Surveillance / Privacy / Transmission Section - Paper Example

Unmanned aircraft have become an essential part of both military and internal security tools. Also identified as drones, they presented law enforcement and military personnel with numerous prospects for allowing more effective and efficient means of collecting information for securing the public and the country’s interests. However, the use of such systems requires the implementation of various regulations with the main objective of controlling the utilization of unmanned aircraft systems. There are numerous legislations in place to control the use of the system in collecting information and surveillance both within and out of the country’s borders. Among the first legislations in the first identified information and surveillance category is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The law identified that Congress would offer the required regulations and procedures of electric surveillance between foreign powers. As a result, the FISC (the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) was created to oversee surveillance warrants requested by federal law enforcement. Coupled with the modifications in the Communications Privacy Act of 1986, Congress and the judiciary had the necessary control needed to protect any form of communication being made, transmitted, and stored in various media.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The objective of the regulations at first may be viewed as a means of controlling intelligence collection from foreign powers. However, when the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, is included in the assessment, accountability is the second objective of the regulations. Various law enforcement and intelligence organizations are required to consult the judiciary before collecting information using the various pen and trap devices. Among the said devices are unmanned aircraft systems; However, under the Patriot Act of 2001, the tools were extended to fight against organized crime. By seeking permission from the federal court, law enforcement agencies could utilize the system as well as other devices in investigating terror crimes. Furthermore, in situations where American citizens are not involved, the president through the Attorney General could authorize the use of electronic surveillance; the action is authorized under USC §1802 of 2005.

It should be noted that under 2010-50 USC § 1842, the Attorney General has the authority of using trap and trace devices to carry out any investigation. The only requirements include the fact that it should not be used on American citizens and to protect the country against any form of terror for 90 days. During its application, it should not be disclosed to any individual. The assessment of the laws indicates, that the Attorney General has the power to use unmanned aircrafts systems for investigations purposes as a form of counsel for the executive. To protect the autonomy of the Judiciary, 2011-18 USC § 1030 was enacted allowing the secret service and FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) to investigate any form of access to government computers without authority. Regardless of information accessed from financial, agency-specifications, and information, the suspect is liable for a prison term of up to two decades. The legislation under, 47 USC § 301 further protects the interests of the government (47 USC § 301). It achieves the objective by controlling radio transmissions through the licensing of radio channels. The ultimate control over radio channels allows the government to protect unmanned aircraft systems by negating any form of interference.

To protect the interests of the government as well as country, the law under 18 USC § 2511 of 2012 expands the Communications Privacy Act of 1986 by providing penalties for the intentional interception, utilization, and disclosure of electronic communication collected by the government (18 USC § 2511). Moreover, the law under 18 USC § 3121 of 2012 restored the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, however, with an exception (18 USC § 3121). The allowance is for the provider of the electronic communication system involved in the operation, maintenance, or testing of the services. With the increasing number of private companies, the law was necessary as the government in some sectors require their services. Though the various legislations identified have addressed the issue of utilization and legality of trap and track systems, the legislations 18 USC § 3125 of 2012 determines the emergencies that necessitate their use (18 USC § 3125). Finally, 18 USC § 1367, bans any individual who maliciously or intentionally interferes with the communication as well as weather satellites (18 USC § 1367). The devices are critical for the effective use of unmanned aircraft systems needed for protecting the interests of the country.

Aircraft/Physical Destruction section

Unmanned aircraft though used by the military and law enforcement agencies, must adhere to various regulations as civilians when addressing aircraft or physical destruction of property. The first regulation in place that protects the well-being of aircraft in American airspace is the Aircraft Sabotage Act of 1984 (Aircraft Sabotage Act of 1984). The legislation makes the deliberate deed of destroying an aircraft a federal offense. The law further extended the definition of an aircraft to the military and government-owned aircraft which is inclusive of unmanned aircraft. The necessity to protect American airspace and aircrafts was further supported by the legislation 18 USC § 1362 of 2012 (18 USC § 1362). It places a 10-year prison penalty for individuals who willingly injure, damage or intercept any US-owned property relating to radio, cable lines, or telephone used by both the military and civil aviation.

Under statute 49 USC § 46502, the constitution continues establishing parameters intended to protect aircraft from piracy, forced seizure and control within American airspace through violence or force with wrongful intent (49 USC § 46502). It should be noted the legislation also applies with international carriers flying to the US. The individual responsible is liable to at least 20 years in prison. The legislation is critical considering the high air traffic flying in, out, and within the country. Finally, under statute 18 USC § 32, it expounds on the Sabotage Act of 1984, as well as the Aircraft Pricey Act (18 USC § 32). It states that individuals who damage, destroy of burn aircrafts destined, or leave the US should be imprisoned. The legislation also encompasses the distraction of any navigation facility, ground facilities, or the disabling of aircraft. The objective is to protect the lives of the individuals using the facilities as well as those in the path of the equipment. Additionally, it prevents the contamination of information collected thereby negating the endangering of people.

Agency/Department Cooperation section

For the effective use of unmanned aircraft systems, numerous federal organizations must be involved and it necessitates the cooperation of agencies to achieve a singular objective. It was initiated in 1995 with Executive Order 12977 (Executive Order No. 1297, 1995). The federal directive initiated the creation of the Interagency Security Committee. The objectives of the committee were to establish a platform from which the various agencies such as the DoS, DoD, DoJ, DoT, EPA, and others can coordinate. For better coordination of agencies, the Office of Intelligence and Analysis was created under statute 6 USC § 121 (6 USC § 121). The agency would collect intelligence from the various federal, state, and local governments, assessing terrorism threat levels. Therefore, for better utilization of the available resources, the government through the various constitutional agencies streamlined the collection, processing, and storing of information collected.

In 2012, the FAA Modernization Act, Sec. 334 was enacted requiring the DoT to issue the necessary guidance concerning the operation of drones (FAA Modernization Act of 2012). The purpose was to create a collaborative process that would allow government agencies to simplify the process need to certify or waive the operation of public drone systems. With the government already working on how to control the utilization of unmanned aircraft systems, the same year, statute 49 USC § 44904 was enacted allowing the TSA and FBI to work together in assessing vulnerability points on current and potential threats to domestic transport systems (49 USC § 44904). In 2016 under the FESSA Act, Sect. 2202, the FAA, DoT, and Director of the National Institute of Standards and Tech convened to industry shareholders to develop the standards for remotely recognizing operators and holders of unmanned aircraft (FESSA Act of 2016). The same year under the FESSA Act, sec. 2204, the FAA and the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture continued developing safe operational parameters needed for drones (FESSA Act of 2016). The FAA also entered an agreement with the Department of Energy, FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), and other agencies to facilitate the authorization of safe drone operation.

Under Sec. 2208 of the FESSA Act, the FAA further coordinated with NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) to continue the development of research plans for the traffic management of unmanned aircraft deployment. The statute also brought together numerous organizations and aided in the development of systems that would allow the safe deployment, operation, and development of unmanned aircraft systems. The collaborations are further included in sections 3202 and 3402 which mainly involved the TSA (FESSA Act of 2016). However, when it comes to UAS mitigation, the FBI was the only organization allowed to participate in criminal training programs under 34 USC 10211 (34 USC 10211). Other individuals trained in the program had to be government officials from either the state or local level.

In 2018, the Prevent Emerging Threats Act was passed giving the DoJ (Department of Justice) and Homeland Security the required legal authority to track, detect, and mitigate threats from small UAS (Prevent Emerging Threats Act of 2018). The bill further gave the federal departments the specific power to develop, test, and deploy drones or other countermeasures within the US. The action was taking place while further developing the commercial drone industry, protecting civilian privacies and liberties, and finally assuring the safety of the National Airspace System. In their duties, any aircraft seized by either the DoJ or DHS was subject to forfeiture to the American government. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 was enacted in October of 2018 and its main objective was to expand on the limitation of the FESSA Act of 2016 (FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018). It mainly focused on the legislative changes that necessitated the increment in safety and pace of UAS integration. By primarily expediting the financing and development process.

Under the regulation, numerous changes were made to the development, deployment, and public utilization of drones. The FAA was required to provide all the necessary information on their website addressing the safety standards, interagency coordination processes, strategy for responding to public safety threats, and enforcement utility of unmanned aircraft systems (FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018).