The FBI has admitted it sometimes uses aerial surveillance drones over US soil, and suggested further political debate and legislation to govern their domestic use may be necessary.
Speaking in a hearing mainly about telephone data collection, the bureau's director, Robert Mueller, said it used drones to aid its investigations in a "very, very minimal way, very seldom".
However, the potential for growing drone use either in the US, or involving US citizens abroad, is an increasingly charged issue in Congress, and the FBI acknowleged there may need to be legal restrictions placed on their use to protect privacy.
"It is still in nascent stages but it is worthy of debate and legislation down the road," said Mueller, in response to questions from Hawaii senator Mazie Hirono.
Hirono said: "I think this is a burgeoning concern for many of us."
Dianne Feinstein, who is also chair of the Senate intelligence committee, said the issue of drones worried her far more than telephone and internet surveillance, which she believes are subject to sufficient legal oversight.
"Our footprint is very small," Mueller told the Senate judiciary committee. "We have very few and have limited use."
He said the FBI was in "the initial stages" of developing privacy guidelines to balance security threats with civil liberty concerns.
It is known that drones are used by border control officials and have been used by some local law enforcement authorities and Department of Homeland Security in criminal cases.
Mueller said he wasn't sure if there were official agreements with these other agencies.
"To the extent that it relates to the air space there would be some communication back and forth [between agencies]," Mueller said.
A Senate intelligence committee member, Mark Udall, Democrat of Colorado, later questioned whehter such use of drones was constitutional. "Unmanned aerial systems have the potential to more efficiently and effectively perform law enforcement duties, but the American people expect the FBI and other government agencies to first and foremost protect their constitutional rights," Udall said in a prepared statement.
"I am concerned the FBI is deploying drone technology while only being in the 'initial stages' of developing guidelines to protect Americans' privacy rights. I look forward to learning more about this program and will do everything in my power to hold the FBI accountable and ensure its actions respect the US constitution."
Another senator, Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa, also expressed concern. Asked whether the FBI drones were known about before the Mueller hearing, Grassley told CNN "absolutely not." Grassley added the FBI was asked last year whether agents were using drones but the bureau never got back with an answer.
At the same hearing, Mueller urged Congress to move carefully before making any changes that might restrict the National Security Agency programs for mass collection of people's phone records and information from the internet.
"If we are to prevent terrorist attacks, we have to know and be in their communications," said Mueller. "Having the ability to identify a person in the United States, one telephone number with a telephone that the intelligence community is on in Yemen or Somalia or Pakistan ... may prevent that one attack, that Boston or that 9/11."
The FBI director argued for the continued use of the NSA programs. "Are you going to take the dots off the table, make it unavailable to you when you're trying to prevent the next terrorist attack? That's a question for Congress," said Mueller.
The Associated Press contributed to this report
see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/19/fbi-drones-domestic-surveillance
Comments
That is what happened in Texas isnt it Wayne.
Not any different than any other camera on the street corner. Just put a disclaimer on the drone that this area is under 24 hours surveillance. If you can't read it from 5-10K feet away, that's your problem. Alternatively you can program the drone to use smoke skywriting to post the message in the sky for all to see during surveillance.
#1 media whips up frenzy about privacy etc
#2 senotors and representatives answer the public outcry. "Lets pass a law! Put a stop to this."
#3 law gets passed
#4 you read it. it says cops can you can't
#5 lay down, try not to cry, cry alot.
I think you still didn't get my point...
If the surveillance costs a lot in buying and a lot in operating, it is very unlikely that surveillance is done without good reason. I, for instance, have absolutely no objections to e.g. known drug dealers being surveilled 24/7. I find it intolerable that those kind of people get off the hook because of "civil liberty" and can continue poisoning children because the police mainly is a toothless tiger. That is - in my opinion - a concrete and imminent danger.
I do object to general surveillance of the public, aka. "fishing expeditions". If I have no criminal record, no proven terrorist links, I don't wanna be monitored "just in case" because THAT would be against freedom in general.
Back to my point:
Most authorities have limited budgets. So if the surveillance needs a state-of-the-art helo which costs $6M buying and $1500/h, the police won't send it up on "fishing expeditions" or to monitor "because they can". They only send it to surveil "for good reason", e.g. if they have knowledge of an upcoming drug deal or similar.
Now, if surveillance costs only $1500 in buying and almost nothing in operating, e.g. through quadcopters, it is much more likely (and known to have happened) that the police just starts surveilling "because they can". They send the copter up like they were going on patrol. And THAT is objectionable because if the police does any kind of surveillance the "oldfashioned" way, they usually need a court order and they only get hose for a targeted surveillance for good reason. Not for "fishing expeditions".
I simply dont agree that manned or unmanned is the crux of the argument. In the US the airspace above 500 feet agl is considered puplic property. Anyone or anything within that puplic property is free to look at whatever they want for the most part. Why this is an issue suddenly because of cost or the fact it's unmanned is beyond me.
If you weren't going to be ok with cheap surveillance you should not be ok with expensive surveillance. And further more a cesna can be operated for $150 per hour at what exact cost do you start worrying about your rights? $75 per hour? $50? Seems like a strange argument if you ask me.
@Wayne:
My point is - if it's really expensive, the surveillance is done only for good reasons. If it's simple and/or cheap, the temptation to surveil everyone and everything just because you can is much bigger.
@Gary:
Where did you get the information? I do work in the defense industry and an optical system that delivers a picture resolution that allows to identify a person "court-proof" and deliver otherwise forensically usable data on 15km distance is cutting edge. Hard to believe that police could/would afford such a system.
Are you sure, you don't just mean a system with 15km range? 15km range means, at 15km you see that there is something and you might be able to tell a human from an animal but 15km range does not mean 15km IDENTIFICATION range...
With 15km range you cannot spy on people in any meaningful way at 15km, unless you have forensically sound evidence that the target person is the only living being in the target area and then you still only see where the person is moving, not what the person is doing.
That is one other point of this ridiculous drone-debate... The constant misrepresentation of facts by activists (not talking about you!) either without any technical expertise who just read datasheets and misrepresent out of ignorance or those with technical expertise who intentionally misrepresent the facts.
Activism NEVER helps the cause. It just creates strong feelings on both sides and prevents logical analysis of the problem and finding a reasonable solution. Plus, activism usually has a huge fallout - best example is the current drone-debate seriously endangering the whole RC-flying hobby.
"When dealing with people, remember you are not dealing with creatures of logic, but with creatures of emotion, creatures bristling with prejudice, and motivated by pride and vanity."
Dale Carnegie
Stefan you don't hear that heli 15km away, the UK use a fixed wing manned aircraft for this task.
Well, a helo costs around $2000 per hour plus something like $2M-$5M buying. If a helo circles over my house or city block, everybody hears it. But you don't hear a quad hovering 150ft over your house. And it's hourly costs are much lower, making it much cheaper, thus easier to surveil...
A FLIR of the right type on a police helicopter can stand off at 15km and observe. Just saying. I'm with Wayne its been happening and should not come as a surprise.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next