Could a RIer be killed by a drone?
Thursday, March 07, 2013
Flikr Photo/joelogon. The use of unmanned aerial devices has touched off a heated debate in Washington but should Rhode Islanders care?
But given the story this week that US Attorney General Eric Holder believes, under his interpretation of the Constitution, that a sitting United States President is well within his power to kill Americans on U.S. soil during an “extraordinary circumstance”, not to mention a string of recent news items about states around the country that are beginning to draft legislation to clearly define drone use within their borders, it’s not as far-fetched as it seems.
Marc Genest, PhD, a professor of Strategy and Policy at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, R.I. says Rhode Islanders, and all Americans, should be concerned about the potentially vague terminology behind Holder’s interpretation and the potential that that kind of power could one day fall into the wrong hands.
GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST“It’s possible it could happen,” he said. “My concerns are the same concerns talked about by other people in the field. What does an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ mean? The devil’s in the details here. I would trust that the commander in chief would use that discretionary power very, very rarely and only under the most extreme circumstances. It is theoretically possible, however, that you have an individual in office some day who may broaden that or dive into that loophole so extraneously that we find there are multiple uses of drones throughout the United States.
“But I am concerned that ‘extraordinary circumstances’ is a vague phrase that any individual could exploit if they so wish.”
As it turns out, the use of drones isn’t as far out as you might imagine.
In fact, Rhode Islanders may have a more pressing concern related to the technology. Someday soon, local and state law enforcement officials may use drone devices for surveillance and crime tracking initiatives against ordinary citizens.
Don’t believe it’s possible?
There’s already legislation making its way through the House of Representatives dealing with this very issue.
A State-by-State Basis
According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), almost 30 states across the country are currently debating legislation that would outline when, why and how their law enforcement agencies use the unmanned devices.
Currently, according to pewstates.org, there are nine law enforcement agencies in six states that already use drones and another nine awaiting the green light from the Federal Aviation Administration to jump on board.
The subject is gaining national attention—both because of the changing technology itself and the debates in Congress over the Commander in Chief’s power to use them domestically—and its potential ramifications down the line spurred at least one Rhode Island lawmaker to take action.
With the help of Representatives Maria Cimini, Edith Ajello, Larry Valencia, and Chris Blazejewski, who all cosigned the legislation, State Representative Teresa Tanzi introduced House bill H 5780 last week in an effort to tackle the topic head-on.
“Privacy is a big concern for me when it comes to this thing,” Tanzi said. “There’s federal funding that is now available for the purchase of these drones for local law enforcement so we can expect this to be happening soon and I would prefer that have strict regulations and rules drawn up around this before there are any problems.”
A Civil Liberty Issue
Tanzi worked with the Rhode Island branch of the ACLU to draw up the bill, which borrows a lot of the framework of legislation governing wiretapping regulations, and believes it’s a crucial topic to begin debating, even if it’s “kind of a niche interest for people.”
“I don’t think people are going to be paying attention to this broadly,” she said. “It’s not something that’s really going to impact most Rhode Islander’s lives, especially if these goals are promulgated in advance of the use of them in the state. Hopefully it will never be an issue for anyone in Rhode Island because we will have proper procedures in place.”
The ACLU isn’t as optimistic Ocean State residents will never be impacted by the devices.
“Drones represent a potentially dramatic intrusion on all Rhode Islanders' privacy rights,” said RI American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Executive Director Steven Brown. “Their ability to track and spy on people and their privacy is unprecedented. In the absence of clear and detailed standards, abuses are almost inevitable.”
Years Away?
Tanzi’s says she believes her bill is a few years away from gaining serious consideration but, as the technology advances, she thinks its imperitive to get the ball rolling.
“Things don’t typically pass the first year that they’re put up at the State House,” she said. “We are a part-time legislature, and we only meet six months out of the year. This could take two, three or 10 years to pass so it’s important to start this conversation well in advance of even potential use.”
Brown says there is no time to wait for drones to “become commonplace.”
“Technology has been outpacing privacy by leaps and bounds,” he said. “It is extremely important that thought be given to privacy before a new technology is widely deployed, rather than trying to catch up with it after the fact. That is why privacy safeguards should be considered now.”
But how far out is the potential for these devices to be used within Rhode Island borders?
Attorney General Peter Kilmartin, whose office is at the center of Tanzi’s bill and would enforce the rules and regulations of drone use by local law enforcement officials, declined to comment on the legislation. Kilmartin spokesperson Amy Kempe said the office hasn’t reviewed Tanzi’s bill or studied the issue in detail.
The Rhode Island State Police, meanwhile, say they’re not aware of any plans to bring the devices to Rhode Island anytime soon.
“Who knows what could happen in the next couple years, the way technology is going but it’s not anything on our radar right now, so to speak,” said RI State Police Lieutenant Colonel Wilford Hill.
Hill said the biggest issue New England-based police agencies would have in using the devices is that, unlike areas “out west and down south,” the air space in this region isn’t conducive and open enough to unmanned aircraft.
Then, of course, there’s the issue of finances.
“At the end of the day, there is a significant cost factor involved in it which will be, I’m sure, the deterring factor for most agencies,” he said.
Worth Paying Attention To
Even though the consensus seems that the use of such devices is still a few years away, Tanzi says it’s imperative that Rhode Islanders begin to pay attention to the topic now.
“I think that the less people pay attention to their civil liberties, the easier it is for them to erode,” she said. “So can I have the expectation that the average person would be paying attention to this? Probably not but I’m grateful so that there are people out there who are looking after our civil liberties to protect us. We take them for granted and it’s typically not until they’re infringed upon that we’re even aware of that.”
Congressman Jim Langevin says he's paying attention to the topic and it's potential impact on Rhode Island.
"“There is already some limited use of Remote Piloted Vehicles for law enforcement-related purposes, and I will continue to closely monitor the development of these programs,” Langevin said. “Any law enforcement tool needs to be able to withstand rigorous judicial scrutiny and strong Congressional oversight to ensure it doesn’t violate the fourth amendment or the people’s basic right to privacy. No law-abiding citizen in Rhode Island or across the country should have to be concerned that their government is using technological advances to examine their private lives.”
For Genest, the issue of the drones devices is a two-pronged discussion. While he says he supports their use for “counter-terrorism measures,” he believes they should not be used simply as a means for stopping criminal activity.
And while the average Rhode Islander might dismiss the idea of a President specifically targeting them with such a device, Genest says it’s a subject everyone in the state should keep a close eye on.
“This is an extraordinarily important topic because it has the potential to pose a profound challenge to our individual liberties,” he said. “This is something that I do not take lightly. While I certainly support the use of drones to track down terrorists in Afghanistan and Yemen and other areas of the world where we’re fighting an organized group of individuals who are seeking to harm Americans, I strongly believe that it is incumbent on us to contain this technology so that it’s not used as a weapon to limit our individual rights to privacy and liberty.”
And as for the question at hand? Could a Rhode Islander legally be killed by a drone?
Genest says in today’s society, with the way terrorism is, it’s not outside the realm of possibility.
“Look it’s only a matter of time before another terrorist attack is successful in this country,” he said. “One of the key things that you have to understand in the 21st century when you’re dealing with organizations who have grandiose missions and have no limitations on the numbers of innocents that they will kill in order to achieve their political ends, there has to be a balance between civil liberties and protecting the very principals upon which this country is founded.”
“It’s a very delicate balancing act that we have to be concerned with and be very vigilant in making sure that the government doesn’t exploit legitimate national security to undermine our liberties.”
