The United States Congress should restrict the National Security Agency’s ability to collect “bulk data” without a warrant

2AC Free Trade Mod

US IF leadership is key to free trade and solving protectionism

Downes 13 (Larry, Internet Indusry Analyst and Author, writer for Techdirt, Abusing The Surveillance Scandal To Punish Internet Freedom Even More, TechDirt, 11/15/13, https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131114/17382925250/abusing-surveillance-scandal-to-punish-internet-freedom-even-more.shtml)

Such agreements have historically dealt exclusively with trade involving physical goods, but now the focus is on information. As more and more of the world's commerce -- both physical and intangible -- moves online, we are witnessing a replay of the kind of trade wars that plagued world economies during much of the Industrial Revolution, with developing nations (then including the U.S.) using tariffs and other restrictions to prop up local industries. The goal of protectionism, then as now, was both to weaken the prospects for foreign companies and to impose political punishments in largely or even wholly unrelated international disputes. Senators Wyden and Thune, along with many of their colleagues in Congress and the Administration, are right to push harder for digital free trade. Despite the obvious social and economic benefits of unrestricted global commerce and the innately international nature of the Internet ecosystem, digital goods and services today are often regulated more severely than physical goods. Digital trade has, unfortunately, rekindled long-dormant and ultimately counter-productive protectionist tendencies. That's both because they are new and, in many economies, the only hope of significant growth. (Google, admittedly not a fully objective party in such disputes, posted an outstanding white paper on the topic back in 2010 -- a good background for anyone just tuning in here.) With notable exceptions (i.e., copyright), the U.S. has long been a consistent and authoritative voice of progressive policies here, a rare example where partisan politics have not infected the long-term interests of U.S. and non-U.S. constituencies. But that authority, as the Senators acknowledge, has been significantly destabilized in the wake of on-going leaks over U.S. domestic and foreign electronic surveillance conducted under both the USA Patriot and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Acts. Over the last six months, U.S. allies and not-so-friendly nations alike have seized on leaked information regarding the nature and scope of NSA and other U.S. government data collection and analysis as potent ammunition in some core struggles over the future of the global Internet. "In light of the recent revelations about the National Security Agency," Wyden and Thune write, "foreign consumers have understandably raised questions about the privacy of their online data. Unfortunately, these surveillance programs are giving cover to some trading partners to take measures against American technology companies under the auspices of protecting privacy. New digital trade rules are needed to be sure that current privacy concerns are not a stalking horse for protectionism." But it's not just protectionism. Depending on the country or region, the surveillance revelations are being used as evidence (1) of the need for continued or even enhanced limits on U.S.-based cloud service providers, (2) of U.S. hypocrisy in pushing for digital free speech and other human rights in more repressive countries, and (3) to renew the argument that national governments need more control over Internet governance. The free trade leg of this unholy tripod argues the severe and often secretive restrictions being placed on U.S.-based cloud service providers undermines their ability to protect the privacy of content hosted on behalf of non-U.S. residents and companies. These services, some governments now assert, should therefore be limited by law in favor of local industries who operate under local regulations that are more protective (at least on paper) of the privacy interests of their users. The human rights counter-offensive is little more than a "gotcha" argument that the U.S. has lost its moral authority to advocate on behalf of citizens in countries such as Iran, China and Russia. Given that the U.S. is subjecting U.S. and non-U.S. citizens to sweeping electronic surveillance despite the Bill of Rights, these countries and their proxies urge, their own surveillance and repression can't be criticized. We're no worse than you, in other words. The governance leg, finally, is a renewal of the putsch that was attempted and ultimately defeated as part of the International Telecommunications Union’s WCIT conference in Dubai late last year. Proponents of these and other anti-Internet initiatives tried to use a redrafting of U.N. telecommunications treaties as a back door to dismantle the engineering-driven, multi-stakeholder Internet governance model at the heart of what has made the digital ecosystem so successful. The U.S. government has too much influence over Internet governance, the argument continues to be made, now with new evidence to support it. Those who are using the surveillance scandal to argue for commercially-crippling U.S.-based Internet and cloud services, for deflecting digital human rights advocacy, and for destroying the multi-stakeholder governance system are practicing the worst kind of hypocrisy. Most don't care at all about the revelations (or worse, are complicit in them). They are simply looking for any ammunition at hand to deploy in long-standing and often counter-productive objectives -- objectives that were well on their way to righteous defeat. In many cases, the governments using the surveillance scandal have equally dirty hands. There are a lot of crocodile tears being shed about practices most if not all national governments surely knew was going on anyway. The leaks have made clear that some of the very same governments now wringing their hands are themselves past masters of the trade, and in many cases are themselves grateful users of much of the data the U.S. agencies have collected. To these arguments, Internet users should speak as one: A pox on all your houses. Unfortunately, and likely unintentionally, Internet users worldwide are doubly victims here. The surveillance scandal has provided new rhetorical opportunities to urge remedies that are almost certainly worse than the surveillance problem itself. Worse, that is, for users. It would be bitter justice if the debate over a more appropriate balance between national security and the privacy of innocent citizens instead promoted the interests of those whose true goals are not enhanced privacy protection, but likely its opposite. What these advocates really want is to slow the growth of cloud-based services for economic and political reasons, to suppress the potential of technology to advance democratic goals, and to bring the digital ecosystem to heel beneath the dead hand of jealous and incompetent national governments. To be clear, I have no intention here to appear to be shooting the messenger. As I wrote both long before and soon after the recent media firestorm over surveillance, it's difficult even to debate the merits of counter-terrorism measures when we know so little about what is actually being done. Both the Patriot Act and FISA are grossly deficient, at the very least, in providing both transparency and oversight, essential elements of meaningful democratic deliberation. The sooner we introduce meaningful reform to those aspects of the laws, the sooner we can go back to fighting to preserve and expand digital free trade, human rights, and multi-stakeholder Internet governance. In that regard, the joint editorial from Senators Wyden and Thune is not really so surprising. In each of these areas, Congress (along with both Republican and Democratic White Houses) has long demonstrated bi-partisan support for the best answers -- "best" economically and politically. The U.S. long held the moral high ground on these issues. We need to earn it back.

Global trade deescalates every conflict

Sapiro 2014 Miriam, Visiting Fellow in the Global Economy and Development program, former Deputy US Trade Representative, Why Trade Matters, September 2014, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/09/why%20trade%20matters/trade%20global%20views_final.pdf

This policy brief explores the economic rationale and strategic imperative of an ambitious domestic and global trade agenda from the perspective of the United States. International trade is often viewed through the relatively narrow prism of trade-offs that might be made among domestic sectors or between trading partners, but it is im- portant to consider also the impact that increased trade has on global growth, development and security. With that context in mind, this paper assesses the implications of the Asia-Pacific and European trade negotiations underway, including for countries that are not participating but aspire to join. It outlines some of the challenges that stand in the way of completion and ways in which they can be addressed. It examines whether the focus on "mega-regional" trade agreements comes at the expense of broader liberalization or acts as a catalyst to develop higher standards than might otherwise be possible. It concludes with policy recommendations for action by governments, legislators and stakeholders to address concerns that have been raised and create greater domestic support. It is fair to ask whether we should be concerned about the future of international trade policy when dire develop- ments are threatening the security interests of the United States and its partners in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Europe. In the Middle East, significant areas of Iraq have been overrun by a toxic offshoot of Al-Qaeda, civil war in Syria rages with no end in sight, and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is in tatters. Nuclear negotiations with Iran have run into trouble, while Libya and Egypt face continuing instability and domestic challenges. In Asia, historic rivalries and disputes over territory have heightened tensions across the region, most acutely by China's aggressive moves in the South China Sea towards Vietnam, Japan and the Philippines. Nuclear-armed North Korea remains isolated, reckless and unpredictable. In Africa, countries are struggling with rising terrorism, violence and corruption. In Europe, Russia continues to foment instability and destruction in eastern Ukraine. And within the European Union, lagging economic recovery and the surge in support for extremist parties have left people fearful of increasing violence against immigrants and minority groups and skeptical of further integration. It is tempting to focus solely on these pressing problems and defer less urgent issues—such as forging new dis- ciplines for international trade to another day, especially when such issues pose challenges of their own. But that would be a mistake. A key motivation in building greater domestic and international consensus for advanc- ing trade liberalization now is precisely the role that greater economic integration can play in opening up new avenues of opportunity for promoting development and increasing economic prosperity. Such initiatives can help stabilize key regions and strengthen the security of the United States and its partners. The last century provides a powerful example of how expanding trade relations can help reduce global tensions and raise living standards. Following World War II, building stronger economic cooperation was a centerpiece of allied efforts to erase battle scars and embrace former enemies. In defeat, the economies of Germany, Italy and Japan faced ruin and people were on the verge of starvation. The United States led efforts to rebuild Europe and to repair Japan's economy. A key element of the Marshall Plan, which established the foundation for unprecedented growth and the level of European integration that exists today, was to revive trade by reducing tariffs.1 Russia, and the eastern part of Europe that it controlled, refused to participate or receive such assistance. De- cades later, as the Cold War ended, the United States and Western Europe sought to make up for lost time by providing significant technical and financial assistance to help integrate central and eastern European countries with the rest of Europe and the global economy. "There have been subsequent calls for a "Marshall Plan" for other parts of the world,' although the confluence of dedicated resources, coordinated support and existing capacity has been difficult to replicate. Nonetheless, impor- tant lessons have been learned about the valuable role economic development can play in defusing tensions, and how opening markets can hasten growth. There is again a growing recognition that economic security and national security are two sides of the same coin. General Carter Ham, who stepped down is head of U.S. Africa Command last year, observed the close connection between increasing prosperity and bolstering stability. During his time in Africa he had seen that "security and stability in many ways depends a lot more on economic growth and oppor- tunity than it does on military strength."1 Where people have opportunities for themselves and their children, he found, the result was better governance, increased respect for human rights and lower levels of conflict. During his confirmation hearing last year, Secretary John Kerry stressed the link between economic and national security in the context of the competitiveness of the United States but the point also has broader application. Our nation cannot be strong abroad, he argued, if it is not strong at home, including by putting its own fiscal house in order. He asserted—rightly so—that "more than ever foreign policy is economic policy," particularly in light of increasing competition for global resources and markets. Every day, he said, "that goes by where America is uncertain about engaging in that arena, or unwilling to put our best foot forward and win, unwilling to dem- onstrate our resolve to lead, is a day in which we weaken our nation itself."4 Strengthening America's economic security by cementing its economic alliances is not simply an option, but an imperative. A strong nation needs a strong economy that can generate growth, spur innovation and create jobs. This is true, of course, not only for the United States but also for its key partners and the rest of the global trading system. Much as the United States led the way in forging strong military alliances after World War II to discourage a resurgence of militant nationalism in Europe or Asia, now is the time to place equal emphasis on shoring up our collective economic security. A failure to act now could undermine international security and place stability in key regions in further jeopardy.