About those unmanned aerial vehicles in Alaska

Drones or unmanned aerial vehicles are coming to domestic airspace. They are going to challenge domestic policy makers as to how to regulate their use and protect our citizens’ constitutional rights.

First of all, what are drones? In simplest terms, drones are remote-control airplanes with cameras. In the past, they have been used to gather aerial images with or without the item of interest being aware they are being imaged.

Drone technology has come a long way over the last decade and has been continually improved and added to in order meet the needs of military commanders around the world. From their humble origins as imaging platforms, they have evolved into multisensory intelligence-gathering platforms with the recent ability to target and deliver weapons.

Having their use in the hands of our military for use against foreign enemies enhances our national security. Having them used domestically detracts from our personal security and privacy.

The question before us is do we crack the door open for their domestic use here in Alaska?

I personally don’t see the use of unmanned aerial vehicles to deliver cargo or people to remote destinations in Alaska for many years. The Federal Aviation Administration is renowned in its conservative approach to air safety and decades-long approach to integrating new technology. For instance, the modernization of our national airspace system around GPS and controller-to-pilot data link technology called NEXTGEN is decades behind in implementation. For the foreseeable future, the use of unmanned aerial vehicle technology will be limited to information gathering and surveillance operations in domestic airspace.

This Alaska Legislature is holding committee hearings to decide how to best promote and regulate the use of drones in Alaska. I can see positive uses of small, unmanned aerial vehicles in areas such as search and rescue and oil and gas exploration. A big advantage of small or micro unmanned aerial vehicles is that you can easily launch them in rugged, forward-operating areas such as we currently do with our Bush planes in Alaska. The main point is that while they can overlap and compliment what manned aircraft can do, they don’t do anything manned aircraft cannot do. What they do add to the equation is a degree of invisibility, increased loiter time over an area, and added degree of anonymity and possible diffusion of responsibility between the remote operator and the object of surveillance.

As we engage in public debate over this new technology, let me ask you what you value most. Do you value your freedom and privacy more or the advance of a new technology? Freedom cannot exist without privacy. As a nation, we are solely reliant on the state and federal government to guard our constitutional privacy and freedom. It wasn’t long ago that the privacy of U.S. citizens was held sacrosanct. Now we know that our public trust has been violated and all our personal information is subject to illegal search and seizure without a warrant. The question before us is, do we open the door to this new surveillance technology in Alaska, or do we resist it because of the government’s past and current record of violating public trust?

As we have recently learned in the news media, government agencies continually violate their own internal privacy rules with impunity and even spy on their former boyfriends and girlfriends.

I love new technology. I love freedom and privacy more. My biggest fear is that this new highly advanced technology will be used to steadily erode Alaska’s state’s rights and the privacy and freedom of its citizens.

Many people move to Alaska for privacy and freedom. If we go down the path of allowing our frontier state to be under continual visual and electronic surveillance, that freedom and privacy could be eliminated. Commercial and recreational miners could find themselves under continual surveillance. Commercial and recreational boaters could find themselves under continual surveillance. Recreational adventures, hunters and cabin owners could not only have their free movements and activities monitored, but also restricted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicle technology.

Federal, state and local municipalities presently use satellite-based commercial imaging technology to monitor people. For example, many municipalities use Google Earth to look for unpermitted residential construction for the purpose of assessing fees and property taxes. Unmanned aerial use could sharply increase these surveillance tools and further erode privacy. For example, if you can see into everyone’s house with thermal imaging cameras, does that constitute a constitutional violation of privacy?

Unmanned aircraft also present a physical safety risk to the public. Alaska relies on small aircraft for transportation to a greater degree than any other state. The potential for midair collisions with small aircraft are very high. Large airplanes use a technology called Traffic Collision and Avoidance System to prevent midair collisions by allowing aircraft to automatically communicate with each other via a data link. Small aircraft are not equipped with this, which is prohibitively expensive. Unmanned aircraft also have a much higher accident rate than manned aircraft and can cause loss of life or property on the ground, especially if used over high population areas for public surveillance. Unmanned aircraft operators may not be FAA-licensed and trained pilots and therefore ill trained to deal with changes in meteorological conditions or with mechanical failures, which routinely occur in aviation.

Remember that the first responsibility of a public servant is to do no harm. This new technology can do considerable harm to the freedom and privacy to Alaska citizens as well as physical safety.

Regulation of domestic unmanned aircraft technology represents another watershed moment in our history. It is like a dragon egg left on our doorstep that is just beginning to hatch. Do we raise it for a pet and hope we can control and harness it with state regulations, or do we reject it as being too dangerous of a pet? Just remember that while our nation’s house is framed by freedom and shingled with privacy, it is also flammable.

Daniel Hamm lives in Palmer and is an international Boeing 747 freight pilot.