Bob Barr

Let Surveillance Fly High without Unmanned Aircraft

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

June 28, 2006

In a sense, it was only a matter of time.

For several years we have watched as local law enforcement has taken on more and more the trappings of the armed forces — the military-style uniforms, the SWAT teams, the almost routine deployment of fully automatic weapons. Concurrently, and especially since the Sept. 11 attacks, local governments have become enamored of military-style technology — red-light cameras, speed-detection cameras, video cameras — to increase local government revenues and to make law enforcement's job easier. Now, based on reports from Afghanistan and Iraq about how remote-controlled aircraft are extending the reach and power of military operations, law enforcement agencies across America are salivating over the prospect of acquiring such devices.

What might make sense for military operations in foreign battlefields, however, raises serious questions of privacy and safety when applied to civilian, domestic law enforcement.

Police officers in California, not surprisingly, are leading the way in pushing for civilian UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles). Thankfully, however, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department appears to have rushed forward so quickly with plans to test its nascent UAV program that federal regulators have stepped in to slap their hands.

Specifically, the Federal Aviation Administration, which has jurisdiction over the nation's skies — including those over Los Angeles, much to the chagrin of Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca — ordered a stop to further tests of its unmanned plane program. This was shortly after the sheriff's department conducted a much-publicized and rather embarrassing test of its latest techno-toy — named SkySeer — which crashed into a field.

The crash of the test UAV highlighted a serious problem with the pilot-less aircraft. They are notoriously unreliable. While reliability of military UAVs flying over "enemy territory" in lands far away may not concern citizens here at home, the frequency with which such devices crash should not be treated as a joking matter. While the Los Angeles test plane crashed in a field, UAVs actually deployed over cities and towns might just as likely crash while flying over a school playground or the roof of an occupied house.

In addition to the unreliable air worthiness of UAVs (the Border Patrol's Predator B recently crashed near Nogales, Ariz.), the FAA has raised concerns regarding the possibility of the devices crashing with other, piloted aircraft, especially in urban areas such as Los Angeles.

Moreover, the radio transmissions between the ground operator and the unmanned aircraft might very well interfere with other critical transmissions, such as those between civilian or military aircraft and ground controllers. These very legitimate safety concerns about civilian use of UAVs are in addition to the equally serious privacy concerns. Unmanned aircraft, controlled by police or civilian contractors, flying at heights making them not only silent but essentially invisible, would subject virtually every aspect of our lives to surreptitious surveillance. These concerns are magnified when you realize how easy it is to outfit the vehicles with night vision cameras, infrared heat detectors (which can "see" through walls or roofs) and directional sound-detection devices.

Still, I can already hear some law enforcement folks sitting in a planning session discussing how they might catch a wily politician suspected of taking bribes but always seeming to be out of sight when the alleged payments are made: "Hey guys, you know those UAVs our SWAT team has sitting over in their hangar?"

Mr. Barr occupies the 21st Century Liberties Chair for Freedom and Privacy at the American Conservative Union Foundation.