Crime - Surveillance - and Technology Policy

Question: Discuss about the Crime, Surveillance, and Technology Policy. Answer: Introdution: Unmanned Aerial vehicles (UAV) or drones as they commonly known are aircrafts which are remotely controlled by humans or autonomously by a pre-programmed code. Drones are commonly used for two major purposes in the field; surveillance and reconnaissance. However, while meeting their objectives drones have been subject to a number of concerns, for one, they infringe privacy rights. Secondly, the scope of those targeted by the technology is still unspecified. In addition to this, the legal or policy implication of those using the technology is still unknown. These issues among many others make UAV a highly controversial topic in the world. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) UAV technology presents so many problems that its only logical to categorise them based on the field or aspect of life they affect. Some affect privacy, others security and others affect ethical concerns. Moreover, in the field, some interfere with the existing aircraft regulations, a problem to the existing aviation laws. In this case, this assessment will follow a similar approach, starting with the problems associated with privacy, safety and ethics, then, later on, evaluate the technical issues associated with UAVs. Privacy, Safety and Ethical Problems UAV application introduces serious concern on the privacy and safety of citizens regardless of the state or country they belong. For their surveillance applications drone use commercial airspace used by other regular air crafts. Therefore, it has hard to imagine that these devices collect only the relevant information concerning suspected targets without that of regular citizens (Epic. Org 2017). Furthermore, based on their designs drones are made to be small and can fly high in the airspace making them undetectable to the human eye. These features provide them with the capability to perform persistent and constant surveillance to unwary civilians. For instance, consider their commercial application today where companies are developing paparazzi UAVs to spy on celebrities, this seriously infringes on the privacy rights of the individual involved. Moreover, drones seem to be used in areas prone to violence where human rights are ignored as the areas are either designated as terrorists hotbeds or have minimal contribution to the worlds events. This outlook greatly discriminates against the people affected especially minorities whose voice is unheard. Drones as cyber espionage tools is another serious problem, their flexibility which is enabled by the remote control ability can be used to block or interfere with communication. Furthermore, this notation is no longer an idea but a reality, recent research by a security company in London was able to develop a prototype program that could successfully steal data from surrounding devices. In addition to this, this program could successfully acquire data from moving or mobile objects. What this means is a drone could potentially be used to steal data from aircrafts, vehicles and other moving objects. Therefore data from unsuspecting civilians could be stolen by malicious individuals who may acquire the technology. Moreover, interference is the first step to alteration, a time will come when drones will have the capability to alter data stored by moving objects especially commercial aircrafts. This development is in violation of so many laws and policies, from privacy, safety and secrec y, which are common rights accorded to all human beings (InfoSec Institute 2017). Armed UAV, on the other hand, raises serious ethical, legal and safety problems more so when one considers the people who operate these drones. While manning these armed devices the psychological, physical and emotional state of the soldier must be considered. Moreover, their distance from the place of conflict might alter their perspective and how they choose to deploy the weapons (Nolin 2012). In essence, a soldier far away from the conflict zone may be unaffected by the killings he/she commits exposing them to extrajudicial killings. Now, consider the safety of those in the immediate surrounding who may be affected by the actions of these unsuspecting and uninvolved soldiers. Ethically, it may be hard to determine whether the remote soldier values the lives of the people affected by his actions or he perceives his actions as those seen in a video game setup (Cole Wright 2010). Technical Problems Successful UAV implementation depends on the level of drone integration into commercial/civilian airspace. This requirement means that drones must operate within the regulated constructs of aviation, however, if they do so they fail to meet their overall surveillance objective that depends on secrecy and spy-like tactics. Furthermore, regular manned aircraft have a high safety record owing to the fact that the pilot is usually on the device. However, when the person manning the flight is thousands of miles away the safety question comes in mind. Moreover, based on the current statistics, drones still hold a poor safety record, in fact, according to 2003 Congressional Research report, UAV accidents are 100 times more susceptible to occur as compared to a regular manned flight. Technically speaking, UAVs lack the necessary structure of avoiding collisions a difficult topic still being addressed to date (Degarmo 2004). In addition to this, consider the technical problems that arise due to bureaucracy. A bureaucratic environment is prone to errors, bad operation decisions and poor accountability measures. In the end, the objectives sets by drone operations are not achieved and they interfere with the current aviation procedures (McClure 2015). Emerging issues and who they affect UAVs concerns span a broad spectrum of fields and interests, on one hand, they seem to affect many human rights especially those concerned with privacy and safety. In addition to this, drones have a broad scope of capabilities that threatens the modern way of life, for instance, they can monitor an entire community without detection. Such capabilities raise the questions of social justice when one considers the legality of using the technology and the justification of using it on a particular set of people. So, where are the lines drawn to determine those who can use the technology and also those cannot use it? Furthermore, like any other issue affecting societies the hard hit groups/areas are those populated by minorities and those with the least voice. This perception greatly harbours equality and overall social justice accorded to us all (Carr 2016). According to recent Geneva Convention on human rights (2012), drones still fail to follow the legal channels to execute their objectives, especially armed drones which are now famously known as killer drones. These drones lack the necessary accountability measures and exploit loopholes in legislation to validate killings. In fact, most human rights activities see them as a simple licence to kill (UN Human rights 2010). In addition to this, consider the fact that since 2002 more than 4,000 people have been killed by U.S. drone strikes and even more shocking is that the majority of these people are innocent civilians who were at the wrong place and at the wrong time. Furthermore, various groups across the globe have justified these numbers, from the UN to Amnesty International who holds records of civilian injuries as well as deaths. Moreover, according to many reports, drones are also seen to destabilise communities who live in constant fear and hide from the public. Moreover, these a cts of violence violet international laws as the civilian casualties are experienced in foreign lands and not in the drones country of origin. Drone surveillance and strike missions almost seem to depend on a broad spectrum of assumptions, from those who are disproportionately affected by the missions to the interests expressed by the coordinators. According to the Pakistan Ambassador (2012), his country has faced direct indiscriminate attacks by foreign drones whose actions fail to follow a defined pattern or verified criminal events. To him, drone strikes have targeted innocent civilians especially children and women who are the mass causalities of the strikes (Khor 2012). So, maybe the drone strikes do take out known terrorists but the innocent civilians caught in the crossfires are too many to ignore, more so when they are considered to be women and children who sometimes fail to get past the explosions. UAVs present considerable issues and problems that have different impacts on the lives of innocent civilians. Moreover, they seem to creep into most policies of justice, human rights and privacy. In addition to this, they seem to heavily affect groups in the lowest living class of the society. This is highly unfortunate and immensely unjust, therefore, are drones and their accompanying technology necessary? For some part, yes. Criminals have drastically changed their ways due to technology and innovation. Today, old law enforcement tactics fail to combat law breakers, therefore, new and innovative ways are needed to combat criminals and their heinous acts especially terrorism. UAVs help acquires the relevant intelligence which is then used to combat terrorism, to this end, drones are a justifiable technology (InfoSec Institute 2017). When used as a surveillance and reconnaissance tool they make sense to authorise and mandate within the confines of the law. However, they face a negati ve impact when they are used to carry out air strikes especially on innocent civilians. Therefore, as a tool of acquiring information, authorised by the legal framework they serve to guard the interest of the people and should be supported with the necessary investments. Recommendations Regardless of the problems that are associated with surveillance and especially UAVs, no one can disapprove their importance, from preventing terrorist acts to providing rescue worker with insights into saving lives. Therefore, the solution to these problems lies in the policies developed as well as the ethical investment made in the field, particularly in the development and control mechanisms (Washington University 2013). Moreover, based on the current legislation, drones and their related activities will expand rapidly in coming years due to the provisions to use them in the field (FAA 2012). Therefore, the questions that need to be answered is on how to regulate them within the laws and in a manner that safeguards all human rights. So far, several countries have enacted laws that require law enforcement services to acquire government permits or warrants before using drones regardless of the objectives they are set to achieve. However, the problems with most of these laws are that they are used to govern the technology itself (drone the device) and not the outcome they have on the affected people. Few laws exists that outline the harm produced by drone activities which leave the necessary loopholes to conduct extreme surveillance missions supported by sophisticated technology. In actual facts, today a government agency can commission airstrikes and surveillance missions using unmanned aerial vehicles but an agricultural organisation cannot use the same technology to monitor pollution. These laws need to change in a way that focuses on the outcome and not the technology itself (McNeal 2014). Legislation should define the scope and severity of drone activities to limit the power of drone activities. Nevertheless, when considering the threat of surveillance drones raise one contentious issue. According to privacy advocate, government agencies should acquire warrants prior to using drones for surveillance missions. However, consider public events such as Marathons where previously policemen are used to man rooftops and monitor the events. Now, for a drone to perform a similar operation, the same agencies must prove a possible threat to get a warrant which they mail fail to have hence lack the necessary tools to counter terrorist acts. This scenario shows the dynamic nature of drone activities and the laws used to govern them. Therefore, legislation should consider all possible scenarios and provide unique policies that have the publics best interests at heart. On top of legislation, the governing bodies must develop the standard technical requirements for UAVs to avoid the technical problems associated with these devices. Moreover, these standards should also include the operational framework of each and every device in use as some will have better capabilities as compared to others. In addition to this, aviation agencies e.g. the FAA should come up with specific routes for these devices not only for order but also for monitoring purposes. Finally, ethical concerns and issues, this may fall on the individuals themselves and more so when it comes to military operations. Military codes of conduct that advocates for values such as honour, valour and courage should be at the forefront of all drone activities and missions. These virtues should be emphasised when training the drone pilots and also when developing the controlling programs used to control the devices. Fundamentally, this simple actions may serve as the necessary foundation for developing a moral and ethical UAV systems. A combination of legislative laws and good moral/ethical values may help eliminate some of the problems/issues faced by the UAV programs, which is clearly an important development for future safety. References Amnesty International, 2017, killing outside the bounds of law? Drones, Available from: https://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/security-and-human-rights/drones [22 January 2017] Carr. E. B, 2016, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Examining the Safety, Security, Privacy and Regulatory Issues of Integration into U.S. Airspace, NCPA, Available from: https://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/sp-Drones-long-paper.pdf [22 January 2017] Cole. C Wright. J, 2010, what are drones? Drone wars UK, Available from: https://dronewars.net/aboutdrone/ [22 January 2017] DeGarmo. M. T, 2004, Issues Concerning Integration of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Civil Airspace, Centre for Advanced Aviation System Development, Available from: https://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=1cad=rjauact=8ved=0ahUKEwj__uHFjtXRAhULGBQKHWBMC54QFggeMAAurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mitre.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fpdf%2F04_1232.pdfusg=AFQjCNE6SciCC7Prs3KB3v2O20XFwyJadgsig2=mD3eFJd-4I-2b6SvnoitUA [22 January 2017] Epic org, 2017, Domestic Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Drones, Available from: https://epic.org/privacy/drones/ [22 January 2017] InfoSec Institute, 2017, Privacy and Security Issues for the Usage of Civil Drones, Available from: https://resources.infosecinstitute.com/privacy-security-issues-usage-civil-drones/ [22 January 2017] Khor. M, 2012, Drone Strikes Very Much a Human Rights Issue, Global research, Available from: https://www.globalresearch.ca/drone-strikes-very-much-a-human-rights-issue/32281 [22 January 2017] McClure. M, 2015, 5 big problems with the drone programs, FP voice, Available from: https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/12/10/5-big-problems-with-the-drone-programs/ [22 January 2017] McNeal. G, 2014, Drones and aerial surveillance: Considerations for legislatures, Brookings, Available from: https://www.brookings.edu/research/drones-and-aerial-surveillance-considerations-for-legislatures/ [22 January 2017] Nolin. P. C, 2012, Unmanned aerial vehicles: opportunities and challenges for the alliance, NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Available from: https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/ul_kom/natopa/docs/raporlar_2012/b3.pdf [22 January 2017] University of Washington, 2013, Domestic Drones: Technical and Policy Issues, Technology and Public Policy Clinic, Available from: https://www.law.washington.edu/clinics/technology/reports/droneslawandpolicy.pdf [22 January 2017]