Debate Over The Use Of Domestic Drones
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-02-21/debate-over-use-domestic-drones
Many say it’s only a matter of time before unmanned aircraft, otherwise known as drones, are used routinely for such tasks as traffic monitoring, battling forest fires and looking for lost children. The government already uses surveillance drones to monitor our border with Mexico. Some police departments and a few universities have permits to use them as well. The Federal Aviation Administration has been charged with coming up with a plan for widespread commercial use by 2015, but many say safety and privacy issues need to be addressed. Join us for a debate over the rules for domestic drones.
Guests
Marc Rotenberg
executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center and teaches Information Privacy Law at Georgetown University Law Center.
Michael Toscano
president and CEO of AUVSI, the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International.
Todd Humphreys
assistant professor, aerospace engineering and engineering mechanics, University of Texas, Austin
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Looking forward to this program! Your standard for civility is very refreshing -- so important to the health of our country and unfortunately rare. I listen as often as I can.
I've been deeply involved in unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) technology for more than a decade and find the popular debate mostly disingenuous: Inside-the-beltway interest groups inventing boogeymen to support their fundraising; reporters using the sinister-sounding term "drone" to evoke crazy subliminal images of evil robots taking over the world. It's silly. Simple facts:
- UAVs fundamentally protect people from unnecessary exposure to hazards in both military and civil settings
- UAV "technology" has no independent moral content. The same machines can be used to deliver weapons, sample the air, monitor forest fires, track bank robbers or find fish.
- UAVs are not new. The US Air Force has been using them in significant numbers since the 1960s.
- There is no inherent civil liberties issue. Surveillance conducted with UAV-mounted sensors is no greater threat than surveillance by pilots from ordinary helicopters. But it is MUCH safer for everyone involved, and MUCH cheaper. If the law says it's ok for law enforcement to look, then the tool they use is irrelevant.
Steve Krause, St. Louis, MO
How will "Stand Your Ground" laws,aka "Kill at Will" mesh with the newest technology. Do you have the bucks for your own personal drone? Got the bucks to weaponize it? Got a neighbor who is annoying? "Stand Your Ground" and "Kill at Will"....
How will the "run and hide", "urinate and vomit on yourself" suggestions from democrats mesh with the newest technology. Do you have the bucks for a double barrel shotgun to shoot both barrels into the air from your balcony (watch out for the drone). "Run and hide" and get raped, robed or killed. The drones may see it but the cops will be there in 15 to 20 minutes to assess the damage.
If you look at most stories in the media about drones you will find a common sentence; “The city of X police department under a six figure grant sponsored by DHS is testing a drone system.” I see a very strong connection between the DHS and military contractors trying to keep the demand up for former military equipment and capture dollars from a shrinking budget.
One reason why the FAA is slow in approving them into the National Airspace; they want the reliability to vastly improve. Another concern is that the FAA can’t possibly check every piece of hardware and software to see if there is a “backdoor” so that a third party can gain access to a drone and the information it is gathering. The real reason for the push for drones; money.
Tom Conte
Mr. Krause, you may be correct in your legal analysis but I suspect that it is the volume/extent of surveillance that causes people to have a visceral reaction opposing the use of drones. Unlike the limited number of men that can be place in the sky, UAV provide a near "limitless" capability for surveillance. This scares people. Think of it this analogy: we have all written or said phrases that we regret. In the past, the piece of paper was discarded or the phrase forgot and we moved on. Today, anything placed on an email account remains there forever. This seems to inherently bother us. Maybe the difference can be stated this way: old time surveillance recquired a decision regarding the allocation of a limited resource, whereas today it can be done without regard to the actual value of the data generated. There is a difference between a hearty meal and sheer gluttony.
It has been determined that you have no expectation of privacy when in public. So what does it matter what technology they use as long as they do not run afoul of breach of privacy. My concern would be a person on their property with a high fence. The expectation of privacy is still held to in that scenario.
Good point Tom Conte:
I suspect that the drone-makers with DHS funding will play on the "fears" of the public and that we will soon become a drone-nation. After all we have already accepted cameras to watch us in public spaces.
Remember when "total information awareness" was stopped during the Bush Administration? Now it is back under Obama.
All of this reminds me of the film: "The Lives of Others." Has the US become like the old East German, pervasive police state society?
Best coverage for years now of the drone program at Emptywheel.net and Democracy Now
http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/02/15/dianne-feinstein-commits-the-drone-...
After the recent John Brennan nomination hearing a reporter asked Senator Feinstein how many civilians have been killed she responded "in the single digits" Total absolute lie. ACLU and other groups report that over 4000 innocents have been killed by US drones.
Why is it at a time when US technology can see a fly on a camels hind end from thousands of miles away the US government refuses to report accurately about how many innocent people have been killed?
We were lied into War with the Middle East from day one....
The government has told so many lies to this point that their credibility is in shambles and therefore all of their actions are to be viewed through the lens of their past transgressions.
It's ironic that one of the issues being discussed is the limitations of constitutional framework and current legislation to effectively regulate drones due to the technological advances in the sector. I'm willing to bet that many people calling for restrictions aren't so enthusiastic about legislation helping to protect us from technological advances in firearm design that were unimaginable 200 years ago.
QUESTION: How long will it be before we have UAV's that carry people? In other words, non-piloted small planes controlled autonomously or from a remote location?
The safety issues concerning drones should not be overlooked or underestimated. Below is a photo of a plastic model glider that crashed into our deck several years ago and actually blasted a hole in the 5/4" decking. If it had hit a person instead of the deck it probably would have seriously hurt them if not killed them.
Remember this was a plastic model glider that only weighed a few pounds.
http://imgur.com/ThLMfPF
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.....
Can you comment on the implications of gun laws in the US as applied to drones? Are drones going to be considered an extension of a person?
I would like to return to the question of privacy. If I own property and wish to do some legal behavior such as sunbath for instance, do I have some reasonable expectation of privacy? If the airspace is invade by a privately owned drone (media ) for instance do I have the right to destroy it?
A leaked US Air Force document stipulates a drone that happens to capture surveillance images of Americans may store them for a period of 90 days. The paper appears to justify spying on citizens, as long as it is “incidental.”
The document accepts that the Air Force may not record information non-consensually; however it does state “collected imagery may incidentally include US persons or private property without consent.”
The report, dated April 23 was discovered by Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists and has been put online.
Data that is accidentally recorded may be stored for a period of 90 days by the Pentagon while it is analyzed to see if the subjects are legitimate targets for state surveillance. The Pentagon may also disseminate this data among other government organizations if it sees fit.
The film industry has used flying robotic camera systems for years but every person filed is required to sign a release for th production. How can I opt out of allowing random pictures to be taken of my personel activities?
Is not your image property and can it not be controlled?
I noticed the question about terrorists was dodged. What prevents terrorists or criminals from strapping a bomb to a drone and then pilot it to a secured location. Does our current radar have the capability to detect such small signatures in the air? All over the country?
Given the ongoing militarization of domestic police agencies, it is only a matter of time until domestic drones are weaponized -- probably on the border and/or in response to a "terrorist" incident.
The Soviet Union? Cmon, it hasn't existed for 21 years and counting...
I am sorry. I see a worry that is beyond the items. How many binoculars are out there, how many cars to carry items in them. People have abused every new technology we have developed. Lets stop solving the problem with more legislation.
urbanrage wrote:
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither....."
Considering your earlier posts, I can't believe I agree with you about anything.
"Big brother is watch ing you: A warning that appears on posters throughout Oceania, the fictional dictatorship described by George Orwell in his book 1984".
The Urban Dictionary says it best:
"Big Brother: The Government. They know everything about everybody."
PRIVACY!!, Really, that horse left the barn a long time ago. Look at what we as a society willing give up to commercial interests to access various services and goods on line. Google and the local membership store knows more about me right now than the government ever will. Facebook, photo radar, it all amounts to a total surrender of privacy. What kind of legitimate concern can anyone have over someone taking photos of me in my backyard from 400 feet in the context of this total surrender of privacy. Give me a break.
So, why is it that Google Street View is not part of the debate in terms of precedence and discussing acceptable surveillance with Drones? Why is flying at X altitude different than surveillance at street level?
"Tom Conte wrote:
If you look at most stories in the media about drones you will find a common sentence; “The city of X police department under a six figure grant sponsored by DHS is testing a drone system.”
That's the same DHS that has stockpiled Millions (Billions?) of rounds of Hollow Point ammunition, illegal under the Geneva Conventions for use in war, but perfectly OK for use against American Citizens.
"Steve on Plum Isle wrote:
Good point Tom Conte:
I suspect that the drone-makers with DHS funding will play on the "fears" of the public and that we will soon become a drone-nation. After all we have already accepted cameras to watch us in public spaces.
Remember when "total information awareness" was stopped during the Bush Administration? Now it is back under Obama.
All of this reminds me of the film: "The Lives of Others." Has the US become like the old East German, pervasive police state society?
February 21, 2013 - 9:42 am"
Too bad you couldn't resist the temptation to blame President Obama, though. TIA was never stopped under Bush, it was not a Law or Policy, but merely encouraged the practice of ratting out your neighbors.
When the "old East German, pervasive police state society", collapsed, the Stasi Files were thrown open and Germans learned which of their Friends, Family and Neighbors were collaborating with their Oppressors against them.
President Clinton thought that was a great idea and proposed that we do the same with our FBI/CIA Etc Files.
When the great Republican, Bonesgirl, Friend of the Bushes, Libertarian and Defender of Freedom, William F. Buckley heard that, he published an article describing an attempt by Hoover to recruit him as an undercover FBI Operative.
Buckley demurred without explaining to Hoover that he was already working for the CIA.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
mds04 wrote:
"Why is flying at X altitude different than surveillance at street level?"
Because Google Street View provides a snapshot in time (which can be months or years old). Drones provide real-time observation. Huge difference, IMO.
Your observations are keen..always 'follow the money'. I always worry about 'boys and their toys'. Hopefully various right leaning state legislatures will allow citizens to disable drones when there is a 'perceived threat'. Out here in the west we shoot those pesty wolves.. 'open season' on drones will be next.
"pdooley wrote:
Given the ongoing militarization of domestic police agencies, it is only a matter of time until domestic drones are weaponized -- probably on the border and/or in response to a "terrorist" incident.
February 21, 2013 - 10:50 am"
A Friend from Graduate School cowrote the Screenplay for Blue Thunder. I had been working on Helicopter detectability and missile guidance at various times during the Viet Nam War and consulted with him a bit.
It was his intention to show the coming dangers of not just Government spying, but of the Militarization of that spying with its attendant possibilities of more proactive responses.
Unfortunately, they lost their nerve and kind of muddled the Plot a good bit, perhaps hoping the Viewers could read between the lines.
The Film is worth rewatching in the context of todays concerns about Drones versus the Blather of the Right Wing Trogdolyte Defenders of the creation of the Garrison State.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
"chipper62 wrote:
PRIVACY!!, Really, that horse left the barn a long time ago. Look at what we as a society willing give up to commercial interests to access various services and goods on line. Google and the local membership store knows more about me right now than the government ever will. Facebook, photo radar, it all amounts to a total surrender of privacy. What kind of legitimate concern can anyone have over someone taking photos of me in my backyard from 400 feet in the context of this total surrender of privacy. Give me a break.
February 21, 2013 - 12:53 pm"
You People are all the same, propose cutting one of the Republican Sugarteats and it's, "A Drop in the Bucket".
Try to do something about Murders, and it's the Deaths are, "A Drop in the Bucket" compared to the deaths caused by having Sex with monkeys".
I may not have anything to hide, but the belief that the Government and only the Government knows what I am hiding, is the power of the Government to accuse me of anything they like to which I will have no defense.
Prisons are full of people who "Confessed" in "secret" to their Cell Mates", which "Confessions" are accepted without question in Court.
Give me a break.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
"gregaryous wrote:
Your observations are keen..always 'follow the money'. I always worry about 'boys and their toys'. Hopefully various right leaning state legislatures will allow citizens to disable drones when there is a 'perceived threat'. Out here in the west we shoot those pesty wolves.. 'open season' on drones will be next.
February 21, 2013 - 2:12 pm"
In Tennessee, an attempt to kill or injure a Police Dog is considered an attempt to kill or injure a Police Officer.
The Psychos have killed Men for stabbing a dog that was trying to bite off pieces of the Guy's flesh.
They may not take kindly to damaging their toys. I suspect they have killed Citizens for damaging their Cruisers.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com