DOJ Inspector General: ATF, FBI's Drones Worthless, Expensive And Completely Mismanaged

from the so-lousy-they-can't-even-violate-your-privacy dept

The DOJ's most infamous drone deployments involve justifications for extrajudicial killings. But its agencies also have fleets of (nonlethal) drones, something these agencies tend to avoid discussing until sued into doing so.

The Office of the Inspector General has taken another look at the drones deployed by DOJ agencies and found that, while plenty of money has been spent acquiring and maintaining drones/operators, very little deployment is actually occurring.

Our September 2013 interim report found that between 2004 and 2013, the FBI spent approximately $3 million to acquire small UAS it deployed to support its investigations. As of August 2014, the FBI had acquired 34 UAS vehicles and associated control stations, of which it considered 17 vehicles and a smaller number of control stations to be operational.
$3 million spent on drones, with only half currently considered "operational." In eight years (2006-2014), the drones have only been deployed to assist in 13 investigations, with nine of those occurring in the last four years. This may be good news for those concerned about extensive domestic surveillance, but it's not good news for those interested in how their tax dollars are being spent.

The FBI may have the desire for more unchecked surveillance and the drones needed to do the job, but it apparently lacks the manpower…
During the time of our review, the FBI maintained its UAS at one location in the United States and had only one team composed of two pilots on staff who were adequately trained to operate its UAS.
...or Fourth Amendment concerns…
The FBI told us that that it determined it did not need to obtain search warrants for any of its UAS operations.
That's the nice thing about making your own in-house "determinations": they'll rarely be challenged.

As for the half-functional 34-drone fleet "manned" by the FBI's two pilots, it couldn't be more unlike the agency's earlier assertions.
This approach differs from the decentralized deployment approach that FBI officials told us they employ for the FBI’s manned aircraft.
If you're wondering where more of your tax dollars are being misspent, it's right there in the following paragraphs. Because the FBI has only two drone pilots, these operators are driven or flown to locations where the drones are needed, sometimes arriving more than a day after the request for assistance was made. The FBI, despite being a national law enforcement agency, houses both its pilots and its drones at the same location.

Considering the FBI claims the drones have been used in potentially life-threatening situations (search-and-rescue efforts, suspected kidnappings), spending a day shipping drones and pilots where needed seems like the sort of thing that would result in unnecessary deaths/injuries. In response, the OIG has asked the FBI to handle its drone fleet less stupidly.

The ATF also has a few drones of its own. (The US Marshals Service and DEA were queried by the OIG, but both claimed to have no drones in their possession, which is true, but misleading. [More on that below.]) And, like the FBI, the drones are expensive, underutilized and, far too often, not worth the money that's been spent on them.
One UAS program manager told us ATF found that one of its smaller UAS models, which cost nearly $90,000, was too difficult to use reliably in operations. Furthermore, the TOB discovered that a gas-powered UAS model, which cost approximately $315,000 and was specified to fly for up to 2 hours, was never operable due to multiple technical defects.
The lack of functioning flying eyeballs resulted in the Special Operations Division shutting down the ATF's drone fleet in June 2014. Those drones were transferred to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service "at no cost" -- a fair price for non-functioning drones. With its drones and drone program dead, the ATF did the logical thing: bought more drones.
Less than a week after ATF’s Special Operations Division suspended its UAS program, ATF’s National Response Team (NRT) purchased five small, commercially available UAS at a total cost of about $15,000.
These new drones were deployed exactly once. At that point, the ATF determined it would need to permission from the FAA before deploying its drones in the future. With that, the ATF's drone program returned to its briefly interrupted hibernation.

For those agencies claiming they have no drones (US Marshals Service, DEA), that's only true if limited to direct ownership. Every major DOJ agency has availed itself to the DHS's fleet of drones, a majority of which belong to the CBP.
Specifically, four DOJ law enforcement components – the FBI, ATF, DEA, and USMS – have received UAS support from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which operates a fleet of Predator-B UAS. In response to our request, the CBP provided to us evidence indicating it operated UAS at least 95 times on missions that involved DOJ components in some way. Of these flights, the CBP identified that DEA was involved in 73, the FBI in 13, ATF in 4, the USMS in 3, and 2 for multiple DOJ components.
So, when the DEA says it has no drones, it's technically correct. But the drones it doesn't own have flown more times than the 34 drones the FBI actually owns. The CBP's drone fleet seems to have enough drones for everyone, and this division of labor (so to speak) allows the DEA and other DOJ agencies to minimize their drone paper trails. But more drones doesn't mean useful drones. The CBP's drone fleet may perform well in other agencies' hands, but it's next to useless when deployed by Customs itself.

While the investigation generally points to limited drone usage -- which is a good thing -- the discovery that the DOJ's drone fleets are expensive, mismanaged and almost completely worthless isn't.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  • icon
    AricTheRed (profile), 31 Mar 2015 @ 2:44pm


    Some Good news for a change!

    Too bad weve been paying so much for them (the drones and the agencies) however...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2015 @ 2:55pm

    drone or drone

    The word "drone" these days seems to be used more and more for the kind of radio-controlled model helicopter that would easily fit in a common shopping bag, rather than the pilotless airplane that would barely fit in a 3-car garage.

    Of course, when costs in the millions of dollars start getting thrown around, it soon becomes obvious which kind of "drone" is under discussion.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Roger Strong (profile), 31 Mar 2015 @ 3:01pm

    The previous story stated that DOJ officials used their position to steal some of Ross Ulbricht's Bitcoins "and a lot of other questionable behavior."

    I'm guessing now that the "lot of other questionable behavior" involved delivering packages by drone for Amazon.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 31 Mar 2015 @ 3:18pm

    Silver lining

    Personally, if government agencies are going to try and spy on me, I would prefer that they do so in as useless manner as possible, even if it is wasteful with regards to money. Money can be replaced, privacy, not so much.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Spaceman Spiff (profile), 31 Mar 2015 @ 3:54pm

    Why are we not surprised?

    My grandson, who designs and builds from scratch, autonomous drone fixed wing and rotary craft, could fix these idiots up in a trice! Yet the govt. spends a gazillion $$ on useless cruft built by the Multimega Galacticorp!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2015 @ 4:49pm

    ATF wants killer drones,

    what's the point of a non-killer drone for the ATF?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2015 @ 5:37pm

    Selective Enforcement?

    "These new drones were deployed exactly once. At that point, the ATF determined it would need to permission from the FAA before deploying its drones in the future."

    So what that first flight that some ATF employees apparently broke the law on? What's the status of that prosecution?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2015 @ 10:08am

      Re: Selective Enforcement?

      The FAA doesn't exactly prosecute people. They simply assess whopping fines for violations which you have to either pay or go to court to fight and if you are a licensed commercial entity they can simply yank your license. The ATF has guns and has a history of using them. I don't think the ATF is terribly worried about the FAA trying to make them do anything.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2015 @ 9:18pm

    Too bad. Drones can actually be really useful. Maybe we just need to find a good use for them and an optimal sensor payload

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Padpaw (profile), 31 Mar 2015 @ 11:22pm

    seems like 99% of the whole bloody US government is corrupt at this point.

    I would be more shocked at stories about people committing crimes being held accountable by their fellow government employees than just another story about blatant corruption.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2015 @ 10:06am

    New toy to play with that has no real thought out safeguards, that DEFINATELY DO have the obvious potential to infringe on rights.......thats what we are

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    GEMont (profile), 1 Apr 2015 @ 5:08pm

    If their lips are moving....

    First of all, we are talking here about the FBI, so the chances that they lied about almost everything they stated, is extremely high.

    Thus, it is more likely that they deployed their drones far more often than they kept records for because the uses they put their drones to were very likely not legal, or were simply, as usual, extraneous personal uses, like spying on the young lady in apartment 203 who never pulls her drapes and walks about in her undies all the time.

    It is also very likely that they have far more drones than they admitted to having access to, and that these "officially undisclosed" drones were used generally in preference to the officially "owned" drones, specifically to avoid maintaining records.

    It is rather sad when the very first thought that occurs after listening to anything stated by one's official law enforcement authorities, is that they are, once again, lying through their teeth, as usual.


    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

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
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories


Email This

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