VOYEURISM FROM 40,000 FEET: THE ETHICAL DANGERS OF 1 · VOYEURISM FROM 40,000 FEET: THE ETHICAL...

VOYEURISM FROM 40,000 FEET: THE ETHICAL DANGERS OF 1

Voyeurism from 40,000 Feet: The Ethical Dangers of the New America

Michael P. Mancino

HenleyPutnam University

Ethics of Security and Counterterrorism

PHIL400.5A

S.Grier

December 28, 2013


Voyeurism from 40,000 Feet: The Ethical Dangers of the New America

Introduction: The Need for Intelligence in a Modern World

Since the end of the Cold War, intelligence agencies such as the CIA have struggled to

justify their existence. With the shift in focus from Cold War state actors such as the Soviet

Union to smaller, transnational criminal and terrorist organizations the likes of Al Qaeda, the

need for intelligence remains paramount. The mission of agencies such as the CIA remains to

preempt threats and further US national security objectives by collecting intelligence that

matters, producing objective allsource analysis, conducting effective covert action as directed

by the President, and safeguarding the secrets that help keep our Nation safe.

In execution of its mission, agencies collect information on foreign persons, places,

events and activities that are not normally available through public sources. In our increasingly

modern world, collection must range from human intelligence, electronic intelligence and signals

intelligence and interception. As technology evolves, so too do the threats against a nation.

Operations that once took massive human resources and coordination and long time frames to

effectively execute can now be coordinated world wide webwith increasing anonymity and fewer

resources. Once limited to well developed areas, electronic devices are now able to connect to

networks while sitting isolated, literally hundreds of miles away from main infrastructure.

Nations must adapt to these increases in technological ease with their own advances in

electronic surveillance and data collection. Modern supercomputers, programmed to identify

keywords and phrases, are able to intercept and interpret previously unheard of amounts of data.

Known as metadata, these computers can extract and pinpoint information of interest and

disseminate it through the proper channels with little to no human intervention.


Supercomputers do have their limitations. In remote areas where enemies may lurk,

computers cannot penetrate. Previously, agencies relied on human intelligence collectors; agents

who would physically penetrate an organization’s ranks or exploit their members for

information. While this practice is still vital and necessary, technology is beginning to bridge the

gap.

Unmanned aerial vehicles, while existing for quite some time, are now becoming smaller,

more efficient and more effective at gathering intelligence in places that human agents cannot or

will not go and where computers have no reach. Currently, the US Military and other

government agencies are using drones to great effect in modern conflict both as weapons

delivery and surveillance platforms. One main limitation of current drone technology, however,

is their size.

A new generation of drones is emerging. Known as micro drones and nano drones, this

leap in technology is allowing companies such as Aerovironment to produce smaller, lighter and

more efficient platforms for both air and land operations. Parallel advances in consumer

technology such as cameras and microphones are allowing these once recreational items to be

designed specifically for information gathering. Of specific interest to the intelligence

community, experimental micro and nano drones are now being experimented with that take on

the design and characteristics of commonly observed animals and insects.

With these advances come ethical and legal concerns. The United States currently does

not have a policy for use of these types of drones in combat or intelligence gathering, especially

for domestic use. What types of issues will arise as this technology becomes cheaper, more

efficient, broadly produced and not easily distinguished for what it is?


The need for intelligence to combat the future enemies of the United States is paramount,

the cost of which must be weighed against our ideals as a nation. Americans place freedom,

independence and privacy above all else. We must debate, analyze and decide what role future

technology will play in our future. We must determine how much, if any, freedom and privacy

we are willing to sacrifice for the safety of our nation.

Ethics in Modern Espionage

Espionage, by its very nature, is a business of deceit. Where, then, do ethics and morality

come into play? From the origins of society this question has been at the forefront of debate in

how far a people are willing to go in pursuit of a state’s interest. Lying, deceit, theft, torture and

invasions of privacy are all potential elements of espionage. From the Christian Bible to the

Greeks, Romans and now in modern times, these elements are hotly debated. Most recently in

the United States the argument has centered on intrusive information gathering by intelligence

agencies and the potential use of drones for domestic operations.

Proponents of invasive intelligence gathering argue that the modern age is seeing a record

plunge of ethical and moral behavior. Terrorists are ever willing to engage in operations

exploiting civilians and nonmilitary targets in order to cause maximum carnage. Governments

around the world are using atrocious weapons such as nerve gas on their own people. We must,

they argue, set aside some of our moral righteousness and engage them from a like position.

Opponents of invasive intelligence argue that in order to maintain our sovereignty as a moral

nation such practices must not be engaged in. Doing so will damage our reputation, our

principals and expose our people to ever increasing risk. By maintaining our moral standards we


uphold ourselves as an example for the nations of the world to emulate. Damaging that

reputation will cause us further harm in the future and limit our power and persuasive ability

with allies and enemies alike.

A normal person’s resistance to engaging in immoral behavior, to include taking the life of

another human being, has long been a source of ethical debate in warfare. Some are concerned

that with the advance in robotic weapons, human beings are being removed from that element of

warfare. Many have expressed concerns that the removal of a weapon’s operator allows for an

easier decision to take another’s life in the course of their duties. The fear is that killing will

become too like a video game and the decision to kill will be as easy as pulling the trigger on a

controller while playing a first person shooter.

From a service perspective, intelligence operations must operate in a framework of

ethics and morality for the fact that any action taken is done in the public’s name and is normally

not permitted for the public at large. Operatives may be permitted to infringe on a person’s civil

liberties, lie, deceive and even attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of a foreign nation. By

establishing a framework of ethics, just war tradition provides important analogies. Ethical

norms and extensive oversight are essential both because intelligence serves as an extension of

the coercive power of the state and from an understanding that intelligence agencies cannot

exempt themselves from the limitations placed on other public institutions.(Nolte, 2009)

History of Espionage and Drone Development

Espionage and its practice date back to biblical times, such as in Numbers 13:2533.

Espionage and spying as we know it today, specifically electronic surveillance, date back to the

invention of the telegraph and the American civil war(CIACivil War History p. 33). In the first


known example of electronic eavesdropping, Union forces intercepted information transmitted

via telegraph cables. By physically attaching cables to telegraph lines, one was able to intercept

signals. This practice became known as wiretapping and remains a term widely used today.

Though used in warfare until the late 20th century, autonomous aircraft, or drones, date

back as far as World War II. During the War, US Army Air Forces under the command of Gen.

H.H. Arnold converted worn B17’s and B24’s into pilotless platforms. Known as “Weary

Willies” these aircraft were laden with explosives and were intended to fly into enemy

strongholds and inflict maximum damage (Ehrhard, 2010, p. 2). In a 1944 staff memo, in what is

strikingly similar to modern justification for drone warfare, Arnold remarked “If you can get

mechanical machines to do this, you are saving lives at the outset.”(Ehrhard, 2010)

The use of drones was further foreshadowed in 1956 when Maj. Gen. David Baker

addressed a meeting of industrial leaders stating “We can readily see that, except for certain

kinds of missions, the manned combat aircraft will become technically obsolete in the

future.”(Ehrhard, 2010, p. 4) At the time, he was not specifically referring to UAV’s as we know

them today, but rather to the introduction of intercontinental ballistic cruise missiles as a

replacement for deep penetration bombers. Modern iterations of the Unmanned Air Vehicle,

commonly thought of when speaking of military operations, would partly evolve out of an Air

Force program which used autonomous, jet driven drones, as targets for manned combat aircraft.

It isn’t quite clear when the government began substantial

development and fielding of UAVs as a reconnaissance tool, but from declassified information, it


is now known that the National Reconnaissance Office, or NRO, began significant development

as far back as the 1960’s. Because of limitations in technology and necessity for aircraft to cover

enormous distances during the Cold War period, much of the budget for such programs was kept

secret. It is likely that if such an equivalent program were undertaken today it would not receive

the support required.

During development through the Cold War, the first repurposed Ryan Q2C Firebee

target drone was proposed to Col. Hal Wood by a contractor. Not knowing much about the

drones, Col. Wood was put in touch with the drone’s manufacturer, Ryan Aeronautical. By

midApril 1960 a proposal for a strategic reconnaissance drone project was presented to the air

staff and would be named Red Wagon (Ehrhard, 2010, p. 6). Ultimately, Red Wagon and many

other subsequent programs were cancelled.

Out of the ashes of programs like Red Wagon came Fire Fly. During the Cuban Missile

Crisis in 1962, two Firefly drones were tasked to overfly Cuba from their base in Florida in order

to gather photo reconnaissance of Soviet SAM sites. Ironically, the mission was cancelled at the

last moment because the powers at be did not want to reveal their ‘secret weapon’ to the Soviets.

Then Air Force Colonel Lloyd Ryan later confirmed that the Air Force had intended to use the

secret aircraft over the Soviet Union itself and did not want to reveal their existence to the

Soviets prematurely. Soon after, the Fire Fly program was compromised and renamed Lightning

Bug.

Unlike FireFly, Lightning Bug did see operational use. On Aug. 20, 1964 Lightning Bug

reconnaissance drones were reflagged as Nationalist Chinese and used in overflight of Chinese

territories in order to determine nuclear capabilities of Communist China. In what was


potentially a major breakthrough for drone operations, Lightning Bug was plagued with

problems from the offset and resulted in minimally useful intelligence. Lightning Bug would go

on to complete over 160 missions between 1965 and 1966.

Though the Lightning Bug enjoyed some success, it was illsuited for

the deep penetrations into China’s inner territories. In response, Lockheed Martin, the designer

of the venerable SR71 Blackbird, designed one of the most radical drones to date. Designated

the D21, the drone resembled a miniature version of the Blackbird. Unlike other unmanned

aircraft at the time, the D21 could fly close to Mach 4 and over 100,000 feet in the air. The

aircraft was outfitted with a ramjet engine which would only function at speeds above Mach 2.

As such, the original design called for it to be launched from the back of the Blackbird once

speed was attained. (Ehrhard, 2010, p. 10)

Though the design was revolutionary, the technical challenges of launching such a vehicle

resulted in disaster. During one launch the D21 left its carrier atop the Blackbird at nearly Mach

3 and lost stability. It subsequently rolled, obliterating the right wing, rudder and engine nacelle.

The accident resulted in the death of the Blackbird’s backseater who drowned in the ocean

awaiting rescue. The program was initially cancelled but reinitiated in 1966. The new D21B was

redesigned for launch from the wing of a modified B52 bomber. The D21B was eventually

scrapped having completed zero successful missions.

Following the successes and failures of the D21 and its variants, the NRO and its associates

in the Air Force and other agencies, attempted several ambitious programs. By the end of the


Cold War no usable UAV platform had emerged as a viable alternative despite the equivalent of

billions of dollars of research investment. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end

of the Cold War, reconnaissance programs ranging from those the likes of the SR71 and UAVs

faced another hurdle: justification for their continued existence.

In the beginning of the Clinton administration’s bottomup review of military programs in

1993, Defense Acquisition Chief John Deutch coined the Tier system. Under this system, UAVs

were designated depending on their capability and operational altitude and longevity. David

Kier, NRO Deputy Director from 19972001 made the case that a tier 3 system (high altitude

operations and extended loitering capability) ought to be developed as a warfighter support asset.

Unlike other reconnaissance platforms, this new system would be solepurposed as a military

asset to provide for improved situational awareness. Kier used the logic that “you don’t need

another SR71 because the SR71 was like a satellite; it did not have any loiter time...you need a

dwell collector that’s responsive to the theater commander.” Though many hurdles had to be

overcome, the program promised an autonomous air vehicle which could loiter on station for

extended periods of time.

In part due to political and budget pressure, the Tier 3 proposal was split into two parts. The

first part, known as Tier 2+ resulted in the creation of the Global Hawk which is subsequently in

service with the military today. The other side of the coin was known as Tier 3. This program

resulted in the development of the RQ3 Darkstar (Ehrhard, 2010, p. 18). The Darkstar was

intended to fit the requirements of an autonomous, high endurance reconnaissance platform but

was scrapped due to its inefficiency, aerial instability and budget costs.


These programs ushered in the modern age of the military UAV. Much of the design history of

the Ryan Aero. Fire Fly can be seen in modern iterations such as the Global Hawk. These aircraft

have become synonymous with military operations in the public eye, however there is another,

lesser known category of UAV that has a much humbler beginning and a potentially larger long

term impact on society.

Unlike its military cousin, technological breakthroughs in radio control led to a boom

in recreational and sport pilotless aircraft. Upon opening a shop on Hollywood Boulevard in

1934, Reginald Denny pioneered the first mass produced radio controlled aircraft. Though

Denny marketed his airplane kit in 1937 for $25 dollars, including engine, he was also able to

procure contracts with the US Army to supply these recreational planes as purpose built target

drones (AMA, 2002).

There are multiple different types of aircraft and to detail the technological design and

breakthrough of even a small fraction would take up too much space. What is clear is that

throughout the decades, modeling has become a worldwide hobby. With efficiency

breakthroughs of batteries, internal combustion engines, and even miniature jet turbines, RC

aircraft have become a common fixture. Design improvements over the years have led to both

scaled down versions of real aircraft as well as cheap, affordable toys that can be readily

obtained at any shopping mall.

In recent years camera technology has improved so drastically that it is now cheap and

affordable to place high definition cameras on just about anything. This has never been as clear

as in the world of radio controlled aircraft. Though the government has been experimenting with

and using cameras on spy aircraft and drones for quite some time, the technology has been


mostly costprohibitive to the hobbyist. Since the technological leaps of recent decades have seen

previously unheard of advances in digital photography, small cameras have become a staple for

small, pilotless aircraft. These camera laden drones have been used for everything from

moviemaking to wildlife management and without a doubt could be used for private spying.

Examples of Surveillance Abuse

Such as surveillance provides a crucial benefit to a nation’s national security and military

operations, so too can it lead to ethically ambiguous practices and abuse. The United States is not

without its share of examples. Since its use beginning in the civil war, the potential for wiretap

abuse has been shown time and again.

The government of the United States has provided a measure of protection for citizen’s

civil rights such as the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution which guarantees a person’s

right to privacy and protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Throughout the years both

Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States have passed numerous laws and weighed

in on many cases involving a person’s right to privacy.

One such case which could potentially pertain to surveillance possible with drones comes

about in the case of Katz v The United States, 1967. In this case the Court ruled that “wherever a

man may be, he is entitled to know that he will remain free from unreasonable searches and

seizures…” Though this case was specifically about unlawful wiretaps of one using a pay

telephone, the argument suggests that a man must be protected against unwarranted intrusions

wherever he may be.

In one of the most famous examples of surveillance misuse in United States history,

President Richard Nixon authorized illegal wiretapping of 17 individuals in order to influence


campaign outcomes during the 1972 presidential elections. During the same decade the Church

Committee outlines multiple abuses of intelligence resources to include illegal surveillance on

antiwar and civil rights leaders to include Martin Luther King Jr., labor union leaders, student

groups, newsmen and former White House staffers and US Congressmen. As a result of these

hearings Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (Markels, 2005).

Ultimately this law is meant to reign in abuse of the wiretap system and established a court to

oversee such uses.

Examples abound, however what is argued to be one of the most severe blows to civil

liberties to date, President George W Bush authorized warrantless wiretapping throughout the

US in 2002 (Department of Justice Website, n.d.). Under the authorization, the National Security

Agency is able to monitor communications of US citizens, as well as foreign citizens, under the

mere suspicion or accusation of terrorist activity (Markels, 2005). Arguably due to the precedent

set by these orders, information regarding a massive data collection program by the NSA has

recently been uncovered.

Generally referred to as the ‘NSA Scandal’, a US contractor revealed details of a

collection program designed to gather mass amounts of electronic data, regardless of suspicion,

to be used to search for suspicious activity. Under the umbrella of the scandal programs known

as PRISM, TEMPORA and Project Shamrock were revealed (Lutticke, 2013). Known as

metadata collection, these programs have come under attack for their violations of civil rights

and revealed that in addition to the US, multiple allies including Britain, Australia, Canada,

Denmark, France, Germany and many others have taken part in global surveillance and metadata

collection (Wikipedia, 2013).


Misuse involving drones is a hotly debated topic. Issues of domestic drone use have been

vaulted to the forefront of the American psyche. As technology and availability improves debate

rages in the halls of government as to whether or not drones can be used on American soil to spy

on or assassinate American citizens. To date there is only one case which involves the use of a

predator drone on an American. This drone assisted in the apprehension of a North Dakota

farmer (Dvorak, 2012)

The farmer was accused of stealing several cows belonging to his neighbor. As police

attempted to resolve the situation, a standoff quickly developed. Due to the expansive property

and the fact that the suspect and family were allegedly antigovernment and heavily armed, the

local authorities requested the assistance of a Department of Homeland Security drone being

used for border surveillance. The drone was subsequently retasked and assisted in surveilling the

property, ultimately ending in the peaceful resolution of the incident.

This operation marks the first use of a federally owned UAV during a law enforcement

operation to apprehend an American citizen. The arrested parties in the case challenged the

charges claiming that the aircraft was designed for military use and is not currently authorized

for use against American citizens on US soil. As of August 2012, the district court of North

Dakota has upheld the charges and stated that the use of the drone did not constitute a misuse of

the technology and had no bearing on the actual charges (Koebler, 2012).

Although surveillance involving drones is rather new to the public, the previous examples

of surveillance abuse raise concerns that this technology will be similarly abused. Currently the

US does not have a legal framework for the use of drones domestically, whether for intelligence


or commercial purpose, however the Federal Aviation Administration has been tasked with

creating a framework for the future of UAVs in American skies.

Current Usage of Drones

Interest in unmanned air vehicles and pilotless aircraft has existed for about as long as aircraft

themselves. It hasn’t been until modern times that drones have become synonymous with modern

warfare. The Predator drone has captured headlines time and time again in the Global War on

Terror but it is in other emerging arenas which will bring controversy and strife.

In order to examine potential problem areas, an examination of their current use and, later,

emerging technologies, is warranted. In addition to their prolific use during the GWOT, drones

have been successfully utilized for operations involving counter narcotics operation, search and

rescue, immigration enforcement, and are even being experimented on in the private sector for

commercial package delivery.

Perhaps one of the fastest growing markets for drone use is in counterdrug operations. In

El Salvador US authorities have been working side by side with local forces to conduct

surveillance and operations against drug runners attempting to move their product through

Central America and Mexico. Using a somewhat newer Israeli sourced UAV known as the

Heron, a medium altitude long endurance platform (Israeli Weapons LTD, n.d.), the units were

able to loiter over their prospective targets for up to twenty hours at a time. Equipped with high

resolution video the drone was able to track fast boats and provide up to the minute intelligence

which was later utilized for interception (Padgett, 2009).


The above is but a small example of the potential UAVs have at making

an impact on the drug war. Other Latin American countries such as Brazil and Ecuador have

reached agreements with Israeli Aerospace Industries to supply Heron drones and other

platforms in their ongoing internal conflicts. IAI also has offices in Colombia and Chile, along

with several other drone manufacturers, and is expected to increase sales to those countries as

well.

In the Caribbean, US forces use a combination of platforms in an attempt to track

smuggling boats and submarines. One system in use is less of a drone, in the traditional sense,

and more closely resembles a dirigible. Called an Aerostat, or JLENS, this blimp like device is

tethered to a ship or other fixed position and floats up to 10,000 feet in the air to provide radar

capabilities or high resolution video over a broad range (Raytheon Corporation, n.d.). Used in

conjunction with the Aerostat is the Puma drone (Aerovironment Inc, n.d.). The Puma is a small,

hand launched system which resembles a medium sized RC plane commonly found in hobby

shops across the United States. The similarities end there, however, as the Puma utilizes

sophisticated technology such as electrooptical and infrared cameras, stabilized mounting

allowing it to track targets steadily at many angles, and adaptable payload mounts to secure

aftermarket electronics and sensor devices. Used in conjunction, counterdrug forces have been

successful at locating ships over significant ranges and then flying closeby in order to collect

visual data.


Located at Ft Huachuca in southern Arizona and Libby

Army Airfield Sierra Vista, also, in Arizona, US Customs and Border Protection members

operate drones along the US border regions for a variety reasons to include detection of drug

smuggling activities, human trafficking and potential threats to national security (Robbins,

2013). To date the USCBP operates the most recent MQ9B Predator drone (Customs and

Border Protection, n.d.).

To proponents of domestic drone use, this technology acts as a force multiplier for long

range border security operations which currently operate out of Arizona, North Dakota, Florida,

and Texas (Customs and Border Protection MQ9 Predator B, n.d.). Border patrol has claimed

these drones have had a major impact in their areas of operations, however opponents of the

technology are skeptical that, at $18 million apiece and over $3,000 per hour, drones are a cost

effective alternative (Robbins, 2013). Furthermore, many civil rights activists are concerned over

the potential for misuse and abuse the technology allows, which will be covered later.

Thus far the outlined uses for drones have involved federal and military customers. Recently the

debate over the domestic use of drones across the United States was sparked over concerns of

President Barack Obama’s and Attorney General Holder’s affirmation that drone strikes to kill

American citizens on US soil are ‘hypothetically legal’(Reilly, 2013). Amongst the obvious

concerns of such a topic, many have begun to focus on the potential use of drones in domestic

law enforcement operations.


Drones for law enforcement have not become a common fixture as of yet but there have

been reported cases, usually involving the lending of a federal drone to other agencies. A new

list, reported on in September, 2013, outlines over 500 instances of drone loans to assist other

agencies. Among the federal customers, several state and local authorities to include Texas

Department of Public Safety, Arizona DPS, Minnesota Drug Task Force, Minnesota Department

of Natural Resources, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Investigation, North Dakota Bureau of

Investigation, ND Narcotics Task Force, Grand Forks MI SWAT, and several anonymous county

sheriff’s offices were recipients of such loans. The document released by the CBP, unfortunately,

did not detail how the equipment was used (Electronic Frontier Foundation, n.d.).

Other potential uses for law enforcement drones come

on the heels of new types of aircraft. A design that has become famous for hobbyists has the

potential to be a serious game changer for public uses of drones. Known as a quadrotor, or

quadcopter, the design can be as small as the palm of a hand or have a “wingspan” as large as

several feet. These craft are noted for their four helicopter like blades set at equal intervals.

Coupled with intelligent and increasingly cheap sensor systems and advanced computer

software, these craft are exceptionally stable, quiet and efficient.

Interest by the law enforcement community spans the gamut from traffic investigations,

search and rescue, crowd management and monitoring and tactical operations. Because of their

lightweight and low price, they represent an enormous cost saving over military type UAVs.


The main concern with this technology is, obviously, its potential for abuse. For less than

two hundred dollars one can purchase a craft with a high definition camera and cellular phone

control and fly at altitudes in excess of 100 feet. Some models are programmable to fly a

designated flight path and train their camera on specific targets. With technology this affordable

and efficient, many are concerned that it will be widely used to surveil individuals and targets

with abandon.

The American Civil Liberties Union has expressed concern that such ease of technology

will lead to blanket surveillance of private property which would otherwise not be possible. They

outline several measure that ought to be in place as these machines are proliferated. For instance,

they maintain that use of these craft be restricted to use by law enforcement “only with a warrant,

in an emergency, or when there are specific and articulable grounds to believe that the drone will

collect evidence relating to a specific criminal act.” As far as data retention the ACLU suggests

that “Images should be retained only when there is reasonable suspicion that they contain

evidence of a crime or are relevant to an ongoing investigation or trial.” ("Domestic Drones,").

Furthermore, fear exists that these drones could be weaponized with tasers, gas dispersal units

and rubber bullets (Stanton, 2011).

To get a more inside look at how some law enforcement professionals view the idea of

drones, several questions were posed to law enforcement professionals across the country.

Initially, a surprising number of supervisors and higher ranking officials in Delaware, New

Mexico and Pennsylvania would not even entertain the question of whether or not drones should

be used for law enforcement operations and what type of concerns they would have if they were

adopted. However, on condition of anonymity, a Captain in the Delaware State Police


commented that in his professional opinion, the majority of law enforcement agencies around the

country would not resort to the use of drones for surveillance operations because “There are just

way too many civil liberty concerns.”

Child crimes Detective Sean Reavie of the Phoenix, AZ Police Department volunteered to

answer several questions via email. The question was asked whether or not he believed drones

should be implemented in law enforcement operations. His answer was very direct:

“We are not military. We use special manned aircraft for this type of work. Drones need

to be used for military purposes only by those specialty trained to operate them for

purposes of protecting this country.”

The next question was in regards to if drones were approved for law enforcement, what

type of restrictions should be placed on their use? For example, should they be allowed to be

used in general surveillance and patrol such as flying them through a neighborhood and looking

into windows for potential crimes? He again replied that people have a definite expectation of

privacy in their homes and any invasion of which must be met with strong probable cause and

must extend to aircraft.

Detective Reavie also reiterated that “If they are the targets of a major criminal

investigation then things can go from there. But simply deploying the technology to fish can

never be allowed to happen. This is where officers get into trouble. We have the technology to

see into the lives of everyone we meet. Many officers have lost their jobs, pension, and

reputation by using these tools for selfgain. It cannot be allowed. Does it happen? Yes. Do those

officers need to be held accountable? Yes.”


Emerging Technologies

In order to more thoroughly examine what potential ethical concerns we will deal with in

the future, it is essential to know where the technology is going and what capabilities it will

develop. Since the digital revolution that arguably began with cell phones and personal cameras,

recording devices have become exponentially more sophisticated, affordable, smaller and cost

effective. It is now common to find cameras embedded into everything from cellular phones,

sunglasses and even clothing buttons that dwarf the capabilities of devices less than a decade

ago.

For example, a quick search on www.amazon.com reveals that a wireless surveillance

camera system the size of a quarter capable of HD playback can be had for roughly $35 dollars.

Radio controlled devices ranging from small helicopters made for indoor flying to large scale

reproductions of aircraft made with actual miniature jet turbines are now easily equipped with

high fidelity cameras and wireless transmitters.

Battery efficiency has also improved exponentially compared to a decade or so ago. As

many people can attest, a cellular phone with astounding capability and a slim battery can now

perform anywhere from 8 to 24 hours on a single charge compared to a wireless device a decade

ago with a fraction of the computational power. These improvements translate to an

improvement in the capability of drone aircraft of all kinds while simultaneously reducing their

cost.

The drone world has been yielding some fascinating advances in recent years. To outline

every operational drone and all the new advancements would take a research paper of its own,

but the following will outline several technologies which will undoubtedly raise concern

http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEFBNV1ZsYyiXic74_8dVQaKmRfNg


amongst citizens and lawmakers alike. These new robotics are not only limited to flying

machines but also land based autonomous systems and even hybrid roboticorganic creations.

Flying Nano Drones

Aerovironment (http://www.avinc.com/), a company that has designed

drones for DARPA, has completed trials on a new system this year. Called the

NanoHummingbird, this device flies without conventional thrust and control surfaces and is

equipped with miniature cameras. Modeled after its namesake, it is able to gain flight by

mimicking the flapping of a hummingbird’s wings. As such, it is able to achieve flight in nearly

any direction, indoors and out. Because of its size it is well suited for reconnaissance missions in

urban environments where it would be able to blend in well with landscaping and fly through

windows and other small opening such as air vents ("Hummingbird," 2011).

Also in the class of aerial nanodrones is the Dragonfly. As its

name suggests, this small helicopter platform is no larger than a dragonfly. Produced by

Norwegian based Prox Dynamics, this device has already seen use by British armed forces in the

Afghan theater. Soldiers are able to program the device to fly a predetermined route and capture

video, or can control it via a tabletlike computer which shows them video in real time. This

device is primarily a daytime platform as it is too tiny to equip with a night vision camera,


however because it is so small it is reputed to be completely silent at distances greater than 30

feet (Liszewski, 2013).

Quadcopters and other multirotor craft are platforms that have seen some

notoriety in the last couple of years. They have appeared in video games like Call of Duty: Black

Ops as a weaponized platform, have been used experimentally by search and rescue personnel

and are widely marketed by multiple companies as a hobby toy ranging from $20 to well over

$1k dollars. The next evolution of this device is underway and will see significant advances in

battery life, control and camera quality. One open source project aims to add proximity sensors

to the devices so that they can detect when they are about to hit an object and selfadjust their

flight pattern accordingly (Adafruit Industries, n.d.).

In what will undoubtedly become the most contentious piece of new

equipment in the coming drone era is a device that flies, looks and operates like a common

insect. Currently in the stages of research is the Mosquito drone. This machine is small enough to

land on the tip of one’s finger and is said to be equipped with microsized cameras. What makes

this device so unsettling is the characteristic of the mosquito itself. It is allegedly equipped with a

small hypodermic needle in its nose that is capable of extracting a DNA sample from its target or

insert a miniaturized tracking chip. If fielded, this device could usher in a new era of clandestine

tracking and activity never before seen. It could lend the users the ability to build a database on

anyone, practically everywhere, without them even knowing ("Mosquito Drone," 2012).


Land Based and Hybrid Systems

Land based drones are fairly new in the world of robotics, though they’ve been fantasized

about and researched for a very long time. There is several designs currently in use throughout

the military and are basically ruggedized radio controlled vehicles. Some are used with robotic

arms to disarm explosives and others are equipped with machine guns for direct warfare. The

technology in development now will definitely be contentious in the years to come.

Developed out of UC Berkley, the appropriately named Roachbot

mimics the design of a common cockroach. It runs on six legs and even has the capability to

maneuver on upside down surfaces just like a real cockroach (Ackerman, 2012). This device is

still in the development phase and is several times larger than an actual cockroach, but its

potential is obvious. If fielded it could provide real time video surveillance in the most cramped

environments, in complete silence. Its ability to adhere to almost any surface means that it could

hide itself almost anywhere, such as the underside of a lampshade in a target’s office.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcbvukuvTps

Taking microrobotics to unheard of levels, DARPA currently has a

research program in which they are experimenting with radio control over actual, living insects.

Known as Hybrid Insect MicroElectroMechanical System, or HIMEMS for short, researchers





have been experimenting with the implantation of electronic circuitry and electrostimulators

inside the body of an insect such as a cockroach or moth. They’re goal is to be able to send weak

electronic pulses into the muscles of such insects to effectively steer them. Original designs show

cockroaches which look as if they’re carrying roachpacks on their backs, but newer systems will

be embedded in the body itself (Thompson, 2008). Paranoia about the potential use for these

devices suggests that not only could they be used as a near invisible spying platform, but they

would also be utilized en masse to deliver chemical and biological weapons (Turse n.d.).

All of the above devices share a common thread: their size, stealth and ease of use lends a

potential for abuse. They can be utilized to spy on people in nearly any environment. Many fear

that if devices like these are authorized for use on US soil their privacy and fourth amendment

rights will be at risk. Confidence in intelligence gathering agencies is at a serious low since the

revelation of metadata collection and eavesdropping on Americans without consent or approval

from a court. What is to stop an organization, or even a private individual, from utilizing one of

these devices without authorization to peer into the very annals of someone’s sanctuary or to

extract their genetic code?

In his article about the coming drone revolution, author John Whitehead said it best.

“Those looking to the skies in search of Predator drones will be in for a surprise, however,

because when the drones finally descend en masse on America, they will not be the massive

aerial assault vehicles favored by the Obama administration in their overseas war efforts. Rather,

the drones coming to a neighborhood near you will be small, some nano in size, capable of flying

through city streets and buildings almost undetected, while hovering over cityscapes and public

events for long periods of time, providing a means of 24/7 surveillance.” (Whitehead, 2013)


Moral and Ethical Concerns Regarding Drones

Technology alone is not a source of moral concern. After all, regardless of how advanced

or autonomous, all technology must first be guided by the intent of its user. There has been much

debate about what role drones will play in our future as a society and how many limitations

should be placed on them. Proponents argue that they will lend us an unparallelled advantage

over our enemies while opponents question who the ‘enemies’ are. Moreover, there is significant

debate regarding the human factor in drone use. Does pressing a button and causing the death of

another human being from half a world away make it easier for someone to justify their action or

harder because they have time and safety to contemplate the morality of what they’ve just done?

Opponents maintain that the ease of use with drones is its downfall. Like the shepherd

Gyges (Plato: The Ring of Gyges, n.d.) who was given great power to be used with ease, drones

represent a moral pitfall: Does the power to kill, or spy, with relative efficiency justify its use? It

was the technological advantage provided by Gyges’ ring which justified its use and so, too, may

be the case with drones.

Drones limit the human cost of war; at least from the user’s perspective. By using a drone we are able to assure that there are less troops involved in the execution or surveillance of a target and therefore we can mitigate casualties. However, philosophers guard against this concept with factvalue distinction. Statements of fact should not be confused with statements of value. They would argue that simply because we can attack a given target does not necessarily mean that we ought to attack said target.

When asked by Peter Singer whether or not the use of drones as a weapon violate the

1973 War Powers act, President Obama stated that it does not, simply because it does not

“involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof.” (Kaag &


Kreps, 2012) Such a comment seems to imply that the President believes exactly the opposite of

philosophers, that is that ease and safety do in fact justify their use.

As far as warfare and strike ability is concerned, some argue that drones should be

mandatory. Bradley J Strawser, a former Air Force officer and assistant professor of philosophy

at the Naval Postgraduate School, maintains that due to their advantages in identifying targets

and ability to conduct precision strikes, their use is morally obligatory. As he put it “all the

evidence we have so far suggests that drones do better at both identifying the terrorist and

avoiding collateral damage than anything else we have.” Because drone operators are able to

view targets for extended periods of time, their ability to properly identify targets is significantly

better than ground troops who may have mere moments (Shane, 2012).

But, as previously mentioned, there is concern that the ease in which one can effect the

death of another human being will ultimately lower the threshold for lethal action. Evidence

suggests that this may not be the case. Modern drone operators have reported significant

emotional distress. Unlike ground troops, drone operators track their targets for extended periods

of time and learn their daily routine. They become familiar with the person and when given the

order to execute may experience severe emotional trauma.

As Brandon Bryant, a former drone operator, stated, watching the horror of death real

time has left him a broken man. He, like many others, has reported a severe case of

posttraumatic stress disorder (Power, 2013). Though it may sound contradictory, it is arguably a

good thing that these people feel emotional strain. This hardship speaks to the value that human

beings put on another’s life and the difficulty associated in contributing to its demise. In his

landmark work, On Killing, Col. Dave Grossman, Ret. outlined that man has an ingrained


aversion to killing another human being (Grossman, 2009). Evidence of PTSD and other

emotional problems amongst drone operators suggests this aversion is not wholly diminished

when killing from a distance.

In addition to ethical concerns and emotional distress caused by combat drones in distant

theaters, the burgeoning use of domestic drones and the potential for their wider implementation

in the next several years has sparked a renewed controversy in the United States. Chief amongst

these issues is the possible civil rights ramifications associated with stealthy and nigh

undetectable platforms.

As early as 2011, the American Civil Liberties Union released a report outlining several

concerns regarding ethical use of domestic drones and potential violations of civil rights (Stanley

& Krump, 2011). They’ve stated that a current lack of legal safeguards and regulation poses a

looming threat to privacy in America. They claim that ‘mission creep’, or use of one method

outside of its original purpose, will lead to wider violations of civil rights (Stanley & Krump,

2011, p. 11). For example, the Ogden Utah Police suggested retasking a blimp to act as a

widespread surveillance platform because it will be a “deterrent to crime while it’s out and

about.” Similarly, police in Houston, Texas have suggested using small drones for traffic

enforcement.

Currently, most cities and municipalities have laws in place to allow law enforcement to

act on a violation which they’ve witnessed. Known as ‘plain sight’, this rule is commonly used to

gain access to an area otherwise off limits without probable cause, such as the inside of a car. For

example, if an officer pulls over a vehicle, or is driving along a street, and sees a crime or


violation in progress they then have the right to intervene. How do drones come into play with

such a legal framework?

Although the Supreme Court has yet to rule on warrantless surveillance specifically by

drones, there are several examples of case law that could justify their use. The decision in the

1986 case California V Ciraolo maintained the legality of prosecution incident to evidence

obtained by over flight surveillance because “any member of the public flying in this airspace

who glanced down could have seen everything these officers observed.” (476 U.S. 207, May 19

1986) This ruling falls squarely into the plain sight doctrine as does another case involving

surveillance from over flight. In Florida V Riley an officer in a plane observed marijuana

through open slats in a greenhouse roof. The court affirmed the legality since the defendant left

the panels off and the interior was open to view by anyone flying through the airspace (Florida V

Riley , January 23 1989).

These cases would seem to support, at least on their surface, the use of drones in routine

patrol, however, in Dow Chemical Co. V The United States Dow claimed the Environmental

Protection Agency violated its rights when it used a precision mapping camera to take

photographs of its facility from aloft. The Supreme Court affirmed the legality because the

photographer used a “conventional, albeit precise, commercial camera commonly used in

mapmaking.” (Dow Chemical V The United States, January 23 2006) The court did suggest that

the use of highly sophisticated surveillance equipment not in general use by the public could be a

violation.

If police begin to use drones in routine patrol operations, would plain sight still apply? If

a drone can see into someone’s property and witness a crime or violation that an ordinary man


would be unable to see, is there now probable cause to act? Questions such as these will become

pivotal in the debate for domestic use of drones, especially in law enforcement. As Detective

Reavie put it, “people have an expectation of privacy in their homes and that must extend to

aircraft…simply deploying technology to fish cannot be allowed to happen.”

As drones become more pervasive we are sure to see more interesting case law coming

from the courts of the United States. The precedents set in the Dow case may or may not apply to

drones. One side will argue that drones such as quadrotors equipped with high definition cameras

can be easily had by a hobbyist and therefore are ‘in common use’. The other could argue that

specific law enforcement platforms are much more sophisticated and purpose built and therefore

do not meet the requirements for common usage.

Furthermore, the Justice Department has claimed the authority to monitor American’s

movements via GPS without first obtaining a warrant (Stanley & Krump, 2011, p. 11). Advances

in UAV technology and software would allow a significant expansion of such tracking.

In addition to abuse in an official capacity, there exists the potential for individual abuse

by those in public service. Det. Reavie also acknowledged that “We have the technology to see

into the lives of everyone we meet. Many officers have lost their jobs, pension, and reputation by

using these tools for selfgain. It cannot be allowed. Does it happen? Yes. Do those officers need

to be held accountable? Yes.”

In 2004 the New York Police Department was accused of violating the privacy rights of a

couple making love on a rooftop balcony. Officers operating a police helicopter filmed the

couple for several minutes using night vision technology. It was argued that because it was night

time and they were out of plain view by others, they had a legitimate expectation of privacy. The


NYPD denied the allegations and stated that “this is what police in helicopters are supposed to

do, check out people to make sure no one is doing anything illegal.” (Stanley & Krump, 2011, p.

12), (Jacobs, 2006) Under that argument, the NYPD could potentially use small drones to peer

into a person’s home from an angle which would be impossible for any other platform, such as

an apartment several stories off the ground.

Another concern outlined by the ACLU had to do with discrimination. Machines are not,

in and of themselves, biased. The operators bring that bias with them. Research in Britain has

shown that surveillance operators were approximately one and a half times more likely to focus

on people of color ("ACLU," 2002). It is likely that racial or class profiling will extend to the use

of unmanned surveillance systems as well.

There have been several attempts by private organizations to curtail privacy violations by

UAVs before they occur. In 2012 the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) submitted

comments to the FAA urging them to adopt basic privacy standards for drone operators

(Electronic Privacy Information Center [EPIC], 2013). EPIC and over 100 other privacy

organizations petitioned the FAA to address these privacy concerns during the integration

process citing that drones greatly increase the capacity for domestic surveillance (EPIC.org,

2012).

The ACLU has also provided several recommendations regarding drones. within their

recommendations they’ve stated that “UAVs should be subject to strict regulation to ensure that

their use does not eviscerate the privacy that Americans have traditionally enjoyed and expect.

Innocent Americans should not have to worry that their activities will be scrutinized by drones.”

They state that drones should be restricted from deployment unless there are articulable grounds


to believe that the drone will collect evidence relating to a specific offense or there is a

geographically confined, time limited emergency where the use of the drone can have a positive

effect (Stanley & Krump, 2011, p. 16).

These are but a few suggestions put forth by EPIC and the ACLU and should, and likely

will, serve as a primer for future laws regarding drone use. But what happens when a system

becomes compromised?

Forbes magazine reported in July of 2011 two men who produced a drone capable of

hacking and intercepting wireless signals (Greenberg, 2011). Known as a WASP (Wireless

Aerial Surveillance Platform), the drone was made from a retired military target drone and fitted

with a suite of electronic surveillance accessories. It is equipped with an HD camera and a linux

based operating system containing software capable of intercepting wireless data transmissions,

hacking private networks and even cracking passwords, all while flying above the target (Sakr,

2011).

As if that wasn’t enough, an upgraded version reportedly has the capability of spoofing

cell phones on TMobile AT&T’s networks into thinking the drone itself is a cellular tower and

subsequently reroute its data and not even drop a call. The two creators maintain that they

created the drone, not as a tool for espionage, but to demonstrate the vulnerabilities of

government and commercial facilities to a “nimble, eavesdropping machine.”

Almost as if itself a prophecy, the WASP drone arguably led the way for drones as a

platform for wireless communications. Aviation companies such as Boeing are proposing to

equip drones with software which will act as mobile cell phone towers. Though they may


represent a major breakthrough in wireless technology, especially in disaster areas or battlefields,

the next example will reiterate the dangers of drones used for nefarious activities.

On December 3, 2013 Ars Technica, a respected technology magazine, published an

article profiling the release of a software by hacker Samy Kamkar. This software allows an

equipped drone to hijack the wireless signals of other UAVs, turning them into ‘zombie drones’.

Known as SkyJack the soequipped device will seek out and turn other drones over to the

attackers control. The software involved runs on a linux based operating system and can even be

used from a ground based system on drones that are within a given range.

Currently, the hack is restricted to a specific model, the Parrot AR Drone, but it is almost

inevitable that the program will be expanded. At the time of the magazine’s publication, there

have been more than a half a million Parrot drones sold on the commercial market (Goodin,

2013). The implications of such a software is obvious. There is virtually nothing to stop a

determined hacker from commandeering more advanced or even dangerous devices from the

controls of a government entity and using it for their own benefit.

Summary

It is likely that in the near future the debate for drones will take on many different forms.

From a legal perspective there is a long and bumpy road ahead. UAVs have the potential to give

law enforcement, national security and corporate interests a distinct advantage over their

competition and may offer an easy, cost effective tool. From warrantless surveillance to NSA

metadata collection, Americans have shown they are weary of government overstep and abuse of

power. Drones will be no different. As their adoption becomes more widespread it is inevitable

that some abuses and misuses will occur and will rightly spark many debates and legal decisions.


A moral and legal framework must be put into place to reflect the ideals of American

society. Privacy must be respected and be considered paramount. Domestic use of drones by

federal intelligence agencies such as the CIA and NSA should face the same restrictions, and

more, as current intelligence gathering methods. To avoid legal and ethical battles UAVs should

only be used when a clear cause is articulated and no other option is available.

The United States must strive to adopt more stringent policies on the use of drones

abroad whether for direct warfare or clandestine activities. There is potential for significant

backlash from the international community regarding the ease at which we may use these devices

to affect our foreign policy. If we wish to be taken seriously as a human rights leader it must be

with great care that we implement these game changing devices.

It is clear that drones are here to stay. Their technology has allowed servicemen to escape

harm’s way and suspected terrorists to be taken down. Whether or not they fit into a specific

moral framework is yet to be decided, but it is clear that their use will be a point of contention

for some time to come.


References

(2002). The AMA History Program Presents: Biography of REGINALD LEIGH DENNY.

Retrieved from Academy of Model Aeronautics:

https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/DennyReginald.pdf

Ackerman, E. (2012). DASH Roachbot Learns Acrobatic Flips from Real Cockroach. Retrieved

from

http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/diy/ucberkeleydashroachbotacrobaticflip

s

Adafruit Industries. (n.d.).

http://www.adafruit.com/blog/2013/08/13/nanoquadcopterwithproximitysensor/

Aerovironment Inc. (n.d.). http://www.avinc.com/uas/small_uas/puma/

Blog of Rights: Domestic Drones. (). Retrieved from

https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/domesticdrones

California V Ciraolo 476 U.S. 207, No. 841513 Cornell University Law School (California

May 19 1986).

Customs and Border Protection MQ9 Predator B. (n.d.).

http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/newsroom/fact_sheets/marine/uas.ctt/uas.pdf

Customs and Border Protection. (n.d.).

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/am/operations/oam_vessels/aircraft/uas/

Department of Justice Website. (n.d.). http://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm

Dow Chemical V The United States, 476 U.S. 227 US Courts Website (January 23 2006).


Dvorak, K. (2012, December 10). Homeland Security increasingly lending drones to local police.

The Washington Times. Retrieved from

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/10/homelandsecurityincreasinglyloa

ningdronestol/

EPIC.org. (2012). http://epic.org/privacy/drones/FAA553ePetition030812.pdf

Ehrhard, T. P. (2010). Air Force UAVs: The Secret History. Retrieved from The Mitchell

Institute for Airpower Studies: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a525674.pdf

Electronic Frontier Foundation. (n.d.).

https://www.eff.org/document/customsborderprotectiondroneflightlist

Electronic Privacy Information Center. (2013). COMMENTS OF THE ELECTRONIC PRIVACY

INFORMATION CENTERtoTHE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION of

theDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Federal Aviation Administration).

Retrieved from http://epic.org/privacy/drones/EPICDronesComments2013.pdf

Florida V Riley , 488 U.S. 445 Supreme Court of the United States (January 23 1989).

Global Surveillance Disclosures. (2013). In Wikipedia. Retrieved , from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_global_surveillance_disclosures

Goodin, D. (2013, December 3). Flying hacker contraption hunts other drones, turns them into

zombies. ArsTechnica. Retrieved from

http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/12/flyinghackercontraptionhuntsotherdronestur

nsthemintozombies/

Greenberg, A. (2011, July 28). Flying Drone Can Crack WiFi Networks, Snoop On Cell Phones.

Forbes. Retrieved from


http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2011/07/28/flyingdronecancrackwifinet

workssnooponcellphones/

Grossman, D. (2009). On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and

Society . : Little, Brown and Company.

Hack A Day. (2013). http://hackaday.com/2013/12/06/skyjackadronetohackalldrones/

Insect Spy Drone. (2012, ). Snopes. Retrieved from

http://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/insectdrone.asp

Intelligence in the Civil War []. (). Central Intelligence Agency Office of Public Affairs.

Retrieved from

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/additionalpublications/civilwar/Intel_in_the_C

W1.pdf

Israeli Weapons LTD. (n.d.).

http://www.israeliweapons.com/weapons/aircraft/uav/heron/heron.html

Jacobs, A. (2006, July 2). Instead of Walking a Beat, Flying One . New York Times. Retrieved

from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/nyregion/02aviation.html

Kaag, J., & Kreps, S. (2012, July 22). The Moral Hazard of Drones. The New York Times.

Retrieved from

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/themoralhazardofdrones/?_r=0

Katz V United States, 389 U.S. 347 United States Courts (1967).

Koebler, J. (2012, August 2). Court Upholds Domestic Drone Use in Arrest of American Citizen.

US News. Retrieved from


http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/08/02/courtupholdsdomesticdroneuseina

rrestofamericancitizen

Liszewski, A. (2013, November 4). An Adorable Tiny Reconnaissence Drone No Larger than a

Dragonfly. Gizmodo. Retrieved from

http://gizmodo.com/anadorablytinyreconnaissancedronenolargerthana1458107265

Lutticke, M. (2013). A chronology of the NSA surveillance scandal. Retrieved from

http://www.dw.de/achronologyofthensasurveillancescandal/a17197740

Markels, A. (2005). Timeline: Wiretaps’ Use and Abuse. Retrieved from

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5061834

Nolte, W. M. (2009). Ethics and Intelligence. Retrieved from :

http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/images/jfq54/6.pdf

Oregon State University Plato: Ethics The Ring of Gyges. (n.d.).

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Plato/plato_dialogue_the_ri

ng_of_gyges.html

Padgett, T. (2009, June 08). Drones Join the War Against Drugs . Time U.S. Retrieved from

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903305,00.html

Power, M. (2013, October 23). Confessions of a Drone Warrior. GQ Magazine. Retrieved from

http://www.gq.com/newspolitics/bigissues/201311/droneuavpilotassassination

Raytheon Corporation. (n.d.). http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/jlens/

Reilly, R. J. (2013, March 05). Eric Holder: Drone Strike To Kill U.S. Citizen On American Soil

Legal, Hypothetically . Huffingtonpost. Retrieved from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/05/usdronestrike_n_2813857.html


Robbins, T. (2013, June 11). Border Drones Fly Into Fight Over Immigration. National Public

Radio. Retrieved from

http://www.npr.org/2013/06/11/190741527/borderdronesflyintofightoverimmigratio

n

Sakr, S. (2011). Wireless snooping WASP drone knows you want extra jalapeños, no sliced

tomato. Engadget. Retrieved from

http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/01/wirelesssnoopingwaspdroneknowsyouwante

xtrajalapenosno/

Shane, S. (2012, July 14). The Moral Case for Drones. The New York Times. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/sundayreview/themoralcasefordrones.html?_r=

0

Stanley, J., & Krump, K. (2011). Protecting Privacy from Aerial Surveillance. Retrieved from

https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/protectingprivacyfromaerialsurveillance.pdf

Stanton, R. (2011, October 31). Texas civil libertarians have eye on police drones. Houston

Chronicle. Retrieved from

http://www.chron.com/news/houstontexas/article/Texascivillibertarianshaveeyeonp

olicedrones2245644.php

TIME Magazine recognizes DARPA’s Hummingbird Nano Air Vehicle. (2011). Retrieved from

http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2011/11/24.aspx

Thompson, M. (2008). Unleashing the Bugs of War. Retrieved from

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1732226,00.html


Turse, N. (, ). Weaponizing the Pentagon’s Cyborg Insects: A Futuristic Nightmare That Just

Might Come True [Blog post]. Retrieved from

http://www.nickturse.com/articles/tom_cyborg.html

What’s Wrong With Public Video Surveillance? . (2002). Retrieved from

https://www.aclu.org/technologyandliberty/whatswrongpublicvideosurveillance

Whitehead, J. (2013, April 17). Roaches, Mosquitoes and Birds: The Coming MicroDrone

Revolution . Huffington Post. Retrieved from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johnwwhitehead/microdrones_b_3084965.html

VOYEURISM FROM 40,000 FEET: THE ETHICAL DANGERS OF 1 · VOYEURISM FROM 40,000 FEET: THE ETHICAL...

Documents

Transcript of VOYEURISM FROM 40,000 FEET: THE ETHICAL DANGERS OF 1 · VOYEURISM FROM 40,000 FEET: THE ETHICAL...