You are on page 1of 90

Racism adv
Drones are racist
Kindynis 12
(Theo, writer and researcher considers issues of policing, security and social control, October
14th 2012, “Eyes in the sky: the rise of the police
drones”,https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/eye-sky-primer-police-drones/)

The notoriously brutal LAPD – long seen by many in the black community as an
occupying (para)military force – was the first police force to use the technology,
flying a lightweight SkySeer surveillance drone over the streets of South Central
since 2006. Since then, the Department of Homeland Security has awarded
hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants for small UAVs to at least 13 police
departments, and the Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have no right to
privacy from police observation from public airspace. Until now, restrictions imposed by the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have kept many drones on the ground. However, Congress recently
passed a law requiring the FAA to loosen these restrictions and most police forces
are expected to be able to fly small UAVs by next year. In the meantime, the New
York Police Department is “investigating the possible use of UAV’s as a law
enforcement tool”, whilst the Miami-Dade Police Department already has a fleet of
drones ready to fly. Within the UK, arms manufacturer BAE Systems was revealed in 2010 to be
working alongside several government agencies to develop an unprecedented
national strategy for the use of drones by police in “routine” surveillance,
monitoring and evidence gathering. According to a recent report by Drone Wars UK, the British
government has spent £2 billion on military drones since 2007. BAE, which already produces a range of UCAVs for
use in warzones such as Afghanistan and Iraq – including the deadly Mantis and stealth bomber-style Taranis drones
– are now reported to be adapting military-style drones for a range of police uses. At least four constabularies are
known to have already used or trialed drones, with many more expressing an interest in the technology. However,
those aircraft trialled so far have been little more than small remote-controlled helicopters fitted with cameras.
Furthermore, British law enforcement’s forays into UAV surveillance have met with decidedly mixed results.
Merseyside police have reportedly trialled a lightweight helicopter-style drone from 2007 until early 2010 when they
crashed the £13,000 UAV into the River Mersey. To make matters worse, the force could face prosecution for using
the aircraft without a license – a criminal offence. The British Transport Police apparently conducted a short trial
with a similar model, though eventually deciding not to purchase one. Meanwhile, a drone acquired by Essex police
has been left to languish in a warehouse after the force decided it wasn’t worth the money. Whilst Staffordshire
police have managed to use a drone to spy on revellers at V Festival, they were unable to fly it over the main arena
because of fears it might crash and injure someone. Most recently, plans to use larger military-style drones for
aerial crowd surveillance during the London 2012 Olympic Games were hampered by Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)
regulations. However, the prospects for drone surveillance by British law enforcement agencies look likely to
change in the near future. Speaking at the launch of a new National Police Air Service last week, police minister
Damian Green endorsed the use of drones by British police for aerial surveillance purposes. “Drones are like any
other piece of kit” claimed Green; “Where it’s appropriate or proportionate to use them then we will look at using
them”. For his part, Chief Constable Alex Marshall further remarked that whilst drones are not currently used in
“mainstream policing… they may well offer something for the future”. According to Chris Cole from Drone Wars UK,
current CAA regulations are too severe for police drone use to be practical for most forces, although this may be set
to change in the next few years (the CAA has already licensed the testing of drones at ParcAberporth in Wales).
Regulations regarding small radio-controlled aircraft however remain “dangerously lax”, according to Emma Carr
from privacy and civil liberties campaign group Big Brother Watch, and this is “something it appears those selling
drones are keen to exploit”. Furthermore, surveillance may only be the start. “Military drones quickly moved from
reconnaissance to strike” recounts Wired magazine’s David Hambling. “If the British police follow suit, their drones
could be armed – but with non-lethal weapons rather than Hellfire missiles”. Noel Sharkey, a professor of Artificial
Intelligence and Robotics at Sheffield University expressed similar concerns, asking, “How long will it be before
someone gets tasered from the air for dropping litter?” The answer may be: not that long at all; a $300,000
Vanguard Shadowhawk drone purchased by the Montgomery County Sherriff’s Department is already capable of
firing rubber bullets, tear gas canisters and taser projectiles. According to Salon, an Ohio police lieutenant
interested in the drone was told by Vanguard representatives that it can also carry grenade launchers and 12-gauge

shotguns. Particularly worrying here is how drone surveillance tends to abstract people from their contexts,
reducing variation and ambiguity that might otherwise impede action – such as pepper spraying or shooting a
suspect – by trigger-happy police.

A year ago the UK was shaken by rioting on a scale not
seen in decades, a key contributing factor to which was the disastrous breakdown of
relations between police and inner-city communities. According to the Guardian’s
“Reading The Riots” survey, many involved in the disorder cited policing as the
single most significant cause of the riots. In light of this, it seems reasonable to
suggest that the kind of “remote control” policing-at-arms-length that drone-based
technology inevitably encourages, whereby the local community is viewed from afar
in a form of mechanised surveillance that dehumanises both the watched and the
watcher, is precisely what is not needed. Withdrawing from the beat to watch over
the streets through electronic “eyes in the sky” will only stand to further alienate an
already overwhelmingly and visibly homogeneous (white, male, “respectable”
working-class) police force from the diverse inner city communities it exists to
serve. Furthermore, the use of drones by police will be seen by many as a refusal to
engage with the public at the most fundamentally human level, and thus further
undermine their already dwindling legitimacy.

Domestic drones fuel the militarization of police – exports
violence abroad to minority bodies
Thrasher 12
(Greg, VOD Washington Bureau, Writer, May 24,2012, “Drone Alert”
,http://voiceofdetroit.net/2012/05/24/drone-alert/)

Our country spends billions of dollars on the purchase of weapons and hi tech
security devices under the premise of national defense and the protection and
safety of the home land. Retired generals leave our armed forces to peddle their services to defense
contractors in the weapons industry. America not only arms itself but our nation is also the number one arms dealer

We have more weapons of mass destruction than any
other nation on the globe. America is indeed a profitable merchant in the market of
warfare products.. Last week this escalation in military purchases and devices came to the
our homeland, not to protect us from our external foes but to assist and augment
the armory of our local police departments. The Federal Aviation Administration
loosened the restrictions on local police departments’ surveillance of us to allow
them to use Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, also commonly known as DRONE S. Our nation’s
and weapons supplier in the world.

high court, the Supreme Court, has even ruled that warrantless surveillance by manned aircraft is not

In far too many
powerful public and private circles there are advocates focused on introducing the
military into our cities and other venues. We now face the specter of entire cities
being profiled by the usage of military-designed DRONES. Local municipalities,
already burdened by fiscal deficits and lousy revenues, are actually spending huge
outlays of their budgets in the purchase of these hi tech anti- freedom profile driven
devices. Where is the outrage from our public officials, activist groups and even police unions over these invasive
surveillance and anti -privacy domestic military machines in our nation’s urban airspace? One of the real
dark potentials of these DRONES is not only their ugly invasion and violation of
privacy rights, but these DRONES also have the capacity to be lethal and deadly.
The applications and operational features of DRONES are truly unimaginable. The
growing militarization of our local law enforcement departments is not to be
unconstitutional and does not violate the 4th Amendment of our federal constitution.

you're talking about an area that encompasses many major cities that have large minority populations. journalist.progressive. Knefel 13 (John. founder and executive director of the Center for Media Justice. Drones be racist Cyril 3/30 (Malkia. as technologies such as StingRay are already being used mostly in the ongoing war on drugs to track those suspected of selling and buying drugs. "What we see with StingRays is the same phenomenon that we're seeing with [UAS]. “Black America's State of Surveillance. 2013. DRONES are part of the arsenal of gadgets and devices which destroy the freedoms of all Americans. "State and local agencies are using them. just by virtue of living in that region are somehow accepting that they have a right to less privacy.rollingstone.excused by fictional claims of terrorism and excessive urban crimes . despite similar rates of drug use among whites and people of color. alleges that . and the idea that these drones can be flown with little or no privacy protections really mean that. especially police surveillance. These already-existing racial disparities in intrusive policing tactics and deployment of surveillance technologies are one of the primary reasons civil liberties experts are saying the government often gets it backward when thinking about privacy issues: deploying intrusive technologies first. where federal agencies are using them. Drone expansion would only expand government Islamophobia. African-American communities could well feel the disproportionate impacts of the integrated use of domestic drones and other surveillance in the coming years. There's federal dollars that are going to buy them.com/politics/news/police-spying-on-american-muslims-is-apointless-national-shame-20130311) Civil liberties groups led by the Muslim American Civil Liberties Coalition released a new report today detailing the detrimental effects of the NYPD’s spying on Muslim communities in recent years. and coming up with privacy policies governing their use afterward (when they may already be violating many people's civil rights). The report. “Police Spying on American Muslims Is a Pointless National Shame”." Guliani said. Such a public policy creates a fertile soil for the introduction of military devices like DRONES into our domestic venues. We must reject and defeat the myths about crime and anarchy in our cities. often impact communities of color disproportionately." she said. pointing to US Customs and Border Protections' ubiquitous use of drone surveillance in vast border regions impacting huge swaths of the populations that live in those areas. people.” http://www. that invasive forms of surveillance. The drug war has long negatively impacted communities of color. "You're not just talking about the physical border. however.org/news/2015/03/188074/black-americas-state-surveillance) The ACLU's Guliani pointed out. two-thirds of all those convicted of drug crimes are people of color. We must reject all kinds of devices and gadgets which at the end of the day are WMD’s on American soil. and we're kind of having the privacy debate after the fact with very little information. We must defuse and deflate the notions that our cities are cesspools of violence and crime. 2015. based on racialized drug policies and racial discrimination by law enforcement. March 30. http://www. called Mapping Muslims: NYPD Spying and its Impact on American Muslims ." The government already uses surveillance to control Muslim populations in the US. The proliferation of the myth of crime and the profiling of entire bandwidths of people based upon their hue and types of clothing is dangerous. March 11.

That has been the effect – one that was entirely foreseeable. The state’s capacity for surveillance is already enormous.org/news/item/29250-proposed-rules-regulating-domestic-drone-uselack-police-warrant-requirement) The use of StingRay technology as it currently stands is already incredibly secretive. the unit tasked with monitoring American Muslim life had not yielded a single criminal lead. And whether limiting civil rights and liberties in this way was the stated aim of the Intelligence Division doesn’t really matter. “A lot of it seems to be fear. So what has all this surveillance. Thomas Galati.” gotten us? A terrorized local Muslim population. "It is both technologically possible and by no means a leap to imagine that once the FAA approves broader use of drones within the US by law enforcement. and government agencies have been revealed to have been using Cessna planes outfitted with StingRay technology to track suspects. United Nations bureau chief at The New York Times. that fear changes the way you think and act. and where lives are severely harmed by spying alone. a staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech. Warrant requirement is key Sengupta 13 (SOMINI. When total surveillance of one population becomes normalized. this so-called “intelligence gathering. Instilling such fears is an extremely effective form of social control. They don’t want to be targeted for additional surveillance. The pervasive spying regime has effectively intimidated many would-be critics. And as the report reminds us.more than a decade of surveillance of Muslims throughout the Northeast “has chilled constitutionally protected rights – curtailing religious practice.” Discouraging this legitimate. “Many of the Shi’a organizations who were approached by activists to speak up or speak out were hesitant to do so. "If internet companies were to deliver internet service in hard-to-reach places. 24 February 2015 10:18. the commanding officer of the NYPD’s Intelligence Division. with police departments and manufacturers such as Harris Corporation concealing their use of the phone-tracking equipment from the courts through the use of non-disclosure agreements.” http://www. “Proposed Rules Regulating Domestic Drone Use Lack Police Warrant Requirement. Privacy and Technology Project. “admitted during sworn testimony that in the six years of his tenure. constitutionally protected behavior isn’t simply an unfortunate by-product of total surveillance. which would be a good thing. and will only expand as technologies. But the significance of this report reaches far beyond New York’s Muslim community – and even beyond the American Muslim community at large. censoring speech and stunting political organizing. As anyone who has ever suspected themselves of being under surveillance will tell you. Other advocates worry if domestic drones are deployed as a platform for providing temporary internet service to consumers. but rather a primary and predictable outcome. continue to increase in sophistication.” The report combines publicly available documentation about the NYPD’s snooping regime – including the Associated Press’ groundbreaking investigations into the department’s Demographics Unit – with original interviews of 57 Muslims in New York City." said Nathan Freed Wessler. The authors have provided a needed rebuttal to the common argument that surveillance isn’t a problem if you have nothing to hide. but also in a more concrete way. and an expert on StingRay technology. it could potentially give corporate drone operators access to the internet data of those consumers and threaten net neutrality.truth-out. a police department that grossly exaggerates the terror plots it has disrupted and a crown jewel investigation of a troubled man named Ahmed Ferhani that was so problematic even the FBI – recently dubbed “the terror factory” by one author because of its role in manufacturing plots that its own agents then disrupt – wanted nothing to do with it. The Muslims interviewed in the report describe a terrifying reality where trust and privacy are virtually impossible. would they then be collecting . including domestic drones. The FBI has been resistant to answer even lawmakers' questions about how many drones it operates and how often they are used. This report is an important document that illustrates just how damaging that can be. and that spying itself is essentially value-neutral so long as you don’t become a target of an investigation. [law enforcement officials] may put StingRays on them.” says community organizer Ali Naquvi in the report. we are all at a greater risk of being illegally spied on. The Department of Homeland Security's US Customs and Border Protection and the FBI already use planes and drones in areas that are more than 100 miles of the Mexican border to conduct aerial surveillance. it is a national problem – both in the sense that all of our rights are infringed if anyone’s are.” While Muslims in the Northeast are the people most directly affected by this surveillance.” They describe their communities as being under “a pervasive climate of fear and suspicion” that affects “every aspect of individual and community life. UAS have also been outfitted with thermal sensing technologies to produce heat maps of people inside buildings.

1996. two-thirds of all those convicted of drug crimes are people of color. In addition. 2010). however. It's questions like this that the National Telecommunications and Information Administration has been ordered by the White House to answer in a collaborative process. to consider wider deployment of UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] along our nation’s southern border. that "You're not just talking about the physical border. Brewer Iraq and Afghanistan permit." Guliani said. domestic drones and other surveillance in the coming years. Soon after President Obama announced in May By meshing aerial reconnaissance with aerial bombardment. just by virtue of living in that region are somehow accepting that they have a right to less privacy. I am aware of how effective these assets have become in Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom. Pallitto and Heyman. and we're kind of having the privacy debate after the fact with very little information. as technologies such as StingRay are already being used mostly in the ongoing war on drugs to track those suspected of selling and buying drugs. conservative Arizona Governor Jan referred to as ‘aviation assets’. people. specifically military UAVs and helicopters (Lach. Brewer wrote a letter to Obama urging him to send also what she asserted that drones have proven effective in US military campaigns overseas and that they would therefore assist in securing the US border : I would also ask you.eu/nume/Wall_Monahan_drones_politics_2011. For instance. particularly by locating people who are attempting to enter the country illegally.pdf) Yet UAVs are also being used as technologies of state surveillance and policing and are deployed in security-scapes other than military combat zones. The ACLU's Guliani pointed out. as overseas operations in 2008). in the USA drones are increasingly being used to police foreign migrants in relationship to its territorial borderzones. often impact communities of color disproportionately. and the idea that these drones can be flown with little or no privacy protections really mean that. "What we see with StingRays is the same phenomenon that we're seeing with [UAS]. The drug war has long negatively impacted communities of color. 2010) would be deployed to the already heavily militarized 244 Theoretical Criminology 15(3) and surveilled US–Mexico border (Dunn. where federal agencies are using them. These already-existing racial disparities in intrusive policing tactics and deployment of surveillance technologies are one of the primary reasons civil liberties experts are saying the government often gets it backward when thinking about privacy issues: deploying intrusive technologies first. There's federal dollars that are going to buy them. "State and local agencies are using them. drones function primarily as technologies of war. as we will detail below. and coming up with privacy policies governing their use afterward (when they may already be violating many people's civil rights). based on racialized drug policies and racial discrimination by law enforcement. Vanderbilt University. alongside civil society and industry groups. an organization dedicated to issues of internet freedom. and it seems UAVs operations would be ideal for border security and counter-drug . Eastern Kentucky University and Torin Monahan. pointing to US Customs and Border Protections' ubiquitous use of drone surveillance in to develop guidelines for commercial drone use. 2011 “Surveillance and Violence from afar: The politics of drones and liminal security-scapes” http://www. invasive forms of surveillance. despite similar rates of drug use among whites and people of color. especially police surveillance. some police departments are now conceiving of drones as surveillance devices that might prove useful in the routine policing and monitoring of domestic territories. African-American communities could well feel the disproportionate impacts of the integrated use of vast border regions impacting huge swaths of the populations that live in those areas.antoniocasella." Current UAVs are used to police and militarize the border WALL AND MONAHAN 2011 (Tyler Wall." she said. 2010 that 1200 National Guard soldiers (Werner and Billeaud.information in large quantities and would that information then be something that their contacts would then have access to?" asked Drew Mitnick who is junior policy counsel at Access. you're talking about an area that encompasses many major cities that have large minority populations.

Since late 2007 or early 2008.000 lbs of pot and 4.progressive. They will use facial recognition. provide 24–7 border and port surveillance to protect against terrorist intrusion … Other examples [of possible uses] are limited only by our imagination’ been testing drones in US/ Canada border regions (Canwest News Service. (Quoted in Lach. and it should terrify you as much as it terrifies me. They intend to use body and dashboard cameras. and tear gas. The same is true of domestic drones. 2010). the USA has spent approximately $100 million for UAVs on both the southern and northern US borders as part of its efforts to create a so-called virtual fence (Canwest News Service. NSA and FBI have engaged local law enforcement agencies and electronic surveillance technologies to spy on Muslims living in the . it’s almost impossible to get off a federal or state database. In the words of a defense executive: ‘It is quite easy to envision a future in which (UAVs). Unfortunately. 2005. counterterrorism. Since 2006.000 illegal immigrants’ ( Gilson. unaffected by pilot fatigue. biometric scanning software. 2010). “Black America’s State of Surveillance”. They are the clearinghouse for increasingly used “suspicious activity reports”—described as “official documentation of observed behavior reasonably indicative of pre-operational planning related to terrorism or other criminal activity. The especially those reporting on the issue in the media or advocating in the halls of power. unwarranted contact between police and people of color. 2010).” These reports and other collected data are often stored in massive databases like e-Verify and Prism. which the FBI has now rolled out as a national system. even when the data collected is incorrect or no longer true. Drones only serve to exacerbate this. reporter. (McCullagh. it probably doesn’t. While drones are currently unarmed. to observe daily movements of individuals and groups. As anybody who’s ever dealt with gang databases knows. April 2015. they use them in three primary ways: to listen in on specific conversations on and offline. 2010) This appeal for drones at the border obscures the fact that UAVs have already been providing aerial surveillance over US border regions (Shachtman. Police departments like Bratton’s aim to use sophisticated technologies to do all three.missions. five of which were based in Brewer’s state of Arizona (Gilson. which have been touted as an effective step toward accountability based on the results of one study. This is the future of policing in America. yet storage and archiving procedures. Predictive policing doesn’t just lead to racial and religious profiling—it relies on it. and to observe data trends. to be adopted by local police departments for any criminal justice purpose. which the Electronic Frontier Foundation found to be disproportionately used in communities of color and communities in the process of being gentrified. remain unclear. 2006). law enforcement to conduct routine aerial surveillance. which are in increasing use by U. 2007). As of 2010 the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) was operating six unarmed Predator drones for overhead surveillance missions along the US–Mexico border. the CBP has CBP officials credit their drones with ‘helping bust 15.org/news/2015/03/188074/black-americas-state-surveillance) As local law enforcement agencies increasingly adopt surveillance technologies. Cyril 15 (Malika Amala. According to Electronic Frontier Foundation. They will use Stingray cellphone interceptors. One review of such reports collected in Los Angeles shows approximately 75 percent were of people of color. suspicious activities reporting and the dragnet approach of fusion centers target communities of color. Stingray technology is an invasive cellphone surveillance device that mimics cellphone towers and sends out signals to trick cellphones in the area into transmitting their locations and When used to track a suspect’s cellphone. because my life is at far greater risk than the lives of white Americans.S. Gilson. Surveillence in the US most directly affects and targets marginalized people. drone manufacturers are considering arming these remote-controlled aircraft with weapons like rubber bullets. Just as stop and frisk legitimized an initial. they also gather information about the phones of countless bystanders who happen to be nearby. They will use fusion centers. there are currently seventy-eight on record. almost 90 percent of whom turn out to be innocent of any crime. One of the most terrifying aspects of high-tech surveillance is the invisibility of those it disproportionately impacts. among many other issues. these have instead become the local arm of the intelligence community. Originally designed to increase interagency collaboration for the purposes of identifying information. They will use technologies like license plate readers. tasers. http://www. According to the ACLU. 2007).

According to FBI training materials uncovered by Wired in 2011.000 migrants are in detention facilities throughout the United States. Black people alone represent 40 percent of those incarcerated. more than 60 percent are racial and ethnic minorities. Lest some misinterpret that statistic as evidence of a 2012 study confirms that black defendants are at least 30 percent more likely to be imprisoned than whites for the same crime. More black men are practices. racial disparities are being made invisible by a media environment that has failed to tell the story of surveillance in the context of structural racism. the bureau taught agents to treat “mainstream” Muslims as supporters of terrorism. But by far. incarcerated than were held in slavery in 1850. As surveillance technologies are increasingly adopted and integrated by law enforcement agencies today. According to the Sentencing Project.” and to view Islam itself as a “Death Star” that must be destroyed if terrorism is to be contained. The NSA could not have spied on millions of cellphones if it were not already spying on black people. . on the eve of the Civil War. At the same time. including illegal surveillance of the more than 2 million people incarcerated in the United States. it is a system working perfectly as intended. Undocumented migrant communities enjoy few legal protections. families with small children. From New York City to Chicago and beyond. There is no national security reason to profile all Muslims. including survivors of torture. to the detriment of all. Muslims.United States. the widest net is cast over black communities. and are therefore subject to brutal policing practices. to view charitable donations by Muslims as “a funding mechanism for combat. local law enforcement agencies have expanded unlawful and covert racial and religious profiling against Muslims not suspected of any crime. This is not a broken system. asylum seekers. greater criminality. and migrants. and the elderly. almost 450.

tracked.” Drone manufacturers are also offering police the option of arming these flying robots with weapons like rubber bullets. its mechanism remains obscure. “domestic drones should not Considering the growing proclivity of U. the United States will likely continue its slide into an authoritarian country in which human rights are cast aside as an irrelevant nuisance. Ryan. or when there are specific and articulable grounds to believe that the drone will collect evidence relating to a specific criminal act.S. 2013. Maybe somewhere. be equipped with lethal or non-lethal weapons. it could be said that the ACLU’s mild admonitions could be considered understated at best. Existing privacy law will not stand in its way. and tear gas.Modeling privacy rights adv Domestic drones risks authoritarianism Compliance 13 (Complaince Campaign. But what do privacy violations look like today? They tend to be hard to visualize. Tasers. Rev. October 24. Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis knew what a privacy violation looked like: yellow journalists armed with newly developed “instantaneous photographs” splashing pictures of a respectable wedding on the pages of every newspaper. The violence and impunity with which security forces operate are a clear danger to society both within the United States and overseas.com/2013/10/24/drones-police-violence-andinternational-norms/__) The ACLU. notes that “U. in some distant server farm. It may be tempting to conclude on this basis that drones will further erode our individual and collective privacy. police forces to engage in lethal force against civilians at home. Director of Privacy and Robotics.S. L. Center for Internet and Society.wordpress. in an emergency. Indeed.S. Drones may help restore our mental model of a privacy violation. They could be just the visceral jolt society needs to drag privacy law into the twenty-first century. Maybe one online advertiser you have never heard of merges with another to share email lists. Perhaps a shopper’s purchase of an organic product increases the likelihood she is a Democrat just enough to cause her identity to be sold to a campaign. Yet the opposite may happen.S. Campaigning for a United States in compliance with its international obligations.org/online/drone-privacy-catalyst) Associated today with the theatre of war.[1] Their influential 1890 article The Right To Privacy crystallized an image of technology-fueled excess.stanfordlawreview. “The Drone as Privacy Catalyst“64 Stan. however. the widespread domestic use of drones for surveillance seems inevitable. The group warns that drones should be deployed by law enforcement only with a warrant. notes the ACLU . At most one can picture the occasional harmful outcome. “Police brutality. which the authors leveraged to jump-start privacy law in the United States. Further. abides by the international norms that it demands of “rogue states” such as Syria or Iran. recorded. It is hard to . Online 29 http://www. 2011. drone wars and international norms” https://compliancecampaign. law enforcement is greatly expanding its use of domestic drones for surveillance” and says that “rules must be put in place to ensure that we can enjoy the benefits of this new technology without bringing us closer to a ‘surveillance society’ in which our every move is monitored. and the U.” says the ACLU. and scrutinized by the government. military’s troubling track record abroad. the government correlates two pieces of disparate information. December 12. Adding domestic drones to the arsenal of local police weapons is only inviting further tragedy. unless the American people and the world community begin to demand that the U. The plan revitalizes right to privacy and privacy law Calo 11 (M.

the Internet. Virtually any robot can engender a certain amount of discomfort. If you will pardon the inevitable reference to 1984. the effect on citizens of drones flying around United States cities. Federal Aviation Administration restrictions on the use of unmanned aircraft systems. Several prominent cases. biometrics.[7] If anything. hobbyists. . Tort recovery founders on the question of damages. In addition to high-resolution cameras and That drones will see widespread domestic use seems inevitable. drones can be equipped with thermal imaging and the capacity to intercept wireless communications. so might a drone scan for various drones like those in widespread military use today will tomorrow be used by police. and the general public. One good candidate is the drone. As with previous emerging technologies. regulators. Computers. revisiting The Electronic Communications Fourth Amendment places serious limits on the deployment of surveillance technology. Imagine what drones would do for the lucrative paparazzi industry. Going forward. however. The Act was passed in 1986.[6] Constitution nor common law appears to prohibit police or the media from routinely operating surveillance drones in urban and other environments . nor even in the portions of their property visible from a public vantage. Customs and Border Protection uses drones to police our borders. scientists. GPS. These machines are disquieting. let alone one associated in the mind of the average American with spy operations or targeted killing. George Orwell specifically describes small flying devices that roam neighborhoods and peer into windows. and a significant body of scholarship. But drones will not be limited to government or scientific uses. and others here at home.[5] A few years later. Some public agencies have petitioned for waiver. advocates will argue that drones threaten our dwindling individual and collective privacy.know exactly what role the inscrutability of privacy has played in the development of contemporary privacy law. You might think drones would already be ubiquitous. Police. I think these arguments will gain serious traction among courts.[2] Privacy Act. whether any technology will dramatize the need to rethink the very nature of privacy law. or attribute. developments has created the same sea change in privacy thinking.[4] Agency rules impede the use of drones for now. Yet one need not travel to Orwell’s Oceania—or the offices of our own Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency—to encounter one of these machines. Some are as small as birds or insects. at least not on the order of 1890.[3] Recent shifts in technology and attendant changes to business practices have not led to similar shifts in privacy law. firefighters. But unlike the debates of recent decades. The private sector has incentives to use drones as well. and microphones. They can fly patterns in search of suspicious activities or hover over a location in wait.[9] In short. The result is a widening chasm between our collective and individual capacity to observe one another and the protections available to consumers and citizens under the law. Al Gore had only just invented the Internet. geologists will—and do—use drones for surveillance and research. which controls the circumstances under which the government can intercept or access electronic communications such as emails. There are. One Drones are capable of finding or following a specific person. no provider of videos (broadly defined) may release customer rental history because journalists once managed to procure a list of the videos enjoyed by a Supreme Court nominee. Once journalists needed to convince high society to pose for a photograph. In 1986. And privacy law will not have much to say about it. They represent an efficient and cost-effective alternative to helicopters and airplanes. New technologies made it possible for a journalist automatically to officers are presently putting this technology through its paces. RFID. There is very little in our privacy law that would prohibit the use of drones within our borders. Citizens do not generally enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy in public. The media. United States privacy law does not. But the law has clearly stalled. in particular. could make widespread use of drones to cover unfolding police activity or traffic stories. others as big as blimps. You could travel to one of several counties where American police The parallels to The Right to Privacy are also acute. object. I have in mind chemicals or heat signatures and alert an officer only upon spotting the telltale signs of drug production. [8] Just as a dog might sniff packages and alert an officer only in the presence of contraband. waiver may not be necessary. facial recognition—none of these might reasonably wonder whether we will ever have another Warren and Brandeis moment. At the time. the advancement of information technology has not. We are only now. the Supreme Court found no search where local police flew over the defendant’s backyard with a private plane. The FAA faces increasing pressure to relax its restrictions and is considering rulemaking to reexamine drone use in domestic airspace. And it must be possible for officers practically to glimpse the proverbial “lady in her sauna” before the The development of American privacy law has been slow and uneven. reflect the view that no privacy violation has occurred unless and until a human observes a person. the Court admitted evidence spotted by an officer in a helicopter looking through two missing roof panels in a greenhouse. newspapers. Neither the observations by drones may occasion less scrutiny than manned aerial vehicles. these unmanned aircraft systems threaten to perfect the art of surveillance. Privacy advocates will. restrictions that date back several years. especially coupled with commercially available facial recognition technology. Privacy statutes tend to respond to specific incidences or abuses: for instance. In routine use by today’s military. in 2011. lawmakers’ kids were trading in their Walkman for a Discman. Recently the state of Oklahoma asked the FAA for a blanket waiver of eighty miles of airspace.

hear the slap of the newspaper the next day. for instance. This raises a number of questions regarding the adequacy of current privacy laws and the scope of existing Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.[10] We could delay public awareness of drones by limiting use to those that are capable of observing the ground without detection. There is no story. is one in which FAA restrictions relax and private and public drones quickly fill the sky. pipeline maintenance.S. journalists must ghost about the restaurant or party of the moment. The Department of Homeland Security. government or industry surveillance of the populace with drones would be visible and highly salient.000 drones like this will be operating in the national airspace by the end of this decade. and see the mortified Today’s police have to follow hunches. and then simply left in place. US Senator of Iowa. Unlike.gov/imo/media/doc/CHRG-113shrg81775. the use of unmanned aircraft raises serious concerns about the impact on the constitutional and privacy rights of all Americans .[11] I agree. When is it appropriate for law enforcement to use a drone. NSA network surveillance or commercial data brokerage. cultivate informants. are yet weaponized. People would feel observed. There are ways that drones might be introduced without this effect. subpoena ATM camera footage. I think we have to carefully consider the policy implications of this fast-emerging technology. Daniel Solove has argued that the proper metaphor for contemporary privacy violations is not the the lack of a coherent mental model of privacy harm helps account for the lag between the advancement of technology and privacy law. as suggested by Oklahoma’s plan. no vivid and specific Big Brother of Orwell’s 1984. already operates modified. geological surveying. They represent the cold. (Patrick. coordinated effort by the government. Previous look of the bridal party in the cover art. agricultural research. military technology has found its way into domestic use through an acclimation process: it is used in large events requiring heightened security. http://www. Tomorrow’s police and journalists might sit in an office or vehicle as their metal agents methodically search for interesting behavior to record and relay. “THE FUTURE OF DRONES IN AMERICA: LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PRIVACY CONSIDERATIONS”. as well as to support drug interdiction efforts by law enforcement. in addition to law enforcement surveillance. say. I am advised. regardless of how or whether the information was actually used. and for what purposes? Under what circumstances should law enforcement be required to first obtain a search warrant? And then what should be done with the data that is collected and how long should it be kept? And although no drones operating in the U. and search-and-rescue operations. Widespread Drone use destroys 4th amendment rights Leahy 13. should law enforcement be permitted to equip unmanned aircraft with non-lethal tools such as tear gas or pepper spray? My concerns about the domestic use of drones extend beyond . but the inscrutable courts of Franz Kafka’s The Trial. The resulting backlash could force us to reexamine not merely the use of drones to observe. Americans can visualize and experience this activity as a physical violation of their privacy.pdf ) With the Federal Aviation Administration estimating that as many as 30. technological embodiment of observation. So there are many valuable uses. But these efforts would take a knowing. Drones and other robots have the potential to restore that mental model . but the doctrines that today permit this use. drones will potentially be used for scientific experiments. which in turn led to salacious news coverage . Americans in 1890 could just picture that tweedy journalist in the bushes of a posh wedding.senate. upon which citizens and lawmakers can premise their concern. For example. and believe that instance of a paradigmatic privacy violation in a digital universe. I know that we are going to hear a lot of things about the unique advantages of using unmanned aircraft as opposed to manned vehicles.“snap” a picture. Drones are able to carry out arduous and dangerous tasks that would otherwise be expensive or difficult for a human to undertake. The more likely scenario. but at the same time. through Customs and Border Protection.judiciary. A number of local law enforcement agencies have begun to explore using drones to assist with operational surveillance. unarmed drones to patrol rural parts of our northern and southern borders. March 20th 2013.

were among those spied on. we have to carefully consider the impact on the privacy rights of Americans. Pillay. The resolution called on the 193 UN member states "to review their procedures. which right now is extremely troubling because the revelations of surveillance have implications for human rights … People are really afraid that all their personal details are being used in violation of traditional national protections. including on a mass scale". ”Internet privacy as important as human rights. In a State like mine. did not make her take online privacy less seriously. their interception and collection of personal data." The UN general assembly unanimously voted last week to adopt a resolution. It also directed Pillay to publish a report on the protection and promotion of privacy "in the context of domestic and extraterritorial surveillance . quiet unmanned aircraft can easily be built or purchased online for only a few hundred dollars and then equipped with high-definition video cameras while flying in areas impossible for manned aircraft to operate without being detected. this is raising some very serious questions from people from the far right to the far left. December 26th 2013. news reporter on the Guardian. the first non-white woman to serve as a high-court judge in South Africa. has compared the uproar in the international community caused by revelations of mass surveillance with the collective response that helped bring down the apartheid regime in South Africa.com/world/2013/dec/26/un-navi-pillay-internet-privacy ) The UN human rights chief. Angela Merkel. where we protect and guard our privacy. adding: "Combined and collective action by everybody can end serious violations of human rights … That experience inspires me to go on and address the issue of internet [privacy]." She said apartheid ended in South Africa principally because the international community co-operated to denounce it. She told Berners-Lee it was "very . Navi Pillay. made the comments in an interview with Sir Tim Berners-Lee on a special edition of BBC Radio 4's Today programme. Just last week. including the right to privacy". says UN's Navi Pillay”. which the inventor of the world wide web was guest editing. introduced by Germany and Brazil." she said. with a view to upholding the right to privacy of all their obligations under international human rights law".. we were reminded how one company’s push to gather data on Americans led vast over-collection and potential privacy violations. in Vermont. practices and legislation regarding the surveillance of communications. a simple scan of amateur videos on the Internet demonstrates how prevalent drone technology is becoming among private citizens. Dilma Rousseff. in the wake of the former National Security Agency analyst Edward Snowden leaking classified documents about UK and US spying and the collection of personal data. and the German chancellor. http://www. stating that "the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online.theguardian. Privacy is a Human Right Siddique 13 ( Haroon. Brazil's president.. Small. Before we allow widespread use of drones in the domestic airspace. The former international criminal court judge said her encounters with serious human rights abuses. I'm not put off by the lifetime experience of violations I have seen. which included serving on the Rwanda tribunal. "I don't grade human rights. It is not hard to imagine the serious privacy problems that this type of technology could cause. "I feel I have to look after and promote the rights of all persons. Pillay has been asked by the UN to prepare a report on protection of the right to privacy. according to the documents leaked by Snowden.Government and law enforcement. Similarly.

The question is whether the set of rights selected by the U. Tom Ginsburg is Professor at the University of Chicago Law School. known as the Cidiz Constitution. we should not evaluate modern constitutions on whether they allow slavery. One way to do this is by following the methodology we describe above-that is. as a result. rights that are common to each temporal context. degrees from the University of California at Berkeley. The other twelve rights are included in one constitution but not the other.important that governments now want to discuss the matters of mass surveillance and right to privacy in a serious way ". Operationally. Of the twenty-three common rights in general circulation.D. He holds B. How might we assess the influence of older documents and. and.D. and last week published an open letter. to say the least. . This scattered distribution of rights is helpful analytically: One can assess the influence of one "menu" of rights against real alternatives. assessments of similarity between an eighteenth-century document and a twentiethcentury document are complicated. and is working on a book on constitutional endurance.S. and Cidiz constitutions is similar. for that matter. even for those drafting constitutions in the nineteenth century. to protest against the routine interception of data by governments around the world. New Latin American countries and democratizing states in Europe had several different "menus" to choose from. then. After all.cfm?abstract_id=2486776) This introduces some special analytic problems.S. He currently co-directs the Comparative Constitutions Project at Illinois. Constitution offered just one set of a larger universe of rights. with more than 100 free speech groups and leading activists. one way to refine a measure of similarity might be to limit the set of rights under consideration to those features that had been adopted by some percentage (say. 12 (Tom Ginsburg. Berners-Lee has warned that online surveillance undermines confidence in the internet. and conversely." meaning that both constitutions either exclude or include the right. Comparing older and modern documents against a set of modern rights essentially measures whether the old document adopted or anticipated modern fashions. J. It would be unfair to expect an eighteenth-century constitution to have provisions for consumer or environmental rights. the similarity of constitutions across contexts? One way is to examine constitutional development along only those features that would be theoretically "possible" to adopt in a given era. Herman Pritchett Award for best book on law and courts. Zachary Elkins. One aspect of this problem is that the contexts in which any two constitutions are written may be radically different. or models. His books include Rule By Law: The Politics of Courts in Authoritarian Regimes (2008) and Judicial Review in New Democracies (2003). Such a comparison is not a good measure of the older document's influence.. Call this set of rights "common rights"-that is. such as those in the series of French charters starting in 1791 or that in the widely disseminated Spanish Constitution of 1812 .S. The number of matching common rights for the U. The United States’s constitution is modelled globally Ginsburg et al.com/sol3/papers. Constitution and French Constitution of 1791 "match. only eleven in both the U. were decidedly different with respect to their content. and James Melton. twenty-five percent) of constitutions in each era.S.19 These menus. Constitution's framers remains more influential than do the other sets of rights in circulation during the same time that the framers did not select. “Comments on Law and Versteeg’s’ The Declining Influence of the United States Constitution” http://papers.A. which won the American Political Science Association’s C. the rights enshrined in the U.ssrn. and Ph.

S. Constitution. He currently co-directs the Comparative Constitutions Project at Illinois.S.S. J. and is working on a book on constitutional endurance. this metric better captures the influence of the U. which was not codified until the Twenty-Second Amendment was ratified in 1951.. degrees from the University of California at Berkeley. Constitution across all rights.’s Constitution modelled globally – small laws prove Ginsburg et al. influence over time.comparing measures of similarity composed of items common across all eras (or. As we show in our study of term limits. and Ph.S. We can then see how well the U. the U. Nevertheless. 22 sticky. Constitution to others with respect to common rights. “Comments on Law and Versteeg’s’ The Declining Influence of the United States Constitution” http://papers. Constitution.S. We see that across this set of rights.S. This is an example of constitutional drafters failing to modernize and suggests evidence of textual influence Consider another example: term limits the U. For example. As we suggest above. we analyze two samples: one of Latin American constitutions and one drawn from all constitutions. further increasing similarity between constitutions. we note that In an early working paper.com/sol3/papers.ssrn. His books include Rule By Law: The Politics of Courts in Authoritarian Regimes (2008) and Judicial Review in New Democracies (2003). But it is in part because of their triviality-or at least their arbitrary selection by the founders-that these elements tell us something about influence. Constitution. . Constitution is actually increasingly similar to other constitutions over time . . constitutions appear increasingly dissimilar to the U.S.S. the U.A.D. He holds B. 12 (Tom Ginsburg. Tom Ginsburg is Professor at the University of Chicago Law School. as expected.S. version has become the single most popular option This is another example of increasing U. some rule must be adopted. U. Constitution Article II requires one to be at least thirty-five years old to become president.D. in which modernization has moved in the direction of the U. INFLUENCE may seem inconsequential. which replicate and extend Law and Versteeg's analysis by plotting the similarity of each set of constitutions to the U. found in at least twenty-five percent of constitutions) before 1850.S. compared to its alternatives. constitutions have evolved and absorbed modern rights.cfm?abstract_id=2486776) SOME SIGNATURE. This number has been remarkably borrowed by a plurality of constitutions Similarly. the rule from one constitution simply may be more likely to be emulated by constitutional drafters. Constitution across those rights that were popular (that is. 2 3 (twenty-five) for serving in the lower house of the legislature remains the most popular number globally (thirty-seven percent of the 565 constitutions that specify an age limit for members of the lower house). an innovation of the U. ELEMENTS OF U. 25 However. on average. V We close with a regrettably short discussion of some arcane elements of the U." 20 In such cases 21 . We see that. rights prevalent in at least twenty-five percent of constitutions in each half century). model.S. "solution" has remained in place. IF LESS CENTRAL. however. plots the similarity of constitutions to the U. 24 Despite a significant increase in life expectancies since the eighteenth century. suggesting that.S. Many types of constitutional rules have little distributive consequence. David Strauss has noted that "it is more important that some things be settled than that they be settled right.S. and James Melton. consider another function of constitutional text: simple coordination. in Figure 2. most constitutions followed the American approach of using preambles. having been in our sample (thirty percent of the 534 constitutions that specify an age limit for the head of state).26 As a final example. . many constitutions have a minimum age requirement to hold certain offices. we find . Zachary Elkins.S.S. These graphs can be contrasted against those in Figure 2.S. in our operationalization. Herman Pritchett Award for best book on law and courts. Figure 3 presents an analysis of the similarity of the U. the most popular form historically was a version in which the officer could serve for multiple nonconsecutive terms but no consecutive terms. which won the American Political Science Association’s C. . which To understand why. As in Figure 2. . Figure 3. Most presidential constitutions have had term limits. menu of rights tracks across time. age limit the U.

Constitution."We the People" is the single most popular phrase found in national preambles and that its use is increasing in popularity over time that the expression since 1789 .S. Constitution influences the revision and adoption of formal constitutions in other countries. in what they try to regulate. constitutional drafters are expansive. or they may show more enduring influence. become increasingly unlikely to model either the rights-related provisions or the basic structural provisions of their own constitutions upon those found in the U. It has been suggested. To their credit. in the form of a set of . with growing frequency. Law and Versteeg push their analysis beyond rights. that the United States may be losing its influence over constitutionalism in other countries because it is increasingly out of sync with an evolving global consensus on issues of human rights. but their analysis still leaves many areas of constitutions untouched. Other features of the U. and increasingly so. we show empirically that other countries have. After all. however. Analysis of sixty years of comprehensive data on the content of the world’s constitutions reveals that there is a significant and growing generic component to global constitutionalism. Our only point is that rights may not be completely representative of constitutional influence or similarity.S.S. Constitution may well be different. Little is known in an empirical and systematic way. in recent decades. In this Article. about the extent to which the U. 27 We do not have space for a complete analysis of what aspects of constitutions are most likely to exhibit declining or increasing similarity over time.

Consider for example what you say on your Facebook account. the police may deploy powerful surveillance devices to track suspects without a warrant so long as the tool is generally accessible to the public. He specializes in information privacy. Dow Chemical69 and Kyllo. Knowing Exposure Because we share our location consensually with companies like these. One possibility is that their attention has shifted to some other prominent national constitution. exemplified by cases like Hoffa v.S. even in his own home or office. because the car remains on public thoroughfares. Under the knowing exposure rule. This took the form of the majority’s pronouncement that “the Fourth Amendment protects people. computer crime law. By comparison.70 According to this rule. and the Constitution provides no relief.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/16-Ohm_FINAL. that the U. The fact that the U.68 Knowing exposure means that some of the information shared online through private services may be accessed by the police. we are able to identify the world’s most and least generic constitutions. Constitution is not widely emulated raises the question of whether there is an alternative paradigm that constitutional drafters in other countries now employ as a model instead. In Dow Chemical. This influence is neither uniform nor global in scope. in particular.000 camera qualified under this rule.60 we share secrets with other people at our own risk. General Public Use Finally. an individual takes the risk.59 This reasoning has been applied in at least two important and broad contexts. Paul Ohm is an Associate Professor and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the University of Colorado Law School. courts are likely to treat this information as constitutionally unprotected under the reasoning of the assumption of risk cases. South Africa. however. and India. we analyze the content of the world’s constitutions for telltale patterns of similarity to the constitutions of Canada.67 It has also used the concept of knowing exposure to deem outside the Fourth Amendment the use by the police of airplanes and helicopters to look at the open fields and even the curtilage next to a person’s home. and if the people we think are trusted confidants turn out instead to be government agents wearing a wire. . “The Fourth Amendment in a World Without Privacy” http://mississippilawjournal. which are both implicated by the surveillance society: the false friends rule and the third-party doctrine. 3. because new online services obscure the already blurry line between what we treat as private and public.65 2. . Our analysis also confirms. they might hold that the Fourth Amendment does not apply. that the information will be conveyed by that person to the Government. the courts have given the reasonable expectation of privacy test three additional elaborations. a Fourth Amendment built around reasonable expectations of privacy will no longer apply. The Supreme Court has declared that the Fourth Amendment does not this rule automatically expands police power to some of the new forms of private surveillance.pdf) No more Expectations of Privacy In Katz. Under the false friends rule. the punch line is both easy to state and preordained almost to the point of being tautologicalin a world without privacy. the devices and systems they create may be available to the police without process because of should be. Germany. South Africa.”66 The Supreme Court has used this reasoning to rule that the police can track a car with an electronic beeper as it moves around city streets. which have often been identified as especially influential.71 Although the Court backtracked a bit in Kyllo. [E]ven if the information is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in the third party will not be betrayed. . warrantless search devices impede privacy Ohm 12 (Paul Ohm. Assumption of Risk According to the Supreme Court.72 As the power of private surveillance increases. We find some support in the data for the notion that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has influenced constitution making in other countries. Privacy is key to defending the Fourth Amendment and vice versa. what the default settings following conventional Fourth Amendment law. but instead reflects an evolutionary path shared primarily by other common law countries.62 or to our phone company’s lists of numbers we have dialed. Is a Facebook account a public or private space? Does it depend on the number of friends you have or the configuration of your privacy settings? Complicating this considerably is Facebook’s ongoing war with its users about those privacy settings and. we have only ourselves to blame. On the basis of this data. To evaluate this possibility. intellectual property.61 The reasoning has extended not only to friends but also to the companies we use for essential services. the general public use rule comes from two cases. “[w]hat a person knowingly exposes to the public. and criminal procedure. rule that it may be obtained by the police without a warrant. Specifically. however. 1. Although the rest of this Part will examine indepth what happens to a privacy-centric Fourth Amendment in a world without privacy. United States.”56 and Justice Harlan’s “reasonable expectation of privacy” test in a concurring opinion. which was later embraced by the Court as the test for the meaning of search within the amendment. Constitution is increasingly far from the global mainstream.S. . is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. the court held that a $22. we uncover no patterns that would suggest widespread constitutional emulation of Germany. and each suggests that when courts face fact patterns arising from the rise of the surveillance society. A court could reasonably hold that some of the content posted to Facebook has been knowingly exposed to the public and.63 Notice how location records people now share regularly with Loopt64 and Foursquare. or India. Consider for example the apply to our bank’s records of our financial transactions. the Supreme Court embraced a new doctrine of the Fourth Amendment built on privacy. it refused to overrule Dow Chemical. finding a $1000 thermal heat-imaging machine did not qualify as one in general public use.rights provisions that appear in nearly all formal constitutions. in revealing his affairs to another. not places.

40 Future students of the amendment are likely to marvel at these historical relics.32 almost all of the cases discussing what new technology means for the Fourth Amendment have involved police self-help and home-grown tools. and AT&T . Consider for example powerful reidentification techniques. computer crime law. Paul Ohm is an Associate Professor and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the University of Colorado Law School.36 chartered aircraft for their own use in Ciraolo37 and Dow Chemical. “The Fourth Amendment in a World Without Privacy” http://mississippilawjournal. In the near century since Olmstead. intellectual property. which to date has failed to fully elaborate what should come next. It is likely. Google. Comcast.38 and installed their own tracking beepers in Karo39 and Knotts. “The Fourth Amendment in a World Without Privacy” http://mississippilawjournal.this rule. and criminal procedure. the great bulwark of the Fourth Amendment. more In a world without privacy. ones question of this Article: what if urgent impetus to some of the prescriptions that others have offered. that courts will resist this change. essentially outsourcing all of their surveillance activities to private third parties .org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/16-Ohm_FINAL. Some day. The diminishment of the Fourth Amendment will change police behavior. Fourth amendment declining now. courts may turn to legal scholarship.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/16-Ohm_FINAL. allowing for a private sector-led police state Ohm 12 (Paul Ohm. Decreases in the privacy of society is leading to an increased reliance on the private-sector Ohm 12 (Paul Ohm. and criminal procedure. a Fourth Amendment focused on privacy becomes nearly a dead letter. But peel back a layer and it is obvious these labs c an do something important that no FBI lab could ever hope to do convince the surveillance targets of the world to consensually adopt their surveillance technologies. probable cause and a warrant. He specializes in information privacy. because almost all court attention has focused on the former.41 On the surface. however. trying to imagine a time when the FBI was forced to build its own tools and collect its own data. computer crime law. mining their way through mountains of data collected field offices named Apple. policing. and traditional forms of surveillance would occur much more thoroughly and efficiently than they have before.34 deployed its own microphones in Goldman35 and Silverman. Facebook. He specializes in information privacy. which means a warrant may not be needed once reidentification tools become cheap and widespread in ways that they would not have been. the difference between self-help policing and assisted policing has received little attention. but no expectation of privacy will be deemed reasonable in a world without privacy. private companies may develop a tool to convert the supposedly anonymous comments on a public message board into the commenter’s true identity by cross-referencing the attributes of the communication with rich outside databases using powerful reidentification techniques.pdf) The diminished Fourth Amendment While some legal scholars have argued that we abandon the reasonable expectation of privacy test.33 mounted the recording device in Katz. In constitutional criminal procedure.pdf) the rise of the surveillance society means for the Fourth Amendment. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies will shift from being active producers of surveillance to passive consumers. Even worse. To replace it. intellectual property. none of these scholars has considered the central we are headed for a world without privacy ? This shift in focus gives a different. It will likely seem a far cry from the FBI they know: agents sitting in offices. records of their behavior would be created and retained when once they would have been never created or destroyed. Paul Ohm is an Associate Professor and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the University of Colorado Law School. acting as a central clearing house for the observations of private industry. consider what it means for We should expect a major shift in the center of activity of crime fighting from the police to private industry . but it also gives rise to the need for new prescriptions. abandoning the reasonable expectation of privacy test. these private labs seem similar to FBI labs with big buildings and smart engineers. Today’s Fourth Amendment has been built around the reasonable expectation of privacy test. The police inserted the wires into the telephone lines in Olmstead. will become much less important as pervasive monitoring and record collection will give the police probable cause most of the time. refusing to accept a nugatory Fourth Amendment. Police agencies will begin to abdicate their traditional role as conductor of surveillance. To save the Fourth Amendment. The surveillance society will greatly diminish the importance of self-help Before examining what the practicalities of policing. but also who have honed the ability to convince private citizens to agree to be watched. Whether the police could use technology like this without a warrant may turn on the general public use test. who are not only ungoverned by the state action requirements of the Fourth Amendment. they will transform it. and still others have anchored the Fourth Amendment in principles other than privacy. It is as if today’s FBI has developed a sophisticated surveillance research-and-development arm with . acting as a neat by other people and for other purposes. because it will be eclipsed by the powerful new systems of private surveillance .

or approximately 0. For example. which we will see repeated constantly in the years to come. Fax. armies. the nation’s courts have authorized fewer than twenty wiretaps of digital networks a year. the FBI abandoned Carnivore’s successor. hitting the refresh button on his web browser.D. out of 2. Bentham intended the basic plan to have widespread application. With each passing year.. wearing headphones in a white van parked on the curb. there is .publicsafety. consider the annual Wiretap Report. and factories) have evolved through history to resemble Bentham’s Panopticon. and Congress raged. realizing that the private computer security industry had designed better filtering packet sniffers shift in role and responsibility for surveillance from FBI labs to private companies. the public complained.54 The less-well-known denouement is also telling: a few years after the controversy. and Defense Department rely on the services of data aggregators like ChoicePoint . the police will learn to borrow and beg rather than build. This shift is a herald of the Domestic drones = panopticon Cavoukian 12 (Ann. with a near linear decline from 2000 (eighty-nine intercepts. a close watcher of these statistics. but also the fruits of private surveillance are simply betterfed as they are by our sensor-laden world and empowered by consensualsharing.end-around circumventing the Fourth Amendment .49 But the drop since 2000 is nearly as pronounced. Bentham’s initial concept was later invoked by Michel Foucault (in Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison) as a metaphor for modern “disciplinary” societies and their pervasive inclination to observe and normalize. Today. electronic (computer network). speculates that this is proof of the declining importance of fax transmissions in criminal surveillance. The design consisted of a circular structure with an “inspection house” at its centre. Not only is it easier to secure private cooperation than judicial sanction. the number of court ordered wiretaps involving electronic evidence dropped precipitously at the turn of the century. Instead. August 2012. wire (telephone).47 This is not an outlier.” oral (voice). Chris Soghoian. managers or guards of the institution were easily able to watch (and control) the behaviour of the inmates stationed around the perimeter.51 Since 2006. and reading the latest log file dump sent from private industry.46 Some have expressed surprise. clipping alligator clips to telephone wires.” http://www. Jon Michaels has carefully tracked the increasing reliance on technological advances and private surveillance by the intelligence community. Information & Privacy Commissioner.ca/lbrr/archives/cnmcsplcng/cn29822-eng.pdf) The Panopticon prison design was the creation of English philosopher and social theorist Jeremy Bentham. Our societies are becoming increasingly acclimatized to panoptic surveillance by closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras in both public and private spaces. accepting that law enforcement agencies have a legitimate and compelling need to engage in authorized surveillance.52 The dramatic decrease is almost certainly not an indication that criminals use computer it likely represents a shift in police tactics away from self-help. but all hierarchical structures (i. than the FBI could do on its own. By statute.45 One table of the report breaks down wiretap orders by the “type of surveillance used.311 wiretaps ordered nationwide. at the low number of electronic orders granted every year.42 Although few scholars have noted what the end of self-help policing means for the Fourth Amendment. the Administrative Office of the United States Courts is charged with issuing a report each year that tallies the number of applications for court-ordered wiretaps in state and federal court and requires a small number of summary statistics about each jurisdiction. as indicated by Figure 1. Our mental image of the FBI agent networks less or that the police rely less on network surveillance. Ph. However. never topping one percent of all orders in that time span. the FBI faced a coated FBI scientist firestorm surrounding its Carnivore systema piece of software developed in-house and designed to perform electronic wiretapping on digital networks in technical terms. 0. which are included in this reporting category.43 Others have noted how much the CIA. Figure 1 is a bellwether not an outlier. FBI. some have noted the descriptive shift in the amount the police and intelligence community rely on the fruits of private surveillance. In the late 1990s.53 The public story is well known: the press dug deep. a filtering packet sniffer. and Computer”).76%).e. in calendar year 2010. “Privacy and Drones: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. hospitals. it makes little sense for the police to engage in court-ordered wiretapping. ultimately passing laws requiring better reporting about the FBI’s use of the system. Clearly. Foucault proposed that not only prisons. and working with a white- will soon be replaced by an agent sitting in his office.gc. nearly eight percent of all)50 to 2006 (thirteen intercepts. From this vantage point. which plots both the total number and percentage of all wiretaps that involved electronic surveillance for the past fifteen years.44 As proof of the shift away from a self-help police force. schools. Figure 1 provides a compelling visual image of the decline of self-help policing. only sixteen involved electronic surveillance (defined as “Digital Pager. even suspicion.7%.. Consider one final example. conducting surveillance.

000 pounds. JD canidate Ohio State Univ.47 Small drones enjoy stealth and maneuverability. These developments oblige us to revisit fundamental issues regarding our expectations of privacy.5 3 Civilian operators can easily install cameras and recorders with high-powered zoom lenses on drones.60 Taking full advantage of drone capabilities. Certain cameras have been developed specifically for civilian UAS use. however. cameras. domestic users have already put drones to work in a variety of capacities . drones operating in the near future will likely utilize video processing systems.potential for serious violations of privacy to arise from the misuse of this technology.54 More worrisome to privacy advocates.1 Echoing Bentham and Foucault. AeroVironment’s Nano Hummingbird might be the most diminutive drone at present.000 feet. the increased use of drones or “unmanned aerial vehicles” has the potential to result in the widespread deployment of panoptic structures that may persist invisibly throughout society. cruise at speeds of up to 320 knots. and potential uses of drones.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2013/12/8Olivito.48 Because many small drones operate on electricity. the following sections explore the physical capabilities.57 Drones engaged in perch-and-stare surveillance might also utilize acoustical eavesdropping devices.51 In order to extend flight time. Drones vary in size from the miniature to the gargantuan.58 In terms of software. Physical Capabilities of Drones Government Agencies and businesses of all varieties envision using drones for a multitude of purposes . drones can be equipped with a wide variety of surveillance equipment. gimbal camera. for example. December 8. including respect for activities that occur in public spaces. other drones engage in “perch-and-stare” surveillance . Drones can serve in such a broad range of functions precisely because of the diversity of drone sizes and designs. drones can be equipped with infrared and ultraviolet imaging devices. Measuring 6. The operations.44 Operating at speeds of less than 100 knots and at altitudes below 500 feet. government agencies and including face and body recognition technology. Exacerbating this concern.59 . small drones often run on batteries and can stay airborne for as long as two hours.43 More typically. automatically remains focused on a single object even as the drone continues on its flight path. as certain drone designs permit the aircraft to both hover and fly normally. A.56 and distributed video systems.55 seethrough imaging (radar technology). law enforcement drones might soon pack rubber bullets and tear gas. such as conventional microphones or laser optical microphones. UAVs destroy privacy OLIVITO 2013 (Jonathan Olivito. commentators have begun to recognize the serious potential for privacy invasions posed by widespread drone use. small drones have wingspans of ten feet or less and weigh between four and twenty pounds. and remain airborne without refueling for anywhere from thirty-five hours to four days.50 Some drones do not ever need to loiter. and other surveillance equipment that operators can install on drones. like their military counterparts.45 Large drones have wingspans of up to 150 feet and can weigh over 30.pdf) In conjunction with the recent proliferation of drones operating domestically.42 Complementing the diversity of drone designs are the myriad sensors. We are called upon to once again also the fortify our defence of privacy.5 inches and weighing in at nineteen grams.46 These systems can operate at altitudes of up to 65. Moritz College of Law. they also carry the potential for abuse. Although domestic drones have numerous beneficial applications. Thus we set out video surveillance guidelines to control potential excesses of such technology.49 Additionally.41 To illuminate why drones pose such a grave danger to privacy in the United States. Finally. they produce very little noise. 2013 “Beyond the Fourth Amendment: Limiting Drone Surveillance Through the Constitutional Right to Informational Privacy” http://moritzlaw. civilian drones. making them ideal for urban surveillance the relatively slow cruising speeds of small drones permit them to loiter over a surveillance target for extended periods of time.osu. current uses. in order to ensure that this central tenet of freedom remains protected in a manner that is consistent with our shared values. Although lethal weapons are almost certainly out of the question.52 Most pertinent to privacy concerns. can carry weaponry.

private operators intend to employ drones for so many purposes that drones will someday form a ubiquitous part of life. . however. Even in the immediate future. targeted and inadvertent UAS surveillance poses a threat to privacy.

Confronted with drone surveillance perpetrated by private businesses or other nongovernmental actors. Winter 2015 “Furtive encryption: Power. Current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has been steadily moving toward analysis that begins from the government’s perspective. Vagle. the Supreme Court has been formulating Fourth Amendment doctrine from the perspective of the government or police agency engaged in searches or seizures. 90 Iss. 150 This is contrary to the Court’s orientation toward the individual in Katz and turns Fourth Amendment doctrine on its head.148 In particular. Moritz College of Law. 4th amendment weaker after War on Terror Vagle 2015 (Jeffrey L. near political conventions. individuals might rely on tort law claims73 including nuisance.repository. and around water reservoirs. near sports arenas. increased the frequency of suspicionless searches by law enforcement . Currently.law. Law School.77 However. not to facilitate the government’s needs.edu/cgi/viewcontent. University of Penn.75 intrusion upon seclusion. at protest rallies. December 8. As such. torts typically will not constitute an effective recourse to drone privacy invasions committed by government entities.74 trespass. on ferries. a trend made plain in post-Katz cases that complain of the burden placed on . Trusts.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2013/12/8Olivito.indiana. and the COnstitituional Cost of Collective Surveillance” V. JD canidate Ohio State Univ. the genuine problem of global terrorism and the government’s duty to provide for national security have added even more momentum to the courts’ consistent trend toward analyzing Fourth Amendment problems from the government’s point of view . 2013 “Beyond the Fourth Amendment: Limiting Drone Surveillance Through the Constitutional Right to Informational Privacy” http://moritzlaw.151 This core constitutional tenet is especially important when addressing government collective-surveillance programs in the face of government claims of national security necessity.osu. the potential safeguards against government drone surveillance include statutory and regulatory protections and the Fourth Amendment. especially in the context of information gathered by drones in public places. Americans currently have at their disposal only a handful of legal protections to guard against invasive government drone surveillance .cgi? article=11134&context=ilj) The “War on Terror” that followed the catastrophic events of September 11. including contexts such as searches at entrances to subways.76 and public exposure of private facts. 1 Indiana Law Journal http://www.149 This is not to say that courts routinely adopt the government’s arguments in Fourth Amendment cases. both of these options fail to provide satisfactory privacy protections.pdf) As 2015 and widespread domestic drone use draw closer. 2001. the Fourth Amendment was designed to protect citizens from unjustified and arbitrary government intrusions. but rather that over the past three decades. due to sovereign-immunity principles.AT Squo solves privacy Not enough protection against government drone surveillance OLIVITO 2013 (Jonathan Olivito.

has been redefined from a prohibition against impermissible government intrusions based firmly on the Fourth Amendment’s Warrant Clause186 to a balancing test which weighs an individual’s right to privacy against the government interest in effective law enforcement. and the increasing ease with which we communicate over the Internet has made it a natural tool for information gathering. 90 Iss. focusing on an ill-defined concept of privacy and taken from the perspective of the government agent engaged in search and seizure.repository.government by Fourth Amendment requirements. and what we watch.185 The base analytical tools made available under existing Fourth Amendment doctrine are sound but have been gradually (and artificially) limited to a characterization of the underlying constitutional issues that have little basis in the Framers’ intent. Law School. what we read. 1 Indiana Law Journal http://www. Questions of efficacy aside for the moment. Winter 2015 “Furtive encryption: Power. the government could apply analytical tools to reveal a very detailed portrait of who we are based on what we buy. This balancing test departs from the language of the Warrant Clause and relies instead on the Reasonableness Clause.152 This doctrinal trend has been even more prevalent in cases the government argues that the needs of national security require an even freer hand unencumbered by naïve Fourth Amendment analysis made quaint by the global war on terrorism. 183 The the continued realization of Moore’s Law.indiana. has many compelling reasons to collect and store information about its citizens. and the Constitutional Cost of Collective Surveillance” V. This characterization. and protection of citizens’ rights. University of Penn. government. . therefore. the State’s increased use of data collection and analysis is a predictable result of this growth is not a new phenomenon. 2001.law. Trusts.182 Furthermore. Governments used data collection and analysis long before the post-2001 counterterrorism efforts to accomplish such well-established goals as crime prevention. based on the special needs of government.edu/cgi/viewcontent. Vagle. where Privacy is easily infiltrated by government Vagle 2015 (Jeffrey L.cgi?article=11134&context=ilj) Government use of advances in information technologies to collect and analyze ever larger and more detailed citizen databases should come as no surprise . delivery of welfare benefits.184 With the ability to collect and store virtually all information communicated over the Internet. what organizations we belong to. argued after September 11.

while equipping them with infra-red or heat-seeking detectors and high-powered cameras can provide extremely invasive imagery. that police official explained how the drone product has “been especially useful in search operations. only to change their minds for budgetary reasons. December 6 2011. there were already “more than 270 active authorizations for the use of dozens of kinds of drones” (35% held by the Pentagon. in Naylor’s words. and then find and arrest the suspect. and NPR decided that this.salon. boasted one U. and we can see everything. agricultural thieves and fly-tippers. ” With about 20 seconds left in the report. stealth video cameras that invade homes and other private spaces — is simply creepy.S. in fact. So. the agriculture market. and fantastic safety record. shows police officers chasing a criminal who hides. including “Utility companies – so oil and gas – using a UAS to do surveillance over a pipeline. That official touted all the fantastic private-sector uses for drones. AeroVironment. high-tech. the video. receive images of where the criminal is hiding on their iPad.” Naylor then told NPR listeners that drones “have been a success with the military” — though he didn’t mention things like this. who was armed and dangerous. and the effect they have on the culture of personal privacy — having the state employ hovering. NPR listeners then heard from that corporation’s Vice President touting how much the Qube will help “public safety professionals like law enforcement. the potential for abuse is vast. gushed Naylor. On its All Things Considered program yesterday.com/2011/12/06/nprs_domestic_drone_commercial/) Excitement over America’s use of drones in multiple Muslim countries is. Journalist and lawyer. cursory note about privacy and abuse issues.” The Sheriff official then hailed the drone’s low cost.” Even leaving aside the issue of weaponization (police officials now openly talk about equipping drones with “nonlethal weapons such as Tasers or a bean-bag gun”).” Orlando’s police department originally requested two drones to use for security at next year’s GOP convention.” That’s the organization that represents the drone manufacturing industry. was an important source for its story examining the domestic use of drones. it came time to tack on a brief.S. You could use UAS for tracking livestock. Employing them for domestic police actions is following the model quickly being implemented in surveillance-happy Britain. http://www. Federal law enforcement agencies and local police forces are buying more and more of them and putting them to increasingly diverse domestic uses. causing those weapons to be imported onto U. named after the “mythical Greek creature whose unblinking eyes turned to stone those who beheld them” — is “able to scan an area the size of a small town” and “the most sophisticated robotics use artificial intelligence that [can] seek out and record certain kinds of suspicious activity”. One U. Next up in NPR’s report was — seriously — an official with the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International. too.Drolif Advantage Weaponized drones are coming and have dangerous applications Greenwald 11 (Glenn. General: “Gorgon Stare will be looking at a whole city. and even private corporations are now considering how to use them. launch it airborne. Their ability to hover in the air undetected for long periods of time along with their comparatively cheap cost enables a type of broad. where drones are used for “the ’routine’ monitoring of antisocial motorists. which names its drone “the Qube”. and first responders. only for the police to pull a drone out of their trunk. electrical companies that want to do surveillance over some of their electrical wires. the use of drones for domestic surveillance raises all sorts of extremely serious privacy concerns and other issues of potential abuse. in a significant expansion of covert state surveillance. light weight. this or this — and then moved on to talk to an official in a Sheriff’s office in Colorado who uses the Dragonfly X6. search and rescue. predictably. soil. drone manufacturer advertises its product as ideal for “urban monitoring. The holes eaten into the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure protections by the Drug War and the War on Terror means there are few Constitutional limits on how this technology can be used. and there are no real statutory or regulatory restrictions limiting their use.S. as well as patrolling the border. One new type of drone already in use by the U. you can use UAS for crop testing. much more akin to a commercial for the drone industry. 5% by Homeland Security and others by the FBI). protesters.” As of the 2010 year-end report from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Said Naylor: “All that flying around of unmanned aircraft has some . NPR broadcast a five-minute report (audio below) from Brian Naylor that purported to be a news story on the domestic use of drones but was.S. “NPR’s Domestic Drone Commercial”. so there will be no way for the adversary to know what we’re looking at. In sum. sustained societal surveillance that is now impractical. military in Afghanistan — the Gorgon Stare. the escalation in surveillance they ensure is substantial. But listeners of NPR would know about virtually none of that. Naylor began by describing a video on the website of a drone manufacturer. which Naylor called “an industry trade group.

But another article prominently touted on AV's website describes the tiny UAS product dubbed the "Switchblade".that are so small that they can be "transported in the trunk of a police vehicle or carried in a backpack" and assembled and deployed within a matter of minutes. leading manufacturer of small "unmanned aircraft systems" (UAS). the California company that sells the military something like 85 percent of its fleet. .such as the "Qube" . has received the most media attention: the type of large Predator or Reaper drones that shoot Hellfire missiles which destroy homes and cars in Pakistan." . portable weaponized UAS products will not imminently be used by federal. March 29 2013. "it is controlled by the operator at the scene. http://www. how would this report have been any different? (An industry commercial might have given more prominent play to the privacy advocate just to make it seem less one-sided). your homeowners’ association. The handful of genuinely positive uses from drones will be endlessly touted to distract attention away from the dangers they pose. and the activities of the increasingly powerful domestic drone lobby. Yemen. Police agencies and the increasingly powerful drone industry will tout their utility in capturing and killing dangerous criminals and their ability to keep officers safe.” Naylor then noted that the FAA is working now on safety regulations. Instead. Of course they will be. As a February. drones are headed off the battlefield. These efforts are being impeded by those who mock the idea that domestic drones pose unique dangers (often the same people who mock concern over their usage on foreign soil).say. (AV). 2013 CBS News report noted. both in terms of numbers and types of usage. and a sheriff’s spokesman using drones. . is AeroVironment. So it's quite worthwhile to lay out the key under-discussed facts shaping this issue.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/29/domestic-drones-unique-dangers) The use of drones by domestic US law enforcement agencies is growing rapidly." Like many drone manufacturers. As a result. even wholesale. It's a kamikaze: the person controlling it uses a real-time video feed from the drone to crash it into a precise target . sending its surveillance imagery to an i-Pad held by the operator. weaponization of unmanned systems. the ways drones are now being developed and marketed for domestic use. So NPR listeners heard for 4 1/2 minutes about the wonderful. infrared cameras.while accepting that domestic drones are inevitable .people a little wary." The drone industry has already developed and is now aggressively marketing precisely such weaponized drones for domestic law enforcement use .but just as lethal. gushing: "the Switchblade drone can be carried into battle in a backpack. Inc.” If the drone industry had purchased commercial time on NPR. focusing on AV's surveillance drones: "Now. but I want to say a few words about weaponized drones. civil liberties and privacy groups led by the ACLU . and media reports will do the same. What possible reason could someone identify as to why these small. One news report AV touts is headlined "Drone technology could be coming to a Police Department near you". Its2011 Annual Report filed with the SEC repeatedly emphasizes that its business strategy depends upon expanding its market from foreign wars to domestic usage including law enforcement: [PHOTO] AV's annual report added: "Initial likely non-military users of small UAS include public safety organizations such as law enforcement agencies. This dismissive posture is grounded not only in soft authoritarianism (a religious-type faith in the Goodness of US political leaders and state power generally) but also ignorance over current drone capabilities. exciting uses of drones from an executive of a drone corporation. It's not just likely but inevitable. Journalist and lawyer. "AeroVironment. I'm The belief that weaponized drones won't be used on US soil is patently irrational. which focuses on the Qube. Somalia. which. Police departments are already speaking openly about how their drones "could be equipped to carry nonlethal weapons such as Tasers or a beanbag gun. as I wrote back in 2011. Afghanistan and multiple other countries aimed at Muslims (although US law enforcement agencies already possess Predator drones and have used them over US soil for surveillance). and then for about 10 seconds at the end from someone who is “a little wary.have been devoting increasing efforts topublicizing their unique dangers and agitating for statutory limits.” A “privacy advocate” was put on the air for about ten seconds to note that “drones can easily be equipped with facial recognition cameras. used both for surveillance and attack purposes. who can then direct the Switchblade to lunge toward and kill the target (hence the name) by exploding in his face." The article creepily hails the Switchblade drone as "the ultimate assassin bug". your neighbor. says the article.theguardian. is "the leading edge of what is likely to be the broader. It likely won't be in the form that going to focus here most on domestic surveillance drones. . and it worms its way around buildings and into small areas. Weaponized drones are inevitable and coming fast Greenwald 13 (Glenn. state and local law enforcement agencies in the US? They're designed to protect their users in dangerous situations and to enable a target to be more easily killed. the report ended." These domestic marketing efforts are intensifying with the perception that US spending on foreign wars will decrease. or open WiFi sniffers” and could also be used by “paparazzi. That's because. 2013 Defense News article describing how much the US Army loves the "Switchblade" and how it is preparing to purchase more. AV is now focused on drone products . is marketing them now to public safety agencies. Its tiny warhead detonates on impact. One has to be incredibly naïve to think that these "assassin bugs" and other lethal drone products will not be widely used on US soil by an a sniper. They're already coming your way. as I detailed in a 2012 domestic weaponized drones will be much smaller and cheaper. The nation's examination of the drone industry's own promotional materials and reports to their shareholders. Time Magazine heralded this tiny drone weapon as "one of the best inventions of 2012". “Domestic Drones ad Their Unique Dangers”. as well as more agile . an official with the drone industry. and with that." AV's website right now proudly touts a February.

Inc.salon.com/2011/12/12/the_growing_menace_of_domestic_drones/) There is always a large segment of the population that reflexively supports the use of greater government and police power — it’s usually the same segment that has little objection to Endless War — and it’s grounded in a mix of standard authoritarianism (I side with authority over those they accused of being Bad and want authorities increasingly empowered to stop the Bad people) along with naiveté (I don’t really worry that new weapons and powers will be abused by those in power. Glenn Greenwald is a journalist. His most recent book.” Because of how small. the article dubs this new product “the ultimate assassin bug. Government. AV repeatedly touts domestic uses as the source for future growth:AV specializes in the manufacture of drone products so small that they can be transported in the trunk of a car and assembled and deployed within a matter of minutes. nonmilitary use. military in — for all the reasons . such as the Predator. Here’s how AV describes its new product: that the police can already engage in surveillance so why not let them do it more efficiently? — what possible objections will there be to having the police use weaponized drones? After all. many more of them can be deployed at once. In other words. even wholesale.” the research and development of which has been funded in part by the U. 2011. soil for sustained surveillance purposes — based on the reasoning in his face.S. pepper spray and shoot people: why not let them do it with drones? AV itself certainly expects precisely that lack of resistance:The fact is that drones vest vast new powers that police helicopters and existing weapons do not vest: and that’s true not just for weaponization but for surveillance . Their small size and stealth capability means they can hover without any detection.already para-militarized domestic police force. In their 2011 Annual Report. but kill them. especially when — like now — those in power are Good). “The growing meanace of domestic drones” http://www. sending its surveillance imagery to an i-Pad held by the operator. which move with the earth’s rotation (see AV’s Report at p. controlled by the operator at the scene. is General Atomics Aeronautical Systems. used both for surveillance and attack purposes (the leading manufacturer of the larger drones. They continuously emphasize to investors and others that a major source of business growth for their drone products will be domestic. Inc. the primary trend in US law enforcement is what its title describes as "The Militarization of America's Police Forces". Drones enable a Surveillance State unlike anything we’ve seen. miniature unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that is also a weapon” and “the leading edge of what is likely to be the broader. is about the U. For those who are perfectly content with having stealth. Consider the case of AeroVironment. constitutional lawyer. weaponization of unmanned systems .” Basically. and can be deployed to find suspects around corners. The product which AV appears to believe holds the greatest promise is one they have christened “The Switchblade. won’t those same people dismiss concerns over weaponized drones by arguing: there’s no difference between allowing the police to Taser you or shoot you themselves and allowing them to do that by drone? This is always how creeping police state powers are entrenched: one step at a time.S. hovering drones over U. As I noted last week. surveillance state and his experiences reporting on the Snowden documents around the world for the Guardian. and author of four New York Times best-selling books on politics and law. This mindset manifests in the domestic drone context weapons such as Tasers or a bean-bag gun. No Place to Hide. violent surveillance state. they can be used by a single soldier — or police officer — chasing a suspect. behind buildings. (AV). the nation’s leading manufacturer of small drones..” Anyone who doubts that this is going to happen should just consider what the drone manufacturing industry itself is saying. it worms its way around buildings and into small areas. domestic policing. As Radley Balko's forthcoming book "Rise of the Warrior Cop" details. rather than being remote-operated from a military base. owned by the privately-held General Atomics). December 12. and they can remain in the air for far longer than police helicopters. ensuring far greater surveillance over a much larger area. one new type of drone already in use by the U. weaponized. Because small drones are so much cheaper than police helicopters. who can then direct the Switchblade to lunge toward and kill the target (hence the name) by exploding For those dismissing concerns about drones by claiming (falsely) that they are the equivalent of police helicopters. in urban environments: and not just find them.S.S. light and easily deployable it is. justifying human-rights abuses throughout the nation Greenwald 11 (Glenn Greenwald. 11 — the section entitled “Stratospheric Persistent UAS” drones can provide uniquely sustained surveillance in ways that satellites and police helicopters cannot). The history of domestic law enforcement particularly after 9/11 has been the importation of military techniques and weapons into It would be shocking if these weapons were not imminently used by domestic law enforcement agencies. the police can already Taser. Domestic Drone surveillance leads to a mass. AV prominently touts an article hailing the Switchblade as “an ingenious. Their hovering capability also means they can surveil a single spot for much longer than military satellites.As I noted last week.

. With these armies of influence-peddlers lined up to ensure that happens. the maker of the Predator drone. AeroVironment’s lobbying expenditures are now close to $1 million each year. these particular suspects are not led federal authorities to lend their Predator drone to apprehend them. There are people out there – I’ve met some of them. It’s beyond obvious that policy planners and law enforcement officials expect serious social unrest.S. soil. who for 21 years “worked for [GOP Democratic] Congressman Jerry Lewis. Although a few members of that movement have engaged in violence (as is true for most political movements). and Clayton Heil. combined with the security-fixated mentality of America ’s political and media classes and the authoritarian factions of its citizenry. and bipartisan lobbyist armies. Meanwhile.S. General: “Gorgon Stare will be looking at a whole city. . that was the largest underwriter of those trips. The Surveillance State and the police powers ushered in by the War on Terror have been widely applied to domestic political dissent. and one would have to be historically ignorant and pathologically naive not to understand its capacity for abuse. and Italy — it was General Atomics. citizens to the latest detention bill about to pass Congress.” and highlighted the social unrest and anti-democratic forces growing in Europe. Unsurprisingly. with greater powers constantly being seized in its name for domestic uses. Those lobbyists include former GOP Sen. Jessica Eggimann. The U. a top GA in-house lobbyist. When a scandal erupted several years ago over corporate-paid trips for members there”) — a separate reason the of Congress and their staffs — the most common destinations being such strategically vital locales such as Paris. This is an industry that has long consolidated its control over Congress using the standard mix of campaign contributions. Homeland Security budgets their future growth depends upon expanding the use of into domestic law enforcement settings. and we can see everything. who boasts of “29 years of service to the Federal Government in both the executive and legislative branches” and “21 years as a professional staffer for various leaders of the House Appropriations Committee”. What if one of them is linked to a violent act? What if a bomb goes off in a police station in Oakland. legalized bribery.S.is “able to scan an area the size of a small town“ and “the most sophisticated robotics use artificial intelligence that [can] seek out and record certain kinds of suspicious activity ”. former House staffer to GOP Rep.General Atomics employs a large team of lobbyist firms filled with former government officials. But words like “associated” and “substantial” and “betray” have crept into the discussion. .” It takes little imagination to see the dangers of this militarization of domestic police powers. and the like. as they make very clear. the domestic government is more unpopular than ever.” so many of the most recent War on Terror expansions have entailed application for domestic uses: from the Obama administration’s assault on Miranda rights to its claimed power to assassinate U. The suspects in question are basically political dissidents: they are adherents to the “sovereign citizen” movement which basically engages in mischievous civil disobedience — the filing of fraudulent lien documents and the like — to protest what it believes to be illegitimate government authority. They believe.” Only ignorance and irrationality can lead someone to assert that surveillance drones do nothing more than what police helicopters already enable. It began in the Bush years with a nebulous description of terrorist sedition that may or may not have included links to Sunni extremist groups in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan. GA’s annual lobbying budget is in excess of $2 million. Terrorism officials now routinely emphasize the supposedly domestic nature of the Terrorist threat. Take the case just reported on by the LA Times. named after the “mythical Greek creature whose unblinking eyes turned to stone those who beheld them” — and/or kill Bad Guys over there. At what point do those luminaries start equating and now it feels like the definition of a terrorist is anyone who crosses some sort of steadily-advancing invisible line in their opposition to the current government. This effort to eat away at the rights of the accused was originally gradual. . Police in England have formally labeled the Occupy movement a “Terrorist threat” alongside Al Qaeda and FARC and. Letita White. I was somewhat baffled as to why this case already struck London and Athens.S. what is going to stop the full-scale importation of drone technology — for surveillance and weaponization — onto American soil? Why would anyone think that’s not going to happen? * * * * * Not just the potential for abuse — but the likelihood of it. Beyond the natural extension of the authoritarian mindset — if we use drones to find Afghanistan — the Gorgon Stare. Economic.” That’s just a fraction of the influence-peddlers laboring in the halls of Washington for GA.S. . Why wouldn’t they: when has sustained. . Congressional staffers and even members of Congress. . Hawaii. — involving a minor dispute over 6 wandering cows. boasted one U. At first. We have two very different but similarly large protest movements going on right now in the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement. personally doles out tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to key House members of both parties who work on defense issues. or at least reconfigured. or an IRS office in Texas? What if the FBI then linked those acts to Occupy or the Tea Party? . deep anger at the political class and its institutions — not produced that type of unrest? Drones are the ultimate tool for invasive. the former “deputy staff director and general counsel to the Senate Appropriations Committee. And U. it Here’s how Matt Taibbi put it when trumpeting the dangers of potential domestic application of the new detention bill: Here’s where I think we’re in very dangerous territory.In the name of “homegrown Terrorism. in order for progress to be made. followed by some not unusual hostility from farm owners toward law enforcement — would prompt the first use of a Predator B drone to apprehend domestic suspects. in fact. Joe Wilson on the Veterans’ Affairs Committee. so there will be no way for the adversary to know what we’re looking at. Dave Kilian. . sustained surveillance and control. and there is quite a lot of radical and even revolutionary political agitation going on right here at home. Al D’Amato and his son Christopher (ex-Senior Counsel at the SEC). the current Ranking Minority Member of the House Appropriations Committee”. why not let our leaders use them over here? (and Wired today published photographs of the civilian impact of President Obama’s drone campaign “over domestic importation of drones is highly likely is that this industry is spending large amounts of money to ensure it. that drones beyond military uses and Europe are suffering not a recession but a “depression. of course. This confusion about the definition of terrorism comes at a time when the economy is terrible. They are focused on lobbying for exactly the bills one would expect: defense appropriations. Today. in both the Occupy and Tea Party movements – who think that the entire American political system needs to be overthrown. severe economic suffering and anxiety of the sort we are now seeing — along with pervasive. .” statements that indicate a rejection of American society. see-something” campaign against “domestic radicalization”: encouraging teachers and children to spot and then report those “making takes extreme denseness and authoritarian trust to dismiss it as “paranoia” or “hysteria . really the inevitability — is self-evident for so many reasons .and austerity-fuelled riots have excessive police force has been repeatedly used against Occupy protesters on U. but their participation in an anti-government movement is obviously what administration’s creepy new “hear-something. Gary Hopper. Paul Krugman decreed that the U. but to me it looks like that process is accelerating.S. Government’s fixation on identifying and punishing dissidents is illustrated by the accused of any wrongdoing with regard to any of that. . But looking a bit further into the matter made it clear.

and such niceties as American citizenship and the legal tradition of due process seem to be less and less meaningful to the people who run things in America . we live in fast times. “U. and scaled down versions are even sought after for recreation. It needs far more matter one’s views. No the escalating addition of drones — weaponized or even just surveillance — to the vast arsenal of domestic weapons that already exist is a serious. security. http://www. and civil liberties. That CBP has considered weaponizing its drones will add to concerns about potential mission creep with unmanned technology being used domestically. or “drone. it was almost solely in the context of military strategy.com/2015/05/01/its-time-to-ban-armed-droneson-american-soil/) When most people heard about an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS). It doesn’t seem very long ago that this technology seemed exclusively military-grade and too hyper-advanced to concern the average American. show the CPB suggesting in a “law enforcement sensitive” report to Congress that its drones could be upgraded to include the weapons to shoot at “targets of interest. However . consequential development.S. http://dailycaller. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rules have been relaxed in recent years . energy companies want them to monitor multi-acre pipelines and wind farms. dated 2010. But that hasn’t stopped the Department of Homeland Security from considering weaponizing its unmanned aircraft so they can “immobilize” targets in border areas. has said that it has rules in place that “prohibit weapons from being installed on a civil aircraft” and that it does not “have any plans on changing them for unmanned aircraft. The documents. congressman. the program’s last re-authorization even acknowledged the field was rapidly advancing unpredictably. in what passes for the minds) of the people who run this country? That difference seems to be getting smaller and smaller all the time.html) Drones in the United States are currently only authorized to be used for surveillance purposes. which may have prompted President Obama during a speech in May to state that he believed no president should “deploy armed drones over U. but “non-lethal” rounds deployed on drones could feasibly include rubber bullets. In fact. and aren’t threatening in and of themselves. But. July 3 2013. in a few short years drones have rapidly integrated into our everyday lives. One thing is for certain: this is a development that is going to continue and increase rapidly. 26th district Texas. or a Taser-like shock.al-Qaeda supporters with. Current FAA regulations fail to stop weaponization Gallagher 13 (Ryan. soil.slate. attention than it has thus far received.S. tear gas. which would necessitate new oversight. Michael. radical anti-capitalists in the Occupy movement ? What exactly is the difference between such groups in the minds (excuse me. Rights groups have previously raised concerns about the possibility of drones in the United States being equipped with weapons. say. local . Prior action is key Burgess 15 (Rep. in which they are behind one set of lines and an increasingly enormous group of other people is on the other side.” The documents do not detail specific weapons.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/07/03/documents_show_customs_and_border_ protection_considered_weaponized_domestic. These adaptations are similar to the after-effects of any groundbreaking technology. The fact that it has happened with almost no debate and no real legal authorization is itself highly significant ." The FAA. show that the DHS’s Customs and Border Protection arm has weighed the possibility of adding “non-lethal weapons” to its Predator unmanned aircraft. What does seem real to them is this “battlefield earth” vision of the world. which is working to integrate drones into the national airspace system by September 2015. “It’s Time to Ban Armed Drones on American Soil”. Newly released documents.” But as drone technology is increasingly adopted by law enforcement agencies. Delivery companies like Amazon want them. which are currently used predominantly to monitor border zones in Arizona and Texas. obtained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation through a Freedom of Information Act request. And sure enough. journalist who reports on surveillance. Border Agency Has Considered Weaponizing Domestic Drones to "Immobilize" People”.” for the first time. the agency may come under pressure to rethink those regulations. May 1 2015.

Don’t confuse the matter. . interest has become more widespread in nationwide local departments. Some 600 applications are still pending. The first local police to show interest were in my home state of Texas and. We need the chance to answer the serious questions that drones pose before we go down a path we can’t reverse. Under existing FAA rules. But for those with Section 333 exemptions. which typically grant government agencies or research institutions permission to use drones under fairly restrictive circumstances. unmanned. technology. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is entertaining the idea of deploying drones with drug sensing capabilities. users that simply want to test a new flight software patch or use a drone to inspect something no higher than a power line have to file flight plans with the FAA. here’s what it really means: If you weren’t authorized to fly before. In other words.com/2015/03/24/faacommercial-drone-approval/) The Federal Aviation Administration on Tuesday released anew interim policy governing the use of certain small drones for commercial purposes. In that context. and other riot control-like projectiles. the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) directly contradicts their own mission statement by carrying out drone strikes abroad. stuck in a slow-moving approval pipeline. you still can’t. I believe that free citizens are innocent unless proven guilty. Most could have reasonable intentions. “FAA issues blanket approval for commercial drone use below 200 feet”. So. rubber bullets. March 24 2015. But the new rules won’t benefit everyone equally . There is no reason that any law abiding American should experience that kind of oppression . the FAA just slashed through a whole lot of red tape. and defense reporter. I introduced the “No Armed Drones Act (NADA)” to bar the use of armed drones – lethal or non-lethal – against any person or property in the entirety of our national airspace . flying police aircraft. If all that sounds a bit confusing. issuing a blanket authorization for unmanned aircraft flights below 200 feet. it is of the utmost importance that we start those talks on an even surface that doesn’t include armed. The blanket COA essentially allows those same companies to operate much more flexibly and without so much government oversight provided they’re willing to keep their aircraft below 200 feet. What’s worse is that federal law enforcement seems to be complicit.police agencies across the country are increasingly requesting FAA approval to deploy drones. those companies that are already approved to fly under Section 333 now have blanket approval to fly below 200 feet. usually for research. before the FAA approves a single drone for local policing or our federal agencies create a surveillance state full of citizens who constantly look over their shoulders. This is a constitutional issue. but some departments are seeking to arm drones with tear gas. we owe it to ourselves to have a national discussion. The FAA has approved only 53 Section 333 applications for roughly 45 companies thus far. and that they aren’t to be treated as suspects. while going about their everyday lives. Just last week. Businesses can also apply for permission to use drones through what’s known as Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. rest-assured. The FAA’s new policy grants any company or entity that has already cleared the Section 333 approval process a blanket COA to fly below 200 feet. The FAA is currently stripping away drone regulations—no guarantee that any bans on drone weaponization will last Dillow 15 (Clay. Even before we can get to having thoughtful discussion on many of the issues surrounding drones. http://fortune. One can apply for a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA). under which the FAA can grant companies approval to fly drones commercially under certain defined parameters. or terrorists. there are two ways to gain clearance for unmanned aircraft system (UAS) operations. Our founders laid the foundation for a society where the use of military tactics by agents of our justice system really has no place. These questions hit at the very core of our nation’s most cherished principles of personal privacy and freedom from oppression. not a partisan one. and I intend to make it so that they won’t have to. The new policy only applies to the roughly 45 companies that have already obtained permission to fly through the FAA’s slow and stringent “Section 333” process. Meanwhile. arming a remote-controlled surveillance drone for day-to-day domestic law enforcement is blatantly an over-the-top use of force. Drones are a legitimate tactical benefit to those in contested regions – like our soldiers fighting overseas or the agents working to secure our borders. I will continue fighting to ensure that. This path is unacceptable. aerospace. we as a nation have the opportunity to choose liberty in this dynamic age of innovation. Section 333 exemptions come with a lot of bureaucratic baggage. For instance. Before drones become a widespread staple of local law enforcement. And I swore to defend our Constitution. But. since.

U. Again. need to plan for specific air corridors in city areas that are dedicated to drones and confine the drones to those places. then does it allow them to fly their own defensive drones? These are issues we need to tackle -. India's Directorate General for Civil Aviation has already banned all use of drones in the country -. Documentary filmmakers use drones to get aerial shots that are not affordable with a regular plane or helicopter. and many have started in-country development programs for armed versions.S. there are many good uses for drone technologies. The drones are coming. Yet they could barely navigate barren wastelands without flipping themselves over or running into a wall. We know that drones are saving money and improving safety on many types of remote inspection such as that of distant pipelines and tall broadcast towers. or attack.and soon. About two years ago. particularly the Chinese.) has vowed to push legislation that would crack down on the commercial use of drones. Beyond the technical issues Should the cameras of delivery drones be recording and saving all video footage as they enter into the airspace of a customer's home? For that matter. also called Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). companies such as Google and Amazon are developing drone delivery services that provide within-the-hour delivery of ordered goods--without if we don't ban the drones. http://www.or should they be limited to public roads between droneports? Should we have the right to shoot down unauthorized drones on our property? If the Second Amendment grants the right of gun ownership to individuals for self-defense. Assuming we have collision-avoidance systems in place. Even the best computer-vision algorithms struggle to navigate complex cityscapes." http://natocouncil. This isn't all bad.” In recent years. this is a huge engineering challenge. Then of course. To start with." Huffington Post. state that “More than 50 countries have purchased surveillance drones. US regulation spillover only way to stop backlash in Asia and ME ATLANTIC COUNCIL OF CANADA 2014 (Atlantic Council of Canada. There are valid concerns that the proliferation of drones will endanger commercial flights and cause serious accidents. Drones could be used as long-haul cargo-delivery vehicles.huffingtonpost. Is it something that flies and is remote controlled? If that is the case. I wrote a Washington Post column in which I argued that we need to prepare ourselves for the "drone age. worst case. The IEDs ( rightfully ) that target a specific individual by means of facial recognition and kick the can further down the road. China is perhaps the fastest developer of UAVs with models which have a striking resemblance to US . 12-10-2014. how can we build a system of distributed air-traffic control for drones? It would obviously need to be computer-driven and automatic. China has shown great interest in expanding its drone technology and following the USA’s example of shifting military technology towards robotics orientated weapons. As well.Drone regulation needs to happen now-prolif coming soon WADHWA 2014 (Vivek Wadhwa. So how will a drone the size of a shoebox carry enough intelligence to avoid hitting a building. military is worried that drones will be weaponized as killing machines and become autonomous flying improvised explosive devices . 6-18-2014. to shield our schools. there isn't yet a clear consensus on what a drone is. a person." It isn't just the United States that is developing drone capabilities. it will just give us a false sense of comfort The Federal Aviation Administration recently released a report detailing more than 190 safety incidents involving drones and commercial aircraft. We would We also need to build private and commercial air-defense systems.even for civilian purposes. and to include safety measures and emergency kill switches or other mechanisms to bring down a drone that is malfunctioning or poses a danger. should the FAA also ban remote-controlled airplanes and helicopters that hobbyists have flown happily and relatively safely for many years? The drone encounter that Senator Feinstein cited in a Senate Commerce Committee hearing as a reason to regulate commercial drone flights was reportedly just a pink toy helicopter. This is no small problem. I wonder whether force fields such as we saw on Star Trek may become a practical reality. Director of Research at the Center for Entrepreneurship and Research Commercialization at the Pratt School of Engineering. homes. we need to debate what is socially acceptable and to create legal frameworks. Then there is the practicability of enforcement. a power line or. the Chinese unveiled their new WJ-600 drone along with a dozen other models. In response. but not one that is insurmountable. whether we are ready or not. So First. who will enforce them? Will the police buy high-performance drones to shoot down illicit drones? Can we scramble the Air Force to blow a flock of $300 quadcopters out of the sky? Should we equip legions that drones will be common in our skies and that they will play an integral role in our economy and society of young children with air rifles? Proposing laws without realistic hope of enforcement does nothing to solve the problems at hand.ca/the-economy-of-drones-and-their-proliferation/) In their article. what can we do to prepare for them and weave their capabilities into a broader picture of economic development there needs to be a core technology framework for collision avoidance putting any more traffic onto the streets or carbon into the skies. In the November 2011 Zhuhai air show.com/vivek-wadhwa/banning-drones-wont-solve-theproblem_b_6301134. a car. should drones be allowed to fly over private property at all -. Banning commercial drone use will not solve these problems. The vehicles in NASA's DARPA challenge weighed thousands of pounds and carried serious computational and sensor firepower.html) Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif. "The Economy of Drones and their Proliferation. Let's first acknowledge . ? . a commercial aircraft? It's a wonderful engineering challenge and worth the focus of some of our best minds. just as the military is developing. start-ups like Matternet are pioneering the use of drones to deliver critical medical supplies to remote parts of the developing world. William Wan and Peter Finn. governments and DIYers all over the world are doing the same. allowing for more efficient point-to-point delivery of goods and materials. Duke University . "Banning Drones Won't Solve the Problem. and businesses from drone surveillance . If the government should institute restrictions and penalties.

” China’s role in exporting drones is increasing drastically as it does not have many trade restrictions. and Egypt. General Atomics has received approval from the Pentagon to sell unarmed surveillance drones to the Middle East and Latin America. The US has also simultaneously been controlling where its allies sell their drones. with an anticipated market in Pakistan. Greater supply and market access to these weapons could lead unwanted parties such as terrorist groups or irrational states like North Korea to acquire these weapons. To conclude. Noel Sharkey stated that “one of the great inhibitors of war is the body bag count. The Chinese have also been quick to notice a window of profit for selling drone technologies as previously the US has exported this technology to close allies only. a model comparable to the US Predator. which could lead toregional instability if this new Chinese military advantage is not accounted for. Japan has stated it will send military officials to the US in order to study UAV technologies and recently the US has sent two global hawk surveillance drones to Japan in a statement that it is committed to Asian security. The increasing Chinese role in exporting drones and drone technology has also pressured the US to broaden its list of drone export approved countries in order to counter Chinese exports and gain an upper hand in the market. he further explained that widespread use of attack drones could “reduce the threshold for going to war”. The current use of drones by the US is also very controversial as many targeted killing in Pakistan are de facto a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty. which raises questions about the rules of engagement. but that is undermined by the idea of riskless war”. however. the proliferation of this technology does have some adverse effects. which could lead to the misuse of drones by more nations outside the US. so we’re taking advantage of that hole in the market. for which it had been penalized by a temporary exclusion from the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme. however. uncontrolled proliferation could prove dangerous. In 2008 Israel sold and anti-radar attack drone to China. The US also has a military strategic interest in maintaining a monopoly in the drone market . The company is now pending approval to sell to Saudi Arabia. a representative of the Chengdu Aircraft Design and Research Institute said “the United States doesn’t export many attack drones. the growing drone market – and possibly an emerging military robotics market – have high economic and strategic values for many nations. and the country has begun showing more drones in international air shows with intent to sell. China’s aggressive drone exports have created unrest in its neighbouring countries. In response. they now boast the ‘pterodactyl’. and Africa. For example. All nations are. because it gives the US and its allies a military advantage over other nations. Although the drone market is economically and strategically beneficial to many nations. The proliferation of the UAV is highly alarming as it signals a greater movement towards the proliferation of robotic weapons. the United Arab Emirates. Targeted killing is also disputed by many academics of international law. Among other models. and the drone movement in itself lacks clear international legal governing structures. the Middle East. equally privileged to develop and use drones and the US should not have the right to maintain a monopoly over the drone market by coercive means. Domestic drone policy gets modeled – regulations like the plan are key Barry 13 .aircraft such as General Atomic’s Predator and Northrop Grumman’s Global Hawk. Zhang Qiaoliang.

However. the U.” The study goes on to document what is known of the collaboration between the intelligence community and General Atomics. That is due to what are known as the “three Ds” capabilities – Dull (they can work long hours.S.(Tom. military contractors. led by the largest military contractors. the first war-fighting drones that were initially deployed in ISR missions during the Balkan wars in 1995. military. individual consumers and rogue forces. with no need for an onboard crew and with the capacity to hover unseen at high altitudes for long periods. Remotely Piloted Aircraft may be the best descriptive term. The report’s final section summarizes our conclusions. media and congressional enthusiasm for UAVs where suspected terrorists were purportedly . military contracting since 2001. on the ground or in the water.2 it was the Israeli Air Force in the late 1970s that led the way in drone technology and manufacture. there was widespread public.3 Because the intelligence budget is classified. are rapidly producing drones for a boom market.6 General Atomics is a privately held firm. President George W. and later in Iraq. however. including a especially China. The more inclusive “Unmanned Systems” term covers ground and marine drones .S.”10 At the time. Dirty (drones are impervious to toxicity) and Dangerous (no lives lost if a drone is destroyed). although Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) is also frequently used. whose customers include governments (with the U. the Predator had skeptics because it did not fit the old ways.S. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems (GA-SI). UAV OVERVIEW AND ORIGIN OF HOMELAND SECURITY DRONES UAVs are ideal instruments for what the military calls ISR (intelligence. operate and recover drones.S. which is developing a drone fleet that it projects will be capable of quickly responding to homeland security threats.S. as part of a classified weapons project. a covert unit of the U. resulting in at least $600 million in new R&D contracting for drones with General Atomics. It debunks the dubious assertions and myths that DHS wields in presentations to the public and Congress to justify this poorly conceived. 2001. Now it is clear the military does not have enough unmanned vehicles. unmanned drones are ideally suited for a broad range of scientific. These links stem in part from their past associations with right-wing leaders. Speaking at the Citadel on December 11. as well as by individuals and corporations. I.S. policy analyst at Center for International Policy. and then sets forward our recommendations. Indicative of the many possibilities for UAV use. an affiliate of privately held. Another important factor in the Predator’s increasing popularity has been General Atomics’ willingness to adapt models to meet varying demands from DOD. the United States is the world leader in drone production and deployment. Drones are proliferating so rapidly that a consensus about their formal name has not yet formed. by other federal agencies such as NASA. when a Hellfire missile was fired from a remote operator sitting in an improvised command and control center situated in the parking lot of the CIA headquarters in Langley. Whether deployed in the air. and especially their record of providing substantial campaign support for congressional hawks. The report’s fourth section focuses on the stated objectives of the homeland security drone program. Despite its lead role in the proliferation of drones. However.S. April 23. The central U. are also rapidly gaining a larger market share of the international drone market. In addition. DHS and the intelligence community for different armed and unarmed variants. anti-communist networks. owned by brothers Neal and Linden Blue. some human rights advocates are now suggesting drones can be used to defend human rights. commanding dominant market share).4 In the early 1990s. the U. This push led to the Air Force’s “Big Safari” rapid high-tech acquisitions program. Air Force being the other major source of development funds for drone research by U. Air Force study.S. “The CIA’s UAV program that existed in the early 1990’s and that still exists today gave Predator and GA-ASI an important opportunity that laid the foundation for Predator’s success. Drones Over the Homeland focuses on the deployment of drones by the Department of working for us in many ways.S. global counterterrorism missions: “Before the war. Guardian and Avenger drones – can be attributed to aggressive marketing. military and intelligence apparatus. MONEY AND LACK OF OVERSIGHT HAVE SPARKED DRONE PROLIFERATION. The Blue brothers bought the firm (which was originally a start-up division of General Dynamics) in 1986 for $50 million and the next year hired Ret.S. A new high-tech realm is emerging. Drones are also proliferating among state-level Air National Guard units. produced the first Predator UAVs – now known as Predator A – with research and development funding from Pentagon. noting their ISR capabilities could be used to monitor human rights violations by repressive regimes and non-state actors in such countries as Syria. and by local police. Without this necessary regulatory infrastructure – at both the national and international levels – drone proliferation threatens to undermine constitutional guarantees. 2001.S. the U. The newly weaponized MQ Predator-B was in action from the first day of the invasion of Afghanistan on October 21. The selling of the Predator could also count on the close personal ties forged over decades in the military-industrial complex.7 In 1997. Air Force became the major drivers in drone development and proliferation. government has failed to take the lead in establishing appropriate regulatory frameworks and oversight processes. which proved instrumental in having an armed Predator ready for deployment in 2000.S.S. with the U. “DRONES OVER THE HOMELAND HOW POLITICS. The United States.org/research/html/dronesover-the-homeland) Drones are proliferating at home and abroad. Yet. AND WHAT WE CAN DO” https://www.S. Cassidy to run GA-SI. one such example being the 100. role in drone proliferation is the direct result of the Pentagon’s rapidly increasing expenditures for UAVs. the U. Other less common terms include Unmanned Systems (US) and Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA). Bush underscored the Predators’ central role in U. influence-peddling and lobbying initiatives by General Atomics and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems (GA-SI). will remain the dominant driver in drone manufacturing and deployment for at least another decade. The second section details and critically examines the role of Congress and industry in promoting drone proliferation. grossly ineffective and entirely nonstrategic border program. Starting in Afghanistan. These clandestine strikes increased during the first Obama Administration and continued into the second amid growing criticism that drone strikes were unconstitutional and counterproductive. military.5 The 1995 deployment of the unarmed Predator A by the CIA and Air Force sparked new interest within the U. business.9 The rise of the Predators along with later drone models produced by General Atomics – the Reaper. The Blue brothers are well connected nationally and internationally with arch-conservative. have routinely made clandestine strikes in Pakistan and more recently in Yemen and Somalia. In the third part.S. led by the Air Force. where remotely controlled and autonomous unmanned systems do our bidding . national security threats and national emergencies across the entire nation. the Air Force and a highly secret intelligence organization called the National Reconnaissance Organization. summary of the DHS drone program. It has been credibly estimated that prior to 2000. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) – commonly known as drones – are already the military-industrial complex and the emergence of the homeland security apparatus have put border drones at the forefront of the intensifying public debate about the proper role of drones domestically.000-acre banana and cocoa farm Neal Blue co-owned with the Somoza family in Nicaragua. because most drones require staffed command-and-control centers. Air Force’s high-tech development and procurement divisions took the first steps toward weaponizing the Predator. This policy report begins with a brief overview of the development and deployment of UAVs. surveillance and reconnaissance) missions. there are no hard figures publicly available that quantify the intelligence community’s contributions to drone development in the United States. corporations. extending to public safety and national security.S. while highlighting the elaborate control and communications systems used to launch. Rear Admiral Thomas J. According to a U. Also fueling drone proliferation is UAV procurement by the Department of Homeland Security.” Since 2004. 2013.8 The post-9/11 launch of the “global war on terrorism” opened the floodgates for drone R&D funding and procurement by the CIA and all branches of the U. the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command. such contributions made up about 40% of total drone research and development (R&D) expenditures. Also working in General Atomics favor is its ongoing commitment to curry favor in Congress with substantial campaign contributions and special favors.ciponline. Other nations. another being Linden Blue’s 1961 imprisonment in Cuba shortly before the Bay of Pigs for flying into Cuban airspace. San Diego-based company General Atomics. which resulted in key R&D grants from the military and intelligence sectors. civil liberties and international law. Due to a surge in U. DRONES TAKE OFF Although the U. conducting repetitive tasks). the Predator transitioned from an unmanned surveillance aircraft to what General Atomics proudly called a “Hunter-Killer. we explore the expanding scope of the DHS drone program. law enforcement agencies. after the Persian Gulf War in 1991. military and intelligence sectors had been promoting drone development since the early 1960s. public-safety and even humanitarian tasks. This new CIP International Policy Report reveals how Homeland Security (DHS). drones also have many nonmilitary uses. intelligence apparatus and the U. The most common designation is Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs).1 Manufacturers. DHS says that its drone fleet is available to assist local law-enforcement agencies. Virginia. Air Force and the CIA underwrote and guided the development and production of what became the Predator UAV.

including such leading military contractors as General Atomics. marine or ground-based. illegal under international law and counterproductive as a counterterrorism tactic.5-million annual operating budget. Two Guardians – Predators modified for marine surveillance – are based at the Naval Air Station in Corpus Christi. Annually. and is reflected in the defense and intelligence authorization acts. contributed to two candidates – Buck McKeon and Jerry Lewis – during the 2012 electoral campaign. Following President Bush’s declaration of a “global war on terrorism. joined the AUVSI 23-member board-of-directors in August 2011.) contributions from General Atomics easily placed her at the top of the list. surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions. boasting that OAM would then be capable of deploying drones anywhere in national airspace in three hours or less. wellunderstood. Joe Wilson (R-SC). However. government drone purchases – not counting contracts for an array of related UAV services and “payloads” – rose from $588 million to $1. and increasing annual DOD and DHS budgets for drone R&D and procurements. Faller resigned from the unpaid position on Nov. CBP took full control over the DHS drone program. control and communications systems managed by the Border Patrol – an agency not known for its high-level technical or management skills. political action committees associated with companies that produce drones donated more than $2. During his tenure in the Air Force. illegal narcotics.24 AUVSI also has its own congressional advocacy committee that is closely linked to the caucus. and $205. OAM participated in the fair.3 billion over the past five years. says AUVSI’s president.S. and to more effectively engage the civilian aviation community on unmanned system use and safety. The two caucus co-chairs. and reconnaissance capabilities. McKeon. The congressman was also the featured speaker at AUVSI’s AIR Day 2011.” When asked by this author for information documenting specific data. D-Texas. Border Patrol started contracting for ground-based electronic surveillance. caucus members are favored recipients of contributions by AUVSI members. To procure an alternative system…or support services…would detrimentally impact national security.16 In late 2012. Congress has an illustrative track record of legislative measures (see accompanying box). about the same time that the U.4 million for operational costs and maintenance by General Atomics crews. CBP claimed.15 The Fleet By early 2013. Nor was it well known that the Predators were being piloted from command and control centers at the CIA and at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada. Money flows and political influence also factor in. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif. 2012 statement titled “Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition. Lewis. who represents the Texas border district of Laredo.4 million to members of the congressional drone caucus. Kostelnik supervised weapons acquisitions and was one of the leading players in encouraging General Atomics to quickly equip the Predator with bombs or missiles. and a critical component of DHS’s daily Homeland Security campaign. according to OpenSecrets.17 This new contract was signed.). Little was known then about the high-accident rates for the UAVs or the shocking collateral damage from their targeted strikes.”21 In late 2012. Eight caucus members were also members of the powerful House Appropriations Committee in the 112th Congress. in recognition. (See Figure 2) Who were the top recipients of the General Atomics campaign contributions in the 2012 cycle? Four of the top five recipients were not surprising – Buck McKeon. earmarks and favors Once a relatively insignificant part of the military-industrial complex. when on January 28. The caucus and its leading members (along with drone proponents in the Senate) have played key roles in drone proliferation at home and abroad through channeling earmarks to Predator manufacturer General Atomics. a month before the association hosted a technology fair in the foyer of the Rayburn House Office Building. DHS appointed Michael C. Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman.). DHS or other federal entities.org. notably Buck McKeon. Duncan Hunter and Brian Bilbray – given their record of support for UAVs. Senator Diane Feinstein’s (D-Calif. a former (2003-2007) legislative assistant for Feinstein. R-California.).” The close relationship between the congressional drone caucus and AUVSI was reflected in a similar relationship between CBP/OAM and AUVSI. General Atomics is not a corporation but a privately held firm. is the ranking member (and former chairman) of the House Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security. In a November 1. Four years ago. By late 2012. Her failure to oppose the clandestine drone strikes ordered by the White House and CIA have sparked widespread criticism by those who argue the strikes are unconstitutional. As Kostelnik explained to the Border and Marine Subcommittee of the House Homeland Security Committee.14 The more expensive. They claim drones can solve many of America’s most pressing problems – from eliminating terrorists to keeping the homeland safe from unwanted immigrants.).S.” has received at least $10. Drone orders from various federal departments and agencies are rolling in to AUVSI corporate members. The $443.000 since 1998. 2011 after the Los Angeles Times queried DHS about Faller’s unpaid position in the industry association. Since the post-9/11 congressional interest in drone issues – budgets. notably General Atomics. Pace. the agency also began planning to integrate drone surveillance into ground-based electronic surveillance systems. Cuellar. the Border Patrol – with funding not from the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) budget but rather from the Homeland Security’s newly created Science and Technology Directorate – began testing small. a favored recipient of General Atomics campaign contributions. disarmed Predator UAVs were summoned for border security duty. immigration hardliners and leading congressional voices for the military contracting industry.32 The top ranking recipient of General Atomics’ campaign contributions is not a CUSC member. together with its allies in the drone industry.”19 Drone promotion by U. while other leading contributors were the military contractors General Dynamics (from which General Atomics emerged).” DHS contends that “The Predator-B/Guardian UAS combination is unmatched by any other UAS available. “Congress has recommended an increase. but the drone crashed in April 2006 in the Arizona desert near Nogales due an error made by General Atomics’ contracted pilot. Howard “Buck” McKeon. Yet drones are not solely about technological advances. part of Fort Huachuca near the Mexican border in southeastern Arizona. CBP simply responded: CBP deploys and operates the UAS only after careful examination where the UAS can most responsibly aid in countering threats of our Nation’s security. whose southern California district includes major drone production facilities. was also favored in campaign contributions by Linden Blue. Candice Miller (R-Minn. House members join with UAS manufacturers to fill the foyer and front rooms of the Rayburn House Office Building with displays of the latest drones – an industry show introduced in glowing speeches by highly influential House leaders. Texas. are well positioned to accelerate drone proliferation.25 Contracts. Air Force began flooding General Atomics with procurement contracts for armed Predators in 2001. actively support further development and acquisition of more systems.31 General Atomics counted among McKeon’s top five contributors in the last election. Lewis. there has been little congressional oversight of drone deployments. the influential Democrat from El Paso (who lost his seat in the 2012 election). The Pentagon says that its “high-priority” commitment to expenditures for drone defense and warfare has resulted in “strong funding for unmanned aerial vehicles that enhance intelligence. national security would be put at risk if DHS switched drone contractors. According to the CBP Strategic Air and Marine Plan of 2010.18 II. who chairs the powerful Senate Intelligence Committee. undocumented immigrants). In 2005. PREDATORS ALIGHT ON THE BORDER In the late-1990s. however.33 In 2012. despite increasing budget restrictions. intelligence agencies and military contractors are longtime proponents of UAVs for intelligence. An Air Force-sponsored study of the Predator’s rise charted the increases mandated by the House Armed Service and the House Intelligence committees over the Predator budget requests made by the Air Force in its budgets requests. overseas sales.” Furthermore. OAM was a CBP division that united all the aerial and marine assets of the Office of the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).000 every two years in campaign contributions from General Atomics’ political action committee – $80. To direct OAM.1 million five-year contract includes $237. CCUS aims to “educate members of Congress and the public on the strategic. With 38% of planned systems on-online.11 The Border Patrol’s grand high-tech plan was to integrate drone ISR operations with its planned Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS). comparative studies. CBP planned to have the 24-drone fleet ready by 2016. “There was a momentary loss link that switched to the second control” – and the Predator fell out of the sky.”29 While the relationship between increasing drone contracts and the increasing campaign contributions received by drone caucus members can only be speculated. the caucus comprised a collection of border hawks. Tom Faller. and their position among the most influential drone caucus members. costbenefit evaluations. BAE Systems and Northrup Grumman. military. and Henry Cuellar. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif. Feinstein. Drones made an appearance in the Senate in the first foray to implement immigration reform.killed with surgical precision while UAV pilots sat in front of video screens out of harm’s way drinking coffee. To accelerate drone acquisitions and deployment at home. This has resulted in a sum total increase of over a half a billion dollars over the years.27 The FY2013 DOD budget includes $5. (See Figure 3) The relationship that has been consolidating between General Atomics and the U. CBP had a fleet of seven Predator drones and three Guardians drones. used his appropriations influence to ensure that the Air Force gained full control of the UAV program by 1998. both at home and abroad. surveillance. while another patrols the Caribbean as part of a drug war mission from its base at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida.13 Soon after the CIA and the U. record of the achievements of the drone program. Congressional Caucus on Unmanned Systems At the forefront of the money/politics nexus is the Congressional Caucus on Unmanned Systems (CCUS). According to the CBP. a retired Air Force major general. an industry group that brings together the leading drone manufacturers and universities with UAV research projects. a series of critical reports by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Faller is currently subject of a DHS internal ethics-violation investigation. the director of General Atomics Aeronautical Systems. aviation and surveillance technology have all accelerated the coming of UAVs to the home front. adding amendments to authorization bills for the Federal Aviation Administration and Department of Defense to ensure the more rapid integration of UAVs into the national airspace. the Southern California Republican who chairs the House Armed Service Committee and co-chairs the Congressional Unmanned Systems Caucus (CUSC). who heads the Homeland Security subcommittee that reviews the air and marine operations of DHS. CBP began using its first Predator for operations in October 2005. representatives and senators in Congress pops up in what at first may seem the unlikeliest of places.34 Feinstein’s connections to General Atomics extend beyond being top recipient of their campaign contributions.30 The leading recipient was McKeon. with the launch of its own Predator drone program under the supervision of the newly created Office of Air and Marine (OAM). albeit never detailed in the project proposal.S. relatively inexpensive UAVs for border surveillance. Kostelnik. Four of the seven Predators are stationed at Libby Army Airfield.). has been promoting UAV use at home and abroad through drone fairs on Capitol Hill. the House caucus had 60 members and had changed its name to encompass all unmanned systems – whether aerial.S. and Duncan Hunter (RCalif. a member of the House Appropriations Defense Committee and vice-chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.7 million for the prospective purchase of up to 14 additional Predators and Predator variations. In 2003. prodding the Department of Homeland Security to establish a major drone program. It is also when it began the practice of entering into sole-source contracts with high-tech firms.). the UAV development and manufacturing sector is currently expanding faster than any other component of military contracting. During the 2012 campaign cycle. over and above USAF requests. role in national airspace. General Atomics was Feinstein’s third largest campaign contributor. with Representative Silvestre Reyes.S.26 (Unlike most major military contractors. In the 2010 and 2012 election cycles. a prominent member of the “Drone Caucus..23 The drone association has a $7. Rachel Miller. or threat assessment to support such conclusions. Congressional support for the development and procurement of Predators dates back to 1996. tactical.”22 Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems CCUS cosponsors the annual drone fete with the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI). whose two major figures are Linden and Neal Blue. CBP signed a major new five-drone contract with General Atomics. AUVSI represents the interests in the expansion of unmanned systems expressed by many of the estimated 100 U. border deployment and UAVs by law enforcement agencies – drone boosterism in Congress has been devoid of any incipient oversight or governance role. companies and academic institutions involved in developing and deploying the some 300 of the currently existing UAV models.12 The plan. contributions. The tenth Predator drone will also be based at Cape Canaveral. and continuing technical failures and poor results. and scientific value of unmanned systems. while two have homes at the Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota.S. the CCUS (then known as the House Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Caucus) was formed by a small group of congressional representatives – mainly Republicans and mostly hailing from districts with drone industries or bases. was to integrate geospatial images from yet-to-be acquired Border Patrol UAVs into an elaborate command. armed Predator drones and their variants became the preferred border drone as a result of widespread enthusiasm for the surge in Predator operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the close collaborative relationship that developed between General Atomics Aeronautical Systems and CBP. Jerry Lewis. (See Figure 4) Senator Feinstein has been a highly consistent supporter of the intelligence community and military budgets. The keynote speaker at the drone association’s annual conference in early 2012 was Representative McKeon. As threats change. Air Force since the early 1990s has been mediated and facilitated in Congress by influential congressional representatives.g. in the Predator budget for nearly 10 years in a row.” Tens of billions of dollars began to flow into the Department of Homeland Security for border security – the term that superseded border control in the aftermath of 9/11 – and the DHS drone program was propelled forward. The most unabashed advocates of drone proliferation. as part of its acquisition strategy.8 billion for UAVs. both of whom have high security clearances) U. Jerry Lewis. “The UAV program focuses operations on the CBP priority mission of anti-terrorism by helping to identify and intercept potential terrorists and illegal cross-border activity. that Congressman McKeon “has been one of the biggest supporters of the unmanned systems community. U. who heads the House Immigration Reform Caucus. MQ-9 operations are mature. Government Accountability Office and the DHS Office of Inspector General. General Atomics was the congressman’s top campaign donor. all stationed at military bases. Advances in communications. Between 1996 and 2006 (ending date of study). In 2008.20 This bipartisan caucus. CBP adjusts its enforcement posture accordingly and may consider moving the location of assets. the CBP official who directed the UAV program at OAM. led by southern Californian Republican Rep.” the White House became directly involved in expanding drone deployment in foreign wars – especially in directing drone strikes. has served as a . (See Figure 1) Frank W. OAM intends to deploy a fleet of 24 Guardians and Predators. 23. Other caucus members include Brian Bilbray (R-Calif. which does not include drone spending by the intelligence community.S.” most notably due to “decreased interdictions of contraband (e. including $2 million a year for conferences and trade shows to encourage government agencies and companies to use unmanned aircraft. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif. are in Congress. Crash investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board found the pilot had shut off the drone’s engine when he thought he was redirecting the drone’s camera. Only One Source CBP insists that General Atomics Aeronautical Systems is the only “responsible source” for its drone needs and that no other suppliers or servicers can satisfy agency requirements for these $18-20 million drones. coming in a close second. According to CBP’s justification for sole-source contracting. is the caucus founder and chair of the House Armed Services Committee. “The GA-ASI MQ-9 UAS provides the best value to OAM’s documented and approved operational requirements and programmatic constraints. 2013 a bipartisan group of senators argued their proposal legislation would “increase the number of unmanned aerial vehicles and surveillance equipment…. MORE DRONE BOOSTERISM THAN OVERSIGHT IN CONGRESS The Pentagon. the president of General Atomics. new legislation and drone-favored budgets.

paid lobbyist for General Atomics, both working directly for the firm (in 2011) and as a General Atomics lobbyist employed by Capitol Solutions (2009 - present), one of the leading
lobbying firms contracted by General Atomics.35 And did you know that Linden Blue plans to marry Retired Rear Adm. Ronne Froman? Few others knew about the engagement of this
high-society San Diego couple until Senator Feinstein announced the planned marriage at a mid-November 2012 meeting of the downtown San Diego business community – news that
quickly appeared in the Society pages of the San Diego Union-Tribune. There has been no explanation offered why Feinstein broke this high-society news, but the announcement certainly
did point to the senator’s likely personal connections to Blue and Froman (who was hired by General Atomics as senior vice-president in December 2007 and has since left the firm).36
Campaign contributions and personal connections create goodwill and facilitate contracts. General Atomics also counts on the results produced by a steady stream of lobbying dollars –
which have risen dramatically since 2003, and been averaging $2.5 million annually since 2005. In 2012, General Atomics spent $2,470,000 lobbying Congress.37 Congressional
earmarks were critical to the rise of the Predator, both its earlier unarmed version as well as the later “Hunter-Killer.” The late senator Daniel K. Inouye, the Hawaii Democrat who chaired
the Senate Appropriations Committee, told the New York Times that if the House ban on commercial earmarks that was introduced in 2010 had been in effect earlier, ‘’we would not have
the Predator today.’’ Tens of millions of dollars in congressional earmarks in the 1990s went to General Atomics and other military contractors for the early development of what became
the Predator program, reported the New York Times.38 Inouye was a source of a number of these multimillion earmarks for General Atomics, whose large campaign contributions to the
influential Hawaii senator from 1998 to 2012 ($5000 in this last campaign) could be regarded as thank-you notes since Inouye faced insignificant political opposition. Besides campaign
contributions, General Atomics routinely hands out favors to congressional representatives thought likely to support drone proliferation. A 2006 report by the Center for Public Integrity
identified Jerry Lewis as one of two congressional members and more than five dozen congressional staffers who traveled overseas courtesy of General Atomics. The center’s report, The
‘Top Gun’ of Travel, observed this “little-known California defense contractor [has] far outspent its industry competitors on travel for more than five years — and in 2005 landed promises
of billions of dollars in federal business.” Most of this business was in the form of drone development and procurement by the Pentagon and DHS. Questioned about this pattern of
corporate-sponsored trips, Thomas Cassidy, founder of General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, said, “[It’s] useful and very helpful, in fact, when you go down and talk to the government
officials to have congressional people go along and discuss the capabilities of [the plane] with them,” A follow-up investigation by the San Diego Union-Tribune reported, “Most of that
was spent on overseas travel related to the unmanned Predator spy plane made by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, an affiliated company.”39 Looking desperately for oversight In
practice, there’s more boosterism than effective oversight in the House Homeland Security Committee and its Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, which oversees DHS’s
rush to deploy drones to keep the homeland secure. The same holds true for most of the more than one hundred other congressional committees that purportedly oversee the DHS and
its budget.40 Since DHS’s creation, Congress has routinely approved annual and supplementary budgets for border security that have been higher than those requested by the president
and DHS. CCUS member and chair of the House Border and Maritime Security subcommittee, Representative Candice Miller, R-Michigan, is effusive and unconditional in her support of
drones. Miller described her personal conviction that drones are the answer to border insecurity at the July 15, 2010 subcommittee hearing on UAVs.41 “You know, my husband was a
fighter pilot in Vietnam theater, so—from another generation, but I told him, I said, ‘Dear, the glory days of the fighter jocks are over.’” “The UAVs, the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are
coming,” continued Miller, “and now you see our military siting in a cubicle sometimes in Nevada, drinking a Starbucks, running these things in theater and being incredibly, incredibly
successful.” The uncritical drone boosterism in Congress was underscored in a Washington Post article on the use of drones for border security. In his trips to testify on Capitol Hill,
Kostelnik said he had never been challenged in Congress about the appropriate use of homeland security drones. “Instead, the question is: ‘Why can’t we have more of them in my
district?’” remarked the OAM chief.42 Since 2004, the DHS’s UAV program has drawn mounting concern and criticism from the government’s own oversight and research agencies,
including the Congressional Research Service, the Government Accountability Office and the DHS’s own Office of Inspector General.43 These government entities have repeatedly raised
questions about the cost-efficiency, strategic focus and performance of the homeland security drones. Yet, rather than subjecting DHS officials to sharp questioning, the congressional
committees overseeing homeland security and border security operations have, for the most part, readily and often enthusiastically accepted the validity of undocumented assertions by
testifying CBP officials. The House Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security has been especially notorious for its lack of critical oversight. As part of the budgetary and oversight
process, the House and Senate committees that oversee DHS have not insisted that CBP undertake cost-benefit evaluations, institute performance measures, implement comparative
evaluations of its high-tech border security initiatives, or document how its UAV program responds to realistic threat assessments. Instead of providing proper oversight and ensuring
that CBP/OAM’s drone program is accountable and transparent, congressional members from both parties seem more intent on boosting drone purchases and drone deployment. As CBP
was about to begin its first drone deployments in 2005 as part of the Operation Safeguard pilot project, the Congressional Research Service observed: “Congress will likely conduct
oversight of Operation Safeguard before considering wider implementation of this technology.” Unfortunately, Congress never reviewed the results of Operation Safeguard pilot project,
and CBP declined requests by this writer to release the report of this UAV pilot project.44 Congress has been delinquent in its oversight duties. In addition to the governmental research
and monitoring institutions, it has been mainly the nongovernmental sector – including the American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Center for Constitutional Rights,
and the Center for International Policy – that has alerted the public about the lack of transparency and accountability in the DHS drone program and the absence of responsible
governance over the domestic and international proliferation of UAVs. In September 2012, the Senate formed its own bipartisan drone caucus, the Senate Unmanned Aerial Systems
Caucus, co-chaired by Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.). “This caucus will help develop and direct responsible policy to best serve the interests of U.S. national defense and
emergency response, and work to address any concerns from senators, staff and their constituents,” said Inhofe.45 It is still too early to ascertain if the Senate’s drone caucus will follow
its counterpart in the House in almost exclusively focusing on promoting drone proliferation at home and abroad. It is expected, however, that caucus members will experience increased
flows of campaign contributions from the UAS industry. While Senator Manchin just won his first full-term in the 2012 election, Senator Inhofe has been favored by campaign
contributions from military contractors, including General Atomics ($14,000 in 2012), since he took office in 2007. His top campaign contributor was Koch Industries. For its part, AUVSI,
the drone industry association, gushed in its quickly offered commendation. “I would like to commend Senators Inhofe and Manchin for their leadership and commitment in establishing
the caucus, which will enable AUVSI to work with the Senate and stakeholders on the important issues that face the unmanned systems community as the expanded use of the
technology transitions to the civil and commercial markets,” said AUVSI President and CEO Michael Toscano. “It is our hope to establish the same open dialogue with the Senate caucus
as we have for the past three years with the House Unmanned Systems Caucus,” the AUVSI executive added.46 There is rising citizen concern about drones and privacy and civil rights
violations. The prospective opening of national airspace to UAVs has sparked a surge of concern among many communities and states – eleven of which are considering legislation in
2013 that would restrict how police and other agencies would deploy drones. But paralleling new concern about the threats posed by drone proliferation is local and state interest in
attracting new UAV testing facilities and airbases for the FAA and other federal entities. FAA and industry projections about the number of UAVs (15,000 by 2020, 30,000 by 2030) that
may be using national airspace – the same space used by all commercial and private aircraft – have sparked a surge of new congressional activism, with several new bills introduced by
non-drone caucus members in the new Congress that respond to the new fears about drone proliferation. Yet there is no one committee in the House or the Senate that has assumed the
responsibility for UAV oversight to lead the way toward creating a foundation of laws and regulations establishing a political framework for UAV use going forward.

At this point,

there is no federal agency or congressional committee that is providing oversight
over drone proliferation – whether in regard to U.S. drone exports, the expanding drone program of DHS,
drone-related privacy concerns, or UAV use by private or public firms and agencies. Gerald Dillingham, top official of

When asked
which part of the federal government was responsible for regulating drone
proliferation in the interest of public safety and civil rights, the GAO director said,
“At best, we can say it’s unknown at this point.”47 III. CROSSOVER DRONES Homeland
security drones are expanding their range beyond the border, crossing over to local
law enforcement agencies, other federal civilian operations, and into national
security missions. BORDER SECURITY TO LOCAL SURVEILLANCE The rapid advance of drone
technology has sparked interest by police and sheriff offices in acquiring drones.
The federal government has closely nurtured this new eagerness. Through grants, training
the Government Accountability Office, testified in Congress about this oversight conundrum.

programs and “centers of excellence,” the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security have been collaborating
with the drone industry and local law enforcement agencies to introduce unmanned aerial vehicles to the
homeland. One example is DHS’s Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI), a Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) program established to assist communities with counterterrorism projects that provides grants to enable
police and sheriffs departments to launch their own drone programs. In 2011, a DHS UASI grant of $258,000
enabled the Montgomery County Sheriffs Office in Texas to purchase a ShadowHawk drone from Vanguard Defense
Industries. DHS UASI grants also allowed the city of Arlington, Texas to buy two small drones.48 Miami also counted
on DHS funding to purchase its UAV. According to DHS, UASI “provides funding to address the unique planning,
organization, equipment, training, and exercise needs of high-threat, high-density urban areas, and assists them in
building an enhanced and sustainable capacity to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from acts of
terrorism.”49 However, in the UASI project proposals there is little or no mention of terrorism or counterterrorism.
Instead, local police forces want drones to bolster their surveillance capabilities and as an adjunct to their SWAT

teams and narc squads. DHS is not the only federal department promoting drone deployment in the homeland.
Over the past four decades, the Department of Justice’s criminal-justice assistance grants have played a central role
in shaping the priorities and operations of state and local law enforcement.50 Through its National Institute of
Justice, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has been working closely with industry and local law enforcement to
“develop and evaluate low-cost unmanned aircraft systems.”51 In 2011, National Institute of Justice grants went to
such large military contractors and drone manufacturers as Lockheed Martin, ManTech and L-3 Systems to operate
DOJ-sponsored “centers of excellence” devoted to the use of technology by local law enforcement for surveillance,
communications, biometrics and sensors.53 In an October 4, 2012 presentation to the National Defense Industrial
Association, OAM chief Kostelnik explained that the CBP drones were not limited to border control duties. The OAM
was, he said, the “leading edge of deployment of UAS in the national airspace.” This deployment wasn’t limited to
what are commonly understood homeland security missions but extended to “rapid contingency supports” for
“Federal/State/Local missions.” According to CBP: OAM provides investigative air and marine support to Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, as well as other federal, state, local, and international law enforcement agencies.53
Incidents involving CBP drones in local law enforcement operations have surfaced in media reports, but CBP has
thus far not released a record of its support for local and state police, despite repeated requests by media and

DHS and CBP/OAM in particular have failed to define the legal and
constitutional limits of its drone operations. Rather than following strict guidelines
about the scope of its mission and the range of homeland security drones, Kostelnik
argued before the association of military contractors that “CBP operations [are]
shaping the UAS policy debate” in the United States. According to Kostelnik, the
CBP’s drones are “on the leading edge in homeland security.” This cutting edge role
of the CBP/OAM drones not only extends to local and state operations, including
support for local law enforcement, but also to national security. “[The] CBP UAS
deployment vision strengthens the National Security Response Capability.” Border
Security to National Security Most of the concern about the domestic deployment of drones
by DHS has focused on the crossover to law-enforcement missions that threaten
privacy and civil rights – and without more regulations in place will accelerate the
transition to what critics call a “surveillance society.” Also worth public attention and
research organizations.

congressional review is the increasing interface between border drones and national security and military missions.
The prevalence of military jargon used by CBP officials – such as “defense in depth” and “situational awareness” –
points to at least a rhetorical overlapping of border control and military strategy. Another sign of the increasing
coincidence between CBP/OAM drone program and the military is that the commanders and deputies of OAM are
retired military officers. Both Major General Michael Kostelnik and his successor Major General Randolph Alles,
retired from U.S. Marines, were highly placed military commanders involved in drone development and
procurement. Kostelnik was involved in the development of the Predator by General Atomics since the mid-1990s
and was an early proponent of providing Air Force funding to weaponize the Predator. As commander of the Marine
Corps Warfighting Laboratory, Alles was a leading proponent of having each military branch work with military
contractors to develop their own drone breeds, including near replicas of the Predator manufactured for the Army
by General Atomics.57 promoting – and justifying – the DHS drone program, Kostelnik routinely alluded to the
national security potential of drones slated for border security duty. On several occasions Kostelnik pointed to the
seamless interoperability with DOD UAV forces. At a moment’s notice, Kostelnik said that OAM could be “CHOP’ed” –
meaning a Change in Operational Command from DHS to DOD.58 DHS has not released operational data about
CBP/OAM drone operations. Therefore, the extent of the participation of DHS drones in domestic and international
operations is unknown. But statements by CBP officials and media reports from the Caribbean point to a rapidly
expanding participation of DHS Guardian UAVs in drug-interdiction and other unspecified operations as far south as
Panama. CBP states that OAM “routinely provides air and marine support to other federal, state, and local law
enforcement agencies” and “works with the U.S. military in joint international anti-smuggling operations and in
support of National Security Special Events [such as the Olympics].” According to Kostelnik, CBP planned a “Spring
2011 deployment of the Guardian to a Central American country in association with Joint Interagency Task Force
South (JIATF-South) based at the naval station in Key West, Florida.59 JIATF-South is a subordinate command to the
United States Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM), whose geographical purview includes the Caribbean, Central
America and South America. In mid-2012, CBP/OAM participated in a JIATF-South collaborative venture called
“Operation Caribbean Focus” that involved flight over the Caribbean Sea and nations in the region – with the
Dominican Republic acting as the regional host for the Guardian operations, which CBP/OAM considers a “prototype
for future transit zone UAS deployments.” CBP says that OAM drones have not been deployed within Mexico, but
notes that “OAM works in collaboration with the Government of Mexico in addressing border security issues,”
without specifying the form and objectives of this collaboration.60 As part of the U.S. global drug war and as an
extension of border security, unarmed drones are also crossing the border into Mexico. The U.S. Northern Command
has acknowledged that the U.S. military does fly a $38-million Global Hawk drone into Mexico to assist the Mexico’s
war against the drug cartels.61 Communities, state legislatures and even some congressional members are

proceeding to enact legislation and revise ordinances to decriminalize or legalize the consumption of drugs,
especially marijuana, targeted by the federal government’s drug war of more than four decades. At the same time,
DHS has been escalating its contributions to the domestic and international drug war – in the name of both
homeland security and national security. Drug seizures on the border and drug interdiction over coastal and
neighboring waters are certainly the top operative priorities of OAM. Enlisting its Guardian drones in SOUTHCOM’s
drug interdiction efforts underscores the increasing emphasis within the entire CBP on counternarcotic operations.
CBP is a DHS agency that is almost exclusively focused on tactics. While CBP as the umbrella agency and the Office
of the Border Patrol and OAM all have strategic plans, these plans are marked by their rigid military frameworks,
their startling absence of serious strategic thinking, and the diffuse distinctions between strategic goals and tactics.
As a result of the border security buildup, south-north drug flows (particularly cocaine and more high-value drugs)
have shifted back to marine smuggling, mainly through the Caribbean, but also through the Gulf of Mexico and the
Pacific.62 Rather than reevaluating drug prohibition and drug control frameworks for border policy, CBP/OAM has
rationalized the procurement of more UAVs on the shifts in the geographical arenas of the drug war – albeit
couching the tactical changes in the new drug war language of “transnational criminal organizations” and
“narcoterrorism.” The overriding framework for CBP/OAM operations is evolving from border security and homeland
security to national security, as recent CBP presentations about its Guardian deployments illustrates. Shortly before
retiring after seven years as OAM first chief, Major General Kostelnik told a gathering of military contractors: “CPB’s
UAS Deployment Vision strengthens the National Security Response Capability.”63 He may well be right, but the
U.S. public and Congress need to know if DHS plans to institute guidelines and limits that regulate the extent of
DHS operational collaboration with DOD and the CIA. IV. No Transparency, No Accountability, No Defined Limits to

The UAV program of CBP’s Office of Air and Marine is not
top secret – there are no secret ops, no targeted killings, no “signature” strikes
against suspected terrorists, no clandestine bases – like the CIA and U.S. military
UAV operations overseas. While the UAV program under DHS isn’t classified,
information about the program is scarce – shielded by evasive program officials, the
classification of key documents, and the failure of CBP/OAM to share information
about the number, objectives and performance of its UAV operations . DHS has also not
Homeland Security Drone Missions

been forthcoming about its partnerships and shared missions with local law enforcement, foreign governments and
the U.S. military and intelligence sectors. CBP has kept a tight lid on its drone program. Over the past nine years,
CBP has steadily expanded its UAV program without providing any detailed information about the program’s
strategic plan, performance and total costs. Information about the homeland security drones has been limited, for
the most part, to a handful of CBP announcements about new drone purchases and a series of unverifiable CBP
statistics about drone-related drug seizures and immigrant arrests. Testimony in House and Senate hearings about
the role of drones in border security by CBP has been restricted, with few exceptions, to undocumented assertions
and anecdotes about the achievements of the border drones. CBP has declined to share documents about its drone
program with the Center for International Policy and other public-education organizations, asserting, among other
reasons, that they are “law-enforcement sensitive” or not in their possession. These requested documents include
the OAM strategic plan (which calls for two dozen drones), the report of the “pilot study” of Predators organized
with General Atomics in 2004 that CBP claims proved their value as border security instruments, and a 2010 report
to Congress in reference to its UAV program. The three reports cited above were all referenced by DHS’s Office of
Inspector General in a report published in May 2012.64 DHS has also failed to respond favorably to public-records
requests by the Electronic Frontier Foundation for “records and logs of CBP drone flights conducted in conjunction
with other agencies.”65 It is unlikely that the CBP/OAM program is involved in the type of drone strikes that have
sparked rage, indignation over civil rights violations, and counterattacks by nonstate terrorists. Despite the lack of
transparency, it is highly unlikely that CBP Predators and Guardians have been the tools of “hunter-killer” missions

the lack of transparency and
accountability that characterizes the homeland security drone program is worrisome
of CIA and military Predators, Hunters and Reapers. Still,

– not least because of the commitments of hundreds of millions of dollars to these operations. At least several
hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent – based on procurement records – but we don’t even know the
entire financial commitment to homeland drones because DHS has never provided an accounting of all
procurement, maintenance, staffing, data-processing and service contract expenses. Clearly, CBP needs to be more
transparent and accountable. Of the 14 DHS agencies, it receives the largest portion – 21 percent – of the $59
billion annual DHS budget.66 Although other DHS agencies – such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (which process visas and naturalization petitions) – are
experiencing budget cuts (8 percent decrease for FEMA), CBP is receiving a 2 percent increase, even as illegal
immigration flows have plummeted to historic lows. Yet, it is more than a budget concern. Shortly before retiring at
the end of 2012, Major General Kostelnik asserted that the “Air and Marine UAS Operations Remain on the Leading
Edge” – the title of his October presentation of a military contractors association. It’s not that the DHS itself has

Kostelnik was referring more to the way CBP/OAM
is pushing the border security envelope. Under the new OAM office established
become the leading edge of drone technology.

under Kostelnik’s leadership, these UAS operations have, in Kostelnik’s words, done
much more than complement other manifestations of the low-tech and high-tech
border security buildup. Among other things, the unmanned systems, according to CBP, are: “Shaping the
UAS policy debate;” “Strengthen[ing] the National Security Response Capability;” Providing “rapid contingency
responses” to federal, state, and local agencies; Functioning as the “leading edge deployment of UAS in the
national airspace;” and Increasing involvement in “Caribbean and foreign deployments.” With the UAV program, as
with other border-security operations (in particular its many high-tech initiatives), CBP has acted as if exempt from

Much like
the military and the CIA, CBP shields itself behind its post-9/11 “security” mission.
the transparency, accountability and performance evaluations that apply to other federal agencies.

Police Adv

But I cannot overstate how serious a PR disaster this could become. so drone operators wouldn’t employ self-defense as zealously as real-life humans (and the drones probably wouldn’t be armed with lethal countermeasures. anyway). Vanguard Defense Industries. armed with anything more than a camera (or claws to grasp a package) is terrifying. And what narrative can a soulless automaton shooting pepper spray possibly convey but fear? I can’t imagine any instance where a drone injuring protestors – justified or not – could possibly be seen favorably. editor at ECNMag. The idea of a drone patrolling Mainstreet. 4-9-15. While the usual anti-drone rhetoric focuses on the privacy and associated surveillance issues.com/blogs/2015/04/why-arming-domestic-drones-very-bad-idea) Deploying drones to perform the same functions as flesh-and-blood police officers keeps the latter out of harm’s way. Has an unruly crowd switched from constitutionally protected free speech to general mayhem? The best way to garner sympathy for their cause is to attack them with a flying personification of fear. Sure. grenades. but the PR issues are hard to dismiss.. at least one company. using a drone would ensure the incident in question is filmed. And putting a drone in jeopardy is far less likely to result in anyone’s death – a drone is worth less than a human life.ecnmag.Undermines police relations Drones skew public perception of law enforcement LOMBERG 2015 (Jason Lomberg. I’m general very supportive of our nation’s law enforcement agencies. Oh. “Why arming drones is a very bad idea” http://www.S. and less-lethal capabilities. U. What matters is which narrative the public embraces. Whether an individual officer was justified or not is almost irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. wants to arm domestic drones with buckshot.A.S. . and we’re considering arming domestic drones here in the U. but I also understand the PR campaign that guides the public’s perception of the police. tear gas.

Solvency .

Already the faa has permitted a handful of law-enforcement agencies to operate drones on a short-term basis. concluding that proper anticipatory action and ongoing oversight are necessary to ensure that police technology does not erode the minimum expectations of privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. and the current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence relevant to such. Although several bills are pending. in fact. Congress should take action on drone surveillance and current regulations and ideas fail Jenkins 14 (Ben. and application of drones in daily life. development. useful purposes. retention.scientificamerican. “As Spy Drones Come to the U. As such.com/article/spy-drones-come-us-we-must-protectprivacy/?print=true) The limited regulations accompanying those permits (which. Perhaps this should not be surprising. use. Operators should be required to submit ongoing reports of their data collection. Part III suggests amendments to proposed legislation to address shortfalls therein. can be held accountable if drones are not used responsibly and in a way that respects the Fourth Amendment. No federal agency.S. and these reports should be gathered and submitted to Congress annually. The faa is not in the business of privacy protection. “Watching the Watchmen: Drone Privacy and the Need for Oversight”. But that bill failed to make it out of a subcommittee. technology. The present Congress must be more active than its predecessor in heading off this clear and impending threat to personal privacy. diminishing privacy norms. and disposal procedures to the agency.uky. Congress should proactively enact laws that confine domestic drones to reasonable.. preclude attaching any weapons to the drones) are insufficient to protect the privacy of citizens. DAPTA and other pending legislation should be amended to charge a single agency with responsibility for drone privacy oversight.edu/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2014/01/9-Jenkins. With proper privacy protections in place.8 fails to provide a process for ongoing oversight of drone operators to ensure transparency and continued compliance with the Act’s privacy protections. including audits to make sure drone operators comply with privacy regulations. and heightened security interests. Even the most promising bill.pdf) This note argues that in order to safeguard Americans’ privacy against government drone surveillance in an actively growing field. University of Kentucky College of Law. http://law-apache. Its primary concern is with the safety of domestic airspace. Part I of this Note provides background on drones: their nature. it is uncertain if or when those bills will pass.Congress Congress key to effective privacy restrictions Scientific American 13 (Scientific American is a leading journal on Sciences. Part II explains why drones present a unique threat to privacy and addresses current shortfalls in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and in legislative efforts to address privacy concerns connected with their widespread use. While it would be a large step towards ensuring privacy protection from drone surveillance if the proposed bills pass. the Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act of 2013 (DAPTA). including a bill that would have outlawed drone spying without a warrant and instituted important transparency and accountability measures for their use. Proper legislative action would ensure that the constitutional right to privacy is not overrun by rapidly growing technologies. We Must Protect Our Privacy” http://www. Several sensible ideas were proposed during the last session of Congress. January 2014. society could be more receptive to increased use. 3/19/13. thankfully. . there is still room for improvement. Congress should implement legislation that provides a framework for protection while allowing for industry growth and innovation.

2015.%22&start=0&context=2035930) Before courts ever become involved.utahbar. 950 A.. aerial observation. These legislative measures will become an important fix for Fourth Amendment holes while aerial Most importantly.D. People may be more inclined to support drones if they are cast in the role of a lifesaving vehicle. the FISA Court does not provide the check on executive action that the Fourth Amendment demands. Bryant. or local legislative bodies. See Kyllo v. “Technology has produced many and varied means of observation and surveillance. some degree of privacy has survived the innovations of wiretapping. 533 U. Aging Case Law. received a B. where he was a Lead Articles Editor of the Washington and Lee Law Review.pdf under current law. lest it be realized. co-directors of the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program. some solutions will likely originate from a number of federal. But the fact that something can be done does not make the doing of it constitutional. Although some courts have held Moreover. they have imposed strict limits on the scope . state. 31 (2001) (“At the very core of the Fourth Amendment stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion. and sense-enhancing technology. 261. observation jurisprudence catches up with changing circumstances. and concretely protect Fourth Amendment liberties. Patel 2015 (Elizabeth and Faiza. 1884 70 WASH. Tyler.org/assets/materials/2015FedSymposiu m/3c_What_Went_%20Wrong_With_The_FISA_Court. and enforceable law —the PAPA or DAPTA bills would be a significant start—that would reduce public anxiety about drones. 479 (Vt. The thought of police drones carries with it a 260. that a traditional warrant is not needed to collect foreign intelligence.” (quotations and citation omitted)). 2008). and Possible Solutions to the Domestic Police Drone Puzzle.263 Requiring a warrant legitimizes FISA courts – squo insufficient to solve Goitein.2d 467. Any bill with a realistic hope of controlling the use of such an inexpensive and nimble technology must impose procedural impediments that act to limit the appeal of widespread employment. 1829 (2013) visceral Orwellian implication of “Big Brother” intruding where it ought not. inform the public about how and when the government uses this technology. Congress should pass a detailed. The elimination of drones hovering for extended periods of time without a targeted purpose may substantially abate public fears of a constant surveillance. 06/2013. satellite observation. in Political Science from Emory University and a J.A.Congressional action K2 public perception about drones Black 13 (J.law. United States. cum laude.” http://scholarlycommons. “Over Your Head. . 27.S.262 That fear must not be ignored. Under the Radar: An Examination of Changing Legislation.” State v. “What Went Wrong With the FISA Court” http://litigation. Indeed. comprehensive.edu/do/search/?q=author_lname%3A%22Black %22%20author_fname%3A%22J. from Washington and Lee University. Interception of Americans’ communications generally requires the government to obtain a warrant based on probable cause of criminal activity. REV. & LEE L.wlu.

J. 7. 494 Catholic University Law Review [Vol. The problem with the FISA Court is far broader than a particular procedure or rule. Ct. concurring). See supra note 108. POST. See Starks. at 962–63 (discussing legislation passed to deal with Fourth Amendment questions related to wiretapping). generally from some type of public advocate. 945. and Master’s Degree in International Politics.. 5961). Fundamental changes are of such surveillance and have emphasized the importance of close judicial scrutiny in policing these limits.R. Other bills addressed the court’s secrecy by requiring the executive branch to declassify significant opinions or release summaries. concurring). see also Associated Press. 200. 199. Id. These proposals would make important improvements. June 24 2014. 2092–93 (discussing bipartisan legislative action to address the privacy concerns related to UAVs).D. leading to a thirteen-hour filibuster seeking to block the Senate’s approval of the President’s nominee to lead the CIA.. S.The FISA Court’s minimal involvement in overseeing programmatic surveillance does not meet these constitutional standards. See Jones. at 956.R. Brossart: Adapting the Fourth Amendment for a Future With Drones”. Cir. and the Farmers’ Privacy Act of 2012 (H. increasing transparency.C. Congress should address additional Fourth Amendment concerns by ensuring that the collection of information under the rubric of “foreign intelligence” actually relates to our national security and does not constitute an endrun around the constitutional standards for criminal investigations. the Preserving American Privacy Act of 2012 (H.R. mandamus denied sub nom. 194. “State v. and facilitating the ability of affected individuals to challenge surveillance programs in regular federal courts. See Starks. 198. report proposes a set of key changes to FISA to help restore the court’s legitimacy.201 For example.edu/cgi/viewcontent. United States v. The Congress should end programmatic surveillance and require the government to obtain judicial approval whenever it seeks to obtain communications or information involving Americans. J. See supra Part II. 670 F. Ct. supra note 145. See id.199 Three bills aiming to protect the public’s privacy from increased use of UAVs for civilian government purposes were introduced in the 112th Congress. 132 S. Ct. 3287).200 However. 956 (Sotomayor. needed to fix these flaws. 2012). J. Mar. Senator Holds Long Fillibuster to Oppose Obama’s Drone Policy. • Congress should shore up the Article III soundness of the FISA Court by ensuring that the interests of those affected by surveillance are represented in court proceedings. several bills were introduced to try to ensure that the court would hear the other side of the argument. at 18–19. See THOMPSON. http://scholarship. supra note 118. Scholars have pointed to this language as supporting the adoption of the mosaic theory of the Fourth Amendment. these bills have been criticized as overly broad in protecting privacy and severely limiting the government’s ability to use [FOOTNOTE BEGINS] 192. See Jones. 132 S. 132 S. 197.3d 265 (D. 196. supra note 125 (noting that concerns over the civil-liberty issues raised by the use of UAVs has led to bipartisan discussions of UAV legislation).cgi?article=3260&context=lawreview) Current legislative initiatives suggest that there is a bipartisan push for legislation to balance the government’s use of UAVs with the public’s privacy concerns. at A2. the government’s ability to collect information about ordinary Americans’ lives has increased exponentially while judicial oversight has been reduced to nearnothingness. • Plan solves for police flexibility – requiring a warrant allows for necessity while preserving 4th ammendment rights Bryan ‘14 (Thomas. at 2090 (noting the potential privacy concerns of widespread UAV use and the need for legislative action). Following Snowden’s disclosures. WASH. 195. See supra notes 98–105 and accompanying text. Nothing less than a fundamental overhaul of the type proposed here is needed to restore the system to its constitutional moorings. See Ed O’Keefe and Aaron Blake. The bills include the Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012 (H. 193. but they do not address the full range of constitutional deficiencies resulting from the changes in law and technology detailed in this report.C. at 963–64 (Alito. Jones. In re Jones. This would resolve many constitutional concerns. Under today’s foreign intelligence surveillance system. supra note 118. 2013. Congressional action to regulate the use of emerging practices and technologies for privacy purposes has firm precedents.law. The problem with the FISA Court is FISA. at 2090. 6199). Concerns over the potential dangers the government’s domestic use of UAVs have also been raised in the new 113th Congress. WhAT WENT WRONG WITH THE FISA COURT | 5 • Finally. the Preserving American Privacy Act of 2012 would only permit UAV use by law enforcement “except . 5925. 63:465 [END FOOTNOTE] UAVs.

2 " The FAA should address the potential ramifications of putting drone technology into the hands of private companies. which falls outside of the scope of the Fourth Amendment. Congress should pass legislation requiring them. stronger privacy protections should be applied to criminal and regulatory investigations and more liberal rules applied to non-invasive uses. See THOMPSON. 203. In re Jones. H. Congress should permit surveillance of spaces falling within the open fields doctrine. supra note 201.R. 112th Cong. at 18 (showing there is no open fields exception under either form of the bill). 3287.208 To address privacy concerns of long-term UAV surveillance. The Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012 takes a more nuanced approach. 132 S. Because of its sophistication and potential for harm. Tim Adelman. such as locating lost persons or assessing damages from natural disasters. 202. supra note 145.edu/cgi/viewcontent. 6199. at 2095 (noting the importance of legislation that does not overly restrict UAV use). THE HILL (Sept. Congress should aim to clarify how current principles of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence apply to UAVs and add additional privacy protections that account for their unique capabilities.246 Unregulated use of drones can potentially lead to a variety of abuses by government agencies It is a point worth reiterating that the expansion of drones into the national airspace should not be permitted before comprehensive and widely disseminated privacy guidelines are in place .law. "Preserving Freedom From Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012. but place a time limit on aerial surveillance preventing the government from conducting long-term investigations of individuals without prior judicial approval. prohibiting the warrantless use of a UAV to collect evidence regarding criminal conduct or a violation of a regulation. Flurry of ‘Drone’ Bills’ Shows Congress Has Much to Learn. supra prevents law enforcement from using UAVs in open fields. H. as “mere visual observation does not constitute a search. Jones suggests that the latter category would not constitute a search. 6:59 AM). Congress should codify the Fourth Amendment’s strong protection of the home by requiring that a warrant be issued before the government can use UAV-mounted technologies 201. 112th Cong. In June. Congressional action should also aim to limit unwanted invasions of privacy by private citizens.207 Similarly. at 18 (discussing legislation that has restricted government surveillance tools further than the court. 5925. 249 Senator Paul proposed exceptions to the warrant requirement in regard to border patrol and in cases of imminent threats to life. but specifically allowing UAVs to be used to patrol the border. “Drones in the Homeland: A Potential Privacy Obstruction Under the Fourth Amendment and The Common Law Trespass Doctrine” http://scholarship. unless accompanied by a warrant.pursuant to [a] warrant and in the investigation of a felony” and excludes all evidence obtained in violation of the Act from criminal proceedings. 2012). Jones. Representative Austin Scott of Georgia introduced a House bill entitled. S. 204.204 Instead. while also taking into consideration Fourth Amendment rights. See Starks. especially without instituting strict regulations regarding the use of drones. and to manage situation with high risks of terrorist attacks. 945. and suggesting Congress do the same with UAVs). at 2095–96 (noting that some members of Congress. §§ 2–3 (2012).C. 670 F. 45 Potentially.210 Congress must enact drone reform Oyegunle 12 (Ajoke Oyegunle. and other similar activities are government uses of drones that do not intrude on privacy and should not be discouraged. [FOOTNOTE BEGINS] See Starks." which proposes necessary privacy safeguards in response to drones. drones might be vulnerable to hackers who can penetrate firewalls and intercept personal data from private individuals. If the FAA does not institute such protections in its rulemaking. using drones to gain unfettered access into homes and businesses. this proposed Act is overly restrictive because it Congress should find a way to allow law enforcement to use this valuable tool in all necessary circumstances. .209 Lastly. and UAV industry representatives have expressed concerns that an overregulation of privacy concerns may stifle the industry’s growth and prevent the government from using UAVs for desirable purposes). would reinforce the warrant clause of the Fourth Amendment by requiring the government to obtain a warrant to gather evidence against a criminal suspect. a drone aerial search should be prohibited. sponsored by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.R.206 Following current Fourth Amendment principles. 24 The Senate version of the bill. See THOMPSON. 207. Adelman. §§ 3–4 (2012). http://thehill. 2014] Adapting the Fourth Amendment for a Future with Drones 495[END FOOTNOTE] to conduct surveillance revealing information about the interior of the home. both of which are permitted under current jurisprudence.202 This approach may prevent law enforcement from operating UAVs in open fields for securing large-crowd events or enforcing traffic laws. 2012. Tim Adelman argues that the use of UAVs to find lost hikers.205 To accomplish this. Oyegunle finished first in the 2012-2013 National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ (NACDL) Diversity Task Force Essay Competition. 205.” See United States v. Cir. Congress should regulate the use of drones by law enforcement agencies by requiring warrants before using drones to obtain information from individuals . 950 (2012). local government officials. to prevent imminent danger to life. but that such measures should not excessively limit the government’s use of UAV’s).com/blogs/congressblog/foreign-policy/250597-flurry-of-drone-bills-shows-congress-has-much-to-learn (arguing that Congress is right to consider privacy protection measures as UAV technology becomes widely used.203 Yet. supra note 145.247 One such privacy measure would prohibit law enforcement from using drones to collect evidence against criminal suspects without a warrant. note 118. survey multi-car crashes. 112th Cong.cgi?article=1528&context=commlaw) Additionally. drones can be susceptible to attacks by terrorists who hijack them. mandamus denied sub nom. supra note 118. Like other electronic devices. §§ 2–3 (2012). Ct. 206.3d 265 (D. 20.

Policy Manager at Access. 2012. A first step would be the consideration and passage of Congressman Scott’s bill to limit the use of drone surveillance in criminal investigations without a warrant. Regarding privacy concerns. we believe those efforts drone operators." Congress must enact sweeping domestic drone legislation Stepanovich 12 (Amie Stepanovich.. including DHS and its components.pdf) Customs and Border Protection Bureau.Congress. The FAA has not yet responded to EPIC’s request for agency action. First. July 19. Once again I thank you for the opportunity to testify today. and members of the public who also believed that privacy rules are necessary before drones enter our domestic skies in a more widespread way." 25' Courts should allow "aerial surveillance of open The judiciary. should ensure that drone technology does not abridge the right to privacy.S. As you have indicated. Amie is an expert in domestic surveillance. working in tandem with fields. July 19. There are several simple steps that we believe can protect privacy as the use of drones increases in our skies. Chairman McCaul. As has previously been mentioned. the FBI. Investigations. are not sufficient. and others. State and local governments have also considered laws and regulations to further prevent abuses of drone technology. Congress should expressly require Federal Several of your colleagues have made However. the Secret Service. transmitted. the privacy and security concerns arising from the use of drones needs to be addressed. Amie Stepanovich is U. Privacy law is ill-equipped to properly address the burgeoning advances in technology without strengthening existing law with a "balancing approach to aerial surveillance. or shared. stored. Earlier this year in a formal petition to the FAA. Second. a DHS component.. and this failure to act there is also no administrative framework in place to regulate drones in our skies. but mandat[e] stricter scrutiny of surveillance over homes and curtilage . CBP currently operates 10 drones in the United States.org/irp/congress/2012_hr/uas-homeland.pdf) IV. Investigations. and I will be pleased to answer your questions Congress must enact comprehensive drone reform lacking now Stepanovich 12 (Amie Stepanovich.org/irp/congress/2012_hr/uas-homeland. based on principles of transparency and accountability. The law should also provide for independent audits and oversight. The failure to make clear the circumstances when Federal and State agencies may deploy drones for aerial surveillance has already raised significant concerns about the agency’s programs. CONGRESS SHOULD ESTABLISH SAFEGUARDS RELATED TO THE USE OF DRONES There are several strategies to provide meaningful privacy protections that address the increased use of drones in our domestic skies. First. Congress should pass targeted legislation. the agency must develop appropriate regulations to safeguard privacy. the Inspector General said that a standardized process was needed to request CBP drones for nonCBP purposes in order to provide transparency. The DHS Inspector General means that recently assessed CBP’s practice in making drones available by other Federal agencies. and require notice of drone surveillance operations and policies. Amie is an expert in domestic surveillance. cybersecurity. and Management of the Committee on Homeland Security House of Representatives One Hundred Twelfth Congress Second Session” http://fas. To the extent that DHS chooses to operate drones within the United States. I think Congress should clarify the circumstances under which drones purchased by CBP in pursuit of its mission may be deployed for other purposes. An initial step would be the passage of Congressman Austin Scott’s bill to limit drone surveillance in the United States in cases where a warrant has not been first obtained. cybersecurity.42 These proposals would serve as a good basis for Federal . and privacy law. Hearing Before the Subcomittee on Oversight. 2012. to fully address the invasive nature of drones. experts. and privacy law. new legislation must prohibit nonspecific untargeted drone surveillance. “Using Unmanned Aeiraial Systems Within the Homeland: Security Game-Changer. Amie Stepanovich is U.S. However. efforts to address some of the privacy threats of drone . Hearing Before the Subcomittee on Oversight. and Management of the Committee on Homeland Security House of Representatives One Hundred Twelfth Congress Second Session” http://fas. to implement regulations subject to public notice and comment that address the privacy implications of drone use. limit the use of drone surveillance data collected. including the Department of Defense. “Using Unmanned Aeiraial Systems Within the Homeland: Security Game-Changer. [to] enable courts to preserve the right to privacy where expectations are highest without placing undue re-strictions on law enforcement. EPIC urged the agency to conduct a rulemaking to implement privacy rules for domestic drones. many local law enforcement agencies. Policy Manager at Access. Congress should pass targeted legislation. Finally . EPIC’s petition was joined by more than 100 other organizations.

Congress should act to expressly require Federal agencies that choose to operate drones.edu/cgi/viewcontent. drones may be used to monitor for environmental abuse.cgi? article=1007&context=clrcircuit) This argument is conditioned on several important qualifications. including third-party audits and oversight for Federally-operated drones and a private right of action against private entities that Second. such as in the case of criminal surveillance subject to a warrant. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. States. or for reasonable non-law enforcement use where privacy will not be substantially affected. requiring notice of all drone These three principles would help protect the privacy interests of individuals. and assist in the rescue of individuals in dangerous situations. The failure to make clear the circumstances when Federal and State agencies undertaken by Federal agencies within the United may deploy drones for aerial surveillance has already raised significant concerns about the agency’s program. airports without the opportunity for public comment. the law should provide for accountability. I will be pleased to answer your questions.45 V. First. Congress should require law enforcement to obtain a warrant before obtaining information gathered by private parties that it cannot otherwise obtain without a warrant.49 Third. We also support compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act for the deployment of drone technology and limitations for Federal agencies and other organizations that initially obtain a drone for one purpose and then wish to expand that purpose. May 2013. moved.—Prohibitions on retaining or sharing surveillance data collected by drones. Margot Kaminski is the executive director of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School. • Data Retention Limitations. Drone legislation should include: • Use Limitations. Congress must clarify the circumstances under which the drones purchased by the CBP in pursuit of its mission may be deployed by other agencies for other purposes. even regulations governing private actors. Second. —Prohibitions on general surveillance that limit drone surveillance to specific. CONCLUSION The increased use of drones to conduct surveillance in the United States must be accompanied by increased privacy protection s. enumerated circumstances. that address the privacy implications of drone use. The aggregation of stored information implicates a different set of both First Amendment and privacy concerns than the initial gathering of individual pieces of information. such as DHS and its components. “Drone Federalism: Civilian Drones and the Things They Carry” http://scholarship. Otherwise the flexibility explored by states in regulating private drone use will also turn out to be a way for law enforcement to obtain information gathered by private parties. the D. a geographically-confined emergency. For example. prevent the spread of forest fires. 47 If courts do not fix this loophole. DHS. In addition. surveillance policies through the Administrative Procedure Act.—Requiring notice of drone surveillance operations to the extent possible while allowing law enforcement to conduct effective investigations.S. the current state of the law is insufficient to address the drone surveillance threat.legislation. violate statutory privacy rights. Finally. this Essay . Congress must enact a warrant requirement on drones Kaminski 2013 (Margot Kaminski.berkeley.’’44 We believe that the public has a similar right to comment on new surveillance techniques. which governs the way personal data is processed.46 However .48 Thus arguing for state-by-state regulation of informationgathering that implicates First Amendment values does not preclude consideration of federal data privacy protection along the lines of the European Union’s Data Protection Directive. In addition. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Department of Homeland Security violated the Administrative Procedure Act when it chose to deploy body scanners as the primary screening technique in U. • Transparency. state experimentation with private drone surveillance should not preclude federal consideration of broader data privacy regulations. with emphasis on identifiable images of individuals.C.43 The Court observed that there was ‘‘no justification for having failed to conduct a notice-and-comment rulemaking. EPIC supports legislation aimed at strengthening safeguards related to the use of drones as surveillance tools and allowing for redress for drone operators who fail to comply with the mandated standards of protection. to implement regulations. The third-party doctrine allows law enforcement to avoid the warrant requirement by getting information from third parties that in turn observe the subject. subject to public notice and comment. We recognize that drone technology has the potential to be used in positive ways. Recently. Congress must legislatively close the trap door that is the third-party or Miller doctrine.law. in EPIC v. and stored. such as unmanned aerial vehicles.

Now is the time to return to first principles of individual liberty in a free society and assess their interaction with technology and governance in an age of domestic drones. as part of its licensing scheme. “Drones in U. 9/20/12. Bucci is director of the Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. The general rule balancing security and freedom is to be found. Paul Rosenzweig. drone surveillance will often provide no visible notice to the watched party if the drone is high up in the sky. in large part. Acceptable domestic uses of drone technology that should be permitted and in fact fostered. and aid individuals in obtaining any footage or data gathered about them. And the Federal Aviation Administration should use its licensing programs to solve perhaps the biggest puzzle of drone regulation: how to provide notice or at least transparency to those being observed so they can determine whether they have been subjected to a privacy violation.52 Tracking drones is essential to establishing whether a tort has occurred in any given state. Fourth. In a world of increasing surveillance. Charles Stimson. There are basic first principles that underlie any use of new technology and the existing constitutional limitations that might apply to drones. and for how long such surveillance will take place. in order to protect 4th amendment values Bucci et al. except under certain circumstances.” http://www. The protections codified in the Bill of Rights are an additional firewall against any intrusions on liberty that would unravel the checks in the Constitution.S. and Prohibited uses of drone technology that raise significant questions of law and policy—such as the deployment of drones operated by the military within U. An assessment of these principles suggests that there are: Substantial liberty interests .53 Such laws prevent individuals from choosing to avoid surveillance in public places. Unlike surveillance by camera phone or most forms of CCTV.51 The federal government should require such data collection statements to be easily searchable.heritage. Airspace: Principles for Governance.org/research/reports/2012/09/drones-inus-airspace-principles-for-governance) General Principles Any guidelines must ensure appropriate protections of the freedoms guaranteed to U.does not intend to wrest safety or other basic aviation licensing matters from the Federal Aviation Administration. and James Carafano. 12 (Steven Bucci. giving more agency to the watched will justify maintaining protection of the expressive freedom of the watchers.S. or in addition to this scheme. inhibiting individuals’ expressive choices about whether to remain anonymous. Alternatively. where. citizens under the Constitution.S. the federal government could require drone radio frequency identification (“RFID”) “license plates” to track the location of drones at any given time . the FAA could. The Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unlawful search and seizure is the right most directly implicated by unbounded and unrestrained use of domestic drones. in the structure of American constitutional government itself. such as the use of drones to search for survivors after a disaster. It may surprise many to learn that a large number of states have anti-mask laws that criminalize maskwearing in public. Both of these provisions are included in the proposed Markey bill. Congress must restrict drone usage in some ways. require that those using drones for surveillance submit a data collection statement indicating when. states should decriminalize the use of basic privacy-protective technologies.50 As Representative Ed Markey proposed in a draft bill. borders in a .

Beyond these uses.manner that violates existing rules (such as Posse Comitatus) on the use of military force domestically. Nor is it a question of legality: Most current uses are lawful. appropriate implementation policies and oversight structures that can protect individual liberties while allowing appropriate uses of domestic drones with appropriate oversight. Bucci is director of the Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.heritage. Americans want a government that fosters liberty and freedom and that provides security. Charles Stimson. Paul Rosenzweig. As always. and most future uses are likely to be.S. and James Carafano. Airspace: Principles for Governance.” http://www. Bucci is director of the Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Charles Stimson. Restrictions on drone tech should be implemented to promote democracatic and privacy ideals Bucci et al. Airspace: Principles for Governance. the challenge for the Administration and Congress is to define strict. 9/20/12. striking the proper balance is both difficult and essential. This question is not a new one.S. resolving airtraffic safety and security issues alone is inadequate. Americans want a constrained government that is subject to checks and balances and one that has “energy in the executive” (to quote Hamilton) to achieve legitimate governmental objectives. the proper subject for discussion is the extent to which society wants to provide tools to the state that have beneficial uses and are also susceptible to abuse. several first principles should guide the analysis:[5] No . As a first step. Given the potentially wide range of uses for drones in U. “Drones in U. FAA cannot properly implement drone reform – a comprehensive framework by other governmental bodies is key Bucci et al. 12 (Steven Bucci. but other governmental bodies have expertise in and are better suited to address privacy and civil liberties concerns. “Drones in U. territory. the FAA has expertise in and is the appropriate forum for considering safety and technical questions. these are questions of law and policy. 12 (Steven Bucci. and James Carafano. Washington needs a more comprehensive and thoughtful framework.heritage.S. it is and will be increasingly so.” http://www.org/research/reports/2012/09/drones-inus-airspace-principles-for-governance) As a practical matter. it is one that has been a tension point within American society since the Founding.org/research/reports/2012/09/drones-inus-airspace-principles-for-governance) Fundamentally. 9/20/12. Rather. Paul Rosenzweig. The issue is not whether the use of drones is technically feasible: Obviously.

the less justified the intrusion. Similarly. As James Madison told the Virginia ratifying convention in 1788. Even so. Not all intrusions are justified simply because they are effective. significance.S.”[6] Congress should curtail drone surveillance Rothfuss 14 (Ian. '68 As discussed earlier.. The full extent and nature of the intrusion worked by any new technology must be understood and appropriately limited. uniquely. In addition. George Mason University School of Law. From these general principles one can derive certain other. Any increased intrusion on American privacy interests must be justified through an understanding of the particular nature. There is no reason to erode Americans’ privacy when equivalent results can be achieved without doing so. The war against terrorism. is one with no foreseeable end.S. Development of new technology is not a basis for authorizing new government powers or new government capabilities. Candidate. Whatever the justification for the intrusion. Americans might have to live with their consequences for a long time.'6 7 With the proper focus on privacy concerns. Business Administration and Management. Congress should require a warrant for "extended surveillance of a particular target. but they would do so at too high a cost. the less intrusive means ought to be preferred. no new system should be implemented without the full panoply of protections against its abuse.'66 Pending legislation proposes amending the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 to address drone privacy concerns. J. if there are less intrusive means of achieving the same end at a reasonably comparable cost. No new system that materially affects citizens’ privacy should be developed without specific authorization by the American people’s representatives in Congress and without provisions for their oversight of the operation of the system. excessive intrusions may not be justified as emergency measures that will lapse upon the termination of hostilities.. depending on its sphere of operation. Strip searches at airports would certainly prevent people from boarding planes with weapons. Finally. “An Economic Perspective On The Privacy Implications Of Domestic Drone Surveillance”) Congress should enact rules to govern domestic drone use.fundamental liberty guaranteed by the Constitution can be breached or infringed upon. 69 This recommendation would apply to situations . May 2015. Any new system should mirror and implement existing legal limitations on domestic or foreign activity.D. Congress should require authorization from an independent official for generalized surveillance that collects personally identifiable information such as facial features and license plate numbers. B. “There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. North Carolina State University. The less significant the threat.. more concrete conclusions regarding the development and construction of any new technology—principles that are directly relevant to the deployment of drones domestically: No new system should alter or contravene existing legal restrictions on the government’s ability to access data about private individuals. drones may be deployed domestically while still protecting the privacy of American citizens. Business Management. One recommendation is that Congress should require the Department of Transportation to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment of the operation of drones domestically. Thus. and severity of the threat addressed by the program. Spring 2014. no new system should alter or contravene existing operational system limitations. M. such a requirement extending warrant protections makes sense and will provide a valuable check against law enforcement abuse of the new technology. Boston University. Any such expansion should be justified independently. the Fourth Amendment would not necessarily require a warrant in these situations. Any new system that is developed and implemented must be designed to be tolerable in the long term. Policymakers must be restrained in their actions.

where a warrant was not required but personally identifiable information was still being gathered.S. Such legislation should allow for constructive use of drones within a framework that contains restrictions to protect individual privacy rights. North Carolina State University. a delicate balance must be achieved between privacy and security interests. Spring 2014. Candidate. Therefore. 20141 JOURNAL OF LAW. Business Administration and Management. 172 Geiger. To adequately protect privacy interests. but not at the expense of their privacy rights. Congress should direct that the independent official. Business Management. While widespread general surveillance could make the nation safer from crime and terrorism. The surveillance that could result from the domestic use of drones would detract from individual privacy and cause individuals to reduce productive activities and invest in countermeasures. vested with decisionmaking power on applications for general surveillance. such extensive surveillance will ultimately be inefficient. prompt legislative action is necessary to address the fundamental privacy challenges presented by the use of drones.D. J. [FOOTNOTE] 171 AM. Such "privacy disutility" will outweigh the societal benefits unless domestic drone surveillance is restricted. 174 id. CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION. “An Economic Perspective On The Privacy Implications Of Domestic Drone Surveillance”) U. at 15. B. Therefore. This recommendation should be enacted as a safeguard of the public's privacy interests. legislation should be crafted to maximize the social utility from the domestic use of drones. M.S. 173 id.S. May 2015. supra note 16. Therefore.. be a neutral and detached magistrate who is completely separated from any law enforcement or intelligence agency. supra note 153. citizens want to be safe from terrorist attacks and other threats. George Mason University School of Law. ECONOMICS & POLICY [END FOOTNOTE] without legislative action we may soon live in a world where "every time we walk out of our front door we have to look up and wonder whether some invisible eye in the sky is monitoring us. Drones represent a surveillance technology advancement that threatens to dramatically alter the balance between these interests.. Legislation must be enacted to curtail drone surveillance Rothfuss 14 (Ian. Boston University. the current legal framework does not adequately protect privacy from the widespread surveillance that will likely result from the unrestricted domestic use of drones. As discussed in the previous section. such as surveillance at a public event. 7 ° The neutral and detached magistrate discussed above could determine when a sufficient government interest exists to warrant allowing generalized drone surveillance. 75 ' . The legislation should be structured according to the three levels of scrutiny proposed by Song to ensure that the governmental interest in the surveillance outweighs the disutility or social cost that will result from the loss of privacy.. As discussed in this comment.

But policy statements are not legally binding. killing enemy militants and. in the case of the FAA.com/opinion/articles/2014/08/06/the-droneregulation-debate-needs-to-be-better) In 2012. “The Drones Will Have Their Day”. August 6 2014. just four out of 36 states that considered drone legislation have enacted any laws. a $10. In state legislatures. an anti-drone radar. Even the FAA has been toothless. droners. the kind that weigh just a few pounds and carry a small object (like a camera. that commercial drone use would be absolutely prohibited until 2015. occasionally. the company had raised $1. Instead of a drone. even very small ones. when small drones. Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union raised alarms. It’s clear: The drone is winning. Yemen and Somalia. Desperate to prevent the midair meeting of a drone and a manned aircraft.3 million. which the company described as “an intelligent drone that follows and films you autonomously. Rand Paul. That same week. . The FAA’s attempts at enforcement have therefore only served to highlight that it has its hands tied. owns a toy drone. 43 states debated 96 drone bills. have openly flaunted them. co-director of the Center for the Study of the Drone. The agency reminded the public that private drone users were subject to restrictions. the public was spooked. while the efforts to limit their use have stalled and the public debate has gone into a tailspin. according to the ACLU. ghostlike military spy aircraft that lurked over Pakistan.” perfect for making exciting action sports videos. Within a few hours. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York hired a photographer who used a drone to capture (admittedly rather stunning) aerial views of the congressman’s wedding. in one case. a company called APlus Mobile made its own Kickstarter campaign. The campaign only managed to raise $1. when it would enact comprehensive – and strict – safety regulations. the rules that actually are legal (like keeping away from airports) are easy to break and difficult to enforce. When he flew it on Fox News. lawmakers from Washington state to Virginia rushed to propose legislation to limit or ban drones.500 goal. the drones are soaring. the look on his face was childlike. This year. or a burrito) became affordable. “Our intent is to keep your privacy safe from your neighbors and people you may not know who are flying small drones near your home or office. Drones were more commonly thought of as the weaponized. http://www. Last month. who filibustered Congress for 13 hours in protest of government drone use. The FAA has attempted to enforce these policy statements through cease-anddesist letters and. But the passage toward integration was set to be turbulent. Meanwhile .000 target. Democratic Rep. too . some have caught drone fever. But these actions have been repeatedly struck down in court. This is not enough to keep pace with drone proliferation. a company called Squadrone System started aKickstarter campaign to fund a small multi-rotor drone called the HEXO+.” it said.AT Squo Solves Drone regulation is failing and negative impacts have a high potential to be seen Michel 14 (Arthur Holland.000 fine. the campaign had raised more than three times its $50. R-Ky. legally enforceable regulations that will come sometime after 2015. In fact. placeholders for the real. While private individuals and companies often respect federal agency policy statements. Fearing for privacy and safety. all but eight of these bills died in session. however. In 2013. the agency has released a number of policy statements intended to limit unsafe drone use. civilians and children. When the campaign ended. the idea of a drone-filled airspace began shifting from sci-fi fantasy to reality. Sen. eager to get airborne. sternly.435 of its $8. These statements include the ban on commercial use. And lawmakers in Washington aren’t jumping to regulate the drone. drone regulation is one of the few issues that has enjoyed bipartisan support.. They are recommendations. The Federal Aviation Administration stressed.usnews. Two years later. the company proposed a Personal Drone Detection System – essentially. While these drones have little in common with small domestic drones. In June.

Congress should proactively enact laws that confine domestic drones to reasonable. Like J.com/article/spy-drones-come-us-we-must-protect-privacy/) Before the decade is out. Already the faa has permitted a handful of law-enforcement agencies to operate drones on a short-term basis. or pursue heavily armed suspects. The limited regulations accompanying those permits (which. one could argue that drones are exempt from that precedent. The proliferation of small. Now they are set to take on a much larger role in the U. inexpensive aerial vehicles with video downlinks will dramatically alter the cost-benefit ratio of surveillance. The privacy threat does not just come from law enforcement. are already a staple of modern warfare. thankfully. Public safety agencies can use drones to survey wildfires. the NSA has amassed an enormous amount of power. No longer will law-enforcement agencies need to consider the expense and risk of operating a helicopter when gathering evidence. Privacy advocates rightly worry that drones. has been naturally limited by the costs of helicopter operations. however. Such speculative reconnaissance.S. there may be thousands more eyes in the sky. Consequently. energy companies will fly drones over critical machinery. The faa is not in the business of privacy protection. either. He is . the backyard of a home—without first obtaining a warrant. Perhaps this should not be surprising. In 2001 the Supreme Court ruled that police could not use thermal-imaging technology to gather evidence about the goings-on hidden inside a residence without first obtaining a warrant. Your neighbor is not allowed go into your yard without your permission—will he be able to keep a drone hovering just above it? Case law paints a hazy picture of how drones could be employed for surveillance. March 19 2013. NSA Director Keith Alexander has become so powerful as to be above the law. drones also pose an immense threat to privacy.theatlantic. Will the same law apply to unmanned drones. “The NSA-Reform Paradox: Stop Domestic Spying. in fact. equipped with high-resolution video cameras. Paparazzi and private detectives will find drones just as easy to use as the cops.com/politics/archive/2013/09/the-nsareform-paradox-stop-domestic-spying-get-more-security/279537/ Leaks from the whistleblower Edward Snowden have catapulted the NSA into newspaper headlines and demonstrated that it has become one of the most powerful government agencies in the country. The first focuses on the agency’s power. infrared detectors and even facialrecognition software. The technology promises to be immensely useful. “Domestic Drones” http://www.scientificamerican. Still. Its primary concern is with the safety of domestic airspace. useful purposes. It is not hard to imagine blanket campaigns that survey entire cities for backyard marijuana plants or even building code violations . Edgar Hoover. which are not similarly constrained? A more recent case poses troubling questions about access to the most sacrosanct spaces. conduct search-andrescue operations. But that bill failed to make it out of a subcommittee. commonly known as drones. can be held accountable if drones are not used responsibly and in a way that respects the Fourth Amendment. Schnier ‘13 (Bruce. There are two basic schools of thought about how this came to pass. contributing writer for The Atlantic and the chief technology officer of the computersecurity firm Co3 Systems. The present Congress must be more active than its predecessor in heading off this clear and impending threat to personal privacy.AT Squo solves FAA FAA doesn’t solve privacy Scientific American ‘13 (Scientific American. Farmers will use them to survey their fields. The court reasoned that governmental use of “a device that is not in general public use”—a thermal imager—constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment and therefore requires a judge's approval. No federal agency. A 1989 Supreme Court decision ruled that police may use helicopters to peer into semiprivate areas— say. These rules could open up the skies to unmanned vehicles of all types—from large surveillance drones used by the military to insect-size prototypes being developed in university laboratories. Congress has directed the Federal Aviation Administration to set rules by 2015 for how drones may be used in domestic airspace. From the secret court rulings that allow it collect data on all Americans to its systematic subversion of the entire Internet as a surveillance platform. Yet if unmanned aerial vehicles become as prevalent as manufacturers hope. will let snoops into realms that have long been considered privat e. including a bill that would have outlawed drone spying without a warrant and instituted important transparency and accountability measures for their use. September 11 2013. preclude attaching any weapons to the drones) are insufficient to protect the privacy of citizens . Unmanned aerial vehicles. law-enforcement agencies will have ample opportunity and motivation to deploy drones on open-ended sorties. As such. Get More Security” http://www. Several sensible ideas were proposed during the last session of Congress.

and -. Former NSA Director Michael Hayden exemplifies this in a quote from late July: “Give me the box you will allow me to operate in. this is what failure looks like. Once we do this. Drones on the US border: Are they worth the price? http://www. we’re resilient.still has no coherent response to all this. especially considering that rules being floated and rumored over the last several months were much more strict—one report suggested that drone operators would have to be licensed private pilots in order to get their foot in the door. Drone pilots I know are over-the-moon that the FAA seems to have finally seen the light on this technology. Longtime NSA watcher James Bamford recently quoted a CIA official: “We jokingly referred to him as Emperor Alexander -. and accountability. If there’s a problem with the NSA’s actions.” Possibly the best evidence for this position is how well Alexander has weathered the Snowden leaks. under the rules he has been given. The NSA’s most intimate secrets are front-page headlines.csmonitor. because overall we are safer that way. Morale at the agency is in shambles. must fly during daylight hours. especially after years of legal battles and threats that have come from the agency for businesses that have operated in a legal grey area. More likely. It’s the job of government: of Congress. it has to come from above. And the NSA’s power predated his directorship. Here's what we can take away and reasonably infer from the FAA's . He has no idea who else might have stolen secrets before Snowden. For an organization that prides itself on secrecy and security. because whatever Keith wants.com/USA/2014/0205/Drones-on-the-US-border-Are-they-worth-the-price the Federal Aviation Administration has finally provided a path forward for the legal use of drones in the United States. Our society can handle the occasional terrorist act. Alexander is performing the mission given to him as best he can. it’s hard to see how America and its freedoms can survive that. just as the protections we put in place to restrain police sometimes result in a criminal getting away. Like at the FBI and CIA after past abuses. It is a testament to Alexander’s power that he still has a job. it’ll be harder to demonstrate that they broke the letter of the law. and we need to balance our need for public safety with our aversion of a police state.” This doesn’t necessarily mean the administration is deliberately giving the NSA too big a box. deceived Congress. and of the president. The second says the field is too big. The second school of thought is that it’s the administrations’ fault -. And giving up power. That's a trade-off we should be willing to make . it's a major win for the commercial drone industry . week after week. We want it to eavesdrop on our enemies.if we decided to act that way -indomitable.able to get away with what he does because neither political party -. Blaming the NSA for creating a surveillance state is comparable to blaming the U. so there's a good chance you've already heard a bit about the new After more than five years of handwringing. of the courts. Regardless of how we got here.S. it’s because the rules it’s operating under are bad. technology gives us possibilities that our laws simply don’t cover clearly. the NSA can’t reform itself. the NSA interprets whatever law there is to give them the most expansive authority. it’s simply that the laws aren’t keeping pace with technology. professional writer for U. and court cases. or fundamentally jeopardize their privacy or security.S. or who such insiders might have provided them to. Tens of thousands of additional top-secret documents are still waiting to come. They simply run rings around the secret court that rules on these things. Change cannot come from within.The news dropped Sunday morning. military for the conduct of the Iraq war. This is a trade-off we need to make willingly and openly. My guess is that while they have clearly broken the spirit of the law. And whenever there’s a gray area. Alexander had no contingency plans in place to deal with this sort of security breach. This means that sometimes the NSA won’t get to eavesdrop. Like the military.not just the present one. and must not fly above people who are uninvolved with the flight. rein in the rogue agency. but the most recent several. News & World Report. in fact. Every year. But a government agency that is above the law . the first school of thought says the NSA is out of bounds. These are the people who have the ability to investigate how things became so bad. Keith gets. the NSA is simply doing its job. Washington Magazine. and possibly broken the law. Overall. 2015 Staff writer for Mother Board. According to this theory.four months after Snowden fled the country -..dare cross him. Alexander has admitted that he still doesn’t know what Snowden took with him and wouldn’t have known about the leak at all had Snowden not gone public. I believe that both perspectives have some truth to them. I’m going to play to the very edges of that box. Any solution we devise will make the NSA less efficient at its eavesdropping job. We do this because we realize that a too-powerful police force is itself a danger. Domestic drones inevitable but squo safegards are insufficient to solve privacy concerns – FAA insufficient to solve Koebler 2/17 JASON February 17. Commercial drones must stay within line of sight of the operator. there needs to be a cultural change within the NSA. just as we accept reduced police efficiency caused by requiring warrants for searches and warning suspects that they have the right to an attorney before answering police questions. with the sort of zeal you’d expect from someone promoted into that position. missed deadlines. and that the real problem comes from their combination.. and even now -. the NSA is merely an instrument of national policy. must stay at speeds below 100 miles per hour and altitudes of less than 500 feet.with good cause. and establish new systems of transparency. proposed regulations.and nowhere near enough individual lawmakers -. Revelation after revelation has demonstrated that Alexander has exceeded his authority. The Washington Post. oversight. but it needs to do so in a way that doesn’t trample on the constitutional rights of Americans. In football terms. The same reasoning needs to apply to the NSA. the NSA needs new leadership committed to changing its culture.

from the industry side. and the agricultural pilot lobby simply isn't a very strong voice. would not tell me more about ongoing litigation (understandably so). This process isn't over. which have never been regulated. So. were being lumped in with more stringent commercial drone rules. drone business owners. for instance). who argue that a drone-crop duster crash would be catastrophic. But. They're not wrong. Many of the lawsuits against the FAA will probably go away Three separate groups—model aircraft pilots." it said. not by a longshot.document: What you're looking at is probably the final rule Drone pilots and the drone industry are pretty ecstatic with what the FAA has put out there. However. Delivery drones are not dead One of the from those wanting to limit drones.The FAA has done everything slowly with drones. "Research and development" and "educational and academic uses" are classified as that provision would be a "huge blow" to existing research programs. The FAA will also have to beef up its air traffic control staffing (it requires drone operators to call control towers before flying anywhere remotely near an airport) and its drone licensing and testing sites. people are happy with this. not yet. Universities are clients of his. and want to keep them grounded. But now. There will be a comment period of 60 days before the FAA actually votes on a final set of rules. considering all they were really asking for was a way to fly legally. The FAA's actual rule. There are some sticking points: Experienced pilots want to fly over processions and people for photography purposes (a concert shot with drone footage. it seems like a safe bet that drone businesses will drop their suit. Brendan Schulman. Schulman tweeted . lets model aircraft flyers continue as they always have. however. The Academy of Model Aeronautics was angry that model aircraft. the lawyer representing the firms. which seems pretty sensible. can’t be happy about the ruling. I wouldn't expect a lot of pushback or comments asking the FAA for even wider latitude to fly. there's so much money and momentum pushing drones forward that it seems likely privacy will be tackled by some other entity or at a later date . a group of drone-using universities. there appears to be light at the end of the tunnel. and a group of universities— filed suit against the FAA last summer after the agency made it more difficult to fly drones legally. The AMA seemed pleased in an emailed press release: "The preliminary information released today indicates that the proposed regulation will treat the recreational use of small unmanned aircraft separately from that of commercial use . and they have a point. The only other real opposition drones have had has come from crop dusting pilots. but this is the first of many drone regulations that will eventually come out. but to say that delivery drones are never going to happen is shortsighted. But right now. I also wouldn't expect a ton of pushback coming There are privacy advocates who fear camera-wielding drones will prove intrusive. however. University researchers are probably not pleased Schulman’s last group of FAA-suing clients. commercial uses of drones subject to new regulations. but that argument comes from a fear of losing their jobs more than anything else. biggest misconceptions going around right now is that Amazon's delivery drones are now DOA. so I would expect that lawsuit to move forward. overall. finally. It's true that delivery drones aren't going to be legal under this rule. The FAA wasn't ready to tackle flying outside the line of sight or with drones that drop things. and I wouldn't be surprised if the process somehow drags for months before they're ultimately finalized. FAA administrator Michael Huerta has noted that the FAA will continue researching delivery drones.

To this point. airspace is considerably less common. Surveillance by UAVs. However.AT 4th Ammendment UAV’s don’t violate 4th ammendment Thompson 2013 (Richard. The FAA has issued only approximately 300 licenses for drone use in U. the aerial surveillance cases arguably constitute an exception to this general principle. The rationale for this notion is that officers are not required to avert their eyes when they see illegal activity in plain view. a deck.000 feet were not considered a search. a backyard.S. and will soon have the capacity to see through walls and ceilings. in the record or before us to suggest that helicopters flying at 400 feet are sufficiently rare in this country to lend substance to respondent’s claim that he reasonably anticipated that his greenhouse would not be subject to observation from that altitude. All three of these cases were premised on the fact that each aircraft was flying in navigable airspace. exceedingly unusual for a drone to fly over their homes taking surveillance photographs. any suspicion. Moving beyond the home. In the two aerial cases. and under current jurisprudence. The Court has hesitated from interfering with the performance of this duty. Currently. Moreover.103 The federal government’s authority to use unmanned aircraft is undoubtedly at its maximum near U. Legislative Attorney. One of the federal government’s only affirmative duties is to protect citizens from external harm. Justice White remarked in Riley that “there is nothing public airways at [1. the use of low-powered cameras or other unsophisticated technology to view people and objects in plain view while in their home might not trigger Fourth Amendment protections.000 feet] to obtain a warrant to observe what is visible to the naked eye.S.2015. The Supreme Court remarked in Ciraolo that the “Fourth Amendment simply does not require the police traveling in the the rarity of drone flights may distinguish their use from surveillance by the piloted aircraft used in the three aerial cases decided by the Court. a swimming pool.102 The general public would likely find it This rarity might factor into a reviewing court’s determination of whether individuals have a legitimate expectation of privacy from various forms of drone surveillance while in a public place. Although the yet the police surveillance at altitudes of 400 and 1.”101 Presently. the Supreme Court’s rulings in border cases have all involved active searches—either a physical search of a vehicle or stopping and questioning a vehicle’s passenger. Riley and Ciraolo.com/jmsfileseller/docs/R42701. especially when the subject of the search has taken no affirmative efforts to hide their activity from public view. it is unclear whether circumstances exist in which the area immediately surrounding the home—for instance. UAVs carry high-megapixel cameras and thermal imaging.98 These technologies are not generally available to the public. it is reasonable to assume that surveillance of an individual while in his home—an area accorded the greatest Fourth Amendment protection—using technology not in general public use would be an unlawful search absent a search warrant. April 3. and it would in all likelihood demonstrate the same deference when it comes to the use of UAVs . “Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations: Fourth Amendment Implications and Legislative Responses” http://www. .pdf0 Based on existing case law. Based on the aerial surveillance cases.pennyhill. and that these flights were not “sufficiently rare” to provide a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area to be searched. or a porch— would receive similar protections as the interior of the home if surveilled by drones or other aerial vehicles. on the other hand. the area surveilled was within close proximity of the home. The Supreme Court in Kyllo was particularly concerned about law enforcement’s use of powerful equipment to peer inside an individual’s home.S.104 This includes securing the borders.”100 However. for that matter) to conduct drone surveillance of most public places for a relatively short period of time.99 Supreme Court has recited on many occasions that a person located in a home’s curtilage is accorded similar privacy protections as when inside the home . perhaps. their use by law enforcement would probably constitute a search covered by the Fourth Amendment. it may be reasonable to presume a warrant would not be required (nor. airspace. borders. use of UAVs in U.

Drone surveillance does not require any physical manipulation of a person or his things. Roving vehicle patrols and indiscriminate searches in Almeida-Sanchez v. Brignoni-Ponce were deemed unconstitutional. United States and United States v. . However. the Court has shown some reticence about giving law enforcement carte blanche search power at the border. UAVs also do not require the seizure of a person for any period of time (though drone surveillance may lead to law enforcement physically apprehending a person who is seen engaging in suspected illegal activity).105 It is unclear whether this reticence would extend to drone surveillance along the border if it were to become significantly widespread.may be considered more passive and therefore may be even less likely to run afoul of Fourth Amendment requirements.

.

A2 T .

law enforcement is greatly expanding its use of surveillance drones. “Domestic Drones. potentially collecting a large amount of digital data. and private actors are also seeking to use the technology for personal and commercial use. borders. Currently. the FBI believes it can use Stingrays without a warrant any time the device is deployed in public.accessnow. a practice which would be limited by the Geolocational Privacy and Surveillance Act. Official documents demonstrate that government agencies are already exploring aerial platforms for surveillance technologies. The potential for drones to violate individual rights supports the need for legislation and regulations for government uses of drones as well as commercial vehicles. .org/issues/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/domestic-drones ) U. restricts government use.S.” https://www. which conducts bulk surveillance of user location information .S.” https://www. Conversely.aclu. “Taming the skies: Obama memo looks at commercial drones. Access is an international human rights organization. More ev Mitnick & Bussell 2/15 (Drew Mitnick. 11:02am | 15 February 2015. Apr 12.AT – Drones =/= Surveillance Drones are used for surveillance ACLU 4/12 (American Civil Liberties Union. Representative Michael McCaul is pushing legislation that would increase the use of drones on the U. also this year. like Stingray technology. 2015. which was recently re-introduced by Senator Wyden and Representative Chaffetz.org/blog/2015/02/15/taming-the-skiesobama-memo-looks-at-commercial-drones-restricts-government) Drones also increase the opportunities for governments to conduct first-hand surveillance of users’ electronic communications by intercepting signals and information. Jack Bussell – Access.

.

A2 CP .

org/article/8041e46a7a3a4fb4bc85acb05598fecc/justice-departmentissues-policy-domestic-drone-use ) The Justice Department is acknowledging that the FBI. The unmanned aircraft already have been used in kidnapping. They also can be operated relatively cheaply. as well as search and rescue operations. The department on Friday issued its first written guidelines for domestic drone use and emphasized the need to respect civil and constitutional rights.” http://bigstory. 2015 6:37 PM EDT.A2 Consult justice department Justice Department supports privacy frame and use is high AP 5/22 (Associated Press. May.ap. 22. DEA and other federal law enforcement agencies are likely to make increasing use of unmanned aerial drones in the United States. the department said. . “Justice Department issues policy on domestic drone use. drug and fugitive cases.

of the three possible approaches. 14 (2015). The cattle industry has sponsored bills in several states forbidding the recording of farmland. Finally. continuing to infringe on First Amendment rights. courts might invalidate statutes on particular cases’ facts.pdf) It is possible that a pure federalism model would work well if—as is probably the case for less-controversial areas of the law—states cautiously tested the waters of restrictions on civil/commercial drones. and would again today. The aviation industry benefited from a consistent federal approach in 1926. “COMMERCIAL DRONES AND PRIVACY: CAN WE TRUST STATES WITH “DRONE FEDERALISM”?” 21 RICH. arguably violates the First Amendment outright. 221 As mentioned earlier. . the Supreme Court’s preference against issuing broad holdings when privacy and the First Amendment collide suggests that even some unconstitutional attempts are unlikely to be overturned in one fell swoop. litigation associate at Greenberg Traurig. appear to be straining to reach as much conduct as existing First Amendment precedent could possibly allow. J.222 [77] The states have also done little to demonstrate that they are concerned with the “complex space” between the First Amendment and privacy .L.223 Some states.edu/v21i4/article14. Instead. enacted in response to a drone’s discovery of environmental violations. to the extent possible. they are diving straight in. Unfortunately.richmond. by the time the FAA fully integrates private UAS in the national airspace. as long as the third-party doctrine remains viable.220 The specter of drone warfare and robotic monitoring has wrought enough damage on drones’ image that. it may be impossible in a significant number of states to operate one without risking civil or criminal liability. The Texas Privacy Act. by prohibiting flights over private property. the incentive for states to bring civil drone restrictions up to speed with moratoria on government surveillance will be great. drone federalism would result in the greatest level of interstate variation and legal uncertainty. The result could be that unconstitutional laws persist for some time. LLP. that does not appear to be the case here. & TECH. eroding rather than being overturned. http://jolt. [78] Moreover.AT States CP State laws will be too restrictive – kills the industry Gruber 15 (Robert.

They can observe from angles one normally would not expect. litigation associate at Greenberg Traurig. J. People who are illegally observed by UAS —for example. [72] Another potential problem with such an approach is that. in all likelihood. it will be very difficult to enforce existing privacy laws against improper actors without at least some drone-specific rules on the books. UAVs can be light. “COMMERCIAL DRONES AND PRIVACY: CAN WE TRUST STATES WITH “DRONE FEDERALISM”?” 21 RICH.richmond.pdf) Perhaps the most conclusive argument against the “wait and see” option is simply that the ship may have already sailed. and virtually unnoticeable. 14 (2015).edu/v21i4/article14. in violation of a “Peeping Tom” statute—may never know their rights have been violated. http://jolt. many states that addressed only public surveillance forbade the government from storing information collected inadvertently. There might still be hope that states will be more open to commercial applications. LLP. and laws are on the books in at least twenty of them. however. At least forty-three states have proposed drone bills. that more states will take up that cause as it becomes more pressing. 211 For example. as only a quarter or so of states have specifically addressed private use. and see over walls and on rooftops. & TECH.L. or from using in court information about anyone other than the subject of the warrant. unless government imposes some restrictions.210 It seems likely.213 .AT wait and see cp Too late and cp is unenforceable – federal regulations are key Gruber 15 (Robert.212 Presumably those states will want to consider drafting similar restrictions for information collected by third-party UAVs. quiet.

regardless of any existing individual expectation of privacy. May 2014.law. or for specific types of crimes. Environmental Health. two states. because ECPA already establishes a familiar framework for warrants and court orders governing law enforcement surveillance.138 State proposed legislation is a step in the right direction but is still largely insufficient in protecting all of an individual’s privacy interests. Under many of the proposed bills.137 Additionally. Columbia Southern University. approach to law enforcement drone use makes perfect sense.S. a federal law enforcement drone statute need not wait on extensive state experimentation . In a majority of proposed state bills.135 Some states’ proposed legislation would ban weaponization of drones owned and operated within the state. Additionally. University of Pittsburgh School of Law. The updates need not be drone-specific. such as felonies. have explicitly limited drone surveillance when that surveillance implicates an individual’s First Amendment protected activities.134 However.S. Spring 2013. B. M. candidate. .44 Like ECPA.D. Safety and Environmental Management. privately owned drones used for security and/or scientific purposes by third parties are not even discussed under the proposed bills. Massachusetts and North Dakota.berkeley.cgi? article=1007&context=clrcircuit) A federal. drones can still be used by law enforcement to obtain information available in “plain view” or open space without a warrant..136 other states have focused their bills on limiting aerial surveillance of groups such as farmers and ranchers. at a minimum. Margot Kaminski is the executive director of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School. Currently. states want to implement. J. Colorado State University. May 2013. A federal law governing law enforcement drone use would follow in the well-trod—albeit. a survey of proposed legislation clearly suggests that privacy during drone surveillance is actually a major concern. “Drone Federalism: Civilian Drones and the Things They Carry” http://scholarship. Federal reform key and perm solves Kaminski 2013 (Margot Kaminski. or mixed state and federal. outdated—footsteps of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). Occupational Health. Additionally. permitting state deviation towards more protection . federal legislation on law enforcement drone use could establish a statutory core to be shared by the states. or a statutory floor. none of the proposed state legislation fully addresses privacy nor provides sufficient privacy checks on third party use of drones for surveillance purposes. “The New Privacy Battle: How the Expanding Use of Drones Continues to Erode Our Concept of Privacy and Privacy Rights” Journal of Technology Law & Policy Volume XIII – Spring 2013) The argument has been made that drones are no more invasive to privacy than the standard helicopter surveillance.AT States States insufficient to solve the aff – law enforcement circumvents Schlag 13 (Chris.edu/cgi/viewcontent. a probable cause requirement before law enforcement can obtain a warrant for the use of drones to collect evidence against an individual.

This is particularly true in the commercial sphere.-based company Ascenta. 18 One town in Colorado must have gotten Napolitano’s memo—it considered issuing “drone hunting licenses” that would authorize its citizens to shoot any unpiloted aircraft. It is premature because legislators cannot foresee —and therefore cannot balance—all of the potential benefits and harms of commercial drone use. if these are the concerns raised by drone surveillance.L.10 Domino’s Pizza made headlines when it announced the development of delivery UAS systems. http://jolt.14 Even though commercial UAS flight is still largely prohibited in the United States. litigation associate at Greenberg Traurig. “COMMERCIAL DRONES AND PRIVACY: CAN WE TRUST STATES WITH “DRONE FEDERALISM”?” 21 RICH. 14 (2015). & TECH. J.17 Other states are considering similar legislation. Over-restrictive patchwork state regulations destroy drone competitiveness – causes the market to shift overseas – now is key Gruber 15 (Robert.20 It is problematic because inconsistent and overly-restrictive regulations (1) potentially violate the First Amendment right to gather information and (2) threaten to chill industry growth. particularly with respect to the kind of drones that will be used for commercial or civil purposes (as opposed to law enforcement purposes). which manufactures solar. For example. where competition and innovation can drive progress towards functions far removed from the individual surveillance people fear. as have other companies—and while some skeptics dismissed the press releases as “publicity stunts. but an increasing number of states are proposing— and enacting—restrictions on private and commercial aircraft.richmond.and could cover location tracking.19 [5] This sort of legislation is both premature and problematic.13 It haspurchased the U.16 Many of these address law enforcement surveillance.K. LLP. Facebook’s goal? Providing Internet access in areas where traditional connections are impractical or impossible. a bill proposed and enrolled in Texas makes it a misdemeanor to collect an image of a person’s land without consent. 21 The harms such legislation causes are analogous. fixated largely on imagined harms to people’s privacy . to those that would have arisen if states had created a patchwork of Internet privacy laws several years . Many of the privacy interests purportedly advanced by restrictive legislation are already protected by other areas of the law.powered aircraft that can stay aloft at high altitudes for years at a time. it is impossible to accurately predict the scope of the future UAS industry. drones will contribute to efficiency in various industries and aspects of society.edu/v21i4/article14. or use of biometric identification. UAS have already proven useful in functions from crop monitoring9 to gathering atmospheric data. in a sense. the battle over drone regulation has already begun.12 Recently. Facebook announced a plan that epitomizes the benevolent possibilities of commercial UAS. or other new technologies.15 And the privacy advocates are winning: more than twenty states have passed laws restricting UAS operations . Its potential benefits are vast and varied: beyond mere job creation.”11 it is not too difficult to imagine a future in which packages appear on our doorstep out of the sky.pdf) At this stage. video surveillance.

S. can realize all the benefits of a multi-billion dollar industry once the FAA opens up the national airspace33—which it is poised to begin doing soon— but only if the U. and so forth. this technology nevertheless has massive export potential for civil and commercial uses. collect traffic-flow information. but our phones and Internet activity paint a cheaper and more accurate picture of consumer activities—where individuals go. and what they buy. . However. In 2013 Israel surpassed the U. in production. the U.30 What accounts for this discrepancy? A regulatory barrier: the companies that develop our military drones are restricted from marketing their technology elsewhere.S. the best available UAS technology belongs to the United States and Israel. As one person put it. If the current legislative pattern continues.S. even if a particular commercial drone’s images could be processed and linked to individuals’ identities. avoids establishing a draconian regulatory framework for commercial UAS. 31 China and other countries are now entering the ring. 29 Developed for military purposes. [7] The global market for UAS is growing fast . the United States leads the pack in UAS technology. as the chief exporter of UAS technology—although Israel remains second to the U.23 [6] Is restrictive legislation nevertheless justified. spray and monitor crops.S.S. might very well drive a market with incredible potential overseas. a primary advantage of unmanned aircraft is that they can go swiftly and easily where people cannot.25 First. monitor power lines in remote areas. UAS could be used profitably to survey mines. where they shop. what would justify the cost of such directed monitoring? Demographic information may be valuable. particularly where commercial UAS use is concerned.32 By competing in the global market. 22 Right now. to more open-minded nations. the United States’ monopoly on UAS technology may already be eroding.”27 Second.before the development of the World Wide Web. as a means of vindicating legitimate privacy interests?24 Perhaps not. Some predict that eighty-percent of commercial drones will be used for agricultural purposes 26 —so the majority will seldom even accidentally interfere with individual privacy interests. There are few cognizable circumstances in which using drones to monitor individual people will be profitable for nongovernment actors and entities. “corn doesn’t mind if you watch it.28 At the moment. the U.

“an program. March 9.csmonitor. associate professor of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts. What exactly is would happen in an ideal word: the risk that these targets pose to US national security? That’s a question Americans need to ask and answer in a sober and detailed way.AT Executive Comission CP Destroys separation of powers Kaag 15 (John. 2015. but the Brennan hearing highlighted that there is a long way to go for sufficient oversight. At this time.com/World/Passcode/Passcode-Voices/2015/0309/Why-domesticdrones-stir-more-debate-than-ones-used-in-warfighting-abroad) Sarah Kreps and I have argued that one of the more disturbing aspects of the FISA courts are their recent expansion of the “special needs” doctrine. might provide strategists and policy makers with a type of carte blanche over the targeted killing The alternative proposed by the Obama administration – what the President called independent oversight board in the executive branch” – doesn’t make us feel much better. we.” And this exchange shouldn’t simply be used in the deal making of a confirmation hearing. which allows the government to carry out surveillance without detailed warrants in order to address an “overriding public danger. “Why domestic drones stir more debate than ones used in warfighting abroad” http://www. Some of these documents were released to Congress in the lead up to the Brennan confirmation. Selinger: What do you mean by “checks and balances?” Kaag: The call for transparency in the targeted killing program was amplified early in 2013 around the confirmation hearings of John Brennan as the director of the CIA . This is the sort of information exchange at the heart of “checks and balances. but also about the deeper political and military rationale for targeting foreign nationals in accord with international law. when applied to the issue of drones. could have an informed debate not only about the status of American terror suspects abroad. but rather should slowly and carefully become the norm in our age of drone warfare. . Obviously. Congress is regularly briefed about the drone program. the people. It does not address the question of checks and balances that has prompted calls for judicial oversight.” We are concerned that this sort of governance. there was a call for the Obama administration to release secret legal memoranda concerning the targeting of American citizens on foreign soil. This is what Without making significant compromises to national security.

AT FISA CP Doesn’t solve the aff – FISA court’s special needs doctrine allows for unlimited surveilliance Kaag 15 (John. The FISA courts aren’t like this. which allows the government to carry out surveillance without detailed warrants in order to address an “overriding public danger. courts are places to dispute charges and impartial parties – a judge and jury – make a decision about the case. At all. Our legal system is based on an adversarial model. associate professor of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts. “Why domestic drones stir more debate than ones used in warfighting abroad” http://www. Most are approved as a matter of course . March 9. It does not address the question of checks and balances that has prompted calls for judicial oversight. 2015.csmonitor. might provide strategists and policy makers with a type of carte blanche over the targeted killing program .com/World/Passcode/Passcode-Voices/2015/0309/Why-domesticdrones-stir-more-debate-than-ones-used-in-warfighting-abroad) The FISA courts are very weird. . when applied to the issue of drones. In other words. Sarah Kreps and I have argued that one of the more disturbing aspects of the FISA courts are their recent expansion of the “special needs” doctrine. very small percentage of FISA requests have been denied over the courts’ 30 year history. The Kaag: alternative proposed by the Obama administration – what the President called “an independent oversight board in the executive branch” – doesn’t make us feel much better. Only a very. FISA requests are not disputed.” We are concerned that this sort of governance.

Colorado State University. proactive steps should be taken by both the Legislature and the Judiciary to ensure individual privacy rights are not eroded with the incorporation of this new technology into our daily lives. Like many other technologies developed in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.S. M. Columbia Southern University. The best way to ensure that our reasonable expectation of privacy is maintained is for Congress to enact a baseline consumer protection law that manages both governmental and private party use of drones in national airspace. Environmental Health. Following the development of a baseline federal law. May 2014.S. . candidate. “The New Privacy Battle: How the Expanding Use of Drones Continues to Erode Our Concept of Privacy and Privacy Rights” Journal of Technology Law & Policy Volume XIII – Spring 2013) Drone technology is an exciting and quickly evolving technology that has created a modern tool capable of a variety of positive applications. B. J.D. Spring 2013. drones have many positives and many negatives associated with their use. University of Pittsburgh School of Law..AT States CP Perm sovles best – federal baseline is a prerequisite to effective state policy Schlag 13 (Chris. states could further protect individual rights by adding state specific legislation to the baseline protection. Occupational Health. Safety and Environmental Management. Therefore.

While there is a definite benefit in the DOT and FAA assessing drones’ impact on privacy during the incorporation of additional drones into national airspace. Safety and Environmental Management.. Environmental Health. candidate. J. M. DOT and FAA are administrative agencies tasked with the protection and safety of vehicles in our national airspace. B. Columbia Southern University.AT Study cp Doesn’t solve the aff -CP = the squo -lack of resources means cant solve individual privacy or rights Schlag 13 (Chris.S. Colorado State University. to assess the privacy impact from the integration of drones into national airspace. as part of the initiative of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.144 . These agencies are not equipped with the necessary expertise to protect individual rights or individual privacy. 143 While FAA and DOT together have already initiated multiple studies on privacy impacts. Occupational Health. “The New Privacy Battle: How the Expanding Use of Drones Continues to Erode Our Concept of Privacy and Privacy Rights” Journal of Technology Law & Policy Volume XIII – Spring 2013) A final proposal has been to allow for studies by DOT and FAA . resulting in the FAA delaying the naming of several drone-testing studies do not protect against current privacy invasions and cannot replace proactive controls in privacy protection.D. sites. May 2014. Spring 2013. Furthermore. University of Pittsburgh School of Law. this benefit should not deter the enactment of additional controls that would more assertively protect individual privacy rights.S.

Congress – AT States CP .

Professor Western State College of Law.215 This double standard is problematic.com/cgi/viewcontent. as they must have a “certainly impending injury” in order to have standing. Whenever there are different rules for different people. imminence means imminence.bepress. especially if one wants to maintain any type of democracy and separation of powers in America. . not the Executive doing all of the above sua sponte. imminence does not mean imminence. and as long as some harm may happen sometime in the future—that is sufficient. As noted earlier. the plaintiffs in Clapper were not allowed to challenge the NSA surveillance program because they failed to “present ssome case for imminent harm or a when Americans try to challenge Executive power. Assoc.214 However. that nation no longer resembles a land of the people. when the Executive wants to kill Americans. Congress is supposed to make the laws and the Judiciary defines them.cgi? article=1006&context=ryan_williams) Defining imminence in a way that eliminates the immediacy requirement is especially troubling when one recalls the imminence requirement for standing to challenge the NSA surveillance program. ‘certainly impending’ injury. August 2014.”213 Thus. where the people in control of the military give different definitions of the exact same word.AT Executive CP CP destroys SOP – congress is key Williams 2014 (Ryan Williams. “The Road Most Travel: Is the Executive’s Growing Preeminence Making America More Like Authoritarian Regimes It Fights So Hard Against? http://works.

.AT Warrants PIC No link to the NB Yang 14 (Y. L.U. Douglas. Douglas. “Big Brother's Grown Wings: The Domestic Proliferation of Drone Surveillance and the Law's Response” 23 B.228 Common exam.1 60 Senator Rand Unwarrant. L.D..stantial legal obstacles should not hamper that agency. individual members of Congress have raised their concerns with domestic drone use. Rule I also exempts situations where a high risk of terrorist attack or imminent danger to life or property exists.life management and protection.ed Surveillance Act of 2013.D.234 and search-and-rescue missions.ing persons and in police emergencies. Boston University School of Law. 232 In addi. while ensuring that the government."235 be a potent tool to assist in searching for miss. adhere to the privacy protections of the Rule by demonstrating that probable cause of a high risk of terrorist attack existed or that an imminent danger to life or property existed at the time and general location of the drone's operation.ment covers all government intrusions of privacy. but are not limited to. Int. government activity that does not involve criminal investigation tends to involve "a less hostile intrusion than the typical policeman's search for the fruits and instrumentalities of crime. J. Rather than address the relevant privacy concerns surrounding drones. 343 (2014)) Rule I embodies the desire of both federal and state legislatures to exclude certain situations from the burden of a warrant requirement .'"9 Nonetheless. or that there is an imminent and articulable threat to a specific person's life or property.J. drones can Alerts. the Preserving Freedom from would require a warrant for most situations in which drones as surveillance platforms. event. “Big Brother's Grown Wings: The Domestic Proliferation of Drone Surveillance and the Law's Response” 23 B. Int. Pub. 343 (2014)) Congress has moved slowly to react to the rise of domestic drone use. This specific provision finds its inspiration in Virginia's warrant exception that allows drone use for responses to Amber Alerts. "236 Moreover. Rule l's first paragraph is a compromise measure that allows the government to promptly respond to urgent situations.nior While the Fourth Amend.238 Thus.230 wild. 23 1 and search and rescue missions. land surveying . albeit at a much higher cost and with less Rule I reflects a desire by federal and state legislative proposals to exempt exigent circumstances from restrictions on drone use.237 _____ No link – exceptions are predictable and solve the link Yang 14 (Y. Boston University School of Law. and some have gone so far as to introduce legislation to restrict the government's ability to use Paul's proposed bill. or situation poses a high risk of attack by terrorists.229 weather and climate observation and scientific research . .233 Se. J. Congress has instead focused on rapidly integrating drones into domestic airspace.copters and aircraft currently provide aerial support. sub. Pub.J.U. where a law enforcement agency believes that a particular area. and particularly law enforcement agencies.tion to Rule l's exemption of non-law enforcement uses of drones.ples of nonlaw enforcement operations include. much in the same way that police heli. flexibility.

"' 61Excep.tions to the blanket warrant requirement would include border patrol missions. prevention of terrorist attacks. . and circumstances in which police have reasona.drones are used "to gather evidence or other information pertaining to criminal conduct or conduct in violation of a statute or regulation.ble suspicion that an imminent danger to life is at hand and are thus required to take immediate action.

.

A2 K .

SCR 124. UAVs have proven to be similarly advantageous in a variety of other peaceful contexts . despite the many critiques this argument endures. February 11. For example. high altitude imaging. “[o]nly five states have laws on the books governing license plate readers. according to supporters . soil moisture imaging. Drones are key to civil government and commercial sector REHFUSS 15 (Abigail Rehfuss. February 6.albanygovernmentlawreview. flood mapping.]”30 perspective33 so I will not repeat them here. land use mapping. from writs of assistance to electronic wiretaps.pdf) Privacy advocates are apparently generally unsuccessful at convincing lawmakers to limit the surveillance infrastructure. plume dispersion and tracking.25 Even when there is evidence that a particular kind of surveillance is happening. I’ve got nothing to hide.313Rehfuss. previous Editor for Albany Government Law Review/Assistant Albany District Attorney . sea ice flow observations. traffic monitoring. and only after the infrastructure has been in place for some time.pdf) In addition to their resourcefulness along the border.000 high-paying jobs in the United States. 2015 “Drones at Home: The Debate Over Unmanned Aircraft in State Legislature” http://www.” Many authors have identified flaws with this nearly half a billion in tax revenue to be generated by 2025[. there are invariably economic arguments supporting governments’ and companies’ use of the technology.Framework Debates about drones are important – public understanding is low – debates are key VOGEL 15 (Nate Vogel. was even more optimistic. On the scientific front. law enforcement surveillance. UAV applications include natural hazards research and monitoring. and chemical and petroleum spill monitoring.org/Articles/Vol08_1/8.1. “I don’t really care what they’re watching.204-N. notwithstanding the fact that the history of surveillance techniques. estimating that “once the Federal Aviation Administration establishes guidelines for commercial use.”23 There are many factors that may limit the success of privacy advocates. 24 Sometimes this happens because the public does not even learn of a new surveillance technique until it is a wellestablished practice . forest fire monitoring. The ACLU found that in 2013. and . the drone industry expects more than one hundred thousand jobs to be created and There are also often industry groups that emerge to lobby for governments to use the technology technologies make “law abiding citizens” safer and only threaten the “bad guys. environmental monitoring and mapping.27 provides strong evidence that surveillance tools are highly likely to be abused With every new surveillance technology. The congressional committee that reported major 2011 federal legislation on unmanned aircraft declared that the unmanned aircraft industry would create “23. humanitarian aid.%20Vogel.org/Articles/Vol08_1/8.”29 A resolution from Louisiana. search and rescue. hyperspectral imaging. Public debate about whether surveillance is appropriate or whether there should be new limits to protect privacy tends to only happen occasionally. Legislative Counsel at the New York Civil Liberties Union . decision makers— judges.1.albanygovernmentlawreview.28 without clear limits and consistent oversight. in-situ atmospheric monitoring.26 This. for example—may not wish to take action unless there are injuries in fact.”32 Every privacy advocate has heard someone— and probably many people—say. Drones and ALPRs create revenue and jobs. UAVs have civil government applications that include emergency response. 2015 “The Domestic Use of Drones and the Fourth Amendement” http://www. communications relay.

UAVs are used in areas such as crop monitoring. and utility inspection .aerosol source determinations. communications relay. In the commercial sector.

.

A2 DA .

Mexico DA – Drones suck Drones fail at the border – DHS audit Harrington 1/6 Elizabeth.”Drones have flown along the border 80 percent less than what CBP originally imagined of “four 16 hour unmanned aircraft patrols every day of the year. which can fly for 20 hours at a speed of 276 miles per hour.[U]nless CBP fully discloses all operating costs. CBP cannot prove that the program is effective because it has not developed performance measures. she worked as a staff writer for CNSNews.468 per flight hour does not include operating costs.The program operates 10 Predator B drones at a cost of more than $12. 2015.” “ Although CBP’s Unmanned Aircraft System program contributes to border security. . Elizabeth graduated from Temple University in 2010.” In reality. “Given the cost of the Unmanned Aircraft System program and its unproven effectiveness. Grand Forks. according to an audit by the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Office of Inspector General . Custom and Border Protection’s (CBP) drone program is ineffective and surveys less than 200 miles of the southwest border. DHS claimed in their annual report ending in 2014 that they had “expanded unmanned aircraft system coverage to the entire Southwest Border. “The $443 million that CBP plans to spend on program expansion could be put to better use by investing in alternatives.“According to border patrol agents and intelligence personnel in Arizona.com/issues/audit-dhs-drone-program-ineffective-at-border-security/ Elizabeth Harrington is a staff writer for the Washington Free Beacon. Ariz.D.000 for every hour a drone spends in the air. The CBP blamed the lack of drone flights on budget constraints. N. CBP drones are sometimes in use elsewhere. Prior to joining the Free Beacon.” the audit said. it cost at least $62. or 23.8 percent of apprehensions in the Tucson. Drones were also responsible for only 1. Congress and the public are unaware of all the resources committed to the Unmanned Aircraft System program.”The OIG found that the Unmanned Aircraft System program (UAS) has not met flight hour goals. CBP should reconsider its plan to expand the program.” the audit said. released on Christmas Eve. and DHS hopes to add 14 more drones at a cost of $443 million. without the assistance of unmanned aircraft.993-mile southwest border.296 total flight hours. such as the costs of pilots. Fla. “The Office of Air and Marine’s calculation of $2. the OIG said the agency has not proved the program deserves to be expanded. equipment.” The drones. in fiscal year 2013. The government has already spent $360 million on the program since 2005.7 percent in the Rio Grande Valley.com. and overhead. contrary to the government’s claims. region. USBP probably would have detected the people using ground-based assets. according to the OIG. and that DHS lacks evidence that drones have contributed to more border apprehensions. http://freebeacon.. “The program has also not achieved the expected results. or about $12. CBP has invested significant funds in a program that has not achieved the expected results. “As a result. are operating on a small section of the 1.” they said. drones were only in the air for 5.The program costs $10. according to the OIG. Ariz. “We estimate that.” However. and a mere 0. According to the audit. Audit: DHS Drone Program Ineffective at Border Security. such as manned aircraft and ground surveillance assets.102 flight hours in 2013..5 million to operate the program. and it cannot demonstrate how much the program has improved border security. after 8 years. said. and Sierra Vista. January 1. However.” the audit.255 per [flight] hour. funding which could be put to better use elsewhere.” the audit said. including Cocoa Beach.000 more per flight hour than what DHS claims. drones only focused on 100 miles of the Arizona border and 70 miles of the Texas border.

Terrorism DA – Link turn Unregulated drones risks terror attacks VILLASENIOR 14 (John. At these facilitie s drones could be far harder to detect and stop than a car. 2012. SAFETY AND NATIONAL SECURITY?” http://www.brookings. Panel: “THE COMING PROLIFERATIO N OF DOMESTIC DRONES: WHAT WILL BE THE IMPACT ON PRIVAC Y. Electrical Engineering. As we saw in Oklahoma City in 1995. "There would be little danger of detection and transportation." The report also stated that. That ." these types of concerns. "A small team could launch a UAV from hiding with a relatively small launch footprint and make their escape before impact. An unclassified 2005 report issued by the federally funded Institute for Defense A nalyses explicitly recognized report stat ed. UCLA. April 4. It would make no sense at all for a terrorist to attack a shopping center or an office building using a drone." And that with a precision-guided UAV there is a "high probability of succes sful execution. launch or escape.edu/~/media/events/2012/4/04-domesticdrones/20120404_domestic_drones. However. The Brookings Institution Professor.pdf) The last area is national security. and I'm quoting here. a car or truc k filled with explosives sensitive governm ent and military facilities are a different story because of their access restrictions. It would be naive to deny that sufficiently large unmanned aircraft don't create some new risks. would be far easier and more deadly. truck or small passenger-bearing plant . Nonresident Senior Fellow .

Mueller said the FBI is in "the initial stages" of formulating privacy guidelines related to its drone use. The Homeland Security Department regularly deploys drones to oversee the southern border.ebscohost. about the balance between civil liberties and protection from terrorism .b.S.washingtonpost.com/ehost/detail/detail? sid=895808dc-136e-4fac-8323da303f4367f8%40sessionmgr110&vid=0&hid=115&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWlwLHVybCxnZ W8sY3BpZCx1aWQmY3VzdGlkPWthbnNhcyZnZW9jdXN0aWQ9a2Fuc2FzJnNpdGU9ZWhvc3Qt bGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=n5h&AN=Q4KHSON2013062024664145 The FBI uses drones in domestic surveillance operations in a "very. 26 September 2014.com/world/national-security/white-house-plans-to-requirefederal-agencies-to-provide-details-about-drones) The White House is preparing a directive that would require federal agencies to publicly disclose for the first time where they fly drones in the United States and what they do with the torrents of data collected from aerial surveillance. “White House Plans to Require Federal Federal Agencies to provide details about drones” https://www. "It is very narrowly focused on particularized cases remarks about the FBI's use of drones ." Mueller's N/U – Obama XO means he’s already received backlash Whitlock 2014 (Craig. covers pentagon and national security. The revelations about the surveillance programs have reignited a political debate that has repeatedly flared since the Sept.Washington Post. the Justice Department. "It's very seldom used and generally used in a particular incident when you need the capability. Lawmakers and civil liberties groups have raised concerns about the impact on privacy of drones used by federal law enforcement agencies.S. The presidential executive order would force the Pentagon.come as lawmakers and civil liberties groups are raising concerns about the reach of the government in the wake of the disclosure of two highly classified National Security Agency surveillance programs. and particularized needs. attacks on the U. Mueller.and the regular use of the vehicles by other law enforcement agencies . 2013 “FBI uses drones in domestic surveillance: Mueller” Bloomberg Ebscoe http://web.S. (Metroland News) June 20." Mueller said when asked about the bureau's use of pilotless aircraft with surveillance capabilities. suspected of plotting terrorist attacks. 2001. in Senate testimony Wednesday.No link U No link uniqueness – debates about drones and privacy high now HAMILTON SPECTATOR 13 (Hamilton Spectator . Leaks by former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden to the Washington Post and Britain's Guardian newspaper unveiled surveillance programs that sweeps up telephone call data from millions of U. citizens as well as Internet traffic that the Obama administration says involves foreigners based outside the U." director Robert Mueller said. very minimal way. 11. the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies to reveal more details about the size and surveillance capabilities of their . acknowledged for the first time that the Federal Bureau of Investigation uses "very few" drones in a limited capacity for surveillance.

” said Jennifer Lynch. The mandate would apply only to federal drone flights in U. the FAA is developing rules that will gradually open the skies to drones of all kinds. Although the FBI has turned over thousands of pages of documents. The Justice Department inspector general reported last fall that the FBI had not developed new privacy guidelines for its drone surveillance and was relying instead on old rules for collecting imagery from regular aircraft. The FAA permits government agencies to fly drones only under tightly controlled circumstances. many have been redacted or provide only limited insights. the Interior Department and the Commerce Department. lawmakers directed the Defense Department to produce a report. The FBI has resisted other attempts to divulge details about the size of its drone fleet and its surveillance practices.000 new jobs by 2025. which lobbied Congress to pass the law.growing drone fleets — information that until now has been largely kept under wraps. For years. Privacy advocates said the measure was long overdue. CREW’s chief they’ve been operating without any clear guidance or if they just don’t like to talk about it. predicts $82 billion in economic benefits and 100. within 90 days. “An interagency review of the issue is underway. Since then. “It’s been incredibly difficult. But they would have to post basic information about their privacy safeguards for the vast amount of Until now. Justice officials have said they are reviewing their drone surveillance policies but have not disclosed any results. said officials operations.” Another section of Obama’s draft executive order would instruct the Commerce Department to help develop voluntary privacy guidelines for private-sector drone flights. the FAA has enforced a de facto ban on commercial drone flights. The FBI first disclosed its use of small. Air Force Lt. a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. sued the FBI last year under the Freedom of Information Act for records on its drone program. and Homeland Security. airspace.” Department of Justice officials have also been reluctant to answer queries from lawmakers about their drone operations. “They’ve been dragging their feet from the outset.” said Ned Price. but officials said that drafts have been distributed to federal agencies and that the process is in its final stages. It would also cover other agencies with littleknown drone programs. “I don’t know if it’s because they don’t want to expose the fact that The intent is to shape nonbinding industry standards for commercial surveillance instead of imposing new regulations by law. unarmed surveillance drones to Congress in June 2013 and subsequently revealed that it had been flying them since 2006. Little is known about the scope of the federal government’s domestic drone operations and surveillance policies. a San Francisco-based group that has sued the Federal Aviation Administration for records on government drone Congress has struggled to uncover the extent to which the federal government uses drones as a surveillance tool in U. Nor is it clear that the agencies themselves Most affected by the executive order would be the Pentagon. legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. describing its policies for sharing drone surveillance imagery with law enforcement agencies. Military and law enforcement agencies would not have to reveal sensitive know how it is being used. including NASA.S. In March 2013. Thomas Crosson. Under a 2012 law passed by Congress.” said Chris Calabrese. Col. a White House spokesman. given the top-secret role they’ve long played in CIA and military counterterrorism missions. But drones are in a special category of sensitivity. “Federal use of drones has gone way up. which flies surveillance drones along the nation’s borders round-the-clock. He declined to comment further. a nonprofit group that pushes for transparency in government. “We’re undergoing a quiet revolution in aerial surveillance. the Pentagon still has not completed the report. counsel. and it’s been enormously frustrating. There’s also evidence that federal agencies simply have been unable to develop internal guidelines full-motion video and other imagery collected by drones.” Even hoped to provide an interim response next week and a full version “in the coming months. On . An FBI spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.S. President Obama has yet to sign the executive order. but it’s hard to document how much. and policies quickly enough to keep up with rapid advances in drone technology. a Defense Department spokesman. Eighteen months later. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). Overseas military and intelligence operations would not be covered. Security officials are generally reluctant to disclose operational methods and techniques. which conducts drone training missions in most states. the armed forces and federal law enforcement agencies have been reflexively secretive about drone flights and even less forthcoming about how often they use the aircraft to conduct domestic surveillance. Much of what has emerged was obtained under court order as a result of public-records lawsuits. The executive order is an attempt to cope with a projected surge in drone flights in the United States.” operations. The drone industry. however. “But we haven’t had all in one place a clear picture of how this technology is being used.” said Anne Weismann. airspace.

000 of the aircraft in its inventory. surveillance with unarmed drones.S. A wide spectrum of domestic users -. About 40 companies. farming. and Civil Liberties in Domestic Us of Unmanned Aircraft Systems” https://www. which has about 10. Estimates suggest the positive economic impact to U. and disaster response.Thursday. As compared to manned aircraft. Civil Rights. which may play a transformative role in fields as diverse as urban infrastructure management. local. UAS may provide lower-cost operation and augment existing capabilities while reducing risks to human life. Its Customs and Border Protection service has nine large Predator B models. Defense Department documents show that the military is making plans to base drones at 144 sites in the United States. Jeffrey P.) Presidential Memorandum: Promoting Economic Competitiveness While Safeguarding Privacy. and Civil Liberties in Domestic Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) technology continues to improve rapidly. Pentagon officials have said they soon expect to fly more drones in civilian airspace in the United States than in military-only zones. 15 February 2015. Bezos. and Federal. military training.are using or expect to use these systems. including Amazon. but none has passed. Federal lawmakers have introduced several bills in recent years to regulate the use of drones No department flies more drones than the Pentagon. State. and increasingly UAS are able to perform a variety of missions with greater operational flexibility and at a lower cost than comparable manned aircraft. from four-pound Wasps to the 15-ton Global Hawk. as well as over the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. public safety.com. Civil Rights. President of the United States. and territorial governments -. the first time businesses will be allowed to operate such aircraft in populated areas. and Civil Liberties in Domestic Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES SUBJECT: Promoting Economic Competitiveness While Safeguarding Privacy. Civil Rights.including industry.gov/thepress-office/2015/02/15/presidential-memorandum-promotingeconomic-competitiveness-while-safegua. While many are deployed overseas. More ev Barack 2015 (Obama.whitehouse. which requires a plan to safely integrate civil UAS into the National Airspace System (NAS) by September 30. “Promoting Economic Competitiveness While Safeguarding Privacy. Records obtained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation show that the Border Patrol has also outsourced its drones on hundreds of occasions to other law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. Customs and Border Protection drones patrol a 25-mile-wide corridor along the nation’s northern and southern borders. the FAA approved requests from six Hollywood filmmakers to fly small camera-equipped drones on movie sets. the . As UAS are integrated into the NAS. 2015. owns The Washington Post. Amazon’s chief executive. Details of most of those operations remain secret. The Department of Homeland Security also conducts extensive by law enforcement agencies and strengthen privacy protections. search and rescue. have filed similar requests with the FAA. The Congress recognized the potential wide-ranging benefits of UAS operations within the United States in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-95). tribal. industry of the integration of UAS into the NAS could be substantial and likely will grow for the foreseeable future. which account for about three-quarters of all drone flight hours reported by federal civilian agencies. coastal security. private citizens.

Agencies shall update their policies and procedures. and in order to establish transparent principles that govern the Federal Government's use of UAS in the NAS. Agencies must. prior to deployment of new UAS technology and at least every 3 years. to the extent that such collection or use is consistent with and relevant to an authorized purpose. Particularly in light of the diverse potential uses of UAS in the NAS. The Federal Government currently operates UAS in the United States for several purposes. (a) Privacy Protections . monitor wildfires. or dissemination of data in any manner that would violate the First Amendment or in any manner that would discriminate against . (iii) Dissemination. it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. and civil liberties are protected. UAS Policies and Procedures for Federal Government Use . agencies shall. restricts the collection and dissemination of individuals' information that is maintained in systems of records. civil rights. or fulfills an authorized purpose and complies with agency requirements. among other things. 552a) (the "Privacy Act"). but also the privacy. retention. conduct scientific research. the Federal Government shall take steps to ensure that privacy protections and policies relative to UAS continue to keep pace with these developments. UAS-collected information that is not maintained in a system of records covered by the Privacy Act shall not be disseminated outside of the agency unless dissemination is required by law. (ii) Retention. civil rights. By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America. and permits individuals to seek access to and amendment of records. and civil liberties concerns these systems may raise. used. and disseminated consistent with the Constitution.Federal Government will take steps to ensure that the integration takes into account not only our economic competitiveness and public safety. is maintained in a system of records covered by the Privacy Act. Accordingly. use. agencies that collect information through UAS in the NAS shall ensure that their policies and procedures with respect to such information incorporate the following requirements: (i) Collection and Use . and dissemination of information obtained by UAS. and effectively train our military. (b) Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protections . examine their existing UAS policies and procedures relating to the collection. agencies shall: (i) ensure that policies are in place to prohibit the collection. including personally identifiable information (PII). In addition to requiring compliance with the Privacy Act in applicable circumstances. expected advancements in UAS technologies. support law enforcement. or is required to be retained for a longer period by any other applicable law or regulation.S. Agencies shall only collect information using UAS. Information collected using UAS that may contain PII shall not be retained for more than 180 days unless retention of the information is determined to be necessary to an authorized mission of the retaining agency. which. and other applicable regulations and policies. comply with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U. As with information collected by the Federal Government using any technology.C. as necessary. including to manage Federal lands. retained. retention. or use UAS-collected information. or issue new policies and procedures. use. and the anticipated increase in UAS use in the future. for example. and to promote the responsible use of this technology in the private and commercial sectors. monitor our borders. to ensure that privacy. information must be collected. To protect civil rights and civil liberties. where UAS is the platform for collection. Federal law.

national origin. agencies shall: (i) ensure that oversight procedures for agencies' UAS use. The Federal Government is committed to promoting the responsible use of this technology in a way that does not diminish rights and freedoms. tribal. that provide meaningful oversight of individuals who have access to sensitive information (including any PII) collected using UAS. our Nation must be mindful of the potential implications for privacy. data use policies. to include a brief description of types or categories of missions flown. and policies. (a) There is hereby established a multi-stakeholder engagement . To promote transparency about their UAS activities within the NAS. (v) establish policies and procedures. privacy. sexual orientation. as appropriate. agencies shall publish information on how to access their publicly available policies and procedures implementing this section. (d) Transparency. local. (ii) keep the public informed about the agency's UAS program as well as changes that would significantly affect privacy. comply with existing agency policies and regulations. civil rights. investigate. or to State. the combination of greater operational flexibility. farming. local. agencies that use UAS shall. and lower operating costs could allow UAS to be a transformative technology in the commercial and private sectors for fields as diverse as urban infrastructure management. or confirm that policies and procedures are in place. State. (iii) establish policies and procedures. tribal. (ii) ensure that UAS activities are performed in a manner consistent with the Constitution and applicable laws. Executive Orders. Within 180 days of the date of this memorandum. lower capital requirements. in violation of law. 2. civil rights. (c) Accountability . local. and address. Within 1 year of the date of this memorandum. (e) Reports. or territorial government operations. and civil liberties complaints. agencies shall provide the President with a status report on the implementation of this section. including audits or assessments. or civil liberties. and (iii) make available to the public. (ii) verify the existence of rules of conduct and training for Federal Government personnel and contractors who work on UAS programs. and civil liberties prior to expending such funds. a general summary of the agency's UAS operations during the previous fiscal year. regulations. or territorial governments. and other Presidential directives. and disaster response. Sec. or confirm that policies and procedures are in place. tribal. civil rights. In addition to the Federal uses of UAS described in section 1 of this memorandum. to authorize the use of UAS in response to a request for UAS assistance in support of Federal. Multi-stakeholder Engagement Process. gender.persons based upon their ethnicity. or gender identity. and (iii) ensure that adequate procedures are in place to receive. religion. Although these opportunities will enhance American economic competitiveness. on an annual basis. To provide for effective oversight. and (vi) require that State. and territorial government recipients of Federal grant funding for the purchase or use of UAS for their own operations have in place policies and procedures to safeguard individuals' privacy. while not revealing information that could reasonably be expected to compromise law enforcement or national security: (i) provide notice to the public regarding where the agency's UAS are authorized to operate in the NAS. and the number of times the agency provided assistance to other agencies. race. and civil liberties. civil rights. (iv) ensure that any data-sharing agreements or policies. and procedures for reporting suspected cases of misuse or abuse of UAS technologies. and record management policies applicable to UAS conform to applicable laws.

The process shall not focus on law enforcement or other noncommercial governmental use. and services. aeronautical charts. Federal Government use includes agency UAS operations on behalf of another agency or on behalf of a State. (b) "Federal Government use" means operations in which agencies operate UAS in the NAS. the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) Integration of Civil UAS in the NAS Roadmap. or the head thereof. 2010). (c) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department. related rules. and in consultation with other interested agencies. even if the use would qualify a UAS as a public aircraft under 49 U. (c) " National Airspace System" means the common network of U. 4. tribal. and transparency for commercial and private UAS use. air navigation facilities. enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States. or territorial government. Sec.S. agencies. airspace. Transportation. including the National Strategy for Aviation Security and its supporting plans. Definitions. the Department of Commerce. General Provisions. and procedures. agency. (d) Independent agencies are strongly encouraged to comply with this memorandum. (b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law. 40102(a)(41) and 40125.C. will initiate this multi-stakeholder engagement process to develop a framework regarding privacy. information. administrative. airports or landing areas. its officers. and transparency issues regarding commercial and private UAS use in the NAS. accountability. substantive or procedural. through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. accountability. and does not. Included in this definition are system components shared jointly by the Departments of Defense. or . as set forth in Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-07-16 (May 22. the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. (e) This memorandum is not intended to. (a) This memorandum complements and is not intended to supersede existing laws and policies for UAS operations in the NAS. or entities. 2007) and Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-10-23 (June 25. 3.process to develop and communicate best practices for privacy. employees. regulations. As used in this memorandum: (a) "Agencies" means executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government that conduct UAS operations in the NAS. (e) "Personally identifiable information" refers to information that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual's identity. and the FAA's UAS Comprehensive Plan. either alone or when combined with other personal or identifying information that is linked or linkable to a specific individual. equipment. or when a nongovernmental entity operates UAS on behalf of an agency. and Homeland Security. create any right or benefit. its departments. technical information. and services. (b) Within 90 days of the date of this memorandum.S. commercial and private use includes the use of UAS for commercial purposes as civil aircraft. The process will include stakeholders from the private sector. or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary. and manpower and material. or legislative proposals. Sec. For this process. and subject to the availability of appropriations. (d) "Unmanned Aircraft System" means an unmanned aircraft (an aircraft that is operated without direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft) and associated elements (including communication links and components that control the unmanned aircraft) that are required for the pilot or system operator in command to operate safely and efficiently in the NAS. local.

agents. . or any other person. (f) The Secretary of Commerce is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

Mexico/Border racism adv .