Power Play: The Hidden Stakes in America's Drone Threat Bill

Is this another Trojan Horse for state surveillance?

Photo by Yohan Marion on Unsplash

As the mysterious drone sightings drop off the front page and coverage enters a comparative lull, legislators are moving to fill the information vacuum with new authorities aimed at countering unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). The timing and scope of these initiatives - particularly the resuscitation of Senator Gary Peters’ proposed 2023 legislation, "Safeguarding the Homeland from the Threats Posed by Unmanned Aircraft Systems Act" - deserve careful examination, as they may serve multiple agendas beyond their stated purpose, including another step toward a surveillance state.

Legislation addressing this “emerging threat” is not necessarily a bad thing. If drone technology has outpaced our regulatory framework to the detriment of our country’s security, as appears to be the case, we should address our vulnerabilities. But how we do that matters.

In opposing the legislation, Senator Rand Paul argued, “Why don’t we try to get to the truth of the matter of what actually exists and what the threat is before we propose legislation?” His point is that instead of reactively rushing into what could end up being a power grab, we should have greater clarity about what is truly needed.

Legitimate Needs vs Expanded Powers

Senate Bill 1631 proposes, “To enhance the authority granted to the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice with respect to unmanned aircraft systems and unmanned aircraft, and for other purposes.” As noted in the title, the bill is oriented toward drone threats.

The proposed legislation addresses genuine security gaps, many of which have been acknowledged for years. Current authorities are fragmented across federal, state and local jurisdictions, creating confusion over who can respond to drone threats and how. We have heard this in recent interviews and statements from law enforcement and federal agencies in response to public frustration over an apparent lack of defensive and decisive action vis-a-vis the drones.

According to Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, “Currently, local officials are trying to find answers to this serious problem with their hands tied behind their backs.” In his letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Andrew Mayorkas, Schumer states:

…these sightings have exposed the federal government’s limitations when it comes to the authorities for protecting against the illicit use of UAS. State and local law enforcement agencies currently lack the explicit authorities to assist DHS in deploying technology to detect drone signals. These local agencies are responsible for keeping our citizens safe at the local level, and they must be part of a coordinated response. For this reason, I will co-sponsor and urge my colleagues to support passage of legislation endorsed by the Department, S. 1631, which would address these shortfalls and empower state and local authorities to use drone-detection technology to protect their communities from this emerging threat.

The bill would clarify jurisdictional authorities, enable coordinated responses, and build out detection and interception capabilities in order to protect critical infrastructure and public safety. Notable provisions include:

1. Grants expanded authority to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) to detect, identify, monitor, track, and mitigate threats from unmanned aircraft systems (drones) around critical facilities and assets and mass gatherings.

2. Establishes a pilot program allowing state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies to be designated to use drone detection and mitigation capabilities, with up to 60 agencies participating over 5 years.

3. Authorizes the creation of a federal database to share information about security-related drone incidents between federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies.

While the bill includes some privacy and civil liberty protections, several provisions warrant scrutiny.

Civilian Implications

As noted above, there are some protections proposed to safeguard privacy, free speech, and the kind of unreasonable search and seizures prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. There are also provisions to limit data collection, sharing, and retention. However, while the bill requires these privacy policies, it leaves significant discretion to individual agencies in how they implement the requirements, potentially leading to inconsistent privacy protections across jurisdictions. Also, this is draft legislation. We should be vigilant to how these provisions change during the legislative process.

Those worried about a power grab or concerned about how this legislation could be used against the people should focus on three particular aspects. First, the bill permits authorities to seize, disable, or destroy drones deemed to pose a threat. Second, it allows for interception of communications to/from drones without prior consent, including wire, oral, and electronic communications used to control the drone. Third, authorities can monitor areas around "covered facilities" and "mass gatherings."

On its face, this sounds reasonable. But we need to predict the potential for abuse. As is often the case, definitions are loose and powers are broad. For example, the DHS and DOJ are primary in determining when there's a “credible threat.” For agencies with agendas, this can give them wiggle room to target threats to their power.

The effectiveness of the protections, if they make it to the final bill, will largely depend on:

• How "credible threat" is defined in practice

• What criteria are used for monitoring mass gatherings

• How strictly the necessity requirements are interpreted

• How robustly oversight is implemented

• How well the privacy policies are enforced

There is the old adage of give them an inch and they’ll take a mile. Is this inch another mile down the path of the police state? Is this one of the drivers in what is now widely being considered a psyop?

Power Dynamics and Asymmetric Warfare

Drones represent a potential equalizing influence in the people-state power dynamic. The same surveillance capabilities concerning authorities could serve as tools of resistance against government overreach and exposure of secret or sordid operations. The animal rights movement’s use of drones to capture conditions at factory farms is one example. Drones can reveal what was once hidden from sight.

This may explain the urgency behind expanding state control over drone use. As citizen journalism rises and the public prepares for the disclosures promised by President-elect Trump, the state apparatus may be trying to bolster its ability to control information, surveil people, and quash protest. Consider how the proposed legislation specifically emphasizes protecting "designated areas and events" from drones, with broad discretion over what qualifies for protection. The bill's language around "covered facilities and assets" could enable significant expansion of restricted areas.

Who defines what requires protection, and who are we really being protected from?

The legislation's emphasis on data retention and sharing via a new centralized federal database suggests concern not just about current threats but about preventing future challenges to authority. By creating comprehensive frameworks for drone control now, authorities establish precedent for restricting technologies that could shift power dynamics between the people and the state.

The Deeper Stakes

As we navigate this territory, we must remain mindful that how we choose to respond to aerial phenomena - whether terrestrial or otherwise - may shape not just our security frameworks but the fundamental relationship between the people and state power.

The strategic pause in media coverage provides an opportunity to examine these deeper implications before the next phase begins. Rather than accepting a false choice between security and freedom, we need solutions that:

• Address specific, demonstrated threats

• Maintain civilian drone use rights

• Include robust and dependable oversight mechanisms

• Preserve privacy protections

• Allow for technological innovation

As we navigate this complex landscape, we must remember that security measures, once implemented, rarely contract. Each expansion of state power sets precedent for future repression. Our task is to remain vigilant while these frameworks evolve, ensuring security needs are met without enabling undue expansion of state power - particularly as we potentially approach wider recognition of non-human intelligence.

---

Carolyn Brouillard is Managing Partner of ExoFuturesConsulting, which partners with forward-thinking organizations ready to explore the profound implications of contact with NHI.