Support NeoGAF

[Khalifa Jayy]

SOURCE: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...eployed-military-spy-drones-over-us/81474702/

The Pentagon has deployed drones to spy over U.S. territory for non-military missions over the past decade, but the flights have been rare and lawful, according to a new report.

The report by a Pentagon inspector general, made public under a Freedom of Information Act request, said spy drones on non-military missions have occurred fewer than 20 times between 2006 and 2015 and always in compliance with existing law.

The report, which did not provide details on any of the domestic spying missions, said the Pentagon takes the issue of military drones used on American soil "very seriously."

The Pentagon has publicly posted at least a partial list of the drone missions that have flown in non-military airspace over the United States and explains the use of the aircraft. The site lists nine missions flown between 2011 and 2016, largely to assist with search and rescue, floods, fires or National Guard exercises.

Before any "it's lawful, according to the report" posts.

A senior policy analyst for the ACLU, Jay Stanley, said it is good news no legal violations were found, yet the technology is so advanced that it's possible laws may require revision.

"Sometimes, new technology changes so rapidly that existing law no longer fit what people think are appropriate," Stanley said. "It's important to remember that the American people do find this to be a very, very sensitive topic."

Other federal agencies own and operate drones. The use of unmanned aerial surveillance (UAS) drones over U.S. surfaced in 2013 when then-FBI director Robert Mueller testified before Congress that the bureau employed spy drones to aid investigations, but in a "very, very minimal way, very seldom."

That, to me, hits the nail on the head. This is such a grey area, it's tough to even know where to start...

I'd start at "don't lie about spying on your own citizens," though.

Similarly, check out what the FBI got caught doing a few years ago...

The FBI is operating a small air force with scores of low-flying planes across the U.S. carrying video and, at times, cellphone surveillance technology - all hidden behind fictitious companies that are fronts for the government, The Associated Press has learned.

This part though... just.. speechless.

The FBI asked the AP not to disclose the names of the fake companies it uncovered, saying that would saddle taxpayers with the expense of creating new cover companies to shield the government's involvement, and could endanger the planes and integrity of the surveillance missions.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ap-fbi-using-low-flying-spy-planes-over-us/

 

[zugzug]

"It's Lawful" luls...

 

[Arnie7]

That's how it starts...

 

[collige]

I'm wouldn't be surprised if the usages were valid, especially considering how rare they are, but the complete lack of oversight, transparency, and up to date regulations on this are still quite disturbing.

 

[perfectchaos007]

I wouldn't mind having some of them flying over areas with high criminal activity rates to see if that would lower crime. Like maybe have some flying over Central Park after dark?

 

[Krejlooc]

"Don't worry, we complied with existing laws* on using drones to spy on US citizens."

*because our laws on this sort of thing aren't well defined yet

 

[foxtrot3d]

Well, think about it this way is it a violation for the government to fly helicopters above a residence and capture footage of said residence? Google Satellites? No. Under current law you have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" to what you expose willingly to the sky. However, that could change as drones become more prevalent in society.

 

[Azih]

Stories like these always make me wonder why something is wrong to do over American soil only. Other soils are fair game?

 

[Advocatus Diaboli]

This isn't news. And the title of the thread is pure, unadulterated clickbait. Look at some of the things the UAVs were used for: it's pure Defense Support to Civil Authorities and search & rescue stuff, along with uncontroversial things like fighting wildfires (see, e.g., this piece from NPR).

Edit: At least, I'm talking about purely Defense Department missions here. Mostly because that's the lane I understand.

 

[Escape Goat]

"Don't worry, we complied with existing laws* on using drones to spy on US citizens."

*because our laws on this sort of thing aren't well defined yet

What does this mean in practical terms?

 

[super-famicom]

Begun, the Drone Wars have.

 

[univariate]

Did they forget to deploy those drones in San Bernardino?

 

[foxtrot3d]

Stories like these always make me wonder why something is wrong to do over American soil only. Other soils are fair game?

The Constitution does not apply to foreign countries...

 

[timetokill]

Stories like these always make me wonder why something is wrong to do over American soil only. Other soils are fair game?

Of course. Why is that confusing?

 

[Maintenance]

They should deploy drones with facial recognition, if they spot a criminal they'll go like this.

 

[JordanN]

Stories like these always make me wonder why something is wrong to do over American soil only. Other soils are fair game?

 

[Syriel]

Stories like these always make me wonder why something is wrong to do over American soil only. Other soils are fair game?

It's specifically because it is the military doing it.

US doesn't like the idea of military doing anything domestically.

 

[Goro Majima]

I'm confused since it says that it has conducted non-military missions only 20 times (which means military missions would be okay?).

Then it goes on to talk about missions over non-military airspace.

Seems you could have military missions over non-military airspace? What constitutes a "military" vs a "non-military" mission?

Other agencies using them is also kinda bullshit. Although if we're talking about unarmed drones then it's whatever because that's a thing coming in a big way from both the government and private firms. I'm just not comfortable with the idea of drones flying around with bombs loaded and everything.

 

[Advocatus Diaboli]

It's specifically because it is the military doing it.

US doesn't like the idea of military doing anything domestically.

Not exactly. The U.S. doesn't like the idea of the military directly and tangibly assisting law enforcement efforts, but the military (especially elements of the National Guard) play a hefty role in disaster relief and emergency management. And, as I mentioned above, that's partially why these DoD UAVs were involved.

 

[Kinyou]

Coincidentally heard a Radiolab about something like this today.

http://www.radiolab.org/story/eye-sky/

There's some pretty fantastic and beneficial stuff you can do with this, but the risk of abuse is obviously there as well.

 

[Advocatus Diaboli]

I'm confused since it says that it has conducted non-military missions only 20 times (which means military missions would be okay?).

Then it goes on to talk about missions over non-military airspace.

Seems you could have military missions over non-military airspace? What constitutes a "military" vs a "non-military" mission?

Other agencies using them is also kinda bullshit. Although if we're talking about unarmed drones then it's whatever because that's a thing coming in a big way from both the government and private firms. I'm just not comfortable with the idea of drones flying around with bombs loaded and everything.

OK, primer: there are no armed drones at issue here.

Also, the entire U.S. airspace is apportioned by a federal agency, the FAA, and certain conduits within it are designated for military use only; other airspace is shared. You don't want little twin-engine Cessnas flying in front of F-15s, for example.

Take the area around DCA (Ronald Reagan National Airport) in Washington, D.C. You have fighters from Joint Base Andrews taking off near there for training sorties regularly; you also have a staggering number of commercial and personal use aircraft. Thus, by definition, you have aircraft on military missions traversing through public airspace. That said, unless they declare due regard, they're still bound to follow ATC direction.

As far was what constitutes a "military" mission . . . the article is bizarre and, quite frankly, wrong. I suppose that it considers a "non-military mission" to be where DoD UAVs were flown solely in support of another agency -- for example, the State of California for those wildfires or FEMA during various natural disasters.

 

[Gunztrix]

I'm fine with this. Let's see how this turns out when more info drops.

 

[lastplayed]

Satellites, drones, there's always eyes.

 

[Rentahamster]

Eventually Amazon Prime members will be able to buy the "intercept and destroy government spy drones" from our list of perks.

 

[Kibbles]

The FBI asked the AP not to disclose the names of the fake companies it uncovered, saying that would saddle taxpayers with the expense of creating new cover companies to shield the government's involvement, and could endanger the planes and integrity of the surveillance missions.

Lol wow the gull

 

[El Topo]

I wouldn't mind having some of them flying over areas with high criminal activity rates to see if that would lower crime. Like maybe have some flying over Central Park after dark?

You mean they should let one hover over Wall Street?