Axtman 1

Cody Axtman

Professor Ficek

CSIS 316

2/21/2016

Domestic use of Drones

1. Introduction

The FAA should mandate policies to regulate the domestic use of drones and the use of data

collected by drones. The Domestic use of drones is becoming a major topic for many people, because of

its many uses. Drones can be used to capture live video and send the data to the receiver, which can be

stored. The FAA currently has some regulations in place on drones. Drone regulations starts with the

FAA than moves to the state legislation to the laws of general applicability. Some of these regulations

are in response to an invasion of privacy. Privacy is invaded because of the live video capture. The

debate between security vs. privacy is the main argument for the use of drones. The FAA stated, Its

mission was safety and that would not be taking specific views on whether or how the federal

government should regulate privacy or the scope of data that can be collected by drones. (Berry,

Nabiha 10)

2. Background

The domestic use of drones is becoming a major topic for many people, because of the many

uses a drone has. Drones can be used to capture live video, and send the data to the owner, which can

be stored. There are currently some regulations on drones have been opposed by the Federal Aviation

Administration. Any drone regulation always starts with the FAA, then moves to state legislation, then

the laws of general applicability. One major discussion with use of drones is privacy vs security. Privacy is

invaded because of the live video capture. Security is increased, because drones can be used to chase

down a criminal, or use them for spying. The FAA stated, Its mission was safety and that would not be
 Axtman 2

taking specific views on whether or how the federal government should regulate privacy or the scope of

data that can be collected by drones. (Berry, Nabiha 10)

The domestic use of drones presents opportunities as well as issues for individuals. Drones can

be used to perform many useful civilian and commercial tasks and have numerous lifesaving applications

such as fighting wildfires, conducting rescue missions, and tracking hurricanes and other large storms.

(Koh 4) This statement illustrates that drones can be useful for society in terms of protecting people

from injury in certain situations. There are many more situations where drones would be very useful,

and that could be a huge security increase for human lives. Drones could be used to help law

enforcement, Moreover, since the goal of law enforcement is to anticipate and prevent crime, under

the pretext of keeping people safe, drones will eventually be used to control and contain people.

(Whitehead) Another great example of drones being very useful for society, CBP is already unable to

meet increasing border patrol demandswhich include detecting illegal activity, conducting search-and-

rescue missions, surveying natural disaster areas or Mississippi River levees, and transporting agents and

equipmenton top of its day-to-day responsibilities, such as fostering trade and travel flows into the

United States. (Zenko) These benefits are something to consider with regulations, because it could

make tasks easier, and safer.

Although there are many benefits to society, there are also some downfalls for drones with

privacy, and even safety concerns. Technology isnt always 100% perfect, there are always going to be

malfunctions. A drone crashing into a backyard would be messy; a drone crashing into a commercial

airliner could be much worse. (Horgan 3) With these scenarios in mind, its hard to identify whether

drones would be a great technology to keep flying domestically or not. Drones could potentially crash

into another aircraft carrying people, and this would be a terrible situation, although the chances of

these things happening are slim. A simple malfunction could be the reason an airplane full of people die,

or a kid playing in the backyard could get struck by a drone playing in the backyard. The FAA have to
 Axtman 3

weigh in every circumstance to make sure these drones are safe enough to increase security

domestically.

Another huge issue with drones is the invasion of privacy. With these drones flying around

spying, society will feel like big brother is always watching, and that something many people dont

want. With their powerful surveillance capabilities, these highly intrusive drones represent a potential

threat to American civil liberties. (Slabodkin 17) This is an invasion of the Fourth Amendment, which

states that individuals have a right to be secure persons, houses, and papers. If drones are flown around

and watching everyone, that is against the Fourth Amendment. The biggest issue for drones is the

actually security of the hardware on the device, which users could hack into, and take control of. EPIC

observed, "drone hacking," or the process of remotely intercepting and compromising drone operations,

poses a threat to the security of lawful drone operations. (Stepanovich) Hackers could use these drones

to their advantage, such as terrorists groups taking over the drones, and using them against society.

These are the many things that society, and the government need to think about before putting any

regulations on the domestic use of drones.

3. Proposition

The domestic use of drones has become a hot topic in the modern world, due to the

advancement in the technological age. Drones were first meant to be used in the military, but are now

being used domestically, and thats causing a huge problem with society. There are many factors that

come up for setting regulations on these devices, because of their capabilities. Some major factors

include privacy, safety, security, and weaponization. The FAA should mandate policies to regulate the

domestic use of drones and the use of data collected by drones.

I. Privacy

a. Recording (Berry, The FAA's Slow Move to Regulate Domestic Drones.")

1. Restrictions
 Axtman 4

2. Video Recording

3. Audio Recording

b. Trespassing (Slabodkin, Domestic Use of Drones Threatens Safety, Privacy.)

1. Able to fly where?

II. Safety

a. Dangerous Functions (Koh , Drones Can Be Used to Perform Dull, Dirty, or Dangerous

Functions)

1. Police

2. Firefighters

3. Homeland Security

III. Hazards

a. Reliability (Horgan, The Drones come home)

1. Crashing

IV. Future Security (Stepanovich Security Game Changer?)

a. Hacking

1. Terrorist problem

2. Security issue

4. Persuasive Argument

The technological advancement of drones has given society an opportunity for increase in

security, but it has also resulted in a decrease of privacy for individuals. Drones have the capability of

recording and monitoring, sending this information to police, people, or anyone that can buy a drone.

The ability to record others without permission is something many people are not happy about. Being
 Axtman 5

able to invade peoples privacy by using these drones is not acceptable. The FAA needs to take

precautions and set these regulations and standards as soon as possible.

The Federal Aviation Administration needs to take a bigger step in setting regulations for these

devices. Frustrated by the FAAs delay in promulgating comprehensive regulations, and recognizing the

growing demand to use this technology, in 2012, Congress enacted the FAA Modernization and Reform

Act. (Berry) This act requires the FAA to construct a plan for safe use of unmanned aircraft by

September 2015. The FAA has missed many deadlines and this has caused many issues for people who

want regulations against these drones. Current regulations include that the requirement drones must fly

below 400 feet and must remain clear of surrounding obstacles. The aircraft must be in visual sight at all

times. Individuals cant fly drones within 5 miles of an airport unless the airport is contacted and

permission to fly is accepted. (www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft) Nothing in the current regulations

addresses limits on recording or monitoring people. This is something that need to be enforced by the

FAA sooner than later. Also, another concern about these regulations is that anyone can buy these

drones, and not even know what the rules and regulations are. There needs to be set guidelines laid out

before anyone buys a drone, even its as simple as taking a class.

Even though there are some regulations put in place, it still doesnt protect people from flying

almost anywhere. Trespassing is another concern, because what if someone is just having a family get

together outside in the backyard, then this device flys over and starts watching what everyone is doing.

In my opinion this would frustrate me, because I wouldnt want someone spying on what Im doing in

my own backyard. Slabodkin explains, As the FAA works to define UAV airworthiness requirements,

Congress must soberly consider safety regulations for drones as well as privacy safeguards for American

citizens on the ground. Society needs to highly considered in these regulations, because if people cant

even have a nice backyard hangout without feeling uncomfortable being watched, whats the point?
 Axtman 6

With the decrease in privacy with these devices, there is are also issues with the safety of these

machines.

Overall drones are still a recently new concept in the military, and flying domestically. All

technology has problems, but some of the safety concerns with drones are very critical. There has been

reports of crashes, and misuse of UAVs. According to the report, UAVs suffer accident rates multiple

times higher than manned aircraft. Despite safety concerns, Congress and the Obama administration

continue to push for the domestic use of UAVs. (Slabodkin) This really concerns me, because if more

and more people are going to use these devices domestically the government needs to ensure they are

safe enough to fly around. If there are drones crashing into backyards or on sidewalks, it could

potentially hit and kill someone. Another issue is the possibility of a drone crashing into an airplane, this

could cause a whole cabin of people to crash, and potentially die as well. Although one of the

regulations is they have to stay under 400 feet, will people always follow that rule? Here are issues with

private homes and property, but there is also concerns with public places.

National and State parks have had some concerns related to unmanned aircraft that has been

used in these locations. For example, It was a nearly perfect day at Children's Pool Beach in La Jolla:

seals at rest in the sand, tourists gathered along the cliffs, sea gulls wheeling above. And in the middle of

it all, a hovering drone. (Reynolds) Nobody knew who was flying the drone, but it was up in the air

possibly spying. Nobody knew if these actions were legal or illegal, so nobody spoke up. People were

worried that these seals on the beach were endangered by these drones. After this instance restrictions

have been put in place for all national parks. Drones are banned until the National Park Service comes

up with a long-term policy. (Reynolds) These regulations put in place need to be followed by everyone

unless they want to get a hefty fine. Also, visitors should understand these rules so they can report any

of these aircrafts. With state parks, it depends on the state rules, but many states havent put anything

into place yet, which is surprising. There has been an incident that should be a warning to all state parks,
 Axtman 7

In late 2014 a tourist was fined for crashing a drone into Yellowstone National Park's Grand Prismatic

Spring. (Reynolds) This isnt the only crash either, there has been at least 10 other incidents at other

state parks. This is a huge safety concern for tourists, because a drone crashing into someone could

potentially injure or kill them. Another thing that needs to be changed is the fact that these accidents

have usually just ended up educating the person on the matter, instead of ticketing them. There are

many general safety concerns for drones, but there also many homeland security issues that need to be

discussed as well.

Homeland security is probably the most important part of the drone issue. The reason for these

drones to be put in place is to increase security for everyone. There are many functions that these

drones can be used for such as a benefit for police, firefighters, and rescue crews. An example of using

these devices with police and firefighters is, Nearby, a pilot toggled a joystick, and a gray drone with

the wingspan of a California condor banked through the sky. As the plane's sensor sniffed for radioactive

isotopes, law enforcement officers and firefighters watched a portable controller that looked like an

oversized Game Boy. In minutes, a warning signal glowed on the screen. The drone had detected the

radiation. (Bennett) These advances with drones are very beneficial in these ways, because it keeps

police, and firefighters safe from very dangerous situations. Another use for these drones is the ability to

use them on rescue missions such as natural disasters, avalanches, deliver medications. They can get

into places that aren't safe for emergency personnel and help the teams determine whether they need

to find a way into the disaster zone. (Popular Mechanics) This is another beneficial way that drones can

be used to save many lives. Although there are some benefits to these devices, there are some things

that become dangerous with these features.

Theres been a new policy change on drones for being able to attach non-lethal weapons in

North Dakota. This is a very dangerous way of using these drones, because although the attachments

may seem non-lethal, some of the attachments have been known to actually kill people. Stated in USA
 Axtman 8

today, That's one of the possibilities presented by the state's House Bill 1328, which allows police

departments to equip drones with non-lethal weapons such as Tasers, tear gas and rubber bullets.

Tasers, and tear gas have been known to actually kill people, so this is a huge concern for the domestic

use of drones. Although this is going through North Dakota currently, it could expand to other states as

well. How far will these drones go? If non-lethal weapons are attached now, stronger weapons may be

attached later on. If these devices are supposed to be used to protect society, why are they attaching

weapons that could potentially be a threat? There are a lot of questions about these weapons, but the

future is what needs to be worried about with security.

The future of these drones are a huge security concern for society, because the actual security

on these devices are not very strong. People are able to hijack these devices, and could potentially use

them against society. Samy Kamkar showed that taking control of a civilian drone was possible in

December 2013. He equipped a Parrot AR Drone 2.0 with a tiny Raspberry Pi computer, a battery and

two wireless transmitters. (Moskvitch) This is something that is very scary to think about, if these

drones are attached with weapons, and can be hacked into, terrorists or others would have the ability to

use them against the government. They could also take live data feed that is being recorded, and use it

to their advantage.

There are many advantages and disadvantages of using drones domestically. With all of the data

that has been researched, drones should be set on stricter policies due to the many dangers it causes.

This is a very crucial topic that will be discussed in the future, and these issues need to be looked at

before making decisions.

5. Refutation

The usage of drones is revolutionary in the technological world, and their use has benefited

many individuals and organizations. There are some people that believe that these devices shouldnt be
 Axtman 9

regulated, because they have more benefits than the harms. Some people are against regulation

because they dont think the drones pose any significant danger to humans. One major harm that is

possible is the ability to hack into these devices, and use them against society. An example from BBC

news, The drone was forced to search for unencrypted GPS frequencies normally used by commercial

aircraft. At this point, the Iranians said, they used a technique called spoofing sending the plane

wrong GPS coordinates, tricking it into believing that it was near its home base in Afghanistan.

(Moskvitch) The ability for terrorists to hack into these devices, and be able to use against our own

people is very scary to think about. Especially in a state like North Dakota, where non-lethal weapons

have been approved to be attached to drones. But when Bruce Burkett, a lobbyist with ties to area

police, was allowed to amend the bill, it was rewritten to specify that drones could carry anything except

weapons capable of lethal force. (Cava) If these are passed to put non-lethal weapons on drones have

already been approved, then theres the possibility in the future that lethal weapons will be attached.

This could cause many accidental deaths, because what if someone accidentally fires off the weapons

and kill an innocent life? The FAA needs to regulate these drones, and take a strong action on the uses

of these devices domestically.

Another argument that people have for allowing these drones to be present is the ability to

perform against dangerous situations. For their ability to detect nuclear radiation, track a gun tossed

by a fleeing suspect, find the source of a building fire and assist searchers in finding a missing person,

among other challenges. (Bennett) Although these benefits seem very positive for society, but how

successful are these drones? There were many tests by these drones to make sure they were capable of

doing all of these abilities, but many of them werent very successful. There was an example that Police

and Firefighters tested out a drone, Police and firefighters found the smaller drone, the Wasp, was

simple to unpack and launch, but winds easily buffeted the aircraft, shaking the camera. The small

screens used to monitor the video from all three drones made it difficult to spot hikers in the
 Axtman 10

mountains. (Bennett) The small screens made it difficult for users to actually see any hikers, so it was

pointless to use these drones for finding stranded people. For the meantime, the FAA needs to reject

the use of these drones, until technology has advanced further.

6. Digression

There have been many scenarios with drones that have caused a lot of conflict, because of

people spying, and recording video in backyards of houses. WDRB News reported, "Four guys came over

to confront me about it, and I happened to be armed, so that changed their minds," Merideth said.

"They asked me, 'Are you the S-O-B that shot my drone?' and I said, 'Yes I am,'" he said. "I had my 40

mm Glock on me and they started toward me and I told them, 'If you cross my sidewalk, there's gonna

be another shooting.'" (Schneier) This is a great example for society to understand; if people are allowed

to fly drones over other houses and record what they are doing, their privacy will be intruded. These

devices shouldnt be allowed to fly over backyards or other areas without a warrant, because its

unethical for people to record without permission. Many people would agree that they wouldnt want

someone flying a drone over their backyard while having a family get together, because that would

make them feel uncomfortable.

7. Conclusion

There are many concerns revolving around the domestic use of drones. The FAA should regulate

the domestic use of drones for many reasons. Regulations will protect privacy of individuals, ensure

safety of the public, increase homeland security, and improve future security of society. Although there

are many benefits from these unmanned aircraft, there are many issues that need to be addressed as

well that outweigh the benefits at the moment. Although there are regulations currently, the rules need

to be implemented, before more issues evolve from this technological advancement.

 Axtman 11

Works Cited

"5 Ways Drones Could Come to Your Rescue." Popular Mechanics. N.p., 16 Feb. 2014. Web. 14

Feb. 2016.

Bennett, Brian. "Drones Tested as Tools for Police, Firefighters; Homeland Security

EnvisionsDomestic Use, but Legal Experts Worry about Privacy." ProQuest. Tribune

Publishing Company LLC, 5 Aug. 2012. Web. 25 Jan. 2016.

Berry, Michael, and Nabiha Syed. "The FAA's Slow Move to Regulate Domestic Drones."

Washington Post. The Washington Post, 24 Sept. 2014. Web. 18 Jan. 2016.

Cava, Marco Della. "Police Taser Drones Authorized in N.D." USA Today. Gannett, 29 Aug. 2015.

Web. 14 Feb. 2016.

Horgan, John. "National Geographic." The Drones Come Home 223.3 (n.d.): 122-35. EBSCO.

National Geographic Society, Mar. 2013. Web. 25 Jan. 2016.

Koh, Tsin Yen. Point: Drones Can Be Used to Perform Dull, Dirty, or Dangerous Functions More

Effectively, Safely, Humanely, and Cheaply than Manned Aircraft. Point of View

Reference Center. Great Neck Publishing Ipswich MA 01983 United States of America, 1

Jan. 2014. Web. 25 Jan. 2016.

Moskvitch, Katia. "Are Drones the next Target for Hackers?" BBC News. N.p., 6 Feb. 2014. Web.

15 Feb. 2016.

Reynolds, Christopher. "The Latest Buzz on Flying Drones in State and National Parks: Rules Can

Still Be Vague." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 11 Jan. 2016. Web. 14 Feb. 2016

Slabodkin, Greg. "Domestic Use of Drones Threatens Safety, Privacy." (2012): 17. ProQuest.

Buffalo News, 18 May 2012. Web. 25 Jan. 2016.

 Axtman 12

Stepanovich, Amie. "Legal Safeguards Are Needed to Protect Against Domestic Use of Drones."

Drones. Ed. Louise Gerdes. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2014. At Issue. Rpt. from "Using

Unmanned Aerial Systems Within the Homeland: Security Game Changer?" 2012.

Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 25 Jan. 2016.

Whitehead, John W. "The Domestic Use of Drones Poses Serious Threats to Civil

Liberties." Drones. Ed. Louise Gerdes. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2014. At Issue. Rpt.

from "Commentary: Drones over America: Tyranny at Home." www.rutherford.org.

2010. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 18 Jan. 2016.

Zenko, Micah. "Drone, Sweet Drone." Foreign Policy (21 June 2012). Rpt. in Drones. Ed. Louise

Gerdes. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2014. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context.

Web. 18 Jan. 2016.