The Drone Debate: Fun Toy or Flying Menace?

There has been a lot of talk recently about drones. In the past few years, there has been something of a renaissance in the drone community with many people getting their first taste of having a flying quadcopter, now that the machines are available to the general public instead of just enthusiastic flyers. However, drones are far from recent inventions. They have been in existence since the late 1980s and have been a part of the US military's arsenal since the 90s.

It’s probably fair to say that, for the vast majority of Americans, their first exposure to drones was around 2002 when President Bush announced the start of the US Drone Program. The idea behind the program was that the US could use drones to perform surveillance in foreign territory, find a target, and then, after going through the proper channels, use a drone to fire a missile and eliminate that target. In theory, it sounds perfect for everyone except the bad guys. Through drones, the US doesn’t put soldiers' lives in harms way and, even if a drone does get shot down, all that’s lost is a bit of tax payer money.

In practice though, the Drone Program has been incredibly controversial both inside of the US and abroad. The biggest criticism leveled at the program is that it kills civilians, or collateral damage, as it's called. While defenders of the program claim that drone strikes are only carried out when the least amount of collateral damage is possible, a study published by The Intercept in October of 2015 revealed that, in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan, 90% of the people who are killed in the drone strikes are not the target of the mission. This incredibly high rate of collateral damage, and the embracing of drone use by the Obama Administration, has led many to question whether or not the program should be used in the first place.

A rough estimate places the number of people killed by US drone strikes since President Obama took office at 2,500, and it can be assumed that a vast majority of these deaths were civilians, or at the very least, not the target the military set out to eliminate when the mission was authorized. Despite the public outcry against the continued use of these killing machines, it doesn't seem as though drones are going anywhere because it's easy for the military to justify their existence by saying "at least we didn’t put American lives at risk." 

As controversial as the military use of drones is, in recent years, bombings in Yemen and Somalia haven’t been the reason why most people are talking about drones. What’s got people talking is the noticeable rise in consumer-ready drones. With easy-to-fly, beginner level drones available for under $100 on Amazon, it isn’t surprising that more and more people are picking drones up. And, in many cases, that can be a really good thing. Drones regularly have a camera built in that has resulted in some amazing pieces of footage gracing the internet. Because of skilled drone operators, we can see cities from above, glimpses into the lives of rare animals, and the inside of fireworks displays.

There are also other potentially very cool benefits of having drones. Amazon, already a tech leader, has made some very bold claims about their drone delivery service: Amazon Prime Air. Drones can be used to manage inventory in large warehouses, assist in emergency services, and potentially do infrastructure maintenance. It would be pretty useful to have a drone working on a power line instead of waiting for a crew to come along the next time the power goes out. These are just a fraction of the things that drones could potentially do to make the lives of everyday people better.

But drones in the hands of both the government and of average citizens rightly makes some people worried. In this increasingly connected world, privacy continues to remain a huge concern. When some people think of drones, they are concerned with "that creepy neighbor" down the street flying their drone over their backyard when the kids are out swimming or a drone spying on your wife without her consent. The idea of a drone hovering right outside a window and recording someone inside is certainly an invasion of privacy. But a drone just recording as it flies around is much more of a grey area in terms of the law. There are certain no-fly zones that exist. Airports, helipads, stadiums, and Washington DC are among the list. But no such thing exists around a suburb where people may be lounging or a park where children are playing. A drone operator does not have to stop a flight just because one person asks. If you are out in public, your picture can be taken and you may be recorded.

Now, that doesn’t give a drone operator the right to fly five feet above a bunch of teens sunbathing. In September of 2015, a court in Kentucky ruled in favor a man who shot a drone after it dipped down below the tree-line on his property several times. There are always going to be a few bad apples with any new technology, but it’s important to remember that the vast majority of people who are flying drones are just hobbyists who don’t care that you happen to be in their footage.

The other group dissenters don't want having access to drones is law enforcement. The climate in much of the country has been increasingly weary about police potentially abusing their power. One major area of concern is the idea that drones, already good at 3D mapping and recording large areas, could be used to record protests and track the people involved. The police in Paris have already begun to use drones for mass surveillance of crowds, and it’s not hard to imagine police using similar tactics on events like the riots in Baltimore or protests like Occupy Wall Street. There are legitimate reasons why a police agency might use drones, such as looking for runaway suspects or scanning an area during an investigation. However, we should be vigilant and not allow the use of drones to become commonplace in police business.

It will be interesting to see how the country reacts to drones in the next few years. Will the attitude shift from distrust to acceptance if services like Amazon make them ubiquitous, or will there be such backlash against the noise and the perceived loss of privacy? Only time will tell, but please, if you do end up buying a drone, be courteous.