,

perks including seigniorage,44 reduced exchange rate risks for U.S. firms involved in international
commerce, competitive advantages for American banks in dollarized financial markets, and the ability to

foreign
governments that hold dollar reserves depend on U.S. prosperity for
their continued economic growth and are thus entrapped, unable
to disentangle their interests from those of the United States.46 Rather
than seeking to undermine the American economy, they invest in its
continued expansion.47 Finally, given its position at the top of the world
trade regime, the United States can distort international markets in its
favor.48 Declinists expect the hegemon to use its power magnanimously. According to the alternative
delay and defect current account adjustments onto other countries.45 More important,

perspective, however, American foreign economic policy involves the routine use of diplomatic leverage at
the highest levels to create opportunities for U.S. firms.49 U.S. trade officials, acting as self-appointed
enforcers of the free trade regime, asserted the right with their own national law to single out and punish

Globalization, therefore, may not be a neutral

a political process
shaped by the United States in ways that serve its interests.
countries they judged to be unfair traders.50

process that diffuses wealth evenly throughout the international system, but

Unipolarity is sustainable because it takes states out of

the anarchic condition that makes other balances of
power less stable
Jervis 9Prof of Intl Politics @ Columbia

[Robert, a professor of international politics at Columbia University, World

Politics, Unipolarity: A structural perspective, January 2009, p. asp]
At the extreme, then, unipolarity takes states out of anarchy and transforms
if not dissolves international politics in two related ways. First, security
concerns are greatly reduced for the unipole and for others it
protects (although the superpower itself may be a source of threat as well as of protection). Since
such concerns are the main drivers of traditional international
politics, the implications are likely to be farreaching. Second, some
of the relations under unipolarity will embody a degree of hierarchy .
Although seen in the past within empires and nondemocratic alliances, hierarchies have been little studied

The
unipole cannot dictate, but it can set at least some of the rules and
can enforce agreements among others (although it itself cannot be bound). If it
by ir scholars since they represent the antithesis of what makes international politics distinct.10

chooses to do so, it can then provide a significant degree of security for others while also limiting their
autonomy. Although unipolarity does not constitute the end of international history, it may represent a
bigger break from other systems than was the emergence of bipolarity, which left security fears and
anarchy intact. A unipole that exerts itself in this way will produce a system that is stripped of many of the
unique characteristics associated with international politics. This raises the question of how many of our
traditional ideas can be carried over into the new world.

Heg is sustainablesystemic constraints do not increase

with power
Brooks and Wohlforth 8Prof of Govt @ Dartmouth

Stephen G. Brooks is an Assistant Professor and William C. Wohlforth an

Associate Professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College.
World Out of Balance 2008 p. 17-8
This book revealshigh costs of unilateral policies
This book reveals that the first assumption underlying conservatism has no basis. As we show ,
systemic constraints on U.s. security policy do not rise with
American power; there is no reason to expect that for the next two
decades external constraints will meaningfully impede U.S. efforts to
revise the international system. It then becomes dear that the
second assumption at the root of conservatism is debatable and
ought to be debated. Our concluding chapter addresses the press-ing need to begin a serious
discussion of the potential security benefits of revising the system. That debate would both provide
helpful guid-ance to policymakers and lead to a better understanding of the true security environment in
today's unipolar system and how U.S. poli- cymakers are likely to respond to it. The final long-term policy
issue our analysis bears upon is the costs of unilateralism, IR scholars invariably see going it alone as
costly, particularly for the United States today. Stanley Hoffman's warning, that "nothing is more
dangerous for a "hyperpower than the tempta-tion of unilateralism," is typical of scholarly assessments."
The general argument is that unilateralism is prohibitively costly because it aug- ments systemic
constraints: enhanced efforts to balance U.S. power, re- duced legitimacy of the U.S.-led international
order, and a damaged American reputation that will curtail prospects for cooperation in in- ternational

Our finding, that for the United States systemic constraints

are generally inoperative, thus undermines the scholarly consensus
on the high costs of unilateral policies.
institutions.

Multipolarity Fails
Multipolarity leads to conflict
Lundestad and Jakobsen 13 - Associate Professor of Philosophy at
Norges Arktiske Universitet (UiT), **Ph.D., Statistics (Eirik and Tor, 2-5-13, A
Unipolar World: Systems and Wars in Three Different Military Eras, Popular
Social Science, http://www.popularsocialscience.com/2013/02/05/a-unipolarworld-systems-and-wars-in-three-different-military-eras/)
A system of multipolarity increases rivalry in world politics , the reason being that
many states of similar strength compete for power and influence.
These states are often uncertain of other states intentions, which
increases the probability of military action. Also, the power balance in
this type of system is changing constantly, as a result of changing
alliances. Multipolarity denotes the fundamental power structure in an
international system dominated by several large powers, and is
characterized by antagonism between these. What we know as the
classical era of power balance came as a result of planned big power
politics. The Napoleonic Wars had led the great powers desiring to
prevent similar events taking place in the future . After the defeat of
France, the Congress of Vienna determined that five states should
dominate world politics together, namely Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, France, and AustriaHungary. This power-sharing functioned well for 40 years, until other powers
came into play and try to dominate politics. The instability of this
system became manifest during the Crimean War (185356) when Russia
invaded the Ottoman Empire and Britain and France joined forces to
counter the Russians. Yet, the hardest blow to peace came with German
power ambitions which ended in the First World War. This marked the end of Austria-Hungary.
Finally, the Second World War can be described as the coup de grce
for the multipolar system. This became the end of the European golden age. The
end of multipolarity meant that a new challenger was to enter world power politics. Together
with the Soviet Union, the United States was to dominate the global arena for the next half century

Multipolarity Causes Conflict

Multipolarity causes antagonism and conflict empirics
prove
Lundestad and Jakobsen 13 Associate Professor of Philosophy at

Norges Arktiske Universitet (UiT), **Ph.D., Statistics (Eirik and Tor, 2-5-13, A
Unipolar World: Systems and Wars in Three Different Military Eras, Popular
Social Science, http://www.popularsocialscience.com/2013/02/05/a-unipolarworld-systems-and-wars-in-three-different-military-eras/)
A system of multipolarity increases rivalry in world politics, the
reason being that many states of similar strength compete for power
and influence. These states are often uncertain of other states
intentions, which increases the probability of military action. Also,
the power balance in this type of system is changing constantly, as a
result of changing alliances. Multipolarity denotes the fundamental
power structure in an international system dominated by several
large powers, and is characterized by antagonism between these.
What we know as the classical era of power balance came as a result of planned big power politics. The
Napoleonic Wars had led the great powers desiring to prevent
similar events taking place in the future. After the defeat of France,
the Congress of Vienna determined that five states should dominate
world politics together, namely Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, France, and Austria-Hungary.
This power-sharing functioned well for 40 years, until other powers
came into play and try to dominate politics. The instability of this
system became manifest during the Crimean War (185356) when
Russia invaded the Ottoman Empire and Britain and France joined
forces to counter the Russians. Yet, the hardest blow to peace came with German power
ambitions which ended in the First World War. This marked the end of Austria-Hungary. Finally, the
Second World War can be described as the coup de grce for the
multipolar system. This became the end of the European golden age. The end of multipolarity
meant that a new challenger was to enter world power politics. Together with the Soviet Union, the United
States was to dominate the global arena for the next half century.

Multipolairty causes global instability and warold

examples dont apply to present security conditions
Varisco 13PhD candidate @ York University
Andrea Edoardo, Towards a Multi-Polar International System: Which
Prospects for Global Peace? [http://www.e-ir.info/2013/06/03/towards-a-multipolar-international-system-which-prospects-for-global-peace/] June 3 //mtc
The prospects of a great power rivalry are particularly strong in East Asia, a
region characterized by weak regional alliances and institutions, in
which the economic rise of some actors could indeed represent a serious
source of instability in the near future. The decline of the US and the rise
of China could for example undermine the Asian balance of power and bring
to light the old rivalry between China and Japan (Shambaugh). A strong rising
China armed with middle range missiles could be perceived as threatening by Japan, worried that its
historical American ally could not defend it because of US high involvement in other corners of the globe.
The stability of the region appears even more difficult to achieve considering that the concept of balance
of power requires shared common values and similar cultural understanding, requisites that are not
present between the two major powers of the Asia Pacific region, China and Japan (Friedberg).

India has

rise
could undermine Asian stability and, for example, worsen Indian relations
with its neighbor Pakistan. Moreover, the scarcity of natural resources in a world that is
been portrayed as the third pole of the multi-polar world in 2050 (Virmani; Gupta). Yet its constant

consuming and demanding a high quantity of them could have several implications on global security and

In this framework, the rise of

Russia, a country which exports large quantities of oil and gas, controls the European provisions of
energy and has had high increases in military expenditure in the last decade could represent
another potential source of instability for the future world order.
Russia has increased military spending by 16 per cent in real terms
stability (Dannreuther; Kenny; Laverett and Bader).

since 2008, including a 9.3 per cent increase in 2011 (Background Paper on Military Expenditures 5).
Before 2008, it had increased its military expenditure by 160 per cent in a decade, (SIPRI, SIPRI Yearbook
2008 199), accounting for 86 per cent of the total increase of 162 per cent in military expenditure of
Eastern Europe, the region of the world with the highest increment in military expenditure from 1998 to
2007 (SIPRI, SIPRI Yearbook 2008 177). Moreover, the control of the gas prices in Europe and the
enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Central and Western Europe have already been
causes of tension between Russia and the West. The possibility to exploit and supply a large amount of
natural resources, the growth of its military power and divergences with the US in some foreign policy
issues, such as the Iranian nuclear program or the status of Kosovo, indicate that the stability of the future
multi-polar world could be seriously undermined by a resurgent Russia (Arbatov; Goldman; Trenin;

A return to multi-polarity will therefore imply more

instability among great powers. But great power rivalry will not be the only source of
Wallander).

possible instability for the future multi-polar world. The current distribution of power allows not only great
powers but also middle, small powers and non-state actors to have military capabilities that could threaten

presence of nuclear weapons constitutes a

further reason of concern and implies that the future world could
carry not only the potential instability of multi-polarity and great powers
rivalry, but also the dangers entailed in nuclear proliferation. The
future multi-polar world will thus be potentially more unstable than all the
other multi-polar periods history has experienced until nowadays:
for the first time in history, the world could become both multi-polar
and nuclear. While some scholars argue that nuclear deterrence
could reduce the war-proneness of the coming multi-polar system (Layne, 44-45), the
majority of them consider the presence of nuclear weapons as a
source of instability (McNamara; Rosen; Allison). In particular, regional powers and states that
the global security. In particular, the

are not great powers armed with nuclear capabilities could represent a cause of concern for global security.
A nuclear Iran could for example attack or be attacked by Israel and easily involve in this war the rest of
the world (Sultan; Huntley). A war between Pakistan and India, both nuclear states, could result in an
Armageddon for the whole Asia. An attack from the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) on Japan
or South Korea will trigger an immediate reaction from the US and a nuclear proliferation domino effect
in East Asia (Huntley, 725). Terrorists armed with nuclear weapons could wreak havoc and target the

Iran, Pakistan, DPRK,

terrorist groups will rarely be great powers or poles in a future
multi-polar world. Nevertheless, the effects of their actions could easily
reverberate all over the globe and represent another cause of
potential instability. For the first time in history, the stability of the future world will therefore
heart of the most powerful countries of the world (Bunn and Wier).

depend not only on the unpredictable effects of the rivalry among great powers, but also on the dangerous
potential of middle and small powers and non-state actors armed with nuclear weapons. Conclusion On
the morning of the 5th April 2009 the DPRK sent a communication satellite into space using a Taepodong-2
ballistic missile. Suspicious neighbouring countries and the US considered the rocket launch as a cover for
testing ballistic long-range missile technology and a threat for their national security: South Korea and
Japan feared that their unpredictable neighbour could target their population, the US was afraid that DPRK
missiles could in the future reach its western shores. The result of the launch is debated: while Pyongyang
asserted that the satellite reached the orbit, US experts considered it as a failure and remarked that the
missile travelled 3,200 km before landing in the Pacific Ocean (Broad). Surely DPRK actions achieved the
goal to deeply divide the international community: the UN Secretary General regretted the launch and
urged Security Council Resolutions (Statement SG/SM/12171), the then Chinese Ambassador to the UN
Yesui Zhang stressed cautious and proportionate (Richter and Baum) responses to avoid increased
tensions (Richter and Baum), the then Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso considered it an extremely
provocative act (Ricther and Baum), while US President Obama declared that, North Koreas

development and proliferation of ballistic missile technology pose a threat to the northeast Asian region
and to international peace and security (Obama, Statement from Prague). This essay has explained why
a clumsy launch of a communication satellite, or a military exercitation of the nation with the 197th Gross
Domestic Product pro capita of the world (Central Intelligence Agency) can become a threat to
international peace and security (Obama, Statement from Prague) and could represent a serious source of
instability for the world in the near future. It has been argued that the current decline of the hegemon of
the international system, together with a rise of new actors could create the conditions for a shifting to
multi-polarity and great powers rivalry. The future multi-polar order will not be different from the other
multi-polar moments history has witnessed and will result in more instability and unpredictability than in

for the first time in the history multi-polarity

will not only carry the risks entailed in the research of balance of
power among great powers. The availability of the nuclear weapons
will indeed represent another potential source of instability. Middle
powers, small powers and non-state actors with nuclear capabilities
could become a serious threat for the global security ; they could
trigger and reinforce the rivalry among great powers which usually
characterizes multi-polarity, and eventually undermine the peace
and stability of the future world.
the current unipolar world. However,

Multipolarity causes warhistory proves on US dominance

creates the conditions for peace
Kagan 12 senior fellow in Foreign Policy at Brookings
Robert, America Has Made the World Freer, Safer and Wealthier
[http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2012/0314_us_power_kagan.aspx] March
14
Many people imagine that American predominance will be replaced by
some kind of multipolar harmony. But multipolar systems have
historically been neither stable nor peaceful. War among the great
powers was a common, if not constant, occurrence in the long
periods of multipolarity in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. The
19th century was notable for two stretches of great-power peace of roughly four
decades each, punctuated, however, by major wars among great powers and

culminating in World War I, the most destructive and deadly war mankind had known up to that point. The

era of American predominance has shown that there is no better

recipe for great-power peace than certainty about who holds the
upper hand. Many people view the present international order as the
inevitable result of human progress, a combination of advancing science and
technology, an increasingly global economy, strengthening
international institutions, evolving "norms" of international behavior,
and the gradual but inevitable triumph of liberal democracy over other
forms of government -- forces of change that transcend the actions of men and nations. But there
was nothing inevitable about the world that was created after World
War II. International order is not an evolution; it is an imposition . It is
the domination of one vision over others -- in America's case, the
domination of liberal free market principles of economics,
democratic principles of politics, and a peaceful international system
that supports these, over other visions that other nations and peoples may have. The present
order will last only as long as those who favor it and benefit from it retain the will and capacity to defend it.

If and when American power declines, the institutions and norms

American power has supported will decline, too. Or they may
collapse altogether as we transition into another kind of world order, or into
disorder. We may discover then that the United States was essential to keeping the present world
order together and that the alternative to American power was not peace and

harmony but chaos and catastrophe

before the American order came into being.

-- which was what the world looked like right

Unipolarity Good
Unipolarity is good

Lundestad and Jakobsen 13 Associate Professor of Philosophy at Norges

Arktiske Universitet (UiT), **Ph.D., Statistics (Eirik and Tor, 2-5-13, A Unipolar
World: Systems and Wars in Three Different Military Eras, Popular Social
Science, http://www.popularsocialscience.com/2013/02/05/a-unipolar-worldsystems-and-wars-in-three-different-military-eras/)
Unipolarity is used to describe the power structure when one
superpower dominates alone. The end of the Cold War meant that the previous decades
superpower rivalry now had ended. There was no longer the traditional East vs. West conflict, at least not
the way it had been earlier in the 20thcentury.

The United States surfaced as the sole dominating power in world

politics as there were no real challengers to their hegemonic
position. This allowed greater room for the superpower to maneuver
and to get involved in international issues that not necessarily
coincided with national interest. We can describe this new political
situation as being unipolar. Has the world become less stable following the end of the Cold
War? According to structural realists unipolarity is unstable because it is progressing toward multipolarity,
as other powers will seek to break the hegemony of the superpower. As Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762) so
eloquently put it: The strongest is never enough to always be master.Even though the superpower can
restrain this development, at least in the short run, the power will eventually be weakened as a
consequence of dominating other states. The USA has as an example, tried to clinch hegemonic power by
keeping 100,000 troops stationed in Asia and Europe. By guaranteeing the safety of its allies, the USA has
subdued the need for security for other states.This has prevented these states from participating in an
arms race. However, the dominance is costly, and has limited the USAs economic growth. In the longer
term this will decrease U.S. power because other states do not have the same costs.

todays unipolar balance of power is robust. At present

time no state seems able to challenge the USA militarily. One of the
We agree that

reasons is that the USA is in a geographically advantageous situation compared to other countries.
Relevant challengers like China, Japan, India, and Russia hold less favorable strategic positions as they are
amidst more multipolar regions.
Yet, we also agree with Waltz that the USA will become weakened over time due to its over-commitment.
But since the system is built around the power of the United States, it will continue to be in existence as

Unless something unexpected

happens, the unipolar balance of power could have a long lifetime. A
long as the USA can attend to the worlds security needs.

whole range of conflicts erupted in the years following the end of the Cold War. Even so, in sum there has
been a strong decline in the number of armed conflicts since 1992. The problem of terrorism has not been
easy to solve for the USA. Serious terror attacks are the only form of armed conflicts that have increased in
numbers. It is difficult to draw any real conclusions as to whether or not the world has become more stable
after 1989.The multipolar system was less stable than the bipolar, and resulted in two
world wars. The bipolar era meant more stable international politics due to the dominance of the USA and

The transition to todays unipolar power structure has

brought major changes to world politics, with the USA emerging as
the sole superpower. The total number of armed conflicts has
decreased, despite the increase in number of terror attacks. However, it can be argued that the world
the Soviet Union.

could again become militarily multipolar, with China and Russia as possible challengers to U.S. hegemonic
dominance.

A2: Retrenchment
Hegemony is the meta-impact

Brooks, Ikenberry and Wohlforth 13 Stephen G., G. John, William C.,

Don't Come Home, America: The Case against Retrenchment International
Security
Volume 37, Number 3, Winter 2012/2013
A core premise of deep engagement is that it prevents the emergence of a far more
dangerous global security environment. For one thing, as noted above, the United States
overseas presence gives it the leverage to restrain partners from taking
provocative action. Perhaps more important, its core alliance commitments also
deter states with aspirations to regional hegemony from contemplating expansion
and make its partners more secure, reducing their incentive to adopt solutions to their security problems
that threaten others and thus stoke security dilemmas. The contention that engaged

U.S. power

dampens the

baleful effects of anarchy is consistent with influential variants of realist

theory. Indeed, arguably the scariest portrayal of the war-prone world that would emerge absent the

Mearsheimer, who forecasts

dangerous multipolar regions replete with security competition,
arms races, nuclear proliferation and associated preventive war temptations, regional rivalries,
and even runs at regional hegemony and full-scale great power war. 72 How do
American Pacifier is provided in the works of John

retrenchment advocates, the bulk of whom are realists, discount this benefit? Their arguments are
complicated, but two capture most of the variation: (1) U.S. security guarantees are not necessary to
prevent dangerous rivalries and conflict in Eurasia; or (2) prevention of rivalry and conflict in Eurasia is not
a U.S. interest. Each response is connected to a different theory or set of theories, which makes sense
given that the whole debate hinges on a complex future counterfactual (what would happen to Eurasias
security setting if the United States truly disengaged?). Although a certain answer is impossible, each of
these responses is nonetheless a weaker argument for retrenchment than advocates acknowledge. The
first response flows from defensive realism as well as other international relations theories that discount
the conflict-generating potential of anarchy under contemporary conditions. 73 Defensive realists maintain
that the high expected costs of territorial conquest, defense dominance, and an array of policies and
practices that can be used credibly to signal benign intent, mean that Eurasias major states could manage
regional multipolarity peacefully without the American pacifier. Retrenchment would be a bet on this
scholarship, particularly in regions where the kinds of stabilizers that nonrealist theories point tosuch as
democratic governance or dense institutional linkagesare either absent or weakly present. There are
three other major bodies of scholarship, however, that might give decisionmakers pause before making
this bet. First is regional expertise. Needless to say, there is no consensus on the net security effects of
U.S. withdrawal. Regarding each region, there are optimists and pessimists. Few experts expect a return of
intense great power competition in a post-American Europe, but many doubt European governments will
pay the political costs of increased EU defense cooperation and the budgetary costs of increasing military
outlays. 74 The result might be a Europe that is incapable of securing itself from various threats that could
be destabilizing within the region and beyond (e.g., a regional conflict akin to the 1990s Balkan wars),
lacks capacity for global security missions in which U.S. leaders might want European participation, and is
vulnerable to the influence of outside rising powers. What about the other parts of Eurasia where the
United States has a substantial military presence? Regarding the Middle East, the balance begins to swing
toward pessimists concerned that states currently backed by Washington notably Israel, Egypt, and
Saudi Arabiamight take actions upon U.S. retrenchment that would intensify security dilemmas. And
concerning East Asia, pessimism regarding the regions prospects without the American pacifier is
pronounced. Arguably the principal concern expressed by area experts is that Japan and South Korea are
likely to obtain a nuclear capacity and increase their military commitments, which could stoke a
destabilizing reaction from China. It is notable that during the Cold War, both South Korea and Taiwan
moved to obtain a nuclear weapons capacity and were only constrained from doing so by a still-engaged
United States. 75 The second body of scholarship casting doubt on the bet on defensive realisms sanguine
portrayal is all of the research that undermines its conception of state preferences. Defensive realisms
optimism about what would happen if the United States retrenched is very much dependent on its
particularand highly restrictiveassumption about state preferences; once we relax this assumption,
then much of its basis for optimism vanishes. Specifically, the prediction of post-American tranquility
throughout Eurasia rests on the assumption that security is the only relevant state preference, with
security defined narrowly in terms of protection from violent external attacks on the homeland. Under that
assumption, the security problem is largely solved as soon as offense and defense are clearly
distinguishable, and offense is extremely expensive relative to defense.

Burgeoning research

across the social and other sciences, however, undermines that core
assumption: states have preferences not only for security but also for prestige,
status, and other aims, and they engage in trade-offs among the various objectives. 76 In
addition, they define security not just in terms of territorial protection but in view of many and varied
milieu goals. It follows that even states that are relatively secure may nevertheless engage in highly
competitive behavior. Empirical studies show that this is indeed sometimes the case. 77 In sum, a bet on a
benign postretrenchment Eurasia is a bet that leaders of major countries will never allow these nonsecurity
preferences to influence their strategic choices. To the degree that these bodies of scholarly knowledge
have predictive leverage, U.S. retrenchment would result in a significant deterioration in the security
environment in at least some of the worlds key regions. We have already mentioned the third, even more

the withdrawal of the American

will yield either a competitive regional multipolarity complete with
associated insecurity, arms racing, crisis instability, nuclear proliferation, and the
alarming body of scholarship. Offensive realism predicts that
pacifier

like, or bids for regional hegemony, which may be beyond the capacity of local great powers to contain

great
power war). Hence it is unsurprising that retrenchment advocates are prone to focus on the second
(and which in any case would generate intensely competitive behavior, possibly including regional

argument noted above: that avoiding wars and security dilemmas in the worlds core regions is not a U.S.
national interest. Few doubt that the United States could survive the return of insecurity and conflict
among Eurasian powers, but at what cost? Much of the work in this area has focused on the economic
externalities of a renewed threat of insecurity and war, which we discuss below. Focusing on the pure
security ramifications, there are two main reasons why decisionmakers may be rationally reluctant to run
the retrenchment experiment. First, overall higher levels of conflict make the world a more dangerous
place. Were Eurasia to return to higher levels of interstate military competition, one would see
overall higher levels of military spending and innovation and a higher likelihood of competitive regional

proxy wars and arming of client statesall of which would be concerning, in part

because it would promote a faster diffusion of military power away from the United States. Greater
regional insecurity could well feed proliferation cascades, as states such as Egypt, Japan, South Korea,
Taiwan, and Saudi Arabia all might choose to create nuclear forces. 78 It is unlikely that proliferation
decisions by any of these actors would be the end of the game: they would likely generate pressure locally
for more proliferation. Following Kenneth Waltz, many retrenchment advocates are proliferation optimists,
assuming that nuclear deterrence solves the security problem. 79 Usually carried out in dyadic terms, the
debate over the stability of proliferation changes as the numbers go up. Proliferation optimism rests on
assumptions of rationality and narrow security preferences. In social science, however, such assumptions
are inevitably probabilistic. Optimists assume that most states are led by rational leaders, most will
overcome organizational problems and resist the temptation to preempt before feared neighbors
nuclearize, and most pursue only security and are risk averse. Confidence in such probabilistic
assumptions declines if the world were to move from nine to twenty, thirty, or forty nuclear states. In
addition, many of the other dangers noted by analysts who are concerned about the destabilizing effects of
nuclear proliferationincluding the risk of accidents and the prospects that some new nuclear powers will
not have truly survivable forcesseem prone to go up as the number of nuclear powers grows. 80
Moreover, the risk of unforeseen crisis dynamics that could spin out of control is
also higher as the number of nuclear powers increases. Finally, add to these concerns the enhanced
danger of nuclear leakage, and a world with overall higher levels of security competition becomes yet
more worrisome. The argument that maintaining Eurasian peace is not a U.S. interest faces a second
problem. On widely accepted realist assumptions, acknowledging that U.S. engagement preserves peace
dramatically narrows the difference between retrenchment and deep engagement. For many supporters of
retrenchment, the optimal strategy for a power such as the United States, which has attained regional
hegemony and is separated from other great powers by oceans, is offshore balancing: stay over the
horizon and pass the buck to local powers to do the dangerous work of counterbalancing any local rising
power. The United States should commit to onshore balancing only when local balancing is likely to fail and
a great power appears to be a credible contender for regional hegemony, as in the cases of Germany,
Japan, and the Soviet Union in the midtwentieth century. The problem is that Chinas rise puts the
possibility of its attaining regional hegemony on the table, at least in the medium to long term. As
Mearsheimer notes, The United States will have to play a key role in countering China, because its Asian
neighbors are not strong enough to do it by themselves. 81 Therefore, unless Chinas rise stalls, the
United States is likely to act toward China similar to the way it behaved toward the Soviet Union during the
Cold War. 82 It follows that the United States should take no action that would compromise its capacity to
move to onshore balancing in the future. It will need to maintain key alliance relationships in Asia as well
as the formidably expensive military capacity to intervene there. The implication is to get out of Iraq and
Afghanistan, reduce the presence in Europe, and pivot to Asia just what the United States is doing. 83 In
sum,

the argument that U.S. security commitments are unnecessary for

peace is countered by a lot of scholarship, including highly influential realist

scholarship. In addition, the argument that Eurasian peace is unnecessary for U.S. security is weakened by
the potential for a large number of nasty security consequences as well as the need to retain a latent

onshore balancing capacity that dramatically reduces the savings retrenchment might bring. Moreover,
switching between offshore and onshore balancing could well be difcult. Bringing together the thrust of

the case for

deep engagement strategy.
By supplying reassurance, deterrence, and active management, the United States lowers
security competition in the worlds key regions, thereby preventing the emergence of a
hothouse atmosphere for growing new military capabilities. Alliance ties
many of the arguments discussed so far underlines the degree to which

retrenchment misses the underlying logic of

the

dissuade partners from ramping up and also provide leverage to prevent military transfers to potential
rivals. On top of all this, the United States formidable military machine may deter entry by potential rivals.
Current great power military expenditures as a percentage of GDP are at historical lows, and thus far other
major powers have shied away from seeking to match top-end U.S. military capabilities. In addition, they
have so far been careful to avoid attracting the focused enmity of the United States. 84 All of the worlds
most modern militaries are U.S. allies (Americas alliance system of more than sixty countries now
accounts for some 80 percent of global military spending), and the gap between the U.S. military capability
and that of potential rivals is by many measures growing rather than shrinking. 85

US retrenchment causes GPW and escalates every global

hostpot
Brooks, Ikenberry and Wohlforth 13
Stephen G., G. John, William C., Don't Come Home, America: The Case
against Retrenchment International Security
Volume 37, Number 3, Winter 2012/2013
The United States has pursued a grand strategy of "deep engagement"
since the end of World War II. At the core of this grand strategy is a series of security commitments to
partners in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East.

Growing fiscal pressures, the difficulties

have added fuel

associated with the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the rise of China

to the argument championed by most international relations scholars who write on U.S. grand
strategy: that America should pursue retrenchment by curtailing or eliminating its
overseas military presence and eliminating or dramatically reducing its global security commitments. A
comprehensive assessment of the strategy's costs and benefits
reveals that these scholars are wrong: America's choice to retain a
grand strategy of deep engagement after the Cold War is just what the
preponderance of international relations scholarship would expect a
rational, self-interested, leading power in the United States' position
to do. THE AFFORDABILITY OF DEEP ENGAGEMENT PostSeptember 11 levels of defense spending are
unnecessary to maintain the deep engagement strategy. After the September 11 terrorist attacks, defense
spending increased dramatically, owing in large part to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as to an
augmented effort to wield and to use military tools in the wider war on terrorism. Both of these drivers of
increased spending during the past decade have already begun to be reversed as the United States winds
down the two costly wars and begins to trim nonwar "base" spending. The United States currently spends
4.5 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on defense, but this figure is slated to drop by 50 percent
within a few years: based on current Defense Department planning, defense cuts are expected to bring
defense expenditures as a share of GDP just below 3 percent by 2017, even though spending in real terms
will be roughly $100 billion higher than it was in the late 1990s. Importantly, this does not represent the
floor for spending to sustain the strategy over the long term: the Pentagon could save more with no ill
effects by reforming its procurement practices and compensation policies. It is therefore clear that the
United States can sustain the budgetary cost of deep engagement. Spending roughly 3 percent of GDP on
defense is less than half the Cold War average (from 1950 to 1990, that figure averaged 7.6 percent). In
the contemporary era, this represents a spending level comparable both to the world average of 2.5
percent and to that of U.S. allies such as Britain (2.5 percent) and South Korea (2.7 percent), while only
marginally above China (2.0 percent). A meta-analysis of economic studies of the relationship between
military spending and economic performance confirms that there is no reason to expect adverse effects on

Revoking
security guarantees would make the world and the United States less
secure. In Asia, Japan and South Korea would likely expand their military
capabilities if the United States were to leave, which could provoke a dangerous
reaction from China. Security dilemmas in the Middle East would likely
become more intense absent a U.S. presence. In addition, there are dangers even
U.S. growth from this spending. There is thus no economic-growth rational for retrenchment.

in Europe, which may become more unstable if current U.S. allies do not
develop the capabilities to deal with security problems on their
periphery following a U.S. withdrawal. A U.S. withdrawal , moreover,
could spark a cascade of nuclear proliferation if states such as Egypt,
Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Saudi Arabia were to build nuclear
forces. This could prompt other states in each region to seek nuclear arsenals as well. A dramatic
increase in the number of nuclear powers would be a great concern,
because most of these states would not have the kinds of nuclear forces
that are needed to generate stable nuclear deterrence such as existed
between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. And the more nuclear
powers there are, the higher the probability of "leakage" to nonstate
actors. Retrenchment would vitiate the leverage that Washington
now uses to restrain its partners from acting provocatively and from
transferring weapons to potential adversaries, which in turn helps to deter other
states in each region from undertaking destabilizing actions. Ultimately, by decreasing global security,

retrenchment would likely generate greater military efforts worldwide,

prompting a more rapid diffusion of power away from the United
States. Far from the solution its proponents advertise, retrenchment would likely exacerbate the
problem of American decline.

A2: Entanglement
Entrapment theory wronglongitudinal studies, zero
historical basis, and hegemonic states protect
themselves,
Brooks, Ikenberry and Wohlforth 13
Stephen G., G. John, William C., Don't Come Home, America: The Case against Retrenchment
International Security
Volume 37, Number 3, Winter 2012/2013 //mtc
At first glance, entrapment would seem to defy realist expectations. After all, the scenario it posits of a weaker ally pulling
the stronger patron into a war not in its interest turns Thucydides on his head, saying, in effect, that "the weak do what
they can and the strong suffer what they must." Scholarship that has appeared in the three decades since
the initial work on entrapment has in significant part rescued realism from this potential anomaly .
Rational states might be expected to anticipate the danger of entrapment and seek to protect
themselves from it. As it turns out, this is exactly what they do . TongFi Kim, for example, shows that
most alliance agreements are written to protect the allies from entrapmenta problem that is
greater for the smaller partner, whose bargaining leverage, as realism would expect, is generally dwarfed by that of the
great power patron. This helps to explain why it is nearly impossible to find a clear case of entrapment
actually occurring.58 Cases of the related phenomenon of "chain ganging," in which alliance ties expand wars
beyond the real interest of some or all alliance members, are also now far more contested than they were two
decades ago. According to new research by a growing cadre of historians and political scientists ,
even the canonical case of World War I does not qualify.59 More recent scholarship has also ratified Paul
Schroeder's discussion of alliances as not just power-aggregating mechanisms but also tools for controlling risks and
exerting influence.60 In a study spanning nearly two centuries , Jesse Johnson and Brett Leeds found
"support for the hypothesis that defensive alliances [End Page 29] deter the initiation of disputes but no evidence in

support of the claims that states with defensive allies are more likely to initiate disputes in
the international system." They conclude that "defensive alliances lower the probability of
international conflict and are thus a good policy option for states seeking to maintain peace in the
world."61 Much about the United States' experience contains evidence to support this view. Victor Cha
shows how each post-World War II U.S.-East Asian alliance was a "powerplay . . . designed to exert maximum control over
the smaller ally's actions," where one key aim was "to constrain anticommunist allies in the region that might engage in
aggressive behavior against adversaries that could entrap the United States in an unwanted larger war."62 Recent
developments in the United States-Taiwan relationshiparguably the most salient entrapment concern for
advocates of retrenchmentalso constitute a case in point. After repeated cross-strait tensions in the 1990s and
early 2000s, U.S. officials became concerned that the policy of strategic ambiguity regarding support for Taiwan was
leaving them exposed to the risk of entrapment. The George W. Bush administration adjusted the policy to
clarify dual deterrence: deterring China from an unprovoked attack, but also deterring Taiwan from provocative
moves toward independence that might give Beijing cause to resort to force.63 Although it is impossible to rule out
speculation that the United States might get "dragged in" no matter what, all the observable evidence is

consistent with the view that major power patrons can ward against moral hazard and use
their alliances to control risks. [End Page 30]

No entrapmentempirics prove great powers structure

alliance commitments to protect themselves
Brooks, Ikenberry and Wohlforth 13
Stephen G., G. John, William C., Lean Forward: In Defense of American Engagement
[http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138468/stephen-g-brooks-g-john-ikenberry-and-william-cwohlforth/lean-forward] January/February //mtc
History shows, however, that great powers anticipate the danger of entrapment and structure
their agreements to protect themselves from it. It is nearly impossible to find a clear case of a
smaller power luring a reluctant great power into war. For decades, World War I served as the
canonical example of entangling alliances supposedly drawing great powers into a fight, but an o utpouring of
new historical research has overturned the conventional wisdom, revealing that the war was
more the result of a conscious decision on Germany's part to try to dominate Europe than a
case of alliance entrapment. If anything, alliances reduce the risk of getting pulled into a
conflict. In East Asia, the regional security agreements that Washington struck after World War II
were designed, in the words of the political scientist Victor Cha, to "constrain anticommunist allies in the
region that might engage in aggressive behavior against adversaries that could entrap the
United States in an unwanted larger war." The same logic is now at play in the U.S. -
Taiwanese relationship. After cross - strait tensions flared in the 1990s and the first decade of th is century,
U.S. officials grew concerned that their ambiguous support for Taiwan might expose them to
the risk of entrapment. So the Bush administration adjusted its policy, clarifying that its goal

was to not only deter China from an unprovoked attack bu t also deter Taiwan from unilateral moves
toward independence.

A2: China Adventurism

China not adventuring
Austin 15
(Dr Greg Austin is a Professorial Fellow with the EastWest Institute in New York and a Visiting Professor at
the Australian Centre for Cyber Security at the University of New South Wales, Canberra, at the Australian
Defence Force Academy., 5/22 4 reasons why china is no threat to south china sea argument,
http://thediplomat.com/2015/05/4-reasons-why-china-is-no-threat-to-south-china-sea-commerce/)
The heat being generated outside China about its putative threat to commercial shipping in the South
China Sea because of activity in the Spratly Islands is becoming tiresome. (Note: The term sea lines of
communication (SLOC) is often used in these debates as a substitute for commercial shipping, though in
normal parlance the two are not completely synonymous.) It

is not clear who invented the

China SLOC threat thesis but it does not stand close scrutiny. Here
are a few considerations that may stimulate a re-think. First, China
does not need the Spratly Islands to threaten north-bound shipping
in the South China Sea. It could do so easily (if it wanted to) without
controlling this disputed island group. Chinas Southern Fleet is
headquartered in Hainan, which sits in a commanding position
opposite the Philippines in the area that overlooks the northernmost
egress from this semi-enclosed sea. Chinas mainland province of
Guangdong has 4,300 km of coastline that forms one side of this sea
egress. The distance between this coastline and the Philippines
coast is around 800 km and this area is in relatively easy reach of
Chinas maritime military assets. Most of the tiny islands and submerged reefs in the
Spratly group are more than 800 km from Hainan Island. Chinese military leaders would have to be mad

Any
country wanting to mount a sustained attack against shipping would
use land-based air assets supported by a secure supply chain before
it would use sea-based assets, such as submarines, or an air strip in
mid-ocean built on a submerged coral reef remote from any secure
supply chain.Second,
before they used these remote and tiny islands as the foundation for an anti-shipping campaign.

A2: Russia Adventurism

Russia is Not adventuring
World Bulletin 6/6 (World Bulletin/News Deck is a massive news and global website that
covers notable global events, 15 Putin in Italy: Russia will not attack NATO
http://www.worldbulletin.net/haber/160290/putin-in-italy-russia-will-not-attack-nato)

Russian President Vladimir Putin has made it clear that they have no
plans to attack NATO and is only responding to threats by the US and NATO military expansion
on its borders. Speaking to Italian newspaper, Il Corriere della Sera, he said that they are not
building up its offensive military capabilities overseas. Speaking to the
paper on the eve of his visit to Italy, Putin stressed that peopleshould not take
the ongoing Russian aggression scaremongering in the West
seriously, as a global military conflict is absolutely unthinkable in
the modern world. I think that only an insane person and only in a
dream can imagine that Russia would suddenly attack NATO. I think
some countries are simply taking advantage of peoples fears with
regard to Russia. They just want to play the role of front-line countries that should receive some

supplementary military, economic, financial or some other aid, Putin said. He also so that there were
specific countries were deliberately nurturing such fears, he added, saying that hypothetically the US could
need an external threat to maintain its leadership in the Atlantic community. Iran is clearly not very scary
or big enough for this, Putin noted with irony. Russias President also pointed out to the journalists to
compare the global military presence of Russia and the US/NATO, as well as their military spending levels.
He also urged them to look at the steps each side has taken in connection with the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Russias military policy is not global,

offensive, or aggressive, Putin stressed, adding that Russia
hasvirtually no bases abroad, and the few that do exist are
remnants of its Soviet past. He pointed out that there were small contingents of Russian

armed forces in Tajikistan on the border with Afghanistan, mainly due to the high terrorist threat in the
area. There is an airbase in Kyrgyzstan, which was opened at request of the Kyrgyz authorities to deal with
a terrorist threat there. Russia also has a military unit in Armenia. Putin also highlighted that the fact
Russia has been working towards downsizing its global military presence while on the contrary the US has
been doing the exact opposite. We have dismantled our bases in various regions of the world, including
Cuba, Vietnam, and so on, the president stressed. I invite you to publish a world map in your newspaper
and to mark all the US military bases on it. You will see the difference.

ADV Economy

Uniqueness

Econ Low Now

US econ low now
OBrien, 15
Matt O'Brien, a reporter for Wonkblog covering economic affairs and was
previously a senior associate editor at The Atlantic, May 5th 2015, The
recovery is stalling out again. Is the economy actually in a recession?,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/05/05/is-the-u-seconomy-actually-in-a-recession/
The U.S. economy barely grew at the start of the year, and it's barely
growing any more than that now. It's bad enough that it's not completely crazy to
wonder whether we've somehow slipped back into a mini-recession. It's only mostly crazy. And even then,
it depends on what you mean by "recession." If you're talking about the usual rule-of-thumb of two
consecutive quarters of negative growth, then, yes, there's probably a 5 percent chance that we've fallen
into one. But if you mean an economic decline that actually makes unemployment go up, then, no, we

We just have to worry about a new normal of

slow growth that might dip into negative territory every now and then even
during the good times. In other words, about turning Japanese. Now, once again, the
economy has fallen into a funk that only evokes words like "stall
speed" or "anemic" or "disappointing." The extreme winter weather helped pushed
don't have to worry about the r-word.

growth down to 0.2 percent in the first quarter, and the Atlanta Fed's GDPNow model only thinks it's up to
0.9 percent now. That's even worse than last year, when another polar vortex-induced slump at least gave
way to a strong bounce back thereafter. Why is this time different? After all, interest rates are still zero,
austerity is still over, and unemployment is still falling. Well, the problem, as Greg Ip points out, is that just
talking about tightening is tightening, because people will react as if you already did. So when the Federal
Reserve said that it'd like to start raising rates in June, even if weak data is ultimately going to make it wait

the rest of the world

was cutting interest rates just as we were talking about raising
them, which sent the dollar on a historic rallymaking our goods
less competitive both at home and abroad. Add in the fact that lower
oil prices seem to be hurting business investment in new rigs more
than it's helping consumer spending on, say, restaurants , and you've got
longer than that, the economy started slowing down. It didn't help that

everything you need for a slowdown. More than that, actually. It's not inconceivable that the economy
shrank to start the year. Now that we know how much bigger the trade deficit got in March, it will probably
turn out that first quarter growth will get revised down into negative territory. And while it's far from likely,
there's still a chance, as economist Scott Sumner points out, that second quarter growth won't be any
better. But if that happened, it'd be a funny kind of "recession." The economy has added 591,000 jobs so
far this yeardespite what was, in all likelihood, lower GDPand even if that pace peters out, it's hard to
imagine it would turn into job losses. Unemployment, in other words, probably wouldn't go up. That's the
same thing, Sumner says, that happened to Japan last year. A big tax hike made its economy contract for
two quarters in a row, but throughout this supposed recession, its unemployment rate actually fell from 3.6
to 3.5 percent. That's because, as Japan's workforce has shrunk, its economy has grow so little in the good
times that it doesn't take much to make it look like a bad time. The U.S. doesn't face such a dramatic
demographic decline, but productivity growth has been so feeble the past few years that, taken together
with the Boomers hitting retirement age, our trend growth is probably a lot lower than it used to be, too.
Still, it's never good when you can't tell if your recovery is actually a recession.

U.S. econ still fragile.

Charlie Cook 14, 5-12-2014, "Our Fragile Economy Still Needs Time to
Gather Its Strength ," nationaljournal, http://www.nationaljournal.com/off-tothe-races/our-fragile-economy-still-needs-time-to-gather-its-strength20140512
Americans remain pretty pessimistic about the economy. The National
Bureau of Economic Research calculates that the most recent recession began in December 2007 and
ended in June 2009.

But that is certainly news to most Americans. In a

March NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 57 percent of respondents

said they believe we are still in a recession , while 41 percent said we are not.
Indeed, in the seven times that NBC/WSJ pollsters have asked the question since the latter half of 2001, a

While consumer confidence is

on the rise and pretty close to the highest it has been since the last
recession began, we are nowhere near the levels of optimism and
comfort that Americans felt during the period of 1992 until this
latest recession began in late 2007. We feel better, but nowhere
near good. The recent economic reports that we only had a one-tenth of a percentage point increase
majority of Americans have felt that we were in a recession.

in the real gross domestic product is attributed to an unusually harsh winter; but a vibrant economy
doesn't sustain that kind of hit from a tough winter alone. As Mesirow Financial's Chief Economist Diane
Swonk put it in a recent report to clients: "The economy came to a virtual standstill in the first quarter [of
2014], adding insult to injury to an economy still struggling to recover." She added that it was "reflective of
a fundamental weakening in a recovery that was already compromised."

This was and remains

a very fragile economy. The monthly survey of top economists conducted by Blue Chip

Economic Indicators projects that the economy, as measured by change in real GDP, will likely grow at a
rate of 3.4 percent for the ongoing second quarter of this year, then 3.0 and 3.1 percent for the third and
fourth quarters, respectively. And

projections for 2015 remain basically at the 3.0

percent level. Obviously, this is far better growth than we have had during recessions; looking back
over the last three-quarters of a century, mid-to-high single digits is more the norm, so the economy will
likely be growingbut compared with the pain we have gone through, not at nearly the rate we need and
would like to have. With projections calling for growthbut nothing like the impressive growth we have
seen in previous erasbusinesses are slow to risk huge investments in new plants and equipment. To
paraphrase economist Michael Drury of McVean Trading and Investments, without a surge in capital
spendingwhich is not happeningthis economic cycle will remain lackluster, but last longer.

Manufacturing and employment in that sector is picking up strongly,

but caution remains.

U.S. econ still fragile and preforming worse

Michael Lombardi, MBA 15, 5-6-2015, "First-Quarter GDP Proves U.S.
Economy Fragile," Stock Market Advice | Investment Newsletters - Profit
Confidential, http://www.profitconfidential.com/economic-analysis/firstquarter-gdp-proves-u-s-economy-fragile/
For most of 2015, I have been writing about how the U.S. economy is growing at a
very slow pace, if its growing at all. The just-released U.S. gross
domestic product (GDP) numbers for the first quarter of 2015
confirm this; the economy grew at an annual pace of just 0.2% in the
first quarter of this year. But a closer look at the GDP numbers
reveals something worse than meager growth. U.S. Economy Growing
or Contracting? There are several areas of concern in the GDP numbers. If I take out the inventory
buildup component of first-quarter GDP (thats how much inventories have gone up within businesses),
there was no growth in the U.S. economy in the first three months of 2015. Private inventories have been
increasing significantly. In the first quarter of 2015, they grew by $110 billion after increasing $80.0 billion
in the fourth quarter of 2014. If I take out the surge in private inventories, GDP would have grown at only
0.05% in the first three months of 2015. (Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, April 29, 2015.)
Consumption, the biggest portion of the GDP calculation, increased only 1.9% in the first quarter of 2015,
compared to an increase of 4.4% in the fourth quartera plunge in consumption of over 55%. The 0.2%
increase in first-quarter GDP is from advance economic data collected by the Bureau of Economic Analysis

I expect revisions to
the downside once all the final data is in. Economic Data Remain
Bleak The real problem with economic growth in this country is the
weak consumption. Americans are struggling and many still cant
afford basic necessities like food. As of January of 2015, over 46
million Americans were still using food stamps in the U.S. This
represents 14.5% of the entire U.S. population. (Source: U.S. Department of
(BEA). There are two more revisions to the first-quarter GDP numbers.

Agriculture, April 10, 2105.) A closer look at the GDP numbers reveals something worse than meager

Since the so-called recovery began for the U.S. economy, the
biggest influx in job creation has been in retail jobs and part-time
jobs. The individuals with these jobs are not making enough money
to make a positive impact on personal consumption. Outlook for 2015:
growth.

Lackluster To me, first-quarter GDP numbers are confirmation of the growth (or lack thereof) in the U.S.
economy. What the mainstream media and politicians have been telling us is happening just isnt true.
There is no real growth in the U.S. economy. Is it just me or does it seem that since the Federal Reserve
stopped printing paper money, the U.S. economy has stalled? After all, corporate earnings growth and
revenue growth both turned negative in the first quarter of 2015. The Federal Reserve is stuck between a

Starting last year, the Fed told the world that the U.S.
economy is doing better and that it would start to raise interest
rates. But now, in 2015, the economy has stalled. Does the Fed face
the embarrassment of being totally wrong on growth and cancel its
plan to raise rates or does it raise rates to save face? When it comes to
rock and hard place.

interest rates, I believe four things: 1) The Federal Reserve will raise rates to save face and show the world
that the U.S. economy is growing and that an interest rate hike is needed to cool that growth. 2) The Fed
will look at the growth in U.S. jobs as its key gauge of growth. The closer we get to a five-percent
unemployment rate, the quicker that rate increase will come. 3) The markets have already priced in a
quarter-point increase in rates. 4) A quarter-point increase in rates will have very little impact on the U.S.
economy. Its the increases after the first rate hike, if there are more, which will cause problems.

U.S. econ worse than expected

Wpj 15, 5-30-2015, "The US economy performs far worse than it was

initially estimated.," World Politics Journal,

http://worldpoliticsjournal.com/blog/2015/05/the-us-economy-performs-farworse-than-it-was-initially-estimated/
US gross domestic product shrank 0.7 per cent on an annualised
basis in the first quarter of 2015, according to the Commerce Departments second
official estimate, which was released on May 29th. The initial estimate showed that
economic output grew 0.2 per cent on an annualised basis in the
first three months of the year. The US economy, the largest in the
world, expanded 2.2 per cent in the last three months of 2014.
Consumer spending, which accounts for roughly two-thirds of economic output, grew at a meagre 1.8 per
cent annualised rate, despite the windfall provided by lower fuel prices. For comparison, it grew 4.4 per
cent on an annualised basis in the three months through December, which is usually the best quarter for
household spending. Purchases were partly held back by the freezing weather on the east coast. However,
a weak reading of consumer spending also suggests that the benefits of the sharp decline in crude prices
might have been used by US households to pay down their credit card debts or to increase savings.

Given that the unemployment rate stands at 5.4 per cent at the
moment (the lowest level since May 2008) and may fall to 5 per cent
by the end of this year, weekly applications for unemployment
benefits are at nearly 15-year low and there are signs of stronger
wage growth, it is likely that consumers would feel more confident
to spend more aggressively in the next quarters of the year. Plunging
investment by companies, particularly in the energy sector as lower crude prices prompted oil producers to
pull back on new projects, weighed on the economy in the first quarter.

Business investment

fell at a 2.8 per cent annualised pace (a 4.7 per cent increase in the last quarter of

2014, for comparison). Spending on nonresidential structures, including office buildings and factories,
decreased 20.8 per cent, less than a 23.1 per cent annualised drop that was initially reported. Exports of
goods and services decreased 7.6 per cent, compared with an increase of 4.5 per cent in the last three
months of 2014. The drop was the result of a stronger dollar, which makes US goods more expensive for
overseas buyers, uneven overseas growth as well as a labour dispute at west coast ports, which slowed
activity there. Imports of goods and services, on the other hand, increased 5.6 per cent, compared with a
10.4 per cent increase in the October-December period. A weak trade showing knocked 1.9 percentage
points off the overall growth figure in the three months through March. The increase in private business
inventories added 0.33 percentage point to the first-quarter change in gross domestic product.

U.S. econ still weak

Associated Press In Washington 15, 6-24-2015, "US economy

contracted less than estimated in first quarter of 2015," Guardian,

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/24/us-economy-contractedfirst-quarter-2015-less-than-estimated
The US economy contracted in the first three months of the year,
just not as much as previously estimated. More recent data shows
that the weakness was largely temporary, with a rebound in the
works for the April-June quarter. The economy, as measured by the
gross domestic product, shrank at a seasonally adjusted annual rate
of 0.2% from January through March, the Commerce Department said
on Wednesday. Thats better than last months estimate of a 0.7%
decrease. Harsh winter weather slowed spending by keeping consumers away from shopping malls
and auto dealerships. The trade deficit ballooned, slicing growth by the most since 1985 as exports fell and
imports rose. Yet consumers stepped up their spending in May, and home sales are climbing signs that
the economy is back on track. In addition, many of the headwinds the economy faced in the first quarter
from an increase in the dollars value to spending cutbacks by oil drillers are fading. Growth should
remain near 3% in the second half of the year as the dampening effects of a strong dollar and oil industry
slump fade, Sal Guatieri, an economist at BMO Capital Markets, said in a note to clients .

Exports
were hammered by a sharp rise in the dollars value, which makes
US goods more expensive overseas. The dollar has increased 15% in
the past year compared with a basket of overseas currencies.

Links

Generic
Bullrun hampers the entirety of the economic sector it
demolishes trust in financial markets (1AC)
WashingtonsBlog 13, 7-31-2013, "NSA Spying Directly Harms Internet
Companies, Silicon Valley, California ... And the Entire U.S. Economy,"
Washington's Blog, http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/07/nsa-spyingdirectly-harms-internet-companies-silicon-valley-california-and-the-entirenational-economy.html
Mass surveillance by the NSA may directly harm the bottom of line
of Internet companies, Silicon Valley, California and the entire
national economy . Money News points out: The company whose shares you
own may be lying to you while Uncle Sam looks the other way.
Lets step through this. I think you will see the problem. Fact 1: U.S.
financial markets are the envy of the world because we have fair
disclosure requirements, accounting standards and impartial courts.
This is the foundation of shareholder value. The company may lose money, but they
at least told you the truth. Fact 2: We now know multiple public
companies, including Microsoft (MSFT), Google (GOOG), Facebook
(FB) and other, gave their user information to NSA. Forget the
privacy implications for a minute. Assume for the sake of argument
that everything complies with U.S. law. Even if true, the businesses
may still be at risk. Fact 3: All these companies operate globally.
They get revenue from China, Japan, Russia, Germany, France and
everywhere else. Did those governments consent to have their
citizens monitored by the NSA? I think we can safely say no.
Politicians in Europe are especially outraged. Citizens are angry with the
United States and losing faith in American brand names. Foreign
companies are already using their non-American status as a
competitive advantage. Some plan to redesign networks specifically to bypass U.S.
companies. By yielding to the NSA, U.S. companies likely broke laws
elsewhere. They could face penalties and lose significant revenue .
Right or wrong, their decisions could well have damaged the business.
Securities lawyers call this materially adverse information and companies are required to disclose it. But
they are not. Only chief executives and a handful of technical people know when companies cooperate
with the NSA. If the CEO cant even tell his own board members he has placed the company at risk, you
can bet it wont be in the annual report. The government also gives some executives immunity documents,
according to Bloomberg. Immunity is unnecessary unless someone thinks they are breaking the law. So
apparently, the regulators who ostensibly protect the public are actively helping the violators. This is a new
and different investment landscape. Public companies are hiding important facts that place their investors
at risk. If you somehow find out, you will have no recourse because regulators gave the offender a get out
of jail free card. The regulatory structure that theoretically protects you knowingly facilitates deception
that may hurt you, and then silences any witnesses. This strikes to the very heart of the U.S. financial
system. Our markets have lost any legitimate claim to full and fair disclosure. Every prospectus,
quarterly report and news release now includes an unwritten NSA asterisk. Whenever a CEO speaks, we
must assume his fingers are crossed. Every individual investor or money manager now has a new risk
factor to consider. Every disclosure by every company is in doubt. The rule of law that gave us the mosttrusted markets in the world may be just an illusion. In a subsequent article, Money News wrote:
Executives at publicly traded companies are lying to shareholders and probably their own boards of
directors. They are exposing your investments to real, material, hard-dollar losses and not telling you. The
government that allegedly protects you, Mr. Small Investor, knows all this and actually encourages more of

it. Who lies? Ah, theres the problem. We dont know. Some people high in the government know. The CEOs
themselves and a few of their tech people know. You and I dont get to know. We just provide the money.
Since we dont know which CEOs are government-approved liars, the prudent course is to assume all CEOs
are government-approved liars. We can no longer give anyone the benefit of the doubt. If you are a money
manager with a fiduciary responsibility to your investors, you are hereby on notice. A CEO may sign those
Securities and Exchange Commission filings where you get corporate information with his fingers crossed.
Your clients pay you to know the facts and make good decisions. Youre losing that ability. For example,
consider a certain U.S. telecommunications giant with worldwide operations. It connects American
businesses with customers everywhere. Fast-growing emerging markets like Brazil are very important to its
future growth. Thanks to data-sharing agreements with various phone providers in Brazil, this company
has deep access to local phone calls. One day someone from NSA calls up the CEO and asks to tap into
that stream. He says OK, tells his engineers to do it and moves on. A few years later, Edward Snowden
informs Brazilian media that U.S. intelligence is capturing these data. They tell the Brazilian public. It is not
happy. Nor are its politicians, who are already on edge for entirely unrelated reasons What would you say
are this companys prospects for future business in Brazil? Your choices are slim and none. They wont
be the only ones hurt. If the U.S. government wont identify which American company cheated its Brazilian
partners, Brazil will just blame all of them. The company can kiss those growth plans good-bye. This isnt a

The legality of cooperating with the NSA

within the United States is irrelevant. Immunity letters in the United
States do not protect the company from liability elsewhere.
Shouldnt shareholders get to know when their companys CEO takes
these risks? Shouldnt the directors who hire the CEO have a say in
the matter? Yes, they should. We now know that they dont. The
fantasy. It is happening right now.

trust that forms the bedrock under U.S. financial markets is

crumbling. [A theme we frequently explore. ] If we cannot believe
CEOs when they swear to tell the truth, if companies can hide
material risks, if boards cannot know what the executives they hire
are actually doing, any pretense of fair markets is gone. When
nothing is private, people and businesses soon cease to trust each
other. Without trust, modern financial markets cannot function
properly.

If U.S. disclosure standards are no better than those in the third world, then every domestic

stock is overvalued. Our rule of law premium is gone. This means a change for stock valuations and it
wont be bullish.

Trust is critical to economic vitality empirically proven

Washingtonsblog 12, 5-4-2012, "Lack of Trust," Washington's Blog,
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/05/trust.html
Top economists have been saying for well over a decade that trust is
necessary for a stable economy, and that prosecuting the criminals is necessary to

restore trust. Indeed, as we have repeatedly noted, loss of trust is arguably the main reason we are stuck
in an economic crisis notwithstanding unprecedented action by central banks worldwide. Economist
Daniel Hameresh writes: A number of economists have shown recently that income levels and real growth
depend upon trusttrust greases the wheels of exchange. In 1998, Paul Zak (Professor of Economics and
Department Chair, as well as the founding Director of the Center for Neuroeconomics Studies at Claremont
graduate University, Professor of Neurology at Loma Linda University Medical Center, and a senior
researcher at UCLA) and Stephen Knack (a Lead Economist in the World Banks Research Department and
Public Sector Governance Department) wrote a paper called Trust and Growth, arguing: Adam Smith
observed notable differences across nations in the probity and punctuality of their populations. For
example, the Dutch are the most faithful to their word. John Stuart Mill wrote: There are countries in
Europe . . . where the most serious impediment to conducting business concerns on a large scale, is the
rarity of persons who are supposed fit to be trusted with the receipt and expenditure of large sums of
money (Mill, 1848, p. 132). Enormous differences across countries in the propensity to trust others survive

Trust is higher in fair societies. High trust societies produce

more output than low trust societies. A fortiori, a sufficient amount
of trust may be crucial to successful development. Douglass North
today.

(1990, p. 54) writes, The inability of societies to develop effective,

lowcost enforcement of contracts is the most important source of
both historical stagnation and contemporary underdevelopment in
the Third World. If trust is too low in a society, savings will be
insufficient to sustain positive output growth. Such a poverty trap is
more likely when institutions both formal and informal which
punish cheaters are weak. Heap, Tan and Zizzo and others have come
to similar conclusions. In 2001, Zak and Knack showed that
strengthening the rule of law, reducing inequality, and by
facilitating interpersonal understanding all increase trust. They
conclude: Our analysis shows that trust can be raised directly by
increasing communication and education, and indirectly by
strengthening formal institutions that enforce contracts and by
reducing income inequality. Among the policies that impact these
factors, only education, and freedom satisfy the efficiency criterion
which compares the cost of policies with the benefits citizens receive
in terms of higher living standards. Further, our analysis suggests
that good policy initiates a virtuous circle: policies that raise trust
efficiently, improve living standards, raise civil liberties, enhance
institutions, and reduce corruption, further raising trust. Trust,
democracy, and the rule of law are thus the foundation of abiding
prosperity. A 2005 letter in premier scientific journal Nature
reviewed the research on trust and economics Trust plays a key
role in economic exchange and politics. In the absence of trust among trading
partners, market transactions break down. In the absence of trust in a countrys institutions and leaders,
political legitimacy breaks down.

Much recent evidence indicates that trust

contributes to economic, political and social success Forbes wrote an
article in 2006 entitled The Economics of Trust. The article
summarizes the importance of trust in creating a healthy economy:
Imagine going to the corner store to buy a carton of milk, only to
find that the refrigerator is locked. When youve persuaded the
shopkeeper to retrieve the milk, you then end up arguing over
whether youre going to hand the money over first, or whether he is
going to hand over the milk. Finally you manage to arrange an
elaborate simultaneous exchange. A little taste of life in a world without trustnow
imagine trying to arrange a mortgage. Being able to trust people might seem like a pleasant luxury, but
economists are starting to believe that its rather more important than that. Trust is about more than
whether you can leave your house unlocked; it is responsible for the difference between the richest

If you take a broad enough definition of trust,

then it would explain basically all the difference between the per
capita income of the United States and Somalia, ventures Steve
Knack, a senior economist at the World Bank who has been studying
the economics of trust for over a decade. That suggests that trust is
worth $12.4 trillion dollars a year to the U.S., which, in case you are
wondering, is 99.5% of this countrys income
countries and the poorest.

Banks and Biz

If the NSA continues to break encryption, banking
institutions and businesses cannot functionAmericas
information infrastructure will collapse
Economist 15 (The Economist, The Right to be Left Alone,
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21639988-why-dopeople-cherish-privacy-yet-cheerfully-surrender-it-right-be-left-alone, ST)
LIKE others, your correspondent is not unduly paranoid about his privacy. He takes cybercrooks seriously, and practices all
proper online precautions. But on retail websites, he cheerfully parts with credit-card and contact details, and accepts that
his texts and e-mail messages may well be read by prying busybodies (whatever good that may do them). He resents the
way mass-marketers build pictures of his buying habits, but finds their recommendations for further purchases mildly
amusing, sometimes even useful. He quit using social networks, not through fear of identity theft, but when the return on
investment (of time) became too low and the threshold of gibberish too high. There are occasions, though, when he wants
nothing more than to shut the entire world out, to focus on friends and family, and to enjoy the privacy of his home along
with his god-given right to peace and quiet. Though the United States Constitution contains no mention of the individuals
explicit right to privacy, the Bill of Rights corrects that oversight. With the third, fourth and especially the ninth
amendment, James Madison and his fellow drafters in the late 18th century made it abundantly clear that privacy was an
essential ingredient of liberty. Without one, there could be nothing of the other. So, what to make of this past weeks
security pronouncements by the political leaders of America and Britain? Both governments have been trying to exploit
the fallout from recent events (the Charlie Hebdo killings in France, and North Koreas alleged hacking of Sony Pictures) in
order to advance unpopular cybersecurity measures in the name of national security, despite their serious implications for
privacy. Following their recent two-day meeting in Washington, DC, Barack Obama, America's president, and David
Cameron, Britain's prime minister, joined forces to express concern about the strong encryption techniques used by social
media and internet applications. These, they claim, prevent their security services from tracking terrorists and other
criminals online. The two leaders announced plans to expand the ongoing work between the National Security Agency
(NSA) in America and the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) in Britain. So far, cooperation between the
two intelligence agencies has focused mainly on defeating advanced encryption techniques. The NSAs version of the
technology is known as Bullrun, while its counterpart at GCHQ is called Edgehill. These are the names of early battles in,
respectively, the American and the English civil warswhich suggests both that the agencies' cooperation on
cybersecurity has been extensive and close, and that they expect the campaign to go on for a long time. Such extended
cooperation comes just as the White House is trying, yet again, to strengthen Americas cybersecurity laws. Each time
President Obama has attempted to do so in the past, he has been thwarted by Congress on privacy grounds. However,
with the recent spate of data breaches and cyberattacks, the time is now judged ripe for a renewed push. Proposals for
new cybersecurity measures are expected to feature in the presidents State of the Union address on January 20th. The
British government has expressed similar frustrations over the lack of a clear legal mandate for intercepting internet
communications. Last year, Parliament hurriedly passed emergency legislation that allowed the police and security
services to continue accessing mobile phone and internet traffic, despite privacy objections from the European Court of
Justice. If Mr Camerons party is returned to office following the general election in May, he intends to introduce a beefed
up Communications Data Bill to replace the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act, which will expire later this year.
Referring to the inability of the security services to read end-to-end encrypted messages, an exasperated Mr Cameron
asked: Do we want to allow a means of communication [encrypted traffic] between people which, even in extremis, with
a signed warrant from the home secretary personally, we cannot read? Mr Cameron has pledged to ban all forms of
digital communication that cannot be read by the intelligence services and the police if he is re-elected. All of which

Banning encryption, for instance,

would mean outlawing popular chat apps like FaceTime, WhatsApp,
Snapchat, Hangout and iMessage. As if that were not difficult
enough, Apple and Google would then be required to strip the strong
encryption from their latest mobile operating systems. That is not
going to happen. There is no way that some of brightest stars in the
Silicon Valley firmament would pull their products from the market
to appease a foreign government. Besides, a secret five-year
forecast of the global threat to Americas information infrastructure
prepared in 2009 by the National Intelligence Council and made
public by the whistle-blower Edward Snowdensurfaced last week,
presumably in response to Mr Camerons remarks. The report makes
it clear that banks and businesses could not function without strong
encryption: it is the best defence they can adopt to protect their
intellectual property, as well as their users' online privacy. All very
embarrassing. The National Intelligence Councils report also warns
that, given the scale of the hacking incidents detected to date, all
sounds more like electioneering than practical policy.

organisations have to assume that any computer network which is

connected to the internet has already been compromised. In other
words, what business needs is not weaker, but stronger, encryption.
As James Comey, director of the FBI, recently remarked: There are
two kinds of big companies in the United States. There are those
that have been hacked ... and there are those that dont know
theyve been hacked. In a recent interview with the Washington
Post, Chris Doggett of Kaspersky Lab, a global cybersecurity firm
based in Moscow, explained how his company was called in by a
large financial-services firm to double-check its network security.
Within minutes, a Kaspersky engineer had infiltrated the network via
a file-transfer server that had not been set up properly. In turn, that
provided access to a web server behind the companys firewall. The
web server's job was to exchange credit transfers with other major
banks in New York. At that point, wire transfers could have been
sent out to the tune of several hundred million dollars to
anywhere in the world. The total time to hack the system? Just 15
minutes. And that was for a large financial institution with adequate
resources. What hope, then, can smaller organisations and
individuals have when it comes to protecting their customers' or
their own personal data from thieves, spooks or terrorists? Not
much. All of which has thrust the discussion about the trade-off
between privacy and security back into the limelight.

Tech Cooperation
NSA decryption destroys tech cooperation with firms
abroad which results in billions lost
Jon Swartz, 14, 2-28-2014, "NSA surveillance hurting tech firms'

business," USA TODAY, http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/02/27/nsaresistant-products-obama-tech-companies-encryption-overseas/5290553/

It used to be that tech titans such as Cisco Systems and IBM could bank
on fertile markets in Asia and Europe in their quest for worldwide
financial domination. Not so much anymore. The National Security
Agency, and revelations about its extensive surveillance operations
sometimes with the cooperation of tech firms have undermined
the ability of many U.S. companies to sell products in key foreign
countries, creating a fissure with the U.S. government and prompting
some to scramble to create "NSA-resistant" products. The fallout could
cost the tech industry billions of dollars in potential contracts,
which has executives seething at the White House." Suspicion of
U.S. vendors is running at an all-time high," says Andrew Jaquith, chief
technology officer at cloud-security firm SilverSky.Cisco, IBM, Microsoft and
Hewlett-Packard have reported declines in business in China since the NSA
surveillance program was exposed. The Information Technology &
Innovation Foundation estimates the NSA imbroglio will cost U.S.
businesses $22 billion through 2016. Forrester Research pegs
potential losses at $180 billion , which includes tech firms and
managed service providers

US tech competitiveness
Bullrun has sacrificed US tech competitiveness. Foreign
customers are shunning US companies and governmental
failure to curtail the policy has resulted in massive
competitiveness gaps (1AC)
Daniel Castro and Alan McQuinn June 2015, [Beyond the USA
Freedom Act: How U.S. Surveillance Still Subverts U.S. Competitiveness
http://www2.itif.org/2015-beyond-usa-freedom-act.pdf?
_ga=1.114044933.369159037.1433787396 -kw]

Almost two years ago, ITIF described how revelations about pervasive digital surveillance by the U.S.
intelligence community could severely harm the competitiveness of the United States if foreign customers
turned away from U.S.-made technology and services.1 Since then,

U.S. policymakers have

failed to take sufficient action to address these surveillance

concerns; in some cases, they have even fanned the flames of discontent by championing weak
information security practices. 2 In addition, other countries have used anger over U.S. government
surveillance as a cover for implementing a new wave of protectionist policies specifically targeting

The combined result is a set of policies both at home

and abroad that sacrifices robust competitiveness of the U.S. tech
information technology.

sector for vague and unconvincing promises of improved national

security. ITIF estimated in 2013 that even a modest drop in the
expected foreign market share for cloud computing stemming from
concerns about U.S. surveillance could cost the United States
between $21.5 billion and $35 billion by 2016.3 Since then , it has
become clear that the U.S. tech industry as a whole, not just the
cloud computing sector, has underperformed as a result of the
Snowden revelations. Therefore, the economic impact of U.S.
surveillance practices will likely far exceed ITIFs initial $35 billion
estimate. This report catalogues a wide range of specific examples of the economic harm that has
been done to U.S. businesses. In short, foreign customers are shunning U.S.
companies . The policy implication of this is clear: Now that
Congress has reformed how the National Security Agency (NSA)
collects bulk domestic phone records and allowed private firms
rather than the governmentto collect and store approved data, it is
time to address other controversial digital surveillance activities by
the U.S. intelligence community. The U.S. governments failure to
reform many of the NSAs surveillance programs has damaged the
competitiveness of the U.S. tech sector and cost it a portion of the
global market share. 5 This includes programs such as PRISMthe
controversial program authorized by the FISA Amendments Act,
which allows for warrantless access to privateuser data on popular
online services both in the United States and abroadand Bullrun
the NSAs program to undermine encryption standards both at home
and abroad. Foreign companies have seized on these controversial

policies to convince their customers that keeping data at home is

safer than sending it abroad, and foreign governments have pointed
to U.S. surveillance as justification for protectionist policies that
require data to be kept within their national borders . In the most extreme
cases, such as in China, foreign governments are using fear of digital surveillance to force companies to
surrender valuable intellectual property, such as source code.6 In the short term, U.S. companies lose out
on contracts, and over the long term, other countries create protectionist policies that lock U.S. businesses
out of foreign markets. This not only hurts U.S. technology companies, but costs American jobs and
weakens the U.S. trade balance

NSA decryption hurts USs tech competitiveness

Ed Felten 15, 6-23-2015, "NSA Apparently Undermining Standards,
Security, Confidence," No Publication, https://freedom-totinker.com/blog/felten/nsa-apparently-undermining-standards-securityconfidence/

In security, the worst casethe thing you most want to avoidis thinking you are secure when youre not.
And thats exactly what the NSA seems to be trying to perpetuate. Suppose youre driving a car that has
no brakes. If you know you have no brakes, then you can drive very slowly, or just get out and walk. What
is deadly is thinking you have the ability to stop, until you stomp on the brake pedal and nothing happens.
Its the same way with security: if you know your communications arent secure, you can be careful about

So the
problem is not (only) that were unsafe. Its that the N.S.A. wants
to keep it that way. The NSA wants to make sure we remain
vulnerable. Of course, we have been assured by Internet
companies that we are safe. Its always wise to be wary of vendors
security assurancestheres a lot of snake oil out therebut this
news calls for a different variety of skepticism that doubts the
assurances of even the most earnest and competent companies. This
is going to put U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage,
because people will believe that U.S. companies lack the ability to
protect their customersand people will suspect that U.S.
companies may feel compelled to lie to their customers about
security.
what you say; but if you think mistakenly that youre safe, youre sure to get in trouble.

Surveillance significantly hurts U.S. tech competiveness

Whittaker For Zero Day 15, 6-9-2015, "US tech giants to "far exceed"

$35 billion loss in NSA fallout," ZDNet, http://www.zdnet.com/article/us-techcompanies-to-far-exceed-35-billion-loss-in-nsa-fallout/

Many technology companies are reporting significant sales drop-offs
in China, once a burgeoning economy for Silicon Valley firms. While
some consumer-focused companies like Apple are seeing considerable
success in the country, others -- like Cisco, HP, and Microsoft -- are taking a
hit. It follows Beijing's decision to drop key brands from its list of authorized
government suppliers in the wake of the NSA leaks. Although a number of
reasons were cited, domestic companies were said to offer "more
product guarantees" than their overseas rivals. "The cost of inaction
is not only short-term economic losses for U.S. companies," write
Castro and McQuinn in their conclusion. "But a wave of protectionist
policies that will systematically weaken U.S. technology
competitiveness in years to come, with impacts on economic growth,
jobs, trade balance, and national security through a weakened
industrial base."

Silicon Valley
Bullrun severely hampers US competitiveness particular,
European countries have massive consequences for
Silicon Valley
Chang 14 [Andrew: graduated from the Medill School of Journalism at
Northwestern University and has written for the St. Petersburg Times, the
Oregonian and the San Jose Mercury News, Tech leaders lash out at
government's electronic spying, Oct 8, 2014
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-silicon-valley-nsa-20141009story.html // mm]
Tech leaders said they feared being shut out of the Internet economy
if foreign countries, suspicious of the U.S. government's actions, opt
for "data localization," meaning they would mandate that their
citizens' data be stored within their own countries. Such a move
would cripple [hurt] U.S. tech firms used to operating on a global
scale. A shutout by European countries in particular would have
enormous consequences for Silicon Valley , they said. Colin Stretch,
Facebook's general counsel, said data localization is "fundamentally
at odds with the way the Internet is architected" and would mean
slower and less efficient servers because companies wouldn't be
able to take advantage of cloud-based storage systems. "More access

points around the world make it harder for your network to be secure, so it makes us more vulnerable, not
less," Stretch said. "Data localization takes us exactly in the wrong direction." During the hourlong
discussion, the tech companies stressed that they had been willing to comply with the government when it
was making legal requests and going through traditional judicial channels to access their data. But the
revelations of widespread spying angered them and was an overreach of authority, they said, and now the

They'd also
like to see the government get more involved in rebuilding trust with
Americans and foreign countries. Ramsey Homsany, general counsel
of Dropbox, said the government needs to show that the U.S. is a
country that respects privacy, especially because people share
personal information photos, life plans, medical records online.
"We have built this incredible economic engine in this region of the
countryand [mistrust] is the one thing that starts to rot it from the
inside out," he said. "Not to use dramatic language, but I think it is
that serious, and I think we really need to see the government also
doing its part to help lead on that issue." The issue of government
surveillance has been a hot topic in Silicon Valley, and companies
have aggressively pushed for better safeguards of their users'
private information and for more transparency about data requests.
companies are working to encrypt their data to prevent future abuses from occurring.

A day before the roundtable discussion, Twitter Inc. filed suit against the Department of Justice and the FBI,
saying it was being unconstitutionally prohibited from revealing the scope of government surveillance of its
users.

US Tech Industry Confidence

NSAs decryption programs undermine international
confidence in American tech companies
The Economist 13 [Backdoor Dealings, September 14, 2013,

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21586345-covertly-weakeningsecurity-entire-internet-make-snooping-easier-bad // emb].
PROPERLY implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on, declared
Edward Snowden, the former computer technician at Americas National Security Agency (NSA) responsible
for leaking a trove of documents about his erstwhile employers activities, in an online question-andanswer session in June. The latest revelations, published on September 5th by the Guardian, the New York
Times and ProPublica, explain his careful choice of words .

Many cryptographic systems in

use on the internet, it seems, are not properly implemented, but have
been weakened by flaws deliberately introduced by the NSA as part
of a decade-long programme to ensure it can read encrypted traffic .
The extent and nature of the programme is still unclear (see article), but it appears to involve
getting software companies and internet-service providers to insert
secret vulnerabilities, or backdoors, into apparently secure systems.
This can be done by introducing deliberate errors into software or
hardware designs, many of which are developed in collaboration
with the NSA; or by recommending the use of security protocols
which the NSA knows to be insecure, in its dual role as cryptographic
standards-setter and codebreaker. It is naive to think that signals-intelligence
agencies, whose job is to intercept and decrypt messages, are not going to try to do everything to ensure
that they can read as much encoded traffic as possible. And there are good reasons why governments
should be able to snoop, in the interests of national security and within agreed legal limits. But the latest
allegations are worrying for three reasons. First ,

the NSAs actions may have

weakened overall internet security, on which billions of people rely
for banking and payments, with backdoors that can be exploited by
criminals, not just intelligence agencies. Second, this undermines
confidence in American technology companies, none of which can
now be trusted when they say their products are secure , and makes it very
difficult for America to criticise authoritarian regimes for interfering with the internet, or to claim (as it
does) that it is the best guardian of the internets addressing system. Third ,

the NSA seems to

have done by stealth what it could not do openly. During the 1990s the agency
unsuccessfully lobbied for backdoors to be added to all communications systems. Having lost the
argument, it has apparently gone ahead and implemented them on the sly. Tighten the leash All this

oversight of the NSA has not kept pace with the

rapid expansion of its activities. Having once spied on a small number of specific targets,
it now conducts online surveillance on a vast scale. It has spied on drug
adds to the impression that

dealers, tax evaders and foreign firms, none of which pose a threat to national security. NSA employees
have used its systems to spy on their former lovers. Mr Snowdens ability to walk off with a stash of NSA
documents is grave evidence of a woeful lack of internal controls. He has gone public, but could just as
easily have put his stolen documents to criminal useas others in his position may already have done.
Barack Obama says he welcomes debate about the activities of Americas spooks. There are indeed

But any
deliberate subversion of cryptographic systems by the NSA is simply
a bad idea, and should stop. That would make life harder for the spooks, true, but there are plenty of
arguments to be had about the appropriate levels of snooping and degrees of oversight.

other more targeted techniques they can use that do not reduce the security of the internet for all of its
users, damage the reputation of Americas technology industry and leave its government looking
untrustworthy and hypocritical.

Consumer Trust
Bullrun has severely compromised consumer trust of US
companies
Paganini 13 [Pierluigi: Chief Information Security Officer at Bit4Id, firm

leader in identity management, member of the ENISA (European Union

Agency for Network and Information Security), cyber security expert with
over 20 years experience in the field, he is Certified Ethical Hacker at EC
Council in London, NSA Bullrun program, encryption and false perception of
security, Security Affairs, September 7, 2013,
http://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/17577/intelligence/nsa-bullrun-programfalse-perception-security.html // emb].
Revelations on Bullrun program demonstrated that NSA has capabilities against widelyused online protocols such as HTTPS and encryption standards. The
latest nightmare for US Administration is named Bullrun, another US
program for massive surveillance. Snowdens revelations
represented a heartquake for IT security, the image of NSA and US IT
companies are seriously compromised such the trust of worldwide
consumers. The extension of US surveillance activities seems to have no limits neither borderlines,
every communication and data despite protected with sophisticated
encryption mechanisms were accessible by US Intelligence and its
partners like Britains GCHQ. The New York Times and The Guardian newspapers and the journalism
non-profit ProPublica revealed details of the new super secret program, codenamed Bullrun,
sustained by the NSA to have the possibility to bypass encryption
adopted worldwide by corporates, governments and institutions. The
Bullrun program is considered the second choice of U.S. Government
to the failure in place a backdoor, the so-called Clipper chip, into
encryption that would have allowed it to eavesdrop on
communications. Be aware we are not speaking of cracking algorithms, Snowden warned that
NSA bypass encryption targeting end point of communications: Properly implemented strong crypto
systems are one of the few things that you can rely on, Snowden said to the Guardian .

The
Intelligence Agency has inducted vendors and manufactures to
include backdoors in their products or to disclose related encryption
keys to allow the access data, this is the core of the Bullrun program .
Snowden revelations are causing the collapse of many certainties, last in order of time is the integrity of
encryption standards, according the popular newspapers NSA has worked to undermine the security of
those standards.

Impacts

California Scenario
NSA surveillance hurts Californias economy
Mathews 13 Joe Mathews. July 13, 2013. The San Diego Union-Tribune. Could
NSA spying hurt California economy?
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/jul/13/could-nsa-spying-hurt-californiaeconomy/all/?print

California and its businesses have a problem. Its called the National
Security Agency. That may sound provincial. The debate over the massive NSA
surveillance programs disclosed by Edward Snowden is a national
and global matter, not just a California concern. But the disclosures and the U.S.
governments reaction to them hit at the heart of Californias economic life .
Whether you believe the massive collection of phone and electronic
records is a scary invasion of privacy or a necessary defense against
terrorism, you should worry about our states exposure to the
fallout. The problem for California is not that the feds are collecting all of our communications. It is
that the feds are (totally unapologetically) doing the same to foreigners, especially
in communications with the U.S. California depends for its livelihood
on people overseas as customers, trade partners, as sources of
talent. Our leading industries shipping, tourism, technology, and entertainment could not survive,

much less prosper, without the trust and goodwill of foreigners. We are home to two of the worlds busiest
container ports, and we are a leading exporter of engineering, architectural, design, financial, insurance,
legal, and educational services. All of our signature companies Apple, Google, Facebook, Oracle, Intel,
Hewlett-Packard, Chevron, Disney rely on sales and growth overseas. And our families and workplaces
are full of foreigners; more than one in four of us were born abroad, and more than 50 countries have
diaspora populations in California of more than 10,000. Hollywood and Silicon Valley are as important as
Washingtons politicians and foreign policy wonks, if not more so, in shaping the image of the United States

But news that our government is collecting our foreign

friends phone records, emails, video chats, online conversations,
photos, and even stored data, tarnishes the California and American
brands. The response from Americas leaders? With respect to the
Internet and emails, this does not apply to U.S. citizens and it does
not apply to people living in the United States, said President
Obama, as if the privacy and trust of foreigners were of no
consequence. Similarly, James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, said that the Prism
overseas.

program, which taps into online communications, could not be used to intentionally target any U.S.
citizen. Such statements should be chilling to Californians. Will tourists balk at visiting us because they

Will overseas business owners think twice about

trading with us because they fear that their communications might
be intercepted and used for commercial gain by American
competitors? Most chilling of all: Will foreigners stop using the
products and services of California technology and media companies
fear U.S. monitoring?

Facebook, Google, Skype, and Apple among them that have been accomplices (they say unwillingly)

to the federal surveillance? The answer to that last question: Yes.

Its already happening. Asian governments and businesses are now
moving their employees and systems off Googles Gmail and other
U.S.-based systems, according to Asian news reports. German prosecutors are investigating
some of the American surveillance. The issue is becoming a stumbling block in
negotiations with the European Union over a new trade agreement.
Technology experts are warning of a big loss of foreign business . John
Dvorak, the PCMag.com columnist, wrote recently, Our companies have billions and
billions of dollars in overseas sales and none of the American

companies can guarantee security from American spies. Does

anyone but me think this is a problem for commerce? Unfortunately,
California is in a poor position to do anything about all of this, since we are part of the United States. As
USCs Abraham F. Lowenthal observed in his indispensable book, Global California, California has the
power as well as the global links and interests of a nation but it lacks the legal attributes and policy
instruments of a sovereign country. Being an American state is an enormous headache at times like

the U.S. government is violating the privacy of foreigners

who do business with us, when coal-producing states block
renewable energy legislation, and when Congress, in the name of
immigration reform, wants to further militarize the border between
California and its most important export market, Mexico . It doesnt help
these when

when our own U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein is backing the surveillance without acknowledgment of the huge
potential costs to her state. Its time for her and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who has been nearly

protecting California industry,

and the culture of openness and trust that is so vital to it, is at least
as important as protecting massive government data-mining . Such
as tone-deaf on this issue, to be forcefully reminded that

reminders should take the force not merely of public statements but of law. California has a robust history
of going its own way on vehicle standards, energy efficiency, immigration, marijuana. Now is the time
for another departure this one on the privacy of communications. Im not a big fan of ballot measures,
since they often only add more complexity to Californias complicated system. But on this issue, we need

to make plain that California

considers the personal data and communications of all people, be
they American or foreign, to be private and worthy of protection.
Such a measure wouldnt stop NSA surveillance, nor should it. But it
would give California-based companies some leverage to resist the
most invasive surveillance demands of federal agencies. And it would
send an unmistakable message to Californias friends that we care about
protecting their privacy and keeping their business.
laws, perhaps even a state constitutional amendment,

California economy key to US economy

Roth 15 Bill Roth (economist and the Founder of Earth 2017. He coaches business owners
and leaders on proven best practices in pricing, marketing and operations that make money
and create a positive difference) March 19th, 2015. Climate Change Puts California Economy at
Risk of Collapse http://www.triplepundit.com/2015/03/climate-change-threatens-californiaeconomic-collapse/

California anchors U.S. economy This is not an article about California. It is about you, in
whatever state you live. Californias economy is so large and impacts so many
other businesses that its potential collapse due to a water crisis will impact the
pocketbooks of most Americans. California has a $2.2 trillion annual
economy. That makes California the seventh largest economy in the
world. For all the greatness of Texas, the California economy is
approximately twice the size. Californias companies are the worlds
technology leaders. Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Cisco, Disney,
Hewlett Packard, Tesla and Solar City all have their corporate
headquarters in California. Little know Atomic General located in San
Diego is a world leader in military drones. San Francisco and San
Diego rank No. 1 and No. 3 among the top 10 biopharma clusters in
the U.S. California is also a global breadbasket: It is the worlds fifth
largest supplier of food. The California agriculture industry is highly efficient, and the state is the largest
food producer in the U.S., with only four percent of U.S. farms. Californias crop diversity is world class, with the state
growing over 450 different crops. Crops exclusively grown by California in the U.S. include almonds, artichokes, dates,
olives, raisins, pistachios and clover. The state also produces more than 86 percent of all lemons and 94 percent of all
processed tomatoes in the U.S. You might want to drink to Californias agricultural success by having a glass of California

Whether you are a Democrat or

Republican, the state anchors your government spending plan as
wine, as the state is the worlds fourth largest wine producer.

California is the largest federal tax payer among U.S. states. The
state also pays more in federal taxes than it receives in federal
spending.

Tech Sector K2 US Econ

The US economy hinges on the tech sector it produces
2.7 trillion annually and supports a fourth of US jobs (1AC)
Muro et al 15
Mark, senior fellow and director of policy for the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings, Jonathan
Rothwell, fellow at the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings, Scott Andes, Masters in Public Policy from
Carnegie Mellon, Kenan Fikri, M.S. in local economic development from the London School of Economics,
and Siddharth Kulkarni, senior research assistant at the Metropolitan Policy Program, Americas Advanced
Industries: What They Are, Where They Are, and Why They Matter, The Brookings Institution, February
2015 SJE

Advanced industries represent a sizable economic anchor for the

U.S. economy and have led the post-recession employment
recovery . Modest in size, the sector packs a massive economic punch. As an
employer and source of economic activity the advanced industry sector plays a major role in the U.S.

the nations 50 advanced industries (see nearby box for selection

criteria) employed 12.3 million U.S. workers. That amounts to about 9
economy. As of 2013,

percent of total U.S. employment.

And yet, even with this modest employment base,

U.S. advanced industries produce $2.7 trillion in value added annually 17

percent of all U.S. gross domestic product ( GDP ). That is more than any other
sector, including healthcare, finance, or real estate. At the same time, the sector employs
80 percent of the nations engineers; performs 90 percent of privatesector R&D; generates approximately 85 percent of all U.S. patents; and
accounts for 60 percent of U.S. exports. Advanced industries also support unusually
extensive supply chains and other forms of ancillary economic activity. On a per worker basis, advanced
industries purchase $236,000 in goods and services from other businesses annually, compared with
$67,000 in purchasing by other industries. This spending sustains and creates more jobs. In fact, 2.2 jobs
are created domestically for every new advanced industry job0.8 locally and 1.4 outside of the region.

27.1
million U.S. workers owe their jobs to economic activity supported
by advanced industries. Directly and indirectly, then, the sector supports almost 39 million
jobsnearly one-fourth of all U.S. employment. In terms of the sectors growth and
change, the total number of jobs in the sector has remained mostly flat since 1980 but its output
has soared. From 1980 to 2013 advanced industries expanded at a rate of 5.4 percent annually30
This means that in addition to the 12.3 million workers employed by advanced industries, another

percent faster than the economy as a whole. Since the Great Recession, moreover, both employment and

The sector has added nearly one million jobs

since 2010, with employment and output growth rates 1.9 and 2.3 times higher, respectively, than in
output have risen dramatically.

the rest of the economy. Advanced services led this post-recession surge, and created 65 percent of the
new jobs. Computer systems design alone generated 250,000 new jobs. Certain advanced manufacturing
industriesespecially those involved in transportation equipmenthave also added thousands of jobs
after decades of losses.

Banks K2 US Econ
Banks are key to the United States econ sector
Keating 13 [Frank Keating, President and CEO of the American bankers association, Banks of all
sizes play key role in our economy, 4/19/13, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-abudget/292627-banks-of-all-sizes-play-key-role-in-our-economy

Customers pay the retailers using reliable, convenient payment tools

that banks developed to help speed commerce while also protecting
funds. And tools like direct deposit, online bill pay and mobile banking help the retailers employees
manage their finances and save for their own homes. This economic microcosm featuring
banks of all sizes exists in communities across America. Multiply it
100,000 times or more and the result is a $16 trillion economy that
is the envy of the world. Regional banks project the benefits of
community banking onto a larger screen. Their scale allows them to
make bigger loans and help local businesses expand into new
communities. They also account for 675,000 jobs, $4 trillion in
deposits and 43 percent of loans to individuals. The countrys largest
banks, which themselves employ more than 1.2 million Americans, do all of the above
while filling a unique niche. Their credit capacity and array of
financial services support the operations of Americas globally active
businesses, which in turn employ 20 percent of U.S. workers. Large
banks also created and operate the modern payments system, which
keeps commerce turning. Along with community and regional banks,
they also provide critical financing for state and local governments.

US K2 World Econ
U.S. key to world economy
Lagrade 13 September 13, 2013. International Monetary Fund. Strong U.S. Economy,
Strong Global EconomyTwo Sides of Same Coin
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2013/new091913a.htm
Signs of global economic recovery, but growth remains subdued U.S. recovery taking hold, private sector
leading the way Job creation key ingredient of domestic and global economic recovery In a world of
increasing economic interconnections,

the United Statess stake in the global

recovery is greater than ever , IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said in a speech
What happens
elsewhere in the worldbe it the success of recovery in Europe or the continued smooth
functioning of supply chains in Asiamatters increasingly for the United States,
Lagarde said. The converse is also true. What happens here matters
to business leaders at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington, D.C.

increasingly for the global economy. Her remarks, which focused on the
interplay between the global economy and the U.S. economy, also
highlighted the need to find joint solutions to secure a lasting,
balanced and widely shared global recovery. Job creation is a
critical ingredient of any economic recovery, domestic or global, she
emphasized. Businesses have a key role to play, Lagarde said, but at the same
time, policymakers have an important responsibility to help shape
the environment in which businesses and citizens can thriveand
jobs can be created. Lagarde said that global growth remains subdued, while acknowledging

that the global economic environment is changing. She emphasized that economies are moving at
different speeds and that the fruits of growth are not evenly shared, both in the United States and other
countries. The U.S. economy is growing and, after a long time, so is the Euro Area. In Japan, aggressive
policy support and the ongoing reform process is helping to spur growth. The emerging market economies,
on the other hand, are slowing. For some, this may be a shift toward more balanced and sustainable
growth, Lagarde told the audience. For others, it reflects the need to address imbalances that have made
them more vulnerable to the recent market turbulence. Reinforcing the point about global
interconnections, Lagarde cited the IMFs recent spillover analysis, which suggests that if the worlds five
major economies were to work together to adopt a more rigorous, comprehensive, and compatible set of
policies, it could boost global GDP by about 3 percent over the longer run. U.S. recovery gaining strength

the U.S. economy is gaining strength, calling this good

news for Americaand good news for the world economy . Although growth
Lagarde noted that

is still modestwell under 2 percentit should accelerate by a full percentage point next year, Lagarde

the private sector is playing a key role as the engine of

growth and job creation. Despite signs of strengthening, the latest jobs data present a
said, adding that

mixed picture, with employment remaining well below pre-crisis levels. The issue of jobs remains
paramount, said Lagarde, noting that jobs and growth is an increasingly important component of the IMFs
policy advice. Lagarde highlighted three key recommendations for U.S. policymakers, drawn from the
IMFs most recent assessment of the U.S. economy. Fix public finances. Fiscal consolidation could be
slower in the short run, but more action is needed to reduce long-run pressures on the budget. Lagarde
also warned that political uncertainty over the budget and debt ceiling were not helpful to the recovery. It
is essential to resolve this, and the earlier the better, she said, for confidence, for markets, and for the
real economy. Appropriately calibrate monetary policy. When the time comes, exit from unconventional
monetary policy should be gradual, tied to progress in economic recovery and unemployment, and should
be clearly communicated and in a dialogue. Complete financial sector reform. While there has been
progress on this front, attention needs to focus on the outstanding danger zones, such as derivatives and

the
U.S. in the global economy, noting that the economy accounts for 11 percent of
global trade and 20 percent of global manufacturing. The countrys
global financial ties run deep too, she said. Foreign banks hold about
$5.5 trillion of U.S. assets, and U.S. banks hold $3 trillion of foreign
shadow banking. Global interconnections and role of IMF Lagarde underscored the unique role of

assets. While these interconnections have great benefits for the United States, they are not
without risks, Lagarde cautioned, referring to the collapse of Lehman Brothers five years ago that ushered

is
important for the global membership. Our policy advice, for exampleincluding in
in a harsh new reality across sectors, countries, and the world. That is why an effective IMF

core areas like exchange rates or external imbalanceshas helped to prevent or to ease the hardship of
crises around the world, said Lagarde. That, in turn, has helped reduce the possible negative fallout for
the U.S. and for all countries.

Stable U.S. econ key to world economy

Mathuros 14 Fon Mathuros (Head of Media, Public Engagement) September 10,
2014. World Economic Forum. US Interest Rates Hold Key to Continuing Growth in
Global Economy in 2015 http://www.weforum.org/news/us-interest-rates-hold-keycontinuing-growth-global-economy-2015-0

The US economy appears to be on a stronger footing going into

2015, even as China and Japan are showing signs of stable, if moderate, expansion Latin America is also expanding,
but the European Union is still fragile The timing of interest rate rises in the US and geopolitical issues pose threats For
more information about the Meeting, please visit http://wef.ch/amnc14 Tianjin, Peoples Republic of China, 10 September
2014 The global economy has been performing moderately well, but the pace of expansion in the first half of 2014 has
been surprisingly weak, panellists concluded at a session on the global economy on the first day of the eighth Annual
Meeting of the New Champions in Tianjin, China, on 10-12 September. More than 1,900 participants from 90 countries are
taking part. This may say something about the future, cautioned Min Zhu, Deputy Managing Director, International
Monetary Fund (IMF), Washington DC; World Economic Forum Foundation Board Member. The IMF is scaling down its 2014

The European Union

is struggling more at this time than we have foreseen earlier in the
year, said Victor Halberstadt, Professor of Economics, Leiden University, Netherlands. Germany will do better than
forecast from 3.7% to just about 3%. It will release new projections on 7 October.

the periphery, but the rest of Europe will perform considerably below trend. France and Italy, which account for a third of

The big question

mark is the timing of the US Federal Reserves normalization of
interest rates. Asset prices are being priced with the idea that
higher interest rates will be long in coming and slow, but the Fed is
saying, no, its going to be faster than that, said Kenneth Rogoff, Thomas D. Cabot
Professor of Public Policy and Professor of Economics, Harvard University, USA. It might be a shock to
the system. Still, many countries may be more prepared today for the unwinding of US quantitative easing
Europes economy, need to embark on structural reforms to ensure sustainable recovery.

than they were in May 2013, when the then Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke seemed to indicate that the US was
ready to raise interest rates. All in all, Latin America is ready, said Luis Alberto Moreno, President, Inter-American

China, the
worlds second largest economy, is slowing, but new engines of growth and structural
Development Bank, Washington DC; World Economic Forum Foundation Board Member. GDP growth in

reforms promise to put the economy on a more sustainable path, said Li Daokui, Dean, The Schwarzman Scholars
Program, Tsinghua University, People's Republic of China. The slowdown is temporary. If the restructuring is successful,

Japan, the worlds third largest economy, is also

on the mend. We are taming deflation, said Akira Amari, Minister
for Economic Revitalization and Minister for Economic and Fiscal
Policy, of Japan. The focus now is on the governments so-called third arrow structural reforms such as the
there will be a U-shaped recovery.

elimination or easing of regulatory barriers and changes in labour policies, including encouraging women to rejoin and
realize their full potential in the workforce.

the economic cycle,

We need to establish virtuous growth in

said Amari.

I believe we will succeed.

U.S Key to global economy

Douglas A. Mcintyre 14, 1-15-2014, "U.S. Key to Global Recovery,
Says World&nbsp;Bank," 247wallst,
http://247wallst.com/economy/2014/01/15/u-s-key-to-global-recovery-saysworld-bank/
Economists in America and abroad say that if access to money at
extremely low interest rates in the United States begins to
disappear, the American economy cannot sustain growth, which has

only picked up sharply in the past few quarters, both based on GDP
improvement and employment gains. The jobless rate in the United
States, at 6.7%, is still well above the average when the economy is
in strong recovery. American consumer activity is still about two-thirds of GDP, and the
foundations of that activity are still modest. The World Bank reports in its new Global Economic Prospects
analysis that: Growth prospects for 2014 are, however, sensitive to the tapering of monetary stimulus in
the United States, which began earlier this month, and to the structural shifts taking place in Chinas
economy. China likely will continue to step into the limelight as its cements it position as the worlds
second largest nation as measured by GDP, and one that is growing much faster than the United States.

The report forecasts growth in developing

countries to pick up from 4.8 percent in 2013 to a slower than
previously expected 5.3 percent this year, 5.5 percent in 2015 and
5.7 percent in 2016. While the pace is about 2.2 percentage points
lower than during the boom period of 2003-07, the slower growth is
not a cause for concern. Almost all of the difference reflects a
cooling off of the unsustainable turbo-charged pre-crisis growth,
with very little due to an easing of growth potential in developing
countries. Moreover, even this slower growth represents a
substantial (60 percent) improvement compared with growth in the
1980s and early 1990s. Global GDP is projected to grow from 2.4
percent in 2013 to 3.2 percent this year, stabilizing at 3.4 percent
and 3.5 percent in 2015 and 2016, respectively, with much of the
initial acceleration reflecting a pick-up in high-income economies. In
other words, the consuming economies will help those that produce
the goods that are fruits of the recovery in the United States, Europe
and Japan As is the case with almost any forecast of global economic
recovery, the most damaged engines of the recession may be unable to stage the recoveries
Other World Bank forecasts:

necessary to help the world average. Kaushik Basu, the senior vice president and chief economist at the
World Bank, said: Global economic indicators show improvement. But one does not have to be especially
astute to see there are dangers that lurk beneath the surface. The Euro Area is out of recession but per
capita incomes are still declining in several countries. We expect developing country growth to rise above
5 percent in 2014, with some countries doing considerably better, with Angola at 8 percent, China 7.7
percent, and India at 6.2 percent. But it is important to avoid policy stasis so that the green shoots dont
turn into brown stubble. Europe was so badly bloodied that some of its nations may not recover for years,
if at all. Monetary policy has been among the most important triggers of U.S. economic improvement. And
the World Bank has decided to emphasize that as the recoverys largest single risk.

Strong economy key to global

Washington Times Http 10, 11-10-2010, "Obama: Strong U.S.

economy key to global recovery," Washingtion Times,

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/10/obama-strong-useconomy-key-global-recovery/?page=all
President Obama said a strong, job-creating economy in the United
States would be the countrys most important contribution to a
global recovery as he pleaded with world leaders to work together despite sharp differences.
Arriving in South Korea on Wednesday for the G-20 summit, Mr. Obama is expected to find himself on the
defensive because of plans by the Federal Reserve to buy $600 billion in long-term government bonds to
try to drive down interest rates, spur lending and boost the U.S. economy. Some other nations complain
that the move will give American goods an unfair advantage. In a letter sent Tuesday to leaders of the
Group of 20 major economic powers, Mr. Obama defended the steps his administration and Congress have
taken to help the economy. The

United States will do its part to restore strong

growth, reduce economic imbalances and calm markets, he wrote.
A strong recovery that creates jobs, income and spending is the
most important contribution the United States can make to the
global recovery. Mr. Obama outlined the work he had done to repair the nations financial

system and enact reforms after the worst recession in decades. He implored the G-20 leaders to seize the
opportunity to ensure a strong and durable recovery. The summit gets under way on Thursday. When all
nations do their part emerging no less than advanced, surplus no less than deficit we all benefit from
higher growth, the president said in the letter. The divisions between the economic powers was evident
when Chinas leading credit rating agency lowered its view of the United States, a response to the Federal
Reserves decision to buy more Treasury bonds. Major exporting countries such as China and Germany are
complaining that the Federal Reserves action drives down the dollars value and gives U.S. goods an edge
in world markets.

US financial sector key to global economy

Elvis Picardo 15 (chartered financial analyst, Why Wall Street Is A Key

Player In The World's Economy

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/100814/wall-streets-enduringimpact-economy.asp, ST)
The U.S. is the worlds biggest economy, with 2013 gross domestic
product (GDP) of $16.80 trillion, comprising 22.4% of global
economic output. It is almost twice the size of the second-biggest
economy, China (2013 GDP = $9.24 trillion). In terms of market capitalization, the
U.S. is the worlds biggest by some distance, with a market value of $23.6 trillion dollars (as of September
23, 2014) that comprises 36.3% of global market capitalization. Japans $4.6-trillion market is a distant
second, with just over 7% of global market cap. Wall Street has such a significant impact on the economy
because it is the trading hub of the biggest financial markets in the worlds richest nation. Wall Street is
home to the venerable New York Stock Exchange (now called NYSE Euronext), which is the undisputed
leader worldwide in terms of average daily share trading volume and total market capitalization of its listed
companies. Nasdaq OMX, the second-largest exchange globally, also has its headquarters on Wall Street.
Street firms together control trillions of dollars in financial assets, while New York is the second-largest
trading center in the foreign exchange market, where daily trading volumes exceed $5 trillion. How does

Wall Street affects the U.S. economy in a number

of ways, the most important of which are Wealth Effect: Buoyant
stock markets induce a wealth effect in consumers, although some
prominent economists assert that this is more pronounced during a
real estate boom than it is during an equity bull market. But it does
seem logical that consumers may be more inclined to splurge on bigticket items when stock markets are hot and their portfolios have
racked up sizeable gains. Consumer Confidence: Bull markets
generally exist when economic conditions are conducive to growth
and consumers and businesses are confident about the outlook for
the future. When their confidence is riding high, consumers tend to
spend more, which boosts the U.S. economy since consumer
spending accounts for an estimated 70% of it. Business investment:
During bull markets, companies can use their pricey stock to raise
capital, which can then be deployed to acquire assets or
competitors. Increased business investment leads to higher
economic output and generates more employment. Global bellwether The
stock market and the economy have a symbiotic relationship, and
during good times, one drives the other in a positive feedback loop.
But during uncertain times, the interdependence of the stock market
and the broad economy can have a severely negative effect. A
substantial downturn in the stock market is regarded as a harbinger
of a recession, but this is by no means an infallible indicator. For
example, the Wall Street crash of 1929 led to the Great Depression
of the 1930s, but the crash of 1987 did not trigger a recession. This
inconsistency led Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson to famously remark
that the stock market had predicted nine of the last four recessions.
Wall Street drives the U.S. equity market, which in turn is a
Wall Street have an impact?

bellwether for the global economy. The 2000-02 and 2008-09 global
recessions both had their genesis in the U.S., with the bursting of
the technology bubble and housing collapse respectively. But Wall
Street can also be the catalyst for a global expansion, as is evident
from two examples in the current millennium. The 2003-07 global
economic expansion commenced with a huge rally on Wall Street in
March 2003. Six years later, amid the biggest recession since the
1930s depression, the climb back from the economic abyss started
with a massive Wall Street rally in March 2009. Why Wall Street
reacts to economic indicators Prices of stocks and other financial
assets are based on current information, which is used to make
certain assumptions about the future that in turn form the basis for
estimating an assets fair value. When an economic indicator is released, it would
usually have little impact on Wall Street if it comes in as per expectations (or whats called the consensus
forecast or analysts average estimate). But if it comes in much better than expected, it could have a
positive impact on Wall Street; conversely, if it is worse than expectations, it would have a negative impact
on Wall Street. This positive or negative impact can be measured by changes in equity indices like the Dow
Jones Industrial Average or S&P 500, for instance.

For example, lets say that the U.S.

economy is coasting along and payroll numbers to be released on
the first Friday of next month are expected to show that the
economy created 250,000 jobs. But when the payrolls report is
released, it shows that the economy only created 100,000 jobs.
Although one data point does not make a trend, the weak payroll
numbers may lead some economists and market-watchers on Wall
Street to rethink their assumptions about U.S. economic growth
going forward.

US financial sector key to global economy

Elvis Picardo 15 (chartered financial analyst, Why Wall Street Is A Key

Player In The World's Economy

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/100814/wall-streets-enduringimpact-economy.asp, ST)
Some Street firms may lower their forecasts for U.S. growth, and strategists at these firms may also reduce
their targets for the S&P 500. Large institutional investors who are clients of these Street firms may choose
to exit some long positions upon receiving their lowered forecasts. This cascade of selling on Wall Street
may result in equity indices closing significantly lower on the day. Why Wall Street reacts to company
results Most medium to large-sized companies are covered by several research analysts who are employed
by Wall Street firms. These analysts have in-depth knowledge of the companies they cover, and are sought
after by institutional buy side investors (pension funds, mutual funds etc.) for their analysis and insights.
Part of analysts research efforts are devoted to developing financial models of the companies they cover,
and using these models to generate quarterly (and annual) revenue and earnings per share forecasts for
each company. The average of analysts quarterly revenue and EPS forecasts for a specific company is
called the Street estimate or Street expectations. Thus, when a company reports its quarterly results, if
its reported revenue and EPS numbers match the Street estimate, the company is said to have met Street
estimates or expectations. But if the company exceeds or misses Street expectations, the reaction in its
stock price can be substantial. A company that exceeds Street expectations will generally see its stock
price rise, and one that disappoints may see its stock price plunge. Wall Street criticisms Some criticisms of
Wall Street include: It is a rigged market Although Wall Street operates fairly and on a level playing field
most of the time, the convictions of Galleon Group co-founder Raj Rajaratnam and several SAC Capital
Advisors on insider trading charges in one of the biggest such scandals reinforce the perception held in
some quarters that the market is rigged. It encourages skewed risk taking The Wall Street model of
business encourages skewed risk taking, since traders can make windfall profits if their leveraged bets are
right, but do not have to bear the huge losses that would result if they are wrong. Excessive risk taking is

Wall Street
derivatives are WMDs Warren Buffett warned in 2002 that the
derivatives developed by Wall Street were financial weapons of mass
destruction, and this proved to be the case during the U.S. housing
believed to have contributed to the meltdown in mortgage-backed securities in 2008-09.

collapse, when mortgage-backed securities went into free-fall. Wall

Street can bring the economy to its knees As discussed earlier, and
as seen in the Great Recession of 2008-09. TBTF rescues need
taxpayer funds Giant Wall Street banks and firms that are deemed
Too Big to Fail would need taxpayer funds if they are in need of a
rescue. Disconnect from Main Street Many see Wall Street as a
place where unnecessary middlemen abound, who are very well paid
despite not generating value for the real economy like Main Street
does. Wall Street arouses envy in some and anger in many Milliondollar payouts that are quite common on Wall Street arouse envy in
some and anger in many, especially in the aftermath of the 2008-09
recession. For example, Occupy Wall Street claims in its manifesto
that it is fighting back against the corrosive power of major banks
and multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the
role of Wall Street in creating an economic collapse that has caused
the greatest recession in generations. The Bottom Line As the trading
hub of the worlds biggest economy, Wall Street has an enduring
impact not just on the American economy, but also on the global
one.

! WW3
Economic collapse leads to a WW3
Kreitner 11 Ricky Kreitner (Business Insider Politics) August 8, 2011. Business
Insider. Serious People Are Starting To Realize That We May Be Looking At World War
III http://www.businessinsider.com/serious-people-are-starting-to-realize-that-wemay-be-looking-at-world-war-iii-2011-8
The statement released Friday by Standard & Poor's explaining its downgrade of the United States' credit
rating expressed greater concern about the inability of the American political system to handle
troublesome economic realities than it did about those economic realities themselves. It read: "The
downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking
and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree
more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011." Thus,
what directly prompted the historic decision to downgrade the U.S. credit rating was worsening political
dysfunction, not the "economic challenges" which Standard & Poor's described as "ongoing." The political,
even geopolitical, repercussions of those challenges can only be expected to grow. Noting liberal despair
over

the government's inability to combat economic depression , and

conservative skepticism that traditional tools will be effective, John Judis of The New Republic argues that a
global depression far longer and more severe than anyone expected now seems nearly impossible to
avoid. Judis believes that the coming "depression"

will be accompanied by geopolitical

upheaval and institutional collapse. "As the experience of the 1930s testified , a
prolonged global downturn can have profound political and
geopolitical repercussions . In the U.S. and Europe, the downturn has already inspired
unsavory, right-wing populist movements. It could also

bring about trade wars and

intense competition over natural resources, and the eventual

breakdown of important institutions like European Union and the
World Trade Organization. Even a shooting war is possible ." Daniel
Knowles of the Telegraph has noticed a similar trend. In a post titled, "This Really Is Beginning To Look Like

we could be witnessing the transition from

recession to global depression that last occurred two years after the
1929 market collapse, and eight years before Germany invaded
Poland, triggering the Second World War: "The difference today is that so far, the
1931," Knowles argues that

chain reaction of a default has been avoided by bailouts. Countries are not closing down their borders or

But the
fundamental problem the spiral downwards caused by confidence
crises and ever rising interest rates is exactly the same now as it
was in 1931. And as Italy and Spain come under attack, we are reaching the limit of how much that
sticking plaster can heal. Tensions between European countries unseen in
decades are emerging." Knowles wrote that post three days ago. Since then it has become
arming their soldiers they can agree on some solution, if not a good solution.

abundantly obvious that Europe will soon become unwilling or unable to continue bailing out every country
with a debt problem. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy continues to chug along, to the extent it is chugging at
all, on the false security offered by a collective distaste for one ratings agency and its poor mathematics.
That can't continue forever. The next few months will show S&P's downgrade to have been too little and

The American
political crisis will only worsen; the "super-committee" will utterly
fail, true to design. Soon enough, we may all wake up to a "reckoning"
truly deserving of the name.
too late, rather than too drastic and too soon. The Eurozone will fall apart.

Foreign Investment

UQ Silicon Valley
Silicon Valley is booming now but investment is slowing
internet companies are key
Avalos 15
George, reporter for San Jose Mercury News, Silicon Valley powers to record job boom, but surge produces
income and gender gap, 2/3/15, http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_27449198/report-record-jobboom-silicon-valley-but-surge SJE

The Silicon Valley economy is red hot and the growth is intensifying,
according to the latest Joint Venture Silicon Valley Index released Tuesday, but the
surge has been accompanied by a yawning income and gender gap. "The hot economy is
getting hotter," said Russell Hancock, president of Joint Venture Silicon Valley. "It is really
extraordinary. We are blowing through every economic record." Silicon
Valley, defined as Santa Clara County, San Mateo County and Fremont, added about 58,000
jobs in 2014, a 4.1 percent annual jump measured over a 12-month period that ended in June. The
job gains last year were greater than in 2013, when Silicon Valley added 44,000 jobs, according to the
index, the primary annual study of the region.

Unlike previous growth periods, such as

driven by a speculative enthusiasm without real revenue,
the current economic surge has more heft with more mature
companies, Hancock said. "In 2000, if you were a teenager and had a business plan on the back of a
the dot-com boom, that were

napkin, you would get financing," Hancock said. "Back then, the venture capitalists were tripping over
themselves to finance startups." This time around, Hancock said, the job gains, particularly in
technology, are sustained; established firms such as Google and Apple have shown consistent growth; and

digital companies capitalizing on "the Internet of Things" have plenty of

new territory to explore for growth opportunities. In addition, venture
capitalists are being more careful with their investments.

Decryption Kills Investment

Decryption undermines corporate trust and tanks Silicon
Valley that crushes recovery congressional action is
key
Reese 13
Frederick Reese, award winning data journalist specializing in congressional
oversight and technology, How Does The NSA Bypass Online Encryption?,
Mint Press, 10/3/13, http://www.mintpressnews.com/how-does-the-nsabypass-online-encryption/169916/ SJE
Starting in 2000, the NSA spent billions to protect and preserve its
ability to eavesdrop online, by influencing and weakening encryption
standards, obtaining keys by agreement, hacking or legal intimidation, and designing supercomputer nests to
conduct optimized brute-force attacks. Project Bullrun deals with NSAs abilities to defeat the encryption used
in specific network communication technologies, read a classification guide for NSA employees and contractors on
BULLRUN. Bullrun involves multiple sources, all of which are extremely sensitive. The document reveals that the agency
has capabilities against widely used online protocols, such as HTTPS, voice-over-IP and Secure Sockets Layer (SSL), used
to protect online shopping and banking. In 2006, cryptography researchers Dan Shumow and Niels Ferguson floated an
informal paper suggesting the possibility that the NSA

created a workaround for the

the adopted encryption

Dual_EC_DRBG (Dual Elliptic Curve Deterministic Random Bit Generator),

standard supported by the International Organisation for Standardisation and used in computer system worldwide.
As the encryption key used random numbers, it is impossible to form a dictionary of possible key values, forcing the
hacker to go through all possible key values. In 2007, Bruce Schneier, a cryptographer, picked up on Shumow and
Fergusons research and suggested that it is most likely that the NSA would use a scheme similar to this proposal, as it
would be significantly faster to implement. In his Wired article, Schneier argued: There are a bunch of constants fixed
numbers in the standard used to define the algorithms elliptic curve What Shumow and Ferguson showed is that
these numbers have a relationship with a second, secret set of numbers that can act as a kind of skeleton key. If you know
the secret numbers, you can predict the output of the random-number generator after collecting just 32 bytes of its
output. To put that in real terms, you only need to monitor one TLS internet encryption connection in order to crack the
security of that protocol. If you know the secret numbers, you can completely break any instantiation of Dual_EC_DRBG.
It has recently been alleged that the NSA has done exactly this to get past the Internets encryption system. A forced hand
Microsoft, as reported by Greenwald, Ball and Borger, for example, knowingly installed means for the NSA to defeat the
companys own security measures including pre-encryption access to cloud-hosted email, access to Outlook.coms web
chats, access to its cloud storage service SkyDrive and access to Skypes call feeds (Skype is a fully-owned subsidiary of
Microsoft). Skype, prior to its 2011 purchase by Microsoft, ran Project Chess which made its transmission feeds easier
legally and technically to be eavesdropped on by law enforcement and security agencies. The program was actively
denied by Skype and Microsoft officials until the the New York Times published revelations on the program in June. For the

[the NSA] has led an aggressive, multipronged effort to

break widely used Internet encryption technologies, said a 2010 memo
past decade,

describing a briefing about the NSAs accomplishments for employees of its British counterpart, the Government

Vast amounts of
encrypted Internet data which have up till now been discarded are
now exploitable. We are investing in groundbreaking cryptanalytic capabilities to defeat adversarial
Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). Cryptanalytic capabilities are now coming online.

cryptography and exploit Internet traffic, the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, wrote in his budget request
for the current year. In response to the Guardians coverage, Microsoft asserted in a statement: We have clear principles
which guide the response across our entire company to government demands for customer information for both law
enforcement and national security issues. First, we take our commitments to our customers and to compliance with
applicable law very seriously, so we provide customer data only in response to legal processes. Second, our compliance
team examines all demands very closely, and we reject them if we believe they arent valid. Third, we only ever comply
with orders about specific accounts or identifiers, and we would not respond to the kind of blanket orders discussed in the
press over the past few weeks, as the volumes documented in our most recent disclosure clearly illustrate. Finally when
we upgrade or update products legal obligations may in some circumstances require that we maintain the ability to
provide information in response to a law enforcement or national security request. There are aspects of this debate that
we wish we were able to discuss more freely. Thats why weve argued for additional transparency that would help
everyone understand and debate these important issues. It has been alleged that GCHQ has also sought infiltration into
Google, Yahoo and Facebook. Google vehemently denies that it granted governmental access to its networks or systems

the NSA
has access to every Internet-connected device from commerce and
banking services to virtual private networks to foreign computer
networks to iPhones, Android-enabled phones and BlackBerry phones. This effectively kills the
expectation of communication privacy. If back doors are built into systems by the N.S.A.,
and says there is no evidence suggesting a system breach.The weight of all of this is shocking. Effectively,

who is to say that other countries spy agencies or hackers, pirates and terrorists wont discover and exploit them?,
reported the New York Times on the issue. The risk is that when you build a back door into systems, youre not the only
one to exploit it, said Matthew D. Green, a cryptography researcher at Johns Hopkins University. Those back doors could
work against U.S. communications, too. This seemingly continuous drama about the NSAs overreaches comes into play
due to conflicting obligations under a single organization. While the National Institute of Standards and Technology the
federal agency charged with the standardization of official measures in the United States officially institutes the
nations encryption standards, the NSA, which is charged with ensuring the safety of the nations communications,
unofficially consults the NIST on its official standards. As the NSA also carries the Reagan-era mandate of monitoring
electronic communications, this creates a blatant conflict of interest.

This creates a multilayered

problem. First, if Internet traffic cannot be ruled safe even if the transmission is secure, trust of the Internet
suffers and Internet commerce may take a hit. Cryptography forms the basis for trust
online, said Bruce Schneier, an encryption specialist and fellow at Harvards Berkman Center for Internet and
Society. By deliberately undermining online security in a short-sighted effort to eavesdrop, the NSA is undermining the
very fabric of the internet. Classified briefings between the agencies celebrate their success at defeating network
security and privacy. Loss

of confidence in our ability to adhere to

confidentiality agreements would lead to loss of access to
proprietary information that can save time when developing new capability, reads one communique to
GCHQ workers. Some exploitable products are used by the general public; some exploitable weaknesses are well known
eg possibility of recovering poorly chosen passwords. Knowledge that GCHQ exploits these products and the scale of our
capability would raise public awareness generating unwelcome publicity for us and our political masters. Second, this
activity undermines the federal governments moral authority to pursue and prosecute computer crimes, as this alleged
creation of a backdoor network is a computer crime within itself. In effect, the federal government is creating a do as I
say, not as I do scenario in which the government is perceived as violating the very laws it aggressively enforces. Finally,

it calls into question the trustworthiness of Silicon Valley, which

serves as a major component to the nations economy. A slowdown
in buyers confidence in electronic consumer goods could have a
stalling effect on the nations recovery . Backdoors are fundamentally in conflict with good
security, said Christopher Soghoian, principal technologist and senior policy analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union.
Backdoors

expose all users of a backdoored system, not just intelligence agency targets, to
heightened risk of data compromise. This is because the insertion of backdoors in a software
product, particularly those that can be used to obtain unencrypted user communications or data, significantly increases
the difficulty of designing a secure product. Snowden, however, feels confidence in the security of encryption to continue
to vouch for it, as he did in a June live Q&A session for the Guardian. Encryption works. Properly implemented strong
crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on, Snowden pointed out, before stating that the problem is
not the technology, but the NSAs attempts to game the system by compromising security on either end of the
communique. Unfortunately, this is a problem that cant solve itself. The NSA is legally obligated to continue its programs
as defined, politicians have little incentive to push for reform despite public outcry and the mentality of a world of
potential enemies will continue to fuel the suspicion that such espionage efforts as the NSAs are needed for national

Unless something changes, however, the federal government

increasingly runs the danger not only of isolation internationally, but
isolation from its own people. Without Congressional action or a strong
security.

judicial precedent, wrote Ladar Levison, founder of Lavabit, after the closure of his service after refusal to co-operate with
the NSA, I

would strongly recommend against anyone trusting their

private data to a company with physical ties to the United States.

Bullrun tanks foreign investor confidence

Blum 13

Dan, systems programmer at BT Dialcom & research VP at Gartner Blog

Network, NSAs Bullrun: An Impact Assessment, Security Architect,
http://security-architect.blogspot.com/2013/09/nsas-bullrun-impactassessment.html 11/7/13 SJE
Many believe (with some justification, and I lean this way myself) that, in general, the NSA and
Allied agencies such as the UKs dont abuse their visibility into private communications; they are
conducting Bullrun only to protect the safety of our civilizations against
dangerous threats. But the fact that some indeterminate amount of Bullrun
tradecraft has leaked still changes things. Even if you dont consider the Allied intelligence
agencies to be a threat, you should assume that now or over time more nation state
level tradecraft will fall into the hands of lesser adversaries such as
cybercriminals and hackivists. The likelihood of attacks against the

systems of law-abiding organizations and individuals from those bad

actors is higher and the motivations much more concerning. Going
forward, well have to retool and compartmentalize our cryptographic tools and our use, storage and

Bullrun
raises the bar higher over our heads again. For further information, please check
transmission of sensitive data. Just like the enormous wave of cyberattacks from China,

out Bruce Schneier's "NSA surveillance: A guide to staying secure." Social and Economic Impact
Assessment Security pros shouldnt be surprised about the NSAs mission or capabilities. However, the
extent of PRISM's electronic surveillance conducted in apparent

disregard of both the U.S.

Constitution and the sensibilities of our foreign friends and customers is shocking
to me. Although some spin doctors argue that the latest PRISM disclosures shouldn't worry consumers,

a pervasive lack of privacy will have a chilling

effect on free speech. I feel this concern myself and because of it I don't enjoy writing these
many disagree and fear that

articles. But I wrote my posts on Liberty and/or Security and A Letter to Congress as patriotic advocacy for

With
Bullrun, the reported attacks on the private property of IT vendors
to weaken their cryptographic modules or place backdoors are also
surprising. We know that intelligence agencies sometimes get into gray areas, but this
apparent no-holds-barred cyber-arms race is even worse than we
thought. I find the possible disregard for the rule of law disturbing,
and believe that the loss of trust in U.S. vendors will wreak havoc
the U.S. to change the dangerous course it is on, as it has done after other crises in its past.

on exports, jobs and competitiveness in the IT sector.

Surveillance Kills Investment

Foreign trust is the biggest internal link to the economy
surveillance tanks it
Blum 13
Dan, systems programmer at BT Dialcom & research VP at Gartner Blog
Network, Spying, Cyber-attacks and the Costs of Losing Trust, Security
Architect, 6/23/13, http://security-architect.blogspot.com/2013/06/us-spyingchina-cyber-attacks-and.html SJE
In Security Curve's latest article - Economic effects of NSA PRISM compared to PLAs APT-1 - Ed Moyle

with services being such a big part of the U.S. economy, the
impact of PRISM disclosures on U.S. exports could be large. Service
providers in other countries can differentiate themselves as not being
located in the U.S. and not being subject to U.S. data seizures under
writes that

Patriot Act or FISA legislation. From hundreds of conversations with European, Canadian and other non-U.S.
customers I can personally attest that this is a very real issue .

It is almost certainly a job-

killer, something that politicians would rail against if more broadly recognized. I've written in Liberty
and/or Security and The Constitution and the Cloud that the U.S. needs to start using search warrants in
the electronic era; modern technology could enable this to be done in a practical manner for efficient law
enforcement; and the result would preserve both citizen rights and government accountability. In this post,

the U.S. should also act to preserve the trust of foreigners to

whom we export products. Security Curve speculates that the ultimate cost of
intrusive U.S. government surveillance of foreigners could be
greater than the costs of China's spying program as described by Mandiant in
I'll argue that

its paper "APT1: Exposing One of Chinas Cyber Espionage Units." The costs of Chinese cyber-attacks to
the U.S. have indeed been large. Decades of competitive advantages in defense, manufacturing and other
industrial sectors have been reduced to years or eroded entirely. China has arisen as an economic
powerhouse and some say this will be the Chinese century. But Security Curve's post also quotes from
Forbes: " Trust

is the very foundation of all commerce. Once lost it is

almost impossible to regain ." To that point, both the U.S. and China have
lost trust of potential customers for their industries , and this will lead to job
losses. In China's case, the relentless cyber-attacks and product cloning practices by unscrupulous
companies have cost it whatever trust many businesses that locate offshore manufacturing there had in
the country. I can't tell you how many companies have asked me how to protect against "advanced

Some are moving

manufacturing out of the country; others only leverage its factories and labor force for low end
persistent threats (APTs)" or how to protect their data in China.

commodity products with no trade secrets to lose, and pretty much nobody takes anything more than a throwaway laptop
there. Industrial espionage has certainly benefited China, but the costs to China may be rising. Loss of trust could be one
the reasons the country's amazing growth rate is slowing. And with more information on the scale of cyber-attacks coming
out every day as Western industries and countries redouble their efforts on community-based defense, perhaps it will
increasingly become possible to attribute with some degree of confidence at least some attacks to specific individuals or
companies that have taken or used stolen electronic data. This could enable injured parties to levy sanctions or lawsuits
against those Chinese companies with interests located in Western countries. To wit, security data on cyber-attacks is
increasingly being shared across Western enterprises, vendors, service providers and entire industry sectors or countries

If we believe that its

program of industrial espionage through cyber-attacks will ultimately cost China,
how much more will a program of indiscriminate surveillance of
foreigners cost the U.S.? I suspect the loss of trust for the U.S. from PRISM will be serious
to pool knowledge of cyber-attackers, their trade craft and their social and economic connections.

because the U.S. has enjoyed tremendous goodwill across the world as the birthplace of modern

for years I've

listened to concerns from citizens of partner democracies and allies
(Europe, Canada, Australia, etc.) about hosting data in the U.S. due to fears of the Patriot Act.
democracy and constitutional government. But that trust was already eroding;

I often pushed back that we were being singled out unfairly because other democracies have their Patriot Act equivalent
enabling legislation as well and would certainly use it if they were attacked and plotted against to the scale that we have
been and still probably are. But PRISM confirms at least some of my foreign colleagues' worst fears on U.S. surveillance;
specifically, it's been disclosed that the metadata (who, when and where) of their electronic communications have been

secretly vacuumed up on a large scale. Loss of trust may be a progressive process that reaches a tipping point where the
U.S. starts to lose increasing numbers of exports, and therefore, jobs. For example, Sweden recently forbade its
government agencies from hosting data with Google. Similarly, some Canadian legislation prohibits provincial

While most countries still

allow private companies to host their citizens' personal data in the
U.S. or use U.S. suppliers with data centers elsewhere if proper
privacy controls are proven that bar will get higher in light of PRISM. This is
an urgent problem that the U.S. - with its large IT and cloud
computing industries - can't economically afford to ignore any
longer.
governments from hosting citizens' personal data anywhere in the U.S.

FDI k2 Silicon Valley

Foreign investment is key to Silicon Valley, but privacy is
a controlling issue
Kopytoff 14
Verne, senior editor at Fortune, Why foreign leaders love Silicon Valley, Fortune, 2/20/14,
http://fortune.com/2014/02/20/why-foreign-leaders-love-silicon-valley/ SJE

Incubators devoted to just one country, which are often sponsored by

foreign governments, have fast become a Silicon Valley fixture.
Israel, Ireland, Denmark, Germany, and Australia are among those
with beachheads that support young companies and help with access to
U.S. investors and partners. The playbook followed by foreign leaders is well-established. Get off the plane in San
Francisco, hold a few events to highlight their enthusiasm for all things tech, then mingle with a few well-known tech executives over a
gourmet lunch or at a town hall meeting. In 2012, Shimon Peres, Israels president, made the trip to Facebooks headquarters during a four-day
tour of Silicon Valley to promote Israeli startups. During an interview on stage with Sandberg, he described himself as a fan of social
networking. People can use it, he said, to work around governments and achieve peace on their own although peace in the Middle East
seems to be just as elusive now as ever. Last year, Haitis prime minister, Laurent Lamothe, made a rare trifecta by visiting the headquarters
of Facebook, Google, and Apple in one stateside trip. It was an opportunity to ask wealthy technology companies to help his impoverished
country, which is reeling from a devastating earthquake, with jobs and aid. The companies donated free servers and some premium online
tools. But few Haitians have online connections at home, and pledges were small compared to the countrys myriad problems. Like many
heads of state that visit Silicon Valley, Hollande was trying to send a message back home that he supports innovation and is working to turn
France into a startup republic. But many French entrepreneurs accuse Hollande of undermining them with a new law that sets the top tax
rate at 75%. Avoiding the tax issue in public comments, Hollande threw out a welcome mat for American investment in French companies. Of
all the American investment in French companies, one-third comes from California, he pointed out. In California, you want to change the
world, and its a beautiful mission a very ambitious mission, but one we really understand because we have the same vision, he said in a
speech at San Franciscos City Hall. For centuries, France wanted to change the world, and together we can change the world. We can change

Usually,
foreign leaders steer clear of the differences they have with the
technology companies theyre courting. No need to inflame tensions ,
after all, over issues like privacy , human rights, and regulations. Hollandes government is
the way we consume, we produce the way we deal with health or technology in order to make the world a better place.

probing whether technology companies like Google, Facebook, and LinkedIn LNKD -0.40% illegally dodged

France recently punished Google for privacy violations by

requiring it to post an embarrassing notice about its misdeeds on its home page
for 48 hours. Google did not respond to requests for comment about Hollandes visit or his government or targeting it with
taxes. Moreover,

investigations. Facebook would only give a vague statement along the lines of, Lets all work together. We welcomed the opportunity to
meet with President Hollande and some members of his government for an open discussion about France and its role in fostering innovation
and attracting foreign investment, Facebook said. The phenomenon of foreign leaders flocking to Silicon Valley isnt entirely new. Franois
Mitterand, another French president, toured Silicon Valley in 1984, during which his wife Danielle, peppered Steve Jobs with uncomfortable
questions about worker welfare like overtime pay and vacations rather than gushing about the technology, according to Walter Isaacsons
2011 biography of Jobs. Before Silicon Valleys rise, foreign leaders visited factories in the Rust Belt. Now, its the same idea, just a different
growth industry. Silicon Valley leaders reciprocate some of the attention they receive. When they go abroad, they often find a warm reception.
Mark Zuckerberg, Facebooks chief executive, met with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe during a trip to Japan in 2012. And last year, both he and
Sheryl Sandberg, Facebooks chief operating officer, met with South Koreas President Park Geun-hye. Meetings arent always courtesy calls. In
some cases, some real business-diplomacy is done. Last year, in a joint meeting in Paris with Hollande, Googles Schmidt signed an agreement
in which the company pledged to pay $80 million to help French media companies build their presence online. The deal settled a dispute in
which French news outlets accused Google of stealing their content by showing snippets of their work in search results. What do

Silicon

Valley leaders get in return? Plenty. Friends in high places can only help
when it comes time for their governments to draft regulations about
intellectual property, immigration, and permitting , for example. Actual
business deals are few and far between, at least in the short term. But the meetings can sometimes get
the ball rolling.

FDI K2 Growth
Foreign Investment is key to Growth and Development
Global Agenda Council on Global Trade and FDI 15 Global Agenda Council on Global Trade and FDI
Foreign Direct Investment as a Key Driver for Trade, Growth and Prosperity: Weforum The Case for a
Multilateral Agreement on Investment http://www.weforum.org/reports/foreign-direct-investment-keydriver-trade-growth-and-prosperity-case-multilateral-agreement

Foreign direct investment (FDI) is a powerful instrument for growth

and development, and is key to enhancing prosperity worldwide and boosting
the global economy. Building on its previous work on the subject, the Global Agenda
Council on Global Trade and FDI has been examining ways to encourage more FDI in both
developed and developing countries. Their findings are presented in Foreign Direct
Investment as a Key Driver for Trade, Growth and Prosperity : The Case
for a Multilateral Agreement on Investment. Organized into seven sections, each written by a different

various barriers and distortions are

preventing FDI from reaching its full potential. In addition, the fragmented
nature of FDI governance makes for a confusing environment for investors and governments, and in
todays trade reality the time has come to make a first step towards
negotiating a multilateral agreement on investment to reach better
goverenance and enhance trade, growth and prosperity.
Council member, the report shows how

FDI K2 Econ
FDI Key to productivity, manufacturing, global
engagement, productivity growth and jobs
Saha Fikri 14 (Saha, Devvashree, [Senior Policy Analyst and Associate
Fellow, Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings Institution], Fikri, Kenan,
[Senior Policy Analyst at the Metropolitan Policy Program, Brookings Institute,
World Bank Group], FDI Matters . . . For Reasons Beyond Capitol and Jobs,
7/7/14, http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/the-avenue/posts/2014/07/07-fdimatters-capital-jobs-fikri-saha)
We recently released a new paper on foreign direct investment (FDI) in U.S. metro areas that
reported that foreign-owned companies employ 5.6 million workers across the United States. We wouldnt
fault even our most worldly followers for asking So what? though. What makes this subset of companies
active in the U.S. market special? The answer is that these companies make inordinate contributions to
national and regional economic development. In todays rapidly globalizing economy, their importance is

represents a direct infusion of capital

into the U.S. economy from abroad. At a time when U.S.-based
companies remain reluctant to invest in productive capacity at
home, foreign firms have filled some of the gap. In 2011 they accounted
for an outsized 15.2 percent of annual investment into the countrys
capital stock, compared to their 6.2 percent share of total value added. Important qualitative
characteristics lie just below these top-line numbers too: Manufacturing . In 2012 alone over
$80 billion dollars worth of FDI48 percent of the total for that year
flowed into the manufacturing sector, shoring up the countrys eroding production
poised to increase. At the most basic level, FDI

base. Over 18 percent of all U.S. manufacturing workersthats nearly one in fivenow work for a foreign
company, up from 12.5 percent in the 1990s. R&D .

Foreign-owned companies
contribute 18.9 percent of all corporate dollars spent on R&D in the
United Statesover three times their share of value added. This $45
billion dollars annually adds fuel to the entire countrys innovation enterprise.
Exports. In 2011 foreign firms exported nearly $304 billion worth of
goods from the United States, accounting for one-fifth of all U.S. goods exports. What is
more, FDI indirectly boosts exports by influencing the export decisions of
local firms, suppliers, and competitors. Productivity spillovers. When foreign
companies enter a market, they bring with them new production
technologies, knowledge, and management practices. These
generate what economists call spillovers as they spread through supply
chains, labor markets, product markets, and to competitors.
Economists estimate that such spillovers from FDI alone accounted
for 12 percent of U.S. productivity growth between 1987 and 2007. FDI via
mergers and acquisitions offers a distinct set of micro-level benefits too. Such
transactions can provide needed capital for expansion and
technology development. Productivity, job quality, and management
practices all improve. Exports often increase with access to the parent companys
international distribution network, and local outlooks become global. Finally , FDI matters for
important but less tangible reasons of global engagement. In a world where competition is
increasingly global and innovation can happen anywhere regions need to engage
actively and directly with the global economy not only to get ahead, but also to prevent falling behind. FDI

with 85 percent of
global growth through 2019 projected to occur outside the United
States, global engagement means big opportunity.
plays no small part in integrating U.S. regions into global networks. And

Foreign investment boosts econ

Jagan 6/26/15 (Jagan, Cheddi, [Politician in Guyana], Our economy

needs foreign investment and trade on a massive skill,

http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2015/06/26/our-economy-needs-foreigninvestment-and-trade-on-a-massive-scale/)
This economy needs foreign investment and trade on a scale which has not been
attempted before, based on the potential of new industries which will create
good paying jobs for our people and bring increased revenues for
our country. Over the years, in relation to my political involvement in Guyana, I have always had, as
one of my main reasons for entering politics, a special outlook that foreign trade and
investment (including local trade and investment) is a most vital
element in our positive development. Because of the PPPs refusal to fully embrace
this concept is one of the main reasons myself and that party parted ways. The PPP s way to expand
foreign trade and investment was to : increase the red tape and incessant delays for investors; expand
skullduggery and bribery in every area of investment potential like gold and timber; sustain the friends
and family nepotistic ways which retarded meritocracy, a vital compound in the complexities of
investment and trade ; bring a new imperialism to our country where raw materials(such as timber) are
taken to be converted into manufactured goods elsewhere, making us the big losers-classic imperialism at
work ; allowing investments from abroad to ignore Guyanese workers (the Marriot) and bring their owncreating further crises in our underemployed and unemployed work force; having no vision as to the
investment potential of North America and Europe and seeking and encouraging these lucrative
marketplaces to put Guyana on the map as a good place to invest and expand trade links; failing miserably
to expand our infrastructure to accommodate expanded investment and trade, instead of the patchwork
fixing headed by Mr. Abject Failure himself, Robeson Benn(a great pleasure to see him go, knowing that
Mr. Patterson will be a much better minister) ; the PPP has failed to protect local business people from
foreigners full of cash and connections to the former government , who are now monopolizing local
markets and forcing local businesses to downsize or close down; failing to make the University of Guyana a
much better institute of knowledge so as to prepare our youths for the challenges of new job opportunities
with increased foreign trade. Editor, all of the above , dictated by the PPPs inherent distrust of foreign
investment as a pivotal element , especially in development of an economy like Guyanas, are the areas
where the new government needs to bring changes and the sooner the better. We have to protect local
businesses from any monopoly by foreigners; we have to make sure , as our new foreign minister said in a
speech in Islamabad, Pakistan in the 1980s, (when Finance minister) that carpetbaggers should not
allowed into Guyana. only genuine, certified investors; we have to make sure that meritocracy is the
watchword and not nepotism, domination or greed; we have to expand our exploration of new investments
from places as diverse as Viet-Nam, France ,Australia and seriously expand trade and commerce with
North America ; we have to cut down on the red tape and lengthy times it takes for an investor to get the
go-ahead- look at India and Costa Rica where decisions on foreign investment takes weeks, not years. We
also have to bring UG to world class standards so as to accommodate new investments with bright and
ambitious young people-Dr. Roopnarine, our new minister will see to that. Editor, It is very encouraging to

on investments and
trade that is a major part of any vision for trade expansion and
much better job opportunities for our youth. Mr. Greenidge is on the spot when he
made this announcement because , check the history, from Rome to the USA, foreign
investment and trade were the driving forces of development and those
see that Mr.Greenidge stated that foreign embassies will concentrate

periods where these factors lagged and retarded were periods of declining standards of living. Anywhere
on this planet, trade and investment are the factors which open new avenues to the creation of wealth and
with Guyanas huge reserves of commodities, from food production and mineral extraction to water
resources and everything in between,using foreign and local new technologies, we can become selfsufficient- the very essence of being a nation .

Foreign Investment Key to Economy Funds physical

assets
DOC 13 (Department of Commerce, Foreign Direct Investment in the
United States, (Pg. 7),
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/2013fdi_report__final_for_web.pdf)

foreign direct investment funds a number of physical assets,

including production plants, research and development (R&D)
facilities, sales offices, warehouses, and service centers. It can take the
Inbound

form of a greenfield establishment that creates something from scratch or a merger or acquisition

it ultimately
translates into output, jobs, exports, and R&D on American soil data
on which are captured in the Bureau of Economic Analysis operations
statistics on majority-owned U.S. affiliates of foreign firms . The vast
(M&A) of a sufficiently large stake in an existing enterprise. Whatever the form,

majority of U.S. affiliates of foreign firms involve at least a 50 percent foreign ownership stake, and BEA
publishes its most detailed operational data on these majority owned firms, which will be referred to as
U.S. affiliates of multinational companies or affiliates from here on. 16 Between 2010 and 2011, the
value-added production of affiliates rose 11.4 percent to $736 billion. This output accounted for 4.7
percent of total U.S. private output. These firms employed 5.6 million people in the United States, or 4.1
percent of private sector employment. Consistent with estimates of the investment position by industry,
about one-third of jobs at U.S. affiliates are in the manufacturing sector.17 Manufacturing employment at
U.S. affiliates was 2.1 million in 2011, or 17.8 percent of all U.S. manufacturing employment. Next to
manufacturing, the largest industry sectors for employment by U.S. affiliates are wholesale trade, which
employed 546,600 workers in 2011; retail trade with 488,500; and administration, support, and waste
management, with 482,200. Manufacturing 45% Wholesale trade 11% Mining 11% Banking 6% Finance 8%
Other 19% Figure 4: Foreign Direct Investment into the U.S. by Industry Percent of Total, 2010-2012
Source: Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis 8 In the 2009-09 recession and
subsequent recovery, employment at U.S. affiliates proved more stable than overall private-sector
employment. Total affiliate employment increased by 0.9 percent between 2007 and 2011, while total U.S.
private employment fell 5.3 percent. Likewise, employment at manufacturing affiliates edged down just 1.5
percent from 2007 to 2011, compared to a 15.4-percent drop in overall U.S. manufacturing employment.
As a result, U.S. affiliates share of total U.S. manufacturing employment rose from 14.8 percent in 2007 to
17.8 percent in 2011.

Foreign Investment key to manufacturing, retail,

wholesale, and other industries- boosts econ
Payne and Yu 2011 (Payne, David; Yu, Fenwick, [Office of the Chief
Economist for the DOC], (Pg. 3) Foreign Direct Investment in the US,
http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/fdiesaissuebriefno2061411final_0.p
df)
Foreign Direct Investment into the United States has been an
important factor in the U.S. economy for a number of years, with FDI
totaling $1.7 trillion over the last ten years. 3 Figure 4 shows FDI has fluctuated
with the U.S. business cycle. Investment surged to an historical peak of $328 billion in 2008 and reached a
similarly high level in 2000, though it hit a low of $64 billion in 2003. FDI rebounded to $194 billion in

A significant portion of FDI goes to the U.S. manufacturing

sector. (See Figure 5.) In 2010, $78 billion of FDI, or 41 percent of total FDI, was
spent on the manufacturing sector. 4 Over the past 14 years, manufacturings share of
2010.

FDI has varied from a low of 15 percent in 2004 to a high of 81 percent in 1998, averaging 39 percent.

Other sectors that have received significant FDI over time include
the wholesale and retail sector (21 percent in 2010) and financial - related
industries (14 percent in 2010). 5 Since 1997, about two -thirds of the remaining investment has
been in information, mining, utilities, and non-bank holding companies.6 Very little FDI goes to
construction, transportation services and other service industries.

A2

Econ Not Resilient

Economy is not resilient
Market news international 12 (Founded in 2008, ForexLive has
been the go to source for both professional and retail traders from around the
globe. Our core belief is that all traders want relevant and succinct trading
information, and we deliver it 24 hours a day. Chicago Feds Evans: US
Economy Simply Not Resilient Enough, http://news.forexlive.com/!/chicagofeds-evans-us-economy-simply-not-resilient-enough-20120918)
ANN ARBOR, Michigan (MNI) Chicago Federal Reserve Bank President Charles Evans Tuesday
applauded the aggressive stimulus measures unveiled by the Fed last week, arguing that the state of the
economy and the growing risks to growth required a strong response from the central bank. However,

urged monetary policymakers

not to rest their oars in the effort to get the recovery back on track,
cautioning against being complacent or unduly passive. Our economy today is simply
not resilient enough. The damage from the Great Recession was substantial; and to date, the
while fully supportive of the Feds recent actions, Evans

recovery has been disappointing, Evans said in remarks prepared for delivery to a breakfast event in Ann
Arbor, Michigan. And given the recession in Europe and slower growth in previous economic bright spots
such as China, theres

a significant risk that the global recovery might

weaken further, he added. We cant count on a boost to U.S. output from robust exports. The

Federal Reserves policymaking Federal Open Market Committee announced last week that in addition to
its maturity extension program, it will buy $40 billion in mortgage-backed securities a month until it sees a
significant improvement in the labor market. It also pushed out its forward guidance how long its
expects interest rates to remain close to zero to mid-2015 from late-2014. Evans, who will not be a voter
on the FOMC until next year, has been one of the loudest proponents of additional action by the Fed in the
weeks leading up to last weeks meeting. This was the time to act, he said. With the problems we face
and the potential dangers lying ahead, it is essential to do as much as we can now to bolster the resiliency
and vibrancy of the economy. I believe the combination of new asset purchases and enhanced forward
guidance about future policy should provide an important added stimulus to economic activity and hiring,
he declared, adding, It is very hard to believe that millions of people who were working productively just a
few years ago have suddenly become unemployable. Not only were last weeks additional monetary
policy actions in response to the disappointing pace of the recovery, Evans said they were also intended to
increase the resiliency of the economy in the face of the increasing headwinds and greater downside
risks posed by the slowdown in global economic growth, the economic turmoil in Europe and the looming
U.S. fiscal cliff. More monetary accommodation by the Fed and greater confidence in the future would
mean a stronger U.S. economy, Evans said, one that would be more resilient to a large-scale decline in
global growth or a sharp fiscal retrenchment. On Europe, Evans noted that while the current expectation
is that a combination of liquidity support for banks and sovereigns will reduce financial restraint allowing
individual countries time to make structural adjustments the periphery countries will almost certainly
experience a great deal of pain. Closer to home, Evans warned that a fiscal contraction on the scale of the
fiscal cliff would be a serious threat to the fragile recovery, and added that unfortunately, a political
stalemate that triggers slated spending cuts an extreme outcome cannot be ruled out. The Feds
shift away from conducting asset purchases of a fixed size and timespan towards a more open-ended
approach conditions its actions to the economys performance, Evans said. And stating that we expect to
keep a highly accommodative stance for policy for a considerable time after the recovery strengthens is an
important reassurance to households and businesses that Fed policy will not tighten prematurely, he
added. While declaring his wholehearted support for the Feds actions, Evans nevertheless said he believes
there are additional steps the Fed can take to further strengthen its positive effects on the economy. He
spoke of the risks of being timid and unduly passive, warning that sticking to just modest, cautious, safe
policy actions risks inflicting a lost decade on the U.S. economy similar to that which Japan experienced in
the 1990s. Underestimating

the enormity of our problems and the

negative forces holding back growth itself exposes the economy to
other potentially more serious unintended consequences , Evans said.
We cannot be complacent and assume that the economy is not being damaged if no action
is taken. I am optimistic that we can achieve better outcomes through more monetary policy
accommodation, he concluded.

The economy isnt resilient- low growth rates means the

economy cant take a hit
Applebaum 14 (Binyamin, writer for the New York Times, won a Gerald
Loeb Award, a George Polk Award and was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize,
6/11/14, U.S. Economic Recovery Looks Distant as Growth Stalls, New York
Times, vhttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/business/economy/us-economicrecovery-looks-distant-as-growth-lingers.html?
_r=0&module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Business
%20Day&action=keypress&region=FixedLeft&pgtype=article]
It has been five years since the official end of that severe economic downturn. The nations total annual

but economic growth has

averaged only about 2 percent a year, well below its historical
average. Household incomes continue to stagnate, and millions of
Americans still cant find jobs. And a growing number of experts see
evidence that the economy will never rebound completely. For more
than a century, the pace of growth was reliably resilient , bouncing back
output has moved substantially above the prerecession peak,

after recessions like a car returning to its cruising speed after a roadblock. Even after the prolonged Great

growth eventually returned to an average pace of

more than 3 percent a year. But Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew, citing the Congressional
Budget Office, said on Wednesday that the government now expected annual
growth to average just 2.1 percent, about two-thirds of the previous
pace
Depression of the 1930s,

Misc
Having backdoor encryption will cause lac of wanted
investment into U.S. companies and hurt small businesses
most.
No Author 14, 11-10-2014, "Issue Brief: A Backdoor to Encryption for

Government Surveillance&nbsp;," No Publication, https://cdt.org/insight/issuebrief-a-backdoor-to-encryption-for-government-surveillance/

US businesses harmed: Consumers outside of the US may be much less
inclined to purchase American tech products that facilitate
government surveillance. Consider, for example, the difficulty US companies would have
selling smartphones or network servers in the EU that are built to enable easy access for the NSA. As a
technical matter,

it is difficult and expensive to both build a backdoor

security vulnerability and then defend that vulnerability against
unauthorized use. This burden would be heaviest on small
businesses and innovators of new communications services, which
may create a disincentive to encrypt their products and reduce the
overall security of users.

[about prism] NSA will cost an estimated 22-180 billion to

big tech. companies within the next few years.
Danielle Kehl 14, 7-29-2014, "Surveillance Costs: The NSA's Impact on the
Economy, Internet Freedom &amp; Cybersecurity," New America,
https://www.newamerica.org/oti/surveillance-costs-the-nsas-impact-on-theeconomy-internet-freedom-cybersecurity/
Trust in American businesses has decreased since the initial reports
on the PRISM program suggested that the NSA was directly tapping
into the servers of nine U.S. companies to obtain customer data for national security

investigations.1 Given heightened concern about the NSAs ability to access data stored by U.S.
companies, American companies that offer cloud computing and webhosting services are experiencing the

Nearly 50 percent of worldwide cloud computing

revenue comes from the United States, and the domestic market
more than tripled in value from 2008 to 2014.2 However, within
weeks of the first revelation, reports began to emerge that American
cloud computing companies like Dropbox and Amazon Web Services
were losing business to overseas competitors.3 The NSAs PRISM
program is predicted to cost the cloud computing industry from $22
to $180 billion over the next three years.
most acute economic fallout.

ADV - EU Relations

Links

Surveillance Hurts Relations

NSA surveillance severely damages EU-US relations
Ham 13 [Eric: national security and political analyst, NSA spying
revelations push US-German relations to the brink,
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/16071478-nsa-spying-revelationspush-us-foreign-policy-to-the-brink //bb]
Revelations that the United States National Security Agency
monitored German Chancellor Angela Merkel's mobile phone has
called into question US relations with Europe and could just be the
tip of a big NSA iceberg. What more will we learn of the NSA's spying on our friends? What
will be the fallout, politically, socially and economically? Germany's

opposition party, the Social Democrats, is gauging whether or not the European Union should approve a
free-trade deal with the US CNN recently reported, "Negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership were already in a fragile state and will not be helped by claims that large French corporations

AtlantikBruecke, one of Germany's oldest and most influential foreign-policy

institutions, fired off a letter to President Obama suggesting these
recent revelations of spying on German officials threatens to
undermine relations with Germany and greater Europe. The letter states:
These monitoring practices put decades of growth of mutual trust at
risk. Without a firm foundation of trust and understanding, how can we proceed to talk about a
community of shared values between the United States and Europe? How can we continue to
teach the young generations in Germany that America is a country of
freedom and civil liberties? We cannot allow the fear of terrorism to
sow mistrust between our countries, our governments, and our
societies. Alarmingly, it's been reported that a meeting between US
and German officials in the aftermath of these revelations failed to
reach an agreement on restrictions of surveillance from the NSA.
This only increases tensions and isolates America from its most
such as telecom company Alcatel-Lucent have been targeted by the NSA." Additionally,

ardent allies-the Europeans. It also raises the stakes on a wide

range of policies important on both sides of the Atlantic at a time
when Europe and America are grappling with fragile and failing
economies, not to mention security challenges from the growing
threat of terrorist groups and rogue nations. Spying is nothing
new, and everybody does it-even on their own friends. The public knows this,
too. You only have to look to the fascination of moviegoers who have had a love affair with James Bond
films for decades. The "Mission Impossible" enterprise has raked in millions at the box office after its start
as a popular US television series. But the very public revelation in the real world has embarrassed those
one the receiving end, especially Merkel and others. Every nation has some form of intelligence gathering;
and while there is some tacit understanding of covert activities taking place in the shadows, the fact that
US spying has been revealed in such a public manner threatens to undermine the very ideals these very
institutions are attempting to maintain.

Bruised relations with our strongest

allies and the forceful rhetoric by rising powers are byproducts of

this clandestine undermining from within secretive agencies run
amok. It is time for world leaders to hit the reset button before the
damage is irreversible.

U.S. spying scandal straining ties with Europe [about

PRISM mostly probably cant be solved by the aff]
Dilanian and Richter 13 10/30/13 National security reporter for LA
times, State department and Foreign Policy reporter for the LA Times (LA
Times: U.S. spying scandal straining ties with Europe)
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/oct/30/world/la-fg-nsa-diplo-fallout-20131031
BB
WASHINGTON The expanding transatlantic scandal over U.S.
eavesdropping on Europe's leaders and spying on its citizens has
begun to strain intelligence relationships and diplomatic ties
between allies that call each other best friends, according to
diplomats and foreign policy experts. The cascade of embarrassing
disclosures is not expected to upend one of President Obama's
goals, a proposed transatlantic free-trade agreement that could
generate billions of dollars a year, or halt cooperation on top security issues, such as

efforts to curb Iran's nuclear program and contain the Syrian civil war. But the documents leaked by former

Snowden, which on Wednesday

exposed a joint U.S.-British spying operation on the Internet, have
caused friction in multiple capitals and put the Obama
administration on the defensive at home and abroad. The greatest
damage, officials warn, may be with U.S. relations with Germany,
where outrage followed reports that the NSA secretly monitored
Chancellor Angela Merkel's phones for more than a decade. The front
page of Die Zeit, a mainstream weekly newspaper, showed a broken
heart, with U.S. and German flags, and the headline "Goodbye
Freunde!" (Goodbye, Friends!) In a sign of a potential backlash,
some European officials have begun demanding that the European
Union suspend or end the so-called Safe Harbor agreement that lets
thousands of U.S. companies safely store and process commercial
and personal data from clients and customers in Europe. Without the
commercial agreement, U.S. firms would face lengthy and costly
delays in doing business in Europe. U.S. officials say Safe Harbor is not related to the
National Security Agency computer specialist Edward

spying scandal, but they are wary of the growing political fallout amid warnings that trust has been broken.
"For ambitious and complex negotiations to succeed, there needs to be trust among the negotiating
partners," Viviane Reding, the European Union justice commissioner, said in a speech Wednesday at Yale
University. In the latest disclosure, the Washington Post reported Wednesday that the NSA has secretly
tapped the fiber-optic cables that connect Google and Yahoo data centers overseas and that the agency
stores the emails and other digital data at its headquarters at Ft. Meade, Md. The report prompted Sen.
Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, to demand a briefing from the
administration. "If the reports are true, this infiltration could be sweeping in the communications of millions
of Americans who use the services of these two U.S. companies every day," he said in a statement.
According to documents provided by Snowden, in the 30 days prior to Jan. 9, the NSA collected and
processed more than 181 million electronic records email addresses and text, audio and video files
siphoned from the Google and Yahoo networks. It's unclear how many belong to Americans. The paper said
the NSA conducts the electronic espionage program, code-named Muscular, with its British counterpart,
the GCHQ. The two spy services use undisclosed interception points to secretly copy data flowing through
fiber-optic cables that girdle the globe. Vanee' Vines, an NSA spokeswoman, did not deny the existence of
the operation but said the "assertion that we collect vast quantities of U.S. persons' data from this type of
collection is not true." Noting that the NSA is chartered as a foreign intelligence agency, she said that
"we're focused on discovering and developing intelligence about valid foreign intelligence targets

only."The NSA can access user accounts at Internet companies based

on U.S. soil under a separate program, known as Prism, that is
reviewed and approved by federal judges on the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court. The court allows the NSA to spy on foreigners, as
well as on U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism or espionage.

Impacts

EU-US Trade
US data surveillance threatens a new EU-US trade deal
the EU will suspend it
European Parliament News 14 [Europal: US NSA: stop mass

surveillance now or face consequences, MEPs say 12/3/14

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/newsroom/content/20140307IPR38203/html/US-NSA-stop-mass-surveillance-nowor-face-consequences-MEPs-say BB]
Parliament's consent to the EU-US trade deal "could be endangered"
if blanket mass surveillance by the US National Security Agency
(NSA) does not stop, MEPs said on Wednesday, in a resolution wrapping up their six-month inquiry into US
mass surveillance schemes. The text also calls on the EU to suspend its bank
data deal with the US and the Safe Harbour agreement on data
privacy. The fight against terrorism can never justify secret and illegal mass surveillance, it adds. The
resolution, in which MEPs set out their findings and
recommendations to boost EU citizens' privacy, was backed by 544
votes to 78, with 60 abstentions. "The Snowden revelations gave us
a chance to react. I hope we will turn those reactions into something
positive and lasting into the next mandate of this Parliament, a data
protection bill of rights that we can all be proud of", said Civil
Liberties inquiry rapporteur Claude Moraes (S&D, UK). "This is the only
international inquiry into mass surveillance. (...) Even Congress in
the United States has not had an inquiry", he added. Parliament's
should withhold its consent to the final Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership (TTIP) deal with the US unless it fully
respects EU fundamental rights, stresses the resolution, adding that
data protection should be ruled out of the trade talks. This consent
could be endangered as long as blanket mass surveillance activities
and the interception of communications in EU institutions and
diplomatic representations are not fully stopped, notes the text.
MEPs also call for the "immediate suspension" of the Safe Harbour
privacy principles (voluntary data protection standards for non-EU
companies transferring EU citizens personal data to the US). These
principles do not provide adequate protection for EU citizens say
MEPs, urging the US to propose new personal data transfer rules
that meet EU data protection requirements. The Terrorist Finance
Tracking Programme (TFTP) deal should also be suspended until
allegations that US authorities have access to EU citizens bank data
outside the agreement are clarified, insist MEPs. European whistleblower protection and EU cloud The text also calls for a "European
whistle-blower protection programme", which should pay particular
attention to the "complexity of whistleblowing in the field of
intelligence". EU countries are also asked to consider granting whistleblowers international protection from
prosecution. Furthermore, Europe should develop its own clouds and IT solutions, including cybersecurity and encryption
technologies, to ensure a high level of data protection, adds the text. The UK, France, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands
and Poland should clarify the allegations of mass surveillance - including potential agreements between intelligence
services and telecoms firms on access to and exchange of personal data and access to transatlantic cables - and their
compatibility with EU laws, the resolution says. Other EU countries, in particular those participating in the "9-eyes" (UK,
Denmark, France and the Netherlands) and "14-eyes" arrangements (those countries plus Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain
and Sweden) are also urged to review their national laws to ensure that their intelligence services are subject to

parliamentary and judicial oversight and that they comply with fundamental rights obligations. Background The Civil
Liberties Committee inquiry into mass surveillance of EU citizens began in September 2013. A total of 16 hearings have
been held since then.

EU US Trade Key to US economy

Delegation of the European Union to the United States No
Date [EU in the US: EU-US RELATIONS: TRADE AND INVESTMENT

http://www.euintheus.org/what-we-do/policy-areas/trade-investment-andbusiness/eu-us-relations-trade-and-investment/]
We are each others main trading partners and goods and services,
and together we have the largest bilateral trade relationship in the
world. In 2012, bilateral trade in goods alone was worth $650 billion.
Our two economies also provide each other with our most important
sources of foreign direct investment. Close to a quarter of all EU-US
trade consists of transactions within firms based on their
investments on either side of theAtlantic. In fact, U.S. investment in
Europe is more than three times more than in all of Asia combined.
The overall transatlantic workforce is estimated at 15 million
workersabout half in the US and half in the EUwho owe their jobs
directly or indirectly to companies from the other side of the
Atlantic. Despite the impact of the worldwide financial crisis and
recession, the EU-US economic relationship remains on solid ground
and is more important than ever. The Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership Launched in 2013, the current Transatlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations between the
EU and the United States are designed to increase trade and
investment across the Atlantic by reducing and, where possible,
eliminating remaining barriers to transatlantic trade and
investment, whether they are tariffs on farm or manufactured
products, restrictions on foreign service suppliers, or limitations on
investment possibilities. A successful agreement will generate new
job opportunities for and growth through increased market access
and greater regulatory compatibility, while facilitating the
development of international standards. By liberalizing most sectors
of the transatlantic economyincluding manufactured goods,
agricultural products, services, and investmenta TTIP agreement
will not only remove the main trading obstacles of the past, but also
look toward the future: preventing new regulatory barriers;
establishing mechanisms that enable a further deepening of
economic integration over time; and enhancing cooperation for the
development of rules and principles on global issues of common
concern. The Transatlantic Economic Council Established in 2007, the Transatlantic Economic Council
(TEC) advances EU-U.S. economic integration by bringing together governments, the business community,
and consumers to work on key areas where greater regulatory convergence and understanding can reap
rewards on both sides of the Atlantic. Chaired by the EU Trade Commissioner and the U.S. Deputy National
Security Adviser for International Economic Affairs, the TEC offers a high-level forum to address complex
areas like investment, the financial markets, mutual recognition of accounting standards, and secure trade.
It provides the opportunity to defuse transatlantic trade disputes as standards are being developed, rather
than after the fact.-

ISIS
U.S. - EU relations key to stopping ISIS
Katulis, Lang, Singh 14 By Brian Katulis, Hardin Lang, Vikram Singh

(Brian Katulis and Hardin Lang are Senior Fellows with the National Security
and International Policy team at the Center for American Progress. Vikram
Singh is the Vice President for National Security and International Policy)
Wednesday, September 10, 2014. Center for American Progress. Defeating
ISIS: An Integrated Strategy to Advance Middle East Stability
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/report/2014/09/10/96739/d
efeating-isis-an-integrated-strategy-to-advance-middle-east-stability/ S.H
U.S. airstrikes in Iraq against the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, have been an important step to
contain the rise of the extremist group, respond to immediate threats to U.S. citizens in Iraq, and prevent
possible acts of genocide. These airstrikes enabled Iraqis to resist ISIS and bought time for the Iraqi
government to begin building a more inclusive administration under a new prime minister, Haider alAbadi.* But as the Center for American Progress noted in a June report, U.S. military action needs to be just
one part of a long-term multinational political and security strategy in the region. The new strategy should
aim to contain and degrade ISIS and enable regional partners to continue to build the tools needed to
defeat ISISs movement with international support. This report outlines actions to advance three core
strategic goals: Contain and degrade the threat ISIS poses to the Middle East region and global security
Alleviate the humanitarian crisis affecting millions of Syrians and Iraqis Restore the territorial integrity of
Iraq and Syria The ISIS threat is eroding the borders of both Iraq and Syria, and it represents an

ISIS also represents an evolving

threat to the United States, Europe, and global security in the form
of international terrorism enabled by the groups thousands of
foreign fighters and its abundance of cash and military resources . An
immediate and significant threat to the surrounding region.

environment of chaos and great suffering has allowed ISIS to emerge. The conflict in Syria alone has
created the largest humanitarian crisis the world has faced in decades. Some 9 million Syrians have fled
their homes, and 3 million Syrians are now refugees, making them the worlds largest refugee population

As
with efforts to counter extremism elsewhere, defeating ISIS will
require a concentrated effort over time. Any successful U.S. strategy
must be built on a foundation of regional cooperation that requires
coordinated action from U.S. partnersa central concept of the Counterterrorism
Partnership Fund that President Barack Obama proposed earlier this year. The strategy will be
multifaceted, involving intelligence cooperation, security support,
vigorous regional and international diplomacy, strategic
communications and public diplomacy, and political engagement.
While military action alone will be insufficient to defeat ISIS, the United States and other
nations may need to undertake airstrikes and provide military
assistance to disrupt and degrade ISIS in Syria. These strikes should
be conducted in concert with regional and international partners.
Ideally, such airstrikes would receive the support from the United Nations or
and placing a tremendous burden on neighboring countries, such as Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey.

absent action to authorize the use of force by the U.N. Security Councilfrom a coalition of Americas Gulf
partners and North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, allies. As always, the United States should
reserve the right to undertake unilateral military action to defend the homeland or protect U.S. personnel
from imminent harm. Whether unilaterally or with partners, U.S. military strikes should be limited in terms
of scope and duration and under clear oversight of Congress. As CAP said in June when it advocated for
action against ISIS in Iraq, The United States should not undertake military action lightly and should be
wary of unintended consequences. But not all military action is the same. Ground troops or invasions to
control a country are very different from limited air strikes or targeted assistance to help push back
terrorist extremists. Focusing too much on direct U.S. military action in the fight against ISIS ignores the
equally important diplomatic and economic steps that will be required to defeat this extremist group. U.S.
military strikes or even boots on the ground cannot defeat ISIS alone and could become a rallying cry and
recruitment tool for extremists, repeating one of the most costly strategic errors of the 2003 Iraq War. At
the same time, building a unified, committed coalition to effectively degrade ISIS will require intense

diplomatic and military leadership from the United States to mobilize and coordinate partners. The United
States must leverage its unique capabilities in the military, security assistance, and intelligence arenas.

Working together, nations committed to defeating ISIS should take

concerted action to empower regional and local forces to fight back
against ISIS terrorism. A successful U.S. strategy will require
reinvigorated support for Syrian opposition forces to establish a third way that is opposed to President
Bashar al-Assads regime on one side and ISIS on the other. This reinvigorated support should include the

With 10 nations
agreeing to work together against ISIS during the NATO summit in Wales and the
$500 million of additional assistance that President Obama proposed in June.

Arab League announcing a joint commitment to fight ISIS, the foundation for such international
cooperation is taking shape. These countries including

the United Kingdom,

Germany, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates
should match their commitment on paper with financial and material
resources to complement the resources committed by the United
States in the fight against ISIS. An integrated strategy to degrade and defeat ISIS and
advance stability in the Middle East ISISs advances this summer have made Iraq and Syria part of the
same battlefield, erasing the international border and turning the regional struggles for power into a
substantial threat to international peace and security. The United States should advance its three core
goals noted above by focusing on the following pillars: Building and managing an international coalition to
defeat ISIS and stabilize the region Increasing support for Iraqs political, economic, and security
transitions, in particular with a revived U.S.-Iraq Strategic Framework Agreement Initiating a more
concerted effort to end Syrias civil war and support the creation of a transitional government Pillar I:

The United States

should not confront the threat posed by ISIS alone. The international and
Building and managing coalitions to defeat ISIS and stabilize the region

regional coalition against ISIS should look more like the 1991 Gulf War or the post-9/11 coalition against Al
Qaeda and the Taliban and less like the 2003 Iraq War coalition. Secretary of State John Kerrys and U.S.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagels visits to the region to press for coordinated action are a good start. To
follow up, the United States should designate a specific U.S. government lead or a small interagency team
to manage the building and sustaining of an anti-ISIS coalition. There is no playbook for this sort of effort,
and the United States should operate on three levels: with actors in the region, with transatlantic partners
and other core allies, and through the United Nations. Regional cooperation The United States should
propose that states in the region commit to common principles and specific, coordinated actions to help
isolate and counter ISIS and better respond to the humanitarian catastrophe. This will not be easy as the
Sunni-Shia sectarian divide in the region is now accompanied by growing tensions between leading Sunnimajority states. In addition, key countries in the region lack some basic capacities needed for operational
impact, as demonstrated by the failure of regional efforts to support elements of the anti-Assad opposition
in Syria. While the United States and other countries may need to fill such capability gaps, regional
partners should contribute financial and other resources to support a multinational effort. With partners in
the region, the United States can take the following steps: Create an ISIS-focused intelligence fusion cell
in the region. The United States has a wide range of networked relationships with key Middle East
intelligence services. Jordan is a close partner in counterterrorism efforts throughout the Middle East and
outside the region in places such as Afghanistan. Saudi intelligence services have been battling certain
Islamist extremist groups, such as ISIS and al-Nusra Frontthe Al Qaeda affiliate now dominating parts of
the battlefield. The Turkish National Intelligence Organization also has extensive intelligence contacts and

The United
States would need to provide the backbone for any regional
intelligence fusion effort. Establish a multi-agency and multinational ISIS threat finance cell
specialized knowledge of the various extremist groups operating in northern Syria.

to target the economic base of ISIS. ISIS funds its activities from areas under its control through taxation,
illicit economies such as oil smuggling and extortion, and external support, mainly from individuals in Gulf
states. Some estimates project ISIS will raise between $100 million and $200 million over the next year. To
disrupt ISISs finances, the United States should work with regional partners to target the criminal networks
that ISIS uses to sell goods or otherwise generate revenue; disrupt ISIS oil extraction, transport, and
refining operations and prevent exchanges with buyers in foreign markets such as Iran, Turkey, and the
Kurdistan Regional Government, or KRG; and disrupt online and regional fundraising efforts. The United
States should create an interagency threat finance cell headed by either the U.S. Treasury Department or
State Department with military and intelligence personnel, and it should be based in the region to help
coordinate the collection and analysis of financial and economic intelligence. Coordinate security
assistance to national and subnational actors fighting ISIS and al-Nusra Front on the ground in Syria and
Iraq. The United States has already stepped up its direct military assistance to Iraqi Kurdish forces and has
proposed an additional $500 million to support select members of the Syrian opposition. These efforts
should be incorporated into a regional plan. In many instances, the most capable security partners will
likely be found at the subnational level, including tribes, and U.S partners in the region will have deeper
ties and greater ability to provide support to such forces fighting ISIS. A joint State Department and

Defense Department team should coordinate these efforts. Airstrikes and surveillance in support of
regional forces and local ground forces fighting ISIS and al-Nusra Front. In targeted instances, the United
Statesand if possible, a broader coalition of alliesshould conduct direct military airstrikes against ISIS
and other radical groups operating in Syria and Iraq. These strikes should be conducted as part of a
regional or international coalition under a multilateral framework with congressional authorization and
oversight. A transatlantic and allied response to ISIS The September 2014 NATO summit took several
steps to energize the transatlantic community to confront ISIS. Nine countries pledged to join U.S. efforts
to counter ISIS, but no specific commitments were made. And as evidenced over the past few years in
Afghanistan and Libya, follow through on commitments is essential. Further, the United States and its
Western partners need to proactively manage the dangers posed by European and American citizens now
fighting alongside ISIS. The United States should work with its transatlantic partners and traditional allies
to: Enable reliable and capable partners in the region to take the fight directly to ISIS. The United States is
providing the greatest support to forces fighting ISIS. NATO and other U.S. allies should together develop a
strategy to help the region counter ISIS with technical support and military assistance. This should include
specific commitments to provide support to the Iraqi government, Kurdish forces, and third-way opposition

Enhance law enforcement and

intelligence fusion efforts to identify and counter ISIS and other
terrorist fighters holding Western passports. This should build on
existing U.S.-European efforts in coordination with the International Criminal Police
alternatives to the Assad regime and ISIS in Syria.

Organization, or INTERPOL. More than 12,000 foreign fighters are estimated to have flocked to Iraq and
Syria. According to intelligence agencies and outside experts, one-quarter of these fighters come from
Western countries. With an estimated 3,000 individuals, including perhaps 500 each from Britain and
France, the dangers of extremists coming home to continue the fight with acts of terrorism cannot be
ignored. Western countries should partner with allies in the Middle East and local communities on counterradicalization efforts.

Warming
US-EU cooperation key to fighting against Global Warming
European Commission Press Release 14
European Commission Press Release, The database contains all the Press Releases of the Commission. It
also contains press releases of some of the other European institutions including the Council of the
European Union, run by the Communication department of the European Commission, Joint Statement EUUS Energy Council, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-2341_en.htm //NA
Coordinated action by the EU, the United States and all major and emerging economies will be
essential to tackling the threat of global climate change, which remains the defining challenge
of our generation. The Council reaffirmed the strong determination of the United States and the EU to
work towards the adoption at the United Nations Climate Conference in Paris in 2015 of an ambitious
protocol, legal instrument or agreed outcome with legal force, under the Convention and applicable to all
parties, which would strengthen the multilateral, rules-based regime. This agreement must be sufficiently
ambitious, robust and dynamic in light of the goal to limit global temperature increase to below 2C. The
latest findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change serve to emphasize the
importance of urgent and effective action. The EU and the United States are committed to
taking the lead in the fight against climate change and note the increasing evidence that action on
climate change can be combined with improved economic performance and have positive co-benefits in
areas such as health and energy security. The EU and the United States also intend to continue their strong
efforts to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants.

Global Warming threatens human health- leads to

extinction
Snow and Hannam 14
Deborah Snow, senior writer with The Sydney Morning Herald and a former federal political reporter for the
Australian Financial, Peter Hannam, Carbon economy editor, Climate change could make humans extinct,
warns health expert, The Sidney Morning Harold, http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climatechange/climate-change-could-make-humans-extinct-warns-health-expert-20140330-35rus.html //NA
The Earth is warming so rapidly that unless humans can arrest the trend, we risk becoming
''extinct'' as a species, a leading Australian health academic has warned. Helen Berry, associate
dean in the faculty of health at the University of Canberra, said while the Earth has been warmer and
colder at different points in the planet's history, the rate of change has never been as fast as it
is today. ''What is remarkable, and alarming, is the speed of the change since the 1970s, when
we started burning a lot of fossil fuels in a massive way,'' she said. ''We can't possibly evolve to
match this rate [of warming] and, unless we get control of it, it will mean our extinction eventually.''
Professor Berry is one of three leading academics who have contributed to the health chapter
of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report due on Monday. She and co-authors
Tony McMichael, of the Australian National University, and Colin Butler, of the University of Canberra, have
outlined the health risks of rapid global warming in a companion piece for The Conversation, also
published on Monday. The three warn that the adverse effects on population health and social stability
have been ''missing from the discussion'' on climate change. ''Human-driven climate change poses a
great threat, unprecedented in type and scale, to wellbeing, health and perhaps even to
human survival,'' they write.They predict that the greatest challenges will come from
undernutrition and impaired child development from reduced food yields; hospitalizations and
deaths due to intense heatwaves, fires and other weather-related disasters; and the spread of
infectious diseases. They warn the ''largest impacts'' will be on poorer and vulnerable populations,
winding back recent hard-won gains of social development programs. Projecting to an average global
warming of 4 degrees by 2100, they say ''people won't be able to cope, let alone work productively,
in the hottest parts of the year''. They say that action on climate change would produce ''extremely large
health benefits'', which would greatly outweigh the costs of curbing emission growth. A leaked draft of the
IPCC report notes that a warming climate would lead to fewer cold weather-related deaths but
the benefits would be ''greatly'' outweighed by the impacts of more frequent heat extremes.
Under a high emissions scenario, some land regions will experience temperatures four to seven degrees
higher than pre-industrial times, the report said. While some adaptive measures are possible, limits to
humans' ability to regulate heat will affect health and potentially cut global productivity in the warmest
months by 40 per cent by 2100. Body temperatures rising above 38 degrees impair physical and
cognitive functions, while risks of organ damage, loss of consciousness and death increase
sharply above 40.6 degrees, the draft report said. Farm crops and livestock will also struggle with
thermal and water stress. Staple crops such as corn, rice, wheat and soybeans are assumed to face a
temperature limit of 40-45 degrees, with temperature thresholds for key sowing stages near or below 35
degrees, the report said.

Terrorism
U.S. and EU cooperation key to counter-terrorism efforts
Archick 14 Kristin Archick (Specialist in European Affairs) December 1,

2014. Congressional Research Service. U.S.-EU Cooperation Against

Terrorism https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22030.pdf S.H.
The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States and the
subsequent revelation of Al Qaeda cells in Europe gave new
momentum to European Union (EU) initiatives to combat terrorism
and improve police, judicial, and intelligence cooperation among its
member states. Other deadly incidents in Europe, such as the Madrid and London
bombings in 2004 and 2005 respectively, injected further urgency into strengthening
EU counterterrorism capabilities and reducing barriers among
national law enforcement authorities so that information could be
meaningfully shared and suspects apprehended expeditiously . Among
other steps, the EU has established a common definition of terrorism and
a common list of terrorist groups, an EU arrest warrant, enhanced
tools to stem terrorist financing, and new measures to strengthen
external EU border controls and improve transport security. Over the
years, the EU has also encouraged member states to devote resources to countering radicalization and terrorist
recruitment, issues that have been receiving renewed attention in light of growing European concerns about the

Promoting law
enforcement and intelligence cooperation with the United States has
been another top EU priority since 2001. Washington has largely
welcomed enhanced counterterrorism cooperation with the EU,
which has led to a new dynamic in U.S.-EU relations by fostering
dialogue on law enforcement and homeland security issues
previously reserved for bilateral discussions. Contacts between U.S.
and EU officials on police, judicial, and border control policy matters have increased substantially and a
number of new U.S.-EU agreements have also been reached; these include information-sharing
possible threats posed by European fighters returning from the conflicts in Syria and Iraq.

arrangements between the United States and EU police and judicial bodies, two U.S.-EU treaties on extradition and

the United
States and the EU have been working together to curb terrorist
financing and to strengthen transport security. Nevertheless, some challenges
mutual legal assistance, and accords on container security and airline passenger data. In addition,

persist in fostering closer U.S.-EU cooperation in these fields. Among the most prominent and long-standing are data

The negotiation of several U.S.-EU informationsharing agreements, from those related to tracking terrorist
financial data to sharing airline passenger information, has been complicated
privacy and data protection issues.

by EU concerns about whether the United States could guarantee a sufficient level of protection for European citizens
personal data. EU worries about U.S. data protection safeguards and practices have been further heightened by the
unauthorized disclosures since June 2013 of U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance programs and subsequent
allegations of U.S. collection activities in Europe (including reports that U.S. intelligence agencies have monitored EU
diplomatic offices and German Chancellor Angela Merkels mobile phone). Other issues that have led to periodic
tensions include detainee policies, differences in the U.S. and EU terrorist designation lists, and balancing measures to
improve border controls and border security with the need to facilitate legitimate transatlantic travel and commerce.
Congressional decisions related to intelligence-gathering reforms, data privacy, border controls, and transport security
may affect how future U.S.-EU counterterrorism cooperation evolves. In addition, given the European Parliaments
growing influence in many of these policy areas, Members of Congress may be able to help shape the Parliaments views
and responses through ongoing contacts and the existing Transatlantic Legislators Dialogue (TLD). This report
examines the evolution of U.S.-EU counterterrorism cooperation and the ongoing challenges that may be of interest in
the 113 th Congress.

U.S. and EU counterparts working closely to develop ties

on counter-terrorism
Archick 14 Kristin Archick (Specialist in European Affairs) December 1,
2014. Congressional Research Service. U.S.-EU Cooperation Against
Terrorism https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22030.pdf S.H.
U.S.-EU Cooperation Against Terrorism

Congressional Research Service

fighters in Syria returning to

the White
House noted that U.S. officials from the Department of Justice and
the Department of Homeland Security are working closely with EU
counterparts to address a wide range of measures focused on
enhancing counter-radicalization, border security, aviation security,
and information sharing to address potential threats posed by
foreign fighters. 14 Nevertheless, some challenges remain in the evolving U.S.-EU
any of our countries is a problem for all of our countries. 13 In

September 2014,

counterterrorism relationship. Among the most prominent are long-standing data privacy and data
protection concerns, which have long complicated a range of U.S.-EU information-sharing agreements
and have received renewed attention in the wake of the unauthorized disclosures since June 2013 of U.S.
National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance activities. Other issues that have led to periodic tensions
include detainee policies, differences in the U.S. and EU terrorist designation lists, and balancing
measures to improve border controls and border se curity with the need to facilitate legitimate

Contacts between U.S. and

EU officialsfrom the cabinet level to the working levelon police,
judicial, and border control policy matters have increased
substantially since 2001, and have played a crucial role in
developing closer U.S.-EU ties. The U.S. Departments of State,
Justice, Homeland Security, and the Treasury have been actively
engaged in this process. 15 The Secretary of State, U.S. Attorney General, and Secretary
transatlantic travel and commerce.

Developing U.S.-EU Links

of Homeland Security meet at the ministerial level

with their respective EU counterparts at least once a

U.S.-EU working group of senior officials meets once every

six months to discuss police and judicial cooperation against
terrorism. In addition, the United States and the EU have developed
a regular dialogue on terrorist financing and have established a
high-level policy dialogue on border and transport security to
discuss issues such as passenger data-sharing, cargo security,
biometrics, visa policy, and sky marshals. Over the last few years, U.S. and
EU officials have also engaged in expert-level dialogues on critical
infrastructure protection and resilience, and preventing violent
extremism. U.S. and EU agencies have also established reciprocal
liaison relationships. Europol has posted two liaison officers in
Washington, DC, and the United States has stationed an FBI officer
in The Hague, Netherlands, to work with Europol on
counterterrorism. A U.S. Secret Service liaison posted in The Hague also works with Europol on
year, and a

counterfeiting issues. In 2006, a U.S. liaison position was established at Eurojust headquarters in The
Hague as part of a wider U.S.-Eurojust agreement to facilitate cooperation between European and U.S.
prosecutors on terrorism and other cross-border criminal cases.

US-EU cooperation key to effectively fighting against

terrorism and violent extremists
Office of the Press Secretary 14
The White House Office of the Press Secretary, FACT SHEET: U.S.-EU Counterterrorism Cooperation, The
White House, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/26/fact-sheet-us-eu-counterterrorismcooperation //NA
The United States and the European Union are committed to working together to protect our
citizens against terrorist attacks. We work in close cooperation, bilaterally and multilaterally,
to safeguard the security of our citizens in keeping with our shared values and to offer assistance to
other countries to build their own capacity. Collaboration in the Global Counterterrorism Forum Framework.

The United States and the EU are among the most active members of the Global
Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF), a multilateral counterterrorism body with 30 worldwide
members, designed to address counterterrorism threats and build international capacity. The
United States and the EU jointly support work in all areas of the two working groups focused on Africa:
Horn of Africa Region Capacity-Building Working Group: focuses on law enforcement, criminal justice and
the rule of law, border management, countering violent extremism, and countering terrorist financing.
Sahel Region Capacity-Building Working Group: focuses on police cooperation, building legal and judicial
cooperation, border security, community engagement to counter extremism, and countering terrorism
financing. The United States and the EU also continue to collaborate on three GCTF-inspired
institutions, and will serve on the governing boards of and provide financial support to all
three institutions: Hedayah: Hedayah is the first and only international center of excellence
on countering violent extremism (CVE). We will jointly support Hedayahs efforts, and the United
States is funding curriculum development and CVE training. Global Community Engagement and
Resilience Fund: This fund, a public-private global venture, will support grassroots efforts to
counter violent extremism. The United States and EU have committed to supporting this funds
development and operations. International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law:
Headquartered in Malta, this institute will train criminal justice officials in North, West, and East
Africa, with a particular focus on countries in transition, to counter terrorism and handle
transnational security challenges while respecting human rights. The United States and the EU
have agreed to provide resources and technical support. Cooperation on Countering Violent Extremism and
Foreign Fighters. We share a common understanding of how terrorists exploit underlying
conditions to recruit others to their cause. The United States and EU have increased
transatlantic cooperation on both stemming the flow of foreign fighters and reintegrating
them when they return. We aim to counter violent extremism by providing positive
alternatives to communities most at risk of recruitment and radicalization to violence; counter
terrorist narratives; and build the capacity of government and civil society to counter violent
extremism. Balkans: The United States and the EU are committed to building the capacity of Balkan
governments and civil society to counter violent extremism from counter-messaging/counter-recruitment
to the reintegration of returning fighters. Dutch-Moroccan-led Foreign Fighter Project: We jointly support
a year-long GCTF initiative, launched February 19, led jointly by Morocco and the Netherlands, to address
the phenomenon of foreign fighters. U.S. Regional Strategic Initiative Foreign Fighter Project: The United
States, with EU support, will complement the Dutch-Moroccan initiative by focusing on implementation of
the Rabat Good Practices to address the criminal justice aspects of prevention, disruption, and prosecution
of foreign fighters, mainly focused on the Balkans, Maghreb, and Sahel countries. Coordination on
Combating Terrorist Organizations. We are committed to preventing and countering efforts by
terrorists and their networks to travel freely in our territories and finance their illicit activities.
We are continuing this work with the European Union and will rely on a number of critical
agreements to accomplish this.

EU-US relations key to effectively fight against terrorismempirically proven-failure to restrict the NSA threaten
these relations
Archick 14
Kristin, Specialist in European Affairs, U.S.-EU Cooperation Against Terrorism, PDF,
https://www.fas.org/sgp/.../RS22030.pd.. //NA
As part of the EUs efforts to combat terrorism since September 11, 2001, the EU made
improving law enforcement and intelligence cooperation with the United States a top priority.
The previous George W. Bush Administration and many Members of Congress largely welcomed this
EU initiative in the hopes that it would help root out terrorist cells in Europe and beyond that
could be planning other attacks against the United States or its interests. Such growing U.S.EU cooperation was in line with the 9/11 Commissions recommendations that the United
States should develop a comprehensive coalition strategy against Islamist terrorism,
exchange terrorist information with trusted allies, and improve border security through
better international cooperation. Some measures in the resulting Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458) and in the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission
Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53) mirrored these sentiments and were consistent with U.S.-EU counterterrorism
efforts, especially those aimed at improving border controls and transport security. U.S.-EU cooperation
against terrorism has led to a new dynamic in U.S.-EU relations by fostering dialogue on law
enforcement and homeland security issues previously reserved for bilateral discussions with
individual EU member states. Despite some frictions, most U.S. policy makers and analysts
view the developing partnership with the EU in these areas as positive. Like its predecessor, the
Obama Administration has supported U.S. cooperation with the EU in the fields of counterterrorism, border
controls, and transport security. At the November 2009 U.S.-EU Summit in Washington, DC, the
two sides reaffirmed their commitment to work together to combat terrorism and enhance
cooperation in the broader JHA field. In June 2010, the United States and the EU adopted a
Declaration on Counterterrorism aimed at deepening the already close U.S.-EU relationship

and highlighting the commitment of both sides to combat terrorism within the rule of law. In
June 2011, President Obamas National Strategy for Counterterrorism asserted that in addition to working
with European allies bilaterally, the United States will continue to partner with the European
Parliament and European Union to maintain and advance CT efforts that provide mutual
security and protection to citizens of all nations while also upholding individual rights. The EU has
also been a key U.S. partner in the 30-member Global Counterterrorism Forum, founded in
September 2011 as a multilateral body aimed at mobilizing resources and expertise to counter violent
extremism, strengthen criminal justice and rule of law capacities, and enhance international
counterterrorism cooperation.12 Recently, U.S. and EU officials have been discussing ways to combat the
foreign fighter phenomenon given increasing concerns that both European and American Muslims are
being recruited to fight with Islamist groups in Syria and Iraq. U.S. policy makers, including some Members
of Congress, have expressed worries in particular about such foreign fighters in light of short-term visa-free
travel arrangements between the United States and most EU countries. In early July 2014, U.S. Attorney
General Eric Holder asserted, We have a mutual and compelling interest in developing shared strategies
for confronting the influx of U.S. and European-born violent extremists in Syria. And because our citizens
can freely travel, visa-free ... the problem of fighters in Syria returning to any of our countries is a problem
for all of our countries.13 In September 2014, the White House noted that U.S. officials from the
Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security are working closely with EU
counterparts to address a wide range of measures focused on enhancing counter-radicalization, border
security, aviation security, and information sharing to address potential threats posed by foreign
fighters.14 Nevertheless, some challenges remain in the evolving U.S.-EU counterterrorism
relationship. Among the most prominent are long-standing data privacy and data protection
concerns, which have long complicated a range of U.S.-EU information-sharing agreements and have
received renewed attention in the wake of the unauthorized disclosures since June 2013 of U.S. National
Security Agency (NSA) surveillance activities. Other issues that have led to periodic tensions include
detainee policies, differences in the U.S. and EU terrorist designation lists, and balancing measures to
improve border controls and border security with the need to facilitate legitimate transatlantic travel and
commerce.

Misc

EU-US Relations Solve All Tha Things (A2

Disads)
EU-US relations solve terror, AIDs, climate change,
poverty, Middle Eastern stability, and prolif.
Stivachtis, 10 (Yannis A. Stivachtis is the Director of the International Studies Program at
Virginia Polytechnic Institute. THE IMPERATIVE FOR TRANSATLANTIC
COOPERATION http://www.rieas.gr/research-areas/global-issues/transatlantic-studies/78.html)
There is no doubt that US-European relations are in a period of transition, and that the stresses and
strains of globalization are increasing both the number and the seriousness of the challenges
that confront transatlantic relations. The events of 9/11 and the Iraq War have added
significantly to these stresses and strains. At the same time, international terrorism, the
nuclearization of North Korea and especially Iran, the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD), the transformation of Russia into a stable and cooperative member of the
international community, the growing power of China, the political and economic
transformation and integration of the Caucasian and Central Asian states, the integration and
stabilization of the Balkan countries, the promotion of peace and stability in the Middle East,
poverty, climate change, AIDS and other emergent problems and situations require further
cooperation among countries at the regional, global and institutional levels. Therefore, cooperation
between the U.S. and Europe is more imperative than ever to deal effectively with these
problems. It is fair to say that the challenges of crafting a new relationship between the U.S. and the EU
as well as between the U.S. and NATO are more regional than global, but the implications of success or
failure will be global.

EU Wants US Action
EU demands US action on mass surveillance otherwise
theyll freeze their data sharing relationship entirely
Traynor 13 [Ian: EU Editor for Guardian The Guardian: NSA surveillance:

Europe threatens to freeze US data-sharing arrangements 11/26/13

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/26/nsa-surveillance-europethreatens-freeze-us-data-sharing BB]
The EU executive is threatening to freeze crucial data-sharing
arrangements with the US because of the Edward Snowden
revelations about the mass surveillance of the National Security
Agency. The US will have to adjust their surveillance activities to
comply with EU law and enable legal redress in the US courts for
Europeans whose rights may have been infringed, said Viviane
Reding, the EU's justice and rights commissioner who is negotiating
with the US on the fallout from the NSA scandal. European
businesses need to compete on a level playing field with US rivals,
Reding told the Guardian. The EU commissioner said there was little she or
Brussels could do about the activities of the NSA's main partner in
mass surveillance, Britain's Government Communications
Headquarters or GCHQ, since secret services in the EU were the
strict remit of national governments. The commission has demanded but failed to
obtain detailed information from the British government on how UK surveillance practices are affecting
other EU citizens. "I have direct competence in law enforcement but not in secret services. That remains
with the member states. In general, secret services are national," said the commissioner, from

the EU has reviewed existing datasharing agreements with the Americans concerning commercial
swaps between US and European companies, information traded
aimed at suppressing international terrorist funding, and the supply
of information on transatlantic air passengers. It is also rethinking
ongoing negotiations over exchanging data with the Americans on
judicial and police co-operation. And it is drafting new Europe-wide
data protection rules requiring US internet companies operating in
the EU to obtain permission to transfer data to the US and to restrict
US intelligence access to it. Pressing the Americans in negotiations
in Washington last week, Reding was unable to obtain US figures on
the scale of the US surveillance of Europeans. The commercial data
exchange, known as "Safe Harbor", was found to be flawed. "The
Luxembourg. As a result of the Snowden disclosures,

commission will underline that things have gone very badly indeed. Our analysis is Safe Harbor seems not

to be safe. We're asking the US not just to speak, but to act," Reding said.
"There is always a possibility to scrap Safe Harbor It's important that these recommendations are acted
on by the US side by summer 2014. Next summer is a Damocles sword. It's a real to-do list. Enforcement is
absolutely critical. Safe Harbor cannot be only an empty shell." The commission is to come forward on
Wednesday with a set of recommendations addressing the risks exposed by Snowden. The package was
agreed in Brussels on Monday, said senior officials, but is opposed by Britain's representative in the

The Snowden disclosures are "a wake-up call for

the EU and its member states to advance swiftly on data protection
reform", the commission is expected to say." The question has arisen whether the
large-scale collection and processing of personal information under
US surveillance programmes is necessary and proportionate to meet
the interests of national security EU citizens do not enjoy the
commission, Lady Ashton.

same rights and procedural safeguards as Americans." Reding stressed that

US concessions on legal redress were central to Brussels' demands. American citizens in Europe can go to
the courts if they feel their rights are infringed. Europeans without right of residence in America may not.
"For two years I have asked for reciprocity," said Reding-

NSA Violates EU Citizens Rights

NSA Surveillance programs breach fundamental rights of
EU citizens because they dont have protection from their
surveillance
Bowden 13

Mr Caspar Bowden (Independent Privacy Researcher) September 2013. The

US surveillance programmes and their impact on EU citizens' fundamental rights
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/dv/briefingnote_/briefingn
ote_en.pdf
In front of this recital given by the most important authorities of the different intelligence services and

it is critical to
discuss the supposedly new nature of our societies. The impact of
technological transformations in democratic societies, how to use
these technologies as resources for both information exchange and
competition over information (a key element of a globalized world), what are the
rights of the different governments in processing them: these are
the core questions. As stated by Allen Dulles above, justifications given by intelligence services
the antiterrorism agencies in the US, in the UK, in France, and at the EU level,

work in favour of a police state and against the very nature of an open society living in democratic
regimes. Proponents of an open society insist that, against the previous trend, technologies ought not to
drive human actions; they have to be used in reasonable ways and under the Rule of Law. The mass
scaling has to be contained. Constitutional provisions have to be applied, and the presumption of
innocence is applicable for all human beings (not only citizens). If suspicions exist, they have to be related
to certain forms of crime, and not marginal behaviours or life styles. Hence, what is at stake here is not
the mechanisms by which antiterrorism laws and activities have to be regulated at the transatlantic level,
even if it is a subset of the question. It is not even the que stion of espionage activities between

It is the question of the nature, the scale, and the

depth of surveillance that can be tolerated in and between
democracies. Snowdens revelations highlight numerous breaches
of fundamental rights. This affects in priority all the persons whose
data have been extracted via surveillance of communications,
digital cables or cloud computing technologies, as soon as they are
under a category of suspicion, or of some interest for foreign
intelligence purposes. However, all these persons are not protected in the same way,
especially if they are not US citizens. The EU citizen is therefore particularly
fragile in this configuration connecting US intelligence services,
private companies that provide servi ces at the global level and the
ownership they can exercise over their data . It is clear that if EU
citizens do not have the same level of protections as the US
citizens, because of the practices of the US intelligence services and
the lack of effective protections, they will become the first victims
of these systems. Freedom of thought, opinion, expression and of
the press are cardinal values that have to be preserved. Any citizen
of the EU has the right to have a private life, Policy Department C: Citizens' rights
different governments.

and Constitutional Affairs i.e, a life which is not fully under the surveillance of any state apparatus. The
investigative eyes of any government have to be strongly reminded of distinctions between private and
public activities, between what is a crime and what is simply a different life - style. By gathering
massive data on life - styles in order to elaborate patterns and profiles concerning political attitudes and
economic choices, PRISM seems to have allowed an unprecedented scale and depth in intelligence
gathering, which goes beyond counter - terrorism and beyond espionage activities carried out by liberal
regimes in the past. This may lead towards an illegal form of Total Information Awareness where data of
millions of people are subject to collection and manipulation by the NSA. This note wants to assess this
question of the craft of intelligence and its necessary limits in democracy and between them. As we will

the scale of the PRISM programme

is global; its depth reaches the digital data of large groups of
see, through the documents delivered by Snowden,

populations and breaches the fundamental rights of large groups of

populations, especially EU citizens. The EU institutions have
therefore the right and duty to examine this emergence of cyber
mass - surveillance and how it affects the fundamental rights of
the EU citizen abroad and at home.

uncategorized
TTIP stands to open free trade to china as well
Reuters 6/23/15
(Economic Times: US and EU face 'heavy lift' to get trade deal: EU
ambassador ) BB
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/us-and-euface-heavy-lift-to-get-trade-deal-eu-ambassador/articleshow/47778607.cms
LONDON: The United States and the European Union face a major challenge to achieve a free trade deal
before President Barack Obama's term of office ends in January 2017, the EU's ambassador to the United
States said on Monday.

Doubts have been growing among EU officials about

whether a trade deal can be achieved given the United States'

current focus on a trade deal with Pacific nations and deep splits
within the European Parliament in Brussels . David O'Sullivan, a former trade
negotiator who is now the EU's ambassador to the United States, said a deal within the lifetime of the
current US administration was "still in the realm of possibility" but would be difficult to reach. "I think it's
doable but I think it's going to be a very heavy, heavy lift," O'Sullivan said at an event for fellow alumni of
Trinity College Dublin at the Irish Embassy in London. He added that, beginning in mid-2016, the US
presidential election could make it hard to push through a deal. Last week, German Chancellor Angela
Merkel said she still hoped the EU would reach an outline framework for a deal with the United States by
the end of the year, shortly after the US Congress agreed to debate giving Obama more negotiating

Within Europe, some politicians and many voters, especially in

Germany and Austria, are dubious about the deal - known as the
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) - because
they fear it could weaken consumer protection standards. O'Sullivan
said businesses needed to promote the economic benefits better,
and urged negotiators to focus less on the detail and more on the
geopolitical damage if the world's two largest advanced trading
blocs could not reach an agreement. "TTIP is more than a traditional
trade agreement. It also has geostrategic importance. How can we
encourage China and others to value and promote an open, rulesbased trading system if the EU and U.S. cannot resolve their
differences?" At the same event, Ireland's ambassador to Britain,
Daniel Mulhall, also reiterated his country's commitment to urge
Britons to vote to stay in the EU ahead of a referendum due by the
end of 2017. "We want Britain to remain in the EU. We want not
'Brexit' but 'Bremain'." The United Kingdom is the Irish Republic's
biggest trading partner. The two countries share a long, largely open
border between the Republic and the British-ruled province of
Northern Ireland. -powers.

EU military power low

Schneider 3/16 former National Security Agency official
and Naval War College professor, is a strategist and
expert in counterterrorism and counterespionage.

(The Federalist: A European Union Army Is A Terrible Idea)

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/16/a-european-army-is-a-terrible-idea/ BB
Just how bad things have gotten across the EU in military affairs has
been laid bare by the Ukraine crisis. A decade ago, the EU began

assembling multinational battlegroups of between one and two

thousand troops to be deployed in the event of crises but, despite
no lack of crises lately, no battlegroups have been deployed
anywhere, so low is the EUs confidence in their flagship defense
program. The North Atlantic Treaty Organizations (NATOs) whiphand about defense spending has had little effect on the alliances
European membersnearly all of whom are also EU membersas
hardly any of them spend the notionally required 2 percent of gross
domestic product on a military. Nearly four years ago, U.S. Defense
Secretary Robert Gates issued a stern warning at Brussels, noting
that low European defense spending was leading the Atlantic
alliance to military irrelevance and a dim if not dismal future.
Yet Gatess caution that America, facing its own budget problems,
was losing patience with parsimonious Europe in defense matters
did not spur action. Vladimir Putins savaging of Ukraine over the
last year has concentrated some European minds, but not enough.
Last summers alliance summit in Wales, in the aftermath of
Moscows theft of Crimea, led to more promises about doing better,
but only a small handful of NATO members spend the required 2
percent. There are positive developmentsdirectly threatened by
Putin, Poland and Estonia are on something of a spending binge,
relatively speaking, while others ought to copy Lithuanias
restoration of conscription to deter the Russiansbut the bad news
is more substantial. The erosion of military power across the EU is
astonishing. For all its economic and political clout, Germany has
hardly any deployable military to speak of, while even NATO stalwart
Britain faces terminal military decline. The ability of British forces to join
any United States-led coalition is now in serious doubt, thanks to deep
defense cuts, while recent warnings that soon the British Army may fall to
just 50,000 active troops, the smallest land force since London failed to
subdue the American rebellion of the 1770s, has generated headlines.

US aiding EU in defense
AP 6/23/15

(The NY Times: US to Put Military Equipment in Several European Countries)

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/06/23/world/europe/ap-eu-unitedstates-russia.html?_r=0 BB
TALLINN, Estonia The U.S. will spread about 250 tanks, armored
vehicles and other military equipment across six former Soviet bloc
nations to help reassure NATO allies facing threats from Russia and
terrorist groups, Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced Tuesday.
Carter's announcement, made as he stood with defense chiefs from
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, comes a day after he announced that
the U.S. would have other weapons, aircraft and forces, including
commandos, ready as needed for NATO's new rapid reaction force, to
help Europe defend against potential Russian aggression from the
east and the Islamic State and other violent extremists from the
south. The defense chiefs standing with Carter all spoke bluntly
about the threat they perceive from Russia, and the latest military
plans provide a show of solidarity across the region and in NATO.

Estonia Defense Minister Sven Mikser said the Baltic leaders aren't trying to
restart the Cold War arms race or match Russian President Vladimir Putin
"tank for tank," but the additional military presences will be a deterrent to
Russia and could change the calculous. "In global terms Russia is no match
conventionally to U.S. or to NATO, but here in our corner of the world, Putin
believes that he enjoys regional superiority," Mikser said, adding that Estonia
is eager and ready to accept the equipment immediately. Each set of
equipment would be enough to outfit a military company or battalion, and
would go on at least a temporary basis to Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Poland, and Romania. Carter said the equipment could be moved around the
region for training and military exercises, and would include Bradley fighting
vehicles and self-propelled howitzer artillery guns. Germany will be
participating in the expanded military effort, but already has U.S. equipment.
"We intend to move those equipment sets around as exercises move around,"
Carter told a news conference. "They're not static. Their purpose is to
enable richer training and more mobility to forces in Europe." He
said the U.S. presence will be "persistent" but "agile," and he said
the troops will be able to stay at a higher state of readiness. But
while the stated goal of the move is that American forces moving in
and out of Europe will be better able to do training, it also would
allow NATO nations to more quickly respond to any military crisis in
the region. Later in the day, Russia was also on the minds of U.S.
sailors and Marines aboard the USS San Antonio, which just finished
up a major annual international military exercise on the Baltic Sea
called BALTOPS. The exercise, which involved some 60 ships from 17
NATO nations, is part of the stepped-up campaign to increase
military training and activities in the region as a deterrent to Russia.
Troops quizzed Carter on U.S. relations with Russia and questioned whether
the U.S. might put a greater maritime presence in the region. The U.S.
military "is highly, highly visible here in Europe, it's reassuring for them to
see you," he said, "because of what you stand for."-

3 members of the EU support Ukraine military

Rettman 4/4/14 specialises in Israel, Russia, the EU
foreign service and security issues. (EU Observer: Three EU
countries back Ukraine's use of force)
https://euobserver.com/foreign/123846 BB
Lithuania, Luxembourg and Sweden have explicitly backed Ukraines
right to use force against pro-Russian separatists. Lithuanias UN
envoy, Raimonda Murmokaite, and her Luxembourg counterpart,
Olivier Maes, made the statements at a snap UN Security Council
(UNSC) meeting in New York on Sunday (13 April). When the
existence of the state is put in danger, we support the right of
Ukraine to defend itself in the face of external aggression and to
tackle militant separatism and continuous provocations,
Murmokaite said. Ukraine has the right to defend herself under article 51 of the United Nations

charter, Maes noted. Sweden, which is not on the UNSC, added through its foreign minister, Carl Bildt, on
Twitter: If illegal armed groups took over police stations and local government offices in Sweden we would
use all our instruments to restore order. The statements came hours before the expiry on Monday
morning of an ultimatum issued by Ukraines caretaker government for armed pro-Russian separatists to
cede control of government buildings in several cities in the eastern regions of Donetsk, Kharkiv, and

Luhansk. Ukraine said three people were already killed in clashes in the small hours of Monday on the
outskirts of Slaviansk and in Slaviansk city centre. The UNSC meeting was called by Russia, which,
according to the US and the UK, has 40,000 elite troops massed on the Ukrainian-Russian border. The
Russian UN envoy, Vitaly Churkin, urged Wesern powers to stop Kiev from taking action. Lets concentrate
attention on what we can do in this case I'm directing my eyesight at my Western colleagues in order to
prevent the Kiev authorities reckless actions, which at this moment are embodied in the criminal order of
[acting Ukrainian president] Mr. Turchynov, and to prevent the realisation of this order, which will have the
most severe implications primarily for the people of Ukraine, he said. He described the Kiev authorities as
national radicals and chauvinists, Russophobic, anti-Semitic forces and threatened to call off a meeting
between the EU, Russia, Ukraine and the US in Geneva on Thursday. Churkin got limited support from
UNSC member Rwanda, whose envoy, Eugene-Richard Gasana, said: Rwanda remains of the view that
military action will only worsen the already tense situation. But Australia, France, the UK and the US
joined the smaller EU states in condemning Russias actions. Commenting on the escalation in eastern
Ukraine since 6 April, the US Samantha Power said: We know who is behind this. Indeed, the only entity
in the area capable of these co-ordinated, professional military actions is Russia. Britains Mark Lyall Grant
noted: The international community is not fooled by the Kremlins use of propaganda and misinformation .

what we are witnessing is a well-orchestrated campaign designed

to destabilise the country. He described Russia's actions as tactics
drawn from the darkest days of the last century. Frances Gerard
Araud also complained about Russias massive hike in Ukraine gas
prices and its blockade of Ukrainian exports in recent days. The
economic pressure is biting more and more, he said. The EU and US
have threatened to impose economic sanctions on Russia and to
blacklist more Russian officials if it invades mainland Ukraine. But
EU foreign ministers meeting in Luxembourg on Monday are not
ready to go ahead if the crisis escalates suddenly. The ministers are
still waiting for the European Commission to prepare a sanctions
options paper, due mid-week, among disagreement between EU
countries on how far to go. "I don't think we'll see tier-three
[economic] sanctions tomorrow, but it's very difficult to envisage not
seeing anything after the events of the weekend," a Western
diplomatic source told Reuters on Sunday. "The real question will be to see whether
..

[EU] member states agree to ask [the EU foreign service] to prepare an additional list of restrictive
measures, a senior EU official told the news agency.

ADV Privacy

Links

Decryption Hampered Privacy

Bullrun has unintended consequences it puts the
security of American communications at risk
Larson 13 [Jeff: Data Editor at ProPublica. Won the Livingston Award,

Revealed: The NSAs Secret Campaign to Crack, Undermine Internet

Security, ProPublica, September 5, 2013
http://www.propublica.org/article/the-nsas-secret-campaign-to-crackundermine-internet-encryption // emb].
But some experts say the N.S.A.s campaign to bypass and weaken
communications security may have serious unintended
consequences. They say the agency is working at cross-purposes with
its other major mission, apart from eavesdropping: ensuring the security of
American communications. Some of the agencys most intensive
efforts have focused on the encryption in universal use in the United
States, including Secure Sockets Layer, or SSL, virtual private
networks, or VPNs, and the protection used on fourth generation, or 4G,
smartphones. Many Americans, often without realizing it, rely on
such protection every time they send an e-mail, buy something
online, consult with colleagues via their companys computer
network, or use a phone or a tablet on a 4G network. For at least three
years, one document says, GCHQ, almost certainly in close collaboration with the N.S.A., has been looking
for ways into protected traffic of the most popular Internet companies: Google, Yahoo, Facebook and

GCHQ had developed new access opportunities

into Googles systems, according to the document. The risk is that when you
Microsofts Hotmail. By 2012,

build a back door into systems, youre not the only one to exploit
it, said Matthew D. Green, a cryptography researcher at Johns Hopkins University. Those back
doors could work against U.S. communications, too. Paul Kocher, a leading
cryptographer who helped design the SSL protocol, recalled how the N.S.A. lost the heated national debate
in the 1990s about inserting into all encryption a government back door called the Clipper Chip. And

they went and did it anyway, without telling anyone, Mr. Kocher said. He
said he understood the agencys mission but was concerned about the danger of allowing it unbridled

The intelligence community has worried about

going dark forever, but today they are conducting instant, total
invasion of privacy with limited effort, he said. This is the golden
access to private information.

age of spying.

NSA backdoors have the access to the codes that protect

commerce and banking systems. These backdoors strip
away privacy of individuals, businesses, and other
governments
The Editorial Board 13 [Sept. 21st 2013. The New York Times. Close the
N.S.As backdoors
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/opinion/sunday/close-the-nsas-backdoors.html S.H]

In 2006, a federal agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, helped build an international
encryption system to help countries and industries fend off computer hacking and theft. Unbeknown to the
many users of the system, a different government arm,

the National Security Agency,

secretly inserted a back door into the system that allowed federal
spies to crack open any data that was encoded using its technology .
Documents leaked by Edward Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor, make clear that the agency
has never met an encryption system that it has not tried to
penetrate. And it frequently tries to take the easy way out. Because modern
cryptography can be so hard to break, even using the brute force of the agencys
powerful supercomputers, the agency prefers to collaborate with big software
companies and cipher authors, getting hidden access built right into
their systems. The New York Times, The Guardian and ProPublica recently reported that the
agency now has access to the codes that protect commerce and
banking systems, trade secrets and medical records, and everyones
e-mail and Internet chat messages, including virtual private
networks. In some cases, the agency pressured companies to give it
access; as The Guardian reported earlier this year, Microsoft provided access to Hotmail, Outlook.com,
SkyDrive and Skype. According to some of the Snowden documents given to Der Spiegel, the N.S.A. also

These
back doors and special access routes are a terrible idea, another example of the
has access to the encryption protecting data on iPhones, Android and BlackBerry phones.

intelligence communitys overreach. Companies and individuals are increasingly putting their most
confidential data on cloud storage services, and need to rely on assurances their data will be secure.

Knowing that encryption has been deliberately weakened will

undermine confidence in these systems and interfere with
commerce. The back doors also strip away the expectations of
privacy that individuals, businesses and governments have in
ordinary communications. If back doors are built into systems by the
N.S.A., who is to say that other countries spy agencies or
hackers, pirates and terrorists wont discover and exploit them?

The government can get a warrant and break into the communications or data of any individual or
company suspected of breaking the law. But crippling everyones ability to use encryption is going too far,

as the N.S.A. has exceeded its boundaries in collecting everyones

phone records rather than limiting its focus to actual suspects.
just

Representative Rush Holt, Democrat of New Jersey, has introduced a bill that would, among other
provisions, bar the government from requiring software makers to insert built-in ways to bypass
encryption. It deserves full Congressional support. In the meantime, several Internet companies, including
Google and Facebook, are building encryption systems that will be much more difficult for the N.S.A. to
penetrate, forced to assure their customers that they are not a secret partner with the dark side of their
own government.

Modeling

US Surveillance Modeled Globally

US surveillance gets modeled globally now is key to
reform laundry list of impacts
-

Russia and China model US surveillance

Cyber risk
Destroys privacy and the economy
Foreign Credibility
Decimates China econ

Timm 3/4/15 Guardian US columnist and executive director of

the Freedom of the Press Foundation
(Trevor Timm, 3-4-2015, "Building backdoors into encryption isn't only bad for
China, Mr President,"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/04/backdoorsencryption-china-apple-google-nsa, Date Accessed: 6-24-2015) //NM

Want to know why forcing tech companies to build backdoors into encryption is a terrible idea ? Look
no further than President Obamasstark criticism of Chinas plan to do exactly that on Tuesday. If only he would tell the FBI
and NSA the same thing. In a stunningly short-sighted move, the FBI - and more recently the NSA - have

been pushing for a new US law that would force tech companies like Apple and Google to hand
over the encryption keys or build backdoors into their products and tools so the government
would always have access to our communications . It was only a matter of time before other
governments jumped on the bandwagon, and China wasted no time in demanding the same
from tech companies a few weeks ago. As President Obama himself described to Reuters, China has
proposed an expansive new anti-terrorism bill that would essentially force all foreign
companies, including US companies, to turn over to the Chinese government mechanisms
where they can snoop and keep track of all the users of those services. Obama continued: Those
kinds of restrictive practices I think would ironically hurt the Chinese economy over the long
term because I dont think there is [not] any US or European firm , any international firm, that
could credibly get away with that wholesale turning over of data, personal data, over to a
government. Bravo! Of course these are the exact arguments for why it would be a disaster for US government to
force tech companies to do the same. (Somehow Obama left that part out.) As Yahoos top security executive Alex Stamos
told NSA director Mike Rogers in a public confrontation last week, building backdoors into encryption is like drilling a hole
into a windshield. Even if its technically possible to produce the flaw - and we, for some reason, trust the US government
never to abuse it - other countries will inevitably demand access for themselves . Companies will no

longer be in a position to say no, and even if they did, intelligence services would find the
backdoor unilaterally - or just steal the keys outright. For an example on how this works, look no further
than last weeks Snowden revelation that the UKs intelligence service and the NSA stole the encryption keys
for millions of Sim cards used by many of the worlds most popular cell phone providers . Its
happened many times before too. Security expert Bruce Schneier has documented with numerous examples, Backdoor access built for the good guys is routinely used by the bad guys . Stamos repeatedly (and
commendably) pushed the NSA director for an answer on what happens when China or Russia also demand
backdoors from tech companies, but Rogers didnt have an answer prepared at all. He just kept repeating I think
we can work through this. As Stamos insinuated, maybe Rogers should ask his own staff why we actually cant work
through this, because virtually every technologist agrees backdoors just cannot be secure in practice .
(If you want to further understand the details behind the encryption vs. backdoor debate and how what the NSA director is
asking for is quite literally impossible, read this excellent piece by surveillance expert Julian Sanchez.) Its downright
bizarre that the US government has been warning of the grave cybersecurity risks the country

faces while, at the very same time, arguing that we should pass a law that would weaken
cybersecurity and put every single citizen at more risk of having their private information
stolen by criminals, foreign governments, and our own . Forcing backdoors will also be
disastrous for the US economy as it would be for Chinas. US tech companies - which already
have suffered billions of dollars of losses overseas because of consumer distrust over their
relationships with the NSA - would lose all credibility with users around the world if the FBI
and NSA succeed with their plan. The White House is supposedly coming out with an official policy on encryption

sometime this month, according to the New York Times but the President can save himself a lot of time and just apply his
comments about China to the US government. If he knows backdoors in encryption are bad for
cybersecurity, privacy, and the economy, why is there even a debate?

IL Democracy Modeling
NSA backdoors set a dangerous precedent for democracy
and human rights abroad
Peterson 15 [Andrea: covers technology policy for The Washington Post,

with an emphasis on cybersecurity, consumer privacy, transparency,

surveillance and open government. U.N. report: Encryption is important to
human rights and backdoors undermine it, May 28, 2015,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/05/28/un-reportencryption-is-important-to-human-rights-and-backdoors-undermine-it/]
A new report from the United Nation's Office of the High Commissioner
for Human Rights says digital security and privacy are essential to
maintaining freedom of opinion and expression around the world -and warns that efforts to weaken security tools in some countries
may undermine it everywhere. The report written by special rapporteur David Kaye says
that encryption -- the process of digitally scrambling information so
that only authorized persons can access it -- and anonymity tools "provide
the privacy and security necessary for the exercise of the right to
freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age." The report will be
presented to the U.N. Human Rights Council next month. It comes amid a growing debate in the U.S. about
how to best balance personal privacy rights and national security. Since former government contractor

tech
companies have scrambled to encrypt more of their products. Now,
some U.S. law enforcement officials are pushing to have tech
companies build ways for the government to access secure content
passing through their products -- so-called "backdoors." FBI Director James
Edward Snowden's revelations about National Security Agency surveillance programs,

Comey and NSA chief Adm. Michael Rogers have said that the growth in encryption use could make it
harder to track criminals -- and argued that the government should require companies to build ways for
law enforcement to access encrypted content. Earlier this year, Rogers floated the idea of a having
companies split up the digital "key" used to decode encrypted content into multiple parts so that no one

The proposal appeared to be an

attempt to win over security experts, who have been skeptical that
such "backdoors" could be deployed securely. The report
recommends against backdoors, saying "[s]tates should avoid all
measures that weaken the security that individuals may enjoy
online, such as backdoors, weak encryption standards and key
escrows." The problem with all of those approaches is that they
inject a basic vulnerability into secure systems, Kaye said in an interview with
the Post. "It results in insecurity for everyone even if intended to be for
criminal law enforcement purposes," he said. The public debate on the issue in
the U.S., which has focused on terrorism and crime, isn't taking into
account how vital encryption is to protecting journalists, activists,
and everyday people around the world, according to Kaye. "There are many
millions of people who depend on tools like encryption or [the
anonymous browsing tool] Tor to ensure as much as they can against
disclosure of their communications and to seek out information ," he
said. If the United States goes through with policies that mandate
backdoors for law enforcement, it could encourage other nations
with poor human rights records to push for similar concessions , he said.
"It's pretty clear that when well established democracies do things that are
person or agency alone could decide to use it.

inconsistent with human rights law, others around the world who
aren't necessarily in the democratic camp take that as an example of
something that's permitted," said Kaye.

US Democ Modeling Good

The United States should continue being a model for
democracy or the impacts could be severe
Lagon, 2011

Mark P. Lagon, http://www.cfr.org/democratization/promoting-democracywhys-hows-united-states-international-community/p24090

Furthering democracy is often dismissed as moralism distinct from U.S. interests or mere lip service to

there are tangible stakes for the United

States and indeed the world in the spread of democracynamely,
greater peace, prosperity, and pluralism. Controversial means for promoting
build support for strategic policies. Yet

democracy and frequent mismatches between deeds and words have clouded appreciation of this truth.
Democracies often have conflicting priorities, and democracy promotion is not a panacea. Yet one of the

established democracies never

go to war with one another. Foreign policy realists advocate
working with other governments on the basis of interests,
irrespective of character, and suggest that this approach best
preserves stability in the world. However, durable stability flows from a domestic politics
few truly robust findings in international relations is that

built on consensus and peaceful competition, which more often than not promotes similar international

There has long been controversy about whether

democracy enhances economic development. The dramatic growth of
China certainly challenges this notion. Still, history will likely show that
democracy yields the most prosperity. Notwithstanding the global financial turbulence
of the past three years, democracys elements facilitate long-term economic
growth. These elements include above all freedom of expression and
learning to promote innovation, and rule of law to foster
predictability for investors and stop corruption from stunting
growth. It is for that reason that the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and the 2002 UN Financing
conduct for governments.

for Development Conference in Monterey, Mexico, embraced good governance as the enabler of
development. These elements have unleashed new emerging powers such as India and Brazil and raised
the quality of life for impoverished peoples. Those who argue that economic development will eventually
yield political freedoms may be reversing the order of influencesor at least discounting the reciprocal

democracy affords all

groups equal access to justiceand equal opportunity to shine as
assets in a countrys economy. Democracys support for pluralism
prevents human assetsincluding religious and ethnic minorities,
women, and migrantsfrom being squandered. Indeed, a shortage of economic
relationship between political and economic liberalization. Finally,

opportunities and outlets for grievances has contributed significantly to the ongoing upheaval in the Middle

Pluralism is also precisely what is needed to stop violent

extremism from wreaking havoc on the world.
East.

Democracy Spread Good

The spread of democracy is good
Lynn-Jones, 1998 Sean M. Lynn-Jones, Editor, International Security;
Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, March 1998,
"Why the United States Should Spread Democracy",
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_s
hould_spread_democracy.html
The first way in which the spread of democracy enhances the lives of those who
live in democracies is by promoting individual liberty, including
freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, and freedom to own
private property.22 Respect for the liberty of individuals is an
inherent feature of democratic politics. As Samuel Huntington has written, liberty is

"the peculiar virtue of democracy."23 A democratic political process based on electoral competition
depends on freedom of expression of political views and freedom to make electoral choices. Moreover,
governments that are accountable to the public are less likely to deprive their citizens of human rights. The
global spread of democracy is likely to bring greater individual liberty to more and more people. Even
imperfect and illiberal democracies tend to offer more liberty than autocracies, and liberal democracies are
very likely to promote liberty. Freedom House's 1997 survey of "Freedom in the World" found that 79 out of
118 democracies could be classified as "free" and 39 were "partly free" and, of those, 29 qualified as "high
partly free." In contrast, only 20 of the world's 73 nondemocracies were "partly free" and 53 were "not
free."24 The case for the maximum possible amount of individual freedom can be made on the basis of

The utilitarian case for increasing

the amount of individual liberty rests on the belief that increased
liberty will enable more people to realize their full human potential,
which will benefit not only themselves but all of humankind. This
view holds that greater liberty will allow the human spirit to flourish,
thereby unleashing greater intellectual, artistic, and productive
energies that will ultimately benefit all of humankind. The rights-based case
utilitarian calculations or in terms of natural rights.

for liberty, on the other hand, does not focus on the consequences of increased liberty, but instead argues
that all men and women, by virtue of their common humanity, have a right to freedom. This argument is
most memorably expressed in the American Declaration of Independence: "We hold these Truths to be selfevident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness ..." The virtues of greater
individual liberty are not self-evident. Various political ideologies argue against making liberty the
paramount goal of any political system. Some do not deny that individual liberty is an important goal, but
call for limiting it so that other goals may be achieved. Others place greater emphasis on obligations to the
community. The British Fabian Socialist Sidney Webb, for example, articulated this view clearly: "The
perfect and fitting development of each individual is not necessarily the utmost and highest cultivation of
his own personality, but the filling, in the best possible way, of his humble function in the great social
machine."25 To debate these issues thoroughly would require a paper far longer than this one.26 The short
response to most critiques of liberty is that there appears to be a universal demand for liberty among
human beings. Particularly as socioeconomic development elevates societies above subsistence levels,
individuals desire more choice and autonomy in their lives. More important, most political systems that
have been founded on principles explicitly opposed to liberty have tended to devolve into tyrannies or to
suffer economic, political, or social collapse. 2. Liberal Democracies are Less Likely to Use Violence Against

America should spread liberal democracy because

the citizens of liberal democracies are less likely to suffer violent
death in civil unrest or at the hands of their governments.27 These
two findings are supported by many studies, but particularly by the
work of R.J. Rummel. Rummel finds that democracies-by which he
means liberal democracies-between 1900 and 1987 saw only 0.14%
of their populations (on average) die annually in internal violence . The
Their Own People. Second,

corresponding figure for authoritarian regimes was 0.59% and for totalitarian regimes 1.48%.28 Rummel
also finds that citizens of liberal democracies are far less likely to die at the hands of their governments.
Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes have been responsible for the overwhelming majority of genocides
and mass murders of civilians in the twentieth century. The states that have killed millions of their citizens

all have been authoritarian or totalitarian: the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, Nazi Germany,
Nationalist China, Imperial Japan, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Democracies have virtually
never massacred their own citizens on a large scale, although they have killed foreign civilians during
wartime. The American and British bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan, U.S. atrocities in
Vietnam, massacres of Filipinos during the guerrilla war that followed U.S. colonization of the Philippines
after 1898, and French killings of Algerians during the Algerian War are some prominent examples.29

Democratic
political systems-especially those of liberal democracies constrain
the power of governments, reducing their ability to commit mass
murders of their own populations. As Rummel concludes, "Power kills, absolute power
There are two reasons for the relative absence of civil violence in democracies: (1)

kills absolutely ... The more freely a political elite can control the power of the state apparatus, the more

Democratic polities allow

opposition to be expressed openly and have regular processes for
the peaceful transfer of power. If all participants in the political
process remain committed to democratic principles, critics of the
government need not stage violent revolutions and governments will
not use violence to repress opponents.31 3. Democracy Enhances Long-Run
Economic Performance A third reason for promoting democracy is that democracies tend to enjoy
greater prosperity over long periods of time. As democracy spreads,
more individuals are likely to enjoy greater economic benefits .
thoroughly it can repress and murder its subjects."30 (2)

Democracy does not necessarily usher in prosperity, although some observers claim that "a close
correlation with prosperity" is one of the "overwhelming advantages" of democracy.32 Some democracies,
including India and the Philippines, have languished economically, at least until the last few years. Others
are among the most prosperous societies on earth. Nevertheless, over the long haul democracies generally
prosper. As Mancur Olson points out: "It

is no accident that the countries that

have reached the highest level of economic performance across
generations are all stable democracies."33 Authoritarian regimes often compile

impressive short-run economic records. For several decades, the Soviet Union's annual growth in gross
national product (GNP) exceeded that of the United States, leading Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev to
pronounce "we will bury you." China has posted double-digit annual GNP increases in recent years. But
autocratic countries rarely can sustain these rates of growth for long. As Mancur Olson notes, "experience
shows that relatively poor countries can grow extraordinarily rapidly when they have a strong dictator who
happens to have unusually good economic policies, such growth lasts only for the ruling span of one or two
dictators."34 The Soviet Union was unable to sustain its rapid growth; its economic failings ultimately
caused the country to disintegrate in the throes of political and economic turmoil. Most experts doubt that
China will continue its rapid economic expansion. Economist Jagdish Bhagwati argues that "no one can
maintain these growth rates in the long term. Sooner or later China will have to rejoin the human race."35
Some observers predict that the stresses of high rates of economic growth will cause political
fragmentation in China.36 Why do democracies perform better than autocracies over the long run? Two
reasons are particularly persuasive explanations. First, democracies-especially liberal democracies-are
more likely to have market economies, and market economies tend to produce economic growth over the
long run. Most of the world's leading economies thus tend to be market economies, including the United
States, Japan, the "tiger" economies of Southeast Asia, and the members of the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development. Two recent studies suggest that there is a direct connection between
economic liberalization and economic performance. Freedom House conducted a World Survey of Economic
Freedom for 1995-96, which evaluated 80 countries that account for 90% of the world's population and
99% of the world's wealth on the basis of criteria such as the right to own property, operate a business, or
belong to a trade union. It found that the countries rated "free" generated 81% of the world's output even
though they had only 17% of the world's population.37 A second recent study confirms the connection
between economic freedom and economic growth. The Heritage Foundation has constructed an Index of
Economic Freedom that looks at 10 key areas: trade policy, taxation, government intervention, monetary
policy, capital flows and foreign investment, banking policy, wage and price controls, property rights,
regulation, and black market activity. It has found that countries classified as "free" had annual 1980-1993
real per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (expressed in terms of purchasing power parities) growth
rates of 2.88%. In "mostly free" countries the rate was 0.97%, in "mostly not free" ones -0.32%, and in
"repressed" countries -1.44%.38 Of course, some democracies do not adopt market economies and some
autocracies do, but liberal democracies generally are more likely to pursue liberal economic policies.

democracies that embrace liberal principles of government are

likely to create a stable foundation for long-term economic growth.
Individuals will only make long-term investments when they are
confident that their investments will not be expropriated. These and
Second,

other economic decisions require assurances that private property

will be respected and that contracts will be enforced. These conditions are
likely to be met when an impartial court system exists and can require individuals to enforce contracts.
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has argued that: "The guiding mechanism of a free market
economy ... is a bill of rights, enforced by an impartial judiciary."39 These conditions also happen to be
those that are necessary to maintain a stable system of free and fair elections and to uphold liberal
principles of individual rights. Mancur Olson thus points out that " the

conditions that are

needed to have the individual rights needed for maximum economic
development are exactly the same conditions that are needed to
have a lasting democracy. ... the same court system, independent
judiciary, and respect for law and individual rights that are needed
for a lasting democracy are also required for security of property
and contract rights."40 Thus liberal democracy is the basis for longterm economic growth. A third reason may operate in some circumstances: democratic
governments are more likely to have the political legitimacy necessary to embark on difficult and painful
economic reforms.41 This factor is particularly likely to be important in former communist countries, but it
also appears to have played a role in the decisions India and the Philippines have taken in recent years to
pursue difficult economic reforms.42

Democracy S War
The spread of democracy reduces the chances of war
Lynn-Jones, 1998
Sean M. Lynn-Jones, Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center
Studies in International Security, March 1998, "Why the United States Should
Spread Democracy",
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_s
hould_spread_democracy.html
In addition to improving the lives of individual citizens in new
democracies, the spread of democracy will benefit the international
system by reducing the likelihood of war. Democracies do not wage
war on other democracies. This absence-or near absence, depending
on the definitions of "war" and "democracy" used-has been called
"one of the strongest nontrivial and nontautological generalizations
that can be made about international relations."51 One scholar argues that
"the absence of war between democracies comes as close as
anything we have to an empirical law in international relations."52 If
the number of democracies in the international system continues to
grow, the number of potential conflicts that might escalate to war
will diminish. Although wars between democracies and
nondemocracies would persist in the short run, in the long run an
international system composed of democracies would be a peaceful
world. At the very least, adding to the number of democracies would
gradually enlarge the democratic "zone of peace."

Democracies are less likely to go to war

Lynn-Jones, 1998
Sean M. Lynn-Jones, Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center
Studies in International Security, March 1998, "Why the United States Should
Spread Democracy",
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_s
hould_spread_democracy.html
Many studies have found that there are virtually no historical cases of
democracies going to war with one another. In an important two-part article

published in 1983, Michael Doyle compares all international wars between 1816 and 1980 and a list of
liberal states.53 Doyle concludes that "constitutionally secure liberal states have yet to engage in war with
one another."54 Subsequent statistical studies have found that this absence of war between democracies
is statistically significant and is not the result of random chance.55 Other analyses have concluded that
the influence of other variables, including geographical proximity and wealth, do not detract from the
significance of the finding that democracies rarely, if ever, go to war with one another.56 Most studies of
the democratic-peace proposition have argued that democracies only enjoy a state of peace with other
democracies; they are just as likely as other states to go to war with nondemocracies.57 There are,

democracies are inherently less likely to

go to war than other types of states.58 The evidence for this claim remains in dispute,
however, several scholars who argue that

however, so it would be premature to claim that spreading democracy will do more than to enlarge the
democratic zone of peace. 2. Why there is a Democratic Peace: The Causal Logic Two types of explanations

shared
norms prevent democracies from fighting one another. The second claims
that institutional (or structural) constraints make it difficult or
impossible for a democracy to wage war on another democracy.
have been offered for the absence of wars between democracies. The first argues that

Democracy S all impacts

Global democratic consolidation prevents many scenarios
for war and extinction
Diamond 95
Larry Diamond, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, December 1995, Promoting Democracy in the
1990s, http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1.htm
OTHER THREATS This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years
and decades. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could
easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime
syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the
institutions of tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to
proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly
endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or
aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality,
accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The
experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly
democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors
to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically
"cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies
do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use
on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading
partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more
environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to
protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since
they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach
agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties,
property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world
order of international security and prosperity can be built.

Democracy acts as a backstop against all of their impacts

no democratically elected leader will allow policy
disasters
McGinnis and Somin 7
John and Ilya, Professor of Law @ NU and Georgetown Respectively, Should International Law Be Part of
Our Law?, Stanford Law Review, Questia
Finally, democratic accountability also plays a crucial role in preventing major public policy
disasters, since elected leaders know that a highly visible catastrophic failure is likely to lead
to punishment at the polls. For example, it is striking that no democratic nation, no matter
how poor, has ever had a mass famine within its borders, (96) whereas such events are
common in authoritarian and totalitarian states. (97) More generally, democracy serves as a
check on self-dealing by political elites and helps ensure, at least to some extent, that leaders
enact policies that serve the interests of their people.

Dem S Terrorism
Democratization solves terrorism
Windsor 3
Jennifer L. Windsor, executive director of Freedom House, Summer 2003, The Washington Quarterly
Can promoting democracy prevent renewed terrorist attacks against the United States? Although
cynics may scoff, democratization has gained credence as a counterterrorism strategy in the aftermath of
the September 11, 2001, attacks. The underlying logic is that democratic institutions and
procedures, by enabling the peaceful reconciliation of grievances and providing channels for
participation in policymaking, can help to address those underlying conditions that have fueled
the recent rise of Islamist extremism. The source of much of the current wave of terrorist
activity -- the Middle East -- is not coincidentally also overwhelmingly undemocratic, and most
regimes in the region lack the legitimacy and capacity to respond to the social and economic challenges
that face them. Although not without risks, and only if pursued as part of a broader strategy,
democratization can help reshape the climates in which terrorism thrives . More specifically,
promoting democratization in the closed societies of the Middle East can provide a set of values and ideas
that offer a powerful alternative to the appeal of the kind of extremism that today has found expression in
terrorist activity, often against U.S. interests.

THE CONSTITUTION THO

Privacy is a constituional right
Brandeis July 17,2003 ( Louis, aclu.com, Your right to Privacy,
7/17/03 https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/your-right-privacy
4th amendment. The right to privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution,
but the Supreme Court has said that several of the amendments create this
right. One of the amendments is the Fourth Amendment, which stops the
police and other government agents from searching us or our
property without "probable cause" to believe that we have
committed a crime. Other amendments protect our freedom to make
certain decisions about our bodies and our private lives without
interference from the government - which includes the public schools.

Privacy Moral Right

Privacy is a moral value and right
DeCew, 2013
Judith DeCew, Chair and Professor Department of Philosophy Clark University,
August 9th 2013, Privacy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/privacy/

The term privacy is used frequently in ordinary language as well as in philosophical, political and legal
discussions, yet there is no single definition or analysis or meaning of the term. The concept of privacy has
broad historical roots in sociological and anthropological discussions about how extensively it is valued and
preserved in various cultures. Moreover, the concept has historical origins in well known philosophical
discussions, most notably Aristotle's distinction between the public sphere of political activity and the
private sphere associated with family and domestic life. Yet historical use of the term is not uniform, and
there remains confusion over the meaning, value and scope of the concept of privacy. Early treatises on

from the 1890's

onward, and privacy protection was justified largely on moral
grounds. This literature helps distinguish descriptive accounts of privacy, describing what is in fact
privacy appeared with the development of privacy protection in American law

protected as private, from normative accounts of privacy defending its value and the extent to which it

some treat privacy as an interest with

moral value, while others refer to it as a moral or legal right that
ought to be protected by society or the law. Clearly one can be insensitive to
should be protected. In these discussions

another's privacy interests without violating any right to privacy, if there is one.

Add-On Global Warming

Tech Comp K2 Energy Tech

Tech competitiveness key to energy tech
Rau 12 (a founder and the director of Climate Wedge LLC, an investment
firm focused on clean-energy technologies, carbon finance, and
environmental commodities. Is America Losing Its Edge in Clean-Energy Tech?
https://hbr.org/2012/03/is-america-losing-its-edge-in)
Amid all the concern over Americas competitiveness, its easy to overlook a sector where
many U.S. companies are outperforming their overseas
counterparts: Clean-energy technologies. These are the products and infrastructure
elements such as solar panels and smart electricity grids that are reducing our reliance on petroleum and
coal. This healthy, innovative sector holds out vast promise, but

missteps now could cost

the United States its lead. The clean-energy field is evolving rapidly.
In just the past few years, there has been a global boom in the wind
and solar industries, with wind powers generating capacity expanding dramatically and
companies competing to offer free solar panels to households. The United States has
played an enormous role in the expansion of these segments and is
the worlds largest generator of renewable energy outside of
conventional hydropower. Thats been due to the countrys unique
combination of a large energy market, advanced research
universities, innovative private-sector laboratories, an abundance of
entrepreneurs, large pools of risk capital, and a historically
supportive policy environment that has created incentives for
innovation in and deployment of clean-energy sources and
technologies. The U.S. has underwritten much of the technological innovation behind clean
energys progress. The pace of innovation is one reason prices have dropped dramatically: Putting solar
panels on American roofs costs, on average, less than half of what it did just two years ago, in part
because a Moores Law-like innovation cycle is unfolding in photovoltaic technology. The price collapse is
great for consumers and utility companies, and it raises the prospect that American energy costs might
someday reverse course, a turn of events that would do wonders for the nations productivity.

Declining energy prices would also help raise U.S. competitiveness in

the sense that they would boost consumers standard of living while
increasing companies ability to succeed globally. American
leadership in the clean-energy sector extends beyond solar and wind
to natural gas, which is much cleaner than other carbon-based fuels
and is abundant in the United States. Revolutionary advances in the home-grown
technology known as fracking injecting high-pressure fluids to crack deep rock formations embedded
with previously unrecoverable oil and gas have unlocked huge sources of natural gas throughout the
United States, from Pennsylvania to Colorado. Although there are legitimate concerns over possible
groundwater contamination if the technology isnt implemented and regulated properly, fracking has
caused natural-gas prices to plummet to levels unimaginable six years ago. Fracking technology has been
entirely funded, researched, and commercialized in the United States, with strong federal support, and is
now being exported worldwide. But with other countries working hard to develop their own clean

American
dominance is threatened on a number of fronts, most notably in the
areas of clean coal, solar power, and the lack of carbon constraints
in our energy policy: Clean coal: Although critics may label it as an oxymoron, clean coal, in
technologies, the U.S. could lose its edge quickly, both in innovation and deployment.

which carbon dioxide and other pollutants from coal power plants are captured and sequestered in
underground formations or used to grow biofuels, is not only a possibility but a necessity for meeting the
worlds growing energy demands in an environmentally and economically sustainable manner. Global coal
resources are enormous and conveniently located in the heart of high-energy-consuming areas such as

Cost-effective clean-coal technology

will be a key competitive advantage, allowing countries to exploit their low-cost
China, Southeast Asia, and the United States.

energy resources without widespread negative environmental consequences. But as James Fallows
eloquently pointed out in The Atlantic, the U.S. is quickly losing any limited advantages it may have had in
this sector because it has failed to provide the right market signals to encourage deployment of clean-coal
technology. China may soon be positioned to get ahead of the United States and control the patents in
clean coal witness Duke Energys recent signing of an agreement to study possible use of Chinese
carbon-capture-and-storage technology on a coal plant in Indiana. Solar panels: The crash in prices for
photovoltaic solar panels has been accelerated by state-supported Chinese manufacturers practice of
dumping cheap panels on the market a shock for U.S. manufacturers, whose business models have been
based on high margins. American companies have had to slash their margins to compete, and their share
prices have been hammered as a consequence. That dynamic was behind the demise of California-based
solar-panel maker Solyndra, which filed for bankruptcy barely a year after receiving nearly half a billion
dollars in federal loan guarantees. Now that Taiwanese semiconductor giant Foxconn has announced plans
to make solar panels, the carnage could continue. To restore their competitive advantages, American
manufacturers will be forced to create panels that are much more efficient or to move upstream into the
higher-volume business of developing large-scale solar power plants. Carbon constraints and energy policy:
The United States has failed to create effective incentives for reducing the climate impact of its energy
infrastructure and lessening its costly dependence on foreign energy. Europe, Australia, Japan, and now
even China and India are way ahead of the U.S. in establishing policies that impose a cost on greenhousegas emissions. Such policies put a price on carbon emissions and provide an impetus for growth in the
clean-energy industry as well as for more-efficient use of energy resources. American policy makers have
been justly criticized for failing to adopt an attitude of urgency on climate change, but equally important is

American companies
competitive advantages in this field are still substantial, but given
the intensity of global competition, they could disappear in a puff of
smoke.
fostering a sense of urgency on clean-tech innovation and deployment.

FDI K2 Clean Energy Tech

FDI in new projects in the clean energy sector
Ogden, Hernandez, Bovarnick 14

Pete Ogden, Mari Hernandez, and Ben

Bovarnick | April 3, 2014, American Progress, Galvanizing Clean Energy Investment in the
United States
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2014/04/03/87092/galvanizing-cleanenergy-investment-in-the-united-states/

Maximizing foreign direct investment provides an important and

insufficiently tapped opportunity for increasing clean energy
investment in the United States. By attracting greater foreign
investment in new, or so-called greenfield, clean energy businesses,
projects, and manufacturing facilities, the United States will
accelerate clean energy deployment and overall investment. FDI is
little discussed in the clean energy context, aside from the occasional news
about a clean tech company being acquired by a foreign company. Yet
America leads the world in overall inward FDI with foreign
investments in U.S. markets totaling more than $1.5 trillion since
2006. The United States is developing the necessary tools to attract
even greater amounts of FDI, but more targeted efforts will be required to
increase clean energy investments, especially in greenfield projects. An
estimated 20 percent of inward FDI goes currently toward greenfield
investments, while 50 percent to 60 percent of FDI in China supports
greenfield projects and investments. To drive FDI in greenfield clean
energy projects, the Obama administration should take the following steps.

Clean Energy Tech K2 Econ

The US clean energy sector is critical to the job sector and
overall economy
Ogden, Hernandez, Bovarnick 14

Pete Ogden, Mari Hernandez, and Ben

Bovarnick | April 3, 2014, American Progress, Galvanizing Clean Energy Investment in the
United States
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2014/04/03/87092/galvanizing-cleanenergy-investment-in-the-united-states/

Countries like China and Germany are going all in in the race for
clean energy. I believe Americans build things better than anybody
else. I want America to win that race, but we cant win it if were not
in it. President Barack Obama Georgetown University June 25, 2013
The United States has long been a top destination for clean energy
investment, which has helped it to capture many of the near-term
economic, energy security, and environmental benefits that stem from
expanded domestic clean energy generation. Since 2004, in fact, clean
energy investment in the United States increased nearly 250 percent and
reached $36.7 billion in 2013. However, America will need to do more to
continue to compete successfully in the burgeoning clean energy economy.
After leading the global clean energy investment race until 2008, the United
States has fallen behind China in four of the past five years. The countries that
lead in clean energy investment can increase clean energy
manufacturing capacity; secure greater global market share for their
clean energy products; create jobs at home; and help build strong
economies fueled by energy and technologies that hedge against
energy price volatility and future carbon pricing. To maintain its
competitiveness, the United States will need to take bold new steps that
build on what has been accomplished over the past five years and fill the
voids left by the winding down of many of the important clean energy and
energy-efficiency programs and investments made through the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, or ARRA. Filling those
voids, however, will be challenging. The ARRA enabled investors to finance clean
energy projects during a time of capital scarcity and to keep our clean energy
sector competitive during a global recession. It did this by providing more than
$90 billion in clean energy investments through loans and loan guarantees to capitalintensive projects, tax credits to lower project costs for companies, upfront grants to help businesses that

Thanks to these and other

federal- and state-level investments and policies over the past five years, the
U.S. clean energy sector has emerged as a powerful economic force
that can drive innovation, create jobs, and expand manufacturing
are unable to benefit from tax credits get started, and more.

Solvency

This is the Secure Data Act

S. 135

To prohibit Federal agencies from mandating the deployment of

vulnerabilities in data security technologies.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 8, 2015
Mr. WYDEN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL
To prohibit Federal agencies from mandating the deployment of
vulnerabilities in data security technologies.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the Secure Data Act of 2015.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DATA SECURITY VULNERABILITY
MANDATES.
(a) IN GENERAL.Except as provided in subsection (b), no agency
may mandate that a manufacturer, developer, or seller of covered
products design or alter the security functions in its product or service
to allow the surveillance of any user of such product or service, or to
allow the physical search of such product, by any agency.

(b) EXCEPTION.Subsection (a) shall not apply to mandates

authorized under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement
Act (47 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
(c) DEFINITIONS.In this section
(1) the term agency has the meaning given the term in
section 3502 of title 44, United States Code; and
(2) the term covered product means any computer hardware,
computer software, or electronic device that is made available to
the general public.

Secure Data Act Stops Backdoors

The Secure Data Act would prevent mandated NSA
backdoors and bolster trust in Congress ability to restrict
surveillance
Wicklander 15 [Carl: politics writer Bipartisan Secure Data Act Has Votes
to Pass House, But Will Lawmakers Drag Their Feet?, Independent Voter
Network, February 9, 2015, http://ivn.us/2015/02/09/bipartisan-secure-dataact-votes-pass-house-will-lawmakers-drag-feet/ // emb].
Last week, a bipartisan group of legislators introduced a bill intended
to protect Americans privacy and online data. In a press release, U.S.
Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), and Zoe Lofgren (DCalif.) announced that the purpose of the Secure Data Act of 2015 is not
to restrict the ability of intelligence agencies to collect data in general. However, they do intend to reassert the role of Congress in regulating these activities: Congress
has allowed the Administrations surveillance authorities to go
unchecked by failing to enact adequate reform. . . . With threats to
our homeland ever prevalent, we should not tie the hands of the
intelligence community. But unwarranted, backdoor surveillance is
indefensible. The Secure Data Act is an important step in rebuilding
public trust in our intelligence agencies and striking the appropriate
balance between national security and civil liberty. The bill is an
attempt to specifically guard against backdoor searches, including those
where identifiers such as phone numbers and e-mail addresses known to belong to Americans are
employed to conduct the searches. For years, privacy advocates have denounced these types of searches
as a way to skirt the law. According to the Register, a UK-based tech site, Under

the proposed
Secure Data Act, developers cannot be forced to insert security
holes into devices and code. An ACLU lawyer quoted in the story said that the previous

bills success might indicate that at least in the House they know how important it is to secure encryption
efforts. Massie, Lofgren, and Sensenbrenner tried to pass a similar version of the Secure Data Act near
the end of the 113th Congress. The legislation passed with broad support, 293-123, but was not included
in the omnibus bill that passed at the end of the session. A Senate version of the Secure Data Act was
introduced by Oregon U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D) in January. His bill is still waiting to move through the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Regaining the peoples trust may be one of

Polls have
consistently shown that Americans do not approve of the current
methods of surveillance and data collection. Previous bills have
passed Congress seeking to limit the power and authority of
agencies like the National Security Agency. However, the final
products were severely watered down versions of the initial
legislation. Even extensively supported bills such as the previous
Secure Data Act failed to get anywhere in both chambers of
Congress.
the harder obstacles when it comes to regulations on spying and surveillance.

The Secure Data Act would prevent the NSA from

mandating backdoors
Dent 14 [Steve: tech reporter, New bill aims to curb US government

backdoor spying, EnGadget, December 5, 2014,

http://www.engadget.com/2014/12/05/secure-data-act-backdoor-spying/ //
emb].

While the FBI thinks that all communication tools in the US should have backdoors for law enforcement, a
new Senate bill has proposed the exact opposite.

The Secure Data Act, introduced by

Senator Ron Wyden, would prohibit the government from forcing
companies like Google and Apple to grant access to encrypted data.
A different bill to curb the NSA and other agencies (the USA Freedom Act) was denuded by the House of
Representatives, while a recent vote allowed the Feds to carry on with massive surveillance. However,

the Secure Data Act would specifically bar US agencies from forcing
private companies to "design or alter their commercial information
technology products for the purpose of facilitating government
surveillance." Wyden's bill cites some familiar problems with backdoors that emerged with the

mass of documents revealed by Edward Snowden. The main point is that such measures have the effect of
weakening security overall. For instance, it cites a backdoor placed by law enforcement in Greece to
monitor cellphone calls, that was later exploited by third parties to listen in on government officials. It also
contends that such security exploits hurt innovation, since companies have no incentive to create new
security tech if they're forced to deliberately open holes. Finally, it cited the loss of trust by the public, both
stateside and abroad, in US products and services.

S Hacking and Tech Comp

The Secure Data Act is critical to preventing malicious
hacking via backdoors and restoring US tech
competitiveness
McQuinn 14 [Alan: research assistant with the Information Technology and
Innovation Foundation (ITIF), The Secure Data Act could help law
enforcement protect against cybercrime, The Hill, December 19, 2014
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/227594-the-secure-dataact-could-help-law-enforcement-protect-against // emb]
Last Sunday, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) wrote an op-ed describing the role that U.S. law enforcement should play in
fostering stronger data encryption to make information technology (IT) systems more secure. This op-ed explains Wydens

the Secure Data Act, which would prohibit the government

from mandating that U.S. companies build backdoors in their
products for the purpose of surveillance. This legislation responds directly to recent
introduction of the

comments by U.S. officials, most notably the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey, chastising Apple
and Google for creating encrypted devices to which law enforcement cannot gain access. Comey and others have argued
that U.S. tech companies should design a way for law enforcement officials to access consumer data stored on those
devices. In this environment,

the Secure Data Act is a homerun for security and

privacy and is a good step towards reasserting U.S. competitiveness

in building secure systems for a global market.

By adopting its position on the issue

the FBI is working against its own goal of preventing cybercrime as well as broader government efforts to improve
cybersecurity. Just a few years ago, the Bureau was counseling people to better encrypt their data to safeguard it from

Creating backdoor access for law enforcement fundamentally

weakens IT systems because it creates a new pathway for malicious
hackers, foreign governments, and other unauthorized parties to
gain illicit access. Requiring backdoors is a step backwards for
companies actively working to eliminate security vulnerabilities in
their products. In this way, security is a lot like a ship at sea, the
more holes you put in the systemgovernment mandated or not
the faster it will sink. The better solution is to patch up all the holes
hackers.

in the system and work to prevent any new ones. Rather than
decreasing security to suit its appetite for surveillance , the FBI should
recognize that better security is needed to bolster U.S. defenses against
online threats. The Secure Data Act is an important step in that
direction because it will stop U.S. law enforcement agencies from
requiring companies to introduce vulnerabilities in their products. If
this bill is enacted, law enforcement will be forced to use other means to solve crimes, such as by using metadata from

This will also allow

U.S. tech companies, with the help of law enforcement, to continue
to strengthen their systems, better detect intrusions, and identify
emerging threats. Law enforcement, such as the recently announced U.S. Department of Justice
cellular providers, call records, text messages, and even old-fashioned detective work.

Cybersecurity Unita unit designed solely to deter, investigate, and prosecute cyber criminals, should work in
cooperation with the private sector to create a safer environment online.

A change of course is also

necessary to restore the ability of U.S. tech companies to compete

globally, where mistrust has run rampant following the revelations
of mass government surveillance . With the 113th Congress at an end, Wyden has promised to
reintroduce the Data Secure Act again in the next Congress. Congress should move expediently to advance Senator
Wydens bill to promote security and privacy in U.S. devices and software. Furthermore, as Congress marks up the

legislation and considers amendments, it should restrict not just government access to devices, but also government
control of those devices. These efforts will move the efforts of our law enforcement agencies away from creating cyber
vulnerabilities and allow electronics manufacturers to produce the most secure devices imaginable.

S Human Rights / Privacy

Strong decryption is fundamental to human rights it
allows individuals freedom of expression UN report
proves
Bennett 5/28/15 [Cory: cybersecurity writer for The Hill, UN report:
Encryption crucial for human rights, The Hill, May 28, 2015
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/243381-un-report-encryptionnecessary-to-exercise-human-rights // emb].
A United Nations report released Thursday argues that strong encryption is
fundamental to exercising basic human rights. Encryption and
anonymity enable individuals to exercise their rights to freedom of
opinion and expression in the digital age and, as such, deserve
strong protection, says the report, from the UNs Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights. The international group is releasing the report as the U.S. and
other governments debate methods that would give law
enforcement agencies guaranteed access to encrypted data. Special
rapporteur David Kaye authored the report, which is strongly worded in its
opposition to intentional access points built into encryption, or "backdoors." In the
contemporary technological environment, intentionally compromising encryption,
even for arguably legitimate purposes, weakens everyones security
online, the report says. States should avoid all measures that weaken
the security that individuals may enjoy online, such as backdoors,
weak encryption standards and key escrows, it adds. A key escrow is when a
third party holds onto an encryption key, the information needed to decrypt data. The report
even called on Congress to consider the Secure Data Act, a bill that
would ban the government from forcing companies to build
backdoors into their encryption . The FBI and National Security Agency (NSA) have
been battling technologists, Silicon Valley, and a vocal contingent of lawmakers over encryption
standards. Federal officials argue companies should have a method to decrypt data if its needed for a
criminal or national security investigation. Companies counter that such a decryption method would create
inherently vulnerable encryption.

Gov Action Key

Absent government action, tech companies will have to
comply with NSA standards
Larson 13 [Jeff: Data Editor at ProPublica. Won the Livingston Award,
Revealed: The NSAs Secret Campaign to Crack, Undermine Internet
Security, ProPublica, September 5, 2013
http://www.propublica.org/article/the-nsas-secret-campaign-to-crackundermine-internet-encryption // emb].

Since Mr. Snowdens disclosures ignited criticism of overreach and privacy infringements by the N.S.A.,

American technology companies have faced scrutiny from customers

and the public over what some see as too cozy a relationship with
the government. In response, some companies have begun to push back
against what they describe as government bullying. Google, Yahoo and
Facebook have pressed for permission to reveal more about the governments secret requests for
cooperation. One small e-mail encryption company, Lavabit, shut down rather than comply with the
agencys demands for what it considered confidential customer information; another, Silent Circle, ended
its e-mail service rather than face similar demands .

In effect, facing the N.S.A.s

relentless advance, the companies surrendered. Ladar Levison, the
founder of Lavabit, wrote a public letter to his disappointed
customers, offering an ominous warning. Without Congressional
action or a strong judicial precedent, he wrote, I would strongly
recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company
with physical ties to the United States.

S Debate about Decryption

Open debate key

Auerbach and Opsahl 13 (Kurt Opsahl is the Deputy Executive Director

and General Counsel of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Crucial
Unanswered Questions about the NSA's BULLRUN Program,
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/09/crucial-unanswered-questions-aboutnsa-bullrun-program)
As we work hard to promote encryption on the web through tools like our
browser extension HTTPS Everywhere, we also pay close attention to
attacks that undermine the security of that encryption. That's why we
were dismayed by last Thursday's revelations about the National Security
Agency's aggressive efforts to undermine the ability of citizens to
communicate securely. It's not surprising that the NSA would try to
break cryptographic systems in whatever way they can, but the
deeply pernicious nature of this campaignundermining national
standards and sabotaging hardware and softwareas well as the
amount of overt private sector cooperation are both shocking. These
leaks should not lead us to privacy nihilism while we cannot be certain
about the NSA's capabilities, we have good reason to believe that the
mathematical underpinnings of crypto systems in widespread use remain
strong. We are safer when communicating with encryption and
anonymity tools. This is especially true for open source tools that are
developed in public view and provide a higher level of auditability than closed
tools. Even if the NSA and other major spying powers like the United
Kingdom, China, and Russia have advanced attacks and backdoors,
strong encryption can make their spying more difficult while
protecting against less sophisticated adversaries. And while it is
important not to despair, a thorough examination of the available
information from the NSA is in order, both so that we can bolster our
defenses against these attacks on our communications infrastructure,
and so that we can have an open democratic debate about what
tactics are appropriate for the NSA to use. Unfortunately, while last
Thursday's articles and documents about the BULLRUN program paint a
picture of spy agencies working hard on a variety of fronts in order to
undermine our ability to communicate securely, these broad brush strokes
leave many key questions unanswered. Does the NSA hold the private SSL
encryption keys of major communication service providers like Facebook,
Google, and Microsoft? We've recently been worried about the privacy of keys
that are supposed to be in the hands of service providers and no one else. A
very large fraction of the world's online communications flow
through a handful of service providers, and in turn a handful of
private keys used by those providers serve as a gateway to the
communications of billions of people. It is therefore critical to know
whether or not the NSA has these private keys, since that would mean the
agency has unfettered access to a huge swath of the world's online
communications.1 The New York Times reports that the agency has a
database of encryption keys for specific commercial products. It is
not clear whether these products include online communication services, but

there are strong hints that many such services have been compromised.
According to the Times, by 2012, the GCHQ the British equivalent of the
NSA had developed new access opportunities into Google's
systems. The Guardian has also reported that Microsoft has worked with
the NSA to get pre-encryption stage access to email on outlook.com,
including Hotmail. Given the magnitude of spying that could occur with
private key access to major service providers, this is a critical
question and Internet users deserve an answer to be able to choose
what communication platforms to use. What methods does the NSA use
to obtain private encryption keys? The Times says that how keys are acquired
is shrouded in secrecy, but speculates that many are likely collected by
hacking into companies' servers. Having concrete evidence of these attacks
would have important legal and technical ramifications, and we hope that this
information comes to light, both so that companies have the opportunity to
improve the security of their servers and so the American public can take
part in a transparent debate about what targets and methods are appropriate
for the NSA to pursue. What hardware has the NSA backdoored? The New
York Times reports that, in addition to partnering with
telecommunications providers and other companies, including
Microsoft, the NSA had found ways inside some of the encryption
chips, either by working with chipmakers to insert back doors or by
surreptitiously exploiting existing security flaws. This means that there is
probably a lot of hardware floating around that the NSA knows to be
insecure, leaving many individuals and companies likely vulnerable
to a host of attackers. As we've explained before, back doors
fundamentally undermine everybody's security, not just that of bad
guys. We need to know what hardware is affected so that these
vulnerabilities can be fixed. This is especially critical now that these leaks
have come out, since malicious attackers now have been tipped off
that back doors exist, and so it is even more likely that exploitable
vulnerabilities will be discovered by parties other than the NSA, if
they have not been already. What power does the NSA have over companies
to get them to cooperate? How often do companies cooperate, and what
happens when they say no? We need to know if and how the NSA uses the
legal system to compel company cooperation with requests for back doors.
While FISA may allow the government to seek technical assistance from
telecoms, there is nothing in the law to require the addition of backdoors to
secure communications products, either in software or in hardware. Indeed,
when the government attempted to legally require encryption
backdoors with the Clipper Chip, EFF and others fought back and defeated
the proposal. If the NSA thinks it has this authority, it has to come forward
and explain the basis. We also need to know how often this cooperation
occurs and on what scale. For example, the New York Times reports that in
one case, after the government learned that a foreign intelligence target had
ordered new computer hardware, the American manufacturer agreed to insert
a back door into the product before it was shipped. Are these sorts of
agreements common? Are the companies pressured, enticed, or is the
cooperation voluntary? Conclusion The NSA needs to come clean about the
scope of its capabilities and relationships with companies. President Obama
has said that new public disclosures about the NSA constitute only bits and

pieces of a larger story, and that to have an open and democratic debate we
should "put the whole elephant out there." Unfortunately, this purported
concession of more transparency has not been borne out, as we have seen
continued unwillingness on the part of the Intelligence Community or the
President to reveal or confirm enough information to have a truly informed
debate. The lack of openess around these clandestine programs has
become a liability for America . The Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper claimed last week that these leaks have harmed America's
efforts to thwart terrorists by revealing "specific techniques we are
using to try to intercept their communications." This is the tired and
empty rhetoric of fear that we've seen again and again. Nobody is suggesting
that particular investigations or individual spying efforts must be revealed.
But while any terrorist with half a brain has already stopped using Facebook,
millions of people may stop using American-based social networks,
email providers, or hardware if they believe them to be insecure.
That's why we need more details, not fewer, to better understand the
scope and contours of these spying programs, and to have an open
democratic debate about what methods the NSA should use to accomplish its
mission

A2:

Case

A2: Alt Causes

Bullrun tanks US cyber legitimacy biggest internal link
Roberts 13
Paul, editor-in-chief of The Security Ledger, Bullrun And The NSAs Game of Thrones, 9/12/13,
https://www.veracode.com/blog/2013/09/bullrun-and-the-nsas-game-of-thrones SJE
We learned about PRISM a long-running program of omnibus surveillance that solicited (and received) the
cooperation of many of the worlds leading Internet service providers. We learned about the NSAs creation
of a surveillance system capable of collecting up to 75% of all the U.S. Internet traffic, and of analysts
penchant for ignoring so-called minimization rules designed to prevent them from spying on U.S.

the most recent revelations about the project code-named

Bullrun are the most startling and, potentially, the most damaging
to the technology community. If you missed it, Bullrun is the NSA code name for a program
in which the Agency worked overtly and covertly to weaken the encryption that
citizens. But

countless private and public organizations and hundreds of millions of individuals use to secure
communications online. As reported in the pages of The New York Times, The Guardian and ProPublica,

the U.S. spy agency collaborated with technology companies to

subvert the security of encryption used to secure communications
passed over their networks. More damning was the Agencys work to
covertly weaken standards often by placing technical leads within the
industry and standards organizations that were developing them. The
revelations about PRISM were disheartening. But that program, which had the NSA browbeating large
technology platforms into disclosing information on their users, were also unsurprising: evidence of the

NSA being the NSA. Bullrun is different, revealing an almost Machiavellian determination by the
NSA to have access to every byte and bit of information coursing through the global Internet, regardless of

the NSA appears to

over-read its mandate post 9-11, and then badly overplayed its
hand in dealings with technology firms, the global technology
community, Congress, the American people and U.S. allies. Among the first casualties is
the cost. Like one of the power-mad clans from the HBO series Game of Thrones,
have

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (or NIST). That esteemed Institute, which was founded
more than a century ago to be the keeper of standard weights and measures for the U.S. government has
played a key role in the development and promotion of cyber security standards within the Government
and (by extension) the broader economy. According to reports by The Guardian, the Times and ProPublica,

NIST allowed the National Security Agency (NSA) to manipulate a key standard
for what are known as random bit generators. Specifically, the NSA used its influence within the
NIST board overseeing the NIST standard known as SP (or Special Publication) 800-90 to insert a
pseudorandom number generator called Dual EC DRBG into the NIST standard. Dual EC DRBG, it turns out,
contained a backdoor that allows the NSA to covertly decrypt material that was encrypted with the aid of
that pseudorandom number generator. The NSA pushed for the use of the SP 800-90 standard and
eventually became the sole editor of it unbeknownst to the outside world. NIST has since re-opened
800-90 for comment and says its committed to vetting other standards where there are questions about

the Institutes failure to disclose the NSAs role as a sole

editor of an important standard is a huge breach of trust with the
technology community. Writing one of the most astute analyses of the controversy, Matthew
their reliability. But

Green, a cryptographer and research professor at The Johns Hopkins University said that the revelations
about Dual EC DRBG are the first concrete proof that the NSA was using its influence at NIST for evil (i.e.
offensive operations) as well as good (to make NIST standards more secure. That b reach

of trust
throws every other standard that NIST has created in cooperation
with the NSA into doubt technologies ranging from pseudo-random number generators to
hash functions and ciphers, all the way to the specific elliptic curves we use in SSL/TLS, Green notes.

trust has been

violated. It's going to be an absolute nightmare ruling it out.
While the possibility of a backdoor in any of these components does seem remote,

A2: Companies Will Cooperate

Tech companies dont want the NSA to create
vulnerabilities in their products even if the plan would
allow voluntary cooperation, tech companies wont do it
Jon Russell 15, 5-18-2015, "Tech Giants Tell Obama To Resist Calls For
Backdoor Access To Encrypted&nbsp;Data," TechCrunch,
http://techcrunch.com/2015/05/18/tech-giants-tell-obama-to-resist-calls-forbackdoor-access-to-encrypted-data/
The tech industry has increasingly pushed the issue of user privacy
since Edward Snowden first leaked the details of NSA spying
initiatives back in 2013. However, some agencies of the state are
uneasy about the rise of encryption. U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson

recently commented that the inability to access encrypted information poses public safety challenges. In
other words, the inability to access data could prevent defense agencies from actually defending the

letter, which is due to be sent to Obama on

Tuesday, counters the claim that encrypting user data is dangerous
for the nation.Strong encryption is the cornerstone of the modern
information economys security, the companies wrote in the letter,
which was also signed by technology consultants and rights groups.
It is not just endorsed by tech firms, however. The Post reported that
three of the five members of Obamas committee into technology
practices, which was established following the Snowden leaks,
signed the letter which was organized by New America Foundations Open Technology
Institute.Since last fall, the president has been letting his top law
enforcement officials criticize companies for making their devices
more secure and letting them suggest that Congress should pass
pro-backdoor legislation, Kevin Bankston, policy director of the institute, told the Post.Its
nation or so the argument goes.This

time for Obama to put an end to these dangerous suggestions that we should deliberately weaken the
cybersecurity of Americans products and services. Its time for America to lead the world toward a more
secure future rather than a digital ecosystem riddled with vulnerabilities of our own making, Bankston
added

A2: Stronger Encryption Solves

Bullrun doesnt rely upon cracking algorithms or math
they intentionally circumvent and undermine existing
encryption software with key provisioning and hacking
Paganini 13 [Pierluigi: Chief Information Security Officer at Bit4Id, firm
leader in identity management, member of the ENISA (European Union
Agency for Network and Information Security), cyber security expert with
over 20 years experience in the field, he is Certified Ethical Hacker at EC
Council in London, NSA Bullrun program, encryption and false perception of
security, Security Affairs, September 7, 2013,
http://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/17577/intelligence/nsa-bullrun-programfalse-perception-security.html // emb].
None of methods used to access to encryption keys involve in
cracking the algorithms and the math underlying the encryption, but
rely upon circumventing and otherwise undermining encryption. The
newspapers sustains that NSA maintains an internal database, dubbed Key
Provisioning Service, of encryption keys for each commercial
product. Using the Key Provisioning Service the NSA is able to
automatically decode communications and access to encrypted data.
Every time the agency needs a key for a new product it formalizes a
request to obtain it, the request is so-called Key Recovery Service.
Other news reported that in one circumstance the US government learned that a
foreign intelligence had ordered new computer hardware and after
pressure of NS A the US vendor agreed to insert a backdoor into the
product before it was deployed . Keys are provided by vendors or
obtained by the intelligence with hacking campaign against
infrastructures of product providers. How keys are acquired is
shrouded in secrecy, but independent cryptographers say many are
probably collected by hacking into companies computer servers,
where they are stored, To keep such methods secret, the N.S.A.
shares decrypted messages with other agencies only if the keys
could have been acquired through legal means. states NYT.

A2: GCHQ Still Exists

GCHQs dependency on the NSA has become too great and
they must work hard to pull their weight
The Guardian 13 August 1st, 2013. The Guardian. Exclusive: NSA pays
100m in secret funding for GCHQ http://www.theguardian.com/uknews/2013/aug/01/nsa-paid-gchq-spying-edward-snowden S.H
The US government has paid at least 100m to the UK spy agency GCHQ
over the last three years to secure access to and influence over
Britain's intelligence gathering programmes. The top secret payments are set out
in documents which make clear that the Americans expect a return on the
investment, and that GCHQ has to work hard to meet their demands.
"GCHQ must pull its weight and be seen to pull its weight," a GCHQ
strategy briefing said. The funding underlines the closeness of the relationship
between GCHQ and its US equivalent, the National Security Agency. But it will
raise fears about the hold Washington has over the UK's biggest and
most important intelligence agency, and whether Britain's
dependency on the NSA has become too great. In one revealing document from
2010, GCHQ acknowledged that the US had "raised a number of issues with regards to meeting NSA's

GCHQ "still remains short of the full NSA ask".

GCHQ
describes Britain's surveillance laws and regulatory regime as a
"selling point" for the Americans. The papers are the latest to emerge from the cache
minimum expectations". It said

Ministers have denied that GCHQ does the NSA's "dirty work", but in the documents

leaked by the American whistleblower Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor who has railed at the
reach of the US and UK intelligence agencies.

GCHQ fears if they dont deliver what the NSA wants,

theyll lose their trust and realize failure to meet
requirements
The Guardian 13 [August 1st, 2013. The Guardian. Exclusive: NSA pays
100m in secret funding for GCHQ http://www.theguardian.com/uknews/2013/aug/01/nsa-paid-gchq-spying-edward-snowden S.H]

The details of the NSA payments, and the influence the US has over Britain, are set out in GCHQ's annual
"investment portfolios". The papers show that the NSA gave GCHQ 22.9m in 2009. The following year the
NSA's contribution increased to 39.9m, which included 4m to support GCHQ's work for Nato forces in
Afghanistan, The NSA also paid 15.5m towards redevelopments at GCHQ's sister site in Bude, north
Cornwall, which intercepts communications from the transatlantic cables that carry internet traffic.

In
2011/12 the NSA paid another 34.7m to GCHQ. The papers show the NSA
pays half the costs of one of the UK's main eavesdropping
capabilities in Cyprus. In turn, GCHQ has to take the American view
into account when deciding what to prioritise. A document setting out GCHQ's
"Securing external NSA funding for Bude has protected (GCHQ's core) budget," the paper said.

spending plans for 2010/11 stated: "The portfolio will spend money supplied by the NSA and UK
government departments against agreed requirements." Other documents say the agency must ensure
there has been "an appropriate level of contribution from the NSA perspective". The leaked papers

the UK's biggest fear is that "US perceptions of the

partnership diminish, leading to loss of access, and/or reduction in
investment to the UK". When GCHQ does supply the US with
valuable intelligence, the agency boasts about it. In one review, GCHQ boasted
reveal that

that it had supplied "unique contributions" to the NSA during its investigation of the American citizen
responsible for an attempted car bomb attack in Times Square, New York City, in 2010. No other detail is
provided but it

raises the possibility that GCHQ might have been spying

on an American living in the US. The NSA is prohibited from doing this by US law. Asked
about the payments, a Cabinet Office spokesman said: "In a 60-year alliance it is entirely unsurprising that
there are joint projects in which resources and expertise are pooled, but the benefits flow in both
directions." A senior security source in Whitehall added: "The fact is there is a close intelligence
relationship between the UK and US and a number of other countries including Australia and Canada.
There's no automaticity, not everything is shared. A sentient human being takes decisions." Although the
sums represent only a small percentage of the agencies' budgets, the money has been an important
source of income for GCHQ. The cash came during a period of cost-cutting at the agency that led to staff

GCHQ seems desperate to

please its American benefactor and the NSA does not hold back
when it fails to get what it wants. On one project, GCHQ feared if it failed
to deliver it would "diminish NSA's confidence in GCHQ's ability to
meet minimum NSA requirements". Another document warned: "The
NSA ask is not static and retaining 'equability' will remain a
challenge for the near future." In November 2011, a senior GCHQ manager working in
numbers being slashed from 6,485 in 2009 to 6,132 last year.

Cyprus bemoaned the lack of staff devoted to one eavesdropping programme, saying: "This is not
sustainable if numbers reduce further and reflects badly on our commitments to the NSA." The overriding
necessity to keep on the right side of the US was revealed in a UK government paper that set out the views
of GCHQ in the wake of the 2010 strategic defence and security review. The document was called: "GCHQ's
international alliances and partnerships: helping to maintain Britain's standing and influence in the world."
It said: "Our key partnership is with the US. We need to keep this relationship healthy. The relationship
remains strong but is not sentimental. GCHQ must pull its weight and be seen to pull its weight."
Astonishingly, the document admitted that 60% of the UK's high-value intelligence "is based on either NSA
end-product or derived from NSA collection". End product means official reports that are distillations of the

Another pitch to keep the US happy involves reminding

Washington that the UK is less regulated than the US. The British
agency described this as one of its key "selling points". This was made
best raw intelligence.

explicit two years ago when GCHQ set out its priorities for the coming years. "We both accept and
accommodate NSA's different way of working," the document said. "We are less constrained by NSA's
concerns about compliance." GCHQ said that by 2013 it hoped to have "exploited to the full our unique
selling points of geography, partnerships [and] the UK's legal regime". However, there are indications
from within GCHQ that senior staff are not at ease with the rate and pace of change. The head of one of its
programmes warned the agency was now receiving so much new intelligence that its "mission
management is no longer fit for purpose". In June, the government announced that the "single
intelligence account" fund that pays for GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 would be increased by 3.4% in 2015/16. This
comes after three years in which the SIA has been cut from 1.92bn to 1.88bn. The agencies have also
been told to make 220m savings on existing programmes. The parliamentary intelligence and security
committee (ISC) has questioned whether the agencies were making the claimed savings and said their
budgets should be more rigorously scrutinised to ensure efficiencies were "independently verifiable and/or
sustainable". The Snowden documents show GCHQ has become increasingly reliant on money from
"external" sources. In 2006 it received the vast majority of its funding directly from Whitehall, with only
14m from "external" funding. In 2010 that rose to 118m and by 2011/12 it had reached 151m. Most of
this comes from the Home Office.

A2: Industries Cooperate

Government demands backdoors to defeat Encryption

Burghardt 15 Tom Burghardt Global Research, May 19, 2015 Global

Research The U.S. Secret State and the Internet: Dirty Secrets and Crypto
Wars from Clipper Chip and ECHELON to PRISM
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-secret-state-and-the-internet-dirtysecrets-and-crypto-wars-from-clipper-chip-to-prism/5357623
Back in the 1990s, security researchers and privacy watchdogs were alarmed by government
demands that hardware and software firms build backdoors into
their products, the millions of personal computers and cell phones
propelling communication flows along the now-quaint information
superhighway. Never mind that the same factory-installed kit that allowed secret state
agencies to troll through private communications also served as a discrete portal
for criminal gangs to loot your bank account or steal your identity . To
make matters worse, instead of the accountability promised the American people by
Congress in the wake of the Watergate scandal, successive US administrations have
worked assiduously to erect an impenetrable secrecy regime backstopped by
secret laws overseen by secret courts which operate on the basis of secret
administrative subpoenas, latter day lettres de cachet. But now that all their dirty
secrets are popping out of Edward Snowdens bottomless
briefcase, we also know the Crypto Wars of the 1990s never ended. Documents
published by The Guardian and The New York Times revealed that the
National Security Agency actively engages the US and IT industries and has
broadly compromised the guarantees that internet companies have
given consumers to reassure them that their communications, online
banking and medical records would be indecipherable to criminals or
governments. Those methods include covert measures to ensure NSA control
over setting of international encryption standards, The Guardian disclosed,
along with the use of supercomputers to break encryption with brute force, and the most closely
guarded secret of allcollaboration with technology companies and
internet service providers themselves. According to The New York
Times, NSA had found ways inside some of the encryption chips that
scramble information for businesses and governments, either by
working with chipmakers to insert back doors or by surreptitiously
exploiting existing security flaws, according to the documents . In fact,
vulnerabilities inserted into commercial encryption systems would
be known to NSA alone. Everyone else, including commercial customers, are
referred to in the documents as adversaries. The cover name for this
program is Project BULLRUN. An agency classification guide asserts that Project BULLRUN
deals with NSAs abilities to defeat the encryption used in specific
network communication technologies. BULLRUN involves multiple sources, all of which are extremely
sensitive. They include CNE [computer network exploitation], interdiction, industry
relationships, collaboration with other IC entities, and advanced
mathematical techniques. In furtherance of those goals, the agency created a
Commercial Solutions Center (NCSC) to leverage sensitive, cooperative relationships
with industry partners that will further NSA/CSS capabilities against encryption used in
network communications technologies, and already has some capabilities against
the encryption used in TLS/SSL. HTTPS, SSH, VPNs, VoIP, WEBMAIL,

and other network communications technologies. Time and again, beginning in

the 1970s with the publication of perhaps the earliest NSA expos by Ramparts Magazine, we learned that
when agency schemes came to light, if they couldnt convince they resorted to threats, bribery or the
outright subversion of the standard setting process itself, which destroyed trust and rendered all our
electronic interactions far less safe. Tunneling underground, NSA, telcos and corporate tech giants worked
hand-in-glove to sabotage what could have been a free and open system of global communications,
creating instead the Frankenstein monster which AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein denounced as a Big
Brother machine.

A2 Off-Case

A2: T Surveillance
Surveillance requires dissemination NOT just collection
LSHTM 09
The London School of Hygenie and Tropical Medicine, The use of epidemiological tools in conflict-affected
populations: open-access educational resources for policy-makers, 2009,
http://conflict.lshtm.ac.uk/page_68.htm SJE

Surveillance: Systematic ongoing collection, collation, and analysis

of data and the timely dissemination of information to those who need
to know so that action can be taken. -- World Health Organization OR The ongoing
systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation of health data,
essential to the planning, implementation, and evaluation of public
health practice, closely integrated with the timely dissemination of these
data to those who need to know. -- U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention But what does this
mean? Surveillance is the continuous gathering of health data needed to monitor the population's health

Note the words "dissemination...to

those who need to know" in both definitions. This means that
collection of health data without sharing and using those data is NOT
status in order to provide or revise needed services.

surveillance.

A2: Terrorism DA L Turn

Taking privacy away from normal citizens only
exacerbates the problem of finding terrorists
Economist 15 (The Economist, The Right to be Left Alone,

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21639988-why-dopeople-cherish-privacy-yet-cheerfully-surrender-it-right-be-left-alone, ST)
Some years ago, The Economist organised an online debate on the topic. The outcome, after weeks of
commentary with much virtual ink being spilled, was that readers voted by a handsome margin for the
defence of privacy. The majority viewed privacy as sacrosanct. Nothing in their concern over terrorism
justified sacrificing privacy on the alter of pragmatism. Other media surveys since have broadly agreed,

Yet reality suggests otherwise.

Britons put up with ubiquitous closed-circuit TV cameras that track
their every move in public as a way of reducing crime. Few
Americans have been agitated by the way the NSA was authorised,
in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, to
engage in warrantless wiretapping of the phone calls of fellow
Americans on an unprecedented scale. On the internet, people (your
correspondent included) hand over their personal data freely. The
fact is, information technologies make life richer, easier, more
rewarding. They increase productivity, efficiency and economic
growth. They help people relate to one another, create
opportunities, realise dreams. All that these free internet services
ask for in return is one's personal informationso they can sell it to
advertisers to make a profit. Thus, both privacy and security are
traded for convenience. And it all seems a reasonable bargain. Once,
not all that long ago, people considered their personal information
to be just thatpersonal. But once they started sharing it over the
internet, it ceased being truly private. Our behaviour changed, but
our expectations did not, Eric Sterner, a fellow at the George C.
Marshall Institute, a policy think-tank, wrote in the Washington
Examiner last year. In Mr Sterners view, the privacy-versus-security
debate is essentially over. Privacy died with the information age.
Yet, in a sense, the issue is not whether to accept some erosion of
privacy, so governments may protect their people better from evildoers. Rather, the issue is whether doing so will actually make their
country safer. The question asked repeatedly since the intelligence
agencies embarked on their wholesale wiretapping of private
citizens is, "does profiling hundreds of millions of good guys help to
unmask the few dozen bad guys in their midst?" There is scant
evidence that it does. Many would argue instead that granting the
intelligence agencies yet further powers to intercept, collect,
decrypt and store still more exabytes of personal data only
exacerbates their problem of finding the terrorist needle in the
public haystack. The answer, surely, is to rely more on tried and
tested methods of criminal investigation and trade-craft. In short, to
depend less on computer data and more on real human intelligence.
Citizens might then not have to chose between privacy and security.
They could, in a very real sense, have both.
favouring privacy over security by, typically, two-to-one.

A2: Terrorism DA L Turn

Court ordered decryption solves any risk of a link to the
terrorism disad the Secure Data Act allows for that but
its LAWFUL and NOT MANDATORY which solves the entire
aff
Bennett 5/28/15 [Cory: cybersecurity writer for The Hill, UN report:
Encryption crucial for human rights, The Hill, May 28, 2015
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/243381-un-report-encryptionnecessary-to-exercise-human-rights // emb].

"I certainly have great respect for those that would argue that the most important thing is to ensure the
privacy of our citizens and we shouldnt allow any means for the government to access information, NSA
Director Adm. Michael Rogers said during a speech in Estonia on Wednesday, according to reports. I

weve got to create some

structure that should enable us to do that, mindful that it has to be
done in a legal way and mindful that it shouldn't be something
arbitrary, he continued. The U.N. report, while decrying backdoors,
does give some credence to the concept of court-ordered
decryption. Court-ordered decryption, subject to domestic and
international law, may only be permissible when it results from
transparent and publicly accessible laws applied solely on a
targeted, case-by-case basis to individuals (i.e., not to a mass of people) and
subject to judicial warrant and the protection of due process rights
of individuals, it says. The report does not explain exactly how a company would decrypt its
would argue that's not in the nations best long term interest, that

data, though. Companies such as Apple and Google have encryption in place that they say locks even
them out. The White House is expected to release a report soon detailing several options for law
enforcement to bypass encryption and access data during investigations.

A2: Terrorism DA Defense

Lone wolf terrorists are becoming low tech. Catching
future lone wolf terrorists will require actual arrests, not
surveillance.
Rogin, Lake 6/25/15
Josh, senior correspondent for national security and politics for The Daily Beast, Eli, senior national-security
correspondent for The Daily Beast. He previously covered national security and intelligence for The
Washington Times, FBI rounds up suspected lone wolves,
http://bangordailynews.com/2015/06/25/news/nation/fbi-rounds-up-suspected-lone-wolves/ //NA
The FBI has been rounding up more potential lone wolf terrorists, congressional leaders and the
Justice Department say, in response to the perception of a mounting threat of domestic attacks
inspired by the Islamic State. Since the thwarted attack on a Draw Mohammed conference in
Garland, Texas, on May 3, the Justice Department has announced the arrests of 10 individuals it
says were inspired by and supporting the Islamic State. The lawmakers say there have been
more arrests that have not yet been announced. They say the FBI has shifted its approach
toward arrests rather than keeping suspects under surveillance, and is also targeting
individuals thought to be planning attacks in the U.S., unlike the bureaus past focus on volunteers
preparing to join Islamic States fight abroad. Lately, we have seen an uptick in the number of
arrests of ISIL followers who were planning violent acts in our homeland, said John Carlin, the
assistant attorney general for national security. ISIL, differing from some other foreign
terrorist organizations, has demonstrated that they see value in mobilizing sympathizers
anywhere in the world. The spate of arrests comes in response to what congressional leaders
and the Justice Department say is a mounting threat that radicalized Americans will attempt
low-tech, lone wolf attacks in the near future. Lawmakers see the changes as necessary because the
Islamic State uses social media so effectively to radicalize Americans and because the group is getting
better at using encryption to shield its communications with new recruits.

Tracking down lone wolf terrorists is a waste of

government time and money, its like finding a needle in a
haystack
Gomez 14
David, is a former assistant special agent in charge and counterterrorism program manager with the FBI.
He now runs HLS Global Consultants, a risk-mitigation consulting firm, The Myth of the Big Bad Lone Wolf,
Foreign Policy, http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/10/25/the-myth-of-the-big-bad-lone-wolf/ //NA
The terror attack on Canadian soldier Nathan Cirillo and the Canadian Parliament by recent
Muslim convert Michael Zehaf-Bibeau has re-focused attention on the threat from "lone-wolf"
terrorists, those who operate "without direction from abroad and without help from a terrorist
organization or cell." The current discussion once again revolves around whether or not increased
surveillance by Canadian law enforcement and intelligence agencies could have prevented the attack
and whether such efforts are worth the expense in terms of law enforcement manpower and the erosion of
civil liberties in Canada. They are not. In the FBI, trying to prevent these type of lone wolf attacks
is a Sisyphean task known among agents as a BFWAT, or Big Fucking Waste of an Agents
Time. Thats no less true for Canadas FBI equivalent, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). Much
like the FBI in the United States, the RCMP has primary responsibility for preventing and investigating
criminal terrorist activity in Canada. Along with Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) the
intelligence service that was created from the RCMPs Security Service in 1984 and that has no law
enforcement function or powers the RCMP has limited resources available to find and monitor every
potential lone wolf in Canada. Particularly when the threat from lone-wolf terrorists is minimal compared to
broader national security threats from al Qaeda- and Islamic State-trained terrorists in the United States,
Canada, and abroad. The lone-wolf phenomenon sometimes dismissively referred to within U.S. law
enforcement circles as "stray-dogs" is a real threat. But unlike the threat posed by criminal enterprises
or even known terrorist organizations, lone wolves are nearly impossible to identify and investigate. By
their very nature they have the power of anonymity. While most lone wolves have never heard of Louis
Beams theory of leaderless resistance, all true lone wolves ascribe to his tenant involving "very small or
one-man cells of resistance." Beam understood that one-man cells are "an intelligence nightmare" and
near impossible to police. True lone wolves remain a fairly rare phenomenon by law enforcement
or criminal investigative standards. Michael Zehaf-Bibeau was not, however, a true lone wolf. The
classic lone wolf often mirrors the personality, preparation, and actions of the successful serial killer. Like
serial killer and rapist Ted Bundy, the lone wolf is intelligent, articulate, and personable to those he meets,
particularly potential victims, yet perceived as somewhat aloof and a loner to outsiders. Like "Unabomber"

Theodore Kaczynski, the lone wolf is organized and meticulous in the planning and preparation of his
crimes and often provides a written rational or manifesto for committing his crimes. In spite of Kaczynski
being a paranoid schizophrenic, he was able to remain undetected for 17 years until he wanted his
manifesto published. Being an organized offender, the classic lone wolf often prepares escape and
contingency plans. In the case of Eric Rudolph, a radical right-wing bomber in the 1990s, the lone wolf was
able to commit multiple crimes and live for years as a fugitive in the mountains of North Carolina. Most
importantly, the lone wolf offender, just like the serial killer he is or aspire to be, is successful. The true
lone wolf hides in plain sight, never drawing attention until something prompts him to act on his fantasy.
None of the above traits and characteristics fit Zehaf-Bibeaus profile. His life was a train wreck of drugs
and mental illness with little or no evidence of organization. While all current evidence points to the fact
that Zehaf-Bibeau was most-likely acting alone and without direction, he does not appear to be a classic
organized lone wolf. Rather he more closely resembles a spree killer who acts spontaneously, without a
plan, attempting to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible. Zehaf-Bibeau was on a
suicide mission with no expectation of survival, therefore no plan for escape. And as far as we know, he left
no manifesto or explanation of his actions. In short, Zehaf-Bibeau was a disorganized murderer, acting out
his fantasies. The dilemma for law enforcement in a constitutional or parliamentary democracy centers
around how to identify the Zehaf-Bibeaus of the world and prevent criminal acts when they represent such
a small minority among a terrorism demographic that, by definition, is willing to act without the direction
or support of any main terror organization. The media has been quick to label this case an intelligence
failure without considering the limitations on when an intelligence or criminal case can be initiated and
pursued by CSIS or the RCMP. According to Canadian media reports, Zehaf-Bibeau was neither a "high
priority" for CSIS nor on the RCMPs list of "90 or so individuals under criminal investigation as potential
threats," unlike the previous weeks lone wolf, Martin Couture-Rouleau "who waited in a parking lot for at
least two hours before driving his car into two Canadian soldiers." No one familiar with law enforcement
procedures will be surprised to learn that Zehaf-Bibeau wasnt on the radar of the RCMP or CSIS. Until he
began his shooting spree, Zehaf-Bibeau had committed no recent crime nor telegraphed any specific intent
to do so. Yet the Globe and Mail reported later that Zehaf-Bibeau "tried and failed to use prayer as a shield
against the drug addiction and mental instability stalking him through adulthood." And the New York Times
reported "despite a criminal record, an embrace of extremist ideas and an intent to travel to Syria" ZehafBibeau "was not identified as a threat." Even if Zehaf-Bibeau had somehow signaled his growing
radicalization, the RCMP would still have been constrained in its ability to investigate him. In the United
States the standard is for "reasonable suspicion." In Canada it is the same. Prior to the shooting there was
no evidence that the shooter presented a specific or articulable threat. The public dilemma for the
RCMP, and also the FBI in the U.S., is how to identify the less than one percent of offenders who
will evolve and mature into violent, psychopathic, spree-killing terrorists and, possibly, selforganized lone wolf offenders without violating their civil rights and everyone elses.
Absent specific intelligence to direct law enforcement to the most dangerous terrorist threats and develop
reasonable suspicion to open a case, the FBI or RCMP will be forced to conduct assessments on
every wanna-be jihadist, angsty teenager with a grudge, psychopath looking for an excuse to
kill, and generally disorganized murderous wing-nut seeking revenge whether religious or
otherwise in order to find that one percent reflecting a potential "lone wolf" terrorist.
Needless to say, thats a tremendous waste of officers time and taxpayers resources. Finding
a true lone wolf offender is like trying to find the proverbial needle in a haystack. Michael ZehafBibeau is gone. Canada and the world may never determine exactly what drove him murder to Nathan
Cirillo and attempt to murder numerous others. But so far, Canada is responding responsibly to the
tragedy, not allowing temporary anger to distract them from the real threat: al Qaeda, the Islamic State,
and the other transnational terror groups around the world, organizing and planning the next big terrorist
attack on the West.

Giving up civil liberties to counterterrorism is pointless,

more people died of diabetes than terrorism in 2001
Friedersdorf 13
Conor, staff writer at The Atlantic, where he focuses on politics and national affairs, The Irrationality of
Giving Up This Much Liberty to Fight Terror, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/theirrationality-of-giving-up-this-much-liberty-to-fight-terror/276695/ //NA
The image is still powerful, isn't it? So are the anger, and the memories. Most Americans don't just
remember where they were on September 11, 2001 -- they remember feeling frightened. Along
with anger, that's one emotion I felt, despite watching the attacks from a different continent. That week,
you couldn't have paid me to get on a plane to New York or Washington, D.C. Even today, I'm aware that
terrorists target exactly the sorts of places that I frequent. I fly a lot, sometimes out of LAX. I've ridden the
subway systems in London and Madrid. I visit Washington and New York several times a year. I live in
Greater Los Angeles. But like most people, I've never let fear of terrorism stop me from enjoying
life's opportunities and pleasures. I wouldn't have my current job if I hadn't moved to New York for
graduate school in 2005, and then to Washington a couple of years later. It isn't that I never thought, or
worried, about the fact that those cities are prime targets of terrorism. Rather, my intellect got the
better of my fears, something that happens every time I get on a commercial airliner and remind myself

that it's far safer than making the same trip by car; or every time that I jump into the Pacific Ocean,
knowing that, as terrifying as sharks are, it's unlikely I'll be killed by one. As individuals, Americans are
generally good at denying al-Qaeda the pleasure of terrorizing us into submission. Our cities are bustling;
our subways are packed every rush hour; there doesn't seem to be an empty seat on any flight I'm ever
on. But as a collective, irrational cowardice is getting the better of our polity. Terrorism isn't something
we're ceding liberty to fight because the threat is especially dire compared to other dangers of the
modern world. All sorts of things kill us in far greater numbers. Rather, like airplane crashes
and shark attacks, acts of terror are scarier than most causes of death. The seeming
contradictions in how we treat different threats suggest that we aren't trading civil liberties for security,
but a sense of security. We aren't empowering the national-security state so that we're safer, but so we
feel safer. Of course we should dedicate significant resources and effort to stopping terrorism. But consider
some hard facts. In 2001, the year when America suffered an unprecedented terrorist attack -by far the biggest in its history -- roughly 3,000 people died from terrorism in the U.S. Let's
put that in context. That same year in the United States: 71,372 died of diabetes. 29,573
were killed by guns. 13,290 were killed in drunk driving accidents. That's what things looked
like at the all-time peak for deaths by terrorism. Now let's take a longer view. We'll choose an
interval that still includes the biggest terrorist attack in American history: 1999 to 2010. Again, terrorists
killed roughly 3,000 people in the United States. And in that interval, roughly 360,000 were killed by guns
(actually, the figure the CDC gives is 364,483 -- in other words, by rounding, I just elided more gun deaths
than there were total terrorism deaths). roughly 150,000 were killed in drunk-driving accidents. Measured
in lives lost, during an interval that includes the biggest terrorist attack in American history, guns posed a
threat to American lives that was more than 100 times greater than the threat of terrorism. Over the same
interval, drunk driving threatened our safety 50 times more than terrorism. Those aren't the only
threats many times more deadly than terrorism, either. The CDC estimates that food poisoning
kills roughly 3,000 Americans every year. Every year, food-borne illness takes as many lives in the
U.S. as were lost during the high outlier of terrorism deaths. It's a killer more deadly than terrorism.
Should we cede a significant amount of liberty to fight it? Government officials, much of the media, and
most American citizens talk about terrorism as if they're totally oblivious to this context -- as if it is
different than all other threats we face, in both kind and degree. Since The Guardian and other news
outlets started revealing the scope of the surveillance state last week, numerous commentators and
government officials, including President Obama himself, have talked about the need to properly "balance"
liberty and security. The U.S. should certainly try to prevent terrorist attacks, and there is a lot that
government can and has done since 9/11 to improve security in ways that are totally unobjectionable. But
it is not rational to give up massive amounts of privacy and liberty to stay marginally safer
from a threat that, however scary, endangers the average American far less than his or her
daily commute. In 2011*, 32,367 Americans died in traffic fatalities. Terrorism killed 17 U.S.
civilians that year. How many Americans feared dying in their vehicles more than dying in a
terrorist attack?

A2: PRISM CP
Ending PRISM doesnt do anything its a part of the
misinformation campaign constructed to distract the
public from programs like Bullrun
Paganini 13 [Pierluigi: Chief Information Security Officer at Bit4Id, firm
leader in identity management, member of the ENISA (European Union
Agency for Network and Information Security), cyber security expert with
over 20 years experience in the field, he is Certified Ethical Hacker at EC
Council in London, NSA Bullrun program, encryption and false perception of
security, Security Affairs, September 7, 2013,
http://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/17577/intelligence/nsa-bullrun-programfalse-perception-security.html // emb].
NSA and other agencies siphoned data from land and undersea
cables, just after the revelations on PRISM program intelligence has
started a misinformation campaign sustaining that US authorities
was working to find the way to crack encrypted traffic, in reality the
agency has no reason to do it and the Bullrun program is the proof .
Misinformation as a pure diversion to influence the global sentiment
and keep the lights of the media far from the dirty collusions of
governments and private companies. None of methods used to
access to encryption keys involve in cracking the algorithms and the
math underlying the encryption, but rely upon circumventing and
otherwise undermining encryption.

A2: Cyber Treaty CP

Red-line approaches dont solve
Dinniss 15
Heather, senior lecturer at the Swedish Defence University who has helped to run cyber-defence war
games for NATO, How should the law deal with non-physical attacks?, 5/6/15, BBC,
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-32534923 SJE
There's a broad level of agreement about the rules of cyber-warfare. Pretty much everybody agrees that
death or physical injury to persons or damage to property amounts to an attack. For example Stuxnet was
the attack against the Iranian Natanz Nuclear Enrichment Facility which caused physical harm to
enrichment centrifuges. What do you do about data-only attacks such as against Saudi Aramco, where
machines are wiped, but there is no physical harm? The computer is still sitting there, but doesn't work
anymore. Are you dealing with the use of force, or are you going to deal with it solely as a criminal justice

When it comes to cyber, because it's such a fluid environment,

establishing a red line on escalation isn't going to be helpful. I think at
the moment we need to just stick with our general principles on
proportionality and responses in that area. States tend to play things close
to their chest, and aren't going to want to give away what they are
capable of. The problem with a cyber-treaty is it's either going to become
very outdated very quickly, or you're going to end up with something
that is so general that you may as well have just applied the treaties
that you already had.
matter?

A2: Courts CP
Courts cant solve the NSA is shielded

CHARLIE SAVAGE and SCOTT SHANE 2013 (Scott Shane is an American

journalist, currently employed by The New York Times, reporting principally
about the United States intelligence community, Charlie Savage is a
Washington correspondent for The New York Times. He is known for his work
on presidential power and national security legal policy matters. e graduated
summa cum laude with a degree in English and American Literature and
Language from Harvard College in 1998. In 2003, he earned a masters
degree from Yale Law School, where he was a Knight Journalism Fellow. Mr.
Savage got his start as a local government and politics reporter for the Miami
Herald.)
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/charlie_savage/i
ndex.html?
action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&module=Byline&region=Header&pgtyp
e=article
WASHINGTON A federal judge sharply rebuked the National Security
Agency in 2011 for repeatedly misleading the court that oversees its
surveillance on domestic soil, including a program that is collecting
tens of thousands of domestic e-mails and other Internet
communications of Americans each year, according to a secret ruling
made public on Wednesday. The 85-page ruling by Judge John D.
Bates, then serving as chief judge on the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court, involved an N.S.A. programthat systematically
searches the contents of Americans international Internet
communications, without a warrant, in a hunt for discussions about
foreigners who have been targeted for surveillance. The Justice
Department had told Judge Bates that N.S.A. officials had discovered
that the program had also been gathering domestic messages for
three years. Judge Bates found that the agency had violated the
Constitution and declared the problems part of a pattern of
misrepresentation by agency officials in submissions to the secret
court. The release of the ruling, the subject of a Freedom of Information Act
lawsuit, was the latest effort by the Obama administration to gain
control over revelations about N.S.A. surveillance prompted by leaks
by the former agency contractor Edward J. Snowden. The collection
is part of a broader program under a 2008 law that allows
warrantless surveillance on domestic networks as long as it is
targeted at noncitizens abroad. The purely domestic messages
collected in the hunt for discussions about targeted foreigners
represent a relatively small percentage of what the ruling said were
250 million communications intercepted each year in that broader
program. While the N.S.A. fixed problems with how it handled those
purely domestic messages to the courts satisfaction, the 2011
ruling revealed further issues. The court is troubled that the
governments revelations regarding N.S.A.s acquisition of Internet
transactions mark the third instance in less than three years in
which the government has disclosed a substantial misrepresentation

regarding the scope of a major collection program, Judge Bates wrote. One of
the examples was redacted in the ruling. Another involved a separate N.S.A. program that keeps logs of all
domestic phone calls, which the court approved in 2006 and which came to light in June as a result of leaks
by Mr. Snowden. In March 2009, a footnote said, the surveillance court learned that N.S.A. analysts were
using the phone log database in ways that went beyond what the judges believed to be the practice
because of a repeated inaccurate statements in government filings to the court. Contrary to the
governments repeated assurances, N.S.A. had been routinely running queries of the metadata using

Judge Bates recounted. He

cited a 2009 ruling that concluded that the requirement had been
so frequently and systematically violated that it can fairly be said
that this critical element of the overall ... regime has never
functioned effectively. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a free speech and privacy rights
querying terms that did not meet the standard for querying,

group, sued to obtain the ruling after Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who sits on the Senate
Intelligence Committee, fought last summer to declassify the basic fact that the surveillance court had

Mr. Wyden an
outspoken critic of N.S.A. surveillance said declassification of the
ruling was long overdue. He argued that while the N.S.A. had
increased privacy protections for purely domestic and unrelated
communications that were swept up in the surveillance, the
collection itself was a serious violation of the Fourth Amendment.
ruled that the N.S.A. had violated the Fourth Amendment. In a statement,

Mark Rumold of the Electronic Frontier Foundation praised the administration for releasing the document

But he
also said the ruling showed the surveillance court was not equipped
to perform adequate oversight of the N.S.A. This opinion illustrates
that the way the court is structured now it cannot serve as an
effective check on the N.S.A. because its wholly dependent on the
representations that the N.S.A. makes to it, Mr. Rumold said. It has
no ability to investigate. And its clear that the N.S.A.
representations have not been entirely candid to the court. A
senior intelligence official, speaking to reporters in a conference
call, portrayed the ruling as showing that N.S.A. oversight was
robust and serious. He said that some 300 N.S.A. employees were
assigned to seek out even inadvertent violations of the rules and
that the court conducted vigorous oversight. The ruling focused on a program
under which the N.S.A. has been searching domestic Internet links for
communications where at least one side is overseas in which
there are strong selectors indicating insider knowledge of
someone who has been targeted for foreign-intelligence collection.
One example would be mentioning a persons private e-mail address in the body of an e-mail. Most of
the time, the system brings up single communications, like an e-mail
or text message. But sometimes many messages are packaged and
travel in a bundle that the N.S.A. calls multi-communication
transactions. A senior intelligence official gave one example: a Web
page for a private e-mail in-box that displays subject lines for dozens
of different messages each of which is considered a separate
communication, and only one of which may discuss the person who
has been targeted for intelligence collection. While Judge Bates ruled that it was
acceptable for the N.S.A. to collect and store such bundled communications, he said the agency
was not doing enough to minimize the purely domestic and
unrelated messages to protect Americans privacy. In response, the N.S.A.
with relatively few redactions, although he criticized the time and the difficulty in obtaining it.

agreed to filter out such communications and store them apart, with greater protections, and to delete
them after two years instead of the usual five. A Justice Department white paper released with the ruling
shed new light on N.S.A. surveillance of communications streaming across domestic telecommunications
networks. Such upstream collection, which still must be targeted at or be about noncitizens abroad,

accounts for about 10 percent of all the Internet messages collected

in the United States, it said; the other 90 percent are obtained from
Internet companies under the system the N.S.A. calls Prism. The
administration also released a partly redacted semiannual report
about compliance incidents, or mistakes involving the privacy
rights of Americans or people in the United States. It found that there had been
no willful violations of the rules, and that fewer than 1 percent of queries by analysts involved errors. The
document also showed that the government recently changed the rules to allow N.S.A. and C.I.A. analysts
to search its databases of recorded calls and e-mails using search terms designed to find information
involving American citizens, not foreigners an issue that has long concerned Senator Wyden and that
was mentioned in a document leaked by Mr. Snowden and published by The Guardian. The number of
selectors designed to filter out and store communications targeted at foreigners had gone up steadily,
the document said, although the numbers were redacted. And its increase is expected to accelerate
because the F.B.I. recently made the ability to nominate people for such collection more widely available
to its field office personnel.

A2: XO CP Perm
Executive Orders dont solve cybersecurity, Congress +
Executive key to solve
Blackburn and Scalise 12
Marsha, Steve, Members of Congress, Other signatures of the letter: 44 other
members of congress, Republicans Demand White House Not Issue
Cybersecurity Executive Order,
http://blackburn.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?
DocumentID=315922 //NA
Dear President Obama: We write to express our grave concern
regarding the Administrations non-transparent pursuit of an
Executive Order related to cybersecurity. Now is not the time to put heave-handed
regulations on industries that need incentives to improve their cyber defenses and share cyber threat
information. Instead of preempting Congress will and pushing a top-down regulatory framework, your
administration should engage Congress in an open and constructive manner to help address the serious
cybersecurity challenges facing our country. This Congress the House passed bipartisan cybersecurity

in sober recognition that cyber attacks have grown by 650

percent in the past 5 years. Allowing these trends to proliferate and
failing to provide real solutions harms job-creation, consumer
protection, and the future of the Internet, whose future success will
greatly depend on improving user trust and security online. That is why
legislation

the House supported legislation that provides liability-sharing with strong privacy safeguards. This
framework will work better than attempts to place the government in charge of overseeing minimum
standards for industries seeking to invest in new and innovative security solutions. Incentive-based
security is necessary because rapid changes in technology guarantee the failure of static, regulatory
approaches. We believe stakeholders in the cyber ecosystem should be encouraged to develop and deploy

Lets work together to enhance

our cybersecurity so we can improve our national security and
ensure greater confidence in the global online marketplace.
Imposing a backdoor regulatory framework through Executive Order
will not solve our cybersecurity challenges. We urge you to find
common ground and work with Congress on real solutions.
innovative security solutions in a cooperative fashion.

Misc

Cooperation Key
The NSA relies upon the cooperation of tech and internet
companies either its voluntary or coerced via fines and
jail time
Larson 13 [Jeff: Data Editor at ProPublica. Won the Livingston Award,
Revealed: The NSAs Secret Campaign to Crack, Undermine Internet
Security, ProPublica, September 5, 2013
http://www.propublica.org/article/the-nsas-secret-campaign-to-crackundermine-internet-encryption // emb].

When the N.S.A. was founded, encryption was an obscure technology used mainly by diplomats and
military officers. Over the last 20 years, with the rise of the Internet, it has become ubiquitous. Even
novices can tell that their exchanges are being automatically encrypted when a tiny padlock appears next
to the Web address on their computer screen.

Because strong encryption can be so

effective, classified N.S.A. documents make clear, the agencys
success depends on working with Internet companies by getting
their voluntary collaboration, forcing their cooperation with court
orders or surreptitiously stealing their encryption keys or altering
their software or hardware. According to an intelligence budget document leaked by Mr.
Snowden, the N.S.A. spends more than $250 million a year on its Sigint
Enabling Project, which actively engages the U.S. and foreign IT
industries to covertly influence and/or overtly leverage their
commercial products designs to make them exploitable. Sigint is
the abbreviation for signals intelligence, the technical term for
electronic eavesdropping. By this year, the Sigint Enabling Project
had found ways inside some of the encryption chips that scramble
information for businesses and governments, either by working with
chipmakers to insert back doors or by surreptitiously exploiting
existing security flaws, according to the documents. The agency also expected
to gain full unencrypted access to an unnamed major Internet phone
call and text service; to a Middle Eastern Internet service; and to the
communications of three foreign governments. In one case, after the
government learned that a foreign intelligence target had ordered new computer hardware, the American
manufacturer agreed to insert a back door into the product before it was shipped, someone familiar with

The 2013 N.S.A. budget request highlights

partnerships with major telecommunications carriers to shape the
global network to benefit other collection accesses that is, to
allow more eavesdropping. At Microsoft, as The Guardian has reported, the
N.S.A. worked with company officials to get pre-encryption access to
Microsofts most popular services, including Outlook e-mail, Skype
Internet phone calls and chats, and SkyDrive, the companys cloud
storage service. Microsoft asserted that it had merely complied with
lawful demands of the government, and in some cases, the
collaboration was clearly coerced. Executives who refuse to comply
the request told The Times.

with secret court orders can face fines or jail time.

SIGINT
The Importance of SIGINT
NSA, 2015

NSA, National Security Administration, March 2nd 2015, Signals Intelligence,

https://www.nsa.gov/sigint/
The National Security Agency is responsible for providing foreign
Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) to our nation's policy-makers and
military forces. SIGINT plays a vital role in our national security by
providing America's leaders with critical information they need to
defend our country, save lives, and advance U.S. goals and alliances
globally. SIGINT is intelligence derived from electronic signals and
systems used by foreign targets, such as communications systems,
radars, and weapons systems. SIGINT provides a vital window for our
nation into foreign adversaries' capabilities, actions, and intentions.
NSA's SIGINT mission is specifically limited to gathering information
about international terrorists and foreign powers, organizations, or
persons. NSA produces intelligence in response to formal requirements
levied by those who have an official need for intelligence, including all
departments of the Executive Branch of the United States Government. The
SIGINT mission must keep pace with advances in the high speed, multifunctional technologies of today's information age. The ever-increasing
volume, velocity and variety of today's signals make the production
of relevant and timely intelligence for military commanders and
national policy-makers more challenging and exciting than ever.
While modern telecommunications technology poses significant challenges to
SIGINT, the many languages used in the nations and regions of the world that
are of interest to our military and national leaders require NSA to maintain a
wide variety of language capabilities as well. Indeed, successful SIGINT
depends on the skills of language professionals, mathematicians, analysts,
and engineers, to name just a few. The critical thinking and vitality required
to accomplish our strategic goals depend on a diverse workforce, divergent
points of view, and a fully inclusive environment. NSA has a strong tradition
of employing dedicated, highly qualified people deeply committed to
maintaining the Nation's security. While technology will obviously continue to
be a key element of our future, NSA recognizes that technology is only as
good as the people creating it and the people using it.

SIGINT is used for Foreign Surveillance and Decryption

Casaretto, 2013

John Casaretto, Staff Writer at Silicon Angle, September 6th 2013, Bullrun:
The NSA Backdoor or Anti-Encryption Bug Program that Breaks Most
Encryption on the Internet http://siliconangle.com/blog/2013/09/06/bullrunthe-nsa-backdoor-anti-encryption-bug-program-that-breaks-most-encryptionon-the-internet/
According to an intelligence budget document leaked by Mr. Snowden, the
N.S.A. spends more than $250 million a year on its Sigint Enabling
Project, which actively engages the U.S. and foreign IT industries to

covertly influence and/or overtly leverage their commercial

products designs to make them exploitable. Sigint is the
abbreviation for signals intelligence, the technical term for
electronic eavesdropping.
By this year, the Sigint Enabling Project had found ways inside some
of the encryption chips that scramble information for businesses and
governments, either by working with chipmakers to insert back
doors or by surreptitiously exploiting existing security flaws,
according to the documents. The agency also expected to gain full
unencrypted access to an unnamed major Internet phone call and
text service; to a Middle Eastern Internet service; and to the
communications of three foreign governments.

The Purpose of SIGINT

New York Times, 2013

New York Times, September 5th 2013, Secret Documents Reveal N.S.A.
Campaign Against Encryption,
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/05/us/documents-reveal-nsacampaign-against-encryption.html
The SIGNT Enabling Project actively engages the US and foreign IT
industries to covertly influence and/or overtly leverage their commercial
products' designs. These design changes make the systems in
question exploitable through SIGINT collection (e.g., Endpoint,
Midpoint, ect.) with foreknowledge of the modification. To the
consumer and other adversaries, however, the systems' security
remains intact. In this way, the SIGINT Enabling approach uses
commercial technology and insight to manage the increasing cost
and technical challenges of discovering and successfully exploiting
systems of interest within the ever-more integrated and securityfocused global communications environment.

The Functionality of SIGINT

James Ball, Julian Borger and Glenn Greenwald, 2013

James Ball, Julian Borger and Glenn Greenwald, Staff Writers at the Guardian,
September 6th 2013, Revealed: how US and UK spy agencies defeat internet
privacy and security, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsagchq-encryption-codes-security
The key component of the NSA's battle against encryption, its
collaboration with technology companies, is detailed in the US intelligence
community's top-secret 2013 budget request under the heading "Sigint
[signals intelligence] enabling". Funding for the program $254.9m
for this year dwarfs that of the Prism program, which operates at a
cost of $20m a year, according to previous NSA documents. Since
2011, the total spending on Sigint enabling has topped $800m. The
program "actively engages US and foreign IT industries to covertly influence
and/or overtly leverage their commercial products' designs", the document
states. None of the companies involved in such partnerships are named;
these details are guarded by still higher levels of classification. Among other
things, the program is designed to "insert vulnerabilities into commercial
encryption systems". These would be known to the NSA, but to no one else,

including ordinary customers, who are tellingly referred to in the document as

"adversaries"."These design changes make the systems in question
exploitable through Sigint collection with foreknowledge of the
modification. To the consumer and other adversaries, however, the systems'
security remains intact."

SIGINTs Purpose
Richelson, 2015

Jeffrey Richelson, PhD in political science from the University of Rochester in

1975 and has taught at the University of Texas, Austin and American
University, March 20 2015, The CIA and Signals Intelligence,
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB506/
Washington, DC, March 20, 2015 For decades the Central Intelligence Agency
has conducted a major signals intelligence (SIGINT) effort that often
placed it in competition with other members of the Intelligence
Community, according to a significant collection of declassified documentation posted today by the
National Security Archive (www.nsarchive.org). As described in a previously Top-Secret multi-volume
history of the CIA's role from 1947-1970 obtained by the Archive through the Freedom of Information Act

the CIA regularly struggled with not only Soviet

counterintelligence and international upheavals like the Iranian
revolution but overlapping missions and domestic budgetary battles
with the National Security Agency (NSA) and other entities during
the height of the Cold War. Among the CIA's successes described in
the documents that make up today's posting was the creation of the
RHYOLITE geosynchronous satellite program which allowed
continuous coverage of missile telemetry and targets in Eurasia.

Agency operatives were also able to tap into radio-telephone communications of Communist leaders as
they rode in limousines around Moscow, to track Soviet missile launches from two secret stations inside
the Shah's Iran, and to intercept Warsaw Pact communications from a tunnel dug under East Berlin. These
achievements were not without bureaucratic costs. The RHYOLITE program raised hackles at both the
National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), which oversaw much of U.S. satellite intelligence activity, and the
NSA, whose personnel initially found themselves cut out of the program. Overseas, the Soviet limo bugging
ended after a news report disclosed it and may also have led to the execution of the Soviet agent who
installed the listening devices. After the Shah fled Iran during the 1979 revolution, the founders of the
Islamic Republic quickly seized the two sensitive US monitoring sites, handing a major loss to American

These and other aspects of the CIA's long involvement with

SIGINT are described in over forty documents obtained by Archive
Senior Fellow Jeffrey Richelson through Freedom of Information Act
requests, archival research, and other websites.
intelligence.

Not Cards
NSA has forced other companies in the past and still could
Peterson and Nakashima 14 [Ellen Nakashima is a national security
reporter for The Washington Post. She focuses on issues relating to
intelligence, technology and civil liberties., Andrea Peterson covers
technology policy for The Washington Post, with an emphasis on
cybersecurity, consumer privacy, transparency, surveillance and open
government, House votes to rein in NSA back door surveillance powers,
June 20, 2014
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/06/20/housevotes-to-rein-in-nsa-back-door-surveillance-powers/ // mm].
If passed as-is by the Senate, the bill would block the government from
doing two things: search government databases for information on a
U.S. citizen without a warrant, and force an organization to build
into its product any technical "back door" that would assist the CIA
or NSA with electronic surveillance. Under a 2008 law known as the
FISA Amendments Act, the NSA may acquire communications
without an individualized warrant if one of the parties is reasonably
believed to be a foreigner located outside the country and if the
information is for a valid foreign intelligence purpose. The amendment
would bar the use of funds for searching an American's communications under this authority without a
warrant. Government officials contend that they are not required to obtain a warrant to search on data
acquired lawfully. To do so would be a burden that would impair intelligence investigations, they say. The
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in 2011 reversed a previous ban on such warrantless searches.

The amendment would also block the NSA and the CIA from asking or
requiring a person to "alter its product or service to permit the
electronic surveillance" of users -- essentially a ban on back doors in
software and hardware.

Private Technology companies are key to hedge and all

other Industries
Aronowitz 2004 [Stanley, Proffesor of sociology, and cultural studies at
CUNY, Science as Power University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis,
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~mdr2/classes/76_101_D_Fall_04/readings/Aronowitzf
ull.htm ]
By the late nineteenth century, industrial production depended on
scientifically based technologies; the craft traditions, of which early manufacturing was
merely a form of rationalization, were themselves subordinated to the new technology ; the motive
force of production, energy, was no longer mechanical -- really an
extension of hand or water power -- but became electrical, the
principles of which derived from "pure research"; engineering replaced artisanal
knowledge in designing the mode of transformation of raw materials into end products; in turn, the
intellectual foundation of engineering became physics and
chemistry, which themselves were institutionalized into large
laboratories sponsored by and controlled by the state and large
corporations. Thus, science itself no longer is only a hegemonic

ideology of the new social order of capitalism and its industrial

stage, but becomes integrated into the practices and discourses of
production. The inter-changeability of science and technology is, of course, either denied or ignored
by most philosophers and scientists, but their growing convergence extends beyond the workplace.11As
scientific discourse permeates state and civil society, scientific culture spills over beyond the laboratory.
Business dares make no decisions that are not grounded on mathematical calculation that provides
projections; legislators enact laws based on "data" generated by scientifically trained experts Raymond
Callahan has noted, referring to education, that technological

Tech companies losing billions

Claire Cain Miller 14, 3-21-2014, "Revelations of N.S.A. Spying Cost U.S.
Tech Companies," New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/22/business/fallout-from-snowden-hurtingbottom-line-of-tech-companies.html
Microsoft has lost customers, including the government
of Brazil. IBM is spending more than a billion dollars to build data
centers overseas to reassure foreign customers that their
information is safe from prying eyes in the United States
government. And tech companies abroad, from Europe to South
America, say they are gaining customers that are shunning United
States providers, suspicious because of the revelations by Edward J. Snowden that tied these
SAN FRANCISCO

providers to the National Security Agencys vast surveillance program. Even as Washington grapples with
the diplomatic and political fallout of Mr. Snowdens leaks, the more urgent issue, companies and analysts

Technology executives, including Mark Zuckerberg of

Facebook, raised the issue when they went to the White House on
Friday for a meeting with President Obama. It is impossible to see
now the full economic ramifications of the spying disclosures in
part because most companies are locked in multiyear contracts
but the pieces are beginning to add up as businesses question the
trust worthiness of American technology products.
say, is economic.

The US Economy is the key to the Global Economy

Author Unknown
How does the US Economy Affect the Global Economy,
http://www.worldfinancialwatch.com/us-economy/how-does-the-us-economyaffect-the-world-economy/
The US dollar is used in most international transactions, so it stands
to reason that anything that happens with the US economy will
affect international finances in a substantial way. As the United
States Federal Reserve raises interest rates, the foreign exchange
value of the dollar usually goes up as well. One of the biggest ways
the US affects the worlds economy, though, is its buying power. With
gas prices going up and the dollar not worth as much as it used to be,
Americans are buying less. Many countries that export goods to the US will
have a reduction in demand for their products. Nations with less than stable
economies could suffer dramatically from this downturn in spending, which
would cause them to be less capable of buying American exports, furthering
the downward spiral. The US government has tried to combat this vicious
cycle by promoting free trade with foreign countries and a new economic
stimulus package. The stimulus package gives free money to American

citizens in hopes that they will spend the money on products instead of bills
or investments, thereby stimulating the economy. Some countries stand to
lose a lot if the United States were to fall into recession; there are
many people watching to see if the recent proposals of the US government
will turn the financial situation around.
Orlov, 2015
Dmitry Orlov, A Russian-American engineer and a writer on subjects related
to "potential economic, ecological and political decline and collapse in the
United States, March 3rd 2015, Financial Collapse Leads to War,
http://www.theburningplatform.com/2015/03/03/financial-collapse-leads-towar/
The US has surrendered its sovereignty to a clique of financial
oligarchs. Having nobody at all to answer to, this American (and to some
extent international) oligarchy has been ruining the financial condition of
the country, running up staggering levels of debt, destroying
savings and retirements, debasing the currency and so on. The
inevitable end-game is that the Federal Reserve (along with the
central banks of other developed economies) will end up buying
up all the sovereign debt issuance with money they print for that
purpose, and in the end this inevitably leads to hyperinflation and
national bankruptcy. A very special set of conditions has prevented these two events from
taking place thus far, but that doesnt mean that they wont, because thats what always happens, sooner
or later. Now, lets suppose a financial oligarchy has seized control of the country, and, since it cant
control its own appetites, is running it into the ground. Then it would make sense for it to have some sort
of back-up plan for when the whole financial house of cards falls apart. Ideally, this plan would effectively
put down any chance of revolt of the downtrodden masses, and allow the oligarchy to maintain security

Peacetime is fine for as long as it can placate the

populace with bread and circuses, but when a financial calamity
causes the economy to crater and bread and circuses turn scarce, a
handy fallback is war. Any rationale for war will do, be it terrorists foreign and domestic, Big
and hold onto its wealth.

Bad Russia, or hallucinated space aliens. Military success is unimportant, because failure is even better
than success for maintaining order because it makes it possible to force through various emergency
security measures. Various training runs, such as the military occupation of Boston following the staged

The surveillance
infrastructure and the partially privatized prison-industrial complex
are already in place for locking up the undesirables . A really huge
failure would provide the best rationale for putting the economy on
a war footing, imposing martial law, suppressing dissent, outlawing
extremist political activity and so on. And so perhaps that is what we should
expect. Financial collapse is already baked in, and its only a matter of
time before it happens, and precipitates commercial collapse when
global supply chains stop functioning. Political collapse will be
resisted, and the way it will be resisted is by starting as many wars
as possible, to produce a vast backdrop of failure to serve as a
rationale for all sorts of emergency measures, all of which will
have just one aim: to suppress rebellion and to keep the oligarchy in
power. Outside the US, it will look like Americans blowing things up:
countries, things, innocent bystanders, even themselves (because, you
know, apparently that works too). From the outside looking into Americas hall of
one-way mirrors, it will look like a country gone mad ; but then it already looks
bombings at the Boston Marathon, have already taken place.

that way. And inside the hall of one-way mirrors it will look like valiant defenders of liberty battling
implacable foes around the world. Most people will remain docile and just wave their little flags. But I

at some point failure will translate into metafailure: America will fail even at failing. I hope that there is something we can do to help this metawould venture to guess that

failure of failure happen sooner rather than later.