Colorado Town Plans to Issue 'Drone Hunting Licenses'

In the small Colorado town of Deer Trail, the municipality is discussing whether to issue 'drone hunting licenses' to its citizens, including a bounty (the more parts of a shot down drone you bring in, the more money you'll get).

When a drone flies over one's property, one cannot tell who sent it. It could be a government agency, or it could be some other criminal organization – there's just no way of ascertaining its provenance. What one can tell is however that no-one has the right to invade one's property and privacy in this manner, taking pictures, recording conversations, etc., from afar.

If the drone has a court order that allows it to conduct surveillance, there is still the problem that one can simply not tell if that's the case, especially nowadays when many such court orders are secret. Thus drones and their owners, whether or not they are on legitimate business, must bear the associated risks. By issuing drone hunting licenses and bounties, Deer Trail will likely ensure that drone invasions of private property will be kept to an absolute minimum. As the creator of the ordinance remarks, in the case of Deer Trail it is largely a symbolic protest anyway. Still, it is clear that citizens are becoming increasingly uneasy over the prospect of being watched by faceless bureaucrats 24/7.

Watch the report here:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2554115368001/

Colorado Town to issue drone hunting licenses

Not surprisingly, the FAA immediately voiced its displeasure and issued threats; however, Philip Steele, the creator of the ordinance is unperturbed and undeterred:

“People who fire guns at drones are endangering the public and property and could be prosecuted or fined", the Federal Aviation Administration warned Friday. The FAA released a statement in response to questions about an ordinance under consideration in the tiny farming community of Deer Trail, Colo., that would encourage hunters to shoot down drones. The administration reminded the public that it regulates the nation's airspace, including the airspace over cities and towns. A drone "hit by gunfire could crash, causing damage to persons or property on the ground, or it could collide with other objects in the air," the statement said. "Shooting at an unmanned aircraft could result in criminal or civil liability, just as would firing at a manned airplane." […] “The proposed ordinance is mostly a symbolic protest against small, civilian drones that are coming into use in the United States, Steel said. He acknowledged that it's unlikely there are any drones in use near Deer Trail. "I don't want to live in a surveillance society. I don't want to feel like being in a virtual prison," Steel said. "This is a pre-emptive strike." He dismissed the FAA's warning. "The FAA doesn't have the power to make a law," he said.”

(emphasis added)

Needless to say, the drone industry association is also not very happy with Mr. Steele:

“But the Deer Trail proposal is the latest ripple in a spreading backlash against drones. Dozens of laws aimed at curbing the use of the unmanned aircraft have been introduced in states and cities. Privacy advocates have expressed fear that police will use drones to cheaply and effectively conduct widespread surveillance without warrants. The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, a drone industry trade group, was concerned enough last year about people threatening to shoot down drones that it issued a statement warning that such comments were "irresponsible, dangerous and unlawful." Michael Toscano, president and CEO of the group, expressed similar concerns Friday, saying drones "are being designed to serve the public good….The myriad of important uses will be imperiled if they become targets. … The suggestion that Americans take up arms against unmanned aircraft also endangers citizens on the ground."

(emphasis added)

Mr. Toscano is probably not wrong when he states that there are numerous potentially useful and perfectly agreeable applications for drones, except that the vague formulation 'public good' is not really cutting it. Who's going to determine what represents a 'public good'? He could at least have named a few of the beneficial applications. The fact remains though that among the main purposes drones are being used for these days are surveillance (which is giving the authorities yet more opportunity to circumvent laws that are supposed to keep such activities in check) and dealing death in far-away places (which is probably an excellent recruiting tool for terrorist organizations, since invariably, countless innocent civilians become 'collateral damage' in these strikes. We don't have the numbers on this, but it's a good bet that more terrorists are created than are killed in this manner). Needless to say, there are countless ways in which drones can be abused. Who is watching the watchmen?

Conclusion:

The Orwellian surveillance state is growing – but resistance to the surveillance state is growing as well.