Across America, people rise up against use of unmanned surveillance aircraft in their localities
From the cold shores of the Pacific
Northwest to the sunny beaches of the
Gulf Coast, a growing number of concerned
Americans are grounding efforts
by state and local agencies to deploy spy drones
over the skies of U.S. cities.
In Seattle, Wash., angry citizens recently
forced Mayor Mike McGinn to direct the city’s
police department to pack up two newly purchased
Dragonfly X6 remote control helicopters
and ship them back to the manufacturers.
Similar rebellions are taking shape across the
nation. But will there ever be enough public support
to stave off the onslaught of these invasive,
and potentially dangerous, surveillance devices?
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently
disclosed that it has issued 1,428 permits
to domestic drone operators since 2007, and estimates
that as many as 10,000 unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs) could be introduced into the nation’s
already congested airspace within the next
five years. Of course, this proliferationwasmade
possible through years of intense lobbying by the
drone industry, culminating in the passage of last
year’s FAA Modernization and Reform Act,
which compels the nation’s aviation authority to
modify U.S. airspace rules and allow for widespread
deployment of UAVs by 2015. Does that
mean that it’s too late to stop them?
This AFP reporter recently spoke with Amie
Stepanovich, associate litigation counsel for the
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC),
whose organization filed a petition with the FAA
shortly after the aforementioned legislation was
passed into law.
“We asked the FAA that, in addition to considering
safety issues, they also address the very
real privacy concerns that are involved with the
integration of drones in the national airspace,”
said Stepanovich. “[On Feb. 14,] the FAA finally
responded and said they would take public comments
on what privacy requirements should be
for drone operators—first in the six test sites
they are going to decide on in the next couple
of months—and then further into full drone deployment
throughout the country. This is a fairly
big victory for privacy concerning drone use,
but we probably need legislation in order to really
confront it.”
Stepanovich added that although EPIC does
not lobby for legislation, they have been tracking
efforts throughout the country.
“Charlottesville, Va., is really the first to pass a
provision that creates a two year moratorium on
drone use so they could further study the technology
and decide what protections are needed
to be put into place,” said Stepanovich. “There
are similar movements going on in Washington
state, California, as well as legislation being introduced
in many states, including Florida, Massachusetts,
North Dakota and Oklahoma.”
According to Stepanovich, Oregon is one of
the latest states seeking to place extremely strict
controls on UAVs flying over their airspace.
“A version of the Oregon bill that I’ve seen appropriates
the licensing authority from the FAA
for drones operating within the state,” she said.
“And if a drone operator does not receive a license
from the proper Oregon state authority, a
privately operated drone can be subject to fines
and penalties. And as far as public drones are
concerned, any surveillance that is collected
would be inadmissible as evidence in a court of
law. There would also be fines and penalties applied
to a violation of that provision.”
Although police and sheriff agencies currently
use drones on a limited basis, Stepanovich
suggests that the federal government is
actually encouraging local law enforcement to
become increasingly dependent on these intrusive
surveillance devices.
“U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP),
which is a component of the Department of
Homeland Security, has—as far as we know—
the largest drone fleet in the country, including
10 Predator B drones, which have incredibly invasive
surveillance equipment on them,” said
Stepanovich. “These drones are not only being
flown by CBP in conjunction with their own
mission—which is to protect the border from
criminal activity—but are also lent out to other
law enforcement agencies for whatever purpose.
This is an incredibly broad authority that
CBP has to operate drones, not only on the border,
but around the country, and subjects people
to surveillance at any point in time.”
It should come as no surprise, then, that the
leading opponents of anti-drone legislation are,
almost exclusively, members of the law enforcement
community.
“In the state of Florida, one lawmaker has
proposed legislation that would require a warrant
before law enforcement could operate a
drone for surveillance purposes,” said Stepanovich.
“The state law enforcement agencies
have come back and asked for an exception to
that requirement for crowd surveillance, which
means they can operate a drone to monitor
sporting events, demonstrations, political protests
or other gatherings of [two or more] people.
That’s just one example of where drones are
intended to be used quite liberally if law enforcement
has its way.”
——
Keith Johnson is an independent journalist and the editor of “Revolt of the
Plebs,” an alternative news website at http://revoltoftheplebs.wordpress.com/.
Keith Johnson is an independent journalist and the editor of “Revolt of the
Plebs,” an alternative news website at http://revoltoftheplebs.wordpress.com/.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου