Recent months have shown an increase in the use of drones by the military, government agencies and, more recently, private entities in the United States. Quick Take columnists this week ask how much federal regulation of drone technology is necessary in coming years, and how this increasingly available technology affects privacy in the lives of Americans.
Marshall Bornemann
Drones are becoming the bane of future privacy
Reza Lustig
Unmanned drones and the death rattle of mainstream political discourse
Pete Bailey
Policy must evolve with technology
Drones are becoming the bane of future privacy
By Marshall Bornemann
Recent phenomena have shown just how seriously Americans need to take the issue of drones, particularly those presently hovering over U.S. airspace.
As our military capabilities exponentially grow, whether as a result of peak funding for the Pentagon or by advances in offensive technologies, so will the use of non-military drones over U.S. territories. The New York Times suggests that, as of late, Americans have not been fully informed about the use of drones overseas. Interestingly, it is not due to "a lack of coverage," but rather because people are not fully absorbed in the topic.
There are, however, many who feel that the use of drones overseas could quietly transition into internal use. Those suspected of aligning with powerful terrorist groups, namely al-Qaeda and other sub-groups, are subject to drone technology's full capabilities of deadly force; how this could lead to collateral casualties is an entirely different component. This autumn, televised news programs covered the most intense debate held over Google's careless, and seemingly eager, monitoring of neighborhoods, which has drawn skepticism over its purpose.
While Google Goggles, officially announced in 2009, may not be a direct form of privacy abuse, they are certainly a step in that direction, given that since 2009, aerial and ground surveillance has become more frequent. They further the wherewithal of companies to monitor people's private homes, thereby assisting law enforcement in apprehending lawless citizens and giving wiggle room for larger forces, such as the Department of Defence and Department of Homeland Security, to do as they see fit. Crack monitoring by privacy watchdogs will be essential in stalling any attempted efforts to strip citizens' feelings of security when at home. Besides, how many suburbanites truly desire enlisting in violent insurgencies like Ansaru, al Shabaab, Boko Haram and then some?
Internet news outlets' lengthy coverage of drone use, such as PolicyMic's article on current military affairs, accounted for 176 children murdered, all in Pakistan, at the hands of American military drones. What is worse is the fact that, while we experience school shootings and movie-theater rampages in conclusive occurrence, the U.S. does itself no favors unethically targeting suspected enemies of the state at the cost of innocent lives. Preserving our own national security interests is crucial, but instances such as the ones in Pakistan need not continue.
Who is to say that deadly accidents would not happen here? Implementation of drones domestically will reap unintended consequences - perhaps not on a mega scale such as that of Pakistan, but enough to bring into focus the severity of drone usage within the United States. Privacy and safety go hand in hand, leaving the U.S. government with the responsibility of compromising between two decisions: reconciling that national and international danger is inevitable and then undertaking alternative measures to local security, or continuing on a fast-paced course toward potential social and political instability.
Marshall Bornemann is a junior in the School of International Service.
Unmanned drones and the death rattle of mainstream political discourse
By Reza Lustig
History lesson: Many on the socialist left during the Cold War maintained opposition to Soviet aggression abroad, first in Hungary and later in Czechoslovakia, and clearly chose to put principle over clan loyalty.
Others, however, took the low road. Citing the need for "solidarity" to preserve the bureaucratic farce that was "Real Socialism" in the face of Western imperialism, they either made excuses for Stalinist political interferences or outrightly supported it. They were rightly branded "Tankies" for their pigheadedness and are thus remembered by posterity. I'm not sure whether or not quoting Marx is still cool, but I've got to do it: "History repeats itself, first as drama, second as farce."
American political discourse has just re-invented the "Tankie." Word on the street is that there is serious discussion going on in circles about unmanned drones. Specifically, in light of their increased use within the U.S. by governmental and private entities, about whether or not they could be regulated.
And if that wasn't enough?
Liberals were given a sweetheart of an opportunity by the Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., filibuster about drones to prove their credentials as the fighters for due process and civil rights. Thus, their course of action is not only to approve the nomination of John "Drones-R-Us" Brennan, but to actively mock popular concerns about the rise of police state measures as tantamount to the cranky conspiracy theories of yesteryear.
This, ladies and gentlemen, this is the death of American liberalism as a progressive force in our society. These "progressive" politicos and their media talking heads are to their ideology what the Tankies were to Stalinism in the Cold War: hiding behind false pragmatism. They make themselves out to be realists in order to mask the fact that their ideology has become so degenerated, out-of-touch and warped as to put loyalty to the ruling apparatus over human rights and human needs.
You thought liberalism had gone bad before? Well, it was, but it's even worse now.
Reza Lustig is a senior in the School of Communication.
Policy must evolve with technology
By Pete Bailey
Drone technology is only in its early stages of development. However, engineers are making large progress and significantly reducing the buying costs of the new technology. With costs reducing quickly, it is likely that the government, as well as private entities, will begin to purchase drone helicopters for a variety of uses. However, the potential privacy invasions that these drone helicopters could cause must be regulated and restricted by the government.
While drone technology could mean improvement in surveillance, searching for missing persons and inspections for power line operations, it could also be used to record everyday Americans in daily routines and innocent private life. According to experts, these aircraft drones can spot a grasshopper on a plant from the air. While that technology is useful in agriculture, it would also be able to pick up small details from citizens who have no idea that they are being watched or where that footage may end up.
A great deal of federal regulation should be applied to new drone technology, including limiting where private entities are allowed to fly the drones, and under what circumstances the government should use the technology. For example, many private parties involving agriculture believe that the drone helicopters could help the production of crops and spraying pesticides for a very cheap cost. Regulations should confirm that the drones are being used for specific, regulated causes only, such as agriculture. Therefore the helicopters are remaining only in areas designated for each use.
Government use of drone technology would have to be carefully regulated so that Americans are not unlawfully watched. Regulations for government drones would need to be on a case-by-case basis. Surveillance would only occur when necessary, as in the case of a missing person, a possibly felony or other dangerous situations.
It is also important that the government regulates who is allowed to purchase the drones. Since the technology is increasingly becoming less expensive, drone helicopters could be sold for less than $1,000. This must be regulated so that the technology is not used to commit crimes against other Americans.
While the advancement of drone technology is important to our country, it is especially important that the advancement of policy moves at the same pace. Otherwise, American citizens may find themselves victims of unlawful privacy invasions or more dangerous attacks. Technology is going to continue to advance in coming years, just as it has in the past. However, it is important to evolve with the technology so that we are not far behind if something goes wrong.
Pete Bailey is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences.
edpage@theeagleonline.com
