A bill is pending in the Legislature to regulate the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, better known as drones, and we’re glad to see our legislators looking ahead to address some of the issues that will arise as this technology becomes more mainstream.
LD 236, “An Act to Protect the Privacy of Citizens from Domestic Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Use,” is being proposed by Sen. John Patrick, D-Rumford, and seeks to regulate the use of these machines by law enforcement, in an effort to limit their misuse. Local Reps. David Dutremble, D-Biddeford, Anne-Marie Mastraccio, D-Sanford and Linda Valentino, D-Saco have signed on as co-sponsors.
Unmanned aerial vehicles refer to any remote-control or autonomous flying machine, which range from the size of a dragonfly to that of a small plane. They can be outfitted with weapons, cameras and other devices, and can be under various types of power.
Armed drones are being used extensively in war zones in the Middle East, allowing our military to kill enemy combatants without putting any of our own people in harm’s way. This use has caused much debate, with moral, political and military concerns, and it won’t be long before the technology becomes inexpensive enough for drones to be commonplace on the homefront ”“ raising many additional concerns.
Some government and private entities are already using drones to help in their field of work, from real estate agents getting aerial shots of properties to utility services surveying their equipment. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has been using drones to monitor the Mexican border since 2005, according to a report in Time magazine, and Homeland Security is offering grants for state law enforcement agencies to purchase drones. The Federal Aviation Administration has been ordered to make room for domestic drones in U.S. airspace by 2015, and estimates that there will be 10,000 drones in the air within five years after that.
The use of drones stateside raises some serious issues, mostly surrounding privacy, and that’s why this bill has been brought forth. Maine has no laws addressing these tools as of yet, and it’s terrifying to think of hovering police entities recording your every move, surveying what’s going on at your property or listening in, uninvited.
It’s certainly not too soon to create laws that govern the use of drones, since they are already being used by entities throughout the U.S., and will only become less expensive and more popular.
As the American Civil Liberties Union has noted in its support of the bill, the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly protects people’s right to “be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
While our founding fathers could not have imagined such roaming sentinels, their ideal of privacy holds true and our laws must be updated to specifically address this application.
This bill has some good provisions that will help protect the public from misuse of drone surveillance by law enforcement agencies: Drones would be permitted for use in emergency situations where someone’s life is in danger, but in all other situations it sets restrictions on how they can be used. In order to use a drone to collect information on a person that would be submissible in court, the agency would have to get written consent from the person; and would need to get a warrant or court order beforehand, or after recording if it would compromise the situation. Prohibiting weapons on drones is a comforting provision of the bill, lest we have robotic “Judge Dredds” floating about, and we also like the provision that public records on drone use and the information they collect must be made public.
This bill does not address use of drones by private entities, but it does clarify that they can be used by state agencies for purposes such as investigating flooding or wildfires, monitoring dams, conducting surveys and aiding in weather forecasting.
We certainly agree with the American Civil Liberties Union that privacy must be protected with regard to drone use by law enforcement, and we feel LD 236 is a good first step in making sure law enforcement entities are not violating our Fourth Amendment rights by making use of this new technology.
We must be careful, indeed, with giving up our rights in the interest of promoting safety, and this bill seems to strike an appropriate balance. We’re glad to see Maine legislators taking a proactive measure to regulate these machines before they come into common use, and we hope the Judiciary Committee gives it an “ought to pass” recommendation next Thursday.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
