Written by: Manu Meel and Isaiah Sirois #mags lab
Download 0.65 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Drone lobby is influential in congress
- Public officials support drones
- Circumvention
Bonus!DA LinksPTX LinkPlan unpopular – UAS lobbyFreeland and Freeland P.K Freeland and R.S. Freeland, *P.K., Department of Political Science, The University of Tennessee, **R.S., Department of Biosystems and Soil Science Department, The University of Tennessee, “Politics & technology: U.S. polices restricting unmanned aerial systems in agriculture,” Elsevier, 3/17/14, http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0306919214001390/1-s2.0-S0306919214001390-main.pdf?_tid=31c8d560-2140-11e5-82fd-00000aab0f27&acdnat=1435899710_59e9f872f8ad3f1b0cc4d9778c238329 // IS The UAS industry’s powerful lobbyist interests have been very active in the U.S. The U.S. Congress has an Unmanned Systems lobby, and according to a lobbying analyst, its 58 members have received $2.3 million in contributions from political action committees affiliated with UAS manufacturers since 2011 (Replogle, 2013). Lobbyists are also active in individual states. Several state’s policy makers have already been convinced that the overwhelming economic benefit should supersede public unease. In Oklahoma, an anti-UAS bill was shelved at the request of the governor because of concern that it would impede industry growth in the state. North Dakota’s Senate killed a bill because of fear that it would jeopardize the state’s chances of selection as an FAA test site. State commentators attribute the failure of a bill that would regulate UASs in the state of Washington through the influence of The Boeing Co., Inc. (Wilmington, Del.), which employs more than 85,000 workers in the state. Its subsidiary, Insitu Inc. (Bingen, Wash.) is a leading military manufacturer of UASs. Although most of the campaign contributions and lobbying activity come from large industries, smaller businesses, universities, and cities have also been lobbying at the state and federal level for UAS uses (Replogle, 2013). I Drone lobby is influential in congressWolverton 12 [Joe Wolverton- has JD and writes about congressional issues concerning drone UAV markets, Dec 2012, “Drone Makers Push Congress to Move Up Domestic Deployment Date,” http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/13798-drone-makers-push-congress-to-move-up-domestic-deployment-date, mm] The day of deployment is drawing nearer. Soon, thousands of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) unmanned aerial vehicle license holders will launch their drones into the skies over the United States. Despite the delay of lawmakers to establish constitutionally sound guidelines for the use of these eyes in the sky, a handful of congressmen are pushing to move forward the date of deployment. Why would legislators — typically not the most hurry-happy group — be interested in accelerating the drive to permit civilian drone use? Money. A collaboration between Hearst Newspapers and the Center for Responsive Politics paints the pecuniary picture: The drone makers have sought congressional help to speed their entry into a domestic market valued in the billions. The 60-member House of Representatives’ “drone caucus” — officially, the House Unmanned Systems Caucus — has helped push that agenda. And over the last four years, caucus members have drawn nearly $8 million in drone-related campaign contributions.... And: House members from California, Texas, Virginia and New York on the bipartisan "drone caucus" received the lion’s share of the funds channeled to lawmakers from dozens of firms that are members of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, Hearst and CRP found. Eleven drone caucus lawmakers from California, where many aviation firms are located, received more than $2.4 million from manufacturers’ political action committees and employees during the 2012 and 2010 election cycles, according to CRP tabulation of Federal Election Commission reports. Eight Texas House members in the caucus received more than $746,000. And four caucus members from New York got more than $185,000 from companies connected to the business of unmanned vehicles. The big winner of the drone manufacturer lobbying lotto was Representative Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-Calif.). According to the investigation, McKeon — cochairman of the House Unmanned Systems Caucus — received $833,650 in contributions from the drone industry. Members of California’s House delegation also received significant deposits from drone makers and advocates. Representatives Darrell Issa, Jerry Lewis, Duncan Hunter, and Ken Calvert each received more than $200,000 from this segment of the military industrial complex. According to the Hearst/CRP investigation, drone makers knew better than to mess with Texas and a few of the Lone Star State’s representatives saw their coffers swell with drone dollars: Silvestre Reyes, D-El Paso, a former U.S. Border Patrol sector chief who lost his seat in the Democratic primary, received $310,000. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, chairman of the House Homeland Security subcommittee on oversight, received $100,000, and Cuellar received almost $77,000. The two have pushed for drone surveillance of the U.S.-Mexico border. Given the amount of money flowing between the drone makers and the lawmakers, it is odd that most Americans have never heard of the Unmanned Systems Caucus. The relationship between drone makers and lawmakers was recently reported by an Arizona radio station: The drone caucus — like the technology it promotes — is becoming increasingly important in the nation’s capitol as the government looks to unmanned vehicles to help save money on defense, better patrol the country’s borders and provide a new tool to U.S. law enforcement agencies and civilians. “It’s definitely a powerful caucus,” said Alex Bronstein-Moffly, an analyst with First Street Research Group, a D.C.-based company that analyzes lobbying data. “It’s probably up there in the more powerful caucuses that sort of is not talked about.” And, he says, caucus members are well placed to influence government spending and regulations. The influence peddling isn’t restricted to the representatives listed above. According to Bronstein-Moffly’s data, all 58 drone caucus members received money, more than $2.3 million in total contributions from political action committees affiliated with drone manufacturers since 2011. Public officials support dronesKohl 12 [Geoff Kohl- editorial director for Cygnus Security Media, and also serves as conference director for Secured Cities, June 2012, “Here Come the Surveillance Drones,” http://www.securityinfowatch.com/blog/10730239/here-come-the-surveillance-drones, mm] Americans aren’t comfortable with drones in their hometowns. That was the short summary of a public opinion research poll about UAV drones conducted by Monmouth University Polling Institute. The poll research said that while most people are OK with UAV drones for search and rescue, they’re less excited, but generally OK with drones for border surveillance and tracking down criminals (2/3rds said they would support such use cases). Where they draw the line was the use of drones on themselves. Only a quarter of the respondents supported use of UAV drones for issuing speeding tickets, and about 4 out of 5 said they would have concerns with law enforcement loading on high-tech cameras and using the drones for surveillance. The American public may have reservations, but I would say that “public opinion be damned”, this technology is coming. We’ve already seen public officials support for drone UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles), with Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell saying he would support police use of drones in his state for reasons of increased law enforcement productivity. It’s not a far jump to the world of speeding tickets, I suppose, especially since it’s fairly common to see the “Speed limit enforced by aircraft” signs on the state’s roads. (For a detailed discussion of how aerial speed limit enforcement works, I recommend this discussion thread on aircraft-issuance of speeding tickets from our sister website Officer.com.) The reason the technology is coming is 3-fold. First, military-grade technology often moves downstream to law enforcement and corporate security as it loses its classification level and as it becomes more affordable. Second, as we’ve seen in our Secured Cities conference, cities have been very keen on investing in force-multiplier technology. If you’re limited on officers, think like a chief. Once the technology matures, a drone and an officer would both be able to capture speeders, but only an officer can interview witnesses and develop informants. You put your resources where they are best applied based on your available funding. Third, there’s an upstream movement of this technology from hobbyists that is at work as well. This upstream movement from hobbyists and from the cinematography/broadcast industry recently came to my attention when I heard of the company Quadrocopter that sells UAV systems for cinematography. Here’s why it’s heading upstream: Quadrocopter is selling complete UAV systems from $3,000 to $6,500 for the CineStar solution (see a cool video of a CineStar UAV filming in snowy weather). The $6,500 version not only allows for the flying UAV ability, but it also includes full gimbals control for the pan/tilt controls of the camera payload. These units can handle payloads of up to three pounds and can fly up to about 10 minutes. That kind of payload supports high-quality cameras with great lenses and that amount of flying time allows for actual surveillance operations. Think about this: How long would it take to fly a unit like that up to a window on a building to see if the suspects are in there making a drug deal? That upstream movement, combined with the support from public officials and the downstream movement of technology that came out of the military is going to mean that drones are coming. They’re already heading to the southern border, which makes sense. According to the International Boundary & Water Commission, the U.S.-Mexico border is 1,954 miles long, which makes it a manpower monster. Last decade’s virtual fence concept SBInet was a failed project, so it makes sense that drones are going to become a popular technology for border security – especially when you consider the drug cartel violence that is occurring around the border. They’re already headed to the London Olympics, as well, so where is this coming next? It’s a big leap from using drones for high security events, border patrol and military applications to using them in our hometowns and cities. There are FAA airspace issues and the aforementioned privacy concerns. There are costs that have to come down. Just recently, we’ve seen bills introduced that would expressly require warrants for domestic surveillance use of drones. But like it or not, that leap will happen, and I believe there will be a day when the technology become ubiquitous. CircumventionNo link – domestic drones will circumvent regulationsGreenwald, 13 Glenn Greenwald, former columnist on civil liberties and US national security issues for the Guardian. An ex-constitutional lawyer, “The US Needs To Wake Up To Threat Of Domestic Drones,” The Guardian, 3/30/13, http://www.businessinsider.com/drone-threats-strikes-us-2013-3 // IS In contrast to weaponized drones, even the most naïve among us do not doubt the imminent proliferation of domestic surveillance drones. With little debate, they have already arrived. As the ACLU put it in their recent report: "US law enforcement is greatly expanding its use of domestic drones for surveillance." An LA Times article from last month reported that "federal authorities have stepped up efforts to license surveillance drones for law enforcement and other uses in US airspace" and that "the Federal Aviation Administration said Friday it had issued 1,428 permits to domestic drone operators since 2007, far more than were previously known." Moreover, the agency "has estimated 10,000 drones could be aloft five years later" and "local and state law enforcement agencies are expected to be among the largest customers." Concerns about the proliferation of domestic surveillance drones are typically dismissed with the claim that they do nothing more than police helicopters and satellites already do. Such claims are completely misinformed. As the ACLU's 2011 comprehensive report on domestic drones explained: "Unmanned aircraft carrying cameras raise the prospect of a significant new avenue for the surveillance of American life." Multiple attributes of surveillance drones make them uniquely threatening. Because they are so cheap and getting cheaper, huge numbers of them can be deployed to create ubiquitous surveillance in a way that helicopters or satellites never could. How this works can already been seen in Afghanistan, where the US military has dubbed its drone surveillance system "the Gorgon Stare", named after the "mythical Greek creature whose unblinking eyes turned to stone those who beheld them". That drone surveillance system is "able to scan an area the size of a small town" and "the most sophisticated robotics use artificial intelligence that [can] seek out and record certain kinds of suspicious activity". Boasted one US General: "Gorgon Stare will be looking at a whole city, so there will be no way for the adversary to know what we're looking at, and we can see everything." The NSA already maintains ubiquitous surveillance of electronic communications, but the Surveillance State faces serious limits on its ability to replicate that for physical surveillance. Drones easily overcome those barriers. As the ACLU report put it: Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 0.65 Mb. Share with your friends:
|