Drone Usage Over Los Angeles Raises Civil Liberties Concerns
Recently, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) confirmed that they are deploying drones, specifically MQ-9 predators, over Los Angeles in response to civil unrest. According to a statement, these aerial vehicles are meant to support various federal law enforcement agencies, including immigration and customs enforcement, in the Greater Los Angeles area.
Officially, these drones have been part of border security operations since 2005. CBP claims they are essential for tasks like detecting and deterring threats to the U.S. border. However, the reality seems to extend beyond that limited scope. We’re seeing CBP frequently lending these drones to other law enforcement agencies nationwide, which raises significant questions regarding civil liberties.
Los Angeles isn’t the first city to witness drones surveilling protests. In 2020, just weeks after George Floyd’s death, CBP provided drones to monitor law enforcement in 15 different cities. Before that, in 2016, local sheriffs enlisted CBP assistance to observe activists protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline, claiming various rights violations.
Even in 2020, as Enbridge, Inc. faced public backlash over a pipeline project, CBP drones were deployed to surveil both the proposed pipeline route and the homes of activists opposing it, including leaders of Indigenous Environmental Networks.
Concerns persist among activists about how drone surveillance can chill free speech and assembly, both protected under the First Amendment. While CBP claimed in 2015 it hadn’t used drones to investigate protests, subsequent years tell a different story.
Moreover, CBP has been lending drones for a variety of law enforcement activities. In 2012, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to civil liberties, sued the Department of Homeland Security to uncover how frequently CBP’s drones have been used by other agencies and for what purposes.
Initially, the Homeland Security Department responded with incomplete information, leading to the discovery of around 200 drone flights supporting other law enforcement efforts. By 2014, it was revealed that from 2010 to 2012, CBP had loaned out its drones 687 times to diverse federal and state agencies, including the FBI and local criminal investigation bureaus.
In an analysis from the Cato Institute, David Beer and Matthew Feeney noted that from 2013 to 2016, only about half of the drone flight time supported Border Patrol activities, with 20% taking place well away from coastal or border areas.
Lawmakers initially intended these drones to be a tool for border security. Yet today, the reach of CBP drones stretches into areas that can erode the privacy of American citizens. Various federal court rulings have permitted such aerial surveillance without the need for warrants, leaving law-abiding individuals outside of border zones exposed to monitoring.
When new surveillance tools are developed, they often don’t remain confined to their original purpose. The potential for “mission creep” is significant, leading to expanded use in ways not initially intended.
This development raises crucial questions for all of us: how comfortable are we with this power being used against us?
