- Related Stories
-
Wind River wins Boeing deal with Army
March 16, 2006 -
NORAD orders Web deletion of transcript
March 9, 2006 -
Stanford wins $2 million in robotic car race
October 9, 2005 -
Robot aircraft to take videocam into battle
April 4, 2005 -
Bush budget boosts tech spending
February 7, 2005 -
Robocopters dodge obstacles, each other
December 23, 2004
Now UAVs may be landing in the United States.
A House of Representatives panel on Wednesday heard testimony from police agencies that envision using UAVs for everything from border security to domestic surveillance high above American cities. Private companies also hope to use UAVs for tasks such as aerial photography and pipeline monitoring.
"We need additional technology to supplement manned aircraft surveillance and current ground assets to ensure more effective monitoring of United States territory," Michael Kostelnik, assistant commissioner at Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection Bureau, told the House Transportation subcommittee.
Kostelnik was talking about patrolling U.S. borders and ports from altitudes around 12,000 feet, an automated operation that's currently under way in Arizona. But that's only the beginning of the potential of surveillance from the sky.
In a scene that could have been inspired by the movie "Minority Report," one North Carolina county is using a UAV equipped with low-light and infrared cameras to keep watch on its citizens. The aircraft has been dispatched to monitor gatherings of motorcycle riders at the Gaston County fairgrounds from just a few hundred feet in the air--close enough to identify faces--and many more uses, such as the aerial detection of marijuana fields, are planned.
That raises not just privacy concerns, but also safety concerns because of the possibility of collisions with commercial and general aviation aircraft.
"They're a legitimate user of the airspace and they need to play by the same rules as everyone else," Melissa Rudinger, vice president of regulatory affairs at the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, said in a telephone interview.
Pilots undergo extensive training on collision detection and avoidance. Planes that fly at night are required to have certain types of lights, for instance. Operating an aircraft near busy airports (in government parlance, "Class B" airports) requires a transponder that broadcasts its altitude. And during all flights that take place in poor weather or higher than 18,000 feet above sea level, the pilot must be in radio contact with controllers.
No such anti-collision rules apply to UAVs. Rudinger is concerned that UAVs--either remote-controlled or autonomous drones--will pose a safety threat to pilots and their passengers. She's not that worried about larger UAVs operated by the military that have sophisticated radar systems, but about smaller ones that have limited equipment and potentially inexperienced ground controllers.
"The FAA needs to define what is a UAV," Rudinger said. "And they need to regulate it just like they do any other aircraft, and integrate it into the system. The problem is the technology has advanced, and there are no regulations that talk about how to certify these aircraft, how to certify the operator, and how to operate in the national airspace system."
For its part, the FAA says it's created a UAV "program office" to come up with new rules of the sky. Preliminary standards for "sense and avoid" UAV avionics are expected in three to four years.
"Currently there is no recognized technology solution that could make these aircraft capable of meeting regulatory requirements for 'see and avoid,' and 'command and control,'" said Nick Sabatini, associate FAA administrator for aviation safety. "Further, some unmanned aircraft will likely never receive unrestricted access to (U.S. airspace) due to the limited amount of avionics it can carry because of weight, such as transponders, that can be installed in a vehicle itself weighing just a few ounces."
Complicating the question of how to deal with UAVs is the fact that there are so many different varieties of them. Some are essentially large model aircraft and weigh only a few ounces or pounds, while some military models are the size of a Boeing 737. Most are designed to sip fuel slowly, so they have long flight times and low airspeeds--meaning that they could be flying at the same altitude as a jet aircraft but at half the speed.
Egging on Congress and the FAA are manufacturers of UAVs, who see a lucrative market in domestic surveillance and aerial photography.
"It is quite easy to envision a future in which (UAVs), unaffected by pilot fatigue, provide 24-7 border and port surveillance to protect against terrorist intrusion," said Mike Heintz on behalf of the UNITE Alliance which represents Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. "Other examples are limited only by our imagination."
See more CNET content tagged:
aircraft,
surveillance,
sky,
feet,
rule




I can see and hear a manned helicopter, so I know it is up there above my house. A LAC resident will have no idea that the government is above their house zooming in on them, and this could be for a sustained period of time. So, a citizen has no idea they are being surveilled. If a helicopter is shinning its bright light on my home for a sustained period of time, then I'll know about it and have the opportunity to petitition my government for redress of gievances).
2. Not currently feasible to monitor citizens unless probably cause is established. However, that will change.
It is extremely expensive and difficult to patrol the city 24/7 with a manned helicopter. These drones currently cost $30K a piece, and that price will go down. Within a few years it will not be out of the question to have dozens, or perhaps, hundreds of these things circling the sky watching all aspects of daily life. So, it will be feasible to surveil entire areas of the city on a 24/7 basis. With no one even knowing about it. This is not possible now. Helicopters are prohibitively expensive, so they are utilized in a limited fashion - say, for chasing suspects. But with these drones, the budgetary constraints are lifted and therefore probable cause will not necessarily be a limiting factor any longer.
3. Will inter-department checks and balances be implemented?
How is a county legislative body going to monitor the Sheriff's use of these drones? How will local legislators know that they are being used AFTER probable cause has been established. Will the Sheriff be required to obtain a warrant before they can fly surveillance missions over the homes of "suspects," where search warrants were not obtained or obtainable? Who will oversee the use of these devices? What standards will the Sheriff have to meet before they can fly a drone over a given area of the city? Who will create these standards? Where are the checks and balances?
4. This can be used to monitor local gov't officials as well.
What if someone other than the current Sheriff comes to power. Let's say George Bush III becomes the next Sheriff in town and he decides to use these silent, always pervasive flying eyes to "get dirt" on the local gov't officials. Who will be there to stop this activity? Will the folks that oversee the program have the power to curtail it?
If gov't officials are going to seriously evaluate implementing these new technologies, they need to make sure they can closely limit their use and manage their downside risk. If they are going to use them to help law enforcement catch bad guys, where a warrant exists or probable cause has been established, then great. But this technology is incredibly enticing, and it will be easy to justify expanding its use. What gov't officials have to do is make sure that any expansion of its use is publicly discussed and decided upon within the appropriate governmental body, because it will be very easy for law enforcement to use this technology however they see fit.
hahahhahhahahha!!!!!!!!!!
-
by Shadow6900
April 29, 2009 10:10 AM PDT
- This is no longer America, it has become Amerika.
-
Reply to this comment
-
(12 Comments)There is no privacy, it is the nightmare of George Orwell's 1984 and when I can I will leave this country
and find some South pacific to live on.