The US is at the dawn of “a new era in police surveillance,” the Associated Press revealed casually last week. In a Chicago-based story about the growing use of drones and other sophisticated, unmanned aircraft for aerial surveillance, it noted that the Congressional Research Service considers their future use “bound only by human ingenuity.”The story focused on one Illinois legislator who has proposed a limit on how far law enforcement agencies can go.
But bills have been introduced in almost 40 states, and the Bill of Rights Defense Committee has two model ordinances to assist communities in the emerging movement against domestic surveillance drones. This isn’t science fiction, although the threat of an emerging Surveillance State does figure in my forthcoming novel, Dons of Time.
As I learned while researching, drones already fly pretty freely in US airspace. Law enforcement groups use them for search and rescue operations, for security along the border (mainly the one with Mexico so far), for weather research and scientific data collection. In fact, last year Congress authorized the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to open the nation’s airspace to widespread drone flights by 2015.
The FAA estimates that more than 7,000 civilian drones could be surfing the sky by 2020.
As Bill of Rights Defense Committee Executive Director Shahid Buttar explains, “Because the legal landscape governing drones is essentially barren, law enforcement agencies around the country are currently making policy to suit their interests. But we live in a constitutional Republic, meaning that We the People hold the opportunity — and responsibility — to petition our local representatives for legal protections that Congress is too timid to provide.”
In Seattle, the police department purchased two drones through a federal grant, but opted not to use them after protests in February. A bill barring Virginia law enforcement from using drones for two years passed the General Assembly months ago, but awaits a response from the governor. The National Conference of State Legislatures has heard about more than 70 bills in around 40 states that address the use of drones.
The Defense Committee’s legislative models are designed to satisfy diverse interests. One creates a drone-free zone, while another establishes strict requirements limiting their use by law enforcement agencies and other public officials. The model regulating drone use (rather than outlawing it) allows them to be used with a judicially issued warrant or for limited non-law enforcement purposes like fire detection, hazardous material response, search & rescue, and natural disasters.
Beyond constitutional concerns, proposed legislation also addresses some safety issues. According to Buttar, many of the drones currently available to law enforcement have limited flying time, can’t be flown in bad weather, must be flown in sight of an operator, and can only be used during daylight hours, “making them ill-suited to search and rescue missions and best suited for pervasive surveillance.”
On the other hand, AP points to some of the attractions driving the rush to drone use. Unmanned aircraft vary widely in size and capability. They can be as small as a bird or look like a children’s remote-controlled toy, and yet can be equipped with high-powered cameras, microphones, heat sensors, facial recognition technology or license plate readers. Similar technology has been used by the US military and CIA to track down Al-Qaida operatives abroad.
Law enforcement likes drones because they’re relatively cheap; they reportedly keep down the price by cutting fuel and maintenance costs, as well as reducing manpower. Look at it this way: A police helicopter can cost from $500,000 to $3 million, and about $400 an hour to fly. It can be “affordable” snooping for those with the means of surveillance.
Read the whole story
· · ·
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) wants everyone to know that drones are a threat to privacy.
During a senate hearing Wednesday on the future of the unmanned aerial vehicles in the U.S., Feinstein told a story in which she heard a demonstration outside of her house. When Feinstein peered through the window, she was startled by a drone, flying right in front of her face. Once the remote operator saw her through the drone's camera, it spun out of control and crashed. "So, I felt a little good about that," she said.
It was a cautionary tale. According to Feinstein, drones can be extremely intrusive, and the time to pass legislation to protect Americans' privacy is now, as they will soon be a common sight in U.S. skies. The Federal Aviation Administration has a mandate to integrate civilian drones into the airspace by 2015, but many drones — operated by research centers, law-enforcement agencies, and even hobbyists — are already flying.
"There should be strong binding enforceable privacy policies," she said. "And that can be done before the technology is upon us."
Feinstein, who didn't reveal more about the drone incident (her press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment) is strongly in support of enacting privacy-protecting legislation before drones' full integration in U.S. airspace.
Sometimes known as a supporter of National Security Agency surveillance, Feinstein also proposed mandatory warrant requirements for police use of drones. When asked about the same issue last year, she said, "It all depends."
Feinstein is not the only one calling for the use of warrants.
Last August, a poll revealed that the vast majority of Americans support such a requirement. Many states have passed similar laws, and last year, Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) proposed a federal lawthat requires public agencies to get a warrant before using a drone for surveillance.
"These 20th century eyes in the sky shouldn't become spies in the sky," Markey said during the hearing. "Flying –- and potentially spying -– robots sounds like science fiction, but they are a reality right now. And the technology is getting cheaper and more accessible," he added, while holding aParrot AR.Drone in his hand, which costs less than $300.
For privacy experts, a law passed before the 2015 integration deadline that mandates warrant requirements for authorities, is a must.
"All rules need to be put in place before the full integration," Amie Stepanovich, an attorney at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, told Mashable. "Because what we've seen with privacy-invasive technologies is that once they are adopted and released into the population, it's very hard to retroactively fit in privacy rules."
It's unclear, however, whether U.S. Congress is willing to take on such legislation. Besides, the booming drone industry will likely intervene.
The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, an industry advocacy group, predicts that within the fist three years of the drone integration, the industry will create more than 70,000 jobs and have an impact of $13.6 billion on the U.S. economy. By 2025, those numbers will grow to 100,000 jobs and $82 billion, respectively, according to the group's estimates.
In addition to privacy, the hearing also briefly touched on another key issue that could slow down drone integration: safety. Some senators expressed concern over letting unmanned flying robots share the airspace with thousands of manned airplanes. Sense and avoid systems, which would allow drones to automatically detect and dodge other aircrafts, should be a requirement, they said.
Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN) even raised the issue of hacking. In July 2012, researchers at the University of Texas showed how easy it is to hijack a drone, and the FAA, as well as drone manufacturers, were surprised by their stunt.
When asked about the possibility of hacking at the Wednesday hearing, FAA administrator Michael Huerta said he is "concerned," but did not provide much more than a vague commitment to work on improving drones' safety systems.
Missy Cummings, a Duke University professor and former navy pilot, recognizes that it's "very easy" to hack into a drone's GPS navigational system, but said drones are relatively safe.
"On average, a drone is a better pilot than I am," she said at the Wednesday hearing.
The tone of the two-hour hearing was mostly serious, but some senators took the opportunity to joke around.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), said he is worried about Americans' private data being collected by data-broking companies.
"If data brokers of today control the UAS [Unmanned Aerial Systems], I would leave promptly for Canada," he said.
Others, such as Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), tried to trumpet their geek credentials. Booker, who said he was excited by the "whole new frontier" of drones, added that he has to be cautious because "as a sci-fi fan," he is caught between "my Star Trek aspirations and my Terminator fears."
BONUS: Drones vs. Government: Who Owns America's Skies?
Have something to add to this story? Share it in the comments.
Image: Ernesto Benavides/AFP/Getty Images
Read the whole story
· · · ·
A drone journalist is suing a local police department in a case that may provide a stepping stone to broader legislation dealing with who has the right to fly drones and take video from the sky.
Pedro Rivera filed a suit against two officers of the Hartford, Conn., police department on Feb. 18 after they convinced his part-time employer, a local TV station, to suspend him for a week that began on Feb. 3. The suspension followed a department investigation into whether Rivera illegally used his drone to film the scene of a fatal accident.
Rivera says the officers had no right to interfere with his drone and had no reason to call his employer. He hopes to gain compensation for his loss of work as well as punitive damages from the two officers, and he wants the Hartford police to make it clear they have no right to stop individuals from using drones.
The journalist was allegedly not working when he heard chatter over his police radio, according to the lawsuit Rivera filed. A bad accident had taken place in Hartford, and he drove over to capture some footage of it with his drone — footage similar to video he occasionally sends to local TV station WFSB. Though Rivera says he was standing outside the crime scene and the drone was hovering about 150 feet above the accident, well out of range of the one fatality, multiple officers surrounded and questioned him about his intentions. They asked that Rivera stop flying the drone, and when he did, an officer contacted administrators at WFSB. They told the station that Rivera had compromised the scene of the accident and coaxed them into suspending him for at least a week.
The case is complicated for many reasons.
First, Rivera was acting as a private citizen in this situation. Though he does work as a journalist at times, he was allegedly not being paid for any footage he captured at the scene of the accident. Second, though the Federal Aviation Administration does not condone the use of drones for commercial purposes, journalism does not clearly fall under the commercialism umbrella. Finally, the FAA's regulations dealing with small unmanned aircraft are unclear.
"Flying model aircraft solely for hobby or recreational reasons does not require FAA approval, but hobbyists must operate according to the agency's model aircraft guidance," an FAA spokesperson, who wished to remain anonymous, told Mashable in an email. "In a November 2007 Federal Register Notice, the FAA recognized that people and companies other than modelers might be flying [unmanned aerial systems] with the mistaken understanding they are legally operating under authority of the model aircraft companies guidance, but we stressed that the guidance only applies to modelers, and thus specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes."
But this guidance is still only that — not law, — and it's still unclear how the FAA classifies a commercial enterprise.
When Rivera sends his drone into the sky, is he a hobbyist or a businessman?When Rivera sends his drone into the sky, is he a hobbyist or a businessman? If a business uses his footage but he is not paid for it, where does that leave him?
These questions can quickly lead down the path to another big question: Should journalists beallowed to use drones?
"There's a first amendment issue on the federal level as to what is the definition of a journalist," Matthew Schroyer, founder of the Professional Society of Drone Journalists, which has around 130 members across every continents except Antarctica, told Mashable. Later, he added, "What we're looking for is an opportunity to show that we can be responsible drone users in a way that improves public knowledge of public events."
Rivera's case is still that of a man allegedly acting in a private capacity at the time he was approached by police.
"Even if he were acting as a journalist, there's no law to prevent what he's doing," Norm Pattis, the lawyer Rivera hired to prosecute his case, told Mashable. "Drones present a sort of unique challenge in the regulatory context. There is no statutory law that governs them. There's no state law in Connecticut that governs their use." Later, he added, "There is no support in the law for treatment of a remote control aircraft…as a commercial aircraft."
The FAA is investigating the matter, and this case could provide one of the few building blocks that leads to clearer regulation of drones for private and commercial use.
Cases that ask questions about journalists' use of drones are likely to continue cropping up in the face of murky regulations. Raphael Pirker, for one, was fined $10,000 by the FAA after the University of Virginia paid him to take video of the campus with a 4.5-pound drone in October 2011. The FAA alleges that Pirker flew his drone recklessly, risking property damage and injury to people in its flight path.
Pirker is fighting the fine, and his fate, like Rivera's, is yet to be decided. When settled, perhaps the drone regulation picture will be a little less foggy.
Read Rivera's entire complaint, below:
Have something to add to this story? Share it in the comments.
Read the whole story
· · · ·
They can record video images and produce heat maps. They can be used to track fleeing criminals, stranded hikers — or just as easily, political protesters. And for strapped police departments, they are more affordable than helicopters.
Drones are becoming a darling of law enforcement authorities across the country. But they have given rise to fears of government surveillance, in many cases even before they take to the skies. And that has prompted local and state lawmakers from Seattle to Tallahassee to outline how they can be used by police or to ground them altogether.
Although surveillance technologies have become ubiquitous in American life, like license plate readers or cameras for catching speeders, drones have evoked unusual discomfort in the public consciousness.
“To me, it’s Big Brother in the sky,” said Dave Norris, a city councilman in Charlottesville, Va., which this month became the first city in the country to restrict the use of drones. “I don’t mean to sound conspiratorial about it, but these drones are coming, and we need to put some safeguards in place so they are not abused.”
In Charlottesville, police officers are prohibited from using in criminal cases any evidence obtained by drones, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles. Never mind that the city police department does not have a drone, nor has it suggested buying one. The police are not barred from using drones for other efforts, like search and rescue.
Mr. Norris said the advent of new policing technologies poses new policy dilemmas for his city.
Charlottesville permits the police to install cameras temporarily in areas known for drug dealing, but it has rebuffed a police request to install cameras along its downtown shopping corridor. It has also chosen not to install cameras at traffic lights to intercept speeding cars, as is common elsewhere.
“Drones are capable of taking surveillance to a whole new level,” Mr. Norris said.
Last week, the Seattle Police Department agreed to return its two still-unused drones to the manufacturer after Mayor Michael McGinn answered public protests by banning their use. On Thursday, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors in Oakland, Calif., listened to the county sheriff’s proposal to use federal money to buy a four-pound drone to help his officers track suspected criminals — and then listened to raucous opposition from the antidrone lobby, including a group that uses the Twitter handle @N.O.M.B.Y., short for Not Over My Back Yard.
This week, members of Congress introduced a bill that would prohibit drones from conducting what it called “targeted surveillance” of individuals and property without a warrant.
A federal law enacted last year paved the way for drones to be used commercially and made it easier for government agencies to obtain them. The Department of Homeland Security offered grants to help local law enforcement buy them. Drone manufacturers began to market small, lightweight devices specifically for policing. Drones are already used to monitor movement on the United States’ borders and by a handful of police departments, and emergency services agencies around the country are just beginning to explore their uses.
The Federal Aviation Administration has received about 80 requests, including some from police and other government agencies, for clearance to fly drones, according to a Freedom of Information Actrequest filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which seeks to limit their use for police surveillance.
Law enforcement authorities say drones can be a cost-effective technology to help with a host of policing efforts, like locating bombs, finding lost children, monitoring weather and wildlife or assisting rescue workers in natural disasters.
“In this time of austerity, we are always looking for sensible and cost-effective methods to improve public safety,” said Capt. Tom Madigan of the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department. “We are not looking at military-grade Predator drones. They are not armed.”
For now, drones for civilian use run on relatively small batteries and fly short distances. In principle, various sensors, including cameras, can be attached to them. But there is no consensus in law on how the data collected can be used, shared or stored.
State and local government authorities are trying to fill that void. As they do, they are weighing not only the demands of the police and civil libertarians but also tricky legal questions. The law offers citizens the right to take pictures on the street, for instance, just as it protects citizens from unreasonable search.
State legislatures have come up with measures that seek to permit certain uses, while reassuring citizens against unwanted snooping.
Virginia is furthest along in dealing with the issue. In early February, its state Legislature passed a two-year moratorium on the use of drones in criminal investigations, though it has yet to be reviewed by the governor.
In several states, proposals would require the police to obtain a search warrant before collecting evidence with a drone.
Arizona is among them. So is Montana. The bill’s sponsor there, Senator Matt Rosendale, a Republican, said he had no problems with drones being used for other purposes, like surveying forest fires, but he was especially vexed by the prospect of government surveillance. The manufacturers, he added, were marketing the new technology to government agencies, but neither federal nor local statutes specified how they could be used. “The technology was getting in front of the laws,” Mr. Rosendale said.
An Idaho lawmaker, Chuck Winder, said he did not want to restrict law enforcement with a search warrant requirement. He said he was drafting language that would give law enforcement discretion to evaluate if there was “reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct.”
The attention by lawmakers has delighted traditional privacy advocates. “I’ve been working on privacy issues for over a decade and rarely do we see such interest in a privacy threat that’s largely in the future,” said Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington. “Drones are a concrete and instantly graspable threat to privacy.”
A counterargument has come from an industry group, the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, which downplays fears about wholesale surveillance. The drones for sale for civilian use, it says, are nothing like the armed military grade aircraft used in wars overseas.
“They’re another tool in the law enforcement representative’s tool kit,” said Gretchen West, the group’s executive vice president. “We’re not talking about large aircraft able to surveil a large area.”
The F.A.A. is drafting rules on how drone licenses will be issued. On Thursday, it announced the creation of six sites around the country where drones of various sorts can be tested. Pressed byadvocacy groups, it said it would invite public comment on privacy protections in those sites.
The agency estimates that the worldwide drone market could grow to $90 billion in the next decade.
Read the whole story
· · · · ·
Updated 1/22/14
We’re currently seeing an unprecedented surge of activity in state legislatures across the country aimed at regulating domestic surveillance drones. (My colleagues Jay Stanley and Catherine Crump have this recent piece detailing the trend.) Working closely with our lobbyists in state capitols around the country, we have been tracking this activity and working hard to make sure these privacy-protective bills become law. The chart below shows the current status of state legislation as we understand it. We will update this as we receive new information.
With the exceptions noted below, almost all of the bills we’re seeing require law enforcement to get aprobable cause warrant before using a drone in an investigation. If you see your state listed below (unless you live in Arizona), call your legislators and urge them to support privacy-protective drones legislation.
(See here for an analysis of the content of drone legislation throughout the nation.)
Legislation proposed in 43 states and enacted in 9 states.
(Update: The 2013 state legislative sessions have drawn to a close. This chart represents a snapshot of the 2013 state legislative action on drones. Many of the bills listed below have been 'carried over' into 2014, and the work to legislate privacy protections for law enforcement use of drones continues. Stay tuned.)
State
|
Status
|
Notes
|
| Alabama | Passed Senate committee; legislature adjourned without further action | |
| Alaska | Resolution adopted creating drone task force; legislature adjourned without further action | Task force is to recommend drone policies and legislation |
| Arizona | Passed House; legislature adjourned without further action | |
| Arkansas | Legislature adjourned without taking up proposed legislation | |
| California | Bill introduced; legislature adjourned without further action | |
| Florida | Legislation enacted, goes into effect July 1, 2013. | |
| Georgia | Bill introduced; legislature adjourned without further action | Resolutions honoring the aerospace/drones industry also passed in both houses. |
| Hawaii | Bill introduced; legislature adjourned without further action | |
| Idaho | Legislation enacted, goes into effect July 1, 2013 | |
| Illinois | Legislation enacted, goes into effect Jan. 1 2014 | |
| Indiana | “Study group” resolution passed Senate committee; bill introduced; legislature adjourned without further action | |
| Iowa | Bill introduced; legislature adjourned without further action | |
| Kansas | Bill introduced; legislature adjourned without further action | |
| Kentucky | Bill introduced; legislature adjourned without further action, but interim study hearing on drones held Aug. 21. | |
| Maine | Passed both chambers, VETOED by governor | |
| Maryland | Bill introduced; legislature adjourned without further action | |
| Massachusetts | Introduced | |
| Michigan | Introduced | |
| Minnesota | Bill introduced; legislature adjourned without further action | |
| Missouri | Passed House; legislature adjourned without further action | |
| Montana | Legislation enacted, goes into effect Oct. 1, 2013 | |
| Nebraska | Bill introduced; legislature adjourned without further action | |
| Nevada | Bill introduced; legislature adjourned without further action | |
| New Hampshire | Dead for this year | Passed House committee; tabled in House. |
| New Jersey | Passed Senate; passed committee in Assembly | Pocket vetoed (governor did not sign the bill before the deadline) |
| New Mexico | Died in committee | |
| New York | Introduced | |
| North Carolina | Two-year moratorium enacted (PDF, p. 41). | |
| North Dakota | Dead for this year | Passed House, defeated in Senate. |
| Ohio | Introduced | |
| Oklahoma | Dead for this year | Bill held over until next session; interim study hearing on drone privacy issues to be held Sept. 26 |
| Oregon | Legislation enacted | |
| Pennsylvania | Introduced | |
| Rhode Island | Bill introduced; legislature adjourned without further action | |
| South Carolina | Passed House Committee; legislature adjourned without further action | |
| Tennessee | Legislation enacted, goes into effect July 1 | |
| Texas | Legislation enacted, goes into effect Sept. 1 | |
| Vermont | Bill introduced; legislature adjourned without further action | |
| Virginia | Legislation enacted, goes into effect July 1, 2013. | |
| Washington | Not brought up for full House vote before deadline, so dead for this session. | |
| West Virginia | Bill introduced; legislature adjourned without further action | |
| Wisconsin | Introduced | Legislature adjourned but legislation will carry over into 2014. |
| Wyoming | Died in committee |
Read the whole story
· · · · ·
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 2
U.S. law enforcement is greatly expanding its use of domestic drones for surveillance. Routine aerial surveillance would profoundly change the character of public life in America. Rules must be put in place to ensure that we can enjoy the benefits of this new technology without bringing us closer to a “surveillance society” in which our every move is monitored, tracked, recorded, and scrutinized by the government. Drone manufacturers are also considering offering police the option of arming these remote-controlled aircraft with (nonlethal for now) weapons like rubber bullets, Tasers, and tear gas.Read the ACLU’s full report on domestic drones here.
Numerous states are considering (and some have passed) legislation regulating the use of drones.You can see a chart summarizing the developments around the country here. Congress has ordered the Federal Aviation Administration to change airspace rules to make it much easier for police nationwide to use domestic drones, but the law does not include badly needed privacy protections. The ACLU recommends the following safeguards:
USAGE LIMITS: Drones should be deployed by law enforcement only with a warrant, in an emergency, or when there are specific and articulable grounds to believe that the drone will collect evidence relating to a specific criminal act.
DATA RETENTION: Images should be retained only when there is reasonable suspicion that they contain evidence of a crime or are relevant to an ongoing investigation or trial.
POLICY: Usage policy on domestic drones should be decided by the public’s representatives, not by police departments, and the policies should be clear, written, and open to the public.
ABUSE PREVENTION & ACCOUNTABILITY: Use of domestic drones should be subject to open audits and proper oversight to prevent misuse.
WEAPONS: Domestic drones should not be equipped with lethal or non-lethal weapons.
Click here for information on the U.S. government’s use of drones overseas for targeted killings.
Numerous states are considering (and some have passed) legislation regulating the use of drones.You can see a chart summarizing the developments around the country here. Congress has ordered the Federal Aviation Administration to change airspace rules to make it much easier for police nationwide to use domestic drones, but the law does not include badly needed privacy protections. The ACLU recommends the following safeguards:
USAGE LIMITS: Drones should be deployed by law enforcement only with a warrant, in an emergency, or when there are specific and articulable grounds to believe that the drone will collect evidence relating to a specific criminal act.
DATA RETENTION: Images should be retained only when there is reasonable suspicion that they contain evidence of a crime or are relevant to an ongoing investigation or trial.
POLICY: Usage policy on domestic drones should be decided by the public’s representatives, not by police departments, and the policies should be clear, written, and open to the public.
ABUSE PREVENTION & ACCOUNTABILITY: Use of domestic drones should be subject to open audits and proper oversight to prevent misuse.
WEAPONS: Domestic drones should not be equipped with lethal or non-lethal weapons.
Click here for information on the U.S. government’s use of drones overseas for targeted killings.
WASHINGTON -- The Department of Homeland Security has launched a program to "facilitate and accelerate the adoption" of small, unmanned drones by police and other public safety agencies, an effort that an agency official admitted faces "a very big hurdle having to do with privacy."
The $4 million Air-based Technologies Program, which will test and evaluate small, unmanned aircraft systems, is designed to be a "middleman" between drone manufacturers and first-responder agencies "before they jump into the pool," said John Appleby, a manager in the DHS Science and Technology Directorate's division of borders and maritime security.
Appleby provided program details to a friendly audience at the Counter Terror Expo here last week. Just days before, the Federal Aviation Administration had issued new rules to streamline licensing forgovernment agencies seeking to operate lightweight drones.
The DHS program "is meant to aid the user community in making informed decisions" about buying drones, said a DHS spokeswoman. She said the department can help law enforcement agencies "better understand what this technology can contribute in areas such as real-time law enforcement operational support; special event response; crime scene situational awareness; border security; fire/wildfire detection; and disaster evaluation and initial response."
Appleby said he hopes to invite vendors to participate in field tests of sensors and other drone capabilities at a military base somewhere in the Southwest this summer. Later this year, the FAA plans separate tests that will focus on how to safely and efficiently integrate unmanned aircraft into the same airspace with piloted airplanes.
It may be a few years before these automated eyes fill the sky, but privacy advocates, lawmakers and civil liberties groups are already worried about potential abuses.
"If DHS is going to serve as a Consumer Reports for local authorities that are interested in buying drones and help them figure out which drones perform well and appropriate for their needs, that's great," said Jay Stanley of the American Civil Liberties Union. "At the same time, we do know that DHS institutionally has had a role in pushing local governments to increase their surveillance through grants. I would hope they would not use this program to encourage unnecessary surveillance."
Most people likely wouldn't consider the use of unmanned aircraft to find missing children, locate lost hikers or detect forest fires as "unnecessary" surveillance. But given that fewer than 400 of the nation's 18,000 law enforcement agencies currently have aviation units, the FAA has chosen a go-slow approach with a focus on safety. Initially, law enforcement agencies will be just licensed for training and performance evaluation. Only when a department has shown that it is proficient will it be granted an operational license.
Patrick Egan, a Sacramento, Calif., consultant who heads the Silicon Valley chapter of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, an industry trade group, said the DHS program has merit. "Somebody needs to do it," he said. "There's too much room for problems. If they don’t educate police departments, there will be a backlash to this technology."
Indeed, an ACLU report released this past December said, "Our privacy laws are not strong enough to ensure that the new technology will be used responsibly and consistently with democratic values." It warned of a coming "'surveillance society' in which our every move is monitored, tracked, recorded, and scrutinized by the authorities."
A preview of that came in 2007 when Houston police not so secretly tested an unmanned aircraft that the department hoped to use, among other functions, in issuing speeding tickets. More recently, a police SWAT team in Grand Forks, N.D., deployed a borrowed DHS Predator drone to assist in making the first arrest of an American using pilot-less airborne surveillance.
The FAA has already authorized police in a handful of cities -- including Seattle; Arlington, Texas; North Little Rock, Ark.; Gadsden, Ala.; and Ogden, Utah -- to fly drones. But with those numbers set to soar, at least two pundits have suggested an individual who shot down a surveillance drone would become a "hero" to some.
Once "the bottleneck has passed and every police department does indeed have eyes everywhere, our notions of privacy under the Fourth Amendment and reasonable searches … will need to be reevaluated," wrote University of North Dakota aviation law professor Joseph Vacek in a 2010 law review article, "Big Brother Will Soon Be Watching--Or Will He?" "It seems the state will have the power, both constitutionally and technologically, to continually monitor its citizens from above."
The FAA rules allow government agencies to operate drones weighing from a few ounces to 25 pounds, small enough to fit in a backpack or the trunk of a police cruiser. Because most drones cannot detect and avoid other aircraft themselves, for now they must fly no more than 400 feet off the ground and within sight of the operator. Currently, only U.S. Customs and Border Patrol will be operating the big Predators, stationed along the country's southern and northern borders.
Nonetheless, Amie Stepanovich of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, an advocacy group, pointed out that small, unmanned aircraft are "more maneuverable and quieter than" helicopters and piloted aircraft, and are capable of carrying gigapixel cameras, infrared and thermal imaging technology, automated license plate readers and, soon, facial recognition technology. And some drones have cameras able "to track 65 separate targets over a large radius," she said.
While DHS may be "easing the burden" on police departments with its new program, it is "not providing these agencies with best practices to protect privacy and civil liberties, nor is the agency mandating transparency or accountability in the operation of the drones that it funds" through a separate program, Stepanovich said. "This means that those affected by the proliferation of drones in their communities have no method to discover what drones have been licensed in their area, to whom, or how they are being used."
Such criticisms were very much on Appleby's mind when he spoke about the program at the Counter Terror Expo. The DHS official said government must explain the costs and benefits of the new technology in order to win over a skeptical public already annoyed by increasingly ubiquitous surveillance cameras.
"We have a very tall challenge to change public perception. Otherwise, we'll be stopped cold in our tracks if we don't do this thoughtfully," he said. "We have to bring the public along every step of the way" and convince them "we will not be watching backyards."
Yet even as he acknowledged critics, Appleby beamed over a recently tested wide-area surveillance system that would allow federal border agents to see the entire city of Nogales, Ariz., down to the street level. He called such sensors the "kinds of tools that could be game changers" in dealing with violence along the border.
That sort of persistent ongoing surveillance concerns Egan, the industry consultant. He said defense contractors, faced with a shrinking military market, are lobbying hard to provide "counterinsurgency applications" to local police in order to keep sales up. The question remains whether the DHS test program will prove little more than an enabler.
"Police departments are going to make a big mistake. I don't think the American public is ready for what I call the 'Taliban treatment,'" Egan said. "This is still America."
Related on HuffPost:
Read the whole story
· · · · ·
WASHINGTON (AP) — More than a third of Americans worry their privacy will suffer if drones like those used to spy on U.S. enemies overseas become the latest police tool for tracking suspected criminals at home, according to an Associated Press-National Constitution Center poll.
Congress has directed the Federal Aviation Administration to come up with safety regulations that will clear the way for routine domestic use of unmanned aircraft within the next three years.
The government is under pressure from a wide range of interests to open U.S. skies to drones.
Oil companies want them to monitor pipelines. Environmentalists want them to count sea lions on remote islands. Farmers want them to fly over crops with sensors that can detect which fields are wet and which need watering. They're already being used to help fight forest fires. And the list goes on.
Manufacturers are also keen to cash in on what they expect to be a burgeoning new drone market. Government and commercial drone-related expenditures are forecast to total $89 billion worldwide over the next decade.
On the leading edge of that new market are state and local police departments, who say that in many cases drones are cheaper, more practical and more effective than manned aircraft. Most of them would be small drones, generally weighing less than 55 pounds (25 kilograms). They could be used, for example, to search for missing children or to scout a location ahead of a police raid.
But privacy advocates caution that drones equipped with powerful cameras, including the latest infrared cameras that can "see" through walls, listening devices and other information-gathering technology raise the specter of a surveillance society in which the activities of ordinary citizens are monitored and recorded by the authorities.
Nearly half the public, 44 percent, supports allowing police forces inside the U.S. to use drones to assist police work, but a significant minority — 36 percent — say they "strongly oppose" or "somewhat oppose" police use of drones, according to a survey last month.
When asked if they were concerned that police departments' use of drones for surveillance might cause them to lose privacy, 35 percent of respondents said they were "extremely concerned" or "very concerned." An almost identical share, 36 percent, said they were "not too concerned" or "not concerned at all."
Twenty-four percent fell in the middle, saying they were "somewhat concerned" about a potential loss of personal privacy.
David Eisner, president and chief executive of the constitution center in Philadelphia, said he was surprised by the level of support for police use of drones.
"I had assumed that the idea that American police would be using the same technology that our military is using in Afghanistan would garner an almost hysterical response," Eisner said. Support for drone use "shows that people are feeling less physically secure than they'd like to because they are willing to accept fairly extreme police action to improve that security."
There was a gender gap in the poll, with men were more concerned about a loss of privacy if police start using drones than women — 40 percent to 30 percent. There was an even wider gap between white and black respondents, with 48 percent of blacks strongly concerned about a loss of privacy compared to 32 percent of whites.
Responding to public concern, a drone industry trade group and the International Association of Police Chiefs have separately released voluntary guidelines for drone use in recent months.
"A lot of the public doesn't understand how the technology is being used," said Gretchen West, vice president of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International. "Law enforcement use (drones) to do the same thing they've used manned aircraft for years, it's just that (drones) are more affordable and usually a more efficient option."
The National Constitution Center is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that operates a Philadelphia museum and other educational programs about the Constitution.
The AP-NCC Poll was conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Corporate Communications from Aug. 16-20, using landline and cellphone interviews with 1,006 randomly chosen adults. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.
___
Associated Press Deputy Director of Polling Jennifer Agiesta and AP News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius contributed to this report.
___
Follow Joan Lowy at <a href="http://www.twitter.com/AP_Joan_Lowy" rel="nofollow">http://www.twitter.com/AP_Joan_Lowy</a>
Related on HuffPost:
Dead Cat Helicopter
Dutch artist Bart Jansen made waves recently, when he stuffed and strapped his dead cat Orville to a specially designed flying mechanism, creating the "<a href="<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/04/cat-helicopter_n_1567541.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/04/cat-helicopter_n_1567541.html</a>" target="_hplink">Orvillecopter</a>." The piece of art, which is on display at the Kunstrai art festival in Amsterdam, is meant to honor the memory of Jansen's feline friend who was run over by a car.Bat-Like Drone
If it looks like a bat and acts like a bat, then it's probably a bat -- or a bat-like drone. The <a href="<a href="http://www.disam.upm.es/%7Ejdcolorado/BAT/MicroBat.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.disam.upm.es/~jdcolorado/BAT/MicroBat.html</a>" target="_hplink">BaTboT</a> is designed to <a href="<a href="http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/4/3060768/batbot-flying-robot-drone" rel="nofollow">http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/4/3060768/batbot-flying-robot-drone</a>" target="_hplink">mimic the flight pattern of bats</a>, which use less energy by folding their wings toward their body during flight. The drone is being developed as a way to reduce energy costs during flight. (<a href="<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kahunapulej/4025309701" rel="nofollow">http://www.flickr.com/photos/kahunapulej/4025309701</a>/" target="_hplink">Image via Flickr,</a> Kahunapule Michael Johnson)TacoCopter
Food delivery reached an entirely new level with the debut of the <a href="<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/23/tacocopter-startup-delivers-tacos-by-unmanned-drone-helicopter_n_1375842.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/23/tacocopter-startup-delivers-tacos-by-unmanned-drone-helicopter_n_1375842.html</a>" target="_hplink">TacoCopter</a>. Created by a Silicon Valley start-up, the unmanned drone flies freshly prepared tacos to nearby locations -- currently, only in the San Francisco area. The best part is you can order the meal directly from your smartphone.Mobile-Controlled Drone
The <a href="<a href="http://www.sys-con.com/node/2289146" rel="nofollow">http://www.sys-con.com/node/2289146</a>" target="_hplink">Parrot AR.Drone 2.0</a> can be controlled by mobile devices that run iOS or Android. The phone-controlled flying contraption tops out at 11 miles per hour and can run for about 12 minutes without a recharge.BONUS: Human-Powered Helicopter
This is about as far from a drone as you can get. Judy Wexler, then a biology graduate student at the University of Maryland, made history last year when she became the <a href="<a href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/diy-flying/a-human-powered-helicopter-takes-flight" rel="nofollow">http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/diy-flying/a-human-powered-helicopter-takes-flight</a>" target="_hplink">first woman to fly a human-powered helicopter</a> for 4.2 seconds.
Dead Cat Helicopter
Dutch artist Bart Jansen made waves recently, when he stuffed and strapped his dead cat Orville to a specially designed flying mechanism, creating the "
Orvillecopter
." The piece of art, which is on display at the Kunstrai art festival in Amsterdam, is meant to honor the memory of Jansen's feline friend who was run over by a car.
×
Read the whole story
· · · · · ·
WASHINGTON -- As the debate over drone warfare rages on, the drone industry is worried it's getting a bad name.
"There is fear amongst the general public about what these systems are capable of," said Gretchen West, a spokesperson for the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, a drone advocacy organization. "Industry doesn't agree with current public thinking."
Fears about drones have been reignited in recent weeks by new information about the Obama administration's use of drones to kill al Qaeda suspects abroad, including American citizens.
But industry insiders like West argue that, in the future, drones will be more commonly used for non-lethal, non-military purposes, in fields such as agriculture, media coverage, oil and gas pipeline monitoring and mining. Indeed, industry insiders even shy away from the commonly used term "drones," preferring to refer to them as "unmanned aerial systems."
“The public perception of this technology is being shaped by 1 percent of its actual use,” said Peter Singer, director of the Brookings Institution’s 21st Century Defense Initiative and speaker at a convention last week organized by West's group.
The convention's purpose was to examine the potential use of drones in American airspace. Currently, the Federal Aviation Administration has a ban on commercial use of drones, but that is tentatively set to be lifted in September 2015.
While the industry waits for the government's prohibition to end, it will use the time to make sure that "there is correct public perception of these systems and greater understanding of the great benefits of the technology," West said.
This may be easier said than done, as any drone industry public relations campaign faces growing concern over the privacy and safety of Americans when these drones start flying overhead.
Speaking at the conference last week, Jim Williams, head of the FAA's Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office, tried to alleviate worries that armed drones would soon be circling in the sky.
"We currently have rules in the books that deal with releasing anything from an aircraft, period. Those rules are in place and that would prohibit weapons from being installed on a civil aircraft," Williams said.
Still, the potential use of even unarmed drones for domestic law enforcement is meeting firm resistance in Congress and state legislatures across America. A bipartisan bill introduced in Congress last week by Reps. Ted Poe (R-Texas) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) would force law enforcement officials to seek warrants before using drones to surveil in criminal cases.
"Any form of snooping or spying, surveillance or eavesdropping goes against the rights that are outlined in the Constitution," Poe said in a speech on the House floor.
Similar bills restricting law enforcement's use of drones have been passed by or introduced in 10 state legislatures across the country.
"I think the concern of legislatures is understandable and it is a good idea for them to put privacy protections in place," Catherine Crump, staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, told The Huffington Post. "Before law enforcement fly drones they should have a reason to believe that doing so will turn up evidence of a specific crime."
On Feb. 7, the FAA released an updated list of 81 public entities that have already applied for permission to fly drones in U.S. airspace. FAA's drone applicant list includes 17 police and sheriff departments, which hope to use drones for surveillance and crowd control. The law enforcement offices seeking the FAA's permission include those in Kings County, Wash., Miami-Dade, Fla., and Arlington, Texas.
A Monmouth University poll released June 12, 2012 found that 67 percent of respondents supported the use of drones to apprehend criminals, but 64 percent of respondents were at least "somewhat concerned" about their privacy if law enforcement were allowed to fly drones.
West told The Huffington Post that the drone industry "certainly respects the rights of privacy of American citizens," but there is already a "framework in place through the Fourth Amendment and a long history of case law that protects their privacy rights."
Still, West said the domestic drone industry is confident Americans would soon come to understand the benefits of using drones to prevent crime. "Small unmanned aircraft are just another tool of law enforcement to be able to do their jobs, essentially saving lives."
Also on HuffPost:
Boeing Phantom Ray
<strong>Type</strong>: Military (U.S.) <strong>Description</strong>: Boeing's stealth Phantom Ray took to the skies for the <a href="http://www.boeing.com/Features/2011/05/bds_phantom_ray_first_flight_05_04_11.html" target="_hplink">first time in April 2011</a>. According to Boeing, the <a href="http://www.boeing.com/advertising/bma/unmanned/unmanned_05.html" target="_hplink">Phantom Ray can perform missions</a> such as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; suppression of enemy air defenses; and electronic attack. <strong>Potential Deployment</strong>: Unknown. This is a "demonstrator" so there will likely be a future variation of the Ray.General Atomics Predator Avenger
<strong>Type</strong>: Military (U.S.) <strong>Description</strong>: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems <a href="http://www.ga-asi.com/products/aircraft/predator_c.php" target="_hplink">Predator Avenger C</a> is a beast. According to the two-page brochure, the PAC is a "Next-Generation Multi-mission ISR and Strike Aircraft" and successor for the Predator B that can be stacked with a multitude of weaponry. <strong>Deployment</strong>: There is one <a href="http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?topicName=unmanned&id=news/awst/2011/12/19/AW_12_19_2011_p25-406500.xml&headline=USAF Plans Larger, More Capable Predator&channel=&from=topicalreports" target="_hplink">demonstration craft currently in Afghanistan</a>.SOCOM Mini Drone Of Doom
<strong>Type</strong>: Military (U.S.) <strong>Description</strong>: Yo dawg, I heard you like drones so I <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/socom-warhead-drones/" target="_hplink">put a drone in your drone</a>. One small deadly warhead-equipped mini-drone stuffed into another, to be launched from the main drone and remotely aimed at a target. <strong> Potential Deployment</strong>: This <a href="http://defensenewsstand.com/NewsStand-General/The-INSIDER-Free-Article/socom-could-have-warhead-equipped-micro-uav-by-spring-2012/menu-id-720.html" target="_hplink">warhead-equiped micro-UAV</a> could be flown by SOCOM in the skies by spring 2012.Suicide Switchblade
<strong>Type</strong>: Military (USA) <strong>Description</strong>: <a href="http://www.avinc.com/uas/adc/switchblade/" target="_hplink">AeroVironment's Switchblade</a> is meant to be a portable, rapid deployment, beyond line-of-sight, "loitering munition" that is a "magic bullet." A bit of advice, AeroVironment: Don't describe a remote-controlled bomb as a "loitering munition" that you call "Switchblade," as it conjures up images of 1950's-style greasers loitering on street corners, flipping open switchblades idly as they wait for their favorite gals. Luckily, greasers won't be in charge of flying Switchblades. They're to be controlled by infantry and <a href="http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7982421&&s=TOP" target="_hplink">according to the AeroVironment</a>, "Flying quietly at high speed the Switchblade delivers its onboard explosive payload with precision while minimizing collateral damage." <strong>Potential Deployment</strong>: Undisclosed.Nano Hummingbird
<strong>Type</strong>: Surveillance (USA, DARPA Funded) <strong>Description</strong>: AeroVironment is at it again. In partnership with DARPA, they've actually managed to build a human mechanically engineered version of one of nature's most amazing flying machines: the hummingbird. The <a href="http://www.avinc.com/media_gallery/" target="_hplink">Nano Hummingbird</a> is a perfect bid for James Bond-esque style spy shenanigans. Once these hit the field, we'll never look at hummingbirds the same way. "Stop looking at me! That bird is following me!" <strong>Potential Deployment</strong>: Within five years.Army A160 Hummingbird Drone
<strong>Type</strong>: Military (U.S. Army) <strong>Description</strong>: Though the military's <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/30/us-army-hummingbird-a160-helicopter-drone_n_1176763.html?ref=technology" target="_hplink">A160 Hummingbird drone</a> doesn't resemble an actual hummingbird so much as AeroVironment's take, it is <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/12/06/nprs_domestic_drone_commercial/" target="_hplink">raising just as many alarms</a> because of its potential to be deployed on the U.S. home front. <strong>Potential Deployment</strong>: May or June 2012, AfghanistanFirescout
<strong>Type</strong>: Military (U.S. Navy) <strong>Description</strong>: Northrop Grumman <a href="http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/mq8bfirescout_navy/index.html" target="_hplink">describes the Firescout</a> as a "Transformational Fire Scout Vertical Takeoff and Landing Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle system provides unprecedented situation awareness and precision targeting support for U.S. Armed Forces of the future. The MQ-8B Fire Scout has the ability to autonomously take off and land on any aviation-capable warship and at prepared and unprepared landing zones in proximity to the soldier in contact." <strong>Potential Deployment</strong>: <a href="http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=237497" target="_hplink">March 2013</a>Euro Hawk
<strong>Type</strong>: Military (German Ministry of Defense, purchased from Northrop Grumman) <strong>Description</strong>: NG touts its <a href="http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/euro_hawk/index.html" target="_hplink">Euro Hawk</a>, built for German Ministry of Defense, as having a "wingspan larger than a commercial airliner, endurance of more than 30 hours and a maximum altitude of more than 60,000 feet, EURO HAWK is an interoperable, modular and cost-effective replacement to the aging fleet of manned Breguet Atlantic aircraft, which have been in service since 1972 and will be retired in 2010." <strong>Potential Deployment</strong>: 2015, 2016 (<a href="http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/euro_hawk/assets/SIGINT_NewsRelease_101211.pdf" target="_hplink">PDF</a>)X-47B
<strong>Type</strong>: Military (U.S. Navy) <strong>Description</strong>: A carrier-based combat drone, <a href="http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/nucasx47b/index.html" target="_hplink">Northrop Grumman's futuristic X-47B</a> flew in its cruise configuration <a href="http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=239278" target="_hplink">for the first time</a> on November 22, 2011. It can land with precision on the deck of a moving aircraft carrier, and features twin weapons payload bays that hold up to 4,500 lbs. (<a href="http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/nucasx47b/assets/X-47B_Navy_UCAS_FactSheet.pdf" target="_hplink">PDF</a>). <strong>Potential Deployment</strong>: <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/11/navy-killer-drone-refuel/" target="_hplink">2018</a>Taranis
<strong>Type</strong>: Military (British) <strong>Description</strong>: BAE System's Taranis (<a href="http://www.baesystems.com/BAEProd/groups/public/documents/bae_publication/bae_pdf_taranis_fact_sheet.pdf" target="_hplink">PDF</a>) is aiming to "Push the boundaries by providing advancements in low observability capability and autonomous mission systems operations demonstrating the feasibility and utility of UAVs." Such a statement starts to push the idea of fully autonomous flight from science fiction into science fact, though we're still a long way off from having an actual real debate on fully autonomous drones fighting our battles and flying our skies. Potential Deployment: TBD, test flights have been delayed to 2012.Boeing Phantom Eye
<strong>Type</strong>: Communications <strong>Description</strong>: Boeing's hydrogen-powered <a href="http://www.boeing.com/Features/2010/07/bds_feat_phantom_eye_07_12_10.html" target="_hplink">Phantom Eye</a> is a High Altitude Long Duration Craft designed to fly at <a href="http://www.boeing.com/Features/2011/11/bds_phantom_eye_11_16_11.html" target="_hplink">65,000 feet for up to four days</a>. <strong>Potential Deployment</strong>: UnknownDARPA Vulture
<strong>Type</strong>: Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) <strong>Description</strong>: <a href="http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/TTO/Programs/Vulture.aspx" target="_hplink">DARPA's description</a> says the "Vulture technology enables a re-taskable, persistent pseudo-satellite capability, in an aircraft package." Basically, DARPA is attempting to develop a super long duration craft capable of five year continuous flight. Think about that - the Vulture is intended to fly for up to five years continuously. If it were to launch this year it would be in the air for two Olympics. <strong>Potential Deployment</strong>: UnknownAVIATR: Drone To Fly Saturn's Moon
<strong>Type</strong>: Government Funded Space Exploration <strong>Description</strong>: While the proposal probably won't go through for this mission, this is an aerial drone we can really get behind. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/aviatr-probe-proposed-mission-titan_n_1184028.html" target="_hplink">AVIATR</a> would be a long distance drone that would fly the skies of Saturn's moon Titan. <strong>Potential Deployment</strong>: Beyond 2020Japan Defense Ministry Ball Drone
<strong>Type</strong>: Surveillance (Japan) <strong>Description</strong>: Techcrunch <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/25/video-japans-defense-ministry-develops-awesome-ball-shaped-drone/" target="_hplink">tells us</a> that the drone can "stand still in mid-air, fly vertically and horizontally through narrow spaces at up to 60km/h, and (which is very cool) keep on moving when it hits the ground or a wall. Thanks to three gyro sensors in its body, the machine can keep also flying even if it's hit by an obstacle." And all for only $1,400. <strong>Potential Deployment</strong>: Undisclosed
Read the whole story
· · · · · · · · · ·
Idaho Restricts Use Of Drones By Police Amid Privacy Concerns
Reuters | Posted: 04/11/2013 10:31 pm EDT | Updated: 04/12/2013 11:48 am EDT
Follow:
By Laura Zuckerman
SALMON, Idaho, April 11 (Reuters) - Idaho's Republican governor signed a law on Thursday that restricts use of drone aircraft by police and other public agencies as the use of pilotless aircraft inside U.S. borders is increasing. The measure aims to protect privacy rights.
In approving the law, which requires law enforcement to obtain warrants to collect evidence using drones in most cases, Idaho becomes the second U.S. state after Virginia to restrict uses of pilotless aircraft over privacy concerns.
"We're trying to prevent high-tech window-peeping," Idaho Senate Assistant Majority Leader Chuck Winder, sponsor of the measure in the Republican-led Idaho legislature, told Reuters earlier this year as the bill was pending in the legislature.
Current federal regulations sharply limit the number and types of drones that can fly in American airspace to just a few dozen law enforcement agencies, including one in Idaho, public agencies including the Department of Homeland Security and universities for scientific research.
But unmanned aircraft are expected to be widely permitted in coming years, raising fears about misuse of miniature devices that can carry cameras which capture video and still images by day and by night.
Lawmakers in Idaho and more than a dozen states this year introduced legislation to safeguard privacy in the face of an emerging market the unmanned aerial vehicle industry forecasts will drive $89 billion in worldwide expenditures over the next decade.
The measure Idaho Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter signed into law on Thursday requires police to obtain warrants to use drones to collect evidence about suspected criminal activity unless it involves illegal drugs or unless the unmanned aircraft is being used for public emergencies or search-and-rescue missions.
The Idaho bill, approved last week by the state Senate and the state House of Representatives, also bans authorities, or anyone else, from using drones to conduct surveillance on people or their property, including agricultural operations, without written consent.
Idaho's Republican governor couldn't be immediately reached for comment.
Americans are most familiar with drones because of the use of armed, unmanned aircraft by the United States for counter terrorism operations against Islamist militants in countries like Pakistan and Yemen.
The majority of unarmed drones expected to operate in U.S. airspace when restrictions are rolled back by the Federal Aviation Administration in 2015 weigh less than 55 pounds and fly below 400 feet, according to a September report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Cash-strapped law enforcement agencies see small drones, which cost as little as $30,000, as money-saving, low-manpower tools that could locate illegal marijuana farms, seek missing children and track dangerous fugitives.
Yet worries about widespread snooping persist. In February, privacy concerns prompted the Virginia legislature to put a hold on drone use for two years, and grounded a plan by Seattle police to deploy two camera-equipped drones.
Civil uses for drones would likely emerge first after 2015, while a commercial market would develop more slowly as airspace issues are resolved, the GAO report shows. Possible uses include pipeline inspection, crop dusting and traffic monitoring.
The FAA's goal is to eventually allow, to the greatest extent possible, routine drone operations in U.S. airspace. (Editing by Cynthia Johnston and Todd Eastham)
Copyright 2013 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.
Read the whole story
· · · · ·
This piece comes to us courtesy of Stateline. Stateline is a nonpartisan, nonprofit news service of the Pew Charitable Trusts that provides daily reporting and analysis on trends in state policy.
By Maggie Clark, Staff Writer
Police and federal officers drive through a neighborhood while searching for a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings. Police, lawmakers and advocates are questioning whether police drones could have found the suspects faster. (AP)
Even if police drones weren’t used in the manhunt for the Boston Marathon suspects, drones have become central to the post-bombing discussion of surveillance techniques. Boston Police Chief Edward F. Davis said he wants to use drones at next year’s Boston Marathon, calling them “a good idea.”
Even if police drones weren’t used in the manhunt for the Boston Marathon suspects, drones have become central to the post-bombing discussion of surveillance techniques. Boston Police Chief Edward F. Davis said he wants to use drones at next year’s Boston Marathon, calling them “a good idea.”
Using a drone to pursue fleeing suspects like the Tsarnaev brothers would be legal under both state and federal law. But pre-emptively hovering drones over an event still makes many uncomfortable. Lawmakers in Florida, Virginia and Idaho already prohibit that kind of drone surveillance at events, and more are debating it.
“Every state bill would allow a drone in a manhunt or chase,” said Ben Wizner, director of the Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, “and there’s no question that law enforcement would have had probable cause to use drones in pursuit (of the Boston suspects). But states have decided that they don’t want that kind of constant-surveillance-use of drones at events, where everything is recorded.”
Despite the call for more surveillance cameras after the successful identification of the Boston suspects using video footage, opposition to police use of drones in Massachusetts is moving ahead. Republican Sen. Robert Hedlund, who is sponsoring a bill to regulate law enforcement use of drones in Massachusetts, wants to require warrants before police can use drones and place restrictions on how video footage collected from drones can be retained.
“My opinions about drone use haven’t changed since the bombings,” said Hedlund, who remains skeptical of any drone surveillance.
Florida lawmakers also balked at the idea of using drones for crowd control earlier this year. After an Orlando-area sheriff suggested at a state Senate committee hearing that drones could be useful in crowd surveillance at big events, like college football games or parades, lawmakers recoiled with references to Big Brother.
Still, use of an unmanned aircraft could have helped first-responders even more effectively assess the immediate threats following the explosions on April 15, said Mario Mairena, government relations manager for the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, which represents the industry. Hedlund’s bill, like the 30-plus other state bills making their way through the legislative process, would not prohibit drone use in emergencies like the one at the finish line of the Boston Marathon.
The response to the bombings is an important test case in the discussion surrounding domestic surveillance, said Ryan Calo, a law professor at the University of Washington.
“I don’t think (the Boston bombing) will reframe the surveillance debate, and people will persist in their skepticism (of drones) even after this event,” Calo said. “If attitudes about drones change, it will be over time, probably because of non-surveillance uses of drones that people get accustomed to, like in agriculture, or by hobbyists. That’s the way people are going to get acclimated to drones, not from police use.”
State Drone Limits
For all the discussion in statehouses, few police departments actually have drones that they can deploy, even in a crisis. As Stateline has previously reported, nine law enforcement agencies in six states use drones, and nine other agencies have applied to the Federal Aviation Administration to use drones in the future. According to the ACLU, at least 37 states have debated drone-related legislation this year.
For all the discussion in statehouses, few police departments actually have drones that they can deploy, even in a crisis. As Stateline has previously reported, nine law enforcement agencies in six states use drones, and nine other agencies have applied to the Federal Aviation Administration to use drones in the future. According to the ACLU, at least 37 states have debated drone-related legislation this year.
In Massachusetts, Hedlund and eight other state lawmakers are sponsoring a bill that would limit how law enforcement could use drones, in preparation for a time when police agencies in the state actually have them. According to FAA records, no Massachusetts police agencies have applied to the FAA for permission to use a drone or been approved to use one.
The Massachusetts bill, like legislation nationwide, would require police to obtain a search warrant for any surveillance. Police could use drones to respond to an attack or a national security emergency, which likely would have included searching for the suspects in the Boston bombings.
In addition to state laws, police are bound by strict guidelines for drone use set by the FAA, which requires police agencies to get permission from the FAA before sending a drone into the sky to avoid hitting any other aircraft that might be in the same airspace. Police can only fly the drone within the line of sight of the operator, which essentially turns the drone into a remote-control plane with a camera on board. Additionally, the drone can only go as high as 400 feet and must weigh less than 25 pounds, which means that it can only stay in the air between 30 and 90 minutes.
For practical purposes, this means driving the drone to the scene, using it, taking it down and driving it away. Under these guidelines, said Stephen Ingley, executive director of the Airborne Law Enforcement Association, “You’re not going to be able follow someone for 10 miles. The (drone) would be able to do short surveillance before an event, maybe survey the crowd, and once an exigent event happened, the system would be up in the air…providing a different vantage point.”
Despite those limits from the FAA, state lawmakers in Florida and Idaho have enacted laws requiring a warrant before police can use drones, and Virginia enacted a two-year moratorium on any law enforcement use of drones. In all three states, however, lawmakers carved out exceptions for circumstances such as threats to national security or imminent danger.
Surveillance Expansion Unlikely
Privacy advocates acknowledge that in situations like the Boston Marathon bombings, drones can be even more useful than fixed surveillance cameras to quickly scan the entire area for evidence. Concerns pop up, however, when it comes to how the video collected from these cameras is organized and stored.
Privacy advocates acknowledge that in situations like the Boston Marathon bombings, drones can be even more useful than fixed surveillance cameras to quickly scan the entire area for evidence. Concerns pop up, however, when it comes to how the video collected from these cameras is organized and stored.
For instance, said Wizner of the ACLU, there are very graphic images of crime victims in the security-camera-collected footage, which under current federal policies will probably be retained indefinitely. Should the Massachusetts bill become law, any video footage collected from police drones that was not within the scope of a warrant would have to be deleted 24 hours after the collection of the video.
“Being a victim should not land you in a government database forever,” said Wizner.
In the near term, despite the calls for drones from Boston’s police chief, big investments in more surveillance do not seem likely for Massachusetts. “I don’t think there is a clamor for new or more extensive surveillance,” said Gavi Wolfe, legislative counsel for the ACLU of Massachusetts. “People are talking about standing up for freedom in the face of terror, and a rush to increase surveillance would run counter to that.”
Federal grants to states for emergency preparedness and homeland security are also at an all-time low. In Massachusetts, funding from the state homeland security grant program is down 76 percent over the last five years, as Stateline has previously reported.
Also on HuffPost:
Boeing Phantom Ray
<strong>Type</strong>: Military (U.S.) <strong>Description</strong>: Boeing's stealth Phantom Ray took to the skies for the <a href="http://www.boeing.com/Features/2011/05/bds_phantom_ray_first_flight_05_04_11.html" target="_hplink">first time in April 2011</a>. According to Boeing, the <a href="http://www.boeing.com/advertising/bma/unmanned/unmanned_05.html" target="_hplink">Phantom Ray can perform missions</a> such as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; suppression of enemy air defenses; and electronic attack. <strong>Potential Deployment</strong>: Unknown. This is a "demonstrator" so there will likely be a future variation of the Ray.General Atomics Predator Avenger
<strong>Type</strong>: Military (U.S.) <strong>Description</strong>: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems <a href="http://www.ga-asi.com/products/aircraft/predator_c.php" target="_hplink">Predator Avenger C</a> is a beast. According to the two-page brochure, the PAC is a "Next-Generation Multi-mission ISR and Strike Aircraft" and successor for the Predator B that can be stacked with a multitude of weaponry. <strong>Deployment</strong>: There is one <a href="http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?topicName=unmanned&id=news/awst/2011/12/19/AW_12_19_2011_p25-406500.xml&headline=USAF Plans Larger, More Capable Predator&channel=&from=topicalreports" target="_hplink">demonstration craft currently in Afghanistan</a>.SOCOM Mini Drone Of Doom
<strong>Type</strong>: Military (U.S.) <strong>Description</strong>: Yo dawg, I heard you like drones so I <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/socom-warhead-drones/" target="_hplink">put a drone in your drone</a>. One small deadly warhead-equipped mini-drone stuffed into another, to be launched from the main drone and remotely aimed at a target. <strong> Potential Deployment</strong>: This <a href="http://defensenewsstand.com/NewsStand-General/The-INSIDER-Free-Article/socom-could-have-warhead-equipped-micro-uav-by-spring-2012/menu-id-720.html" target="_hplink">warhead-equiped micro-UAV</a> could be flown by SOCOM in the skies by spring 2012.Suicide Switchblade
<strong>Type</strong>: Military (USA) <strong>Description</strong>: <a href="http://www.avinc.com/uas/adc/switchblade/" target="_hplink">AeroVironment's Switchblade</a> is meant to be a portable, rapid deployment, beyond line-of-sight, "loitering munition" that is a "magic bullet." A bit of advice, AeroVironment: Don't describe a remote-controlled bomb as a "loitering munition" that you call "Switchblade," as it conjures up images of 1950's-style greasers loitering on street corners, flipping open switchblades idly as they wait for their favorite gals. Luckily, greasers won't be in charge of flying Switchblades. They're to be controlled by infantry and <a href="http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7982421&&s=TOP" target="_hplink">according to the AeroVironment</a>, "Flying quietly at high speed the Switchblade delivers its onboard explosive payload with precision while minimizing collateral damage." <strong>Potential Deployment</strong>: Undisclosed.Nano Hummingbird
<strong>Type</strong>: Surveillance (USA, DARPA Funded) <strong>Description</strong>: AeroVironment is at it again. In partnership with DARPA, they've actually managed to build a human mechanically engineered version of one of nature's most amazing flying machines: the hummingbird. The <a href="http://www.avinc.com/media_gallery/" target="_hplink">Nano Hummingbird</a> is a perfect bid for James Bond-esque style spy shenanigans. Once these hit the field, we'll never look at hummingbirds the same way. "Stop looking at me! That bird is following me!" <strong>Potential Deployment</strong>: Within five years.Army A160 Hummingbird Drone
<strong>Type</strong>: Military (U.S. Army) <strong>Description</strong>: Though the military's <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/30/us-army-hummingbird-a160-helicopter-drone_n_1176763.html?ref=technology" target="_hplink">A160 Hummingbird drone</a> doesn't resemble an actual hummingbird so much as AeroVironment's take, it is <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/12/06/nprs_domestic_drone_commercial/" target="_hplink">raising just as many alarms</a> because of its potential to be deployed on the U.S. home front. <strong>Potential Deployment</strong>: May or June 2012, AfghanistanFirescout
<strong>Type</strong>: Military (U.S. Navy) <strong>Description</strong>: Northrop Grumman <a href="http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/mq8bfirescout_navy/index.html" target="_hplink">describes the Firescout</a> as a "Transformational Fire Scout Vertical Takeoff and Landing Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle system provides unprecedented situation awareness and precision targeting support for U.S. Armed Forces of the future. The MQ-8B Fire Scout has the ability to autonomously take off and land on any aviation-capable warship and at prepared and unprepared landing zones in proximity to the soldier in contact." <strong>Potential Deployment</strong>: <a href="http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=237497" target="_hplink">March 2013</a>Euro Hawk
<strong>Type</strong>: Military (German Ministry of Defense, purchased from Northrop Grumman) <strong>Description</strong>: NG touts its <a href="http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/euro_hawk/index.html" target="_hplink">Euro Hawk</a>, built for German Ministry of Defense, as having a "wingspan larger than a commercial airliner, endurance of more than 30 hours and a maximum altitude of more than 60,000 feet, EURO HAWK is an interoperable, modular and cost-effective replacement to the aging fleet of manned Breguet Atlantic aircraft, which have been in service since 1972 and will be retired in 2010." <strong>Potential Deployment</strong>: 2015, 2016 (<a href="http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/euro_hawk/assets/SIGINT_NewsRelease_101211.pdf" target="_hplink">PDF</a>)X-47B
<strong>Type</strong>: Military (U.S. Navy) <strong>Description</strong>: A carrier-based combat drone, <a href="http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/nucasx47b/index.html" target="_hplink">Northrop Grumman's futuristic X-47B</a> flew in its cruise configuration <a href="http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=239278" target="_hplink">for the first time</a> on November 22, 2011. It can land with precision on the deck of a moving aircraft carrier, and features twin weapons payload bays that hold up to 4,500 lbs. (<a href="http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/nucasx47b/assets/X-47B_Navy_UCAS_FactSheet.pdf" target="_hplink">PDF</a>). <strong>Potential Deployment</strong>: <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/11/navy-killer-drone-refuel/" target="_hplink">2018</a>Taranis
<strong>Type</strong>: Military (British) <strong>Description</strong>: BAE System's Taranis (<a href="http://www.baesystems.com/BAEProd/groups/public/documents/bae_publication/bae_pdf_taranis_fact_sheet.pdf" target="_hplink">PDF</a>) is aiming to "Push the boundaries by providing advancements in low observability capability and autonomous mission systems operations demonstrating the feasibility and utility of UAVs." Such a statement starts to push the idea of fully autonomous flight from science fiction into science fact, though we're still a long way off from having an actual real debate on fully autonomous drones fighting our battles and flying our skies. Potential Deployment: TBD, test flights have been delayed to 2012.Boeing Phantom Eye
<strong>Type</strong>: Communications <strong>Description</strong>: Boeing's hydrogen-powered <a href="http://www.boeing.com/Features/2010/07/bds_feat_phantom_eye_07_12_10.html" target="_hplink">Phantom Eye</a> is a High Altitude Long Duration Craft designed to fly at <a href="http://www.boeing.com/Features/2011/11/bds_phantom_eye_11_16_11.html" target="_hplink">65,000 feet for up to four days</a>. <strong>Potential Deployment</strong>: UnknownDARPA Vulture
<strong>Type</strong>: Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) <strong>Description</strong>: <a href="http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/TTO/Programs/Vulture.aspx" target="_hplink">DARPA's description</a> says the "Vulture technology enables a re-taskable, persistent pseudo-satellite capability, in an aircraft package." Basically, DARPA is attempting to develop a super long duration craft capable of five year continuous flight. Think about that - the Vulture is intended to fly for up to five years continuously. If it were to launch this year it would be in the air for two Olympics. <strong>Potential Deployment</strong>: UnknownAVIATR: Drone To Fly Saturn's Moon
<strong>Type</strong>: Government Funded Space Exploration <strong>Description</strong>: While the proposal probably won't go through for this mission, this is an aerial drone we can really get behind. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/aviatr-probe-proposed-mission-titan_n_1184028.html" target="_hplink">AVIATR</a> would be a long distance drone that would fly the skies of Saturn's moon Titan. <strong>Potential Deployment</strong>: Beyond 2020Japan Defense Ministry Ball Drone
<strong>Type</strong>: Surveillance (Japan) <strong>Description</strong>: Techcrunch <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/25/video-japans-defense-ministry-develops-awesome-ball-shaped-drone/" target="_hplink">tells us</a> that the drone can "stand still in mid-air, fly vertically and horizontally through narrow spaces at up to 60km/h, and (which is very cool) keep on moving when it hits the ground or a wall. Thanks to three gyro sensors in its body, the machine can keep also flying even if it's hit by an obstacle." And all for only $1,400. <strong>Potential Deployment</strong>: Undisclosed
Read the whole story
· · · · · · · · · · · ·
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 3
A county in western Colorado has embraced domestic police drones in an era when states are increasingly limiting use of the technology.
The Mesa County Sheriff's Department is one of the few departments in the U.S. authorized to maneuver unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) virtually without geographic boundaries. That means it's allowed to deploy its state-of-the-art cameras almost everywhere within the county's 3,300 square miles.
"We can fly them pretty much anywhere we want," says program director Ben Miller.
Since January 2010, the department has logged 171 flight hours with its two drones. Though they were intended mainly for search and rescue efforts, they've been used in only two such missions, neither of which was successful. The county deploys the drones mostly for police chases and crime scene reconstruction.
The department is helping lead a national push among law enforcement agencies to peel away layers of federal red tape that limit police use of drones.
"Mesa County has done everything by the book with the FAA. But the thing is, the book is pretty thin in terms of federal requirements," says Shawn Musgrave of Muckrock, a national nonprofit watchdog group working with the Electronic Frontier Foundation to monitor the proliferation of domestic drones.
A tinkerer and an elected boss
Mesa County's efforts to put eyes in its sky started in 2008 when Miller, a logistics and technology expert with the department, took a personal interest in UAVs, which are also known as unmanned aerial systems (UASs). Miller has always been a tinkerer, having rigged a system of pulleys and strings to flip his bedroom light switch from his bunk bed as a grade-schooler.
Two manufacturers donated drones after Miller started researching how UAVs rigged with high-resolution cameras and thermal imaging technology might help the county's 50 to 60 annual search and rescue efforts. First, Canada-based Dragonfly Innovations gave a helicopter-type drone that's valued at about $20,000, and then Falcon UAV of Aurora donated a fixed wing system worth about $30,000, Miller says. In exchange for the donations, the county agreed to buy parts and materials from both companies.
The cost of operating battery powered unmanned aerial vehicles is estimated to run between 3 percent to 10 percent the cost of operating police helicopters and airplanes. There's no refueling or operator fatigue, and the training takes days rather than months or years.
Mesa County uses its drones about twice a month, not including training and evaluation missions. Since 2009, Miller estimates it has spent $10,000 to $15,000 on the program.
The price tag, he says, made the program easy to sell to his boss, Sheriff Stan Hilkey. The decision to use and fund aerial surveillance was Hilkey's alone, not the Mesa County Commission's.
"That's one of the benefits of a sheriff's office. You work for an elected official. Had this been a police department, it would have been more complicated running it up the food chain," Miller says. "The Sheriff thought about the potential risks involved and it didn't take long to realize that we had no intentions of doing stuff that gets people nervous."
Launching the program took patience. The Federal Aviation Administration requires authorities to fill out reams of paperwork to fly the same drones hobbyists can fly after reading a single page of guidelines. Despite the disparities in certification procedures, the rules for police are essentially the same as for hobbyists: No flying above 400 feet, near airports, at night or over heavily populated areas.
Search-and-rescue letdowns
Miller is a true believer in drones. He sees great potential for them in the vast rural county where he works -- a place where hikers, rock climbers, mountain bikers, ATV riders and hunters are drawn to its mesas and craggy backcountry, 75 percent of which is public land. All too often, hunters get lost tracking an antelope or elk, climbers forget to secure their ropes and guys with inflatable mattresses and six packs lose control in the currents of the Colorado River. Out-of-towners, especially panicked and injured ones, often aren't very helpful describing their locations to 911 operators.
"That's why a bird's-eye view is so important," Miller says.
The fixed-wing Falcon system is capable of flying back and forth grid patterns that augment rescue-team efforts. It also can photograph terrain that's too hazardous for rescuers to reach on foot.
Despite Miller's enthusiasm, the county's drones were unsuccessful in the two search and rescue missions in which they were deployed -- searches for a suicidal woman in February and for lost hikers last May. So far, he is frustrated to admit, "We've never found anyone yet."
"Four years ago I was all like 'This is gonna be cool. We're going to save the world.' Now I realize we're not saving the world, we're just saving tons of money. I know this conversation would be very different if we could say we've saved somebody."
Instead of searches and rescues, Miller says Mesa County generally uses its drones for crime scene reconstructions in which they shoot aerial photos that can be turned into three-dimensional models for investigators. They've been deployed in a few police chases and the department offered one of its drones to help reconstruct a murder scene in Hinsdale County.
"I bet by year's end, I'll be able to say that we've put people in jail who are guilty of murder," says Miller.
He recently offered a drone to Mesa County's public works department to help determine the volume in its landfill. This summer, he hopes to deploy drones to track wildfires.
At first, there was a novelty for Miller and the three other department staffers trained to operate the remote-controlled flying machines.
"But you realize very quickly that it's not 'Top Gun,' it's not the sexy stuff in the military. You go into environments that are hot or cold and you sit and look at a computer screen all day."
Battling drone bureaucracy
Miller says he gets calls every week from other sheriff and police departments throughout the country seeking to start their own drone programs. Most, he says, are daunted by the FAA's lengthy application process.
"When I explain how much paperwork it involves, nobody wants to do it by the book. I bet half of them go out and [fly the drones] anyway without approval. What it ends up doing is creating a culture of noncompliance for police agencies who, ironically, are the ones who are supposed to be following the law."
What initially started as an effort to save lives, Miller says, morphed into a mission to convince "the FAA these rules are ridiculous and you're standing in the way of an incredibly important tool." He has testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee and is working with the FAA to "try to find better ways" to make drones more accessible to local law enforcers.
According to a Government Accountability Office report released last year, Mesa County was one of nine local law enforcement agencies with a "certification of waiver or authorization" to use drones. Such waivers "represent exceptions to the usual aircraft certification process" reads the report (PDF).
The University of Colorado - Boulder has applied to run one to six drone test sites across the country. The university filed its application on behalf of dozens of private companies, five industry associations, 10 regional economic development agencies, seven universities and two state agencies, although it has not revealed specifics. A decision should come in December.
The number of FAA waivers is expected to grow as local law enforcers can now choose from about 150 types of small drones manufactured by more than 50 companies. As technology advances, drones are being made that are as small as birds or large insects. Every year brings improvements in the resolution of the images they produce and the capabilities of their thermal imaging. Their capacity to intercept wireless communications also is advancing.
"FAA's goal is to eventually permit, to the greatest extent possible, routine [drone] operations in the national airspace system while ensuring safety. As the list of potential uses for UAS grows, so do the concerns about how they might affect existing military and non-military aviation as well as concerns about how they might be used," reads the GAO report.
Security, air safety, surveillance
One concern is security. The Transportation Security Administration has warned that drones could be used by terrorists to drop dirty bombs. In 2012, the FAA fined a private UAV operator $10,000 for flying a small drone over the heavily populated campus of the University of Virginia.
There are also air-safety concerns. "To date, no suitable technology has been deployed that would provide [drones] with the capability to sense and avoid other aircraft and airborne objects and to comply completely with FAA regulatory requirements of the national airspace system," according to the GAO report. Transponders are on the market, but not widely used because they're expensive.
Wider concerns pivot on privacy and civil-rights violations. A survey by the Monmouth University Polling Institute shows overwhelming support for drones as search-and-rescue and border-control tools, but found 80 percent of people expressed some level of concern about privacy infringements by law enforcement drones with high-tech cameras.
In a recent speech at the National Press Club, Sen. Mark Udall said Coloradans "hold sacred their open spaces, seclusion and privacy both in the furthest wilderness areas and in the center of their greatest cities. It's part of who we are in the West."
"So it's not surprising that it would give them pause to hear that with a few hundred dollars, a UAS operator could record or broadcast live audio and video of a family eating dinner or anyone sitting in their back yard. The potential for surveillance raises real concerns. It is invasive and can be done unprotected," Udall said.
"If police start flying a drone and start snooping and spying, it might get a bit unreasonable as they see what they can get away with," says Jeff Orrok, chairman of the Libertarian Party of Colorado.
"Mesa County is a very private community. They want to be left alone out there," adds Stephen Saint, who left his job with the Mesa County Sheriff's Department in March to move to South Dakota. "You gotta worry about someone being elected sheriff and going rogue. You gotta consider that drones could get in the hands of the wrong people."
The GAO report points out that it's "not clear what entity should be responsible for addressing privacy concerns... Many stakeholders believe that there should be federal regulations for the types of allowable uses of UAS to specifically protect the privacy of individuals as well as rules for the conditions and types of data that UAS can collect."
Udall, who serves on the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence, promises to craft such legislation.
In the absence of that kind of oversight, states are taking action. This year, legislatures in Virginia, Idaho, Montana, Tennessee and Florida passed laws limiting drone surveillance. Lawmakers in 36 other states, not including Colorado, proposed similar legislation, according to the ACLU.
By all accounts, Miller has tried to be as transparent as possible about Mesa County's drone project. He is aware of public sensitivities about domestic drones, which he blames partly on a February 11 Time Magazine cover depicting a large military grade drone flying over an American house.
The word "drone" evokes fear among some critics that police Peeping Toms might ogle backyard sunbathers. It triggers concerns about authorities spying on recreational marijuana cultivation. And it evokes anxiety among anyone who remembers Winston Smith, the main character in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, cowering in the one spot in his apartment where he could avoid the watch of "Big Brother," the totalitarian dictator who ruled through mass surveillance.
"If the American public views these promising technologies in a negative light, envisioning a sky full of drones watching their every move, however exaggerated that vision may be, this industry will always be behind the eight ball and never reach its full potential," Udall said in his speech.
Two toy-sized flying machines
Miller is eager to ease those fears by saying his department has never used its drones for surveillance, which he defines as "flying around watching people until they do something bad." When residents call with concerns, he invites them into the sheriff's department conference room, unzips two backpacks on the conference table and pulls out the two toy-sized flying machines.
"You should see the looks on their faces, when they're thinking it's a Predator drone and you show them these devices, which aren't much more advanced than the toys you can buy at Walmart," Miller says. "There has to be a public confidence in what we're doing with these things. Without it, people aren't going to trust our department."
The department set in place a drone policy this year ensuring that "Any flight that has been deemed a search under the 4th Amendment and does not fall under court approved exceptions will require a warrant. A pilot will not conduct a mission deemed a search under the 4th Amendment without possession of a signed warrant or personal knowledge that one has been issued."
The policy also says that "Any private or sensitive information collected that is not deemed evidence will be deleted."
Watchdogs laud Miller and Mesa County for their transparency.
"A lot of departments aren't nearly as willing to talk about their drones," Musgrave said.
His group, Muckrock, and its partner, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, launched their research into domestic drones after news that the Seattle Police Department spent more than $80,000 in federal money on two surveillance drones in 2010 without approval by the city council.
"One of our concerns we had is departments are getting access without consulting their communities," Musgrave says. "We want to make sure that there are formal, not just informal, policies in place and that the public is weighing in on whether their agencies use drones and, if so, how they should be using them."
In Colorado and nationally, the American Civil Liberties Union is calling for oversight of police drones.
"We need to have regulations in place by policymakers, not police," says Denise Maes, public policy director at the ACLU of Colorado.
Maes is not persuaded by arguments such as Mesa County's that small UAVs present less of a privacy threat than do big ones.
"A drone by any other name is still a drone," she says. "The fact that they're getting smaller and can go unnoticed is precisely why they're more dangerous. The smaller they are, the more they can invade your privacy."
Also on HuffPost:
Boeing Phantom Ray
<strong>Type</strong>: Military (U.S.) <strong>Description</strong>: Boeing's stealth Phantom Ray took to the skies for the <a href="http://www.boeing.com/Features/2011/05/bds_phantom_ray_first_flight_05_04_11.html" target="_hplink">first time in April 2011</a>. According to Boeing, the <a href="http://www.boeing.com/advertising/bma/unmanned/unmanned_05.html" target="_hplink">Phantom Ray can perform missions</a> such as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; suppression of enemy air defenses; and electronic attack. <strong>Potential Deployment</strong>: Unknown. This is a "demonstrator" so there will likely be a future variation of the Ray.General Atomics Predator Avenger
<strong>Type</strong>: Military (U.S.) <strong>Description</strong>: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems <a href="http://www.ga-asi.com/products/aircraft/predator_c.php" target="_hplink">Predator Avenger C</a> is a beast. According to the two-page brochure, the PAC is a "Next-Generation Multi-mission ISR and Strike Aircraft" and successor for the Predator B that can be stacked with a multitude of weaponry. <strong>Deployment</strong>: There is one <a href="http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?topicName=unmanned&id=news/awst/2011/12/19/AW_12_19_2011_p25-406500.xml&headline=USAF Plans Larger, More Capable Predator&channel=&from=topicalreports" target="_hplink">demonstration craft currently in Afghanistan</a>.SOCOM Mini Drone Of Doom
<strong>Type</strong>: Military (U.S.) <strong>Description</strong>: Yo dawg, I heard you like drones so I <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/socom-warhead-drones/" target="_hplink">put a drone in your drone</a>. One small deadly warhead-equipped mini-drone stuffed into another, to be launched from the main drone and remotely aimed at a target. <strong> Potential Deployment</strong>: This <a href="http://defensenewsstand.com/NewsStand-General/The-INSIDER-Free-Article/socom-could-have-warhead-equipped-micro-uav-by-spring-2012/menu-id-720.html" target="_hplink">warhead-equiped micro-UAV</a> could be flown by SOCOM in the skies by spring 2012.Suicide Switchblade
<strong>Type</strong>: Military (USA) <strong>Description</strong>: <a href="http://www.avinc.com/uas/adc/switchblade/" target="_hplink">AeroVironment's Switchblade</a> is meant to be a portable, rapid deployment, beyond line-of-sight, "loitering munition" that is a "magic bullet." A bit of advice, AeroVironment: Don't describe a remote-controlled bomb as a "loitering munition" that you call "Switchblade," as it conjures up images of 1950's-style greasers loitering on street corners, flipping open switchblades idly as they wait for their favorite gals. Luckily, greasers won't be in charge of flying Switchblades. They're to be controlled by infantry and <a href="http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7982421&&s=TOP" target="_hplink">according to the AeroVironment</a>, "Flying quietly at high speed the Switchblade delivers its onboard explosive payload with precision while minimizing collateral damage." <strong>Potential Deployment</strong>: Undisclosed.Nano Hummingbird
<strong>Type</strong>: Surveillance (USA, DARPA Funded) <strong>Description</strong>: AeroVironment is at it again. In partnership with DARPA, they've actually managed to build a human mechanically engineered version of one of nature's most amazing flying machines: the hummingbird. The <a href="http://www.avinc.com/media_gallery/" target="_hplink">Nano Hummingbird</a> is a perfect bid for James Bond-esque style spy shenanigans. Once these hit the field, we'll never look at hummingbirds the same way. "Stop looking at me! That bird is following me!" <strong>Potential Deployment</strong>: Within five years.Army A160 Hummingbird Drone
<strong>Type</strong>: Military (U.S. Army) <strong>Description</strong>: Though the military's <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/30/us-army-hummingbird-a160-helicopter-drone_n_1176763.html?ref=technology" target="_hplink">A160 Hummingbird drone</a> doesn't resemble an actual hummingbird so much as AeroVironment's take, it is <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/12/06/nprs_domestic_drone_commercial/" target="_hplink">raising just as many alarms</a> because of its potential to be deployed on the U.S. home front. <strong>Potential Deployment</strong>: May or June 2012, AfghanistanFirescout
<strong>Type</strong>: Military (U.S. Navy) <strong>Description</strong>: Northrop Grumman <a href="http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/mq8bfirescout_navy/index.html" target="_hplink">describes the Firescout</a> as a "Transformational Fire Scout Vertical Takeoff and Landing Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle system provides unprecedented situation awareness and precision targeting support for U.S. Armed Forces of the future. The MQ-8B Fire Scout has the ability to autonomously take off and land on any aviation-capable warship and at prepared and unprepared landing zones in proximity to the soldier in contact." <strong>Potential Deployment</strong>: <a href="http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=237497" target="_hplink">March 2013</a>Euro Hawk
<strong>Type</strong>: Military (German Ministry of Defense, purchased from Northrop Grumman) <strong>Description</strong>: NG touts its <a href="http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/euro_hawk/index.html" target="_hplink">Euro Hawk</a>, built for German Ministry of Defense, as having a "wingspan larger than a commercial airliner, endurance of more than 30 hours and a maximum altitude of more than 60,000 feet, EURO HAWK is an interoperable, modular and cost-effective replacement to the aging fleet of manned Breguet Atlantic aircraft, which have been in service since 1972 and will be retired in 2010." <strong>Potential Deployment</strong>: 2015, 2016 (<a href="http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/euro_hawk/assets/SIGINT_NewsRelease_101211.pdf" target="_hplink">PDF</a>)X-47B
<strong>Type</strong>: Military (U.S. Navy) <strong>Description</strong>: A carrier-based combat drone, <a href="http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/nucasx47b/index.html" target="_hplink">Northrop Grumman's futuristic X-47B</a> flew in its cruise configuration <a href="http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=239278" target="_hplink">for the first time</a> on November 22, 2011. It can land with precision on the deck of a moving aircraft carrier, and features twin weapons payload bays that hold up to 4,500 lbs. (<a href="http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/nucasx47b/assets/X-47B_Navy_UCAS_FactSheet.pdf" target="_hplink">PDF</a>). <strong>Potential Deployment</strong>: <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/11/navy-killer-drone-refuel/" target="_hplink">2018</a>Taranis
<strong>Type</strong>: Military (British) <strong>Description</strong>: BAE System's Taranis (<a href="http://www.baesystems.com/BAEProd/groups/public/documents/bae_publication/bae_pdf_taranis_fact_sheet.pdf" target="_hplink">PDF</a>) is aiming to "Push the boundaries by providing advancements in low observability capability and autonomous mission systems operations demonstrating the feasibility and utility of UAVs." Such a statement starts to push the idea of fully autonomous flight from science fiction into science fact, though we're still a long way off from having an actual real debate on fully autonomous drones fighting our battles and flying our skies. Potential Deployment: TBD, test flights have been delayed to 2012.Boeing Phantom Eye
<strong>Type</strong>: Communications <strong>Description</strong>: Boeing's hydrogen-powered <a href="http://www.boeing.com/Features/2010/07/bds_feat_phantom_eye_07_12_10.html" target="_hplink">Phantom Eye</a> is a High Altitude Long Duration Craft designed to fly at <a href="http://www.boeing.com/Features/2011/11/bds_phantom_eye_11_16_11.html" target="_hplink">65,000 feet for up to four days</a>. <strong>Potential Deployment</strong>: UnknownDARPA Vulture
<strong>Type</strong>: Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) <strong>Description</strong>: <a href="http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/TTO/Programs/Vulture.aspx" target="_hplink">DARPA's description</a> says the "Vulture technology enables a re-taskable, persistent pseudo-satellite capability, in an aircraft package." Basically, DARPA is attempting to develop a super long duration craft capable of five year continuous flight. Think about that - the Vulture is intended to fly for up to five years continuously. If it were to launch this year it would be in the air for two Olympics. <strong>Potential Deployment</strong>: UnknownAVIATR: Drone To Fly Saturn's Moon
<strong>Type</strong>: Government Funded Space Exploration <strong>Description</strong>: While the proposal probably won't go through for this mission, this is an aerial drone we can really get behind. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/aviatr-probe-proposed-mission-titan_n_1184028.html" target="_hplink">AVIATR</a> would be a long distance drone that would fly the skies of Saturn's moon Titan. <strong>Potential Deployment</strong>: Beyond 2020Japan Defense Ministry Ball Drone
<strong>Type</strong>: Surveillance (Japan) <strong>Description</strong>: Techcrunch <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/25/video-japans-defense-ministry-develops-awesome-ball-shaped-drone/" target="_hplink">tells us</a> that the drone can "stand still in mid-air, fly vertically and horizontally through narrow spaces at up to 60km/h, and (which is very cool) keep on moving when it hits the ground or a wall. Thanks to three gyro sensors in its body, the machine can keep also flying even if it's hit by an obstacle." And all for only $1,400. <strong>Potential Deployment</strong>: Undisclosed
Read the whole story
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
ATLANTA (CBS ATLANTA) -
Police departments across the country are adding new high-tech airborne devices to their crime-fighting arsenals, according to documents filed with the Federal Aviation Administration.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy watchdog group, obtained the drone license applications through Freedom of Information Act requests.
An application from the Gadsden Police Department in Alabama indicated authorities wanted to use drones for secret surveillance of drug transactions. Georgia Tech police requested permission to fly drones for "regular air patrol" and to put "eyes on the target and crisis areas" during special events like football games. That application was denied.
Some law enforcement agencies withheld the intended use. The application filed by Texas Department of Public Safety said the "mission was law enforcement sensitive."
That secrecy concerns privacy advocates. "Our ultimate concern is that Americans' privacy protections are safeguarded," said Chad Brock of the ACLU of Georgia.
Brock said he's worried police could use the technology to track people unlawfully and conduct surveillance of large areas and store the video.
But Mick West, a research engineer with the Georgia Tech Research Institute, said the safety benefits of drones far outweigh any privacy risks.
West and a team of researchers are developing new uses for the unmanned aerial vehicles or UAVs. West said drones can be used to monitor crop health, spot biological and chemical hazards, remotely evaluate storm strength and find missing people.
"That's the reason I'm passionate. They are changing the way we live," said West. "The FAA and our legal system has rules against spying or prying or anything that would be illegal."
State lawmakers introduced two bills earlier this year that would regulate and provide oversight for drone use in Georgia. It is expected both will be debated next year.
Brock said he supports legislation that would require police obtain warrants before flying drones and ban the use of weaponized drones within the country.
Read the whole story
· ·
A 3D Robotics' eight-propeller drone is similar to the type sold to Tijuana police.(Photo: 3D Robotics)
SHARE 231 CONNECTEMAILMORE
TIJUANA, Mexico – Just across the border from the USA, police have begun using drones carrying video cameras to patrol residential neighborhoods and watch over parts of the city often visited by Americans.
Tijuana's use of low-altitude unmanned aircraft for law enforcement surveillance, in darkness as well as daylight, appears to far exceed what state and local police agencies have been permitted to experiment with in the USA.
Unburdened by the sort of aviation restrictions and privacy concerns that have slowed domestic U.S. drone use, Tijuana police recently purchased three specially configured commercial drones and are testing their use in flight, said Alejandro Lares, the city's new chief of police.
He said he hopes to put them into full normal operation within weeks.
"How are we going to use them? Basically, it's preventing crime,'' said Lares, 35, who became secretary of public safety in December, a post that puts him in charge of the municipal police force where he had been an officer for eight years.
"What we're doing is implementing technology into our community law enforcement,'' he said in a recent interview. "We don't have any regulations or laws that don't permit us to use them.''
The Mexican drones are far smaller than the large military Predator drones the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agency has deployed along the border. The Border Patrol is one of the only agencies aside from the military allowed by the Federal Aviation Administration to fly unmanned aircraft. A recent report by the Electronic Frontier Foundation said the Border Patrol flew 687 surveillance missions on behalf of other agencies, some of them police, from 2010 to 2012.
While the United States develops its drone laws, the experiment on its doorstep offers a glimpse of how domestic police could soon use the technology if permitted.
Tijuana's drones are off-the-shelf commercial units produced by 3D Robotics, a company with offices in Tijuana and the USA. They are equipped with video cameras and night-vision capability. The company confirmed the deal but offered few specifics.
"We sell an open source platform that is being used for a variety of innovative applications, but we remain agnostic on how our technology is being used,'' company spokeswoman Sue Rosenstock said.
Small enough to rest on a desktop, the drones have eight propellers and battery capacity allowing them to fly about 20 minutes at a time, Lares said. He said Tijuana police can fly them at altitudes over 1,300 feet – well above the 400-foot limit the Federal Aviation Administration has imposed for most U.S. domestic drones.
They can be piloted remotely by officers on the ground and can be programmed to fly in an automated route, he said. They beam live video images to the police command and control center in the Zona Rio section of the city, where staff monitor a giant bank of video screens with images from approximately 600 stationary surveillance cameras located around the city. Police store and keep the drones' digital imagery for possible review as well, he said.
They are used to patrol targeted high-crime areas, such as neighborhoods where burglaries and car thefts are common, and in areas where tourists frequent, such as Avenida Revolucion, the main tourism boulevard in Zona Centro, or downtown Tijuana, he said. Tijuana wants to use drones as a force multiplier for its officers.
"Right now, our No. 1 concern is house burglaries,'' Lares said. "Definitely we're going to use the drones to help us out. Eyes in sky – it's like having 20 officers on patrol or more.''
The small drones are relatively inexpensive, meaning cost is not an obstacle even for a force where staffing and salaries are smaller than in the USA. Lares said his force pays about $12,000 for the hardware, spare parts, enhanced batteries and a year's worth of maintenance and repair by the vendor. He has at least four officers assigned to operate the drones.
Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst and privacy expert with the American Civil Liberties Union, said U.S. police need written authorization from the FAA to fly a drone and must follow strict limitations, including flying below 400 feet above ground and operating in daylight only. He said only a few police agencies have pioneered drone use, such as Miami-Dade police, in limited experiments or specific missions.
He said pressure is mounting on both sides of the issue, from privacy advocates who want limits on drone use to police who want them as crime-fighting tools. Since last year, 43 states have considered legislation that would limit drone use, and nine states have enacted laws, Stanley said.
"We're in the very early days of drone deployments, but Congress has ordered the FAA to loosen the rules to make it much easier for police departments and others to fly drones,'' he said.
"There are a lot of privacy issues that can come up,'' he said. "The big concern is that we not find drones being used for pervasive suspicion-less surveillance of everyone all the time.''
Lares said the drones are effective at helping police keep an eye on crime. He said they could even be used to watch police officers if they are suspected of corruption or shaking down citizens.
He said no one has raised objections to his force's use of drones.
"It's going to help me out,'' he said. "Even the bad guys ... they're going to know now there's something in the air that might be watching them.
"It's a big advantage,'' he said. "It may be a small step in community policing, but it's huge for our future.''
Follow @WilliamMWelch on Twitter.
SHARE 231 CONNECTEMAILMORE
