Loss of Privacy

When drones were first introduced, Americans were told that they were for military use. As has been seen time and again, what’s good for the military, eventually, becomes good for American law enforcement. In the past few years, drones have seen increased use in the United States, from border patrol to regular street policing. The Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office in Texas is no exception.

Beginning next year, the ShadowHawk, an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UVA) manufactured by Spring-based Vanguard Defense Industries, will be available for an array of missions. Unlike UVA used by the military, which are used chiefly to gain intelligence, the ShadowHawk will give deputies a “bird’s eye view” of crime scenes, search and rescues and large-scale emergencies, Chief Deputy Randy McDaniel said.

“The sheriff’s office has no air patrol unit,” McDaniel said. “To have an aircraft we can deploy quickly when we need it seems to be an appropriate means of equipment and technology. It’s something that will be able to protect our personnel on the ground and the public.”

McDaniel said there has not been any major opposition since the Sheriff’s Office unveiled the drone in late October.

None of the Montgomery County Commissioners opposed the use of the UVA when the grant application was submitted to the Commissioners Court in December, he said.

Of course the county commissioners are not going to object. They are not the general public that are going to be spied upon. Despite the fact that the police department is trying to reassure the public that they are not going to be spying on citizens, that is exactly what this device is intended to do. Naturally, the police department is stressing that the drone’s missions will be specific, such as finding lost senior citizens and helping firefighters. Mission creep, however, is inevitable and it won’t be long before justifications will be made to expand the use of drones regardless of threats to privacy.

Because they can perch hundreds or thousands of meters in the air, drones literally add a new dimension to the ability to eavesdrop. They can see into backyards and into windows that look out onto enclosed spaces not visible from the street. They can monitor wi-fi signals or masquerade as mobile phone base stations, intercepting phone calls before passing them along. Using a network of drones, it would be possible to follow the movements of every vehicle in a city—a capability that would be invaluable to a police department tracking the getaway car in a bank robbery but invasive if used to track a patient driving to a clinic to get treatment for a confidential medical condition.

Given the fact that these drones have the capability of invading individual’s privacy, is this something Americans should be comfortable in accepting without question?

The US is so concerned that criminals and terrorists are crossing the Canadian border into the United States that more security needs to be present along the 6400 km boundary. A draft report has been made by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency detailing what needs to be done.

The report proposes the use of “fencing and other barriers” on the 49th parallel to manage “trouble spots where passage of cross-border violators is difficult to control.”

But a spokesperson for U.S Customs and Border Protection said the government is not considering the fence option “at this time” and instead is looking at the environmental effects of putting more manpower, technology and infrastructure along the border.

Although the US CBP says they are not considering a fence, they are considering other types of security via new technologies. Hopefully, the US is seriously considering the environmental effects of blocking off wildlife migration when they create this “fence.”

The border service is also pondering options including a beefed-up technological presence through increased use of radar, sensors, cameras, drones and vehicle scanners. In addition, it might continue to improve or expand customs facilities at ports of entry.

It is curious to see that the US wants more security protocols when they have recently stated that they want to ease border controls to eliminate the delays goods, services, and people experience today.

Many new roads will have to be built as vast stretches of the border are covered in forests and are not easily accessible. Although unmanned aircraft current cover parts of the thickly covered border, the DHS feels that it isn’t adequate enough.

“The lack of roads or presence of unmaintained roads impedes efficient surveillance operations,” says the report. “Improving or expanding the roadway and trail networks could improve mobility, allowing agents to patrol more miles each day and shortening response times.”

There will be a series of meetings next month to discuss the issue as well as invitations to the public to make comments on the issue.

Pascal Abidor was taking a train to visit his girlfriend. Unfortunately, that train crosses the US/Canadian border where border patrol officers claim they are not subject to the normal rules of law. They can check anyone at any time for any reason. Unfortunately, Pascal Abidor is also a doctoral candidate in Islamic Studies. A normal person would have not spent hours questioning him. They would have verified his studies and concluded that the single picture of Hamas on his computer was, indeed, academically related. Instead, Pascal Abidor’s life has taken a turn for the worse as he cannot go anywhere in or near the US without hassle due to the undereducated border patrol officers.

“I have no control over who I am anymore,” he told The Associated Press recently. “What I do with my life doesn’t matter. How I am perceived and how I want to be perceived are not connected anymore.”

Abidor has sued the Department of Homeland Security, saying the border agents had no right to go through his computer files without a warrant. The Department of Homeland Security said Abidor’s case was under investigation and would not comment on it.

But in court documents responding to the lawsuit, the government asserts that border agents “are not subject to any requirement of reasonable suspicion, probable cause or warrant.” It also says that computers are like “closed containers” and that border agents have the right to search and copy them without a warrant.

“Abidor offers no reason why a different standard should apply to him,” government lawyers wrote.

Different standards should not only apply to Abidor, they should apply to everyone. There is no reason way that a border patrol agent could possibly know what is on someone’s laptop. If the person is simply riding on the train or arriving via plane and they are not under suspicion, then their laptops should never be turned on or searched. Abidor is not only suing for himself, he’s suing for every single person who is harassed by the DHS and its underlings.

The TSA’s behavior detection program has spent $200 million of taxpayer dollars, yet not one terrorist has been detected. They’ve stopped a few drug smugglers, but that is all. Our privacy is being eliminated at the airport so they can nab 1,700 drug smugglers.

Although the video is from May, 19, 2010, it still holds true.

The controversy over the full body scanners at airports hasn’t even died down yet and they are starting to be used in vans roving around US streets. According to Forbes, “American Science & Engineering, a company based in Billerica, Massachusetts, has sold U.S. and foreign government agencies more than 500 backscatter x-ray scanners mounted in vans that can be driven past neighboring vehicles to see their contents.”

The Z Backscatter Vans, or ZBVs, as the company calls them, bounce a narrow stream of x-rays off and through nearby objects, and read which ones come back. Absorbed rays indicate dense material such as steel. Scattered rays indicate less-dense objects that can include explosives, drugs, or human bodies. That capability makes them powerful tools for security, law enforcement, and border control.

“It’s no surprise that goverments and vendors are very enthusiastic about [the vans],” says Marc Rotenberg, executive director of EPIC. “But from a privacy perspective, it’s one of the most intrusive technologies conceivable.”

It’s no surprise that law enforcement are so happy about these vans. They can infringe on your privacy without you even knowing about it. AS&E claims that there isn’t a need to worry about these vans because they don’t see as well as the airport scanners. They are attempting to deflect privacy advocates from the fact that these vans still violate a person’s privacy and their fourth amendment rights. Unlike the airports and the TSA, AS&E freely admit that these scanners can save the pictures that it takes.