The advancement in the technology has put people’s privacy at risk because now personal data can easily be accessed by the public as a result of the use of technologies like unmanned aerial vehicles that can carry out surveillance in people’s private residence without their consent. The emergence of technologies such as the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) commonly known as Drone is among the most significant innovation in the 21st century that has brought about a lot of benefits to various sectors such as journalism, environmental conservation, policing, archeology, military and in building and construction. The drones are useful in many ways however without strict regulation on how they have used the information they capture can fall in wrong hands leading to the violation of the rights to privacy of citizens. This paper looks into the benefits of the drones, the dangers they pose to the privacy of the citizen and whether there is a need to limit their usage to protect the individuals’ rights to privacy.
The use of drone helps the law enforcers to find accidents victims, criminal suspects, and missing people. The drones can also be used in investigating situations that are very dangerous like toxic spills and in cases where there are bomb threats, in delivering packages in homes, in the military mission, in rescue missions, and in underwater exploration. Despite these enormous benefits, the issue of the drone has led to the emergence of concerns about the impact of these technologies on the privacy of citizens (Finn, 190). Currently, the law enforcers who have widely used the drones in the past fifteen years are facing challenges in balancing the advantages of drones with the privacy concerns that the technology present.
The use of drones does not cause any threat to the privacy of the citizens however the electronic equipment that the drone carries can lead to a breach of Fourth Amendment because of their capability to record video footage and audio conversation in private homes. Because of the ability of this equipment of recording and storing of personal and private information without the permission of the subject, they pose a threat to personal data protection and privacy rights of the individuals and hence their human rights. The lightweight civilian drones can go over walls and enter into houses without the owner’s consent and record personal information. The victims whose data is collected without their permission by the drones have no control over the processing and sharing of this information. Privacy is linked to behavior, location and body characteristics. The drones can capture information about people’s location, their behaviors, daily activity, the things they like to do and their appearance and then upload this data online. By uploading personal data on the internet, the fundamental human rights such as rights to data protection and privacy is at risk because civilians can access this private information and unintentionally or intentionally make it public therefore affecting the victim adversely (Brunstetter, 178).
The drones that are available for the public are fitted with amateur cameras, and they can only carry small payloads of about 3 pounds. The law enforcers at the state and federal level, on the other hand, can buy drones with a high payload capacity than the photography drones used by the hobbyists. The drones such as Reapers, Leptron Avengers, T-Hawk and Black Hawk that are used by law enforcement departments such as the Department of the Homeland security, custom and border protection and police departments have sophisticated equipment attached on them. This advanced equipment such as cameras with ARGUS-IS technology, biometric tools, and thermal scanners make these drones more intrusive and are likely to pose a significant threat to privacy (Hill). When such drones with audio recorders, infrared technology, and facial recognition are used without proper regulation, they can monitor individuals conversations, activities and behaviors in their private residence without their knowledge and this will lead to the violation of the privacy rights of the individual which is also a breach of the Fourth Amendment. Drones can be interconnected wirelessly a scenario that can lead to mass tracking of people and vehicles in a wide area. Similarly, there exist tiny drone that is a size of an insect, and this device can enter a building without being noticed and carry out surveillance; this is breaching the privacy rights given to the citizens by the Fourth Amendment.
To protect the rights of citizens from the violation, the lawmakers need to pass laws that will limit the use of the drones. The lawmakers at state and federal level should enact laws that will restrict the law enforcers from using the biometric software on their drones unless it is necessary and acceptable by the law. Also, the lawmakers should enact legislation that will make it a requirement for the police to analyze the footage captured by their drones using the biometric software only if "that biometric software is used exclusively in violent crime investigations, and that biometric databases only include information related to citizens with a violent crime conviction" (Feeney). These requirements will help in limiting the law enforcers on using the biometric technology to analyze drone footage only when investigating serious crimes and prevent the usage of the technology on the identification of innocent citizens engaging in lawful activities. Similarly, the use of thermal scanners that use infrared radiation in analyzing body heat that is also attached to the police drones should be regulated by law. The law should be put in place that will restrict the use of thermal scanners only when there is a search warrant or in situations where there is a missing person or dangerous suspects (Verboven, 49). This is because using thermal scanners to search private houses is against the right to privacy, and therefore it is essential for police officers to carry out such searches only when they have a warrant. To protect privacy and at the same time increasing transparency and accountability the lawmakers should pass laws that will make it possible for the public to request access to drone footage but only those that are of public interest such as those footage related to arrest. The footage that violates the privacy of the subject and that does not link with the incidences of use of force, or that is not related to arrest should not be made available to the public and must be deleted after 90 days.
Conclusion
As technology continues to advance many industries such as journalism, filmmaking, engineering, archaeology, and photography will benefit immensely from drone technology. The law enforcement departments are benefitting significantly from drone technology as a result of the improvement in technology that has led to the development of sophisticated surveillance equipment of high capabilities like cameras with ARGUS-IS technology. Although the drone technology is beneficial, it is posing a threat to the right to privacy. Therefore there is a need for lawmakers to come up with legislation that will limit the use of surveillance, thermal scanning, and biometric software in drones only in situations that are allowed by the law.
Work Cited
Brunstetter, D. R., Jimenez-Bacardi, A. (2015). Clashing over drones: The legal and normative gap between the United States and the human rights community. International Journal of Human Rights, 19(2), 176-198. doi:10.1080/13642987.2014.991214
Feeney M. Surveillance Takes Wing: Privacy in the Age of Police Drones. CATO Institute. https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/surveillance-takes-wing-privacy-age-police-drones. 2016
Finn, R. L., Wright, D. Unmanned aircraft systems: Surveillance, ethics, and privacy in civil applications. Computer Law and Security Review, 28(2), pp. 184-194. (2012) doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2012.01.005
Hill J.M. Drones: The Latest Threat to the Right to Privacy. The National Judicial College. https://www.judges.org/drones-latest-threat-right-privacy/, 2015.
Verboven, J. No fly drone - Drones versus the right to privacy. Thesis Master Law " Technology. Tilburg University. (2016). P 47-80
