As we've pointed out in a few stories, drones aren't necessarily something to worry about. Like any technology, they can be used for good and bad purposes, and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. But determining where exactly the line between acceptable and unacceptable lies is tricky, as the following story from the Capitol Hill Seattle blog shows:

This afternoon, a stranger set an aerial drone into flight over my yard and beside my house near Miller Playfield. I initially mistook its noisy buzzing for a weed-whacker on this warm spring day.

So how close does a drone have to be to someone's home before it becomes intrusive? Clearly, at some height the air is part of the sky commons that belongs to everyone, as a famous 1946 US Supreme Court decision laid down:

The air is a public highway, as Congress has declared. Were that not true, every transcontinental flight would subject the operator to countless trespass suits. Common sense revolts at the idea.

The post continues:

After several minutes, I looked out my third-story window to see a drone hovering a few feet away. My husband went to talk to the man on the sidewalk outside our home who was operating the drone with a remote control, to ask him to not fly his drone near our home. The man insisted that it is legal for him to fly an aerial drone over our yard and adjacent to our windows. He noted that the drone has a camera, which transmits images he viewed through a set of glasses. He purported to be doing "research". We are extremely concerned, as he could very easily be a criminal who plans to break into our house or a peeping-tom.

Those sound like reasonable concerns. So does that mean that drones with cameras need to fly further away from the property of others than those without, so that the images they capture don't invade people's privacy? How might we set that distance? These and related questions are starting to be posed more frequently, as more drones enter our skies. At some point, we will need to start coming up with some answers that most people find reasonable.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Completely autonomous drones that can decide who or what to strike are still many years away from becoming a reality, but the military has already developed various unmanned aircraft that it's been using primarily for gathering intelligence (rather than for attacking targets). Here are a few more examples of some of the high-tech flying weapons that exist today.

• The $1.8 billion prototype Unmanned Combat Air System demonstrator was recently launched into the air from a catapult. This marked the first-ever catapult launch of a drone from the flight deck of an aircraft carrier. [url]
• The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, the most advanced stealth fighter jet in history, seems to have a problem with suffocating its pilots during normal flight. Since 2008, pilots would frequently and inexplicably suffer from what appeared to hypoxia -- in one case, a pilot hit a tree while landing and didn't even realize it. The cause of the problem was only recently identified as being due to a faulty valve on the pilots' life-support vest. You'd think that after spending almost $80 billion on these planes, it wouldn't have taken them almost five years to figure this out. [url]
• After 16 years and billions of dollars, the "Airborne Laser" project -- a 747 jumbo-jet equipped with a powerful laser that can shoot missiles out of the sky -- has finally been scrapped. Cost prohibitive and impractical, the Airborne Laser would likely have cost $92,000/hour to fly if it had worked. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

While much of the recent conversation here surrounding the United States' use of drones has centered on the fear of how they might be used domestically, there can be little doubt that their use is highly controversial around the world as well. In that arena, the questions that arise are more about transparency in their use, collateral damage, and whether or not there is even a legal argument for their application at all. As the pressure continues to mount, President Obama finally began to at least respond, suggesting in his most recent State of the Union address that he is seeking moves that will "ensure that not only our targeting, detention and prosecution of terrorists remain consistent with our laws and systems of checks and balances, but that our efforts are even more transparent to the American people and to the world." Many of us who have paid attention to Obama's actions versus his promises when it comes to transparency may have rolled our eyes, but there may shortly be a move coming in which, in the case of drones at least, progress will actually be made.

Reports are circulating via senior U.S. officials as sources that the President is going to take the CIA drone program, one of two in the United States, and unify it with the Defense Department's drone program. If it does indeed happen, this move should not go under-appreciated by those of us who wish for more accountability and transparency when our government decides to kill people abroad. As The Daily Beast notes:

The move could potentially toughen the criteria for drone strikes, strengthen the program's accountability, and increase transparency. Currently, the government maintains parallel drone programs, one housed in the CIA and the other run by the Department of Defense. The proposed plan would unify the command and control structure of targeted killings and create a uniform set of rules and procedures. The CIA would maintain a role, but the military would have operational control over targeting. Lethal missions would take place under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which governs military operations, rather than Title 50, which sets out the legal authorities for intelligence activities and covert operations. “This is a big deal,” says one senior administration official who has been briefed on the plan. “It would be a pretty strong statement.”

While any move that occurs will be phased in gradually, the report suggests it will be completed within the President's second term. The likely pusher for this shift, oddly enough, is coming from John Brennan, newly appointed CIA Director, who also has headed up the administration's drone program since the start of his first term. Reportedly, Brennan wants to get back to gathering intelligence, the CIA's longstanding role prior to the September 11 attacks over a decade ago. For the President, the one who dramatically upped the ante with America's drone strikes from the previous administration, this would be a serious move. Why?

Perhaps most important is that the CIA’s program is “covert”—which is to say it is not only highly classified, it’s deniable under the law. That means the CIA, in theory, can lie about the existence of the program or about particular operations. The military’s targeted killing program, however, is “clandestine”—which means it is secret but not deniable.

The cynical may not see much in such a move, but it's an important step. I'll leave it to other arenas for any debate over whether we should be using drones in the war on terror at all, but I would at least hope that we could all agree that when America, the nation, decides we're going to kill people overseas, America, the nation, should demand that choice be scrutable.

A few weeks back, we wrote about an absolutely ridiculous bill that was proposed in New Hampshire that would have made it illegal to do any aerial photography, if the images showed any "residential dwelling." As we noted, this would make things like various mapping services illegal. Given the criticism, it appears that the bill's sponsor, Rep. Neal Kurt, decided to rewrite it, limiting it to just "drones," after admitting that the whole idea for the bill came after he saw a toy drone for sale in the mall. Kurt appears to have an overactive imagination when it comes to those toy drones, because he's worried about them firing lasers, if the text of the bill (HB 619-FN) is any indication:

II. “Drone” means an unmanned flying machine that is capable of:

(a) Capturing images or sounds of objects or people on the ground, in or about buildings or structures, or in the air;
(b) Intercepting communications on the ground, in or about buildings and structures, or in the air; or
(c) Firing a bullet, LASER-type ray, other projectile or any kind of lethal or non-lethal weapon.

Unfortunately, the bill is still way too broad. While mapping programs may be legal, any use of a drone to photograph a person or people becomes a felony. Also if you photograph the inside of a building. From the sky. Maybe that's via the lasers. The only way around this law is to get "prior, written consent" from the person photographed.

This is the kind of bill you get when you have a politician with an overactive imagination, who sees a toy drone and can only think "bad things will happen with this," and refuses to consider the many cool things that can be done with drones today. Chris Anderson built a whole company after being inspired to build drones with his kids. If this bill passes, and he's in New Hampshire with his kids, having fun, teaching them things about building things, physics, aerodynamics and more, they could all become felons if their drone takes a photo of someone without "prior, written consent." That's just silly.

Thankfully, it sounds like most of the people who went to a hearing on the bill spoke out against it -- including a Brigadier General from the US Army who pointed out that the federal government has "exclusive sovereignty" over airspace, and the State of New Hampshire does not.

First to testify was a Brigadier General from the US Army. He began by firmly reminding the committee that the airspace above New Hampshire was not owned by New Hampshire, but by the United States of America, and therefore controlled by the FAA. One of the committee members challenged him as to where that authority came from. The General was kind enough to quote chapter and verse. There were no more questions.

It's a bit disappointing to see that the ACLU is pledging "strong support" for the bill. Yes, I understand the concerns and worries about domestic drone use by governments for surveillance purposes -- and I support efforts by various groups to build transparency and clear rules around such usage -- but this bill goes way beyond that.

For obvious reasons, stories about drones concentrate on what they can do while they are airborne. But they have to come down at some point, and sometimes emergency landings mean that they cannot return to base. An interesting story from Italy recounts what happened there in these circumstances:

A 24-year old college student in Bologna, Italy was arrested by Italian postal police after attempting to sell a drone that had emergency-landed on his apartment's terrace last October. The student had posted the drone, a privately-operated Microdrones quad-rotor helicopter owned by Italian startup Eye Sky, on Subito.it, an online auction site. The asking price for the $40,000 drone: 1,000 euros [$1300].

The Ars Technica post notes the mistakes the student made that enabled the police to track him down (hint: don't post too many details when you offer a drone for sale), and that he now faces up to a year in prison, and fines. But what's interesting here is that the student in question even thought of trying to sell it. It's almost as if drones belong to a different, heavenly world, and when they drop out of it into our earthly one, they are regarded as a kind of lucky gift from the gods to do with as we please. Of course, for all their novelty, they're just another kind of physical object that is owned by someone, who won't be best pleased if others try to appropriate it.

However, this does raise the question of what exactly the public should do when a drone comes down in their garden or on their roof. As drones and emergency landings in cities start to become more common, who do we call? Do we perhaps need a central Office of Lost Drones that can come along and pick them up?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

It seems like every other headline is about drones these days -- drones being used in battle, drones being used by the police, drones as a threat to privacy. As we've noted before, it's easy to get the impression that drones are inherently evil, and should be made illegal or something (good luck with that.) But drones are simply a new kind of technology, largely made possible by Moore's Law and the dramatic reductions in size, weight and cost it has brought with it for electronic control devices. Like any other technology, drones can be used for all kinds of purposes, both good and bad. It's just that we have heard mostly about the more dubious ones. To remedy that, here's a heart-warming tale of how drones could tackle one of the most serious threats facing wildlife around the world: poaching.

Conservation group WWF has announced plans to deploy surveillance drones to aid its efforts to protect species in the wild, as the South African government revealed that 82 rhinos had been poached there since the new year.

…

WWF's three-year project also involves combining data from unmanned aerial vehicles, cheap mobile phone technology tracking animal movements, and handheld devices carried by rangers, in a bid to outsmart often heavily armed poachers who bribe corrupt officials to avoid patrols and find wildlife.

This sounds like a brilliant use of technologies to solve several problems. The huge areas involved make it almost impossible for a few rangers to cover, but multiple drones flying high could easily do that. Similarly, using drones would avoid the dangers that rangers face on a daily basis when dealing with poachers prepared to shoot if discovered. Drones might even be used for more aggressive management of poachers -- for example, safely disabling their vehicles. Given these and other benefits, it's no wonder, then, that drones are being deployed for similar purposes around the world:

Drones are already being used by conservationists to monitor wildlife, such as orangutan populations in Sumatra, anti-whaling activists are using them against the Japanese whaling fleet, and a charity in Kenya recently beat its target of raising $35,000 in crowdfunding for a drone to protect rhinos and other wildlife in the country's Laikipia district.

As well as using crowdfunding to pay for more of these drones, one interesting approach would be to apply crowdsourcing to help protect animals directly. If the live feeds from drones were available on a Web site for anyone to watch, it would be possible to monitor huge areas 24 hours a day by using online volunteers around the world who drop by to keep an eye on things for a while. If they spotted something suspicious, they could alert the Web site, which would pass on the information to the relevant rangers nearby who could take a look on their screens and, if necessary, on the ground.

This would help protect vulnerable animals, share the burden of monitoring them with drones, and help people around the world to become more engaged with conservation. Who could possibly have any problems with this kind of drone use -- apart from the poachers, of course?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

As we know, the Internet works by breaking digital information up into IP packets which are then routed independently over the network, and then re-assembled at their destination. Anything made up of 0s and 1s can be sent anywhere with an Internet connection in this way, but that isn't much good for physical objects.

It's true that we are fast approaching the day when we will be able to use a 3D scanner to send a digital file representing an object across the Internet so that it can then be printed at the destination. But that only works for simple, fungible items like cups or replacement parts, and is useless if you want to deliver a particular, personal item rather than just a generic copy.

To do that, we need an Internet of drones:

A short distance drone delivery service built on an open protocol. Think short haul logistics.

It's a system that will explode in a way that is very similar to the way the Internet grew up -- where connections were bought by individuals and installed one modem and IP address at a time, and where the early providers are local geeks with shelves full of modems and an expensive T-1 lines.

It's an approach that uses "uncontrolled airspace" and incremental purchases of cheap, standards compliant pads/drones to roll itself out (very similar to the way the Internet was able to piggy back on the old telephone system).

As a result of this open approach and decentralization, it's something that could grow VERY fast.

If you're still unsure how this would work in practice, the post by John Robb quoted above goes on to spell out the details for a simple example. The bottom line for returning a forgotten smartphone to its owner 30 miles away:

Costs? Probably less than $0.25 per 10 mi. or so. So, about $0.75 in this instance. Time? An hour or so.

Of course, this is just a generalization of an idea we discussed back in March of last year, the so-called "TacoCopter", but taken to the next level, modelled on the Internet's IP packets. As we pointed out then, it's a great idea with lots of practical problems, mostly regulatory ones. Arguably the far greater potential of the Internet of drones concept makes the argument for loosening up those restrictions to permit innovation in this area even more compelling.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

The march towards drones becoming a common tool for domestic law enforcement agencies seems inevitable and some people aren't happy about it. We've already covered the backlash against one artist who satarized New York City's drone program. San Diego, for their part, valiantly refused to honor an FOIA request on their domestic UAV program because they determined on their own that there wouldn't be a public benefit to the disclosure. MuckRock thought that was a dodge not afforded San Diego under FOIA rules, but San Diego again declined to say anything at all about the program.

"Sorry, citizen, but Detective Iron Death-Spy is very, very shy."
Image source: CC BY 2.0

But one thing that has generally been accepted is that law enforcement agencies were required to operate these drones under very strict guidelines and within very strict geographic boundaries. It would appear, for Mesa County, Colorado at least, that may not be universally true. The EFF's Drone Census project has uncovered that Mesa County has two UAVs and can operate them without many of the restrictions in place elsewhere.

The MCSO must abide by standard FAA restrictions on domestic UAV flights, which cap flights to below 400 feet and preclude night flights or operating over "populated areas, heavily trafficked roads, or an open-air assembly of people." But MCSO's drone authorization includes no geographic restrictions: effectively, the agency can fly its UAVs anywhere in Mesa County. This freedom has allowed the agency to log dozens of operational missions since fall 2010. MCSO flight logs indicate that its UAV team has logged more than 160 flight hours on its drones since January 2011.

So, whereas other UAV programs are restricted to flying over areas where they could chiefly assist in locating missing people in difficult to surveil areas, Mesa County can fly them anywhere within their jurisdiction without any limitations beyond the somewhat vague-sounding "populated areas, heavily trafficked roads" or the open air above a large assembly of people. That can leave a great deal of sky to buzz around with less of the oversight I think is desperately needed in programs like this.

Now, just to be clear, these drones do not carry arms. They are used for imaging. Then again, as the creep continues, the rules keep shifting towards greater use and application, so it wouldn't be fair to slam anyone concerned that someday we may indeed see armed UAVs over our skies. Equally worrying is this:

MCSO has been using drones operationally for two years, but the department has no written drone policy outlining the uses for which its officers may deploy UAVs. Ms. Barnes writes that MCSO is "currently in the process of drafting a written policy for the use of our unmanned aircraft."

Well, that's just peaches. Military-style technology deployed domestically without any official policy for its use. I feel so warm and fuzzy inside.

If there's one thing authority figures hate, it's anything that goes counter to the narrative and/or puts their pet projects in an unfavorable light. A New York City artist is learning this the hard way after he and some friends took aim at the police department's drone program, plastering the city with satirical ads touting the "safety" provided by the new eyes in the sky.

On September 16, 29-year-old “Essam” and a group of friends blanketed lower Manhattan with posters designed to look like official New York Police Department signage. “Drones: Protection When You Least Expect It,” read the slogan below simple ideograms of families running from unmanned aerial vehicles. Essam and his team disguised themselves as employees of the outdoor advertising firm Van Wagner, which manages the advertising space on bus stations and kiosks throughout the city. All told, they swapped out about 100 ads.

“We see this trend throughout history of military technology always coming to the civilian world,” the Army veteran told Animal New York. He says his goal is for the conversation about domestic police use of drones “to reach a mainstream level where we are talking about this at the dinner table.”

Needless to say, the PD was highly unamused. Its "weeks-long manhunt" for the artist finally culminated in an arrest... and a handful of trumped up charges.

Essam Attia, 29, was hit with 56 counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument, grand larceny possession of stolen property and weapons possession after allegedly having an unloaded .22-caliber revolver under his bed at his Manhattan apartment when he was arrested early Wednesday.

He posted bail, which was set at $10,000 bond or $2,500 cash, and is due back in Manhattan Criminal Court on Dec. 3.

Attia hoped to generate some awareness and kickstart discussion about the increasing prevalence of law enforcement drone usage. Unfortunately, it looks as though the NYPD is only interested in providing its narrative, one that is free from criticism or transparency. It also seems to be particularly bad at actual "police work." Essam signed many of the posters with his artist signature ("ESSAM") and participated in a barely-anonymous interview and yet it took a "weeks-long manhunt" to track him dow.

Calling his lookalike posters "forged" is stretching the truth to fit a hefty criminal charge, one that appears to have been levied solely out of spite. Perhaps if Essam had just placed his posters over the NYPD's, he wouldn't also be facing the grand larceny charge, but that's just quibbling over theoretical outcomes. The larger issue is the First Amendment. No one ever guaranteed free speech without consequences, but it does seem like this pursuit of an artist who honestly did nothing more than make more New Yorkers more aware of their PD's tactics has very little to do with bringing a criminal to justice, and everything to do with harshly shutting down criticism in order to deter further critiques of the NYPD. 

The US government's "targeted strike" drone program has been around since George W. Bush's first presidential term. Despite being nearly a decade old, the program has largely operated in a gray area of legality, with no codified set of rules governing drone strikes. So, what does it take to get some guidelines applied to the executive branch-controlled remote-control merchants of death? The threat of having to turn control over to the "other side," apparently.

Facing the possibility that President Obama might not win a second term, his administration accelerated work in the weeks before the election to develop explicit rules for the targeted killing of terrorists by unmanned drones, so that a new president would inherit clear standards and procedures, according to two administration officials.

So, when the control is in your hands, it's ok to direct long distance killings without "clear standards and procedures." But, if the other guy is being handed the power, it's suddenly time to "develop explicit rules." This doesn't come across as genuine concern. It sounds more like a last-minute effort to hobble the program by throwing in a handful of cursory checks and balances. This quote from an anonymous administration official put its all in perspective:

“There was concern that the levers might no longer be in our hands,” said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity. With a continuing debate about the proper limits of drone strikes, Mr. Obama did not want to leave an “amorphous” program to his successor, the official said. The effort, which would have been rushed to completion by January had Mr. Romney won, will now be finished at a more leisurely pace, the official said.

Again, this sounds nothing like genuine concern about "doing the right thing" by implementing strict guidelines and otherwise easing the transition between presidents. It sounds more like "Well, if we have to give up this power, let's make it as limited as possible."

Now, maybe that's just the way I'm hearing it. But those sentences aren't very comforting, either. Rules -- explicit rules -- should already be in place. Now that Obama's safely back in office, the team's just going to ease off the gas pedal?

This isn't very surprising, considering the wall of secrecy surrounding the targeted strike program -- and how far away the program has drifted from its original purpose.

Despite public remarks by Mr. Obama and his aides on the legal basis for targeted killing, the program remains officially classified. In court, fighting lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and The New York Times seeking secret legal opinions on targeted killings, the government has refused even to acknowledge the existence of the drone program in Pakistan.

But by many accounts, there has been a significant shift in the nature of the targets. In the early years, most strikes were aimed at ranking leaders of Al Qaeda thought to be plotting to attack the United States. That is the purpose Mr. Obama has emphasized, saying in a CNN interview in September that drones were used to prevent “an operational plot against the United States” and counter “terrorist networks that target the United States.”

No one's looking to declassify any information about this program anytime soon. The Defense Department and the CIA are pushing for "greater latitude" to carry out strikes. Other government officials have argued against the drone program, but to date, the administration seems willing to continue the program "as is," without returning it to its original focus. At this point, the targeted strike program has expanded to include strikes on militants not engaged directly with US forces. Acceptable targets also include individuals unknown to those requesting or clearing the strikes.

Then there's the matter of strikes against people whose identities are unknown. In an online video chat in January, Mr. Obama spoke of the strikes in Pakistan as “a targeted, focused effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists.” But for several years, first in Pakistan and later in Yemen, in addition to “personality strikes” against named terrorists, the C.I.A. and the military have carried out “signature strikes” against groups of suspected, unknown militants.

Originally that term was used to suggest the specific “signature” of a known high-level terrorist, such as his vehicle parked at a meeting place. But the word evolved to mean the “signature” of militants in general — for instance, young men toting arms in an area controlled by extremist groups. Such strikes have prompted the greatest conflict inside the Obama administration, with some officials questioning whether killing unidentified fighters is legally justified or worth the local backlash.

As the New York Times article points out, the US is setting the precedent for countries currently developing their own drone programs. And that precedent seems to be that these programs should be operated autonomously, secretly and unhampered by explicit rules and regulations. The same country that has decried targeted killings by other countries (namely, Israel) is now showing the rest of the world that all you really need to pull off long distance assassinations is the will and the way.