Crime and Crime Control in the Drone Age Andrew Goldsmith, Flinders Law School

Of Drones and Kill Lists, and Big Dogs with Disposition Katina Michael, University of Wollongong MG Michael, University of Wollongong

Targeted drone strike attacks on individuals are no longer science fiction. The so-named US “disposition matrix” is essentially a kill list identifying suspected terrorists to be traced and then targeted or captured and interrogated. In November 2012, Ahmed al-Jabari was killed by the Israeli Air Force and Shin Bet as part of Operation Pillar of Defense while he was travelling in a car. A drone carrying a deadly payload struck the vehicle he was travelling in instantly killing him. The drone strike visual recording was uploaded by the Israeli Defense Force to social media outlets soon after the attack. This was very controversial given the content and context of the recording, clearly violating the terms of service of the big social networking giants. Twitter, Facebook and Flickr users, for instance, are not allowed to “post direct, specific threats of violence against others.” Google’s YouTube also came under fire first for allowing the video to be posted, then for the “take down” of the clip, and then its reinstatement on the following day. It demonstrated how social media companies are increasingly finding themselves at the centre of War and Conflict 2.0 controversies, being used as a geopolitical vehicle to sway sentiment this way or that way. Drones, a form of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) or unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), are not the only type of uninhabited system that can strike people or infrastructure. There are unmanned ground drones like Big Dogs and Pack Bots that can perform a similar function to an air vehicle with arguably more agility, collecting even more precise data that can be further processed using data analytic approaches. Though we may not presently be seeing ground drones deployed at every street corner for law enforcement, the potential for these kinds of innovations to be used to upkeep civilian law and order or for crowd control at big events within a security context is there. It is not impossible, that big dogs could be deployed on missions, during times of citizen unrest, riots, protests or even mass gatherings at sporting venues. The benefits to law enforcement agencies (LEA) in introducing ground drones would be promoted in a variety of ways but the costs to civilians would be intangible and to an extent even incalculable. Physical force is one thing, psychological another. The legal implications would also be substantial as police and security personnel are partially supported by machines for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) of everyday citizens. Till recently, individuals have not had to be concerned with the concept of targeted drone strikes. A B52, for instance, was a huge machine that could cause massive destruction on a single mission with huge collateral damage. But drones have changed the rules of engagement today. At protests individuals might have faced riot police holding shields and wearing helmets and holding batons ready to strike with tear gas, but these are all highly standardised procedures with commensurate accountability. What would happen if people were to face off with machines? How would this modern day Dalek-style encounter play out in the real world? Small remote controlled packbots were used to enhance security during the World Cup Soccer tournament in Brazil in 2014. They were packed with sensors and technological prowess but little has been written about their performance and effectiveness post the event. They almost went unnoticed by the media. Google also invested in Boston Dynamics in late 2013 but their application in the context of the internet search company is highly speculative for now. However, consider these technologies were deployed as ubiquitously as surveillance cameras to roam the streets and keep them safe in known crime hot spots or during busy times of the day? What kind of response might this receive from the public? And what kind of regulations might be required?

Unmanned Aerial Surveillance – Do We Really Need a New Set of Laws to Protect Privacy? Hillary Farber, University of Massachusetts School of Law

Unmanned Insecurity: A Framework for Enhanced Information Assurance Laws for Unmanned Aircraft Donna Dulo, Naval Postgraduate School

Discussant: Christine Keyzers, Monterey College of Law