In a 1998 piece for
Harper’s titled “Goodbye to All That: Why Americans Are
Not Taught History,” Christopher Hitchens juxtaposed dystopia, as
imagined in George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous Huxley’s
Brave New World. Hitchens, who authored several articles
on Huxley and a book on Orwell, distinguished Orwell’s “house of
horrors” that strained “credulity” from Huxley’s ability to augur a
frighteningly “painless, amusement-sodden, and stress-free
consensus.”
Both texts describe variant species of social stricture, and the
abuse of technology to control thoughts, minds, and the spiritual
evolution of our collective conscience. But Orwell and Huxley
render alternate visions of coercion — 1984 foreshadowed
a world of fear and active repression, whereas Brave New
World imagined social adherence, bought through gratification.
For Orwell, “who controls the past controls the future.” Huxley’s
message was much simpler: “History is bunk.” Contentment bred
stability, knowledge of the past was edited, and people were unable
to compare the present with any other time.
In Brave New World you find no hint of the Big Brother
that haunted the Orwellian nightmare state. However, when Huxley’s
protagonist, Bernard Marx, visits his friend and fellow Alpha,
Helmhotz Watson, there is a moment when both men are struck by a
unique foreboding. Marx flings open the door, suspicious that their
conversation is being observed. Of course, there’s nobody there,
but the moment offers a powerful reminder that this brave, new
world is every bit the dystopian dictatorship, where independent
thought and action are actively discouraged.
It’s a familiar feeling — one that I’d guess we’ve all
experienced. The sense that somebody’s watching you. It’s an odd
sensation — you’re somehow more conscious of yourself, but your
movements feel constrained by a subtle pressure. It’s impossible to
describe yet hopeless to ignore. It’s a gut instinct that’s both
creepy and compelling.
We may find we’re getting used to it.
In February, Congress ordered the Federal Aviation Authority to
construct guidelines for the use of domestic drones, acknowledging
a broad increase in surveillance, on the home-front.
Under the new regulations, police and first responders will be
the first to fly small drones over domestic airspace. Within the
next four years, the federal agency is charged with authorizing and
certifying the flight of assorted unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
By the FAA’s own estimates, by 2020, some 30,000 drones, of
various shapes and sizes, may be patrolling America, from
above.
In the March/April 2012 issue of Foreign Policy,
Micah Zenko, of the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote the
following about the potential militarization of our airspace:
As of October, the [FAA] had reportedly issued 285 active
certificates for 85 users, covering 82 drone types. The FAA has
refused to say who received the clearances, but it was estimated
over a year ago that 35 percent were held by the Pentagon, 11
percent by NASA, and 5 percent by the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). And it’s growing. U.S. Customs and Border
Protection already operates eight Predator drones. Under pressure
from the congressional Unmanned Systems
Caucus — yes, there’s already a drone lobby,
with 50 members — two additional Predators were sent to Texas in
the fall…
Up until this point, controversy surrounding drones centered on
the ethics of asymmetrical warfare and concerns as to whether
robotic Hellfire strikes constituted extrajudicial executions under
the Geneva Convention. The elimination of foreign terrorists — and
a handful of U.S. citizens — has been generally received as an
acceptable alternative to “boots on the ground.” Consider the fact
that since 2011, the U.S. Air force has trained more drone pilots
than fighter and bomber pilots combined.
Of course, up until now, UAVs have been recognized as an
instrument of war — an important, impersonal resource in our
global war on terror. Many are aware that, in recent years, Customs
and Border Patrol has also relied on drone surveillance to monitor
our border with Mexico, and prevent illegal immigration and drug
trafficking.
Now, critical questions are being raised about domestic drone
use. First and foremost, how will technology refined on distant
battlefields — and employed in a shadow war against global terror
syndicates and militant client-states — be used at home? It’s hard
to process American skies full of UAVs, whose predatory cousins are
busy performing “decapitation” strikes in the AF/PAK.
High profile drone strikes of the sort that killed al Qaeda’s
American-born talent scout, Anwar al-Alwaki, aren’t the norm. The
vast majority of unmanned flight time is spent gathering
intelligence, performing surveillance and carrying out
reconnaissance. In military jargon, this is termed “ISR” —
shorthand for those missions that are too “dull, dirty, or
dangerous” for manned aircraft.
For some, this portends serious privacy concerns. Americans are
understandably alarmed by the threat of a surveillance state,
relentlessly monitored by flying robots — some, no bigger than a
hummingbird, others large enough to carry heavy ordnance. In an age
when our expectations of privacy seem increasingly flimsy, drone
technology appears poised to dramatically, and invasively, increase
the government’s ability to breech your bubble.
Americans are just now waking up to this unpleasant reality.
As the Cato Institute’s Gene Healy explained to me, billions of
dollars invested in the NSA data-mining regime represents a pretty
severe threat to American privacy. But that menace remains fairly
abstract. Not so, suggests Healy, when you learn “the government
has eyes in the sky that perch undetected over your house.”
Some drones fly for days at a time. Others are so small and
efficient they can be powered by household batteries. Highly
sophisticated camera technology collects a constant stream of
surveillance footage. The reason local law enforcement doesn’t keep
a camera on every street corner is that it’s expensive — drones
dramatically lower the opportunity cost of state supervision.
In other words, it would be difficult to envision a more
efficient, cost-effective instrument of state surveillance. And
don’t forget — we should assume our privacy protection laws run a
step behind technological change.
So is this the stuff of science fiction? Or is it simply a
contemporary rendering of the East German police state — absent
human informers — but boasting a similarly advanced network of
spy-cameras, now mechanized and airborne?
Back in April, I corresponded with Ryan Calo — Director for
Privacy and Robotics for the Center for Internet and Society at
Stanford University and incoming professor of law at the University
of Washington. He warned the following, with respect to the
evolving FAA mandate and presumptions about the security of your
privacy:
The Federal Aviation Administration has historically focused on
safety. But this does not mean that the FAA cannot solicit
comment on privacy. Other federal agencies—-for instance,
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration—-routinely take
into account a wide variety of social and legal hurdles to the
deployment of new technologies. And the new law charges the
FAA specifically with determining the impact of drones on national
security. My hope is that the FAA will respond to the recent
petitions and look into the privacy concerns the domestic use of
drones by government clearly raise. If the FAA doesn’t, who
will?
In response to these concerns, a bipartisan pair of
Congressional lawmakers — Reps. Joe Barton (R-Texas) and Edward
Markey (D-Mass.) — pressed acting FAA Administrator, Michael
Huerta, to demonstrate how it plans to protect the privacy of
American citizens if drone use increases. As of press time, the
agency had not responded, although the FAA is continuing with plans
to fully integrate unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) into our
friendly skies.
Absent FAA riposte (and with a tip of the hat to Healy’s June 12
column
in the Washington Examiner) consider that the Senate Armed
Services Committee called for drones to fly “freely and routinely”
about American airspace in its recent 2013 Defense Authorization
bill.
The potential damage to personal privacy prompted a hasty reply
in Congress. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and Congressman Austin Scott
(R-GA) took immediate and appropriate action to define the terms
and temperament of drone surveillance.
Sen. Paul told me the following:
As technology advances, we have to make sure it still complies
with our Constitution. The Fourth Amendment clearly covers
something like spying from above without a warrant. While law
enforcement may want to advance their capabilities, they still must
square them with our rights as citizens.
Sen. Paul’s bill would prohibit the gratuitous use of drones by
the government, except when a warrant is issued for its use in
accordance with the Fourth Amendment.
Remember, the trick with drones is it’s difficult to assert
privacy. You don’t enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy in a
public places, where your face, your car, and your family are
already visible to everyone. Drones do not involve “unreasonable
searches and seizures,” to quote the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme
Court has recognized that surveillance, in plain view, isn’t
“unreasonable” — it isn’t even a “search.” However, a major uptick
in the use of police drones might force the Supreme Court to
re-examine how much police surveillance is too much police
surveillance.
Rep. Scott communicated a similar message as Sen. Paul, but
raised an interesting and important point about the potential
payback of domestic drones.
As he explained:
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.
