Rogarian Essay

ENC1102

Dr. Meyer

10/1/14

A Rogerian Argument on Drones in the United States

The use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles also referred to as UAVs or drones has increased exponentially in the past decade. The United States’ military first designed drones with the intent of finding al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden following the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Ever since then, the scope of military and civilian applications of drones has grown drastically. In 2010, the United States Air Force purchased more unmanned aircraft than manned aircraft for the first time in its history (Zenko). However, the military’s application of drones has raised public concerns of the ethicality of using drones in the United States. In 2012, there were allegations that drones were used to assassinate United States citizens in Yemen that were accused of assisting al Qaeda. Many Americans are unsure of the hazy line that separates what drones can and cannot be used for overseas and are even more worried about what they can be used for in the United States.

Aside from military uses, drones have been being used for more domestic purposes. Drones have been utilized in the United States for tracking the California wildfires, search and rescue missions following the Boulder floods, border patrol, and NASA research projects. Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, unveiled a revolutionary new project called Amazon Prime Air. Amazon plans to use a type of drone called an octocopter, a drone with eight propellers, to deliver packages from its fulfillment centers to a customer’s house in half an hour (Cooper). Bezos hopes to have Prime Air fully functional by 2016 (Barr). Drones can also help simplify laborious tasks. New drones that resemble mini helicopters can crop dust fields of crops faster than a plane, reducing fuel costs, time, and effort that a farmer has to focus on an aircraft. Since drones are a relatively new technology, not too much legislation exists on the subject. So what should drone policy be in the United States? There are two sides behind this argument; one side believes that drones are too dangerous to be used domestically wants to imply heavy regulations and strict legislation that heavily limit drone use, while the other side thinks that drones will revolutionize science and technology and possess commercial and economic potential that is too great to be held back.

Although drones have proven to be useful off of the battlefield, many civil liberty groups believe that the use of drones could allow government agencies, private groups, and law enforcement to circumvent the fourth amendment, which forbids against unreasonable search and seizure. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) stands behind the statement that drones belong only on the battlefield and not in the United States. The Supreme Court has previously ruled on cases that relate to aerial surveillance and privacy issues prior to the existence of drones. In 1968, the case Dow Chemical Co. v. United States ruled, “the taking of aerial photographs of an industrial plant complex from navigable airspace is not a search prohibited by the Fourth Amendment” (Villasenor). Although this case seems archaic, it would allow a government agency obtain evidence by use of a drone without a search warrant. The ACLU believes that “The prospect of cheap, small, portable flying video-surveillance machines threatens to eradicate existing practical limits on aerial monitoring and allow for pervasive surveillance, police fishing expeditions and abusive use of these tools in a way that could eventually eliminate the privacy Americans have traditionally enjoyed in their movements and activities” (CQ Researcher). The ACLU makes a very strong point on privacy violations; however, a flaw in their argument is that the Dow Chemical Co. case is so old that new legislation could be written that addresses what drones could be used for in relationship to evidence gathering.

Another major concern of the advancement of drone technology in the United States is the uncertainty of how drones will interact with commercial aircraft. Currently, recreational drones are allowed to be flown under 400 feet and outside of a three-mile radius of an airport (CQ Researcher). At this height and distance, drones pose no threat to any commercial jet aircraft. Congress has given the Federal Aviation Administration until 2015 to draw up more specific legislation that will clarify where drones can and cannot fly. However, experts believe that the FAA should not handle the creation of drone legislation and should leave the policy making up to more qualified agencies suitable to address issues privacy, safety, and liability. Ben Gielow, head of the Government Relations for the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, states, “The FAA has zero expertise or experience regulating privacy issues…If you want to rent an airplane, you can fly it wherever you want as long as you meet the FAA safety guidelines. We don't want to see the FAA say who can fly based on whether the mission” (Friedman).

On the other hand, many Americans believe that drone technology, used responsibly, can revolutionize the way we live our lives and create enormous economic stimulation, simply summed up Alan Palmer, Director of the Center for Unmanned Aircraft Systems, “Unmanned aircraft is going to be a game changer” (Brooks). Missy Cunnings, former Navy fighter pilot and current head of drone research at MIT and Duke University, believes that most of the advancement of drone technology will be happening in the commercial sector, with small drones delivering food, large drones delivering packages, and medium size drones being used as crop dusters and land surveyors (CQ Researcher). Currently, companies like Dominoes and Chipotle are experimenting with drone delivery service, cutting out the delivery driver and opening new options that were too expensive before. There is a large focus in developing drones that can take humans off of the frontlines of dealing with natural disasters such as fires and help aid risky search and rescue missions. Those in favor of drones believe that these innovations will save substantial amount money, but more importantly human lives as well. However, drones do have the potential to malfunction and could stop working during an important mission.

Those interested in drones for the sake of profit believe that drones have the potential to create a new industrial sector. Drone advocates forecast that the drone industry in the years 2015-2025 can create an economic impact of $82 billion dollars (Handwerk). A 2013 report done by the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International shows that integration of domestic drones will create more than 70,000 jobs, 34,000 of those in manufacturing. The report also shows that by 2025 drones will be responsible for over 100,000 jobs and after a decade of integration, drones will generate over $484 billion dollars in tax revenue (CQ Researcher). These economic forecast show a promising future for drones, but they do not take into account unknown, upcoming legislation that could limit drone use, which would in turn affect the volume of drones being produced.

The dawn of drones being used in the United States is both exciting and frightening. The anti-drone side of this argument has extremely compelling points concerning the violation of privacy and safety of United States, while the pro-drone side makes the economic potential obvious and shows the revolutionary aspect of drones. The most sensible way to solve this argument is to create legislation and policies that limit the use of drones to the point where they cannot violate privacy and safety is the first priority, while at the same time allowing them to be used for applications by the right people. Policy should be created that requires a certification, like a pilots license, for buyers in order to obtain a drone. Also, different sizes and types of drones should be classified and require a permit to use. For example, a drone that is used to crop dust a farmer’s field would require a different operating permit than a drone with a camera attached would use. Permits for drones that have simple applications like crop dusting would be easier to obtain than one with a camera. From a safety standpoint, there should be an air traffic control system that regulates airborne drones so that they do not collide midair and fall out of the sky, potentially causing damage. Also, a drone should at all times have a human that is responsible for the drone, even if it is automated and could take over the controls if something goes wrong. Expanding on privacy, civilians using drones with cameras to spy on unsuspecting subjects should be illegal on a federal level. The use of drones by government entities to collect evidence on someone on private property should not be allowed.

Works Cited

Anderson, Kenneth. "The Case for Drones." Commentary 135.6 (2013): 14-23.Academic

Search Complete. Web. 31 Oct. 2013.

Barr, Allistar. "Amazon Testing Delivery by Drone, CEO Bezos Says." USA Today.

Gannett, n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2013. 

Benjamin, Medea. Drone Warfare. London: Verso, 2013. Print.

Search Complete. Web. 31 Oct. 2013.

Brooks, Michael. "The Drone Age." New Scientist 216.2894 (2012): 42-45. Academic

Search Complete. Web. 31 Oct. 2013.

Cooper, Anderson. "Are Amazon's Drone Delivery Plans Just Pie in the Sky?" Anderson

Cooper 360 RSS. CNN, n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2013. 

Friedman, Benjamin H. "The Implications of the Expanding U.S. Drone Program.”CATO

Policy Report 35.4 (2013): 9-13. Print.

Handwerk, Brian. "5 Surprising Drone Uses (Besides Amazon Delivery)." National

Geographic. National Geographic Society, 02 Dec. 2013. Web. 02 Dec. 2013. 

Zenko, Micah. Reforming U.S. Drone Strike Policies. N.p.: Council on Foreign Relations,

2013. Print.