It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s a drone armed with an arsenal of video surveillance technology!
Today the ACLU filed Freedom of Information Act requests seeking records related to the federal government’s domestic use of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) – better known as drones – as well as plans for the future rollout of drones in the United States. Drone technology is largely a product of our war efforts abroad, but the federal government is these machines for surveillance purposes at home.
We sent the FOIA requests to five federal agencies:
- Federal Aviation Administration: Following the , the FAA has been tasked with developing a plan for incorporating drones into the national airspace by 2015, and authorizing private and public entities to . We’d like to see the FAA’s records on drone flights as well as any policies they’ve been developing.
- Department of Justice: DOJ oversees several agencies that we know are using drones in the U.S., including the . We’d like to know how each agency is using their own drones, drones that they’re borrowing, and drones that they’re lending.
- Department of Homeland Security: DHS also oversees several , including U.S. Customs and Border Protection. We’d like to know how DHS is using, and sharing, its drones.
- General Services Administration: According to a , “Federal agencies that own or lease UAS report their UAS inventory, cost and utilization data to GSA.” We’ve asked them to share this information.
- U.S. Air Force: In a implementing new policy, the Air Force listed several permissible domestic drone uses, including responding to natural disasters, counterintelligence, vulnerability assessments, training, and testing. We’d like to find out how they’ve been using drones for these purposes, or any others.
The ACLU wants to know how the government is using, acquiring, paying for, and sharing drones. We’ve asked the following questions to the government:
- How are drones being funded and purchased?
- What are the technical capabilities of drones that are being flown in the U.S.?
- What type of surveillance data is being captured, and how long is it being stored?
- Who can access drones and the data they capture?
- What other policies or procedures currently govern the domestic use of drones?
Though the full extent of government ownership of drones remains unclear, one example of government drone use involves U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which is using drones to patrol both our and borders. The U.S. Border Patrol owns nine drones and is . Additionally, the Department of Justice is rumored to have of its own that it loans out to police departments.
The ACLU released a report on domestic drones in December 2011, urging that rules be put in place to safeguard Americans’ privacy. The report recommends limits on when drones can be deployed and for what purposes, and calls for restrictions on retention of and access to data collected by drones employed for any purpose. Today’s FOIA requests seek to determine how extensively the government has heeded this advice.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a FOIA request in April of 2011 with the FAA to uncover data on the certificates of authorization (COAs) the agency has issued. One year later, after , they released a list of all 60 entities that have active, expired, or disapproved COAs. In July 2012, information for 18 of the 60 entities (who own 125 out of 300 total COAs) that included “extensive details about the specific drone models some entities are flying, where they fly, how frequently they fly, and how long they stay in the air.” Yesterday, EFF reported on their over requests to local and federal agencies. With only 19 agencies responding with responsive documents so far, the verdict is still out on how local and federal agencies are utilizing, and plan to utilize, the new technology. Our requests build upon EFF’s by asking the federal government broader questions about its policies and plans for domestic drones.
The government wants drones for surveillance purposes. EFF points out that these drones are “.” Indeed, DARPA has developed a system of surveillance known as (Autonomous Real-time Ground Ubiquitous Surveillance-Imaging System). ARGUS-IS produces up to 65 video streams simultaneously, allowing for , even in the . This technology is equivalent to utilizing 60 to 100 independent drones and is .
As drone technology becomes , the likelihood of government misuse and abuse of this unprecedented surveillance power increases proportionally. The public should know how the government is using drones in the U.S. and, perhaps more importantly, what it intends to do in the near future.
NOTE: On Thursday in Houston, the ACLU will testify before a Congressional field hearing held on privacy protections for domestic drone use by the government.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
ACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNAACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNA
PHOENIX — In a 7-0 decision, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a warrant is required to extract and analyze people’s DNA, saying that a person’s limited consent to a search of biological material for a specific purpose—in this case, a blood alcohol test for a DUI arrest—does not overcome that requirement. The ACLU and the ACLU of Arizona filed a friend-of-the-court brief in State v. Mitcham, arguing the government cannot genetically test biological material it already has in its possession—whether that’s blood taken from newborns to test for diseases or swabs collected from sexual assault survivors—to investigate the donors for a crime without first obtaining a warrant. In the decision, the court wrote that “in reaching this conclusion, we emphatically reject the State’s position that it was free to analyze Mitcham’s blood in any way it pleased simply because the State lawfully possessed the blood vials.” “Government analysis of our DNA can expose detailed information about our identity, appearance, family relationships, medical conditions, and more. We don’t consent to sharing all of that information each time we involuntarily shed our DNA or consent to a blood draw. The government’s argument in this case was a privacy nightmare,” said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “We are greatly heartened by the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to preserve the privacy of our sensitive genetic information.” In 2015, during a DUI arrest, the defendant in this case consented to the government collecting a sample of his blood solely to test it for blood-alcohol content, and was advised that the sample would be destroyed after 90 days. Instead, law enforcement held on to this sample for three years, at which point it used it for a completely different purpose—to extract and analyze his DNA, without a warrant or consent—while investigating another crime. Had the court accepted the government’s rationale here, all of us who consent to a biological sample collection, at any point in time, for any purpose, to any government entity, could have been subject to a warrantless DNA search after the fact. “Our DNA can reveal so much about us that our genetic privacy must be protected,” said Jared Keenan, legal director of ACLU of Arizona. “The Court’s decision is vital to protecting the strong constitutional rights that keep all Arizonans’ information safe from warrantless searches and unconstitutional intrusion.” -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
Face Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and BeyondFace Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and Beyond
You shouldn't participate in face recognition ticketing schemes. -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
AI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, BiasAI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, Bias
AI-generated police reports threaten to exacerbate existing problems in law enforcement, and to create new ones.