dronewars.net/aboutdrone
Washington Lawyer/July-August 2013/Drones
www.salon.com/07-26-2013/USGovernmentArguesDroneStakes
www.huffingtonpost.com/09-19-2013/drones in U.S.
DRONES
"DRONES", unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or unmanned aerial systems (UAS), are aircraft either controlled by "pilots" from the ground or increasingly autonomously following a pre-programmed mission. While there are dozens of different types of "drones", these aircraft essentially fall into two categories: (1) those that are used for reconnaissance and surveillance purposes, and (2) those that are armed with bombs and missiles.
The use of drones in the U.S. has grown quickly in recent years because, unlike manned aircrafts, drones can stay aloft (fly) for many more hours than manned aircraft, they are much cheaper than military aircraft to manufacture and operate, and they are flown remotely so there is little to no danger to the flight crew.
Recent revelations that the National Security Agency is engaged in data mining that includes surveillance of U.S. citizens, and that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the U.S. Border Patrol all use drones in domestic airspace have alarmed civil libertarians who regard such tactics and technology as an Orwellian threat to basic freedoms and a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Their apprehensions have been heightened by the production of technologically advanced drones that can be shrunk to the size of a quarter—with infrared cameras, sensors that spot movement, and automatic license plate readers, the next generation of UAVs will be able to easily go places that prying eyes have been unable to visit in the past.
Limiting the use of drones is becoming a cottage industry among the states, with legislators battling back efforts by police and industry groups to expand the use of UAVs once the FAA gives the green light for commercial drone use.
More than 80 bills or resolutions have been introduced in 42 states, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The proposed laws are as varied as the states. Some states want to ban efforts to attach weapons to drones, while others want to require police to obtain a warrant first before using drones for surveillance. Still others would allow people to sue for damages if drones illegally tracked them.
Six states—Florida, Idaho, Montana, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia—have already enacted laws addressing drone use. Virginia has created a two-year moratorium on law enforcement use of drones to allow more time to study the issue, while Florida and Idaho require police to obtain permission from a judge before using drones. The laws in Montana and Tennessee reflect that same approach.
The Texas statute, which has been disparaged by both sides, takes a crazy–quilt approach to drone regulation. It bans most private uses of drones, but specifies 19 exceptions that reflect industry considerations. For example, realtors can use drones to take photos of property, and oil companies can use them to monitor their rigs.
THE LAW
While there is much talk about how the courts could and should handle cases involving drones and privacy, there is no certainty that drones will fit within prevailing jurisprudential analysis. There are three U.S. Supreme Court cases on aerial surveillance and tracking that likely could have some sway on lower courts.
In California v. Ciraolo, the justices concluded in 1986 that police officers did not need a warrant to use information gained by an airplane flying over the individual’s fenced property because it was visible to the naked eye. The Supreme Court in later rulings began to see dangers associated with new surveillance technologies.
In its 2001 ruling in Kyllo v. United States, the justices determined that surveillance of a home using a device not in general public use, such as a thermal imaging device in this case, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
Finally, in 2012, in United States v. Jones, the justices found that a person’s privacy was violated when police attached a GPS tracker to a car and monitored its movements for four months.
[California v. Cirado, 476 U.S. 207 (1986); Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001); United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012)]
No comments:
Post a Comment