TRI In The News

Domestic Use of Drones? Bad Idea

From USA Today

Original article available here

Bob: President Obama and Congress recently signaled their willingness to allow wider use of drones — the pilotless aircraft used in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia against Islamic terrorists — for domestic purposes. This is Big Brother at its worst. The ACLU and privacy groups have demanded that the Federal Aviation Administration address the "unique threat" posed by drones, as well they should.

Cal: Hold onto your ACLU card, Bob. I'm with you and civil liberties organizations that are deeply worried about government seizing this kind of intrusive and invasive power for itself.

Bob: Now there's a first, Cal agreeing with the American Civil Liberties Union.

Cal: Not really. I've sided with them on various issues, including the freedom of expression and even some religious matters. But back to the drones. While these planes have performed well in killing terrorists overseas, they are the last thing we need flying over America. The technology is so good that they can operate undetected and low enough to identify people attending your backyard barbecue.

Bob: I'm surprised how little we've heard from Congress, besides a letter of concern to the FAA from Reps. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Joe Barton, R-Texas.

Cal: Maybe that's because there's a congressional "drone caucus," which has 58 members. Many of them have received generous campaign contributions from defense contractors, including General Dynamics, Honeywell, Lockheed Martin (a major manufacturer of drones and missiles that can be attached to them) and Raytheon.

Bob: Once again, money wins out over an important principle: the right to privacy. The news media tend to report actions by drones when they bomb terrorists, but the planes have several other significant capabilities. They can also see and capture pictures in the smallest detail from thousands of feet in the sky. They can detect cellphone conversations and other means of communications.

Cal: Bad things are often ushered in with good intentions. As constitutional attorney John Whitehead commented, "Certainly these unmanned vehicles could be used for legitimate purposes, such as search-and-rescue missions, etc., but living as we do already in a semi-surveillance state with our constitutional rights in peril at every turn, these drones, which can be armed with surveillance devices, as well as weapons, are yet another building block in a total control society."

Bob: Whitehead is right. Already we have millions of surveillance cameras watching us when we're in public places, not to mention the Patriot Act, which gives the FBI unprecedented powers to enter homes without notice, look at our library cards and much more. These drones are usually operated by the CIA against terrorists abroad. The law expressly forbids the CIA to operate within U.S. borders.

Cal: Here's something else to consider: In 2009, insurgents in Iraq hijacked Predator drones with a software program that cost $26. They gained access to footage shot by the spy planes. Another potential danger, which even the FAA acknowledges, is whether drones would add to the air traffic congestion already experienced at major airports. Commercial airline pilots, who also rely on visual flight rules, are concerned about safety hazards from unmanned drones.

Bob: Good point. Let's hope that the FAA listens to the suggestions for privacy and safety rules from privacy groups — and let's hope, too, that members of Congress put our constitutional rights above special interest money and speak up. President Obama should do so as well.

Cal: We are already further along with drones than the public may know. The FAA reform act requires the FAA to create a comprehensive program to safely integrate drone technology into the national air space by 2015. The FAA predicts there could be 30,000 drones crisscrossing American skies by 2020, all part of an industry that could be worth $12 billion a year. Dwight Eisenhower was right to warn us against the "military-industrial complex." Drones are just the latest example of the industry's intrusions into our liberties.

Bob: That's right. In this case, the section of the FAA reform act that permits drones in our domestic airspace was written by a lobbyist for the contractors who build drones. I will guarantee you that the members of Congress who inserted that provision in the FAA act have all received political contributions from the makers of drones.

Cal: Granted, there can be legitimate uses of drone technology. They can cut costs for police departments and are more effective than helicopters in locating and apprehending armed and dangerous suspects. Since 2005, drones have been used along our lengthy border with Mexico to deter immigrants from entering our country illegally. But permitting the domestic use of drones for these purposes allows the camel's nose under the tent. Do we want our government collecting a constant stream of information on our whereabouts? Drones equipped with Tasers and beanbag guns could fly over political demonstrations, sporting events and concert arenas. The ability of these machines to collect information is almost unlimited — and if we allow it to happen, we will have accepted the Orwellian vision of Big Brother. Trying to recover liberties after losing them is like trying to regain your lost virginity.

Bob: In fact, drones have already been deployed to assist local police departments, which on its face may seem like a good idea. But local police don't control the drones; that's done by trained drone pilots in the U.S. military. So police departments may request assistance on a local crime issue, but who knows what other information is being collected by the U.S. government while the drone is flying over a particular area? On the subject of using drones for domestic purposes, Cal, we have found complete common ground.

Cal: A few groups, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, are pushing back. They are filing lawsuits against the FAA, demanding records of the drone certificates that the FAA has issued to various government agencies and research groups. But, says constitutional attorney Whitehead, "It is unlikely that the implementation of this technology can be stopped. Based upon the government's positions on wiretapping, GPS tracking devices, and Internet tracking technologies, it is also unlikely that our elected officials will do anything to protect the American people from the prying eye of the American government."

Bob: The potential for abuse from government and law enforcement domestic surveillance by drones is terrifying. And if we're worried about congested air space, just wait until the commercial industry gets into the act. Already drone manufacturers are envisioning use by private companies where the technology might be used for journalistic purposes or disaster relief. But do we really want this technology in the hands of private companies?

Cal: And drones aren't the only threat. As The New York Times reported recently, while Google was roaming the world's streets with special cameras attached to car roofs for their Street View project, they were also collecting data such as e-mails, chat and instant messages, postings on websites and social networks — all sorts of private Internet communications. The company says the data collection was a mistake. But combine that technology with domestic drones, and the possibilities for Big Brother intrusion seem limitless. That's what scares me.