The Use of Drones for Surveillance
- Details
- Hits: 11407
Use of Drones for Surveillance
Introduction
Drones are vessels that do not require any pilot onboard, provided they have been pre-programmed. In the United States, drones are being used increasingly for surveillance. Drone use has expanded fast recently because they can remain aloft for several hours compared to manned aircraft. In addition, they come at a much cheaper cost, unlike military aircraft because they flow remotely, posing little danger to their crew. The United States possess two distinct ‘squadron’ of military drones – one is that of the Air Force and the other belongs to the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency).
Use of Drones for Surveillance
Information on the extent to which drones can be used is still not available. An open government organization, the MuckRock, is conducting a census to determine this. Nevertheless, a user-friendly platform now exists where ordinary citizens are able to file a request of records with the local agency of police to enquire the kind of drone surveillance the latter plans to conduct. If any, details of the extent of intrusion into personal privacy is also available (Jones 52).
There have been numerous cases at Supreme Court where use of domestic surveillance has been addressed. In all those cases, the court ruled that the places surveyed were not quite protected as stated by the Fourth Amendment and were open for view by the public. In another report, a man suspected of growing marijuana had planted a strong fence that blocked the plot in question from total view. An aircraft was flown over the property so that a visual inspection could be done. With their naked eyes, the officers were able to identify the marijuana. The court ruled that an air vehicle flying over this homestead could see the plants the officers saw (August 67). Consequently, the police aircraft had been flying in a legally navigable airspace.
Surveillance drones often raise important issues for civil liberties and privacy. These unmanned vehicles are capable of conducting high-tech surveillance. Already, law enforcers are using drones to carry a variety of equipment such as heat sensors, live-feed videos, radar, as well as infrared cameras. A number of versions of these aircrafts can stay hovering in the sky for many hours or even days. The highly advanced cameras have shown great ability to scan entire towns while zooming in and reading a carton 8000 (ft) high. Additionally, they carry numerous crackers and towers of fake mobile phone, which can determine an individual’s location. At the same time, they intercept phone calls and texts. Even drone manufacturers have admitted drones are meant to carry weapons like rubber bullets, which are less lethal (Reymond 750).
The United States legislation does not keep up with this fast pace of surveillance technology, and agencies of police find justice when they suggest they can utilize drones to snoop on the United States people without requiring to be given a warrant or other legal approval whatsoever. A number of bills have gone to the legislature, attempting to protect the privacy of increasingly concerned nationals who might become victims of the controversial drone surveillance. In the coming months, the number of organizations authorized to use drones is expected to accelerate. Estimates show drones numbering up to 40,000 could be hovering in the skies of the United States by 2015 (Landau 66). Consequently, the Congress is facing immense pressure to continue pushing for increased transparency in the process of authorizing drones in order to make sure there is protection of privacy in the United States (Greenberg 80).
The constitutionality of surveillance using drones depends on the context. Whether the target is in his backyard, in the public domain, or at home plays a role when determining the extent of privacy to which such person is entitled. Equally significant is how sophisticated the technology used as well as how long the surveillance takes. These factors inform the justice system whether the surveillance constitutes an unreasonable interference or breach of personal privacy. According to the popular Fourth Amendment, conducting surveillance in a person’s home is unconstitutional. However, police officers are now peering into individual homes using high mega-pixel cameras, which can see through brick walls. This is the highest invasion of people’s privacy as there has been cased where the police captured a naked couple at their home. It was not established what the police were trying to search when they captured this embarrassing picture. Thermal imaging has also been used to search individual homes, constituting gross violation of individual privacy.
Aerial surveillance using drones in public places has also generated many heated debates among the United States nationals. If the drone surveillance is not expected to take long, a warrant of search may not be necessary. The courts have ruled that nobody expects to be enjoying privacy in such areas. Again, these flights are extremely rare to cause any panic among the citizens (Deskins 4).
Close to the national borders, use of drones is reaching its maximum. This is meant to protect the United States nationals from potential harm. No court has dared interfering with such drone surveillance. Surveillance using drones has been considered passive. It does not involve any physical frisking or touching. This has made the practice attract wide acceptance at the borders. In addition, officers do not need to seizure a person for any length of time when conducting drone surveillance. However, there is reticence as far as granting of carte Blanche power of search near the U.S. borders is concerned. This reticence is likely to extend if drone surveillance becomes widely accepted (Devlin 36).
It has been reported that public dissatisfaction with the use of drones is growing at an alarming speed. In fact, manufacturers of drones are increasingly avoiding the use of the word drone when marketing their products. The term drone scares any American because what comes to the mind of many people when it is mentioned is ‘snooping on us.’ In spite of the fact that drones are becoming common among business enterprises that use them for delivery of their products, the public has not shown any degree of accepting drone use. There is fear even a commercial drone may capture people’s wives in the swimming pools.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The use of drones is a major milestone in the development of aviation technology. Nobody will have a problem if more drones are manufactured and placed on the borders to help provide security to Americans. Similarly, no single American minds the use of drones to fight Afghan militants in Pakistan and do domestic surveillance when there is reasonable suspicion that security is threatened. However, the lack of a clear policy on the extent to which drones interfere with people’s privacy is where the contention comes in. Americans have developed a negative attitude for their use, notwithstanding the purpose for which such surveillance is intended because the Fourth Amendment does not address invasion of privacy through drone surveillance fully.
Drone use for surveillance should continue, but should be restricted strictly to security issues. No drone should be seen flying over residential areas at any time. In addition, the sophistication of equipment used for surveillance in the drones ought to be regulated closely. High mega-pixel cameras that make it possible to see through brick walls and brick roofs must be withdrawn from all the drones. Where such regulations exist, the use of drones for surveillance might find widespread acceptance.