My view that most of the dilemmas about privacy result from a drastic reduction in cost of a previously legal activity making the practice widespread is probably not a surprise to anyone. Another issue beside straight cost that that limits law enforcement surveillance is inter-organizational rivalries. For instance, the FBI has operated Stingray for approximately 20 years gathering information about US citizens without a warrant (see the recent case where this was ruled a 4th amendment search), but this resource has not been available to the average officer on the street. NSA has operated Eschelon since the 60s but that information was not provided to the typical FBI agent.
Plane based surveillance has been in widespread use by the border patrol and to some degree local police departments, but the introduction of drone technology changes the prevalence due to the dramatic reduction in price. Here's the money quote from the L.A. Times story:
"In Colorado, the Mesa County Sheriff's Office has used a fixed-wing drone to search for lost hikers in the mountains, and a helicopter drone to help crews battling fires. Flying manned planes or helicopters would cost at least $600 an hour, explained Ben Miller, who heads the program.
'We fly [drones] for less than $25 an hour,' Miller said. 'It's just a new way to put a camera up that's affordable.'"
Dropping the cost from $600 to $25 an hour reduces the cost by ~96%. I expect to see this topic making headlines and fully expect drones to become a standard tool for law enforcement. I would not be surprised to see speeding enforcement covered by this soon. Set up a drone watching a known section of freeway with a fixed length and ticket based on elasped time (and therefore mean speed) with that activity either being done by officers directly or license plate photos. Remember $25 an hour is cheaper than an officer sitting in a squad car.
Cameras don't have the same evidentiary problems for admission and may dispense with the need for the officer to appear in court if the ticket is challanged (no Crawford accusation exists).
Everything that you've described drones doing is arguably good--searching for lost hikers, enforcing traffic laws and so on. I can imagine a series of harms (spying nude sunbathers in their backyards and pervasive surveillance of racial minorities, for example), but until we articulate what the harms to be avoided are, it's difficult to balance the utility of the technology with the dangers it poses. Especially since, as you point out, the Constitution may not meaningfully limit drones, public policies regarding their use should be carefully tailored to the particular balance of harms and benefits.
ReplyDeleteThe ACLU has taken a stab at describing the potential harms: mission creep, tracking, voyeurism, discriminatory targeting and so on. With these potential harms in mind, they propose some policies to minimize these harms: usage restrictions, data retention limits, transparency and democratic control of policies, and auditing of drone use.
It seems to me a significant concern here is the extent to which the widespread use of drones would chill otherwise lawful behavior. The ACLU paper Pari referenced mentions the possibility of such a chilling effect in passing, but I think two things are particularly interesting about this possible (likely?) effect of drone use. First, it would be difficult -- if not impossible -- to ascertain all the ways people might change their behavior as a result of widespread drone use. If you can't pinpoint precisely what harms are being caused, I'm not sure how you'd craft policies to mitigate the harms. And second, any chilling effect drones might have on behavior should be the same whether their (mis)use is real or perceived. So even if we can craft policies to guard against the misuse of drones, those policies will only be effective in preventing the chilling effect to the extent that people believe the policies to be effective.
ReplyDeleteWell, this was going to be my topic. Seattle has since dropped its program based on the uproar, but California's still pressing ahead. The Sheriff in this case (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/heres-the-drone-the-county-sheriff-wants-to-fly-over-your-backyard/) wants it to only have basic physical receptors (Chemical detection)while the EFF and ACLU want to ensure that no surveillance capabilities are enabled.
ReplyDelete