New 'DEFENSE Act' Expands Drone Countermeasure Powers to Local Cops: Privacy at Risk?

The "Disabling Enemy Flight Entry and Neutralizing Suspect Equipment Act," or "DEFENSE Act," sounds like something out of a Tom Clancy novel, but it's a real bill with potential real-world consequences for everyday folks. This legislation significantly expands who can use drone countermeasures and where, raising some serious questions about oversight and potential overreach.

Drone Defense: Who, What, Where?

The core of the DEFENSE Act is this: it lets the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General deputize state and local law enforcement officers to use technology to detect, identify, track, and potentially disable drones. This isn't just for top-secret government facilities. The bill specifically allows these powers to be used at:

• Sites already under flight restrictions (Section 521 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004).
• "Large public gatherings" (as defined in 49 U.S.C. 44812(c)).
• Any place the FAA puts a temporary flight restriction on (49 U.S.C. 40103(b)).

Think about that last point. That means a local police officer, deputized under this law, could potentially be authorized to use drone countermeasures at a protest, a concert, or even a neighborhood block party if the FAA issues a temporary flight restriction. The bill requires training for these officers (SEC. 2), but the details of that training are left largely to the agencies involved.

The Tech Factor and Potential Pitfalls

The bill limits the types of counter-drone technology that can be used to a list maintained by the Department of Homeland Security, in coordination with other agencies like the FAA and FCC (SEC. 2). But, the bill doesn't specify exactly what those technologies are. This lack of detail is a red flag. "Countermeasures" could range from simply tracking a drone's location to actively interfering with its operation, potentially causing it to crash.

Consider a scenario: A small business owner uses a drone to take aerial photos of their property, unaware of a newly imposed temporary flight restriction. Under this law, a deputized local officer could use countermeasures against that drone, potentially damaging the equipment or even causing it to fall and injure someone. Or, picture activists using drones to document a protest. This law opens the door for law enforcement to interfere with those drones, potentially suppressing free speech and the right to assembly.

Accountability and the Bigger Picture

While the bill mandates oversight (SEC. 2), it's light on specifics. The lines of accountability could get blurry. If a deputized officer misuses this technology, who's ultimately responsible? The local police department? The Department of Homeland Security? The potential for abuse, whether intentional or accidental, is significant.

This bill exists in a context of increasing drone use, both for legitimate purposes and for potentially harmful ones. But it’s crucial to strike a balance between security concerns and protecting civil liberties. The DEFENSE Act, as it stands, feels like it tips that balance too far towards expanded law enforcement powers without sufficient safeguards for the rest of us.

It's essential to note that this bill could impact not just protestors but anyone using drones for personal or commercial reasons. It also creates a potential chilling effect, where people might be afraid to use drones at all, even for lawful activities, due to the risk of encountering countermeasures.