Drones: effective law enforcement, or invasion of privacy?

 Resize text         Printer-friendly version of this article Printer-friendly version of this article

Intelligence gathered by unmanned military drones significantly aided the mission of Navy Seal Team 6 when they stormed Osama bin Laden’s compound in Afghanistan last year. And military drones are now a critical tool for helping keep our troops as safe as possible in hostile regions of the world. The technology of unmanned drones developed by our military also has many civilian uses, but civilians are rapidly questioning our government’s right to have an “eye in the sky.”

The revelation by the Environmental Protection Agency last month that aerial surveillance flights (using traditional aircraft) have been used “for nearly a decade to verify compliance with environmental laws” stirred a controversy in cattle country that is not likely to subside anytime soon. That’s because EPA also acknowledged surveillance flights in Iowa in 2010 and Nebraska in 2011 to check on concentrated livestock feeding operations (CAFO). Nebraska Senator Mike Johanns questioned EPA’s legal authority for using such aerial surveillance, which brought a response from the EPA that claimed, “Courts, including the Supreme Court, have found similar types of flights to be legal.”

While the EPA feedlot surveillance program was conducted using traditional aircraft, here’s predicting that the legal wrangling over aerial surveillance is far from over. Especially since the technology of unmanned drones appears likely to soon produce spy crafts much smaller than the proverbial breadbox.

So, are drones flown over the U.S. an invasion of citizen privacy, or an effective and economical method to enforce our laws? Let the debate begin.

The first public survey about drone use (in what is sure to be one of many) was released last month by Monmouth University in New Jersey. And – maybe predictably – Americans seem to favor using the technology to catch other people doing wrong, but not themselves. For instance, 64 percent of the folks surveyed by Monmouth said it would be OK to use drones to catch illegal aliens, but fewer than 25 percent said it would be alright to use drones to issue speeding tickets.

Just how polarizing an issue is this? Consider that just 80 percent of the people surveyed said using drones for rescue missions would be acceptable. In other words, even if people’s lives could be saved with the technology, 20 percent of Americans oppose the use of drones for rescue. And, just 67 percent favor using drones to locate criminals.

About two-thirds of Americans say they would be concerned about their privacy if U.S. law enforcement agencies began using drones with high-tech cameras.

It’s time to start being concerned. That’s because under the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, the Federal Aviation Administration is charged with developing a plan “for the safe integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system as soon as practicable, but not later than September 30, 2015.” The FAA has already authorized drone use for dozens of entities, including more than 20 universities, local police forces, the FBI, NASA and the U.S. departments of Agriculture, Interior and Energy.

Privacy issues are of legitimate concern for citizens as the technology is set to be rapidly deployed, and privacy is apparently one of the few issues gaining bipartisan concern in Washington. In fact, there’s a Congressional Bipartisan Privacy Caucus, chaired by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), who recently wrote to the administrator of the FAA expressing numerous concerns. The Congressmen noted the obvious benefits of using drones for “spotting wildfires and assessing natural disasters,” but underscored “there is also the potential for drone technology to enable invasive and pervasive surveillance without adequate privacy protections.”

Those concerns are echoed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which warned in February that the FAA Modernization Act would erode Americans privacy. ACLU attorney Catherine Crump said, “The deployment of drone technology domestically could easily lead to police fishing expeditions and invasive, all-encompassing surveillance that would seriously erode the privacy that we have always had as Americans.”

Stay tuned. Feedlot flyovers are just the tip of this giant legal iceberg.


Prev 1 2 Next All



Comments (5) Leave a comment 

Name
e-Mail (required)
Location

Comment:

characters left

Steve Roth    
Big Sandy, MT  |  July, 05, 2012 at 09:10 AM

The feds don't need drones when they have Google Earth. Just received request to water sample from EPA under auspices of EPA's National Lakes Assessment on an irrigation reservoir that is dewatered during irrigation season. To referense sample site EPA sent a Google Earth satallite photo of reservoir.

John Harris    
Sanger, CA  |  July, 05, 2012 at 09:18 AM

We live in a high tech world, and have to accept that. While everyone appreciates privacy and fears unwanted intrusion into our lives, I don't think we have anything to hide. Sometimes aerial photos can actually help us.

Russell Wiles    
Fairhope, AL  |  July, 05, 2012 at 10:37 AM

I would suggest something like the use of drones or aerial suveillance as law enforcement practices only and evidence (or ?) obtained related to activities on private property is only admissable if conducted under the use of a legal search warrant such as those required for law enforcement to enter someone's home. Secondly I would suggest that laws are passed to clarify "invasion of privacy" rights of US citizens related to any photos or other informaton obtained for activities on private property via drones, airplanes, satellites, etc. to combat use by the media (or others).

maxine    
SD  |  July, 05, 2012 at 12:55 PM

So.......do we need to tell our cowboys and cowgirls that while they are out riding checking or moving cows on remote pastures that they should NOT relieve themselves anyplace that seems far from 'prying eyes' on those wide open prairies with nary a tree in sight???? Seriously, I do NOT believe they should be routinely watching family farmsteads UNLESS there is definite reason to suspect something illegal is being done. BECAUSE those homesteads are the same thing to us as the house and yard in any city or suburb, our PRIVATE spaces. Granted, there are surely as many small farmers likely to pollute as there are large farmers........and there surely are more small farmers, so percentage wise........shouldn't they/we be watched more carefully? Especially concerning ag chemicals. While small farms may use less, are they as careful, knowing they probably are NOT watched as closely?

Eddie Curtis    
Silsbee, TX  |  July, 07, 2012 at 10:44 AM

So let me get this right. From the other stories in this segment, they are going to cut farm aide and food stamps by 35 billion and spend the money on drones and hire more government employees to watch us?


MECHRON 2200

Powerful, strong, fast and comfortable, there’s a reason why the KIOTI Mechron 2200 is called the Ultimate Transport Vehicle™. Featuring ... Read More

View all Products in this segment

View All Buyers Guides

Feedback Form
Leads to Insight