Tag Archive for privacy

The Domestic Proliferation of Drones and their Challenges to American Democratic Values, Civil Liberties, Local Law Enforcement and National Security

March 1, 2013 Global Security, Human Rights & Conflict, International Relations, Intl Law, National Security Law, Paid Content, U.S. Natl. Security No comments

“The Domestic Proliferation of Drones and their Challenges to American Democratic Values, Civil Liberties, Local Law Enforcement and National Security” by Kapok Tree Diplomacy

Background

In today’s continuous national security state that blurs the lines between war and peace and civilian and military operations, the question becomes whether America must deliberately violate its values to protect its citizens?  John O. Brennan, Assistant to President Obama for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, declared that America’s values and national security “reinforce one another” and rejected the “false choice” between the nation’s security and its traditional values.[1] Jay Stanley and Catherine Crump from the ACLU counter that drones threaten U.S. citizens’ fourth amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant and probable cause.[2]  This paper will assess whether the end justifies the means.

This essay will attempt to navigate the ethical tradeoffs between using domestic drones that can look inside private homes with thermal heat sensors and tap into cell phone and text conversations with all the good that drones can do in helping local law enforcement.[3] With the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issuing over 300 Certificates of Authorizations (COAs) since 2006 to entities like local law enforcement agencies and the DOD for permission to fly UAVs, the debate over their potential misuse has only just begun.[4]

{Complete essay contains 4,138 words; 14 double-spaced pages; 30 references}

The posts, views and opinions expressed in this paper are completely my own and do not represent the views or opinions of the Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of the Navy (DON) or any of the Armed Forces.

Table of Contents

I.    Background

II.   Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Drone Capabilities

A.  Military Capabilities and Usage

B.  Domestic Capabilities and Usage

III.  Analysis – Domestic Drones

A.  Pros and Cons of Using Domestic Drones for Law Enforcement

B.  Pros and Cons of Using Domestic Drones for Border Surveillance

C.  American Values: Privacy and Civil Liberties Concerns

D.  International Law Concerns

IV.  Analysis – The Coming Drone Armageddon

V.   Conclusions and Recommendations

Works Cited in Introduction

[1] Brennan, John O. “Remarks of John O. Brennan, “Strengthening our Security by Adhering to our Values and   Laws.” Program on Law and Security, Harvard Law School. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/16/remarks-john-o-brennan-strengthening-our-security-adhering-our-values-an (accessed April 29, 2012).

[2] Stanley, Jay and Catherine Crump. Protecting Privacy from Aerial Surveillance: Recommendations for Government use of Drone Aircraft. American Civil Liberties Union, December 2011, 14. https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/protectingprivacyfromaerialsurveillance.pdf (accessed April 29, 2012).

[3] Finn, Peter, “Domestic use of Aerial Drones by Law Enforcement Likely to Prompt Privacy Debate,” The Washington Post, January 23, 2011 (accessed April 29, 2012).

[4] Lynch, Jennifer. “FAA Releases Lists of Drone Certificates—Many Questions Left Unanswered.” Electronic Frontier Foundation. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/04/faa-releases-its-list-drone-certificates-leaves-many-questions-unanswered (accessed April 29, 2012).

How well do the thoughts and intentions of the Framers of the Constitution on responsibility for national security still hold up today?

February 22, 2013 Free Content, National Security Law No comments

(C) Kapok Tree Diplomacy. Apr 2012. All rights reserved. Jeff Dwiggins

FREE CONTENT

The Framers for their part did have a lot to say about the delineation of powers in these areas. The Constitution is a good place to start in determining how those powers are enumerated and what limits if any apply to them. Madison

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution says:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (Passed 12/15/1791).

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution says:

“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (Passed 7/9/1868)

These amendments lay out the case for citizens’ right to privacy and limits on government instrusion in this matter without spelling out what constitutes “unreasonable.” Thus, if the President can save millions of lives by wiretapping a suspected terrorist under FISA, is this “reasonable?” Read more

The Key Differences between First and Second Generation Human Rights

February 18, 2013 Human Rights & Conflict, International Relations, Paid Content No comments

(C) Kapok Tree Diplomacy. Mar 2011. All rights reserved. Jeff Dwiggins.
4,880 words. 17 pages double-spaced. 13 references.  {Formerly} PAID CONTENT

Introduction

UNDHRThe recognition of individual human rights under international law took on a “formal and authoritative expression” following the end of World War II when the United Nations (UN) General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 (Steiner, Alston & Goodman (SAG) 134). The UNDHR was designed to “take the form of a declaration – that is, a recommendation by the General Assembly to Member States that would exert a moral and political influence on states rather than constitute a legally binding document” (SAG 135).

Following approval of the UDHR, the UN Commission, General Assembly and Third Committee began work on a more “detailed and comprehensive” expression of human rights that emerged in the form of “two principal treaties – The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)” which were both approved in 1966 and both entered into force in 1976 through the required number of ratifications (SAG 136). The ICCPR and ICESCR were designed to be more legally binding than the UDHR. Collectively, these three documents are often referred to as the ‘International Bill of Human Rights’ (SAG 133).  Read more