DHS, DOJ: Counter-UAS Bill Would Help Fight Crime, Speed Economic Benefits

There's "a lot" of House and Senate interest in pursuing a White House proposal to counter malicious or errant uses of drones that threaten sensitive facilities or assets, said Groves. Asked who will drive the measure and through what vehicle, he advised, “Wait and see.” PrecisionHawk Senior Vice President-Policy and Strategy Diana Cooper predicted the House Homeland Security Committee may bring it forward soon.

Criminal and terrorist drone threats aren’t hypothetical, Groves said. “We have seen on many occasions” criminals “use drones to harass and surveil … federal law enforcement at the scene of investigation,” he said. Criminals also use drones to smuggle drugs across the Mexican border and bring contraband that has assisted prisoners in escape attempts into prisons, he said. ISIS has perfected weaponizing small commercial drones abroad, and DOJ worries it could happen at home, he said. Of secondary concern are accidents, such as a fallen drone that nearly hit a spectator’s head at a recent San Diego Padres baseball game, he said. “Until it happens, you don't know if a use is errant or criminal,” and there’s little time to react, he said.

Public safety wants to detect, track, identify and mitigate a threatening drone, said Duong. Mitigation usually won’t mean “shooting it down”; it could include using a net to capture the drone or taking over the controls and forcing it to land, she said. In a military setting, drones that don’t belong to the U.S. are assumed to be threats and destroyed, she said. “For homeland security, when you see a drone … 99 percent [of the time] it might be legitimate.” Shooting down the products isn’t preferred, said Groves: “The Department of Justice is not in the business of destroying evidence.”

Government wants to encourage commercial and other uses of the devices, the DOJ and DHS officials said. The “ultimate goal is to expedite the integration of UAS into the national airspace safely, securely and reliably,” Duong said. “We all understand that it will positively impact our economy.” Government wants to “facilitate, not impede” newsgathering with drones, said Groves, saying public safety would adhere to the First Amendment. DOJ may permit access to protected airspace when in the public interest, he added.

UAS operators support the concept, with concerns, said Ellman. There should be a reasonableness standard on the nature of the threat and notice to the operator should be required, Ellman said. “Our members would like to be warned if they're about to be shot down” so they can try to resolve the problem themselves, she said. Law enforcement should take “reasonable care” to avoid interference with non-targeted facilities or equipment, she said. Authorities should require remote identification to separate authorized users from criminals, she said. UAS operators want to protect their proprietary data, she said.

The government seeks a higher standard than reasonableness, Groves said. “It must be necessary to take action in that particular circumstance.” That “necessary” standard protects proprietary data from being collected, but even if it were obtained, it would have to be deleted in six months, the DOJ counsel said. The proposed bill doesn’t leave definition of a threat to “the eye of the beholder” but requires the AG and DHS secretary to define threat in consultation with the Transportation Department, he said. Industry would like a seat at the table defining guidance, Ellman said. Law enforcement wants to try to warn operators, but in some cases, it’s unfeasible, said Groves. He stressed that law enforcement would still be subject to the Fourth Amendment search and seizure rules.