WASHINGTON — The
federal government is rushing to open America's skies to tens of
thousands of the drones — pushed to do so by a law championed by
manufacturers of the unmanned aircraft.
Yet questions remain
about their potential to invade privacy and about their reliability, as
two incidents on the U.S.-Mexico border demonstrate.
The drone
makers have sought congressional help to speed their entry into a
domestic market valued in the billions. The 60-member House of
Representatives' “drone caucus” — including the co-chair, Rep. Henry
Cuellar, D-Laredo — has helped push that agenda. And over the last four
years, caucus members have drawn nearly $8 million in drone-related
campaign contributions, an investigation by Hearst Newspapers and the
Center for Responsive Politics shows.
The Federal Aviation
Administration has been flooded with applications from police
departments, universities, private corporations and even the celebrity
gossip site TMZ, all seeking to use drones that range from devices the
size of a hummingbird to full-sized aircraft like those used by the U.S.
military to target al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan and elsewhere.
Domestic
use of drones began with limited aerial patrols of the nation's borders
in 2004 by Customs and Border Patrol authorities. CBP has 10 drones
operating along U.S. borders, including two stationed in South Texas and
two operating out of Arizona. Other CBP Predator drones are based in
Grand Forks, N.D., and Cocoa Beach, Fla.
The agency wants to
expand its fleet of the $4 million aircraft from 10 to 24 within the
next decade, according to Retired Maj. Gen. Michael Kostelnik, an
assistant CBP commissioner.
But their use hasn't been trouble free.
In
June 2010, a Predator flying to Texas from Arizona experienced a
“lost-link” incident, when the craft and operators lost radio contact
for roughly 30 seconds. That forced the drone to automatically drop to a
lower altitude until recovery. The National Transportation Safety Board
and congressional aides said the incident occurred when the radio
signal to the drone was blocked by severe weather.
In 2006, a
Predator crashed near the border city of Nogales, Ariz., just missing
homes on a hillside. NTSB ruled the cause of the crash was human error.
The
industry and its allies have pushed for more drone missions, leading to
provisions in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, signed into law on
Feb. 14.
The law requires the FAA to fully integrate the unmanned
aerial vehicles into national airspace by September 2015. And it
contains a series of interim deadlines leading up to that one: This
month, the agency was supposed to produce a comprehensive plan for the
integration, and in August it was required to have a plan for testing at
six different sites in the U.S. Neither plan has been issued.
Many
potential uses for unmanned aircraft, which are cheaper to operate than
piloted planes or helicopters, have been identified. Among them:
monitoring pipelines and power lines, finding lost hikers, surveying
crops, and assessing environmental threats and damage from natural
disasters. The FAA has predicted that 30,000 drones could be flying in
the United States in less than 20 years, sharing space with commercial,
military and general aviation.
But a September report by the
Government Accountability Office identified a top safety concern:
“Obstacles include the inability ... to sense and avoid other airborne
objects in a manner similar to manned aircraft.”
In addition, the
GAO report said, “Concerns about national security, privacy and
interference with Global Positioning System signals have not been
resolved.”
Despite the concerns, caucus members in the House and Senate are lobbying for expanded domestic drone missions.
House
members from California, Texas, Virginia and New York on the bipartisan
drone caucus received the lion's share of the funds channeled to
lawmakers from dozens of firms that are members of the Association for
Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, Hearst and the Center for
Responsive Politics found.
Eight Texas House members in the caucus received more than $746,000.
Cuellar
has received $77,000. The top recipient was Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon,
R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. He received
$833,650 in drone-related campaign contributions.
Cuellar said drone manufacturers contribute just as other interest groups do.
“We
get contributions from media PACs, from teachers, from doctors and from
a whole lot of companies that produce drones,” Cuellar said.
The
purpose of the drone caucus, Cuellar said, is to educate other members
on the need for and uses of drones for public safety, border
enforcement, search-and-rescue and commercial uses.
Some
lawmakers remain skeptical. Along with civil rights advocates, they
worry over government eavesdropping, surveillance photography and other
potential privacy violations.
“Based on current trends,
technology development, law enforcement interest, political and industry
pressure, and the lack of legal safeguards – it is clear that drones
pose a looming threat to Americans' privacy,” said Jay Stanley, a senior
policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union.
Law
enforcement agencies say drones will better protect the safety of
officers and the public in dangerous situations, and can be used for
search and rescue during natural disasters. They have joined drone
manufacturers in pressuring Congress to relax limitations.
Last
year the sheriff of Montgomery County, north of Houston, purchased a
$300,000 Vanguard Shadowhawk — a small unmanned helicopter — with a
grant provided by the Department of Homeland Security. But deputies have
yet to use the drone, mainly because of FAA restrictions, said Randy
McDaniel, the Montgomery County chief deputy.
The FAA limits, as
well as maintenance costs, battery-life problems and poor video quality,
prompted the Texas Department of Public Safety to discontinue its
$298,000 drone program in 2010. The four hand-held WASP drones were used
in fewer than 10 missions in two years.
The privacy issue also
bothers both Democrats and Republicans. This year's Republican platform
stated: “…[W]e support pending legislation to prevent unwarranted or
unreasonable governmental intrusion through the use of aerial
surveillance ... with the exception of patrolling our national borders.”
The
Fourth Amendment governs when, where and how the government can gather
information on an individual, including whether officials need a search
warrant before acting. Courts have given the greatest protection to
people when they're in the privacy of their homes.
Privacy
advocates note that not just the police, but individuals and commercial
enterprises will be using the devices. TMZ's application for a permit
illustrates that.
Paparazzi are already using small drones on the Riviera to shoot photos of celebrities in otherwise hard-to-access areas.
TMZ “does not have a permit” yet, FAA officials said last week.
Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment