- Marco Rubio: U.S. at social, moral crossroads
- ‘We’re coming for you, Barack Obama’: Top U.S. official discloses threat from ISIL
- White flags baffle NYPD: ‘We’re lucky it wasn’t a bomb’
- N.Y. Gov. Cuomo’s office interfered with, pressured corruption commission: report
- Brit lawmaker: I would fire on Israel if I lived in Gaza
- VA apologizes to forgotten Marine veteran locked in Fla. clinic, forced to call 911
- U.S. social and economic trends on worrisome track, survey finds
- McDonald nomination unanimously referred to full Senate
- Chuck Norris honorary chairman of NRA voter registration campaign
- GOP outraged Obamacare investigators able to get coverage with fake IDs
Drone wars: Battle intensifies over domestic drone use after Boston Marathon bombing
Question of the Day
Boston’s top cop wants drones hovering over next year’s marathon, but getting his hands on one may be easier said than done.
More than 30 states, including Massachusetts, are rushing to restrict the use of drones by law enforcement, with some seeking to ban it in all but the most extreme circumstances.
Even if unmanned aerial systems could have shortened the search for the terrorists who wreaked havoc on Boston last week, many people are deeply skeptical about giving authorities carte blanche to use potentially dangerous technology.
“It’s not surprising that you have law enforcement agencies rushing out to use [the Boston bombing and subsequent manhunt] as pretext to secure additional powers but I think we have to maintain perspective and realize that civil liberties and the protections we’re granted under the Constitution and our rights to privacy, to a degree, are nonnegotiable,” said Massachusetts state Sen. Robert Hedlund, a Republican and sponsor of a drone restriction bill in the legislature.
Among other things, it would require that local governments, such as the Boston City Council, explicitly grant permission for police to use drones. It also would “prohibit data collection about lawful peaceful activity” and require public reporting of all authorized drone use.
“You don’t want to let a couple of young punks beat us and allow our civil liberties to be completely eroded. I don’t fall into the trap that, because of the hysteria, we need to kiss our civil liberties away,” Mr. Hedlund said of last week’s panic that led to the call for drones over Boston.
Local officials and state legislators across the country, along with many in Congress, constitutional analysts, civil liberties groups and political pundits, share Mr. Hedlund’s concerns.
But in the aftermath of the Boston attacks, those concerns are colliding with the benefits drones can provide to law enforcement.
Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis now says he is open to using drones at next year’s race for surveillance purposes.
“Drones are a great idea,” he told the Boston Herald. “I don’t know that would be the first place I’d invest money, but certainly to cover an event like this, and have an eye in the sky that would be much cheaper to run than a helicopter is a really good idea.”
By comparing and contrasting unmanned aerial systems with manned aircraft such as helicopters, Mr. Davis raises a key point that law enforcement professionals and drone industry leaders argue is central to the debate.
There seems to be much less public unease, they say, about helicopter surveillance, traffic cameras and more conventional technologies.
When drones are introduced to the equation, paranoia goes through the roof, even if the craft are conducting the same missions and collecting the same types of data routinely gathered by police through other means.
“The problem isn’t UAS. The problem is data. If people are concerned that they don’t have protections under the Fourth Amendment and they wish to change that, they need to focus their attention on data. It doesn’t matter what device is used to collect it,” said Stephen Ingley, executive director of the Airborne Law Enforcement Association, a nonprofit group that encourages the use of aircraft in police and public safety operations.
Mr. Ingley also pointed to the fact that cellphone images and department-store cameras proved helpful in the Boston investigation.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Ben Wolfgang covers the White House for The Washington Times.
Before joining the Times in March 2011, Ben spent four years as a political reporter at the Republican-Herald in Pottsville, Pa.
He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Boehner presses Obama on 2008 law contributing to border crisis
- White House: More changes to contraception mandate coming
- Obama, Biden overhaul job training programs
- Obama takes executive action on LGBT discrimination, but leaves religious loophole
- White House takes credit for drop in unaccompanied children at border
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
Retailer pays a price for getting too close to Obama
- CARSON: Costco and the perils of mixing politics and business
- House task force to recommend National Guard on border, faster deportations
- Obama orders Pentagon advisers to Ukraine
- 'We're coming for you, Barack Obama': Top U.S. official discloses threat from ISIL terrorists
- Netanyahu's Wikipedia page replaced with giant Palestinian flag
- Latest Obama claim: I don't learn anything from the news
- Beretta moving to Tennessee over Maryland gun laws
- Tom Petty: 'No one's got Christ more wrong than the Christians'
- HURT: The cost of 'free' water in Detroit
- DEACE: How to go from civil rights icon to bigot in one quote
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq