College Policy Debate Forums
November 19, 2017, 03:33:19 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS WITH THE SITE, INCLUDING LOGGING IN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IMMEDIATELY.  EMAIL ME DIRECTLY OR USE THE CONTACT US LINK AT THE TOP.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register CEDA caselist Debate Results Council of Tournament Directors Edebate Archive  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
  Print  
Author Topic: 2011-2012 topic paper- Critical Infrastructure  (Read 20518 times)
kelly young
Full Member
***
Posts: 237



WWW
« Reply #45 on: May 02, 2011, 02:44:58 PM »

My concern about how broad the critical infrastructure topic will be concerns the definition of what constitutes "protection."

Here's the definition from the topic paper:

Protection includes actions to mitigate the overall risk to CIKR assets, systems, networks,
functions, or their inter-connecting links. In the context of the NIPP, this includes actions to
deter the threat, mitigate vulnerabilities, or minimize the consequences associated with a terrorist
attack or other incident (see figure S-1). Protection can include a wide range of activities,
such as improving security protocols, hardening facilities, building resiliency and
redundancy, incorporating hazard resistance into facility design, initiating active or
passive countermeasures, install-ing security systems, leveraging “self-healing”
technologies, promoting workforce surety programs, implementing cybersecurity
measures, training and exercises, business continuity planning, and restoration and
recovery actions, among various others.

Here's an example of what I fear: promoting workforce surety programs allows affirmative cases to institute programs to prevent
employees from falling asleep while monitoring infrastructure.  So, giving employees longer breaks so they don't doze off is topical?

First, Surety programs aren't regulations to stop sleeping. That's pure assertion. Surety programs are employee accreditation and authentication programs that ensure employees aren't terrorist or other high-risk people (http://www.sis.pitt.edu/~dtipper/2825/2825_Slides3.pdf).

For instance,
"We'll launch the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Personnel Surety Program, requiring high-risk chemical facilities to vet individuals with access against the Terrorist Screening Database." http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/speeches/sp_1296152572413.shtm

Also,
Initiate workforce surety measures through implementation of a standard identity credential for secure and reliable identification and authentication of Federal Government employees and contractors as specified in Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) Publication 201 and its supporting authorities. (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/nipp-ssp-national-monuments-icons.pdf)

Second, there is negative ground against this aff - First, it's a government employee identification and certification program.That federal regulation freaks out employees and employers (your biz con link). Second, it requires biometric and terrorist connection background checks (your biometrics bad, surveillance bad, security/terror talk bad links) (http://chemical-facility-security-news.blogspot.com/2009/06/cfats-personnel-surety-program-icr.html) (this link also makes it rather questionable that these surety affs are inherent). Remember, as I already discussed, in a world of voluntary compliance or reg neg CP, any risk of a link is more than enough to beat these small affs.

I agree that "substantial" may not check these affs, but the wording included in the controversy (note, that's not the same as a wording paper) is just an initial suggestion. Also, the controversy paper suggests eliminating "resiliency" as a possibility, so I'm not sure your point in the other post.

Yes, there are some small affs on this topic. The neg has a number of viable neg options besides "substantial" T and a spending link. This was all hashed out and debated last week.
Logged

Director of Forensics/Associate Professor
Wayne State University
313-577-2953
kelly.young [at] wayne.edu
www.wsuforensics.org
nickjsciullo
Newbie
*
Posts: 33


« Reply #46 on: May 02, 2011, 02:45:43 PM »

For what it's worth...  

If a concern is small AFFs like changing the way truckers are employed or how they drive, there's a national level debate right now about hours of service requirements that has folks polarized.  There are strong AFF and NEG arguments for increasing and decreasing hours of service (the time a truck driver can be on, aka driving).  There are new regulations that are set to be finalized in July.  Whether or not they are, or what they finally look like is not likely to matter because both sides will hold their respective line.  There will still be opposition from the American Trucking Association (ATA) and its state affiliates and there will still be support from a number of safety groups, including groups like the American Trial Lawyers Association (ATLA) and others.  Many small AFFs will have a wealth of information on both sides to warrant them being debated.  The hours of service requirements are currently the biggest concern for the trucking industry as was related to me by a trucking official in Indianapolis.  

Here's some evidence both ways on the issue.  

(__) Trucking industry opposes tightening of HOS.  
Press Enterprise 11.  Jack Katzanek, Trucking industry questions new hours of service laws, Press Enterprise, January 26, 2011, http://www.pe.com/business/local/stories/PE_Biz_D_hos23.14163f3.html

A federal proposal to tighten the number of hours a long-haul trucker is allowed to stay on the road is not gaining any support among drivers and others in the trucking industry.
The proposed change to truck drivers' hours-of-service rules was announced late last year. It comes on top of changes adopted several years ago.
"It could be very problematic in a sense that you have carriers who are just getting acclimated to the laws," said Eric Sauer, vice president for policy development at the California Trucking Association. "Now they'll have to turn schedules upside down again."
Not all of the proposals are set in stone yet. Currently truckers are limited to 11 hours behind the wheel in any one workday. The U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration could limit that to 10 hours or leave it at 11.
That would mean a week with either 60 or 70 driving hours. Truckers can restart this "work week" by taking 34 hours off, but the proposed regulations would force them to include two consecutive off-duty periods that specifically encompass the hours between midnight and 6 a.m., and would allow only one restart in a seven-day period.
Also, the proposal would require truckers to complete all their work within a 14-hour window that would include a one-hour break, meaning all the loading or unloading -- and the day's driving -- would be restricted to 13 hours.
The proposed changes were announced Dec. 23, and the federal agency is expected to make its final determination in late July. It will accept public comment on the proposals until Feb. 28, Sauer said.
"CTA is ramping up and trying to explain to the powers-that-be that this is not a good idea," he said.


(__) Tighter HOS requirements will increase pollution and decrease highway safety
Press Enterprise 11.  Jack Katzanek, Trucking industry questions new hours of service laws, Press Enterprise, January 26, 2011, http://www.pe.com/business/local/stories/PE_Biz_D_hos23.14163f3.html

But in 2007, there were an estimated 126,300 workers, and most distribution centers and ports are now operating with fewer people. Restrictions on trucking hours would make it even harder to get food and other items loaded and shipped to market on time.
"The shippers are all pushing to get freight moving to where it's got to go," said
Barry Queen, a Riverside-based independent trucker. "Taking more time to load takes away from the time on the road. It's ridiculous."
Valerie Liese, president of Ontario-based Jack Jones Trucking and a former president of the California Trucking Association, said that there's already of shortage of long-haul truckers, and this will exacerbate that. Also, restrictive hours means more trucks will likely use the roads in the daytime, making traffic and pollution worse.
Also, there are fewer freeway rest areas for truckers because of state budget restrictions, and a driver carrying hazardous materials is legally obligated to stay with the vehicle. The obstacles are many, Liese said
.


(__) Changes to HOS requirements are needed for highway safety
Press Enterprise 11.  Jack Katzanek, Trucking industry questions new hours of service laws, Press Enterprise, January 26, 2011, http://www.pe.com/business/local/stories/PE_Biz_D_hos23.14163f3.html

Federal officials say they're concerned that 11 hours is too long to ensure safety. According to a 2007 government study, 13 percent of all accidents involving big rigs are caused by driver fatigue.
Also, a transportation department report found that, of all trucking accidents, 65 percent of them happen when the driver is more than halfway to his or her destination.
The Bush-era law currently in effect extended the daily drive time limits from 10 to 11 hours but added two hours of mandatory rest, from eight to 10 hours.
Some say the proposed changes do not go far enough to ensure safe drivers. Bruce Millar, a Georgia attorney who represents accident victims, said in a statement released last week not only should the hours of service be shortened, but all commercial vehicles should be forced to have electronic monitors to ensure the laws are being followed.



Thanks,

Nick

Logged

Nick J. Sciullo
Assistant Professor of Communication and Rhetorical Studies
Director of Debate
Illinois College
jtedebate
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 52


« Reply #47 on: May 02, 2011, 05:56:49 PM »

The fact that Critical Infrastructure is a huge topic paper will allow more flexibility.  It will obviously be narrowed down substantially at the topic meeting.  Big, well-researched papers like this guard against an "immigration" topic becoming the H1B/Run from the topic year...

But crafting the specif resolutions is not easy...I'm glad people are engaged here and vetting this broad area.  Thanks everyone!
Logged
twhahn215
Newbie
*
Posts: 44


« Reply #48 on: May 06, 2011, 07:25:21 AM »

Some back-channels we've been receiving indicates some continued reluctance/uncertainty on how CIKR would evolve during the wording process. I wanted to quickly address these concerns.

First, I think the CIKR topic is possibly the best topic to take into the wording process precisely because it is diverse. Many of the other topic areas are comparatively narrow, meaning that when we get our list of potential resolution words later this summer there will be very little difference from one wording to another. Comparatively, CIKR can be broken up into groupings, each providing a different focus but still allowing for quality generic ground. Below are a few of the potential groups that we have discussed.

Option #1 - Private Industries Sectors: Chemical Industries, Banking & Financial, Critical Manufacturing
Option #2 - Telecommunication: Communication & Information Technologies
Option #3 - Traditional Infrastructures: Energy, Transportation
Option #4 - Survivability Sectors - Water, Communication, energy, emergency services, and Food.

It is likely that the wording process would produce a series of options similar to these in addition to an option to include all sectors. Why is this important? Because it means that the community can have an additional chance to focus the topic to their liking, ensuring that anyone voting for CIKR wont discover later on that none of the resolution wordings include the sector(s) that they really wanted to debate.

Second, I want to reiterate that any potential wording will still provide a solid base for generic negative ground. This is illustrated at the end of the paper where options include:
1. Agent overstretch (mainly DHS)
2. Private Industry CP
3. Politics / elections
4. Econ Disads
5. Spending

In addition to these options, there are a number of other smaller disads which are discussed. Also of note is the potential for real agent counterplans. Not the generic XO CPs that we all dread, but rather very specific agent counterplans pertaining to each CIKR sector. While this might not be considered 'generic' ground, it is available under any wording.

Just some final thoughts as we begin to wind up voting. Feel free to contact if you have any additional questions/concerns.

Taylor
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMF customization services by 2by2host.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!