-
In Defense of Mark Sanford
May 2, 2013 | 142 comments
-
Rand’s Real Reachout
April 11, 2013 | 83 comments
-
Syria Post-Libya
June 6, 2012 | 49 comments
-
Cyber-Cataclysm Prevention
March 28, 2012 | 11 comments
-
The Curious Case of Craig Benedict Baxam
January 26, 2012 | 49 comments
Special Report
Drone Coming
The growing use of domestic drones is setting off alarms — justifiably?
(Page 3 of 3)
Drones are an effective and necessary technology for both our military and law enforcement. As drone technology advances, I expect the use of drones will expand as well. However, we must get out in front on this issue so that the use of new drone technology is consistent with the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which protects American citizens against unreasonable search and seizure.
In other words, drones can and will prove a cost-effective solution to niche needs, if employed in a responsible manner. Writing for Wired, Noah Schachtmann details the brighter side of drones — as cost-efficient utility maximizers that quietly, cheaply, and cleanly assist a spectrum of private industries. For instance, one might not assume that a farmer monitoring his wheat fields for nitrogen deprivation might employ a UAV not unlike the sort that’s currently patrolling Helmand Province in Afghanistan. Weather monitoring, search and rescue, border patrol, et cetera, present “best practices” for drone use. However, we must remain vigilant.
Again, quoting CFR’s resident drone-savant Micah Zenko:
…if there is anything to be learned from America’s use of drones abroad, it is that mission creep follows. Once security forces have access to the near real-time video and radar surveillance that drones can provide, they become addicted — and subsequently develop new missions for how drones can be used.
So, while it would be alarmist to conflate drones abroad with drones at home, a healthy skepticism at the advent of their domestic employment will limit potential invasions of privacy down the road.
Likewise, let us beware spoon-fed “security” narratives lest we find ourselves living in a brave, new world. And if you get the feeling somebody’s watching you, you’re probably right.
About the Author
Reid Smith is a staff writer and editor at FreedomWorks.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (45) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Reid Smith
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/10/drone-coming
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Gabby Giffords Poisons the Well
- Yes, It Can!—Maybe
- Revenge of the Fruitcakes
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
aware| 7.10.12 @ 6:29AM
Another layer, like DUI checkpoints and TSA gropings, in training us to obey. The uniformed thugs of the State will get their drones and the Mundanes will learn to like it. Between the war on drugs and the war on terror the last wisps of the constitution are swept away under the pretense of "protecting" us.
DTOM| 7.10.12 @ 7:59AM
Wasn't it Ben Franklin who said:
"He who trades freedom for security, will soon have neither..."
Welcome to NeitherLand, America.
Don't Tread On Me!
Occam's Tool| 7.10.12 @ 2:47PM
You know, if you want me to be an alpha plus, keep me in perfect health until age 70 and then let me die quickly and painlessly, all while letting me screw a different version of Katy Perry every night in a no strings attached relationship while satisfying my every flatscreen whim and other desire for toys, I might go for Brave New World.
The problem is that 1) it is an ultimately meaningless life, and 2) it is far more likely to be Orwellian rather than Huxleyan if we go full surveillance.
wombat1| 7.10.12 @ 6:33AM
Our police are becoming militarized, government is all but unaccountable to voters or to anyone else. And now the same crowd that gropes Grandma in the airport and shoots your dog on general principles while raiding the wrong address, is going to get a private air force?
But hey, we're just getting started. Wait 'til The Folks Who Know Best have a snooper overhead checking if you buy too much butter or use too much gasoline or have your air conditioner on when they think you shouldn't. Or read the wrong books, or vote for the wrong people, or hunt or fish, or...
" 1984" wasn't the half of it.
Appleby| 7.10.12 @ 6:41AM
One big advantage of drones is that they can be operated by teenagers who have no particular problem with spying on other people -- having those two inch screens welded to their hands day and night with which they both spy and are spied upon remorselessly. Here in Canada where people shriek unceasingly that they would rather die a horrible death (or, more correctly, they'd rather their neighbours died a horrible death) than have their sleep disturbed by helicopters, drones that make no sound will be welcomed. In the USA I picture them used to catch people smoking cigarettes or drinking Big Gulps, or possibly disciplining their children.
As for Brave New World, if you haven't read it, it's time to get a copy. And not a Kindle copy which is probably sanitized for your protection; ask your Gran for her paper copy. If you can't read an entire book, turn to the pages where Mustapha Mond explains to John Savage how the system was set up and why.
Occam's Tool| 7.10.12 @ 2:48PM
Love the "anthrax" bombs, Appleby. The Kindle version isn't sanitized, by the way.
Bob K| 7.10.12 @ 7:00AM
How will this technology "refined" on distant battlefields work here at home?
Probably the same way it is working in our wars in the Near East where we are getting our technologically superior asses whipped by half educated peasants using AK 47s made in cottage industries and road bombs made in kitchens!
"Ethics" of asymmetrical warfare indeed! As if any warfare had ethics!
If you write political speeches like you write your political columns, Mr. Smith, your clients are doomed!
And since you are reading Orwell, Mr. Smith, why don't you review his essay on "Politics and the English Language?"
Gary B| 7.10.12 @ 7:56AM
Cops are already immune from prosecution when they kick in the wrong door at 3am, shoot up the place and kill innocent people. Why should they worry about flying a drone anywhere they please?
One state - I forgot which one - has passed a law allowing citizens to shoot back in the 3am scenario described above. The cops, of course, are angry about that.
In many ways Americans finally waking up and returning fire, so to speak. The ruling class doesn't like it one bit.
Albertus Magnus| 7.10.12 @ 10:43AM
I am sure it was NOT California. Cameras, drones, and criminals are welcomed here.
OP4| 7.10.12 @ 8:25AM
I had a good laugh at the British when they set up surveillance cameras everywhere. Now we don't even have to be in a city to have the state constantly spying on us.
Maybe Republicans will wake up, drop their big-government types, and embrace small government Libertarians like the Paul's. Current events have convinced me.
Bob K| 7.10.12 @ 8:29AM
Let's get back to "asymmetrical warfare" where drones are used "ethically" as part of our Wilsonian Foreign Policy to "make the world safe for democracy."
We strike with them at a distance , like a sniper in hiding, to remove those half a world away who object to the establishment of democracy in their countries. While here in our own country we "ethically" promote their use to use help destroy our own democracy.
Is it too long a stretch to conclude that we are at war with ourselves?
THKrupp| 7.10.12 @ 8:55AM
Why are drones any different from manned aircraft when used for surveillance? I would think that the same rules and regulations would apply? The government has been using air surveillance for years. The only difference between the two is that the drone is much cheaper to operate.
Stuart Koehl| 7.10.12 @ 5:37PM
They aren't. See my post below. In many ways, manned aircraft are a greater threat to privacy than drones, because a human being can surveil a very large area quickly, while the sensors on a UAV can only cover a very narrow area.
Bob K| 7.10.12 @ 9:04AM
"Millions of people, ........... have become accustomed to deriving their livelihood from the military-industrial complex. Thousands of firms have become dependent on it, not to mention labor unions and communities. ............. . An elaborate and unhealthy bond has been created between those who manufacture and sell armaments and those in Washington who buy them." ............ .
It sometimes seems to me that those of us not involved in this great military-industrial enterprise are in danger of becoming, in the figurative sense, a nation of camp followers, like the pathetic civilian stragglers who trailed along behind the European armies of earlier centuries in the hopes of picking up remnants from the relative abundance of military resources ........ "
"At A Century's Ending--Refections 1982-1995"
George F. Kennan. 1984 essay; American Democracy and Foreign Policy. From his 2nd Lecture at Grinnell College.
Bob K| 7.10.12 @ 9:20AM
As you can see from the above; just as our Foreign Policy cannot be separated from our Domestic Policies neither can the economic results and consequences of it not have effects on the management of our own Republic!
JimH| 7.10.12 @ 9:35AM
How low do these drones have fly to be to be effective? I can foresee all kinds of new amusements for our young and others as they shoot them down, hack into the controls and otherwise annoy Big Brother.
Albertus Magnus| 7.10.12 @ 10:46AM
Big Brother does not like to be annoyed and won't stay that way for long. One can envision such playful youngsters being swooped down upon by SWAT teams from helicopters and cattle cars, dragging kids in chains off to jail for "tampering with government property."
Drunken Sailor| 7.10.12 @ 4:01PM
WOLVERINES!!
Butch| 7.10.12 @ 5:32PM
In fact, I saw a TV news segment about a U. of Texas prof and his students who successfully hacked into a drone. They can not only bring it down, they can take it over and control it. Sounds like a fertile ground for a future generation of terrorists.
J.C.Eaton| 7.10.12 @ 11:00AM
Why should Customs and Border Protection, and for that matter, Homeland Security need ANY drones? Our Fearless[and feckless ]leader fights illegals detection, detention, interrogation, and inconveniencing. Who the hell are these agencies after?
Albertus Magnus| 7.10.12 @ 11:06AM
Us. The Law Abiding Citizen. The TaxPAYER. The people who want to live free and not be dependent on government. That government can promote illegal immigration on one hand and buy expensive drones on the other hand (ostensibly to "fight" illegal immigration, but it will never actually effectively use it for that purpose) is a racket. Like the glaser who throws bricks at night and collects insurance money by day. This is our government.
MK48| 7.10.12 @ 11:38AM
Albert.......bricks leave finger prints ICE doesn't.
chemman| 7.10.12 @ 5:20PM
The drones on the border are for PR. They may spot traffic (drug couriers, etc.) crossing the border but by the time Border Patrol gets feet on the ground the targets are long gone.
Albertus Magnus| 7.10.12 @ 11:00AM
At one time in the past a person could be secure behind fences or doors. Surveillance was two-dimensional. Drones can hover and observe over fences, rendering one's private property no longer secure. Would this not be a 4th Amendment violation? With various sensor technologies, drones can also "see" and "hear" through walls and roofs, accurately observing what's going on inside. Since the drone is just hovering and "looking", is this too no longer a 4th Amendment violation? How far does this go? Do we have any rights anymore?
The solution to this is simple. Get a WARRANT! If domestic law enforcement cannot legitimately obtain a 4th Amendment compliant search warrant issued by a court of law, then keep those damn drones in the garage.
Drones in the hands of domestic law enforcement are like armored cars, expensive toys. Great for parades and show-and-tell, but of little practical use unless law enforcement wants to hire thousands of camera watchers looking for something "suspicious." But then with today's PC culture ("PC" as in Personal Computer), staring at computer monitors is probably the most widely shared skill in the general population. Recruitment would be easy.
Government is out of hand. The greatest reason we have high rates of crime is because government releases criminals. If government did its actual job on the one hand, putting criminals away and keeping them there, drones and street cameras would not exist.
THKrupp| 7.10.12 @ 11:28AM
I would think that any restrictions of manned arial surveillance would apply to unmanned surveillance. Just because it doesnt have a pilot really doesnt change any of the rules. The Government has been using arial surveillance for years...same rules should apply..unless there is something Im missing
Stuart Koehl| 7.10.12 @ 5:36PM
Aerial surveillance, if you please.
THKrupp| 7.11.12 @ 11:42AM
Sorry, my spelling is not the best
Stuart Koehl| 7.12.12 @ 9:20AM
Well, Arial is a girl I know, and I don't think she wants people looking at her all the time.
MelvinNC| 7.10.12 @ 11:04AM
Click it or tick it huh? "May I see your drivers license and registration please." "But I thought we were just getting stopped to see if we are using our seat-belts?" "Sir, pull over there then step out of the car and back-step towards me with your hands above your shoulders. " "I'm wearing my seat belt you can see that, so let me drive on!" "Request backup, inspection point number #4." Yelling now, "!!!!Sir, please pull over to the designated area turn the vehicle off and put it in park, open the door step outside and walk backwards with your hands above your shoulders!!!! "Butttttttt," Zzzzzztttt, Zzzzzzzztt "Why are my muscles acting like this, I just peed on myself? Hey your hurting me, I can't breath someones knee is pressing on my back, I can't breath. Please someone help me." "You people there, drive on please, nothing to see here."
"Boy, that what put up a fight didn't he?" Cops high-five each other. "yea, did you see him pee on himself when I taesed him?"
We are not turning into a fascist state, we have been one for a very long time now.
DRed| 7.10.12 @ 3:05PM
Yeah, but we had to give up all those liberties to win the war on drugs.
Citizen Jerry| 7.10.12 @ 2:39PM
"The Fourth Amendment clearly covers something like spying from above without a warrant?" Since when has the Constitution even showed down this current regime?
It makes me wonder, if more and more drones are sent skyward to watch us, how long will it take for some enterprising freedom lover to develop a makeshift surface-to-air missile? Just a thought.
Conservative Bob| 7.10.12 @ 3:21PM
I was actually thinking how fun it would be to fly a model airplane in mock air to air combat... maybe equipped to deploy a chute or net when flown in proper proximity to the oposition. No fear of over penetration as with a missile or other projectile. The invading force just falls to the gound once entangled.
I can see this as a whole new sport with father son teams, father daughter teams.. hell whole neighborhoods could get into this...
How man drones do yuo have to take out to be considered an ACE?
Harry the Horrible| 7.10.12 @ 3:36PM
To heck with that. I was wondering if the range would be short enough for a shotgun, or if I needed a scope for the Mauser...
Drunken Sailor| 7.10.12 @ 4:03PM
Might be fun archery practice. Maybe we should take up bola's?
Conservative Bob| 7.10.12 @ 4:15PM
I was reading somewhere that these things fly pretty high which is why I thought I might need a plane. If they fly at 5000 + ft they are out of range of most rifles. I can hit flying targets faily well with a shot gun but the range is 60 yrds or less, that is only 180 ft. IF they fly in shot gun range I am with you, although the challenge of getting a plane up and catching one seems pretty cool.
Albertus Magnus| 7.10.12 @ 4:01PM
I already have a "surface-to-air missile." It's called a 30.06. Very useful for low-flying drones (the mechanical kind, not the Lefties who post their drivel on these pages).
Stuart Koehl| 7.10.12 @ 5:35PM
Hitting a UAVs is a lot harder than you think. For one thing, they probably won't be flying all that low. Tactical UAVs might operate under 1000 feet, but Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) types like Predator and Reaper fly above 20,000 feet, while High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) UAVs like Global Hawk usually fly somewhere between 50-60,000 feet.
Even hitting a low altitude UAV isn't easy, as they are small, hard-to-see moving targets that tend to flit behind trees just as you're lining up a shot. But, while you are wasting ammo on them, please remember what goes up must come down--your errant bullets are more apt to harm innocent people than any government drone.
KyMouse| 7.10.12 @ 3:20PM
"...Hitchens, who authored several articles on Huxley..."
I guess I'm the only person in the galaxy who still says "wrote" instead of "authored." I will say that someone "authored" an article only when I can also say that another person "readered" it.
By the way, who decreed that we must say "issues" instead of "problems"?
Okay, I'll shut up now -- for a while.
chemman| 7.10.12 @ 5:14PM
Indiana is where you are allowed to shoot back.
In the rural area I live a number of old coots have 50 caliber sniper rifles. They just may decide to shoot the d*mn thing down on takeoff or landing when it is at it's most vulnerable. They take great umbrage at those who seek to spy on them when they are on their property. And no they are not marijuana or drug manufacturers. They moved to the area to be left alone by the nanny state.
Stuart Koehl| 7.10.12 @ 5:31PM
This is arrant silliness. Already the police have airplanes and helicopters which are equipped with precisely the same kind of sensors installed on UAVs. Courts have ruled time and again that people out of doors have no reasonable expectation of privacy, and police already use manned air platforms to perform surveillance and tracking missions.
So what is different about UAVs? Well, they're unmanned, so I guess that invokes images of omniscient robots (think Terminator). Yeah, they have longer endurance than a manned platform, so the police won't have to own as many to provide the same coverage they now get from manned aircraft. But that's about it.
In fact, from a general privacy perspective, drones present less of a threat than manned aircraft (let alone your neighbors and their binoculars). A pilot or observer in a manned aircraft can rapidly scan a wide area, using the Mk.1 Eyeball, before focusing in on areas of interest with their gimbaled sensor system (LLTV, FLIR, daylight TV). These typically have very narrow fields of view, so searching an area with them is like looking at the world through the end of a soda straw. To be effective, they either have to patrol a relatively constricted area, or be linked to some sort of cueing system (like a helicopter or airplane with a policeman in it) to tell it where to look.
Stuart Koehl| 7.10.12 @ 5:31PM
And contrary to what you might have heard, there are no infrared sensors that can look through solid walls, let alone the roof of your house to see what you are doing inside.
wombat1| 7.10.12 @ 10:24PM
But total transparency is not necessary to the Nanny state! Recently in the UK ( where else?) a policewoman was called in for questioning because aerial surveillance showed her house was giving off an IR signature resembling a marijuana grow house. As it happened, she just need her roof repaired. But you don't have to be a tinfoil -hatter to foresee a time when a snooper drone finding " unusual" patterns of activity or energy use - hell, using a barbecue!- will trigger a visit, maybe an all out armed raid- from some Commissar or other.
As Kipling said: " fools foretell what knaves will do".
Stuart Koehl| 7.11.12 @ 9:02AM
How does a drone differ from a manned aircraft in that respect? Or even a guy in a squad car with a hand-held infrared scanner? Are y0u going to deny police helicopters, airplanes and even squad cars?
And, as I pointed out, drones, because of their narrow field of view sensors, are not very good for finding "unusual patterns of behavior" unless they already know where to look for such patterns. So, a guy in a squad car or a manned aircraft is much better at that than a drone. Once you find an unusual pattern of behavior, you can have a drone squat over it for a few days, but the drone itself is not likely to find the pattern on its own.
Skippy| 7.10.12 @ 6:54PM
My neighbor plays with RC aircraft.
They are wicked cool!
They are very tricky and techie.
I am sure the RC designer dudes could(and will)come up with designs that can catch one of them there drones.
Stuart Koehl| 7.11.12 @ 9:05AM
And, all you dronophobics, while you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater, consider these either uses for unmanned air vehicles:
1. Aerial mapping and surveying
2. High resolution aerial photography
3. Agricultural and resource monitoring
4. Aerial search and rescue
5. Atmospheric sampling and meteorology
6. Disaster response
7. Communications relay
Unmanned helicopters are already used by the military for resupply and casualty evacuation. In the future, they can be used for both in the civil sector.