Checks and balances for drones

The Gazette Editorial Board

----

Cedar Rapids police used helicopters for more than 30 years to assist crime fighting, traffic safety enforcement and emergency response. The program, credited with lowering crime, fatality and insurance rates, was ended by the City Council in early 2007 because of its $1 million annual operating cost amid other budget priorities.

There's no move among city officials to bring back the helicopters. But don't be surprised if you see drones zooming over I-380 or hovering over a crash scene within the next several years.

Yes, drones. They're not just for the military anymore.

There's a federal mandate to integrate these unmanned aircraft systems into civilian air space by 2015. It was signed into law by President Obama in February. The Federal Aviation Administration has projected there will be 10,000 small drones in use within five years. Dozens of police departments across the nation already have permits to operate them.

Drones do hold promise of improving the effectiveness and lowering the cost for police surveillance and rescue operations. For example, a drone can be leased for a month's unlimited flying time for less than the cost of one hour for a helicopter and pilot.

What's more, private industry sees civilian drones as a major growth area that will boost bottom lines and boost the economy and job market.

That industry includes our own Rockwell Collins, which designs and builds miniature flight and navigation controls systems for drones, as well a new local manufacturing site for California-based Air Cover, which makes some of the smaller drones.

Air surveillance from manned aircraft has been carried out for decades. But these increasingly sophisticated drones also raise new concerns - especially privacy issues. If you think Cedar Rapids' traffic cameras crossed the “Big Brother is watching us” line, well, that's nothing compared to the intrusion potential of drones.

The Federal Aviation Administration has been focused on safety standards for drones. But there are few restrictions or regulations on how federal or local government agencies can use them.

That must be addressed.

Drones equipped with today's amazing video technology can peer into places no manned aircraft can reach. That means homes and businesses. That raises the specter of a government agency drone hovering over your backyard, taking close-up images for hours or days on end.

While proponents may say that's not likely, it would be foolish to assume that unwarranted invasion of privacy couldn't happen. Especially in this post 9-11 era when homeland security strategies have collided with the right to privacy in many areas.

We don't always agree with the American Civil Liberties Union stands on various issues. But with drones, we think the ACLU's regulation recommendations have merit. The ACLU advises drones be used only under the following conditions:

l When investigating crime, only where there's evidence of wrongdoing and only with a search warrant if the drone could intrude on privacy expectations.

l In emergency situations where someone's life is a risk, such as a fire or hostage crisis or in missing person situations (such as the recent Evansdale girls case).

l For non-law enforcement purposes, where privacy is not affected, such as geological inspections or environmental surveys.

There is legal and constitutional precedent for the search warrant requirement. For example, the Supreme Court, in Dow Chemical Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 1986, ruled that using sophisticated technology not usually available to the public may be considered a search under the Fourth Amendment. In a 2001 case, Kyllo v. United States, the court rejected the use of thermal imaging devices to inspect a suspect's home without a warrant.

In January, in a case involving another high-tech device, the Supreme Court ruled that police need a probable-cause warrant in most cases before they sticking a GPS tracking device on a vehicle to monitor its every move.

Drones raise a similar concern. They can be powerful, helpful tools that enhance public safety efforts. They can reduce costs to taxpayers, and expand economic benefits.

But using that power should be subject to checks and balances necessary for all government authority.

n Comments: thegazette.com/category/opinion/editorial, editorial@sourcemedia.net