posted on December 21, 2002 09:20:48 AM newUse of drones in domestic surveillance advocated
WASHINGTON -- Impressed with the success of pilotless aircraft in the U.S. attack
on Afghanistan, some officials want to explore whether they can help patrol the
borders or catch drug traffickers and terrorists inside America.
But while Americans marveled at the use of the lethal drones to spot and sometimes
destroy targets during Operation Enduring Freedom, they might be less excited about
having a government eye-in-the-sky looking over their shoulders, some critics warned.
Still, several lawmakers are ready to move forward.
"I have long supported the use of unmanned aerial vehicles by the U.S. military, and I
believe that the potential applications for this technology in the area of homeland
defense are quite compelling," said Sen. John Warner, R-Va. "In this day of
unprecedented threats against our nation, it is vital that we use all tools available to
protect our nation against terrorist attack," he said.
Warner said he would ask President Bush to order a study of how UAVs, or drones,
could be used by domestic federal agencies without "unduly sacrificing the privacy
rights of our citizens."
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., a strong advocate of tougher control on illegal
immigration, is even more enthusiastic about the use of drones.
"I think they can be tremendously effective in helping to stop illegal immigration into
this country," he said. "They can also be a great weapon against drugs smuggled into
the country."
Officials are not yet set on using any particular type of drone; manufacturers make
them with varying capacities. But Tancredo said using drones -- with the military at
the controls -- could help, "address the old canard that the borders are too long and
extensive and we don't have the resources to effectively police them."
Bush administration officials were noncommittal about the prospect of widespread use
of drones inside the United States, either under military supervision or in the hands of
civilian law enforcement.
A spokesman for the White House Office of Homeland Security said Director Tom
Ridge would not comment on the issue at least until after the office transitioned into
the new, Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security early next year.
One White House anti-drug official said, "We'd love to see the UAVs involved in
helping stop drugs from crossing the border. But the fact is, the ones that are out
there are being grabbed up by the military right now."
Drones have some attractive capabilities for assignments like patrolling a remote
section of the border, or being an airborne sentinel guarding pipelines, reservoirs or
power plants from sabotage by terrorists, supporters contend.
They can hover for hours or days over an area without risk of pilot fatigue. Their
eyes -- video cameras -- are able to give a fairly clear picture of activity on the ground
at an altitude of 25,000 feet or more. One experimental drone called the Global Hawk
flies at 66,000 feet.
But having an unmanned aircraft that surreptitiously can monitor people has a creepy,
Orwellian feel to some experts on privacy issues.
Wayne Crews, of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington, said, "We
have arrived at that eye-in-the-sky that people instinctively fear. This is an area where
we have to tread very carefully."
The fear of Crews and others is that the use of drones will become commonplace and
law enforcement agencies will use them in ways that violate Fourth Amendment
protections against unwarranted searches.
"I believe it crosses that line as soon as a person can be identified and is tracked
without probable cause to do so," he said. "At some point, this is more than just a
high-tech cop on a new kind of souped-up beat. If somebody was scoping out a
particular home or neighborhood, that would be a problem."
Advocates of the use of drones like Tancredo say there is little difference in using an
unmanned drone for law enforcement and using satellites, fixed-wing aircraft,
helicopters or even a federal officer in a concealed vehicle watching through
binoculars.
Early model drones have been used in a limited way for drug interdiction efforts along
the U.S. borders for several years, mostly as part of operations like the Joint Task
Force 6 in which the military conducts anti-drug missions and training exercises.
Among the federal agencies involved in JTF-6 operations using aerial drones is the
Border Patrol, said spokesman Mario Villarreal.
"We have done a couple of these operations along the southwest border. We have
used them in Texas," he said.
So far, each time drones have been used, they have been operated by military
personnel, Villarreal said. "The Border Patrol does not utilize them on a daily or
ongoing basis."
Tancredo witnessed an operation in northern Idaho in August in which a Pioneer
drone -- a small UAV that flies relatively low and makes a distinctive "lawn mower"
type sound -- gave its U.S. Marine operators a video bead on some suspicious
vehicles making an unauthorized crossing.
The Marines alerted local law enforcement authorities and U.S. Border Patrol and
Forestry Service officers. Two people were arrested with about 100 pounds of
premium-grade marijuana.
Such limited operations involving drones have been going on for at least a decade,
said Brad Brown, president of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems
International, located in northern Virginia.
Brown said the industry is seeing growing interest from federal law enforcement and
intelligence agencies in using the unmanned aerial surveillance systems.
"There aren't any contracts yet, but some of the sub-agencies within the Homeland
Security department are looking into them," he said.
For the drones to be used inside the United States., some issues would have to be
resolved, experts said.
Brown concedes that the designs of the aircraft "do not come close to meeting FAA
standards for flying over populated areas. That is what helps keep the price down."
And current Federal Aviation Administration regulations would forbid the use of the
aerial drones anywhere near the flight paths of manned aircraft.
Also, industry officials concede that buying just a few of the drones might not prove
all that cost-effective for agencies, compared to just using fixed-wing aircraft or
helicopters for surveillance missions.
The Predator that the CIA used to lethal effect in Afghanistan and Yemen costs just
under $1 million. Some systems, like one drone called the Shadow, are less expensive
-- around $350,000. But all require a well-trained crew to be effective, which adds to
the cost of operation.
Right now, the Predator drones and others with high-tech capabilities like the
Shadow, are being snapped up by the military.
But Brown said manufacturers within a couple of years could meet the demand of
federal law enforcement agencies -- should such a demand develop.
Tancredo said there was no need to wait for civilian agencies to acquire the drones.
He wants them deployed with military units along the borders.
"We don't have time to bring a new agency (Homeland Security) on line with tactics
and training. We should get the military involved with their equipment," he said.
posted on December 21, 2002 02:26:03 PM new
Weel, geez! Just tink! If Dumbo Daddy's spook buddies had been more interested in national security as opposed to interfering in a national election, basically wiping their brains with the Constitition, Dumbo Jr wouldn't be entertaining his Orwellian eroticisms!
posted on December 21, 2002 02:56:57 PM new
We already have similar types of devices in use. Most cities now have "traffic" cameras all over town which the police regularly check when crimes are in progress or after the fact to see license plates of vehicles in the vicinity. Police Helicopters also survey with heat sensitive cameras.
There was also a court case out of I think Oregon in which the police used a heat sensitive (infrared) camera to get probable cause to search a pot grow house. So far the courts have ruled that using the camera is not an invaision of the home.
"Unmanned" is also a misnomer for these devices. The better term would be remotely controlled/manned devices.
Alvin Toffler has a good book about these devices- I think it is called "War and Anti-War".
The remote controlled drones we are now aware of are the tip of the ice berg.
posted on December 21, 2002 04:12:12 PM new
From Rogue State
By William Blum
"Like a mammoth vacuum cleaner in the sky, the National Security Agency sucks it all up: fax, home phone, cellular phone, email, telex...satellite transmissions, fiber-optic communications traffic, microwave links...voice, text, images...if it runs on electromagnetic energy, NSA is there witb high, high tech. Seven days a week, twenty four hours a day. Perhaps billions of messages sucked up each day. Who knows how many? No one escapes. Not presidents, prime ministers, the UN Secretary General, the pope, the Queen of England , transnational corporation CEOs, friend, foe, your Aunt Lena...if god has a phone, it's being monitored...maybe your dog isn't being tapped. The oceans will not protect you, American submarines have been attaching tapping pods to deep underwater cables for decades"
posted on December 21, 2002 05:30:27 PM new
Not all of these pods are wizzing by at 10,000 foot.
The Israelis have model airplane size craft that hovers like a helicopter and are invisible against a bright sky from a few hundred feet away and can hover almost without sound low enough to peer in the windows of buildings. You can be sure they will trade the technology for something the US has.
The are useful in urban areas and have a light on a boom underneath that shines on the bottom just bright enough to make them match the blue sky.
How would you like one hovering outside your home or business reading the radiation your computer gives off keystroke by keystroke, or literally evesdropping on you with a sensitive microphone?
