Drones over US: Thousands could be in skies soon

[jimmy olsen]

Ugh, I really hope Paul's bill passes.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0616/Drones-over-America.-Are-they-spying-on-you

Drones over America. Are they spying on you?

Thousands of drones could be routinely flying over the United States within the next ten years. They can help with law enforcement and border control, but they also raise questions about invasion of privacy.

By Brad Knickerbocker, Staff writer / June 16, 2012

Most Americans have gotten used to regular news reports about military and CIA drones attacking terrorist suspects – including US citizens – in Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere abroad.

But picture thousands of drone aircraft buzzing around the United States – peering from the sky at breaches in border security, wildfires about to become major conflagrations, patches of marijuana grown illegally deep within national forests, or environmental scofflaws polluting the land, air, and water.

By some government estimates, as many as 30,000 drones could be part of intelligence gathering and law enforcement here in the United States within the next ten years. Operated by agencies down to the local level, this would be in addition to the 110 current and planned drone activity sites run by the military services in 39 states, reported this week by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), a non-government research project.

IN PICTURES: Drones America's unmanned Predators

The presence of drones in the US was brought home Wednesday night when some people thought they saw a UFO along the Capitol Beltway in Washington. In fact, it was a disc-shaped X-47B UCAV (Unmanned Combat Air System) being hauled from Edwards Air Force Base in California to Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Maryland for testing.

Civil libertarians warn that "unmanned aircraft carrying cameras raise the prospect of a significant new avenue for the sur­veillance of American life," as the American Civil Liberties Union put it in a report last December.

"The technology is quickly becoming cheaper and more powerful, interest in deploying drones among police departments is increasing, and our privacy laws are not strong enough to ensure that the new technology will be used responsibly and consistently with democratic values," reported the ACLU. "In short, all the pieces appear to be lining up for the eventual introduction of routine aerial sur­veillance in American life – a development that would profoundly change the character of public life in the United States."

Steven Aftergood, who directs the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, highlights one potentially controversial part of US Air Force policy regarding military drones flown over the United States.

"Air Force Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) operations, exercise and training missions will not conduct nonconsensual surveillance on specifically identified US persons, unless expressly approved by the Secretary of Defense, consistent with US law and regulations," according to an instruction on oversight of Air Force intelligence.

At the same time, the instruction states, "Collected imagery may incidentally include US persons or private property without consent."

Americans have mixed feelings about pilotless drones flown over the United States, according to a new Monmouth University Poll.

A large majority (80 percent) supports the idea of using drones to help with search and rescue missions; a substantial majority also supports using drones to track down runaway criminals (67 percent) and control illegal immigration along US borders (64 percent).

But despite widespread support for certain domestic applications of drone technology, privacy issues are an obvious concern, the poll finds. For example, just 23 percent support using drones for such routine police activity as issuing speeding tickets while two-thirds oppose the idea.

"Specifically, 42 percent of Americans would be very concerned and 22 percent would be somewhat concerned about their own privacy if US law enforcement started using unmanned drones with high tech surveillance cameras," the poll report states.

That's the increasing attitude on Capitol Hill as well.

"I do not want a drone monitoring where I go, what I do and for how long I do whatever it is that I'm doing," US Senator Rand Paul, (R) of Kentucky, wrote on CNN's website this week. "I do not want a nanny state watching over my every move. We should not be treated like criminals or terrorists while we are simply conducting our everyday lives. We should not have our rights infringed upon by unwarranted police-state tactics."

Legislation introduced by Sen. Paul – the "Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012" – would force police officials to obtain a warrant before using domestic drones.

"If the warrant is not obtained, this act would allow any person to sue the government," Paul writes. "This act also specifies that no evidence obtained or collected in violation of this act can be admissible as evidence in a criminal, civil or regulatory action."

A similar bill introduced by Rep. Austin Scott, (R) of Georgia, is now before the House Judiciary Committee.

Sen. Mike Johanns, (R) of Nebraska, wants to ban the Environmental Protection Agency from using drones to make sure farmers and ranchers comply with environmental regulations.

Still, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) noted recently that it is "streamlining the process for public agencies to safely fly UAS [unmanned aircraft systems] in the nation's airspace."

[Viking]

How is this different, in principle, from a police helicopter? (apart from the reduced costs, increased information sharing, utility and stealthyness)

[Darth Wagtaros]

I think the popular consensus amongst the legal community is that there is no right to privacy. 

[jimmy olsen]

I think the popular consensus amongst the legal community is that there is no right to privacy.

Was Roe v. Wade repealed when I wasn't looking?

[Darth Wagtaros]

I think the popular consensus amongst the legal community is that there is no right to privacy.

Was Roe v. Wade repealed when I wasn't looking?

The two are entirely different, and that decision is one of those I hear the crazy Republicans bitch about.

[jimmy olsen]

I think the popular consensus amongst the legal community is that there is no right to privacy.

Was Roe v. Wade repealed when I wasn't looking?

The two are entirely different, and that decision is one of those I hear the crazy Republicans bitch about.

But it was based on the right to privacy wasn't it, unless I'm completely misremembering the case?

[Darth Wagtaros]

I think the popular consensus amongst the legal community is that there is no right to privacy.

Was Roe v. Wade repealed when I wasn't looking?

The two are entirely different, and that decision is one of those I hear the crazy Republicans bitch about.

But it was based on the right to privacy wasn't it, unless I'm completely misremembering the case?

I'm not a privatologist.

[KRonn]

I don't know if I like this. This is surveillance on everyone, not upon people under suspicion.  Besides, they probably aren't armed, so what good are they?       But it does seem to be going a good deal more than necessary, spying on anyone. Ah well, the NSA spies on everything electronic to some extent already.

[CountDeMoney]

How is this different, in principle, from a police helicopter? (apart from the reduced costs, increased information sharing, utility and stealthyness)

It's not.  It's just that the words UNMANNED and DRONE have an additional air of "sinister" about them.

[CountDeMoney]

I don't know if I like this. This is surveillance on everyone, not upon people under suspicion.  Besides, they probably aren't armed, so what good are they?       But it does seem to be going a good deal more than necessary, spying on anyone. Ah well, the NSA spies on everything electronic to some extent already.

Bah, the Fourth Amendment and Katz v US still applies, whether it's in the air at 10,000 feet or across the street in a van that says "Flowers By Irene".  Reasonable expectation of privacy, etc.  All that jazz.