[Vision2020] Rise of Drones in U.S. Drives Efforts to Limit Police Use

[Art Deco]

  [image: The New York Times] <http://www.nytimes.com/>

------------------------------
February 15, 2013
Rise of Drones in U.S. Drives Efforts to Limit Police Use By SOMINI
SENGUPTA<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/somini_sengupta/index.html>

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<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/unmanned_aerial_vehicles/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>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 proscribe 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<http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/press/newsdetail.asp?ID=13397>.
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<http://poe.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8977:the-drones-are-coming-page-ii&catid=102:speeches&Itemid=1>introduced
a bill that would prohibit drones from conducting what it called
“targeted surveillance” of individuals and property without a warrant.

A federal law<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/technology/drones-with-an-eye-on-the-public-cleared-to-fly.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>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 Services 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<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_aviation_administration/index.html?inline=nyt-org>has
received about 80 requests, including some from police and other
government agencies, for clearance to fly drones, according to a Freedom of
Information Act request
filed<http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/faa-releases-new-list-drone-authorizations-your-local-law-enforcement-agency-map>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<http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?131+sum+HB2012>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 <http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/1r/bills/hb2574p.pdf> is among
them. So is Montana <http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2013/billhtml/SB0196.htm>.
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 by advocacy
groups<http://epic.org/privacy/drones/FAA-553e-Petition-03-08-12.pdf>,
it said it would invite public comment on privacy protections in those
sites.

The agency <https://faaco.faa.gov/index.cfm/announcement/view/13143>estimates
that the worldwide drone market could grow to $90 billion in the
next decade.


-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130216/2a426cc6/attachment.html>