Use of drones in domestic surveillance advocated

HoustonChronicle.com ^ | Dec. 21, 2002 | MICHAEL HEDGES

[Tailgunner Joe]

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.

[Liberal Classic]

Slippery slope?

[dirtboy]

Slippery slope?

Yep. I think a lot of folks would cheer on the idea of having drones monitor the borders for illegals and drug smugglers, as long as they stay within a 20-mile strip. Of course, a year later the feds will say they need to expand that to 50. And a year later, well, we just won't stop all the drugs unless the zone is 200 miles wide. And on and on and on and on...

[The Obstinate Insomniac]

bump

[Tailgunner Joe]

The problem is that the administration would propbably use the drones only to detect Muslim-bashing hate criminals.

[dead]

Why not just assign us all our own private government worker, to whom we can report all of our daily activities?

[templar]

Anybody remember those sky spies in Dark Angel?

[eno_]

As long as laws are on the books that beg for ever more intrusive enforcement, every time a new intrusive technology comes along, it becomes a threat to our rights and liberties.

The best solution is to minimize laws (Drug War hint) that beg such intrusion. Drug laws, intrusive environmental laws, property use restrictions all could "benefit" from an Eye in the Sky. Less laws means less cops asking for less toys.

[dirtboy]

Why not just assign us all our own private government worker, to whom we can report all of our daily activities?

I actually am beginning to think that we should promote the creation of the database from hell as envisioned by Poindexter. And we'll voluntarily send every last bit of personal information we can pull together, along with some extra information that we make up. And even if the feds somehow manage to keep abreast of that much data entry, the first time they run a simple inner join, it'll lock up the sumbitch for months.

[csvset]

The U.S. Navy's Fire Scout Vertical Takeoff and Landing Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (VTUAV) launches into its flight test program at the Naval Air Forces Western Test Range Complex in California. Fire Scout has been designed to provide situational awareness and precision targeting support for the Navy and Marine Corps, as a fully autonomous UAV requiring limited human intervention. Future operations are planned for the UAV this summer. U.S. Navy Photo

Hmmm. Who knows, loitering and looking at a town near you soon?

[tacticalogic]

Yep. I think a lot of folks would cheer on the idea of having drones monitor the borders for illegals and drug smugglers, as long as they stay within a 20-mile strip. Of course, a year later the feds will say they need to expand that to 50. And a year later, well, we just won't stop all the drugs unless the zone is 200 miles wide. And on and on and on and on...

There's going to be problems as soon as they start getting them over residential areas, from the operators training the cameras on bedroom windows and sundecks, to the things losing their tiny little silicon minds, and doing a kamikaze through somebody's roof.

[DWSUWF]

When I was a kid I worked summers for a crop duster who would put everything from an old flack jacket to a piece of plate aluminum on the seat of his old Stearman to ward off taking a bullet up the butt.

Some people, mostly kids I imagine, will occasionally take pot shots at slow, low flying targets of opportunity.

These drones better be well armored.

[Jonathon Spectre]

There's going to be problems as soon as they start getting them (surveillance drones) over residential areas

I'll say.

[Poohbah]

Some people, mostly kids I imagine, will occasionally take pot shots at slow, low flying targets of opportunity.

The Goodyear Blimp usually comes home with at least two bullet holes in the gas bag if they fly over rural areas.

[orfisher]

What's gonna happen to all those black heliocopters?

[Poohbah]

Are the pilots of the black helicopters unionized? We might have a problem if they are :o)

[Ron H.]

Yep. I think a lot of folks would cheer on the idea of having drones monitor the borders for illegals and drug smugglers, ....

I don't know why the pols even bother since the current laws and methods aren't used very effectively or at all to deter illegals or drugs being brought across our southern border. Should the Border Patrol catch an illegal the INS just turns them loose on their "honor" to not ever be seen nor heard from again. The drugs are brought in by heavily armed bandits who apparently have help from folks within our own government.

The pols just want tighter control of the citizenry. The erosion of our rights continues without hardly skipping a beat.

[DWSUWF]

"...The Goodyear Blimp usually comes home with at least two bullet holes in the gas bag if they fly over rural areas..."

I wouldn't be surprised to hear that they take a round or two on cross country trips.

My old boss used to swear that the outskirts of smaller towns were always, by far, the most deadly areas to fly over, and that Fall was the worst season for plane-plinking.

He was adamant that when he got pinged over rural areas, it was always the subdivided, small acreage holdings that he was over when it happened.

He used to say that he was never shot at from cattle country. (large, undeveloped agricultural tracts)

I’ve patched many a hole myself back in those days and most of them looked to be the work of .22 caliber bullets.

[coloradan]

The froggie is reporting that the water temperature has increased scarcely a tenth of a degree ... no worries. None at all.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

...The privacy issue was discussed in terms of making certain that any information the government can gather on law-abiding citizens in the name of national security is information you would not mind falling into the hands of Hillary Clinton should she someday become president or attorney general...