will be a honeymoon period with the judiciary walk-off the victory. the it will be difficult for the judiciary to behave in a way that would be inconsistent with the mandate he received. the second thing, i think we saw a great deal of judicial activism in the last few years. one reason was because there is space for the judiciary to fit. if you have effective governance, regarded as legitimate in terms of the actions that are taken -- they are transparent and legitimate -- it is hard for the judiciary. frankly, the judiciary will have no strong incentive.

it was because the judiciary saw no governance. after years of being left on their own. the judiciary started to fill that space. one last point i wanted to make india, ourtion about sense is he will move quickly. there is no reason for him to elabor it. that would give a fresh impetus and a momentum to the relationship. i also agree that the approaching election in india will impose limits on what will be possible in terms of a spectacular breakthrough. but generally what i think the two countries can and should do -- i am separating the urgent from the important -- the important is india, the urgent

is afghanistan. the urgent means pakistan needs to have a conversation with what each country's bottom lines are going forward. we cannot leave this to chance anymore. we cannot leave it to a point where the approaching 2014 transition is upon us and each country is, you know, viewing and behavingoves in a manner that is no good for anybody, including the region and afghanistan. to beope that mr. sharif, able to have a conversation with india on, here is what we think our role is will be going forward to 2014. here is what we see be on 2014. and to say to the indians, we would like to hear from you.

are there mutual assurances we can give each other so that we do not end up reverting to the kind of situation that is everybody's nightmare, the 1990's situation. there is an understanding between india and pakistan, but each country separately does not wish to go back to the bad old days of the 1990's. nor does iran. that creates a condition for the emergence of at least being clear about what they do not want. conversations can discuss what they do want. >> thank you. a quick word -- nawaz sharif would be politically ill-advised to go for the privatization of things like railroads and airlines. that will immediately spark airline -- labor agitation, and

i do not think you want that at the start of his administration. the important thing is nawaz sharif will imbue some confidence in the private sector itself. that will start giving impetus to the economy. >> you have a question here? i know there are a lot of hands. i am trying to keep track of all of you. please identify yourself. >> i am at the national endowment for democracy. my comment, and a question, is about balochistan. , think it is very important the most troubled province now. looking at past election results, you are right. one person left in the opposition. this time it is very interesting that they have one most of the seats. i think this is the first time baluchistanallyak

and people have shifted votes toward them. the second party, with nawaz and the national party, with six and maybe one more seats. this is the only party that does not represent the tribal leadership, the tribal lords. it comes from a middle class and risen from the south very quietly, and has a lot of .isionaries, like dr. malik they have gradually gained grounds, and have for really grown in terms of education and understanding. being considered for the chief minister, which is a very important to development. sharif is considering

three names. one from his own party, and the third one is the senator. if someone like that from the middle class gets selected or appointed chief minister, that can really be a game changer for baluchistan./ they are more in touch with the democratic front and a new kind of politics. i wanted to point out -- and any moves you have. >> we will take that as a comment and move on to the questions. a question there. is the microphone on? thank you. i am from george mason

university. i came back yesterday after spending three months in pakistan doing a book on demography and politics there. mention theike to observation about how the future is urban. one thing that is interesting it is 70% rural. it is still the national that does not change what was mentioned, that the future of pakistan is urban. ppi has been shown -- urban seats,y many

but the second party in karachi. , especially the youth population in karachi and lahore, how dedicated they are to ppi. i saw a 20% increase in the electorate coming from the educated youth. i believe that is the future of pakistan. the question is from a renowned economist. i was expecting he would not give the option to nawaz sharif of more borrowing./ the imf is one option. thatill does borrowing -- is not coming for free. he did not talk about any cuts. where do we need to cut, and where to raise money locally?

one thing which everybody has kept silent, including nawaz sharif and all the political parties, raising the income tax from agriculture. the second issue here is cutting the ministry budget. -- the military budget. what i heard from the ambassador, i think i subscribe zro to her observation, that nax sharif will perhaps be supported by taliban, so the need to cut and the military budget hopefully we will have good relationships with india. onwe can increase the taxes agriculture income, cut down the military budget, i think the solution is there. thank you very much.

>> i think the question is, are there ways in which you can cut? not thinkf all, i do the situation is so bad that we cannot borrow. i do not think it is regarded badeing in a particularly situation. i think it has room to borrow. the question you are raising, it is true, i mentioned that you do have to increase taxes and revenues from somewhere. is bylture income tax the constitution a provincial issue, not a federal government issue. the federal government cannot impose an agriculture income tax. it has to do -- be done by provinces. that is in the constitution. i think there should be an agriculture income tax, but it is a tax that will benefit the

provinces, a provincial issue, and the provinces will have to go about it. i'm cutting back expenditures, yes, there is room for cutting back waste. pakistan does not have a high expenditure level relative to most developing countries. it is constrained in its expenditures by the fact that its revenues are so low. if you just look to the expenditure and say i am expanding 22% of gdp, both current spending and developing spending, i think people would say that is very low for a country in a state of development. you may have other reasons for wanting to cut expenditures, but whether it is military or whatever it is, i do not think there is a strong economic case for cutting expenditures.

>> what about reallocation between the sectors? >> this is something that, again, this is not an economic issue. an economic issue. it is a political decision that you want to have a large spending -- a large standing army small standing army. and to reallocate the money. from an economic standpoint, i look at the overall numbers, and i do not see pakistan is i spending too much. or living beyond its means. yet it is living beyond its means. but its means a very small at the moment. that is the big issue that it will have to resolve. may i take your leave? i have another commitment. thank you so much. >> thank you.

she has to go. >> i can see you. i knew you would ask a question. >> go ahead. >> two things. short-term and long-term. , andi was in pakistan then east pakistan as well, a few years ago, the literacy rate was about 40% in both places. this is crucial to economic development. it needs to be more of a middle- class society. today, the literacy rate in pakistan is still in the 40's and pakistan is in the 80's. there is a terrible gap that need not have occurred. inre is a lack of priorities economic progress going forward. you need a widespread amount of people who can read and write in be effective workers.

i would like you to comment on that. is the new government likely to pay more attention to education? i have been to many villages. where there is no school. but somebody is getting a check, and he is not doing the teaching he is being paid for. that has got to be changed. ,s there any political effort or was the election even relevant about bringing up the reading level to some minimum standards? why second point is china. we talked a great deal about india. we know there is tremendous economic potential and having india and pakistan it along better. so many ways that would improve both sides economically. there is another neighbor nearby, china. aiduld lobby for some money for a damn to increase electricity. they backed away and china was quick to step in, let us do it.

what could happen with china as a serious neighbor and economic colleague? and also back to my first question about literacy and why that is not given any emphasis. >> i think you are absolutely right on the fact that literacy rates have remained abysmally low in pakistan. no government, has really -- the pressure for ,ducation and literacy interestingly enough, comes from international agencies. usaid, world bank, etc. there is of course a cultural problem, which is the education of women issue. when we look at the literacy rates, across the country you find that the literacy rate for pakistani girls is so much lower than anywhere else in south asia.

that drops the overall rate down. if you look at men, their literacy rate has been higher. andn has been very low relatively constant. that is an issue. i think thisat, election was not fought in that. there were people always saying, you know, calling for a electricity and education and so it was i do not think fought on that basis. i do not know what the education plan is. the only one who had an education plan within their manifesto was pti. they push for what you are saying. the abysmally low literacy rate and how we intend to improve it. >> i know we have gone way beyond time, but a quick comment from you, then i will take the

two last questions together. there is a lot of noise about it. there are certain systemic problems within our system, for example, it has not been decided whether in regional governments who should be responsible for secondary education. these are issues which i think basically relate to governments. perhaps things will improve. [captioning performed bynational captioning institute] [captions copyright nationalcable satellite corp. 2013] , a house hearing on the use of domestic drones. then, a house hearing on malaria. then, "q&a" with national science laureate s game james gs junior. >> congress will be in session before a memorial day break.

he has gavels in at noon eastern, turning to legislative is this at 2:00. later in the week, a bill designed to speed up construction of the keystone xl pipeline by declaring that a presidential permit is not required. and legislation that would tie interest rates on student loans to 10-year treasury notes, with caps depending on the loan. the senate is in monday at 2:00 eastern, expected to spend much of the week debating the farm bill. the measure is expected to cost 900 $55 billion, into revamp direct revamp direct aid to farmers and proposes to cut spending. on monday, a vote is set for two judicial nominations. you can watch live coverage of the house on c-span, the senate on c-span 2. friday, technology will on the use of drones

for law enforcement and surveillance. a witness from the american civil liberties union discuss potential misuse of the technology. this is one hour and 20 minutes. >> the subcommittee will come to order. today we have a hearing about the domestic use of unmanned aerial systems. this is dealing with the use of the systems within the united states. there are a lot of privacy and civil concerns that are raised in there. we are supposed to have the votes at 10:00, and to get the hearing over with prior to the time we have votes, because i do not think many members will come back, i will ask unanimous consent that the chair be

authorized to declare recesses when there are votes on the floor, and, secondly, ask unanimous consent that all members' opening statements be placed in the record, including mine and the ranking member's. at this time i will yield to the ranking member, mr. scott, to say whatever he wants to say. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i look forward to work with others on the committee and ask the rest of my statement be placed in the record. >> without objection. we have a distinguished panel today. we will swear in our witnesses. please all rise. do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god?

let the record show that all the witnesses answered in the affirmative, and please be seated. i will be very brief in the openinintroduction our first witness is mr. john villasenor, a non-resident scholar, a senior fellow in the center of technology and center for technology innovation at brookings. he is a professor of electrical engineer at ucla and a member of the world economic global agenda council on the intellectual property system. mr. mcneal is a professor at pepperdine school of law, and he's previously served as the assistant director of the institute for global security and directed a counterterrorism program for the justice department. mr. mclean is a professor at boston university school of law.

he has served the counsel of record for aclu and issues addressing fourth amendment issues. the legislative counsel for privacy-related issues in the aclu's washington legislative office. served ashat, he project council on the aclu technology and liberty project. and with that, i will say without objection all the witnesses' statements will be placed into the record. each of you will have five minutes to summarize your statement. you are first. >> good morning, chairman, ranking member, and members of

the subcommittee. thank you for asking me to testify today on the important topic of privacy and unmanned aircraft systems. i am a nonresident senior fellow for the center of technology at the brookings institution, i holdsor at ucla. appointments in the a tactical engineering department the department of public policy. the views i express are my own and do not represent brookings or the university of california. when discussing privacy it is helpful to keep in mind the variety of platforms possible by this developing technology. some aircraft such as the global hawk are as large and nearly as fast as business jets. some can stay aloft for long times. in the summer of 2010, a solar powered airplane with a wing span of 74 feet stayed aloft for over two weeks over arizona. boeing is under contract to

develop a solar eagle.it will be able to stay aloft in the travis five-- stratosphere for tim continuous years. some aircraft are small. the hummingbird developed weighs only 2/3 of an ounce.including an onboard video camera. a team of researchers reported the successful flight of a robotic insect powered by electricity delivered through a thin wire attached to an external power source. it weighs less than 1/300th of unmanned aircraft can be employed in a endless variety of civilian applications the majority of them are, beneficial, that can help rescuers identify people in need of help.they can provide vital overhead imagery to police officers diffusing a hostage situation. scientific applications include air quality assessment and measuring internal dynamics of storms. they will provide a neutral for

-- an important new tool for newsgathering as well. they will generate economic benefits by creating jobs and by spurring advances in robotics. in fields ranging from manufacturing the surgery. like any technology, unmanned aircraft can also be misused. there are privacy concerns. for unmanned aircraft operated by non--government entities, there is tension between first amendment freedoms and statutory privacy protections. the first amendment is extensive but not unbounded, and ends when it crosses into an invasion of privacy. with respect to government systems, the fourth amendment is central to the privacy question. while the supreme court has never considered war observations using unmanned aircraft, an examination suggests the fourth amendment would provide a stronger measure of protection against government unmanned aircraft

privacy than is widely appreciated. the fourth amendment has served us well since its ratification in 1791, and there is no reason to suspect it will be unable to do so in a unmaed are widely used. this does not mean there is no need for additional statutory unmanned aircraft protections. it makes every sense to consider appropriately balanced legislation. however, when considering new laws for unmanned aircraft privacy it is important to recognize the inherent any rapidlyf changing technology. an initiative's to heavily regulate the internet in the mid-1990's would likely have impeded growth while failing to address more complex privacy issues that grew with the advent of social networking and location-based wireless services. , it isnsidering this important to recognize the power of existing legal frameworks that play a vital role in protecting privacy in the lengthening list of technologies that may be used to violate it.

privacy may not rise with statutory tax but instead in constitutional text drafted over 200 years ago. thank you again for the opportunity to testify. >> thank you very much. >> good morning, mr. chairman. ranking member scott, members of the subcommittee. i am pleased to be here to testify on this important issue. i want to commend the subcommittee for the approach you are taking. this is a difficult issue to legislate on, and the approach the committee takes is a wise one, beginning with the fourth amendment precedent. the looming prospect of expanding vehicles known as drones has your raise concerns regarding privacy. those concerns have led some to call for legislating mandating all uses a prohibited unless the government has first obtained a warrant. such an approach would lead to

perverse results, but would allow the same information to be admitted if gathered by another means. totechnology centered approach privacy misses the mark. if it is a private policy concern, legislation should address the use of information in a technology-neutral fashion. testimony outline six key issues. first, congress should reject calls for a blanket requirement that all drone use be a company by a warrant. the puzzles prohibiting the -- proposals for giving the use of drones unless addressed with a war and are overly broad. such legislation treats the drones information gathered through differently from intermission gathered from a mad aircraft or an officer on foot patrol. under jurisprudence police are not required to shield their eyes from wrongdoing unless they have a warrant. the same should apply for

information by drones. congress should reject broadly worded restrictions that prohibit the use of any evidence gathered by drones in nearly any proceeding. such restrictions exceed the parameters of the fourth amendment and in some circumstances may only serve to protect criminals while not rude -- deterring government wrongdoing. if government chooses to impose a requirement, they should carefully consider codifying exceptions. for example, it should codify suppressing evidence has serious consequences for the truth seeking and law enforcement objectives of our common justice justice system, and as such should protect -- should present a high obstacle for those urging for application. it should be our last resort, not our first impulse. the measures for when we should apply the exclusionary rule should not be whether a drone was used, but whether the benefits of deterrence outweigh the cost. fourth, congress should spend time carefully defining terminology and specifying what places are entitled to privacy

protection. what a layperson sees when they see the word search, what a legislator means, and what a court may think the legislator meant were all different things. ,ords like private property public place, and other terms of art we as lawyers are familiar with, congress should specify what the terms mean. this will be the most important part of the legislative drafting process as the terminology will drive what actions are allowable and what places are entitled to privacy protection. congress should consider adopting entirely new definitions where necessary and eject existing terminology that may be confusing, under protective, or overprotective. fifth, congress should consider perhaps simple surveillance legislation rather than complex drone at legislation. some ways congress might want to look at this is to craft a sliding scale for surveillance the looks of the duration for which surveillance might be conducted rather than looking

at the platform from which the surveillance is launched. congress should consider adopting transparency and accountability measures, perhaps in lieu of a royal -- warrant requirement or suppression rules. accountability measures may be more useful for determining wrongful government surveillance. congress should mandate that the use of all drones or unmanned systems be published on a regular basis, perhaps quarterly, on the website of the agency operating the system. they should detail who operates the system, when it was operated, where it was operated, perhaps even including gps coordinates, and what the law enforcement purpose was. hundreds may mandate that manufacturers of unmanned systems make their equipment with locks that allow information. this will allow citizens to closely monitor how drones are being used and allows the political process to check government action rather than relying on the courts.

raises understandable privacy concerns that require careful and sometimes careful legislation. rather than pursuing a drone- specific approach or a war and- based approach, they should consider legislation making the use of the systems more transparent and empowering the to hold government accountable. thank you. >> thank you. as to macklin -- mr. macklin. thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member scott, members of the committee, for inviting me to testify about the fourth amendment issues surrounding the domestic use of drones by law enforcement. of dronestutionality for domestic law enforcement purposes raises several important questions that are not easily answered by the supreme court's current fourth amendment jurisprudence. as you know, drones can be equipped with sophisticated cameras, thermal imagery

devices, license plate readers, and laser radar systems. according to a recent paper by the congressional research service, drones will soon be able to operate with facial recognition or soft biometric recognition equipment that can recognize and track individuals based on outreach like height, age, gender, skin color. because of the advanced technology now available, comparing drones to a traditional airplane or helicopter is like comparing a frisk from a police officer to a modern x-ray machine that can see beneath one's clothes and graphically depict one's physical features. the supreme court's rulings that airplanes and helicopters surveillance to not implicate the fourth amendment were proudest -- premised on naked eye observations and surveillance equipment readily available to the public. in california versus toronto -- terello, the majority opinion

distinguished and sermons about future electronic developments from what he called "simple visual observations from a -- and moreover, in courtrace -- case the signaled that more sophisticated surveillance would raise different and more difficult fourth amendment issues. thus, i agree with a previous 's 1980 that the court rulings do not control the use of drones that are capable of capturing much more detail on available to the human eye. tothermore, it is important recognize that even among justices of the current court the definition of what constitutes a search and what triggers the fourth amendment is subject to change. i would say it is in a state of flux. in the recent case, united states versus jones, five justices indicated a willingness to reassess traditional notions 's privacy under the court

analysis. for example, justice sotomayor our encouraged her colleagues to reconsider the court's traditional analysis for even short-term monitoring of a person's public activity. justice alito, although not going as far, was indicated his willingness to consider the court's current privacy jurisprudence, and i stayed from , "thessent in that case use of longer-term gps monitoring investigations of most criminal offenses impinges expectations of privacy." , five read from that justices say you have an expectation of privacy vis-à- vis long-term electronic monitoring when you are in the public. if you have that expectation of privacy in the eyes of at least five justices when you're in public and on public streets, you certainly ought to have the same level of expectations of privacy when you are on your own property, notwithstanding the

fact that a drone may or may not be in it navigable airspace. a final point the committee should consider is the following. when considering whether drone surveillance constitutes a search under the fourth amendment, i would urge the committee to avoid resolving his question to the fitness test or legal terms of art. the expectation of a privacy subjective test. most justices have knowledge that. even justice harlan, who was responsible for the expectation of travesty test, disavowed the test in the united states versus wrightecision -- decision. often judges in fourth amended cases will sadly say that all the fourth amendment requires -- will simply say that all the fourth amendment requires is reasonableness. in this case, they apply what amounts to a rational basis

test, simply deciding whether the government activity was rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. this degree of deference to police intrusions b is at odds with the central meaning of the -- meaning of the fourth amendment. the fourth amendment was not asserted so that judges could deferred governmental intrusions on privacy. rather, we know the amendment was put in the bill of rights so -- i'm sorry, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. ranking members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify. the aclu believes the widespread domestic use of unmanned aerial systems, also known as drones, raises significant new privacy issues which cannot be adequately addressed by existing law. drones share some character issues with manned -- characteristics with manned surveillance, but the privacy

implications are greater in scope and volume. manned aircraft are expensive to purchase, operate, and maintain. this expense is always imposed a natural limit on the government's aerial surveillance capability. drones' low cost and flexibility a road that limit. small platforms can explore hidden spaces or. windows, and large static blimps enable continuous long- term monitoring, all for much less than the cost of its lane or helicopter. ongoing improvements in computing technology exacerbate these privacy issues. high-powered night vision cameras and see-through image and provide more and better detail. imagine technologies similar to the naked body scanners at the airports attached to a drone. facegh technologies like recognition and improved analytics and wireless internet, it is possible to track specific individuals with multiple drones. uses could extend all the way

from high-tech long-term surveillance to traffic enforcement. well drones certainly have beneficial uses for search and rescue missions, firefighting, dangerous police operations, these technological realities point to significant possible harms if left unchecked. with the use of video cameras, we have seen ongoing problems with voyeurism and racial profiling by operators. if there is a persistent danger and monitoring, it creates the real danger that people will change how they act in public, whether at a protest rally or just in the backyard. be integrated into the federal airspace by 2015. well the use is poised to explode, current law is not caught up. macklin noted, the supreme court authorized aerial surveillance and photography of private property. the court may eventually extend fourth amendment protections to

ongoing unlimited automated tracking, but no decisions have been decided. federal protections are spotty and state statutory protections are in their infancy. as the entity that regulates the skies, the federal government is in the best position to create rules for the use of drones by law enforcement. the aclu recommends these be based on 4 key principles. first, no mass surveillance. no one should be spied upon by the government unless the government believes that person has committed a crime. drone use over private property should only happen with a search warrant based on probable cause. the same standards used to search somebody's house or business. tomay be permissible monitor individuals in public at a lower standard, perhaps reasonable suspicion, but the key is to prevent mass dispersion less searches of the general population, including for intelligence gathering. toprotect this, exceptions the rule should be limited to

emergencies connected to life and safety. second, information collected from drones t for one purpose anotherot be used for purpose. information collected by groans should be kept securely and destroyed promptly once it is no longer needed. should not carry weapons. weapons developed on the battlefield have no place in the united states. there is a consensus on this issue. in fact, the heritage foundation and the international association of chiefs of police both support sharp limits on weapon iced drones. finally, oversight is crucial. communities, not just law enforcement, must pay a central role on whether to purchase a drone. erroneous must be monitored to make sure it is an investment that works. -- drone use must be monitored to make sure it is an investment that works. they should only be used if

subject to a powerful fragment -- framework that monitors the use. the ec of -- aclu believes some members of the committee have already taken great strides to find this balance with the preserving americans privacy act. we support this adulation and urge the committee to make marking it up a priority. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. the chair will recognize members to ask questions under the five-minute rule. first up will be chairman of the full committee, mr. goodlatte. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate you holding this hearing and for your forbearance. i would ask my opening statement he made a part of the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. villasenor, do you believe the courts, congress, or the states -- which, do you believe, are in the best position to

regulate on privacy grounds? >> in terms of actually regulating, is the question specific to privacy? >> primarily. >> with respect to law enforcement use, i am on record stating that i do believe the fourth amendment is going to provide quite a bit more protection than is generally recognized. in that case, it would be through the courts. with respect to private party use, which is not been the focus of as much attention as public use, you have a statute against invasion of privacy and the like, so there is a role at the state level to ensure the statutes properly and is a paid -- properly anticipate. >> thank you. should congress recor regulate e commercial use of unmanned aircraft? or that could be left to the states? .> i am not sure with regard to the privacy issues, i am not sure that you

can get around privacy without congress doing it. let me rephrase that. use, if we are concerned about privacy, it seems that congress is the most appropriate body to legislate in a way that we would have equal laws across the board. in the same camp as mr. villasenor, if we think the fourth amendment protections that currently exist are sufficient we could copy those over for commercial purposes and adopt those. the problem with commercial uses is we have a big body of law on privacy with regard to what law enforcement does, and far fewer rules with regard to what private parties or commercial parties might do. this is one of the things people get really concerned about. commercial use is just my neighbor flying around doing video for photography or for his

youtube page or for real estate purposes that can then start to look a lot like snooping or peeping tom types of things. some of that is covered by state law, but when you look at the cases where people have been able to successfully sue and feel like their privacy rights are violated, you do not get a lot of success. it is a high bar for people to overcome. so there might be some room for congress to regulate. but i do not think, when you look at the commercial uses we are thinking about, unmanned systems for like fedex and whatnot, privacy is not the big issue driving concerns. it is more safety concerns. >> thank you. warrant- from your based approach to the use of uas by governmental entities, you do have an exception for an emergency situation.

tsarnaevle, if the brothers in boston had been somehow detected by drones, that would still be evidence admissible in court under your circumstances if they were following them down the street and they were either impeded from taking -- placing their explosives or were not impeded but, on that evidence, it was available to show they were the perpetrators of the crime? >> that is correct. s legislation indicates, there is a strong emergency exception that in the case of danger to life or limb the use of drones to provide -- you have to play at the scenario more in terms of where they are in the investigation, but yes, there is clearly a strong emergency exception, as well as an ability to act

before he warned is issuedincann what how uas may explain police description -- affect police discretion, and if this should be limited by statute? >> when i talk about police discretion, i am talking about the ability of law-enforcement is simply fly a drone over and examined, surveilled without any probable cause or reasonable suspicion. if you do not have either one of those two things you cannot get a warrant. i would take slight objection to the notion that if we are going to require warnings, we should allow possibly war in space on reasonable suspicion. the court, i think, i'll be at albeit other than administrative cases, when you have a warrant it needs to be on probable cause. >> thank you. -- can you say a word about how the technology has come located the issue in

terms of the difference between a photograph all the way to tracking someone even in public for a long time, what the expectation is? work certainly. thank you. to be clear, it is not just rounds. you think about the technologies, you can think about tracking with the drowned coupled with tracking using the cell phone, which i know this committee has considered recently, and tracking with a license plate scanner, these things can be coupled to really provide mass surveillance all the time. in terms specifically of drones, they have become smaller and cheaper, and the technology on them can penetrate more deeply at night, with smaller and greater cameras. one special recently indicated one camera that can cover multiple square miles and

do detailed surveillance, literally, of an entire city. imagine that technology coupled with surveillance. people willhe way think of public and what a public space is. it really merits further recognition. >> you mentioned the problem with weapons. our weapons ever appropriate with drones? >> i think we need to explore the question of weaponization carefully. by and large, the answer is no. weapons should never be used because a drone is not in the same kind of danger as a police officer is. clearly, a police officer has to be able to defend himself. we all understand that. or take appropriate action to apprehend someone. a drone will not need to defend itself or will not need to apprehend anyone. a drone operator may not have the same judgment or expertise. through a camera as a police officer does on the ground. all of that ayargues limited e,

but by and large weapons do not belong on drones. >> you mentioned the possibility of discrimination. howyou say a wa word about you would choose who was under surveillance? >> that is an outstanding question. it goes to a couple important issues. one is having the community involved. you should know if there is surveillance. the community should be able to decide if they think getting a drone is an important -- appropriate tool and how it should be used. in the question of discrimination generally, we have seen in monitoring video cameras that video surveillance is frequently a very boring task for an operator. it is doll. mines tend to wander. tended to wander. research says they tend to follow around pretty girls and follow their biases. look for particular racial minorities they think are more likely to commit crimes.

we think it is very probable that can happen with a drone as well. >> in terms of selecting the areas to be under surveillance? >> not just the areas, but the individuals who they might choose to follow. if you had mass surveillance over a particular area, they may be picking a particular individuals and deciding to follow them around to see if they will commit crimes. >> if you have a legal exception for surveillance in a recording, what happens when you see havehing that you did not probable cause to suspect but you notice because it was under surveillance? >> that is going to be relatively uncommon. we do have an exception -- >> if you are monitoring traffic, that is ok, and you , doa drug deal on the side you get to use that? >> what we would say, first of all, we would hope we would not have mass surveillance like that, would not have cameras up

in this kyl the time. we would assume that surveillance would largely be directed and targeted. individual acts were already being monitored by law enforcement, we would expect they would likely come under an existing reasonable suspicion standard. if the investigation was done, for example, in public. we would already have a court order that would say it is ok to do drone use in public that these particular times. >> you have all this stuff recorded, could there be a limitation on what you can do ?ith it after you have got it >> i think there has to be, yes. we do not want people to be recorded all the time. we do not want to feel like the drones are constantly monitoring them. we want people to know they are safe. not just in private, but also in public, to live their lives without worrying that what they will do will end up on youtube. >> the gentleman's time is expired. that haveprocedures

been announced by the chairman of the committee, full committee members who are not members of a subcommittee are entitled to sit i on the dais but are not entitled to ask questions unless a member yield some time to do so. under that procedure, the chair yields his five minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate you yielding and all of you for being here. , guess the crowning decision the concept, is the supreme expectation of privacy down the road is going to be not expanded but made smaller, i think that is what the court members are saying, which concerns me.

so it seems to me that congress in the area of drones need to set a standard rather than let the courts down the road set a standard. i am from houston, and our local sheriff and county, the third largest county in the country, he will not use any kind of drones because he does not know what the law will be and does not want to wait for the supreme court to rule 10 years from now on a search and throw out a case where he has arrested some bad guy, put him in jail. so he is not using them. he is waiting for somebody to give him and other law enforcement agencies some direction on the use of drones. there seemed to be two issues. law enforcement use and private use. what is the expectation of privacy in those areas? should we do anything about it? or just wait? , there have been comments made that the court

should make these decisions about the fourth amendment, which courts have been doing fine, what is lawful and not lawful under the fourth amendment. should the courts be the answer for solving this issue of drones and the fourth amendment? >> i think your legislation does a very good job of creating a careful balance, something that congress is particularly good at. and the courts are not always particularly good at. we think about how we would want to use a drone, it is clear that most of the uses, finding a missing person, fighting a forest fire, are not uses that particularly implicate the fourth amendment. your legislation is very careful to carve those out. i think that by creating clarity you allow the use of drones for all these good purposes, including commercial purposes, where people do not have to worry that the drone in the sky is spying on them. you allow for the growth of the

industry well still -- well still protecting privacy in a reasonable way. congress has a role, and it is a strong role that you are well suited to perform. >> what about the faa? right now the faa decides who has permits for a drone. they make the decision. the president has weighed in on that and told the faa to be sensitive to privacy concerns when giving new permits. what about the faa making that decision? >> i think the faa has a role, clearly, in things like deciding what is going to happen with information when it is collected, providing notice of what's drones are being flown and how. has athink congress central role in regulating itself, regulating the government. congress has got to be the one to decide how the police, how the fourth amendment should be interpreted. congress has a role in

interpreting the constitution as well. you are constitutional uppe officers. i think congress's role housetrained central. ,> is the issue of drones has, up, they have said, let's revisit the whole concept of the fourth amendment, not just with drones but with all new technologies. what do you think about that? >> i certainly believe in expanding the fourth amendment. no question about that. i know you do as well. i think the committee is doing that right now. you are not just considering drones, you are considering surveillance in cell phones, another hearing on electronic and indications privacy. -- electronic and indications for -- communications privacy. so this is a piece of that.

>> on the other technologies, some yet to be invented, should congress set the standard parameters on law enforcement , waitr should we, again for the supreme court to make the ultimate decisions? the 21stk that in century as we have new technologies we have to we have to make sure our values come with us. that we do not lose those constitutional values as we move to new technologies. you, of course, are perfectly suited to do that. >> thank you. >> the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you very much. villasenor,mr. professor macneal, and professor macklin, have you heard about 637poe legislation preserving

and you're able -- and are you able to comment i on it at all? >> i am very appreciative of any attention that congress has given to this very important issue. one of the concerns i have with overly broad warned requirements is that the problems that could arise. i certainly agree we should not countenance government using -- for example, suppose that law enforcement unmanned aircraft is monitoring traffic intersections after an accident and on the sidewalk next to the intersection a terrible assault takes place. suppose that the video evidence from the unmanned aircraft is the only evidence that clearly identifies the perpetrator at fault. i think it would defy reason for us to all say to the victim, we know who the perpetrator is but we are going to let the perpetrator go because we did not have a war and and there is

legislation that says we cannot use it. i think we need to be cognizant of the potentially unintended consequences of what sounds at first blush like something that will only be good. >> mr. mcneill? >> he highlighted one of the points i make in my written testimony, where i provide a few testimony -- examples.