To: Chair English, Vice-Chair Dela Cruz, and Members of the Committee From: Khara Jabola Carolus, President,

Filipino Law Students Association Date: February 2, 2014 Hrg: Senate Committee on Transportation and International Affairs; Fri., February, 4 2014 at 1:16 p.m. in Rm 224 Re: Testimony in Opposition to SB 2608, Relating to Unmanned Aircrafts ________________________________________________________________________ Dear Chair English, Vice-Chair Dela Crus, and Members, Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony in opposition to SB 2608, which seeks to address the legislative vacuum concerning the use of remotely operate vehicles, or what are commonly known as drones, in Hawaii. SB 2608 is a half-hearted attempt to minimize the collection of highly personal information by drones in Hawaii. SB 2608 encourages the further militarization of law enforcement in Hawaii and allows for armed drones by public and private entities, running contrary to the International Association of Chiefs of Police which supports strong limits on weaponized drones. In addition, SB 2608 burdens the private sector and fails to provide mechanisms to ensure that local businesses will be able to utilize drones to enlarge the economy of the State while respecting civil liberties. This bills deficiencies can be grouped into four major flaws: 1. Failure to provide adequate protection against the novel privacy challenges of drone surveillance; 2. Allowance for weaponized drones; 3. Failure to adequately comprehend, define, and therefore craft regulation for, drone technology. 4. Failure to provide effective oversight to ensure transparency. 1. SB 2608 fails to provide adequate privacy-protective mechanisms to prevent the abuse, misuse, and unwarranted revealing of highly personal information. Hawaii is infamous as the site of the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, which spurred the subsequent dragnet of over 110,000 American citizens of Japanese ancestry. In 2007, after half a century of denial, the U.S. government confirmed that the mass round-up of Japanese-Americans was enabled by the U.S. Census Bureau, which assisted the

internment efforts by providing confidential personal information about JapaneseAmericans to other government agencies and releasing this information to alert agencies to the location of Japanese-Americans. This is a tragic reminder of the unfortunate yet long history of abuse and misuse of personal data collected from law-abiding civilians by the government. Currently, there are no federal or state statutory protections regulating domestic drone surveillance beyond basic FAA airspace restrictions. The Hawaii State Department of Transportations Harbors Division owns a surveillance drone, which it purchased in June 2011 using funds from a U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grant program. Local universities and businesses, such as UH-Manoa and Hamakua Springs Country Farms, have used drones for research without applying for FAA authorization. Last session, the Legislature authorized the development of a drone pilot training program under the UH system. In October 2013, UH and DHS announced the successful development of an Unmanned Port Security Vessel (UPSV) made entirely in Hawaii. And this past December, Hawaii was named as a drone test site by the FAA, without the peoples input or consent. These developments signal an urgent need to emplace laws that regulate the collection of highly personal information by drones in Hawaii. SB 2608 provides a mere facade of protection in response to serious concerns about invasion of privacy issues. The bills reliance on a probable cause warrant exception to restrict law enforcement use of drones is unacceptable given the unique surveillance capabilities and flight characteristics of this new technology. The argument that drones are more pervasive, but they're not so terribly different than other aerial surveillance, like helicopters and thereby raise no new privacy concerns is facetious. There are no silent helicopters or nano-helicopters that mimic avian flight and form. Helicopters require relatively open areas to operate in and a properly licensed crew. A helicopters continuous operational time is measured in hours, not days or potentially months. Drones differ from helicopters in terms of ordinance delivery and surveillance capabilities. Drone sensor technologies currently in use can provide nineteen square miles of continuous stare coverage and identify every face within that area simultaneously. Even the Air Force cannot control the data captured by its drones while en-route. The application of this rapidly evolving military technology to everyday crime prevention, without recording law-abiding people who are not engaged in suspicious activity, is unworkable. The month-long window for retention of data intentionally or inadvertently collected from law-abiding citizens by law enforcement drones is unacceptable. In addition, it is chilling that SB 2608 essentially designates local law enforcement as a branch of the military. 2. SB 2608 fails to protect against weaponized drones.

Unlike conventional military technologies, the possibilities for ordinance delivery by drones are incredibly broad in that one would not need to worry about harming the humans that have to pilot the device to and from the delivery site. Further, the U.S. Congress reports that ten to thirty percent of drone casualties abroad are innocent civilians. Authorizing the use of technology that targets the wrong person ten to thirty percent of the time is plainly unacceptable. The ACLU reports that even organizations lobbying for narrow regulations on drone use, such as the Heritage Foundation and the International Association of Chiefs of Police, advocate strong limitations on weaponized drones. 3. The drafters of SB 2608 failed to adequately comprehend, define, and craft appropriate legislation for drone technology. This bills denition of unmanned aircraft is imprecise and shortsighted. It is unclear whether the bill intends to regulate devices tethered to the ground, operated by articial intelligence, or functioning as satellites. In addition, cursory research reveals that autonomous underwater vehicles, or marine drones, are currently being used for various commercial, scientic, law enforcement, and military missions with a regularity is accelerating and may eclipse the use of aerial drones. The coordination of aerial and marine drones is already being developed to maximize the performance of both systems. Regulation should encompass all drone technology in all of its current uses. 4. SB 2608 fails to create a robust oversight regime. Domestic drone use cannot be separated from recent revelations of systematic violations of privacy by the government. SB 2608s reporting requirements are insufficient to keep the legislature engaged and public informed. No public or private agency should acquire a remotely operated vehicle without first obtaining the approval of the Department of Transportation (the department). Any person who owns or operates a remotely operated vehicle that is equipped with a sensing device should be required to file a data collection statement to the department in order to minimize collection of personal information. The department must be empowered to create a licensure system for drone operators and to hold violators accountable by revoking operator licenses. Transparency of reports should be mandated in order to allow experts to inform the public and lawmakers about the effectiveness of drone use. By involving legislators who are keenly interested in balancing privacy and genuine security for Hawaii, we can ensure that drone technology is being used wisely and that privacy rights are protected. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in opposition to this fatally flawed measure. Khara Jabola Carolus President, Filipino Law Students Association William S. Richardson School of Law