Drones

Introducing the Domino’s DomiCopter! – YouTube.

Just what we need, drones buzzing about in the urban jungle.

BBC News – The skies open up for large civilian drones.

BBC

The role of the drone is now changing. Millions of pounds are being sunk into civilian projects – everything from border security to police surveillance and even transporting goods.

This year the US Congress passed legislation giving US airspace regulator the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) until September 2015 to open up its airspace to drones, and Britain is expected to follow suit.

The UK’s airspace regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), has told BBC Newsnight that large unmanned drones could be flying in British skies by the end of the decade.

The CAA has already handed out 120 permits to fly small, lightweight drones. By 2020 this may be extended to larger unmanned aircraft.

Former drone operator says he’s haunted by his part in more than 1,600 deaths – YouTube.

6 Jun 2013

A former Air Force drone operator who says he participated in missions that killed more than 1,600 people remembers watching one of the first victims bleed to death Brandon Bryant says he was sitting in a chair at a Nevada Air Force base operating the camera when his team fired two missiles from their drone at three men walking down a ro ad halfway around the world in Afghanistan. The missiles hit all three targets, and Bryant says he could see the aftermath on his computer screen — including thermal images of a growing puddle of hot blood.

“The guy that was running forward, he’s missing his right leg,” he recalled. “And I watch this guy bleed out and, I mean, the blood is hot.” As the man died his body grew cold, said Bryant, and his thermal image changed until he became the same color as the ground.

“I can see every little pixel,” said Bryant, who has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, “if I just close my eyes.”

Bryant, now 27, served as a drone operator from 2006 to 2011, at bases in Nevada, New Mexico and in Iraq, guiding unmanned drones over Iraq and Afghanistan and taking part in missions that he was told led to the deaths of an estimated 1,626 individuals. .In an interview with NBC News, he provided a rare first-person glimpse into what it’s like to control the controversial machines that have become central to the U.S. effort to kill terrorists.

Facial Recognition Technology And Drones – Business Insider.

Facial Recognition Software

60 Minutes, CBS

Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes

PITTSBURGH (AP) — The Tsarnaev brothers, like anyone in a crowd of strangers, might have expected to be anonymous.But when the FBI released blurry, off-angle images of the two suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings, researchers with Carnegie Mellon University’s CyLab Biometrics Center began trying to bring them into focus.

In a real-time experiment, the scientists digitally mapped the face of “Suspect 2,” turned it toward the camera and enhanced it so it could be matched against a database. The researchers did not know how well they had done until authorities identified the suspect as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the younger, surviving brother and a student at University of Massachusetts Dartmouth.

“I was like, ‘Holy shish kabobs!’ ” Marios Savvides, director of the CMU Cylab, told the Tribune-Review. “It’s not exactly him, but it’s also not a random face. It does fit him.”

The technology, to be sure, remains in its infancy. Yet cyber experts believe it’s only a matter of years — and research dollars — until computers can identify almost anyone instantly. Computers then could use electronic data to immediately construct an intimate dossier about the person, much of it from available information online that many people put out there themselves.

From seeing just the image of a face, computers will find its match in a database of millions of driver’s license portraits and photos on social media sites. From there, the computer will link to the person’s name and details such as their Social Security number, preferences, hobbies, family and friends.

Adding that capability to drones that can fly into spaces where planes cannot — machines that can track a person moving about and can stay aloft for days — means that people will give up privacy as well as the concept of anonymity.

Full story:

Facial Recognition Technology And Drones – Business Insider.

This Pet AR.Drone Will Follow You Like A Lost Puppy – YouTube.

Falkor System’s Sameer Parekh’s shows Popular Science an early Pet AR.Drone prototype. The robot uses artificial intelligence algorithms to track a person, follow him or her around from a safe distance, and record video of the journey.

5 Things No One Tells You About the Military Industrial Complex – Waking Times : Waking Times.

“I mean, the war industry is really the ONLY industry the US has. We’re the war machine of the western empire”

“And if the president of the United States happens to be reading this (Xerxis forbid!): Pull your head out of that Darth Vader helmet, blow up the Death Star, burn the NDAA, free Bradley Manning, pull your pussy-panting FBI watchdogs off of Julian Assange, and pay attention to what the people are telling you. There is more to being president than warmongering and job creating. And if all of this has left a sour taste in your mouth, and you feel it necessary to “indefinitely detain me,” bring It! Catch me if you can. I am willing to die bringing water to the wasteland.”

May 16, 2013 

Z, Contributor
Waking Times

“If you want to tell people the truth, make ‘em laugh. Otherwise, they’ll kill you.” –Oscar Wilde

Writing a comedic article about militarism is a lot like trying to escape a straightjacket: finding leverage in the midst of constriction is not nearly as easy as you think it is, and the padded room only softens the blow so much before you’re just crying yourself to sleep in the corner. But, like Mel Gibson’s character Riggs in Lethal Weapon, let it never be said that I backed away from a double dog dare. Not that anybody double dog dared me to write this, but it occurred to me that the military industrial complex has a complex and, also like Riggs in Lethal Weapon, it is way too quick to pull the trigger. I can write articles about self-actualized loveheuristic inquiries into consciousness, and how to get power over power until I’m blue in the face, and there will always be readers who think I’m too serious and idealistic with issues that need slow massaging rather than full-on smacked in the ass. So be it.

But militarism… now that is something we can all get behind. I mean, we’re a nation of gun-toting sheeple. We’re warmongering West Highland Terriers who believe we’re wild-eyed wolverines. We all grew up watching Rambo First Blood part two, and all of us imagine there’s a tiny little Rambo inside us wrapping a tiny little red kerchief around his tiny little blood-soaked head. We’re a nation of pawns with cartoons for brains singing “America, fuck yeah!” while the rest of the world is screaming “America, fuck you!” And then we wonder, why don’t they like us? Don’t they see we’re just trying to help them? Don’t they see that our leaders are honorable and just and would never take over a country just to exploit it for its resources and brainwash its people into adopting a materialistic consumer society?

 There are a lot of people who will wail and ballyhoo that war is not a thing that should be poked fun at, and that, by and large, militarism is so integral an aspect of the United States’ condition that it is too sacred a thing to laugh at. But why shouldn’t it be satirized? And why does it need to be all hush-hush just because the president can indefinitely detain you without trial for no other reason than that he feels you’re a threat to “national security”? Like he’s Xerxis and you’re that hunchback-guy kowtowing at his feet. So for the benefit of those who are not scared shitless and hiding behind their weapons like good little paranoid extremists, here are five helpful observations by some dude on the internet, who is the closest thing you’ll ever get to King Leonidas throwing a spear at the powers-that-be just to see if it bleeds.

#1. Propaganda: the Psychology of the Spectacle

There’s a kind of weird social pressure when it comes to the United States military. The patriotic whimsy of an entire nation is dancing a jig on our conscience practically every day in regard to supporting the troops or supporting the war in Wherever-istan. God forbid somebody voice an opposite opinion, or even an indifferent tone. The social ramification of such an act is deemed unpatriotic and grounds for treason. But how did we get to this over-exaggerated sense of nationalistic pride? When did we transform from a nation founded upon dissent to a nation dumbfounded by flippant tyrants of fuckery flying around the world dropping bombs on people?

The thing not a lot of people appreciate is the psychological genius of propaganda. On the one side of the coin there are those in power flipping the coin. On the other side of the coin, there’s the mass majority of society, spell-bound and mesmerized by the flickering-flickeryness of the coins pleasing arc. The ease by which people are brainwashed into forming their so-called “own opinions” is astounding. Since World War One we have been swallowing a steady dose of “War is awesome” or “there can be no peace without war,” and, “a camouflaged idiot carrying a cock-rifle while grabbing his rifle-cock is somehow cool.”

Cue whiney armchair quarterbacks with scrambled US Grade-A eggs for brains: “how dare you speak ill of those who die for our country?” or “those soldiers died defending your right to write this anti-American garbage!” or “it’s the height of courage and honor to fight and die defending one’s country, you unsympathetic terrorist!” …People say the darndest things. But all this myopic yodeling aside, I love my country. But love does NOT imply pacifism, especially when my so-called “leaders” are acting like prepackaged douchenozzles for rancid doucher-elitists. Also, I proudly served my country for ten years, but I NEVER allowed my pride to blind me to the atrocities committed daily by the hands of my own countrymen. Freedom, it seems, is a fickle beast. But if this article is proof of anything, it’s that I can ride the hell out of that fickle beast longer than Lane Frost can say “8 seconds!”

All freedom-of-speech cock-blockery aside, the lobbyists and propagandists are here to stay. And they will continue to shape and mold our society into any shape they so desire, using any mold they see fit. The question we have to ask ourselves is this: How do I, daily, rise above this system that suborns the people, and how do I see the well-disguised truth through the almost ubiquitous smokescreen. Having a good sense of humor is one way to slice through this un-American Apple Pie, but our silliness must eventually give way to sincerity, lest we lose ourselves in our own seriousness.

#2. Weaponry & War Profiteering

If you’re lucky, you weren’t born in Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia in the last few decades. I count my 50 lucky stars that I was born in the good ole US of A. If you’re less than lucky, and you were born in Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia, then your daily grind of dodging kidnappings, night raids, torture, and drone strikes makes the American daily grind look like strawberry-picking on a warm spring afternoon.

It really is no joking matter, but having a good sense of humor is sometimes the only thing we have to keep us sane in such an insane world. And what is the height of insanity? Like Doctor Martin Luther King Jr said, “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” Should I say Amen! or ahem!

And what does it say about the sanity of our country when our news stations are the height of (bad) comedy and our comedy stations are the height of (good) news. Here’s what John Stewart had to say about the US defense budget, “We already spend more on defense than the next 12 countries combined, including China, including Russia. We’re like that lady on Jerry Springer who can’t stop getting breast implants.”

But seriously, do we really need to be spending roughly $200 million per B-52 Bomber? And who knows how much a drone or a stealth bomber costs. Does the military really need more money? Well, when you’re invested in war like most of the top companies in the world are, then hell yes the military needs more money. And screw your heathenish, terrorist backtalk if you think otherwise. I mean, the war industry is really the ONLY industry the US has. We’re the war machine of the western empire. Every other industry is just bottom-feeding the myopic herd that keeps it all propped up: Us, you and me! So what we can protect our nation at half the current cost, we have corporate fat-cats to keep fat and happy. We need them to manufacture more weapons. We need a giant military force that makes the rest of the world piss its collective pantaloons. Hell, why not just build the Death Star while we’re at it? Plop a Darth Vader helmet on the head of whoever is president and we’re good to go. Viva el Empire!

#3. Drone Strikes and Terrorists

Let’s stop kidding ourselves. The elephant in the room is a long-nosed heavy-breathing militant asshole with its trunk up our skirts. Even worse, it’s a flappy-eared, terrorist-generating war machine with an American flag tattooed on its flank. But nobody wants to acknowledge it. It reeks to high-hell of rotten peanuts and drone strikes, but nobody wants to admit that it’s standing right freaking there!

Wake up and smell the collateral damage! What the powers-that-be don’t want you to know is that they need terrorists, or at least the illusion of terrorists, to keep the war machine churning. In order to keep the oil flowing and the greenbacks stacked, they need pissed-off “Others” with a vendetta, who they can point the finger at and call “terrorists.” What better way to piss someone off than murder their kid and say, “Oops! We were aiming at that other towel-head over there, our bad!”

Jokes aside, this is some serious shit. It’s time that We the People got off our collective asses and made these motherfuckers up the so-called “chain of command” accountable. Imperialism only works if the people subjected to it go along with its military ventures. Debo is going to keep being Debo until someone has the cajones to stand up to him. In this case that someone has to be We the People. It begins with this article, and I’ve got mind control over Debo.

#4. Military Injustice

If, as Anais Nin wrote, “Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one’s courage” then Bradley Manning’s life has expanded to include us all. The debacle of his kangaroo court-martial should come as a body-blow to Justice itself. Or at least a bitch-slap across our collective truth-seeking faces. I mean, the death knells of Truth are howling like rabid hell hounds from the four corners of a Bill of Rights in flames. And nobody has the balls to point out there’s a fire, let alone put the damn thing out.

In 399 B.C. Socrates was on “trial” in similar fashion. Both cases are a mockery of the judicial system. Like Socrates, it is not Bradley Manning that is on trial but the very concepts of truth and justice. The real trial is in the minds of the American people. Who among us will roll over and play dead under the tyranny of a military-controlled state, and who will rise up with a full heart and courageously declare that our collective military mindset has crippled us into heartless sycophants hell-bent on allowing the powers-that-be to do whatever the hell they feel like in order to keep us “safe” and “secure” from the evil forces of “terrorism”.

So what Bradley Manning, along with Wikileaks, showed the entire world that the Emperor isn’t wearing any clothes? At least now we know the emperor is naked. At least now we can promptly laugh at his shriveled-up, Mr. Chow-esc penis and move on. At least now we can evolve past this culturally-conditioned state of militaristic crap. I said it to my shipmates when I served in the US Navy, and I’m saying it now: pull your head out of your chain-of-command’s ass. That’s right! Stop this failed interpretation of the Human Centipede. Think for yourselves. Get out there and learn about the true nature of tyranny and terrorism.

#5. NDAA, and the End of Free Speech

If, as Howard Zinn wrote, “They’ll say we’re disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war” then this article is saying screw their peace and their war. Comments like “you’re disturbing the peace” are just pathetic excuses for bovine-bedizened dumb asses to flex their fat, billowy frontal lobes of douchebaggery over the important things that need to be discussed. Hell yeah I’m going to disturb your peace when that “peace” means dropping bombs on other people, or when it means indefinitely detaining me because some bloated windbag in “power” deems me a “threat to society” based on nothing more than the NDAA slip of paper in his back pocket that I would use as toilet paper if given half the chance.

And if the president of the United States happens to be reading this (Xerxis forbid!): Pull your head out of that Darth Vader helmet, blow up the Death Star, burn the NDAA, free Bradley Manning, pull your pussy-panting FBI watchdogs off of Julian Assange, and pay attention to what the people are telling you. There is more to being president than warmongering and job creating. And if all of this has left a sour taste in your mouth, and you feel it necessary to “indefinitely detain me,” bring It! Catch me if you can. I am willing to die bringing water to the wasteland.

About the Author

Z, a former Navy Intelligence Specialist turned philosopher, is the author of Birthday Suit of God and The Looking Glass Man. His works are inspired by the great philosophers of the ages and his wide awake view of the modern world.  His recent works can be seen here and also found at Z’s Hub.

BBC News – Google chief urges action to regulate mini-drones.

BBC News -

Remo Peduzzi, managing director of ResearchDrones LLC Switzerland, prepares to fly a drone at the Kaziranga National Park at Kaziranga in Assam state, India, 8 April
Drones like the one pictured are being used to detect poachers in the Indian state of Assam – one of the many non-military uses for such aircraft

The influential head of Google, Eric Schmidt, has called for civilian drone technology to be regulated, warning about privacy and security concerns.

Cheap miniature versions of the unmanned aircraft used by militaries could fall into the wrong hands, he told the UK’s Guardian newspaper.

Quarrelling neighbours, he suggested, might end up buzzing each other with private surveillance drones.

He also warned of the risk of terrorists using the new technology.

Mr Schmidt is believed to have close relations with US President Barack Obama, whom he advises on matters of science and technology.

“You’re having a dispute with your neighbour,” he told The Guardian in an interview printed on Saturday.

Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt on 22 March 2013
Eric Schmidt is one of the world’s leading figures in digital technology

“How would you feel if your neighbour went over and bought a commercial observation drone that they can launch from their backyard. It just flies over your house all day. How would you feel about it?”

Warning of mini-drones’ potential as a terrorist weapon, he said: “I’m not going to pass judgment on whether armies should exist, but I would prefer to not spread and democratise the ability to fight war to every single human being.”

“It’s got to be regulated… It’s one thing for governments, who have some legitimacy in what they’re doing, but have other people doing it… it’s not going to happen.”

Small drones, such as flying cameras, are already available worldwide, and non-military surveillance were recently introduced to track poachers in the remote Indian state of Assam.

The US and Israel have led the way in recent years in using drones as weapons of war as well as for surveillance.

America’s Federal Aviation Administration is currently exploring how commercial drones, or unmanned aircraft systems, can be safely introduced into US airspace.

PETA wants its own fleet of drones — RT USA.

 RT USA

April 09, 2013

AFP Photo / Pierre Andrieu

AFP Photo / Pierre Andrieu

If you thought you’d never see the words “drone” and “ethical” in the same place, then think again. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) say they want to acquire a drone to monitor unlawful hunters.

The animal-rights’ group announced on Monday that they’ve reached out to Australia-based drone manufacturer Aerobot in hopes of acquiring a CineStar Octocopter — an unmanned aerial vehicle that can be affixed with a camera and used to snoop.

“Inspired by the increasing use of drones for nonmilitary purposes, such as fighting wildfires and conducting search-and-rescue missions, PETA is planning to acquire a drone of its own to spy on hunters and catch them in the act as they terrorize animals and break game laws,” says Alisa Mullins, senior editor of PETA Foundation.

The idea, Mullins adds, could be “a drone program that even Rand Paul might be able to get behind.”

PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk explains in a statement of her own this week that the acquisition of a spy drone could actually be used to help living creatures — not hinder them like the missile-equipped UAVs used to target insurgents or the surveillance drones expected to soon be rampant across America.

“The talk is usually about drones being used as killing machines, but PETA drones will be used to save lives,” Newkirk says.

Currently in the US, hobbyists are allowed to operate drones that hover close to the earth as long as they are not involved for commercial means. If PETA is able to get their hands on one, they say it will be used as more a news gathering tool used to track down unlawful hunters that might be engaged in illegal activity in heavily wooded areas where traditional surveillance is difficult to conduct.

“Hunters maim and kill millions of animals every year,” Mullins writes on the group’s website. “With more than five times as many wildlife watchers as there are hunters in the US, we hope to expose further why hunting is a sick and sickening pursuit.”

Additionally, PETA says they’d be interested in sending surveillance drones to go over factory farms to monitor operators there as well as in “other areas that are hotbeds of abuse.”

As RT reported earlier, journalism schools across the US are teaching new students the ins and outs of drones in hopes of giving them a tool to be used in investigative reporting.

“We have a class here of journalism students who are learning to fly J-bots, for journalism robots, or drones,” Bill Allen, a science and journalism professor at the University of Missouri, told ABC News. “So they learn to fly them, and also do what reporters do: brainstorm ideas, go out and do reporting, do drone based photography and video. We’re trying to see if this is going to be useful for journalism.”

At a congressional hearing last month, University of Washington law professor Ryan Calo says it’s to be expected that Americans doing legitimate investigative work would want to work with the same types of aircraft capable of putting eyes in places that are usually problematic.

“In 2015, when the FAA is set to begin to relax its prohibition on use and integrate civilian use of drones, then I would think the first folks in the door would be media because there’s such an obvious use,” Calo said.

Kaitlynn Kelly, a representative for PETA, tells US News & World Report that they have yet to get FAA approval but that they “hope this won’t be an issue.” They intend on beginning their drone flights this fall starting in the northeast United States.

The anti-drone hoodie that helps you beat Big Brother’s spy in the sky | Art and design | The Guardian.

Unmanned surveillance drones are a global concern, but designer Adam Harvey has concocted an outlandish solution

Anti-drone hoodie worn by Tom Meltzer

Blending in? … The anti-drone hoodie, as modelled by Tom Meltzer, keeps surveillance off your back. Photograph: David Levene for the Guardian
.

I am wearing a silver hoodie that stops just below the nipples. Or, if you prefer, a baggy crop-top with a hood. The piece – this is fashion, so it has to be a ”piece” – is one of a kind, a prototype. It has wide square shoulders and an overzealous zip that does up right to the tip of my nose.

It does not, it’s fair to say, make its wearer look especially cool. But that’s not really what this hoodie is about. It has been designed to hide me from the thermal imaging systems of unmanned aerial surveillance vehicles – drones. And, as far as I can tell, it’s working well.

“It’s what I call anti-drone,” explains designer Adam Harvey. “That’s the sentiment. The material in the anti-drone clothing is made of silver, which is reflective to heat and makes the wearer invisible to thermal imaging.”

The “anti-drone hoodie” was the central attraction of Harvey’s Stealth Wear exhibition, which opened in central London in January, billed as a showcase for “counter-surveillance fashions”. It is a field Harvey has been pioneering for three years now, making headlines in the tech community along the way.

It began in 2010 with Camoflash, an anti-paparazzi handbag that responds to the unwanted camera flashes with a counter-flash of its own, replacing the photograph’s intended subject with a fuzzy orb of bright white light.

Then came his thesis project CV Dazzle, a mix of bold makeup and hairstyling based on military camouflage techniques, designed to flummox computer face-recognition software. It worked, but also made you look like a cyberpunk with a face-painting addiction. Which was not exactly inconspicuous.

Once again, though, that wasn’t really the point. “These are primarily fashion items and art items,” Harvey tells me. “I’m not trying to make products for survivalists. I would like to introduce this idea to people: that surveillance is not bulletproof. That there are ways to interact with it and there are ways to aestheticise it.”

There is, I point out, no obvious target audience for anti-drone fashion. He’s unfazed. “The kind of person who would wear it really depends on what drones end up being used for. You can imagine everything, from general domestic spying by a government, or more commercial reconnaissance of individuals.” I suggest perhaps political protesters. “Yeah, sure. Maybe that’s the actual market.”

Harvey is well aware his work can seem a little before its time. “I wouldn’t say many people have a problem being imaged by drones yet,” he deadpans. “But it imagines that this is a problem and then presents a functional solution.”

Reality, to be fair, is not so far behind. Over the next 15 years the US Federal Aviation Administration anticipates more than 20,000 new drones will appear in American skies, owned not just by law enforcement agencies and the military, but also public health bodies and private companies.

In the UK, several police forces are already experimenting with drones, and not just for thermal imaging. “They can be equipped with things called IMSI-catchers that will work out the mobile phone numbers of any people in a certain area,” explains Richard Tynan, research officer at campaign group Privacy International.

“If police deploy these things for crowd control there’s no issue with them figuring out every single person who’s in there – and their mobile phone numbers. They can also intercept calls and send out false messages. It’s not just the police either. Cybercriminals can use these, or even business opponents. This technology already exists.”

Tynan is sceptical about the power of inventions such as the hoodie to protect us from such technology. “The growth in [civilian counter-surveillance] will be dependent on the kind of work we do here to uncover what surveillance is being used. They will always lag behind in the battle.”

Not least because many of the people making counter-surveillance equipment are keen to keep it out of civilian hands. “The only people who really don’t need to be seen,” says military camouflage designer Guy Cramer, “are the ones who are doing something wrong out there.”

Cramer is, in a sense, Harvey’s military equivalent: another pioneer in the art of vanishing. Last year, Cramer’s delightfully shady-sounding company HyperStealth Biotechnology Corp made headlines worldwide with its claim to have built a functioning “invisibility cloak”, using light-bending optical camouflage to make a soldier simply disappear. So far, only various members of military top brass have been permitted to see the cloak in action – for fear, he says, that the technology will fall into the wrong hands.

Cramer has also created an “intelligent textile” named Smartcamo, capable of changing colour to match its surroundings. Unlike with the cloak, Cramer plans to make the technology available to consumers. But hopes of becoming invisible to Big Brother won’t be drastically improved; when selling to the public he and many of his competitors deliberately leave civilian customers exposed.

“When we sell to the commercial market, we use special inks that actually don’t work under infrared conditions. It looks identical but you show up on the infrared as a big white target.” The motive is mistrust of the civilian buyer. “It would cost me pennies more to add the infrared but I wouldn’t want to give the bad guys that advantage.”

He, too, is sceptical about the real-world application of anti-drone fashionwear: “It doesn’t matter how good your clothing is, if you’re not masking every part of your body – your hands, your face, your eyes – it’s going to give away your position.” An anti-drone burqa, then? That, he admits, would do the trick. But it would really take the fashion out of counter-surveillance fashionwear.

chrome://global/skin/media/imagedoc-darknoise.png

Cops with Drones: Alameda Co., CA Weighs Technology vs. Privacy – YouTube.

Apr 4, 2013

For a long time, drones – unmanned aircraft – were used only by the military. Now local law enforcement wants them for police work such as surveillance and search-and-rescue missions. That in turn has sparked a fierce debate over the balance between cutting-edge law enforcement technology and the privacy rights of citizens.

In February, Reason TV covered an Alameda County, California public protection committee meeting in which Sheriff Gregory Ahern announced that he planned on using a laptop-sized drone (he prefers to call it an “unmanned aerial system”) for search and rescue. “It’s mission specific to search areas for lost children or elderly or Alzheimer’s patients to search an area that it would be very difficult for our personnel to get to,” said Sheriff Ahern.

Residents and civil liberties advocates are skeptical that drone use would remain so narrowly defined for very long. At the meeting, Linda Lye of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California took issue with the sheriff’s submitted draft of a privacy policy. She it’s not specific enough about what the sheriff can and cannot do with drones.

“If the sheriff wants a drone for search and rescue then the policy should say he can only use it for search and rescue,” said Lye. “Unfortunately under his policy he can deploy a drone for search and rescue, but then use the data for untold other purposes. That is a huge loophole, it’s an exception that swallows the rule.”

Lye urged the public protection committee not to approve the drone until stricter safeguards were in place. She pointed out that the safeguards were important because the technology will develop very quickly – and possibly to a point where citizens don’t have control of their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Indeed, Alameda County could serve as the baseline for police and sheriff’s departments across the country, so getting it right there may affect all Americans.

The sheriff plans on applying for permission from the Federal Aviation Administration to fly aircraft above 400 feet and plans to pay for the drone with a federal grant. MuckRock.com made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the grant made to the Department of Homeland Security in July 2012. The request revealed that Sheriff Ahern was looking to purchase a drone equipped with a something called a “Forward Looking Infrared camera.” These thermal-imaging devices detect radiation given off by heat from people or animals, opening up a wide variety of concerns.

Criminal law experts such as Laurie Levenson of Loyola Law School say law enforcement hasn’t been given enough legal guidance on drones yet.

“If you say we’re going to use it for a manhunt, what do you call a manhunt? If you say you want to use it to find missing persons, well, how far can you go with that?” says Levenson. She says that it’s a matter of drawing lines because it’s just too easy to become Big Brother without them. What happens, for instance, if police capture evidence of unrelated criminal activity while searching for a lost toddler? Can they use that to trigger arrests and prosecution?

Trevor Timm of the Electronic Frontier Foundation points out that it is very hard to draw lines with police because, once police have a certain power, they never want to give it up.

“Police always seem to want to push the boundaries as far as the law will take them and sometimes over those boundaries,” says Timm.

He points to law enforcement and cell phone data as an example. The New York Times reported in 2012 that law enforcement made 1.3 million demands in 2011 of phone companies for subscriber locations, text messages, and other information. Because there weren’t strict privacy rules in place when mobile phones first exploded onto the market, it made it that much easier for law enforcement to obtain civilian data without search warrants or users’ approval or even knowing about the requests.

“Generally there is this real friction between technology and civil liberties and we haven’t really figured out how to deal with it,” says Levenson. We don’t know how to deal with it because technology is developing a lot faster than the law can keep up. Government cameras are everywhere these days and the laws that deal with them go back to the time of the framers of the Constitution. “What did they know about drones?” asks Levenson.

About 8 minutes.

Written and produced by Paul Detrick. Camera by Alex Manning, Zach Weissmueller, Tracy Oppenheimer, and Detrick.

Go to http://www.reason.com for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV’s YouTube Channel to receive automatic updates when new material goes live.

For Reason’s coverage of drones, check out:

http://reason.com/tags/drones

Meet the Canadian challenging America’s drone war – World – CBC News.

Ontario native working on legal challenges to controversial program

Apr 5, 2013

When a U.S. federal appeals court ruled last month that the CIA could no longer stay quiet about whether it has information on U.S. drone strikes, the decision made headlines around the world.

But for Jameel Jaffer, the Canadian-born lawyer who argued the case for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), it was the end of a three-year saga and the culmination of hundreds of hours of work for the small legal team that took on the suit.

“We thought that the CIA’s position was completely indefensible from the beginning, and it’s gratifying finally to have an appeals court agree with us,” Jaffer said by phone from New York City, where he lives. “But it’s also a limited step towards transparency.”

Since the first reported drone strike against al-Qaeda in 2002, which killed six people in Yemen including an American, the CIA has avoided officially acknowledging the program.

Such targeted killings have become more common in the intervening years, spawning a separate program operated by the U.S. military, and courting controversy along the way. Proponents argue that drone strikes are weakening al-Qaeda; critics say they create more militants than they kill and violate international law.

‘When Iran or India or whatever country has the capability to carry out these targeted killings in the same way, they’re going to be invoking the rules that the U.S. is creating right now.’—ACLU deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer

In Pakistan alone, more than 2,500 people have died in attacks by unmanned aircraft since 2004 – including more than 400 civilians, according one estimate by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

Gleaning information about the strikes has proven difficult, but the appeals court ruling could represent a small step toward coaxing the drone war out of the shadows.

The ACLU lawsuit centred on a Freedom of Information Act request, filed in 2010, seeking information on the conditions under which a person can be targeted by a drone strike, and on civilians who have been killed.

The CIA has yet to announce whether it will comply with the ruling or seek an appeal. If the decision stands, Jaffer is hopeful it will pave the way for a more serious debate in the U.S. “about how much of this secrecy is actually necessary and how much of it is just serving to protect officials from accountability of their decisions.”

From Wall Street to Guantanamo

Since joining the ACLU more than a decade ago, Jaffer, 41, has emerged as a formidable critic of U.S. national security policy. For a while, his work took him regularly to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to monitor military tribunals there.

Another lawsuit he’s involved with argues the CIA violated the U.S. Constitution when it carried out drone strikes in 2011 that killed three American citizens in Yemen, including an al-Qaeda leader named Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son. Arguments in that case will be heard in July. If the ACLU is successful, Jaffer believes it could force the U.S. to significantly curtail its drone strikes.

But the path to his current position as deputy legal director with the New York-based rights group “wasn’t a straight line.”

An MQ-1 Predator unmanned aircraft.An MQ-1 Predator unmanned aircraft. (U.S. Air Force/Lt Col Leslie Pratt/Reuters)Raised in Kingston, Ont., Jaffer moved to Toronto in grade 11 to attend Upper Canada College. After studying at a liberal arts school in the U.S., at the U.K.’s University of Cambridge and then Harvard Law School, he eventually wound up in a job working for a Wall Street law firm in equity derivatives.

He also started volunteering with the ACLU, visiting immigration detainees rounded up after the 9/11 attacks, and soon took a full-time job with the organization.

“That turned out to be a pretty affecting experience,” he said.

Asked whether his years growing up north of the border have helped inform his work since then, Jaffer said it “keeps you aware that it’s possible to do things differently.”

But he also warns that countries including Canada should pay close attention to the policies being created in the United States to govern drone strikes.

“Even if you think there’s no realistic chance that the U.S. will carry out targeted killings in Canada…when Iran or India or whatever country has the capability to carry out these targeted killings in the same way, they’re going to be invoking the rules that the U.S. is creating right now.”

Read the appeals court opinion in ACLU v. CIA

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 882 other followers

%d bloggers like this: