76% of Iowans Favor Requiring Warrants for Drone Surveillance

[TBoneTX 45,498]

Discussion: What do you think about drone surveillance in general? Should warrants be required before it's done? What about commercial use of drones to deliver products or messages, or for agricultural use, etc.? What action, if any, has your state taken in regard to drones?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20140312/NEWS01/303120033/76-favor-requiring-warrants-drone-surveillance

76% favor requiring warrants for drone surveillance
Written by William Petroski
Mar. 11, 2014 7:03 PM

Iowans overwhelmingly believe law enforcement officers should be required to obtain a search warrant before using drones as part of their surveillance methods, The Des Moines Register’s Iowa Poll shows.

Seventy-six percent of Iowans favor requiring a search warrant for drone surveillance, 18 percent are opposed, and 6 percent are not sure, the poll found.

The sweeping public support for that requirement occurs regardless of gender, political party affiliation or geographic location.

“It’s a privacy issue. You don’t want to invade peoples’ privacy. A search warrant is the way we do it now, and we need to keep it up,” said retired firefighter Craig Nye, 66, of Fort Madison.

Rich Pham, 19, of Des Moines, a college student who is majoring in philosophy and theology, sees the issue differently.

“My personal belief is that we shouldn’t require law enforcement officers to get a search warrant when they stake out a home or follow a drug dealer,” he said. “If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn’t be opposed to it.”

Pham’s views are in the minority, though, especially among young people. More younger people than older people want to require a search warrant: 84 percent of those under age 35 favor a warrant, compared with 65 percent for those age 65 and older.

The poll of 703 Iowa adults, conducted Feb. 23-26 by Selzer & Co. of Des Moines, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points.

Legislators consider drone regulations
The Iowa House and Senate are taking a serious look at legislation to regulate drones — also known as remotely piloted aircraft or unmanned aerial vehicles. Lawmakers say they feel compelled to start working on the issue as a wave of unarmed drones are starting to be considered for purposes ranging from finding missing children to delivering pizzas to checking on corn and soybean crops.

In addition, many hobby aircraft enthusiasts are already acquiring some of the new, high-tech drones for leisure use, including so-called “Quad-Copters” with camera gear.

Iowa is but one of more than 35 states considering drone legislation this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The bills include everything from ways to attract an industry that could generate billions to restrictions on drone use and data collection.

Roxanne Ryan, a lawyer for the Iowa Department of Public Safety, has cautioned lawmakers that Federal Aviation Administration regulations supersede state law on virtually anything related to aircraft operations. The state’s only authority would be to restrict what state or local government agencies could do — for example, restricting the actions of law enforcement agencies, she said.

The FAA is reportedly looking at allowing limited commercial drone use. One potential use would likely be for agriculture. Japanese rice farmers, for instance, are already using drones to spray pesticides.

Scott Smentek, 49, of Traer, a letter carrier and hotel owner, endorsed the idea of placing some oversight on law enforcement use of drones.

“Anytime the police want to spy on you, they should at least go to court so they have a record of it, Smentek said.

Smentek is also concerned about the possible over-commercialization of drones.

“I don’t need to get a six-pack of beer delivered so fast that a drone has to do it,” he said. “There is going to be no peace and quiet anywhere.”

Marty Ryan, who is monitoring the legislation as a public interest lobbyist for Fawkes-Lee & Ryan, expressed similar concerns. He said small, low-flying drones are much different than a full-sized helicopter flying over someone’s house.

“With a helicopter, you are going to be able to see it and hear it if you are outside sunbathing in the nude, which some people might do, whereas a drone is just going to pop up over the fence,” Ryan said.

Legislation differs in Senate, House
Iowa Senate File 2157, which has cleared a Senate committee, would allow law enforcement agencies to use drones to collect evidence, providing law enforcement authorities have a warrant. It would also allow others to use drones equipped with cameras and video recording equipment to conduct surveillance, provided permission was granted from the property owner.

Sen. Charles Schneider, R-West Des Moines, said he wants to ensure that drones would not be used by law enforcement to issue traffic citations or enforce other ordinances. He noted that the state did not take preemptive action to regulate traffic enforcement cameras before local governments began using them. As a result, the Legislature, the state Department of Transportation, and some local governments are butting heads on whether, when and how to use traffic enforcement cameras, he said.

Meanwhile, House File 2289, which has won House approval and has been sent to the Senate for consideration, is aimed at setting a legal framework to enable the beneficial uses of drones while guarding against abuses. Under the bill, law enforcement agencies would be prohibited from using drones that capture and record images without a search warrant.

The House bill also says that drones that transmit but do not record images could be used without a warrant when searching for criminal suspects, supporting “tactical operations” conducted by law enforcement and monitoring crowds at public events. Drones could also record data without a warrant on public property and under emergency situations.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa has expressed objections to the House bill, suggesting the legislation would allow drones to be used to monitor political rallies at the state Capitol or crowds at the Iowa State Fair.

“The bill is a clear overreach and should be rejected outright,” the group said in a statement.

Rep. Jarad Klein, R-Keota, floor manager of the House legislation, said he is aware some people think the House bill goes too far. But he added he remains hopeful of winning final approval for a drone regulation bill this session with the cooperation of the Senate.

“As the technology evolves, this is something we are going to have to address,” Klein said. “We need to make sure we are protecting people’s privacy and that the government isn’t stepping out of line.”

[deleted-05292014 331]

Yes they need a warrant in my opinion. Some precedence has already been established with this by the Supreme Court. Kyllo v United States found that police using infrared cameras or thermal imaging to bust a guy growing marijuana in his house constituted a violation of his 4th amendment rights.

Drones I would say are the same, they have infrared cameras. They can be used to see through uncovered windows, which in my opinion constitutes as a "search" and therefore would require a warrant. Now someone doing something illegal in their backyard and a drone observed that I think because it is in open plain view it would not be considered a search and therefore not a violation of the 4th amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States

As far as commercial use goes I don't have a problem with it.

As a tool of war I don't have a problem with it either. Saves putting boots on the ground or endangering our forces. I believe that there needs to be adequate oversight and it is used judiciously because we are talking about taking peoples lives. There is a good chance that anyone near a target will die also from the missile attack.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Jinx614

[TBoneTX 45,498]

Largely agreed. The Fourth Amendment is described as being on its deathbed anyway (death from a thousand cuts). In regard to the back yard, it might depend on what the definition of "curtilage" is determined to be, and whether the police could claim that the drone found something "incidentally and serendipitously" rather than as a planned act.

In regard to commercial use, what if drivers took their eyes off the road (or away from their texting) to point to the pizza being delivered through the air, and have an accident -- or smash a pedestrian (who has also taken his eyes away from his texting)? Who is liable? What if a drone pulled an advertising banner at just above eye level? These are interesting, and not entirely pleasant, situations to consider.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'd worry more about ever present CCTV.

[Darnell 8,478]

TBone - I'm for drone usage , unfettered.

as to Mr. Pham's take on it - I also lean that way.

[Pooky 3,807]

As a tool of war I don't have a problem with it either. Saves putting boots on the ground or endangering our forces. I believe that there needs to be adequate oversight and it is used judiciously because we are talking about taking peoples lives. There is a good chance that anyone near a target will die also from the missile attack.

Recent history is quite clear that collateral damage is the norm, rather than the exception. The US drone campaign has already killed way more innocent bystanders than actual targets.

I disagree with the use of drones to wage war. War is a serious business and the temptation to wage war from a distance, without risking the lives of your own servicemen, can make the decision to use deadly force too easy. The spectre of servicemen returning home in body bags used to temper the rush to use deadly force.

Lose a serviceman and you face their grieving family, their funeral and the story of what happened and how. Drones are just machines. Lose one? Just buy another. No comparison.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Recent history is quite clear that collateral damage is the norm, rather than the exception. The US drone campaign has already killed way more innocent bystanders than actual targets.

I disagree with the use of drones to wage war. War is a serious business and the temptation to wage war from a distance, without risking the lives of your own servicemen, can make the decision to use deadly force too easy. The spectre of servicemen returning home in body bags used to temper the rush to use deadly force.

Lose a serviceman and you face their grieving family, their funeral and the story of what happened and how. Drones are just machines. Lose one? Just buy another. No comparison.

I agree completely! Even with skin in the game war is not always be the last resort that it should be. When there's no skin in the game, it only gets worse.

[deleted-05292014 331]

Recent history is quite clear that collateral damage is the norm, rather than the exception. The US drone campaign has already killed way more innocent bystanders than actual targets.

I disagree with the use of drones to wage war. War is a serious business and the temptation to wage war from a distance, without risking the lives of your own servicemen, can make the decision to use deadly force too easy. The spectre of servicemen returning home in body bags used to temper the rush to use deadly force.

Lose a serviceman and you face their grieving family, their funeral and the story of what happened and how. Drones are just machines. Lose one? Just buy another. No comparison.

I understand what you are saying and you make valid points.

There are two things I would say.

1. Drones are just the next step in technological advancement. Maybe not in our lifetime, but in the near future we are going to see a new level of mechanized warfare. I'm not saying on the AT-AT Star Wars level, but I think someday we are going to see those types of vehicles or methods to fight conflicts. So to that end I just see it as a natural progression, I hate to use that because war shouldn't be natural, in the art of warfare. At one point in time people fought with sticks and stones, then edged weapons, projectiles like spears and bows, then guns etc...You can't stop progress, it is in our best interest to preserve ourselves so we are going to do that I don't think you can stop progress. If you look at the history of warfare and weapons it's been an evolution to get as far away from your target as possible.

2. We have made progress, significant progress in curtailing killing civilians. (collateral damage reminded me of that joke George Carlin used to say about the words we use haha). For the record it's not a partisan issue for me, I didn't like the Bush administration at all but I supported the use of drones under him too. If you think about WW2 how many thousands of innocent people were killed from carpet bombings? How many innocent people did our government bomb in Cambodia under the Nixon administration? So we have definitely made progress from then until now. The reality is, war is hell - innocent people die. That is why we should only engage in war as a last resort.

But once again I have to side with self preservation over a specific method to kill. If we are at war and some guy is in a house actively participating in waging war against us, let's say he is planning a suicide attack. I have no problem with pulling the trigger and blowing his place up. If his family is there then he should not have put them at risk for his actions. If there are snipers on rooftops killing our guys on the ground I got no problem with sending a missile up his azz, if he is in a building with a bunch of civilians they should know to get out or perhaps become a casualty too.

Of course there is no comparison but I would much rather buy a drone than bury a marine. Matter of fact I'd rather buy a million drones than bury 1 U.S Serviceman.

[deleted-05292014 331]

Largely agreed. The Fourth Amendment is described as being on its deathbed anyway (death from a thousand cuts). In regard to the back yard, it might depend on what the definition of "curtilage" is determined to be, and whether the police could claim that the drone found something "incidentally and serendipitously" rather than as a planned act.

In regard to commercial use, what if drivers took their eyes off the road (or away from their texting) to point to the pizza being delivered through the air, and have an accident -- or smash a pedestrian (who has also taken his eyes away from his texting)? Who is liable? What if a drone pulled an advertising banner at just above eye level? These are interesting, and not entirely pleasant, situations to consider.

Another pitfall of commercial use I thought of is the loss of jobs. Once again I don't think you can stop progress and I'm all for technical advancements, but I realize there is a human cost to pay too. When I go grocery shopping I really don't use the self-check out scanners. Partly because I have become accustomed to people bagging my groceries and also I feel like with how much food costs these days I shouldn't have to pack my own bags But I've noticed maybe in the last 5-10 years? that my grocery stores have less people working the check out lanes in them and those self-check out lanes used to be 1 or 2 now they are like 6 or 7 units. Matter of fact at my job in the cafeteria we have 1 person that "works" there. I say "works" there because all they do is stock the shelves with deli sandwiches, frozen foods, pre-prepared salads, delivered pizza, and sometimes catered meals. There are about 5 terminals set up where you scan your own food and pay with your debit or credit card (obviously no cash). There is nothing to clean up, nothing to really prepare, its all self service. This is going to be the future.

But in your scenario I would think that the commercial owner would be responsible if their drone caused some accident. The upside is, if a drone delivers my pizza I won't feel bad not tipping - of course we'll just ended up paying a "fuel" or "energy" tax for drone pizza service so it won't matter.

I agree about the 4th amendment too being whittled away.

[TBoneTX 45,498]

For whatever reason (you name it), employees are an expense, or a liability, to employers.

I suspect that if a commercial drone crashed into something or scared someone into a heart attack, the owner of the drone would be held liable.

I'm more concerned about police and governmental abuse.

[Darnell 8,478]

The House bill also says that drones that transmit but do not record images could be used without a warrant when searching for criminal suspects, supporting “tactical operations” conducted by law enforcement and monitoring crowds at public events. Drones could also record data without a warrant on public property and under emergency situations.

This seems a good start, I'm a fan of tactical operations, always.

[Pooky 3,807]

I understand what you are saying and you make valid points.

There are two things I would say.

1. Drones are just the next step in technological advancement. Maybe not in our lifetime, but in the near future we are going to see a new level of mechanized warfare. I'm not saying on the AT-AT Star Wars level, but I think someday we are going to see those types of vehicles or methods to fight conflicts. So to that end I just see it as a natural progression, I hate to use that because war shouldn't be natural, in the art of warfare. At one point in time people fought with sticks and stones, then edged weapons, projectiles like spears and bows, then guns etc...You can't stop progress, it is in our best interest to preserve ourselves so we are going to do that I don't think you can stop progress. If you look at the history of warfare and weapons it's been an evolution to get as far away from your target as possible.

Warfare is evolving, that is true. My problem isn't the technology, it's how people choose to use it.

2. We have made progress, significant progress in curtailing killing civilians. (collateral damage reminded me of that joke George Carlin used to say about the words we use haha). For the record it's not a partisan issue for me, I didn't like the Bush administration at all but I supported the use of drones under him too. If you think about WW2 how many thousands of innocent people were killed from carpet bombings? How many innocent people did our government bomb in Cambodia under the Nixon administration? So we have definitely made progress from then until now. The reality is, war is hell - innocent people die. That is why we should only engage in war as a last resort.

I don't know about Cambodia, but the civilian casualties caused by the Allies in WWII were in no way accidental. When the RAF fire-bombed Hamburg, the civilians were the target. Same with Berlin. The other difference is that this was not a "safe" method of waging war. Far from it. The bomber crews suffered horrific attrition rates. RAF Bomber Command suffered over 55,000 fatalities overall, so the cost in lives was substantial.

With the current drone campaign, we are breaching sovereign airspace, the collateral damage is often innocent and the only risk we run is losing a materiel asset. Not having to put a life on the line just makes it more likely that we pull the trigger.

But once again I have to side with self preservation over a specific method to kill. If we are at war and some guy is in a house actively participating in waging war against us, let's say he is planning a suicide attack. I have no problem with pulling the trigger and blowing his place up. If his family is there then he should not have put them at risk for his actions. If there are snipers on rooftops killing our guys on the ground I got no problem with sending a missile up his azz, if he is in a building with a bunch of civilians they should know to get out or perhaps become a casualty too.

But we are not at war. We have no moral right to kill innocent civilians in order to prevent a suicide bomber doing the same. Are our innocent civilians' lives worth more than another nations'?

And what about the sniper on the roof? What if the building occupants are unaware he is using their building as a firing platform? Do we still have the right to kill them?

Of course there is no comparison but I would much rather buy a drone than bury a marine. Matter of fact I'd rather buy a million drones than bury 1 U.S Serviceman.

Is the life of one Marine worth more than the life of an innocent Yemeni youth?

I would rather trust a Marine to carry out a mission without causing innocent bystander casualties, than a Hellfire fired from a drone. I'd just prefer he didn't have to.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

But we are not at war. We have no moral right to kill innocent civilians in order to prevent a suicide bomber doing the same. Are our innocent civilians' lives worth more than another nations'?

That's the central point of it all. We're not at war. We do not have the right - moral or otherwise - to kill innocent civilians. The bottom line is that they won. They changed us. They made us to act like them. They made us into terrorists. Game over.

Edited March 15, 2014 by Mr. Big Dog

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Cambodia wasn't accidental, it was bombed deliberately to destabilise the government

Who filled that power vacuum? The Khmer Rouge, the USA was complicit in the subsequent genocide.

Edited March 16, 2014 by Papa Lazarou

[deleted-05292014 331]

Cambodia wasn't accidental, it was bombed deliberately to destabilise the government

Who filled that power vacuum? The Khmer Rouge, the USA was complicit in the subsequent genocide.

Exactly....a secret war waged by Nixon and the CIA without approval from Congress. In fact dropped more tonnage there than the allies did in WW2 !

In the fall of 2000, twenty-five years after the end of the war in Indochina, Bill Clinton became the first US president since Richard Nixon to visit Vietnam. While media coverage of the trip was dominated by talk of some two thousand US soldiers still classified as missing in action, a small act of great historical importance went almost unnoticed. As a humanitarian gesture, Clinton released extensive Air Force data on all American bombings of Indochina between 1964 and 1975. Recorded using a groundbreaking ibm-designed system, the database provided extensive information on sorties conducted over Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Clinton’s gift was intended to assist in the search for unexploded ordnance left behind during the carpet bombing of the region.Littering the countryside, often submerged under farmland, this ordnance remains a significant humanitarian concern. It has maimed and killed farmers, and rendered valuable land all but unusable. Development and demining organizations have put the Air Force data to good use over the past six years, but have done so without noting its full implications, which turn out to be staggering.

The still-incomplete database (it has several “dark” periods) reveals that from October 4, 1965, to August 15, 1973, the United States dropped far more ordnance on Cambodia than was previously believed: 2,756,941 tons’ worth, dropped in 230,516 sorties on 113,716 sites. Just over 10 percent of this bombing was indiscriminate, with 3,580 of the sites listed as having “unknown” targets and another 8,238 sites having no target listed at all. The database also shows that the bombing began four years earlier than is widely believed—not under Nixon, but under Lyndon Johnson. The impact of this bombing, the subject of much debate for the past three decades, is now clearer than ever. Civilian casualties in Cambodia drove an enraged populace into the arms of an insurgency that had enjoyed relatively little support until the bombing began, setting in motion the expansion of the Vietnam War deeper into Cambodia, a coup d’état in 1970, the rapid rise of the Khmer Rouge, and ultimately the Cambodian genocide. [...]

[...]

We heard a terrifying noise which shook the ground; it was as if the earth trembled, rose up and opened beneath our feet. Enormous explosions lit up the sky like huge bolts of lightning; it was the American B-52s.

— Cambodian bombing survivor

[...]

[...]After telling Kissinger that the US Air Force was being unimaginative, Nixon demanded more bombing, deeper into the country: “They have got to go in there and I mean really go in...I want everything that can fly to go in there and crack the hell out of them. There is no limitation on mileage and there is no limitation on budget. Is that clear?”

Kissinger knew that this order ignored Nixon’s promise to Congress that US planes would remain within thirty kilometres of the Vietnamese border, his own assurances to the public that bombing would not take place within a kilometre of any village, and military assessments stating that air strikes were like poking a beehive with a stick. [...]

[...]

The United States, fearing that the first Southeast Asian domino was about to fall, began a massive escalation of the air war — an unprecedented B-52 bombardment that focused on the heavily populated area around Phnom Penh but left few regions of the country untouched. The extent of this bombardment has only now come to light.

The data released by Clinton shows the total payload dropped during these years to be nearly five times greater than the generally accepted figure. To put the revised total of 2,756,941 tons into perspective, the Allies dropped just over 2 million tons of bombs during all of  World War II, including the bombs that struck Hiroshima and Nagasaki: 15,000 and 20,000 tons, respectively. Cambodia may well be the most heavily bombed country in history.

A single B-52d “Big Belly” payload consists of up to 108 225-kilogram or 42 340-kilogram bombs, which are dropped on a target area of approximately 500 by 1,500 metres. In many cases, Cambodian villages were hit with dozens of payloads over the course of several hours. The result was near-total destruction. One US official stated at the time, “We had been told, as had everybody...that those carpet-bombing attacks by B-52s were totally devastating, that nothing could survive.” [...]

The Cambodian bombing campaign had two unintended side effects that ultimately combined to produce the very domino effect that the Vietnam War was supposed to prevent. First, the bombing forced the Vietnamese Communists deeper and deeper into Cambodia, bringing them into greater contact with Khmer Rouge insurgents. Second, the bombs drove ordinary Cambodians into the arms of the Khmer Rouge, a group that seemed initially to have slim prospects of revolutionary success. [...]

Years after the war ended, journalist Bruce Palling asked Chhit Do, a former Khmer Rouge officer, if his forces had used the bombing as anti-American propaganda. Chhit replied:

Every time after there had been bombing, they would take the people to see the craters, to see how big and deep the craters were, to see how the earth had been gouged out and scorched.... The ordinary people sometimes literally ###### in their pants when the big bombs and shells came.

Their minds just froze up and they would wander around mute for three or four days. Terrified and half crazy, the people were ready to believe what they were told.

It was because of their dissatisfaction with the bombing that they kept on co-operating with the Khmer Rouge, joining up with the Khmer Rouge, sending their children off to go with them....

Sometimes the bombs fell and hit little children, and their fathers would be all for the Khmer Rouge.

The Nixon administration knew that the Khmer Rouge was winning over peasants. The CIA’s Directorate of Operations, after investigations south of Phnom Penh, reported in May 1973 that the Communists were “using damage caused by B-52 strikes as the main theme of their propaganda.” [...]

[...]

The Nixon Doctrine relied on the notion that the United States could supply an allied regime with the resources needed to withstand internalor external challenges while the US withdrew its ground troops or, in some cases, simply remained at arm’s length. In Vietnam, this meant building up the ground-fighting capability of South Vietnamese forces while American units slowly disengaged. In Cambodia, Washington gave military aid to prop up Lon Nol’s regime from 1970 to 1975 while the US Air Force conducted its massive aerial bombardment.

US policy in Iraq may yet undergo a similar shift. Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker in December 2005 that a key element of any drawdown of American troops will be their replacement with air power. “We just want to change the mix of the forces doing the fighting — Iraqi infantry with American support and greater use of air power,” said Patrick Clawson, the deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

[...]

[...]Those whose lives have been ruined don’t care about the geopolitics behind bomb attacks; they tend to blame the attackers. [...]

Owen & Kiernan. "Bombs Over Cambodia". The Walrus. October 2006