Domestic Drones Demonstrate a Need for New Privacy Laws

Technology forged for gathering battlefield intelligence and waging war is coming home—and the powers that be seem pretty blithe about it.

Last week, in its report on the 2013 Defense Authorization bill, the Senate Armed Services Committee called for allowing drones to operate "freely and routinely" in U.S. airspace.

"Large numbers of [UAVs] now deployed overseas may be returned to the United States as the conflict in Afghanistan and operations elsewhere wind down in coming years," the Committee Report read.

Drones "have clearly demonstrated their immense value to DOD military capabilities in the global war on terrorism," and they're increasingly "contributing to missions of agencies and departments within the United States....The pace of development must be accelerated," the report concluded.

Technology forged for gathering battlefield intelligence and waging war against terrorists is coming home—and the powers that be seem pretty blithe about it.

"It's great!" Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell said on WTOP's "Ask the Governor" program last month: "That's why we use [UAVs] on the battlefield .... If you're keeping police officers safe, making it more productive and saving money... it's absolutely the right thing to do."

"Drones are a legitimate form of law enforcement," Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told CNN's Candy Crowley Sunday: "You don't have an expectation of privacy if you're in the open."

True enough: as Stanford Law's Ryan Calo notes, under current law, "citizens do not enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy in public, nor even on the portions of their property visible from a public vantage."

That's a problem. Drone technology dramatically enhances the government's ability to monitor citizens in public places and on their own property—and privacy law hasn't kept pace with technological change.

Law enforcement agencies already have access to some 146 commercial drones—and that may be just the beginning as drones get smaller and more capable.

Defense contractor AeroVironment is perfecting the "Nano Hummingbird," a drone that weighs less than an AA battery and is capable of alighting on a window ledge to record video.

The "Gorgon Stare" system, under development by the Air Force, features a drone-mounted, Argus-eyed camera array designed for full-spectrum surveillance.

"Gorgon Stare will be looking at a whole city, so there will be no way for the adversary to know what we're looking at, and we can see everything," an Air Force officer bragged to the Washington Post. "The Department of Homeland Security is exploring the technology's potential, an industry official said."

Creepy? Sure. But the dystopian fears these metal sentinels provoke might force us to get serious about new legal protections. Privacy violations in the form of massive data mining and the like "tend to be hard to visualize," Stanford's Professor Calo observes. The specter of domestic drones "could be just the visceral jolt society needs to drag privacy law into the 21st century."

Indeed, Americans are becoming increasingly unsettled by this sort of military "mission creep." In February, a Rasmussen poll found voters opposed to the use of drones for domestic surveillance, 52 to 30.

Some legislators are taking note. Last week, Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., introduced a bill to restrict domestic use of drones. His "Preserving Freedom From Unwarranted Surveillance Act" leaves space for legitimate public safety uses of UAVs in "exigent circumstances" like hostage situations or missing person hunts. But it provides that "a person or entity acting under the authority of the United States shall not use a drone to gather evidence or other information except to the extent authorized in a warrant."

That's a start—but we'll need continual vigilance to ensure that technologies developed for foreign wars aren't turned into tools of domestic social control. As James Madison warned at the Constitutional Convention, "The means of defense against foreign danger have always been the instruments of tyranny at home."

Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute, the author of "The Cult of the Presidency," and a columnist at the Washington Examiner, where this article originally appeared

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • sarcasmic||

    "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about."

  • NotSure||

    That can easily be fixed by creating so many laws that everyone can be made a criminal if the politician wishes it so.

  • ||

    Yeah, when our laws are meant to influence behavioral choices rather than maintain rule of law, everyone should be worried about the use of drones by law enforcement, not just criminals. If our laws were actually meant exclusively for preventing people from harming others, then maybe this wouldn't be such a big deal.

  • NotSure||

    This is probably only the beginning, with ever cheaper electronics and ever growing storage capacity, the amount that governments will monitor and track will only get more.

  • Old Bull Lee||

    "Ah, Laserbeak. Unlike some of my other warriors, you never fail me."

  • dan'o||

    California... uber alles

  • Anomalous||

    Is it illegal to destroy a drone that is hovering above your house?

  • ||

    Already quoted this:

    http://www.justice.gov/usao/eo.....m01666.htm

    1666

    Destruction of Government Property—18 U.S.C. § 1361
    Section 1361 protects "any property" of the United States or an agency or department thereof, or any property being manufactured or constructed for the United States or an agency or department thereof, from willful depredation or attempted depredation. "Depredation" has been characterized as the act of plundering, robbing, pillaging or laying waste. United States v. Jenkins, 554 F.2d 783, 786 (6th Cir. 1977); cf. Deal v. United States, 274 U.S. 277, 283 (1927) ("depredation" defined in context of postal statute). This section prohibits actual physical damage or destruction of both real and personal property [...]

  • R C Dean||

    Gorgon Stare

    Somebody has been reading Charles Stross.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Remember:

    This, is happening under a Democratic Party-led administration.

    In other words... own it, liberals.

  • joy||

    Large numbers of [UAVs] now deployed overseas may be returned to the United States as the conflict in Afghanistan and operations elsewhere wind down in coming years," http://www.petwinkel.com/pet-new-era-c-55.html the Committee Report read.

  • ||

    Law enforcement agencies already have access to some 146 commercial drones—and that may be just the beginning as drones get smaller and more capable. http://www.lunettesporto.com/l.....c-3_6.html

    Defense contractor AeroVironment is perfecting the "Nano Hummingbird," a drone that weighs less than an AA battery and is capable of alighting on a window ledge to record video.

  • tee shirt pas cher||

    Selon la fédération d'agriculteurs Coldiretti, environ 400 000 meules de parmesan et de grana padano, un fromage similaire au goût moins prononcé, ont été endommagées ou détruites, causant un préjudice évalué à plus de 250 millions d'euros.

  • kaylanono||

    Longchamp singapore for the largest collection of longchamp le pliage, longchamp tote etc, choose your best love longchamp bags on longchampsingaporebags.com online store.

  • free running shoes||

    The disk may possibly surpass the return to companies pleased customers dress in Nike with new items. It truly is also essentially the most difficult task than other folks can't be completed.

  • bobbean||

    my buddy's mother brought home $17612 past month. she has been making cash on the internet and moved in a $580200 house. All she did was get blessed and profit by the steps shown on this site Nuttyrichdotcom

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement