Sen. Feinstein Comes Face To Face With A 'Drone,' Fails To Learn Anything From The Experience

from the 'the-drone,-laden-with-its-payload-of-irony...' dept

Tireless NSA defender Dianne Feinstein apparently had a scary run-in with surveillance technology. Oddly, it bothered her.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein says she once found a drone peeking into the window of her home — the kind of cautionary tale she wants lawmakers to consider as they look at allowing commercial drone use.

The California Democrat offered few details about the incident when speaking about it Wednesday afternoon, during a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on drone policy at which she appeared as a special witness. But she used the episode to implore lawmakers to “proceed with caution.”
To be fair, the "drone" (explanation on the scare quotes in a moment) was hovering "inches from her face," right outside her window. To be even more fair, Feinstein likes her surveillance bulk and untargeted, not hovering outside her house. She's pushed for CBP drones to be used only within three miles of the border in California, so it can be said she's no friend of drone surveillance.

Feinstein didn't elaborate on the event during her statement, withholding details on when (recently/several months ago) and where (DC/California) it happened. If she had elaborated, it probably would have undercut the "scariness" of the drone invasion.

The Wire talked to Feinstein spokesman Brian Weiss, who offered some helpful background details.
The Wire spoke by phone with Feinstein's spokesman Brian Weiss, who confirmed that the incident happened at the senator's house in San Francisco several months ago. At about the time, it seems, that Code Pink showed up to protest Feinstein's support for the NSA.

On June 15, the anti-war group held a protest focused on Feinstein, which included activists in disguises and, yes, two remote-controlled helicopters, which might creatively be described as drones.
Here's some video documentation:


Yes, Feinstein's privacy was "invaded" by a tiny pink helicopter roughly the size of a crow that carried no camera. As for her claim that she "startled" the drone causing it to spin around and crash? Well, without a camera, it's pretty hard to "startle" the operator.

For a staunch defender of US surveillance programs to become perturbed at the new face of surveillance technology (even if this particular one didn't have a face, so to speak, or at least couldn't "see") is a bit rich. Sure, Feinstein is working hard to craft regulatory legislation to govern drone usage, but she seems to be more concerned with commercial drone use than government drone use. She has stepped up to keep the CBP from flying theirs all over California, but her scary story of flying eyes was delivered in support of legislation governing commercial drone use. So, even in this case, Feinstein remains more a government surveillance lapdog than a privacy defender. This issue just happens to intersect at a junction privacy activists have been known to frequent.

Too many eyes in the skies -- ones that can fly for hours and provide the sort of long-term surveillance piloted vehicles can't -- is a problem for everyone. This time, it happened to Dianne Feinstein. Unfortunately, the experience failed to impart any understanding as to why the public might be perturbed by the NSA's unguided, untargeted and mostly un-overseen bulk collections programs. Surveillance is surveillance, whether its outside your window or hoovered up from overseas cables, phone records and dozens of other programs operating in complete darkness.

The camera right outside your window is a subjective issue. The many eyes with the access and capabilities to peer into the lives of millions of people seems rather abstract compared to a one-on-one confrontation. But the dangers posed by both are equally real.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Just Sayin', 16 Jan 2014 @ 2:29pm

    violation of privacy

    The operators of this "drone" may find themselves in hot water, considering it's rather illegal to use such a device to obtain images inside someone's private property. If that was not the case, the paparazzi in LA would have long since started using them to peep in people's windows for profit.

    There is absolutely no indication that the government drones are used in such a manner. It's a poor attempt to make a point that instead points opponents of the use of surveillance drones as bitter and misinformed.

    There is no "third party" in peeping in someone's window. It's just offensive.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.