Drones Will Fill the Skies and Peer Through Our Roofs, Says Congressional Report



It's easy to get the impression that nobody in government gives a damn about our privacy. After all, our glorious elected representatives happily brush off any concerns we might raise about TSA agents pawing through our stuff and touching us in places that our mothers told us were supposed to remain unsullied by the hands of strangers. Those same tribunes of the people just signed off on a five-year renewal for the FISA Amendments Act, which lets the feds spy on us on a just-trust-us basis. But the prospect of a future sky crowded with flying robo-snoops is apparently still able to rouse a shiver of dread in even the occasional jaded bureaucrat. At least, the Congressional Research Service recently issued a report fretting about the threats to our much-battered privacy posed by using drones in domestic surveillance.

In Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations: Fourth Amendment Implications and Legislative Responses (PDF), Richard M. Thompson II, a legislative attorney, warns us that drones are on the verge of being a very big deal, indeed:

Although relatively few drones are currently flown over U.S. soil, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) predicts that 30,000 drones will fill the nation's skies in less than 20 years.

These drones of the future "can be as small as an insect and as large as a traditional jet" and it isn't really clear yet how sticking cameras on flying robots and sending them into the sky to look at us in our sun-bathing glory on our patios — or to examine the contents of our gardens — really fits into the law.

While individuals can expect substantial protections against warrantless government intrusions into their homes, the Fourth Amendment offers less robust restrictions upon government surveillance occurring in public places and perhaps even less in areas immediately outside the home, such as in driveways or backyards.

That we're not yet sure of the legal limits on these things is a big deal, because they're getting ever-more robo-snoopy even as they become more common. Thompson points out that "UAVs carry high-megapixel cameras and thermal imaging, and will soon have the capacity to see through walls and ceilings." This kind of high-tech surveillance, beyond the ability of unaided human senses, is likely to invoke extra court scrutiny and require a warrant.

License-plate readers and facial-recognition technology raise similar concerns, but may not be resolved the same way in terms of Fourth Amendment protection since they essentially automate what people can already do, even if they make it a hell of a lot more efficient. Both are relatively uncharted legal territory even when not attached to drones.

Thompson suggests that increasing drone use could well erode what judges would consider a reasonable expectation of privacy. That is, if drones become common, we might be asked to assume that we're under surveillance with no warrant required. And they're not just likely to become common, but permanent.

[D]efense firm Lockheed Martin's Stalker—a small, electrically powered drone—can be recharged from the ground using a laser. It now has a flight time of more than 48 hours. As this technology advances, it is reported that some drones could theoretically "stay in the air forever."

Basically, drones are becoming more complex, more common and much more intrusive, and so raise a whole host of privacy concerns that the courts have yet to address, and the resolutions of which we can't hope to predict. Until lawmakers or judges weigh in, make friends with your inner exhibitionist — and give the sky a smile and a wave.

NEXT: Anthony Randazzo on How Quantitative Easing Helps Wall Street and Soaks the Rest of Us

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.

  1. While individuals can expect substantial protections against warrantless government intrusions into their homes,

    So long as you can show that such protections are necessary to prevent a chilling effect on your free speech, anyway.

    1. Fuck it. I’m tired of the government crapping all over my rights. Let’s develop more freedom-protecting technology. Like anti-drone drones.

      1. My anti-drone drone is a Browning 12 gauge.

        1. See, this is what libertarian organizations like the Kochs should be doing. Funding autonomous liberty-protecting equipment. Anonymously, of course. So the country would be full of devices that would independently protect the liberty of those in their range. No agent of government would be safe–not cops, not dog-catchers, not teachers, not hunter-killer drones.

  2. As small as an insect, huh? Well, technically a Goliath beetle is an insect, so I suppose that’s right.

  3. If you’re not doing anything [whatever various agents of the state who are interpreting our copious legislation and regulation consider] wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

  4. Reminds me of my time in E Berlin and Prague in 1984. Cameras in the hotel hallways and the rooms.

  5. Waiting for our courts to protect our freedoms is foolish.

    The federal case in which the judge threatened a civil defendant with “death” in a civil lawsuit and seized all of his possessions, without any notice or hearing is still pending a decision from the appeals court. So far, all of the defendant’s requests to the appeals courts have been denied. If this is upheld, the common law will be very much changed and the fourth amendment will be quite meaningless.

    http://LawInjustice.com/ has details about this disturbing case and some quotes from the judge:

    THE COURT: “I’m telling you don’t screw with me. You are a fool, a fool, a fool, a fool to screw with a federal judge, and if you don’t understand that, I can make you understand it. I have the force of the Navy, Army, Marines and Navy behind me.”

    THE COURT: “You realize that order is an order of the Court. So any failure to comply with that order is contempt, punishable by lots of dollars, punishable by possible jail, death”

    It’ hard to believe, but this really is true

  6. With the usual government incompetence it will be more like Britain where they have millions of cameras watching everything but nowhere near enough people to watch the monitors. Except with the US drone version they will also not have enough people watching to make sure the drone don’t crash.

  7. Though I certainly agree with the spirit of the argument (even the basic idea of drones fucking suck balls), I must point out that using thermal imaging was labeled unconstitutional years ago.

    We’re right to fear drones for surveillance, and to discuss, very openly, about these things. But scaremongering with falsehoods is NOT the way to go. It’s no better when we do it.

    1. Noting what they carry isn’t really “scaremongering”. And considering what our government does that is unconstitutional, I wouldn’t put it past some bureaucrats (though certainly not all of them) to use it anyway.

    2. Thermal imaging was never declared unconstitutional. It does, however, require a warrant on the basis that it uses abilities beyond those of normal human senses.

      1. It does, however, require a warrant…

        For now.

      2. it uses abilities beyond those of normal human senses….

        For now.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.