Espionage Act Update Adds 'Video' to Prohibited Defense Info Capture

This bill, the Drone Espionage Act, makes a targeted change to a long-standing law concerning national defense information. Specifically, Section 2 amends 18 U.S.C. § 793 – part of the original Espionage Act – to explicitly include the word "video" wherever terms like "photographic negative" appear. The core idea is simple: taking or sharing video of sensitive defense information, with the intent to harm the U.S. or help another country, is now clearly spelled out as illegal under this specific statute, just like taking photos or copying documents already was.

Updating the Rulebook for a Video World

Think of this as the law catching up with technology. We live in an era where high-quality video recording is ubiquitous – from smartphones to drones. This amendment updates 18 U.S.C. § 793, which broadly deals with improperly handling national defense information. By adding "video," the legislation makes it unambiguous that capturing defense-related activities or installations on video falls under the same restrictions as older forms of media, if the intent is malicious. It modernizes the language to reflect that sensitive information can just as easily be captured on a GoPro or drone camera as with traditional spycraft.

Beyond Spies: Who Needs to Pay Attention?

While aimed at espionage, the inclusion of "video" could have ripple effects beyond actual spies. The key legal trigger remains the intent behind capturing or sharing the video – specifically, intending to injure the U.S. or aid a foreign nation. However, the change might raise questions for journalists documenting activities near military sites, researchers using drones for mapping, or even hobbyists flying drones near restricted airspace. For example, someone filming air traffic near a base or a news crew covering a protest outside a defense facility might need to be more aware of these rules. While accidental recording isn't the target, the broadened language could create uncertainty or a potential chilling effect, making people hesitant to record video in areas where defense activities might be visible, even without harmful intent. The practical challenge often lies in proving or disproving intent, and how broadly "defense information" is interpreted in specific situations.