Casey Richie

US Government
Kevin Davis 4
October 15, 2015
Research Paper
Remotely piloted aerial systems, also called unmanned aerial vehicles or drones, are
being popularized in industrialized countries and marketed to the general public as childrens
toys and innocent fun. Because of the governments increased usage for spying and airstrikes in
other countries, we know they can be easily used for dangerous and effective militaristic actions.
By using drones, people are able to commit crimes they would otherwise couldnt nearly as well
in the absence of drones. This is because drones are much more effective at escaping a crime
zone faster and without being identified than a person. We need to implement limitations their
range and their legal actions of drones because drones facilitate invasion of privacy, can be
weaponized, and the anonymous nature of drones makes the prosecution of crimes involving
drones more difficult.
Drones increase the ability of one person to invade the privacy of another they are better
at committing the crime for many reasons. People deserve to have their personal affairs private.
If drones were unregulated, people could attach cameras to them and spy on the government,
business transactions, celebrities, or attractive members of the opposite sex. They can enable
people to case out houses or companies or look fly behind people at ATMs to find out their bank
pin code. While not expressed directly, the US constitution implies citizens the right to privacy
(Linder). Drones are small and mobile so intruders can use drones to access locations they
cannot otherwise enter and hide in unseen locations to avoid detection like flying over a fenced

off area and remaining high and out of sight with a high resolution camera. Modern drones fly
much quieter than helicopters or airplanes and can remain hovering or moving while recording
for 24 hours (Pasternack). Drones are anonymous so there is less risk for the intruder to get
caught and even if their drone is caught, there is currently less reparation than if they were
caught in person trespassing and invading personal privacy.
Weapons can be easily attached to drones to enable homicide or other assault from farther
away, and with less trace due to their size, mobility, speed and anonymous nature. In April,
2015, experts and representatives from around the world gathered at a United Nations summit to
discuss the growing problem of lethal autonomous weapon systems [drones] and, work
through some of the technical, legal, military, sociological, and ethical issues posed by the
development of killer robots(Gettinger). The fact that the United Nations is considering this
threat on a global level, is a strong indicator of the severity of the problem. The United States,
as a global leader, has the responsibility to be at the forefront of finding a solution to this
problem. The threat is based on the possession of new technology and more affluent and
economically stable countries have higher accessibility to them, and because the US is so
technologically advanced, we must address the problem sooner than underdeveloped countries.
While they have not yet been successful in any their attacks so far, terrorist strikes are now being
carried out through the use of drones. The ability of law enforcement to identify drones flying
more than four hundred feet from people as illegal, regardless of the source, may help prevent a
terrorist airstrike. Drones have done their job remarkably well: by killing key leaders and
denying terrorists sanctuaries in Pakistan, Yemen, and, to a lesser degree, Somalia, drones have
devastated al Qaeda and associated anti-American militant groups. And they have done so at
little financial cost, at no risk to U.S. forces, and with fewer civilian casualties than many

alternative methods would have caused (Byman). Drone strikes are working remarkably well
for the US military, which makes them appealing to the public. American people are going to
want to replicate what the military does.
When a crime is committed through the use of a drone, it is more difficult and
problematic to attribute the drones behavior to the actual perpetrator because it is much more
difficult to identify, track, and find the source and the person accountable and the perpetrator can
easily destroy the drone and all evidence by flying it into an irrecoverable situation such as an
ocean or the mountains without ever even coming contact with it after the crime. The federal
government already regulates drones over 55 pounds (Unmanned Aircraft Systems Registration)
but this law goes a step further and restricts drones from being flown a certain range which
makes sure you can locate the operator in the vicinity of where the drone is. Using new means,
the drone procures for its operators an even greater sense of invulnerability Warfare, by
distancing itself totally from the model of hand-to-hand combat, becomes something quite
different, a state of violence of a different kind. It degenerates into slaughter or hunting. One
no longer fights the enemy; one eliminates him, as one shoots rabbits (Chamayou, 91). Range
restrictions of drones are necessary to minimize the invulnerability the operator feels. Drones
can be programed to do actions by themselves, providing the ability for a criminal to be in a
public place with an alibi for their actions at the time the crime was committed.
Some say that this bill would infringe on some personal freedoms and dampening the use
and development of modern technology. It can be thought unconstitutional by the ninth
amendment of the Bill of Rights to make a federal law restricting the freedoms of something not
directly addressed in the constitution and should be left to the states decisions instead, The
enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage

others retained by the people (US Const. amend IX.). Also, restricting the range of drones
decelerates the advancement of modern technology. Technology has already developed enough
that drones can be used for many practical purposes that would be restricted by this law.
Opponents argue that drone innovation, as some of our newest, and more impressive inventions,
should be encouraged and expanded rather than stifled. While drones were obviously not
mentioned in the US constitution, the commerce clause allows the federal government to regulate
issues that cross or have the ability to cross state lines (Commerce Clause), and the federal
government is already regulating drones (Fact Sheet: Promoting Economic). This makes the bill
a legal federal action because drones have the ability to cross state lines and already have federal
laws addressing them. This federal law is necessary to be put into action to ensure the
restrictions of drones everywhere in the country because there is a high risk of drones becoming
much more dangerous in the near future. People deserve to have the rights to do what they
please and use and improve new technology, but not at the expense of other peoples safety, 921
incidents involving drones and manned aircraft in the national airspace, dating from December
17, 2013 to September 12, 2015 (Michel). Drone technology does have potential for many
impressive new convenient practices but since they are a risk to other peoples safety must be
strictly restricted. Also, Drone innovation will still progress through government and business
uses. Military drones and commercial drones are not affected by this bill and civilians can still
have plenty of opportunities to expand on the existing technologies within the restrictions of this
bill.
Drones are simple, effective, and relatively cheap tools used to facilitate crimes against
the people of the United States and need to be regulated so they cannot aid in the invasion of
personal privacy or physical assault of another person without being easily identified, tracked,

and sentenced to the proper punishment. Many people want to keep their technology and/or
weapons close to up-to-date with the militarys constantly growing power but drones simply
have too much dangerous potential for civilian use.