A secret air show in Houston. An unmanned blimp in Utah. A sovereign citizen arrested in North Dakota.
Each of these is just one small part of the bigger story of the proliferation of unmanned aircraft use within the U.S., and each is likely to become smaller still if the FAA goes through with plans to loosen regulations governing domestic use of drones.
News reports about Predator attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan are common if not always complete, but what’s gotten much less attention is the increase in unarmed drones that are buzzing around within the U.S. itself. Primarily, unarmed Predator B drones are only used by government agents to patrol the borders for illegal immigrants, but there are a (very large) handful of other agencies and companies that use smaller, unarmed drones for a slew of other purposes. And that number is only expected to grow.
The FAA says that as of September 13, 2011, there were 285 active Certificates of Authorization (COA) for 85 different users, covering 82 different unmanned unarmed aircraft types.
Though the exact breakdown of the organizations who have authorization is unclear — and the FAA would not elaborate for “privacy” and “security” reasons — in January the Washington Post reported that as of December 1, 2010, 35% of the permissions were held by the Department of Defense, 11% by NASA, and 5% by the Department of Homeland Security. The FBI and law enforcement agencies also hold some, as do manufacturers and even academic institutions.
Between pressure from trade groups (like the drone manufacturers group the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International), proposed legislation from Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) to expand the number of drone testing sites in the U.S., and petitioning from states like Oklahoma for an approved 80-mile air corridor reserved exclusively for drone development and testing, there is great potential for drone use to expand within the U.S. in the next few years.
Les Dorr, a spokesman for the FAA, says that there are currently two types of authorizations — one for public operations, as in state and local governments, and one for private entities. In each case, the application process involves telling the FAA what type and where and when aircraft will be flown, so the agency can determine if it can ensure the safety of other aircraft. Dorr said that next month the FAA hopes to propose new, looser rules for use of small unarmed Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) because “that’s where the demand is.”
He told TPM that they’re hoping to publish the new regulations in January, which will be followed by a comment period for industry and other interested parties. That usually lasts 60 days, at which point the FAA will take the comments into consideration when drafting the final language of the rule.
So who would use these small drones?
Kevin Lauscher, a Grant Assistance Specialist for the Canada-based manufacturers of the Draganfly drones, couldn’t say how many they’ve sold in the U.S. so far. But he said that aside from law enforcement agencies, they’ve sold drones to companies in real estate, manufacturing, academic institutions and even resorts. He described how some construction companies use drones for safety reasons, in place of a person on top of a crane or scaffolding.
But, the FAA said in a press release in October, though “interest is growing in civil (non-government) uses” for drones, “one of the most promising potential uses for sUAS is in law enforcement.”
“The FAA is working with urban police departments in major metropolitan areas and national public safety organizations on test programs involving unmanned aircraft,” the release says, also noting that members of law enforcement agencies participated in the committee that is drafting the new sUAS rule.
So far, there is a handful of law enforcement agencies that already have authorization to use drones, like sheriff’s departments in Queen Anne’s County, Maryland and Lane County, Oregon and the Texas Department of Public Safety. Police in Arlington, Texas have a drone they acquired to help with security during the February, 2011 Superbowl. The Mayor of Ogden, Utah is working to get an “unmanned blimp” that would fly over the city and serve as “a deterrent to crime.”
But there are some cases that are particularly concerning for civil liberties advocates. In North Dakota, a family of “sovereign citizens” was arrested with the help of a Predator B drone, borrowed from border patrol agents by the local sheriff in an effort to avoid a standoff over missing cows. In the first reported case of a drone being used to aid in the arrest of a U.S. citizen, the drone was able to detect when the family was carrying weapons so officials could move in without fear of a firefight.
There’s also the Houston Police Department, which scrapped a plan to bring on a drone shortly after KPRC-TV filmed local officials participating in a secret air show for drones, about 70 miles outside of the city. The police chief mentioned in a press conference that the drones could be used for issuing traffic tickets, and the backlash was such that the Mayor put the kibosh on the program. But, according to KPRC-TV, the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office near Houston still used $300,000 in federal grant money from the DHS to buy a ShadowHawk unmanned helicopter.
“We’re not going to use it to be invading somebody’s privacy. It’ll be used for situations we have with criminals,” Montgomery County Sheriff Tommy Gage said.
Law enforcement officials agree with Gage, and emphasize that drone use is to protect officers and nothing more.
Ben Miller, the UAS Operations Manager at the Mesa County Sheriff’s Office, said his office primarily uses their two drones for search-and-rescue missions or taking aerial photos of potential crime scenes. He described how the UAS unit was tasked with searching a mile-long area for a man who went missing and was thought to be suicidal — a search they completed in an hour. Normally, he said, a search like that would be conducted with agents standing shoulder-to-shoulder, and would have taken much longer.
Miller told TPM that there have been concerns expressed about potential privacy violations, but the department is careful to get warrants when necessary. “That’s definitely a sensitive subject,” he said, but “probably 1% of the application potential is surveillance” for drones.
“Flying cameras are not a new thing. What’s new is doing it smaller and cheaper,” he added. “There probably are going to be some challenges in the future,” but for now there’s enough case law to keep law enforcement in check. “If we’re going to fly below 400 feet we’re going to get a search warrant,” Miller said.
Sgt. Andrew Cohen of the Miami-Dade Police Department says their two drones are still in testing and training, but would mostly be used to provide tactical air support to police units, such as in a hostage situation. He said that there is a “misconception” that drones will be used to infringe on people’s privacy — if for no other reason than because they’re very noisy. “This thing is not stealth technology,” Cohen said. “It’s being used on a police scene” where there are already a number of police units present. “We’re not going to see anything with this probably any more than if we had a helicopter up there.”
“Everything is a tool, it’s how you use it that makes it good or bad,” Cohen said.
But civil liberties advocates are worried that it’ll be a slippery slope as more and more law enforcement agencies acquire this type of technology under the potential new FAA regulations.
The ACLU put out a report this month analyzing the increase in domestic drones, noting that since 2005 the Customs and Border Protection agency has operated seven Predator B drones along the southern border, and it hopes to increase that number to 24 by 2016. “The prospect of cheap, small, portable flying video surveillance machines threatens to eradicate existing practical limits on aerial monitoring and allow for pervasive surveillance, police fishing expeditions, and abusive use of these tools in a way that could eventually eliminate the privacy Americans have traditionally enjoyed in their movements and activities,” the report says.
Jennifer Lynch, a staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that a big concern right now is how murky the statistics are on the number of domestic drones. “They’re concerning for the privacy of Americans, and we just don’t know at this point how the agencies are using them,” she said.
“The Department of Homeland Security is working with state and local law enforcement to use drones for basic criminal activity,” Lynch said. “And in my mind that type of activity hasn’t been approved for the use of these drones.”
“I don’t believe that law enforcement agencies have the proper standards in place for when using drones is appropriate,” she said.
Ryan Calo, the Director for Privacy and Robotics at Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society, wrote in a report that “these machines are disquieting. Virtually any robot can engender a certain amount of discomfort, let alone one associated in the mind of the average American with spy operations or targeted killing. If you will pardon the inevitable reference to 1984, George Orwell specifically describes small flying devices that roam neighborhoods and peer into windows.”
Calo told TPM that local sheriffs and other law enforcement agencies are using the smaller drones “more regularly,” though it’s still not routine. But Calo noted that under the possible new FAA regulations it’ll become much more common. “There’s a little bit of a trickle, but it would turn into a waterfall if they loosen their restrictions,” he said.
“You can imagine some pretty mischievous uses” for drones, Calo said. “The kind of privacy violations I’m worried about are from government and big corporations alike.” If the restrictions are loosened, he said, some estimates put the number of domestic drones at 15,000 by 2018. But he emphasized that if there is such a dramatic increase in the number of drones out there, there will likely be a reexamining of existing privacy laws. “I think we’re not going to be comfortable with some of the doctrine on the books for privacy law.”
Jillian Rayfield
Jillian Rayfield is a Reporter/Blogger for TPM, and started as a News Intern in May 2009. She graduated from Cornell University in May 2008 with a degree in Film, and worked as a Research Assistant for a market research firm in London in between.
for those who sing the mantra, 'but im not doing anything wrong, so i dont have anything to worry about'.... you need to realize that any power given to government has the potential to be abused, and the less oversight of that power... the more it will be abused.just consider the frequency of NSLs issued since the patriot acts passage, and the warrantless wiretapping too for that matter. http://www.aclu.org/national-security/nsl-document... do you honestly think they even report accurate numbers? do you think they are all issued in the name of halting actual terrorist plots? i seriously doubt it. they become dependent more so on this type of technology because of its usefulness and efficacy, but we lose our natural rights.. due process and the rule of law are part of the sacrifice.look how quickly it went from NSLs and warrantless wiretapping.... to the supreme court deciding that gps transponders secretly placed on cars are legal? what more proof of encroachment do you need? my contention is that if they wouldnt have been allowed to wipe their *sses with the 4th amendment to begin with (patriot act) then it might not have progressed to the expectation of being allowed to tag peoples vehicles without consent or warrant.people need to realize that those who sacrifice liberty for security, will have neither...WE NEED TO ELECT RON PAUL NOW... AND RESTORE OUR REPUBLIC, BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!
he is the only one who isnt promoting more war and less liberty!
Imagine asking to see a warrant from a drone quietly hovering over your community?
“We’re not going to use it to be invading somebody’s privacy. It’ll be used for situations we have with criminals,” Montgomery County Sheriff Tommy Gage said.
Anyone actually believe this?
Can you imagine the cluttered airspace over the sites of the national conventions next year?
My younger brother used to do research on acid rain and other environmental concerns in a national park on Lake Superior. He also served as a part-time forest ranger since he lived in one of their towers. Obviously a single drone could cover thousands more acres of forest land at little operating cost. There goes a great job for people who love solitude.
some smart kid will figure out a way to 'hack' these things,and render them useless........so, come on, smart kids...get on it.
who knew.....Big Brother is not the government; it is corporations unregulated by the people's representatives...
From the article: '“We’re not going to use it to be invading somebody’s privacy. It’ll be used for situations we have with criminals,” Montgomery County Sheriff Tommy Gage said.'
Yes, everyone knows the cops only spy on criminals. They never arrest the innocent. If you find yourself in jail, then you must have done something wrong, right?
The privacy problem isn't an issue with the current crop of drones, because (as others have mentioned) they aren't much different in practice from manned helicopters. However, take a look in your local electronic novelty shop or shack and you will find the pieces that are quickly coming together to make it possible for devices not much bigger than a frisbee to hover outside a house and broadcast a wireless internet video of what is going on in your living or bedroom. The only saving characteristic right now is that these things are pretty damned noisy, but don't think that can't be addressed well-enough in practice. You may already being watched by one of these: http://www.wired.com/video/ces-2010-pilot-hovering...
If they are using these things to spy and search without a warrant, its unconstitutional. If not under the Federal Constitution, under the Minnesota State Constitution, where I live.
For all those that "don't care" and think this is no big deal, where is the line for you? How much will you allow the state to invade your privacy before you say "enough"? Because by then, when you say "enough", it will be too late.
I'll give this a big "who cares?"
Why does it make a difference that police are using what amount to oversized radio control planes instead of manned helicopters? Does the pilot being on the ground instead of in the aircraft make the surveillance different?
Red XIV Agreed. Air surveillance has been going on for 75+ years. The unmanned vehicles sound more menacing, but are no different in actual use - as long as laws and vetted policies to protect civil liberties are followed. We're seeing, in the comments below, the place where extreme right wing (black helicopter, bury your guns) fanatics meets the extreme left wing paranoia.
tctundraRed XIV "...as long as laws and vetted policies to protect civil liberties are followed." No doubt the protection of my civil liberties are at the top of cops' agenda.
Red XIV I really don't like the idea that everywhere I go in public, I can and will be under surveillance.
A police helicopter is one thing; it requires significant expense and manpower to operate, so it's impractical to blanket-cover a city with surveillance.
On the other hand, drones can decrease the expense and manpower requirements to the point where it's practical to spy on everyone, all the time. That *should* trouble you, especially given that there are so many laws on the books that you probably violate one each and every day.
Red XIV Because drones can watch you in secret. Duh.
I think somebody wrote a book about this sort of thing - George someone.
I should probably read the entire article before commenting.
"If you will pardon the inevitable reference to1984, George Orwell specifically describes small flying devices that roam neighborhoods and peer into windows.”
Pretty much.
http://www.amazon.com/Butcher-Bird-Dean-Ing/dp/081... eric the red He wrote others too
What about NRO satellites? They've a resolution of probably less than an inch. How good are the ones in geostationary Earth orbit? Can those track people? You could have a 24/7 space-eye in the sky watching your every move! No, don't get scared about that. Even if its possible, it's completely impractical.
Of if you really want to be alarmed, you could just go to an London and have your every move tracked on police cams equipped with facial recognition capability. You don't even need a person watching you when the computer can do it. Actually, I'm not certain about the facial recognition part--I know it's possible though.
imkmu
imkmu Imaging satellites are pretty good these days, but the laws of optics limit their resolution. It is physically impossible for an optical system that fits into a satellite to resolve 1 inch-sized objects from more than 100 miles away. On average, a satellite in low earth orbit would probably be imaging from 200-300 miles away, since their altitude in low earth orbit is more than 100 miles, and they aren't that likely to pass directly overhead.
Geostationary orbit is at an altitude of more than 23,000 miles. There is absolutely no way a geostationary satellite can image objects on the earth's surface. Also, geostationary satellites are located over the Earth's equator, so even if the laws of optics allowed them to see things on the ground, they'd be looking at North America from a slant angle of something like 35-45 degrees -- you could slink around on the north sides of buildings and stay hidden from them.
Optical imaging (in visible, UV, or infrared wavelengths) won't work if it's a cloudy day either.
Bottom line: you really don't need to worry about the government tracking your every move from space.
ljdramone I was actually joking about that.
Be alarmed. Facial recognition technology is pretty well established, so it's a safe bet that the London police are using it for video surveillance now. It's probably also a pretty good bet that American police forces are doing something similar in areas where there's video coverage.
Google "license plate recognition" for something else alarming. Police in the United States might not be able to track you walking around easily yet, but many police cruisers are currently equipped with video cameras that can read and recognize license plates in real time while they are driving, and I know for a fact that the Maryland State Police uses stationary infrared video cameras that recognize and record the license number of every vehicle that drives by their location.
A quick Google finds http://www.maine.gov/sos/Maryland%20LPRPlan_8-2010..., a document which describes Maryland's use of license plate recognition in some detail.
imkmu check out the x-37b space plane, game changing orbital surveillance capability. Of course its more likely to be deployed over a place like Iran than responding to 9-11 calls or looking for your stash.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/11/air-force-...
I can't believe this group missed the money shot in this article, "... taking aerial photos of potential crime scenes" By definition, a potential crime scene is everywhere and anywhere. The "im not doing anything wrong so I don't have to worry" crowd are the ones who enable this very real slippery slope. Paraphrasing T.S. Eliot, "This is the way the world ends ... Not with a bang but a whimper"
dmarotta I'm not certain of this, but I believe 'potential crime scene' has a specific legal definition.
Flying Squid You should not comment on uncertainies
dmarotta Well there goes all of quantum physics.
Flying Squiddmarotta Favorite graffiti: "Heisenberg may have been here."
Flying Squid Every highway (speeders), bar (underage drinking), store (shop lifting) etc is a potential crime scene. Im not a tin foil hat guy, but I do believe that once a society accepts a small amount of this, it will enable the future justification of an even greater amount.
dmarotta What I want to know is, how are the drones being licensed? What if citizens or journalists want to use a drone to monitor "potential crime scenes", like with the Occucopter?
This may sound strange, but I'm somewhat *less* worried about law enforcement or corporations breaching my privacy, if we're all able to breach theirs right back--especially with the ability to put whatever we find up on the internet. (Paging David Brin...)
damiana Does "News Corp" ring a bell? Law enforcement working with Corporations... correct me if I am wrong.
dmarotta Oh, I get you... but part of the reason NewsCorp has gotten away with so much is that there haven't been checks and balances on it. Law enforcement hasn't been doing their job there, but what if every single citizen around them could? What if you could send a drone to eavesdrop on their board meetings, and to watch to see who Murdoch and his minions meet with, and then tell the world?
It seems to me that a big part of the problem today is that the surveillance--and there's already a massive amount of it--only goes one way, and the folks in power not only want to keep it that way, but want to increase the disparity.
And yes, there *are* problems with the concept of the Transparent Society. I know I spent about 15 years very carefully keeping my real name off the internet due to a not-quite-sane ex-husband, and issues like that must be addressed. But this is a genie that ain't going back in the bottle; what we need to do now is figure out how to make him work for the benefit of all rather than going around being destructive for the benefit of a few.
damiana ..."figure out how to make him work for the benefit of all rather than going around being destructive for the benefit of a few"
I too like to believe that people are generally good and want to do what is right. Lately I have become so jaded by politics and people who are only concerned with self and not the greater good. I personally dont see the groups (Gov and Corps) that want the ability to monitor society as the one who keep civil liberty in check, yet that is who we have to rely on to do so.
dmarotta "I personally dont see the groups (Gov and Corps) that want the ability to monitor society as the one who keep civil liberty in check, yet that is who we have to rely on to do so."
I agree... and I think that's a big part of what needs to be addressed in order to change things for the better. I do think that overall, there's a basic goodness at the foundation of human society, although it's all mucked up with basic needs and basic self-focus and a whole bunch of hindbrain (and justifiable forebrain) fear.
Take the UC Davis pepper spray incident as an example. The video of it went viral pretty much immediately, and from what I can tell, the general reactions by society at large were both strong and very visceral--either "that's not right" or a more fear-based "they had it coming". The "that's not right" reactions were powerful and broad enough that they had a significant effect on what happened next. But in other cases, the "they had it coming" reaction is the one that's winning, and it's leading to more abuses.
There are two basic problems I see that need to be addressed. One is that making surveillance universal doesn't bring law enforcement and the justice process out into the sunshine. The broad publishing of the pepper spray incident triggered broad condemnation of those decisions and actions... but what happens next to the people who made those decisions and did those actions? Who makes *those* decisions and who is responsible for *those* resulting actions? The sausage factory needs glass walls and 24/7 spotlights.
The second is how to address the societal hindbrain fear reflex--the one that, for instance, says that dirty hippies deserve to be beaten and tortured by the cops if they dare to disrupt society. The only solution I can think of is education and more education, and making information freely available and easily accessible, and then making it a societal value to *be* educated and informed.
Suppose for a minute that the supreme court (United States vs. Jones) requires law enforcement to actually get a warrant before placing a GPS tracking device on a suspect's car. With this drone technology, law enforcement could economically set up 24 hour surveillance on a suspect and track his movements. They could use pattern recognition and/or electronic signature technology to uniquely identify and track the vehicle where ever it went for months at a time. I am guessing that since all of this would be in the public space' that they would not feel obligated to seek a warrant before doing this.
I don't know about you but, this makes me uncomfortable. One of our great freedoms in this country is the right of the individual to remain anonymous if s/he wishes. Is this concept becoming an anachronism?
mjclare "With this drone technology, law enforcement could economically set up 24 hour surveillance on a suspect and track his movements."
But they can and do the same with people in helicopters and have for a long, long time. It makes me uncomfortable too, but I can't really say that there's a significant difference between that and drones other than there being no one in the drone.
mjclare I know for a fact that here in Los Angeles, there are at minimum two LAPD, two county PD and two CHiP Helicopters in the sky at all times because I heard the police chief talk about it on the radio last year.
Flying Squidmjclare Ah, but if Los Angeles area police forces get approval to replace (or augment) their six helicopters with six drones, what makes you think they'll stop at six? Why shouldn't they have sixty, or maybe six hundred airborne drones?
Flying Squid The difference as I see it is the cost and efficiency of the effort . While conceptually they are similar, a manned chopper surveillance is rather crude in comparison and in all likelihood is focused on just one individual at a time. With the new unmanned technology these things could be in permanent orbit over a city sized piece of geography and be picking up not only visible light but infrared and radio signals as well. They could hear and see everything from cell phones to baby monitors to the wi-fi chats down at your neighborhood starbucks.
And... when used in a rural setting they could triangulate on gunshots and be used to track down people shooting deer out of season. I am not a hunter much less a poacher but I could see some people getting quite upset if they got a visit from the game warden every time they did some target shooting in the woods.
I am not saying that the end result is good or bad and perhaps the march of technology in the hands of the government is unstoppable.
The question I have is: Is our ability to remain anonymous a 'right' or just lucky happenstance up to now?
I have absolutely no doubt that a successful argument can be made that this is just a rung or two up the ladder from currently permitted law enforcement activities and is in the abstract permitted. However, if taken to the Nth degree does it not give the state the power to remove our ability to be 'secure in our persons' as decreed by the 4th amendment? This is an implied right that we have but if you look at the exact wording of the amendment it is actually instructions to the people that seek to harness the power of the state telling them that they are not permitted to see the details of our lives without our permission or due process of law.
So... we are close to the point where the technology in the hands of the state will allow the state to know everything without actually piercing the physical wall that is our hearth and home. Under the old fashioned rules this is all kosher because it preserves our limited rights to privacy within our private space. However, the end result puts the state in conflict with its affirmative constitutional duty to stay out of our lives.
@mjclare To quote Scott McNealy (former Sun Microsystems CEO) circa 1999: "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it."
I'll give this one a shrug. Law enforcement has used helicopters and light aircraft for decades. I don't see an issue right now with using UAVs.
imkmu I think the main thing is that people just find the whole thing creepy. I can't personally give a reason why this is especially different from flying around in a helicopter, so I have to admit there's nothing really rational behind it.
Then again, every time there's a police helicopter circling nearby, I find that really creepy too.
Flying Squid Yeah, but only because I imagine that someone is gravely injured, or there's a bad guy afoot. I think what really creeps people out is the unmanned aspect.
imkmu Yeah, exactly. It's the unmanned aspect. But there's not really a logical reason to suggest that it's somehow worse because of that. It just FEELS worse.
Flying Squidimkmu I think the thing that makes it worse is that it's suddenly become so much cheaper to do, resource-wise. Keeping a manned helicopter in the air is EXPENSIVE. A drone probably costs less than 1% of that.
imkmu Oh, and no, I don't just find it creepy because I think there's a problem. I just find the idea that someone is potentially watching me in my backyard disturbing. I just don't think it's something preventable.
You can hear copters a mile away and then easily spot them- unless something blocks their sound which would block your and their view too. These things can watch from miles above, constantly, making no sound and invisible to the naked eye. Obvious differences. Flying Squid imkmu
I don't care...
Hasn't anyone seen Terminator 2? The main problem is that these tools can be used for evil as well as good. You can be sure that if the skies in the USA are buzzing with drones that one day soon they will be used as a tool by people or machines trying to dominate, control, and ultimately subjugate the population. There are plenty of people who consider the majority of the population "human resources" to be "harnessed" to enhance their own wealth. These drones are the tools of power, my friends, and they will be used that way.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like