9:00 a.m. eastern, a senior policy analyst for the aclu speech, privacy, and technology project. is next.ton journal good morning. "washington journal" on august 14. drones will be the topic of discussion today. in this program not only will you hear from law-enforcement, you will also hear from privacy advocates as well. as we go about the morning talking about the topic, we start off to hear your thoughts on the use of them domestically here in the united states.

if you support their use for a wide variety of purposes, here is how you can give your support -- oppose their use 00 -- you can tweet us -- we had about 30 people chiming in before the start of the program. you could also send us an e- mail. it is the association of unmanned vehicle systems international. this story and convention is the featured story here on the front page of the wall"options and times" --ngton

news" talks about their use in the united states and reaction to them -- that is the opinion on the use of drones in the united states. the topic for first half hour. we want to get your thoughts on their use.

call on the line that best represents you and be prepared to tell us why. use, 202-t thethe us 585-381. out to how you can reach us. facebook.com available too. i see novans saying problems using them for military operations but do not think they should be used again surveillance -- civilians under any circumstances and they should not be allowed to be used for any individual to target another individual. robert miller says this -- from thise comments morning's facebook page on the topic.

if you support the use, -- we will hear from law enforcement officials as well. we will also hear from privacy advocates on this issue. now is the chance to turn to you for the first half-hour and the discussion. on the supporto line. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. i am an old retired military man. i do not know where we got this. i think what the governor just did, signing the voting thing -- i think --[inaudible]

host: what specifically about the use of drones do you support ? rusty up next. caller: i oppose them. they are used to kill people overseas that we have not even declared war on. you bring them back here from the states and start using them against private citizens, it will get out of control fast. thank you very much. for a wideare used variety of purposes. are you concerned only about the surveillance aspect or think they can be used in other applications? caller: i think along the border they could be used to save money, but to actually target american citizens like a target the bad guys overseas

definitely 100 percent opposed. d.c., site ofon, convention featuring those in the industry. people that we will be talking to as the morning progresses. we go next to arthur. arthur is on the support line in jacksonville, florida. why'd you support the use of drones? if you are car, you do not want them. if you are a crook, you do not want them. if you're honest, you do. i support them. i definitely support them. we need them on the border, we need them everywhere. them local police uses

well, you are ok with that as well? guest host: yes definitely. you could stop a whole lot of crime. if you know you are being traffic i support the cameras. i support it all. i am 72-years-old and never seen so much crime in my whole life. host: no privacy concerns? doing rightou are in life, you did not any problem with them. from that is our third jacksonville, fla., for those that support them. joseph adds technology cannot not be stopped. the use of drones' depends on what they are used for. that is the issue. [inaudible]

i am in support of the use of drones. [inaudible] the use has to stop. thank you very much. that is my comment. if you support the use, -- if you oppose -- you may have seen on our network

some of the conferences and forums that have been taking place at the convention. from the forum yesterday, want to show you the opinions expressed. you will hear from pepperdine university law professor gregory neal arguing about privacy. e says it goes beyond drones and says congress needs to step in. helicopter for the 23 officers killed on 9/11. it has a camera that can observe activity to miles away. can see the details on people's faces, read their name tags on people's faces from up to 2 miles away. this is an advance of technology. i think the approach, if congress wanted to legislate, would be to look at the issue of surveillance. and then create lines based on

the duration of surveillance that would maybe allow officers at their own discretion to observe individuals from any platform from any time. once we get to the end of the seven-day time, maybe they need reasonable suspicion to continue surveillance for 48 hours. anything longer than that might require a warrant. the times i have thrown out are just my best guess. some might put it lower at 20 minutes. by doing that, we're treating all technology the same. a camera trained on someone's home persistently will be treated the same as a bit is a camera on a drone or someone standing on the rooftop using a camera. issues whennd other it comes to technology can be found on our website at c- span.org. good to the video library and type in the topic line.

we will hear a lot of the opinions throughout the morning. ohio on the opposed wind. -- oppose line. caller: they are being used for domestic surveillance to protect us here from crime. to take used overseas on whomever. it is 7:10 and i can tell you the only thing that will prevent exposing c-span from being terrorists is he taking away my freedom of speech. i know what a terrorist is. i am 55 years old.

i have watched this country be destroyed. the economic system, political system, education, infrastructure. iraq, iran, or the was billionaires' .nd corporations you talk about terrorist on the show every single day. if you look at the jews in this country -- md..: baltimore, caller: has there been any on man drones and when -- whether there would make one legal versus the other? what is important to know about it? caller: i would think there would be more of a safety

concern without the person behind a control. i can see where there would be more state regulation. personally i am very supportive of them. we need to spend dollars on security and police and what ever. we will probably hear a lot about privacy as we go about the morning. do you have concerns about that issue? caller: the use of the data is always there. a sign of the times. people are exploiting loopholes in the law and we need to observe and protect and keep people safe. give up aans we little bit of walking around and picking your nose and someone sees it, that is what happens. "the this is from financial times" --

domestic use of drones and your thoughts on them. caller: i was here from before.

the morning. to it. i am opposed big and tooing too powerful. they aren't getting involved in everything. they did not have a good reason to do it. they keep doing it and reaching further and for their. -- for there. ian, virginia. company use drones during the war. i think during wartime it should be allowed. for civilian use, i think it needs to be severely regulated and possibly put into private companies rather than the federal government. host: why leave the control to

the private company bursas government? caller: private-sector has a lot more regulations. federal government can put their hands on it without the government and we made a mistake and nothing happens to them. host: what are some of the issues you have to consider? what should be considered? caller: i think the actual use of the drones and what they will be used for whether it is agriculture or border patrol for things like that. it should be more of a constitutional issue and there should be strict regulations on what happens to people and organizations of the break those rules. as bishop says a drone is a tool in cannot stop technology. -- marcus says. curby in orlando, florida.

i believe this surveillance that drones allow is a good thing. it will take relief off of the agencies that go about protecting citizens. we have satellites already doing surveillance, but the only thing about satellites, we have to wait until they are in position. we have a faster and more secure from thetting relief so-called agencies that are here. just support it. it is a good thing. it is good in emergencies. that is it. jerseyast night's new democratic primary. the new york mayor, cory booker, the winner.

he will face a special election october 16. daren't from butler, pa. on the opposing line. i do not believe this is good at all. i was watching the show earlier when the guy from pepperdine university was on and talk about how they put these things in orbit and have them record 25 mile area and they could get a mind that information, just like they are doing with the tax

records and everything else. it is just another way for them to take away our freedoms one at a time. they do that, and the next thing is the cars that are speeding, you will get a ticket. one thing at a time. i think of benjamin franklin were alive, they would be really upset. benjamin franklin said those that would give up freedom for temporary safety do not deserve it. host: many stories talking about the justice department stopping the merger between u.s. airlines --

today" takes a look at some of the issues and the money section -- there are other issues as well, as highlighted in the papers this morning. jeff is next in charlottesville, north carolina. opposedi am completely

to it. thomas jefferson would be rolling in his grave is. is approach to survey domestic. same reason cia is not about to operate in the united states because it is too dangerous and too much of an invasion of liberty and privacy. i want to echo the consent of the last calller. it is dangerous. it would just get worse if we allow this to be allowed. domestic use should be banned. and domestically they can operate overseas. as a weapon should be

allowed like they are now. they should not be used in any setting whatsoever for domestic use, because it is a flagrant invasion of liberty. not ancient -- benjamin franklin so much, but thomas jefferson would be rolling in his great because it is dangerous. section ofolitick session "washington times" --

sean on the line for those that support the use of drums domestically. hello. caller: i am close to the university of nebraska, and they have basically space law. spaceex uses groans. google new cars are part of this. we should up conversations that include major corporations. i'm not fearful of the use of these. mention specific companies. what are the values as far as using this technology? sure myself.not i'm not fearful of it. autonomousking about

light system. you were not talking about hellfire missiles. you are not talking about that. i am tired of the fear being put off by the conservatives of every other subject you think about. think you could use the hybrid aircraft systems, the new types of blimps. they could be used for coastguard. they could be used for border patrol. host: you said autonomous, but there are people obviously behind it. misnomer foris a the public. you think of a drawn-out strike, you have 70 people behind that. surveillance, 60 people behind it. a lot of people and support behind the systems. cape stephen of next from coral, fla.. oppose line.

caller: good morning. i was privy to a launch of a very honest looking vehicle on the beach in fort myers. interesting vehicle sitting on the pavement. they launched it, and it went out over the beach, over the water. helicopter-type thing. got to talking to the fellow about it and said they mainly ,sed it for real estate viewing which is possible i guess. back over the beach and landed in the parking lot, there is a berm separating it so they could not see where it landed. there were probably 30 people that came up over the beach to look at this thing and were scared to death.

people were frightened. it was very interested in. they did not know what the heck it was. it looked like a ufo. it was black. were onof video cameras edge. i was sitting watching the individual with the screen on his chest with a very complicated box to operate this thing. it was very informative. the price of the vehicle is about $50,000. it was quiet. could not be heard, but it literally scared everybody to death. they came running over. at that point we did not know what use was. i've think he was just showing the police officers what the capabilities were. think the opinion

it would change if the public knew more about the use of the vehicles into his behind them? definitely education is necessary. on aas an autonomous -- mess looking vehicle. all black carbon fiber. super high-tech. driven by gps. it was just a remarkable piece of technology. i could see where people would be scared if they did not see a launch like i did and saw it out over the beach. probably oppose it to some degree. the guy said it had a lot of flights on it. probably looked like a year ago and was the exterior.

i think i was lucky to be able to see something like that. and host: not too far from c- span, a week-long convention takes place. a look at those that represent the industry. there is a shot of the floor where vendors will put out their wares. we will talk to several people throughout the course of the morning about the vehicle. he will hear from law enforcement and how they use the technology and we will hear from privacy advocates. and we will continue taking calls on the topic. david from el paso. caller: i support this. i live 5 miles from the border

of mexico. i think these grounds can be used for surveillance. be used forhese can surveillance. what about if they are away from the border hovering other parts of all possible? of el paso? caller: i agree with police. the park shooting of the young girl in chicago. i think if a drowned had been overhead recording everything they would be able to get the tower who shot her. it is surveillance. on thed his house, not door and locked him up for the rest of his life. he will be off the streets. joy off of twitter says --

on the oppose line. this is john. caller: good morning. i understand there are privacy issues, but can we talk about the practical problems. the faa has various rules about what you can and cannot do and where you can not like and how much range you have to have between aircraft around you. flighte to of temporary restrictions to make the area safe for the drone to operate. storyof these agencies using the drones, suddenly you are shutting down huge areas of down to to aviation ground level.

is cutting off the entire city to civil aviation or potential commercial aviation. can i add also that the safety record for these is not as good as people would like to think. people are people. there are tendencies to judge shut down the computer when you're done for the day. that has caused problems with these things landing in the middle of the streets. yes, there are privacy problems, but also a mountain of practical problems with operating these things and populated areas. agl for you use the term during your talking.

what is that? caller: above ground level. i was a pilot for a while. i also have known air force people who have flown the plane themselves. that is arizona. jim on the support line. caller: hello? i am in favor of using the drones. all you have to do is go to texas and see the illegal aliens coming across the border. and anything that can stop that, i am in support of it. if you are not doing anything illegal, you do not have to worry about drone's flying around. concernivacy is not a as far as what is taken information-wise and who is

being looked at? doing: if you are not anything illegal, why did you need to worry about it? the illegal aliens are destroying my state. it needs to stop. it is known as a corridor for drugs, and i do not like that. if it can stop that, i am not worried about it a bit. >host: the event we have been showing is sponsored by the physician for unmanned vehicles international. the president of the association joins us. the president joining us serves as the ceo. thank you for joining us. i suppose that is what you prefer, but talk about language

first. why express it one way over another? they are called unmanned aircraft systems. that is the term that congress and the faa uses as the official as thelogy pure -- official terminology. so the key word in both of those acronyms is the word system. that is one of the misnomers that most people have when you talked about unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system. most people think of something very large in military, something hostile. that is not what these systems are. fly only up to 400 feet. two hours andeen -- theyuse that sign of usually work during the day.

they're used in operations there -- where it is very safe. basically what you have is a thing that flies. 30 percent of the overall system. a communication link. and you have a ground station. most importantly, a human being. there is a human being involved. host: when you hear someone refer to them as ground, what goes through your mind? guest: i understand the difference, but most people do not. that is why i did not use that term. host: a lot of people this morning talk about technology and privacy issues and concerns.

what are the other issues besides surveillance? excellent point. most of the applications when we get into the national airspace is precision agriculture. more than 80 percent will be in agriculture. it will help farmers, ranchers, people of that type to be able to do what they do best in a more efficient and effective manner. when you understand that lettuce or corn that does not mind if you are watching it, the privacy issue goes away. there are not a whole lot of human beings that will be involved in it as well. it is not have the privacy concerns. have the privacy concerns. our: if you want to ask the numbers are on the screen for republicans.

you can also send us tweets about this. ofre are three types operators of the system. one is known as the private recreation operator. there is also the public operator who operate four things for the federal state and local agencies. could you break down what groups or industries represent these three groups? the terminology goes back to operations. we have had military being the dominant use. we're transitioning to civil and commercial applications. you mentioned recreational use. the american modelers association has been around for more than 80 years. people have been flying

remotely-controlled systems for many, many years. that is the recreational side. , and are no restrictions they have been doing that safely for many years for the purpose of a recreational standpoint. when you get to the civil and commercial applications, again, right now it is prohibitive to use them in a commercial way. that determination is done by the faa right now. and those are restrictions from the standpoint of safety. what decisions does the faa have to make? unmannedthin the aircraft system, safety is paramount. there is really only one responsibility, to make sure that anything that goes into the natural -- national airspace does so in a safe manner. it has to detect in the void if

it is an unmanned system. if it goes in to the national airspace, it can do no harm. it cannot fallout of the national airspace and do harm to anyone else. i will tell you, they are doing a very good job. we have the safest guys in the world. host: what is the deadline that the faa has to make sure when this is supposed to happen? congress mandated in the of reform act in february 2012 that by september 30, 2015, the faa had to integrate unmanned aircraft systems and to the national airspace. it did not say fully integrate, but just recently there has been success with the faa, and also of in the arctic with systems that were flown for oil and gas exploration, as well as wildlife

monitoring. .he test went fantastic it was done in a safe and efficient manner. possible fors these systems to interact with planes and other aircraft that are used and flown by people? look at where the operational spaces. because the faa knows anything going into the national airspace, they can control that. the predominance of the use that you will see as we start integrating the systems will not be where normal commercial airlines are flying. when you look at the band the bears place they're flying in, anything from 1,000 feet or below is where they will be able to operate the unmanned aircraft systems we're talking about. for the most part, many of them weigh less than 55 pounds. with the safety

regulations, will they be brought in nature or specific in nature? is there concern about how specific they become? guest: i believe the faa is working towards the right mix to ensure safety and the national airspace. the integration of manned and unmanned systems will be done in a very safe matter. there's a lot of attention on this, and that is the job of the faa. presidenthael toscano, and ceo of unmanned vehicle systems international will be with us to talk about these issues and take your questions. the first one is built from ohio, for our guest on of the independent line. go ahead, please. on the i was wondering air space thing, 400 feet is supposed to belong to the citizens. anything below 400 feet is

considered trespassing. that was my question. i was wondering how they are going to do that, and if they get caught trespassing, what someone gets in trouble if they shot it out of the sky over their property? and below is the restriction for fixed wing. helicopters can fly below that. domain liesere the for air that you own, that is a discussion being made. you have to take responsibility. that would appear restless -- reckless act. i would caution you. host: jim asking will crash, caused damage? guest: first of all, and the

operational environment is well known in many cases certified by the operator. if you are going to do a search and rescue, and 8 of hundred thousand people go missing every day, this is a capability that allows you to find them in a much more affected and affectionate -- much more effective and efficient manner. what i am saying is the boundary of the search envelope is identified. the precautionary experts -- the precautionary tales are anything that goes wrong, these systems are programmed to go to a designated spot to either land or go to a certain spot where they can establish the link in communications and operate in a safe manner. safety is paramount with unmanned systems and you will not launch them and put them into the national airspace of us

they are safe. take a weapon showing the folks the convention center. a lot of exhibitors. how many drug manufacturers are there in the united states? 590t: today we have over exhibitors but they come from all over the world. i did not have the specific number on hand. and i believe it is well over 300. so international people build these as well? guest: this is a global technology. we mentioned agriculture being one of the biggest things you will see as utilization. also, when you look at wild fires, monitoring weather. hazardous conditions. recently obviously with fukushima and katrina. when you need to have situational awareness or the

ability to provide a capability to an individual that may be stranded or in need of help, this is a great way to do it in a very cost-effective and safe manner. host: who is the largest builder in the u.s.? from a dollar standpoint and one from volume. to have situational awareness. many of the small ones that we less than 5 pounds, they operate for 20-30 minutes. if you have a situation where you had a critical incident that took place. when the first responders got on the site in oklahoma with the debris and smoke, the individuals could not go in and do their job because they did not know if there was a bomb, and did not know if there was a gas leak. if they have the capability of

flying it up to the building, it would have made the job of a lot easier. anytime you see where the men and women that are trained and responsible perform these missions, this is a tool that allows the to do their job better. host: cameras typically attach to these systems? what else could be attached? industry,the farming there will probably sensors that understand photosynthesis or the chemical makeup of the soil and things of this nature, which those devices exist in developing even more of them. getf you are trying to pictures, you will have a camera on it.n -- if you are trying to find out when to pick something, you may

the vice.nting so now farmers can know exactly when they should harvest the crop. maybe they do have at one point in time and wait a week or two. which means they get a higher yield, do not waste as much of the fruit. .o get a better product host: host: cameras are privacy concerns. how you answer people who are concerned about this? it so peopleu who are concerned about this? guest: with any technology, you have to use it in a responsible way. that is no different than the internet. we are at a point where we are writing bullying laws because some people aren't as using the technology to do things it is not supposed to be done.

we have had privacy laws. peeping tom laws and privacy laws. it says if you break the law, you are held accountable with -- whether you do it with a man that system, unman the system or binoculars across the street. if you break the law, you are held accountable. host: specific laws are needed for this industry? guest: the fourth amendment has been around for 422 years. a lot of technologies developed during that timeframe. he looked up phones, cell phones, satellite technology. usually when we talk about the privacy issue, it is about the collection of data. it is the collection of the data and how it is being analyzed and stored and how it is being disseminated and how it is being destroyed. that is true with much of the data we're talking about. so it is not how you collect it,

it is what happens after. host: 8 from texas. independent line. -- dave. caller: you mentioned 1,000 feet and a low for the ranch land. any type of height restriction over residential or will they be able to fly to feet above the roof of your house? you say about the privacy issues, that is the government that has gone to process privacy issues. if they are the ones pricking privacy, how will we hold them responsible? operationin, and the -- any operation and all of the private citizens are getting involved with. you may say we will of the use these systems for these particular applications or if you are going to use them, this is how you have to do it. you have to do it in a safe matter and all local walls of the rules.

that is what they're there for. is michaelguest toscano . our next guest is jordan in maryland. think theat do you unmanned vehicles are used as far as the fire department, police department and other local government? again, a lot of the civil applications are ideal. the men and women are trained to do their job better than anyone else. obviously search and rescue is very important. fire fighting very important. a lot of them in the park ranger were that the do monitoring of the environment or the condition. monitoringook at noah

weather and the tornadoes throughout the world, hurricanes, floods -- all of these things that affect us as human beings, this is a better way for us to understand the operational environment to the environment for which we live and other species here as well. monetary the wildlife to be able to understand so we do not disturb their habitat or make sure we can live in harmony. this gives us more situational awareness. you talked about training that goes for the operators of these systems. is there a standard training done as far as time and technical capability and things of that nature? guest: we're still in the process of determining what the standards will be. because this is a family of systems -- obviously the training of something that is 2 pounds and live 40 feet high and line of sight will be different from something you fly that will

go beyond the line of sight in much different altitudes. there is no one answer i can give you. depends on what operational environment is. host: jordan in maryland. i think we lost him. youra little bit about role, especially here on capitol hill. i suspect you and others in the industry talk to folks on capitol hill. what has been the basis of the issue? what do you talk about most? guest: the association for unmanned vehicle systems international is the advancement of unmanned system. so we're talking mostly about unmanned aircraft systems. withd many conversations lawmakers, stakeholders.

this is to make sure people understand how technology can benefit their life. there is a lot of information as we talked about the beginning of the segment that even the word drone has a negative connotation to it. that is not with these systems are. anytime you have had a system where you needed the information to have this, if you have ever had a lost child, you want them to have the best tools possible to be able to get a good result in a timely manner. that is what this technology brings. human being that is in the loop or on the loop that is making the decision. this is just an extension of the eyes and ears of the human being in order to do their job in a much more efficient way. congress, are to there specific laws you are

talking about? guest: the privacy issue is something we talked to them on a regular basis because no one wants their privacy to be invaded or taken away. this is just like any other technology we have to deal with. we meet with the congressional and decision makers. many will tell you they understand the economic impact this technology can have in their states and from a national standpoint and global standpoint. within the first three years when we get into the national airspace, you will have 70,000 new jobs created. $13.6 billion of economic impact. the first 10 years the numbers will go up dramatically. over 90 billion in impact. this can help grow the economy, create new and exciting and good paying jobs. it allows people to be more effective and efficient and what they do today. 39 states so far have walls and bills that specifically deal with search

warrants. what does it say that some mistakes have some type of law dealing with this issue? thet: again, this is on minds of some of the people because they recognize this technology is something different. that is because it is new and revolutionary, and some call it disruptive. once you explain to them how this will be used and how the technology can better their lives and make it beneficial to all of mankind, 20 of those states have defeated the legislation. yes, there are some that are put in place. should make no difference. the operation is technology

agnostic when it comes to the laws we have when it pertains to privacy. that is one of the biggest things people miss. it is not about the aircraft that flies. this is about data collection. we should address the issue of data collection and let the technology be available for everyone to take advantage. host: this pretty much has to come down the pike in your mind? guest: correct. host: josh on the republican line. caller: i was in the marine corps infantry for five years, and what of my jobs was to get small two-person drowned. , weink the largest part used it for reconnaissance. one of the problems or

confusions in the popular is the lack ofy knowledge as to what is the difference between a war fighting drowned like a predator drowned or something like a global hoc or something like this and what is of reconnaissance drone and what would be used on domestic soil? we envision predator drums with missiles flying over the communities, which would not be the case at all, which would be incredibly expensive. here is where i disagree with you. he said he would not need specific loss but you were referring to statute laws that

would be specifically about drones and privacy and things like that. the vast majority of the fourth amendment protections as technology has increased from wiretaps to registries to infrared detection devices has been jurisprudence. notnnot imagine we would see massive litigation based on privacy issues in relation to unmanned drones. host: let's let the guest respond. guest: i am not a lawyer, and it did not stay at the holiday inn. the answer i will give you is yes, we will see the legislative with theeract

technology is used in a more expansive way. it is 50 years after the internet has been introduced that we are now writing bullying lolls about the internet. the technology has to be utilized and we have to go through the normal process of finding out exactly how this technology will be integrated in safe and acceptable way. here we are five or six or seven generations later. in the technology has evolved into what we want it to be in order to be able to do the things we feel are important to us and do it in a safe manner. they can tweet saying be used but our way to undermine our liberty and freedom. guest: i disagree. if you use the technology in a very responsible way, you will

make mankind a better place to be. when you do not have to send men and women into the dirty, dangerous, in difficult places fukishima,u look at they knew they would not live much longer. we at technology today that can that did not have to happen. where welook at places physically cannot go because as human beings we are too frail, now you can do exploration and find out wonders of the world that we dream about at times. this is what technology allows you to do, and it will make for more efficient a line, and i want my grandkids -- wife, and i want my grandkids -- life, and i want my grandkids.

caller: i had two questions for the speaker. what is the outlook for california, and have they done any studies on hacking into unmanned vehicles? guest: the issue of safety is important, but an electronic device that we have has to have the connections built into it so people can not hack into it or it is not in and certainly disrupted from operation. we go through great lengths, whether it be in the inking industry, the electronics industry, to make sure anything using electrons back and forth are done in a safe way. it, there is no leap ahead technology.

the centers already exist. you can buy them at walmart or any electronics store. would you are doing is you are having a mobile platform that allows you to do it in a much more safe and efficient way than we were doing things before. host: our guest, michael toscano, he is the president and ceo of the association holding this event in washington, d.c., and he will be with us for a half-hour. if you want to give him a call, he will stay with us. we will take a break, look around what is going on at the convention center. we have been talking a lot about unmanned vehicle systems. some do work on the ground as

well. host: you are talking about technology with michael toscano. michaelere with fleming, the ceo of torque robotics. what have you invented? a modewe have invented control and self-driving kits for any ground vehicle, so whether it is an suv, or a construction piece of equipment, we can convert that into an unmanned vehicle. that means the vehicle can be operated without anyone in the cab and we can place an operator and a safe distance. like mike mentioned with instance, that was an where we could not send workers into an area that had a certain

amount of radiation. what we can do is send a vehicle like the skid loader, have an operator miles away, and be able to perform the work necessary to mitigate the fukushima incident to radiation.ng host: you have partnered with caterpillar, and is this technology being used by the company? guest: we have a great relationship with caterpillar. we have worked with engineers to make sure our robotic kit can be and by implemented, quickly i mean 30 minutes. host: how did you go about inventing this technology? guest: the origin was developed

from self-driving technology. this was commercialized for the mining market and the military market. there was technology adopted out of carnegie mellon. host: the defense advanced research program agency -- they do this type of technology -- creating the internet, advancing technology as we know it. so, the on what you just talked about for the government, what are the commercial uses for this technology? work in guest: we did retrofitting an suv to enable the blind to drive. there was an event at the daytona international speedway where we have blind drivers racing around the speedway. it was a great event to bring awareness to this technology,

thehow it can reduce enable those that are disabled to do what you and i do every day. host: you were at virginia tech. who competed in the competition? guest: there were 89 teams. they were selected down to 11. three teams finished the competition, and we were lucky enough to have the technology and pardon the -- pardon it here p harden it. host: you were a student? student, and i was very fortunate to hire those at virginia tech. who competed in the competition? guest: there were 89 teams. they were selected downstudents.

we could not have done it without them. host: what about the cost? about the base camp cost $40,000. you can operate the skid loader several miles away. host: do you have a government contract yet? guest: we have a lot of government contracts. the military is excited about using this technology. anytime we create a distance between a war fighter and a major situation, it is a promising thing. host: are you using this in afghanistan? guest: yes. host: how is it being used? guest: rather than having a war fighter get in close proximity to an ied, they can perform the function robotically. host: michael fleming, ceo of torc robotics, thank you. guest: thank you.

host: it is an event sponsored by the association of unmanned vehicles international. president and ceo michael toscano is joining you. the previous guest talk about work with pentagon. does your association talk to the pentagon? guest: very much so. in research on labs. there is tremendous research being done. there are a lot of elementary collegesigh schools, involved in the research of unmanned systems, and this is one of the great ways of getting young people involved in the science, mathematics and discovery process. darpa.ork with .ost: ross

thank you for holding on. caller: good morning. i have to share some concerns about this technology. have are a few reasons i concerns about this technology. as we all witnessed over the last few months here, with the nsa and what has happened to our computers, cell phones, and information being stored, this appears to be another technology bit.could be abused a i think if we do not have more laws in place there could be some very serious concerns in regards to these unmanned vehicles. guest: ross, i has an individual, understand the

concern from a big data standpoint about how data is collected, stored, disseminated and destroyed. that is what you are talking about. this technology, unmanned systems, has a large capacity to make everyone's life better. that is a tremendous upside you have to this technology. the technology is agnostic to the issue you are talking to. it is a different issue when talking about this capability. if you have ever had a situation with fires, floods or natural disasters -- 80% of all firefighters are volunteer. you want to make sure those men and women have the best tools for them to use when they execute the job they are given to do. in many cases, other people's lives are on the line. i understand your concern and it is something we have to address in the big picture, but when you

look at this technology, do not link them together into you have to hold the data because of those concerns. host: there was a story about a south african outdoor rock festival where people could order a beer and have it by a drum. that prompted a response from rand paul -- "perhaps i am not against all drones." what does rand paul bring to the discussion in your opinion? guest: when you look at this technology, you can pick and choose the point you want to make, but let's look at delivering pizza or tacos or and, but when the monsoons regions are wiped out. how do you get medical supplies, their essential's, -- the bare

essentials to people to keep people alive? using an unmanned system, you can do that. delivering in a more effective and efficient way, that is a good capability to have, and if you use it in the appropriate way, you can save lives and make sure we do not have pandemic diseases around the world. host: and about senator paul's contribution to the conversation? guest: i will leave it at that. the senator has his viewpoint, and i am not sure what point he was trying to make. i know the capabilities of the technology and what it can do to help mankind. oklahoma,homa city, republican line. bonnie. caller: did i hear the man say these drones are being used for

crop surveying? guest: they can be, yes. caller: i do not know if it was another gentleman or not, but america, you had better wake up. this surveillance program is going right to the mark of the beast. why do you think they need that surveillance thing? antichrist is already here. the next is the black corpse, and he is famine. when you start to use the drones for surveying our crops and knowing where the food is, you're going to have to take the mark or starve to death. we talked about the issue of privacy. how often when you have conversations does the issue of privacy,? -- come up?

and weit comes up often, try do have people understand the concerns and how we are doing with this with lawmakers, civil liberty groups in the proper stakeholders to make sure fourth amendment rights, privacy laws, peeping tom laws and all -- to ensure exist we are compliant with them. the me just say one more thing. right now, we have about 7 billion people in the world. away, we willars have 9 billion people. that is another 2 billion people

on this planet. right now we do not have enough food to feed everybody. that is another 2 billion people on this planet. right now we do not have enough food to feed everybody. if we do not increase our yield and output in a more productive way, we will have difficulties in the future that will be tremendous in size. when i talk about using unmanned systems for agriculture, it is to help the farmers to know how to grow crops better than anyone else, do it in a much more effective and efficient way to make sure we have food for the next couple of generations. host: orlando, florida. dan. democrats line. as you are aware, there are tons being used overseas at home, with recent testing in operation florida and operation washington. i'm curious if you can give the difference in how small, tohered air stats compared unmanned vehicles? guest: with an arrow step that tethered, you have determined a cabling system that limits its

mobility, but allows you to have orore but -- more continuity the carrying of a sensor package. kit is now ation hardwired. there is still a ground station and there is still a human being involved in the process. it is just a different version of what we are talking about, where the only difference is the communication link. it is an effect of, capable system, but it does have limitations in how far you can fly it or how you would utilize effective is a very technology and we are finding more and more use for the aerostat. programr guest was the manager for research and

development for nuclear safety for the secretary of defense, and an advisor on the roles of unmanned vehicle. he has bachelor of science degrees from the university of rhode island. cottonwood, alabama. independent line. caller: thank you. workswondering how this with policing agencies. could they do surveillance on a possible person they suspect of committing a criminal act such as developing a drug or whatever in the home, and is it possible for the agency to use this technology to procure video and stream it to a judicial official

? it would be very easy. you could even use the current iosyou could buy now and an and at a microphone to it. i wonder how effective that would be and how that would impede on the constitutional rights of our privacy. guest: ok. i hope i understand the question correctly, but the law that exists today for either warrants or any of the search matters, regardless of this technology, they are in place and they would have to abide by those same laws. the same laws that exist for manned systems or police forcopters, would exist these. the only difference is the pilot is at a different location --

instead of being in the pilot seat, he or she is at a safe location. whatever laws that exist, those are the ones we will have to follow. i am trying to make sure you understand the separation of the capability that is here and the concerns that we are having. again, from a law-enforcement standpoint, you have to remember the usage of this will be less than 5%. on the public safety side, when you're talking about firefighting, and i think everyone wants to make sure firefighters are given the best tools to put out the fire in a safeway, do their job and make sure they come home at night as well. the search-and-rescue, park rangers -- there are a lot of applications, and everyone fixates on the law enforcement. of the 18,000 law enforcement entities in this country, less than 600 have air assets,

helicopters, and it is usually big cities that have them. the rest of the folks that need to have that when you have a small police department that does not have the manpower, but theyally the same crime, still need to have the best resources to protect those men and women and the people that they serve. again, we have a structure in place. this is just one more tool that allows those men and women to do the job they do in a much more effective and efficient way to help save lives in the community in an appropriate way. mr. toscano, if more laws come into place, when, in your mind do the laws get to restrictive? not sure i can answer that. i am not a lawyer, but i know the technology has a tremendous upside. we are fixating on the law enforcement side. even if that was taken off the

table, you will have 95% of the technology utilized to help mankind eat, enjoy life in a much more effective way, finding discoveries we never had before because it was too difficult to explore the bottom of a mountain, -- top le monde the mountain or bottom of the notion third -- ocean. host: bob. pennsylvania. caller: good morning. times haso, how many a company like yours shown pictures like this to high school students to get them interested in the fields? all we hear about is the negative. interested inds the positive ways of helping one another? guest: you are spot on.

these generations that are coming up -- i have a two and a half-year-old grandson. he is a digital native. he has no apprehension. he can use an ipad easily. he will be utilizing this technology in elementary school, high school. we will have a couple hundred young, high school folks at this convention this week. we have a foundation that there whole purpose in life is to help educate young men and women on the science, technology, engineering and mathematics that exists around this technology. it is fun. it is the kids played with big toys. people haveassion an understanding how how it will make life a better place to live.

host: we have found several websites where you can purchase this type of technology. on twitter there is a question about an entry-level cost as far as the drone is concerned. what could someone get into if they were interested in buying one themselves? guest: if you go to our uvsi.org, wewww.a will get you the information. demonstrations here of what is being used in classrooms to help people understand how they can take three motors with piping and a flotation device and create something that they can operate in water tanks or in the ocean to do exploration. it is fascinating.

you watch the young men and women pick it up very quick. they are adaptable. it stimulates their minds and it is exciting. there are tremendous progress. if you get to the website, we can get even information. >> there is a link to our c-span -- host: there is a link on our c-span site. don is asking -- once the technology becomes common, what prevents drone from being completely automated? guest: i do not like the word automated. there is only lazy human being involved in it. we might tell something to do a particular mission. this is part of the evolution that we have. elevators have become autonomous, i guess, because you do not have a person taking you up and down. this is happening more and more. in a different realm, looking at

automated vehicles, in the future, you might have the ability to get from point a to point b, just by getting into a vehicle, telling it where you want to go and it will do it. right now in this country we have 87 billion hours of congestion -- man-hours lost to congestion. we have 32,000 deaths, costing us $256 billion a year in damages -- medical and associated with accidents. does that mean you will not be able to drive your 1964 mustang question mark the answer is -- mustang? the answer is no. just like when we introduced the automobiles, we did not do away with horses. people like to ride horses and

have horses. the same would be true with cars. you will still have a car, but you might not have a car that drive that -- that you physically both ways, and now you can do more productive things like reading, exercising or texting, let young people do good -- people do. host: independent line. north carolina. good morning. yes or no, can these unmanned vehicles the armed? guest: the answer is no. they cannot be launched from a civil aircraft. host: alabama. democrats line. caller: i. mr. toscano.

guest: good morning. caller: something has me rattled. you found a way to get around the privacy law, the 400 foot policy love i going -- law by going from fixed wing and non- fixed wing. what other long can you get around? guest: i am not sure what you mean. the faa has regulated that there is no -- has mandated there is no fixed wing. can fly belowthat 400 feet. what we are saying is below 400 safe for operating the systems. safety is paramount.

we need to make sure anything we put in the national airspace is done so in a safe manner. host: mr. toscano, we see demonstrations of the types of things, what does the future hold in their size, shape and capability? guest: you hear people talk about moore's law, which is the opposite -- a vocational capability to double -- copy additional capability to double at half the cost. we have seen a tremendous amount of advancement in high definition television, cell phones, automobiles. this is happening on a continuous basis. if i were to say to you go back and look at 10 years ago, which is five evolutions of moore's law, look at where we were. i will pick up my cell phone. the cell phone in the year 2000

-- 2% of the world had cell phone capability. 13 years later, 70% of the world as cell phone capability. that is a huge increase. i am asking you now, if we were to go five more evolutions in the future, the, what we would have with these capabilities. it is exciting and promising to have a better place to be on this planet and there is a tremendous opportunity for these unmanned systems to give you that capability. host: domestic sellers -- are they mainly produced in the united states and which states have the most type of these companies? on who you talk to, i would say the united states still has an edge on this technology but it is a global technology and there are many other places that recognize this opportunity for the manufacturing of the systems and are doing so as well.

host: washington, d.c.. independent line. caller: good morning. in thepakistani situated seat and i have spent the past few years doing research on drones, particularly the use of drones in pakistan. if you couldng i ink about the role of auvs the use of drones over places like pakistan and yemen and if you feel any responsibility for the loss of life? guest: that is a question that needs to be answered by our leadership, elected officials and military. a tremendousgy has ability for saving lives and producing a better quality of life. i would say there are situations where the military has to perform to protect the freedoms

of this country and of the world. that is decisions that they make. event there, you have been greeted by protesters. there is a photo in "the pink.gton times" of code what has been your reaction to their presence? guest: i value the right of freedom of speech, and that is a prerogative and a right that everybody has. i do not think they have their facts and figures right. i cannot believe they are against feeding people in the world and having safer operations for the men and women that in many cases might have saved their lives in the past. host: what you mean by getting the facts and figures right? guest: the ability to use this technology in appropriate ways would allow life-saving capability.

viewer asking a about the possibility of interception of the controlled vehicles. is that a concern. electronic device has the ability to have situations that interfere with the technology, but we go to great lengths to make sure the precautions and safeguards are put in their. host: fill up venice, florida. democrats line. caller: keeping with moore's law, with the increase in the some ofvy generation, them going to a field somewhere, putting weaponry on it, and committing crimes -- how do you prevent that, the same with the , a dirty bombts

or something coming in that way? it is just a thought and a concern. this is obviously a valid concern and something that has to be addressed, and it is no different than the world we live in today. you can do the same thing with a man system as opposed to an unmanned system. we under stand the concerns -- we understand the concerns. again, these are illegal acts. we need to make sure bad people do not do bad things. that is what causes us -- in some cases this is technology that can prevent those people from doing that stuff. host: as far as the event, we heard from you, we have seen some forms. what other things happen? guest: a lot of good interaction. we spoke about the young people. these are just the kids -- big

kids. when you have the conversations taking place, these men and women are going through discovery for many, many years. there are business-type opportunities. there are educational aspects with people having a better understanding of what this technology can do. it is an outstanding forum. i encourage people to look this technology up, understand how it can make your life better. you have our website. host: randy, you shouldn't. independent line -- michigan. independent line. is thesey opinion drones will be armed and used against the american people, and mr. toscano, you are making dollars to sell us on these drones, and i wonder if the american people have gotten on start pace.com to look at the

blimps that are looking at us every night with reconnaissance research being done. the homelandn security blimps. what are they doing in the sky every night? caller, thank you. mr. toscano? guest: we have government officials, people we entrust to protect our rights and make sure they are not violated. this is a safe, free place to live, and i support those individuals. host: glenn. new york. independent line. iwatch glenn beck. i recommend everybody watching. he had a young man on there that knew a lot about drones. you are not telling the whole truth here.

you're making it sound really good. it will help things. they will not back the technology up, and everyone should understand that, but the thing is you do not need a pilot . all you need is a computer technician. you can computerize these things, and they have done it, and program them with a gps, and they will do anything you want. you can go have dinner, come back, and they will give you your pictures or whatever. they will be weapon is my somebody. in fact, they're already have been. there was a guy who had a drone that was specifically built to shoot down a government drone. a question forve the guest? caller: we have to get the laws in place, but technology has outstripped our ability. -- the, everybody

technology is way past what humans are capable of doing. that what about the idea technology sometimes surpasses laws put in place and how does that relate to your industry? guest: i cannot disagree that the technology is fast moving and sometimes our laws take more time because we have to make sure we get them right the first time so that we do not have to change them. it is no different with any type of revolutionary technology or evolving technology that we have seen. i can agree with that point, but i cannot agree with anyone that and they will weapon eyes these things. if you fire one of those weapons, and you cause any damage, first, you will be sued, and you will be thrown in jail. .hat happens today you can have an automobile that can go 120 miles an hour. if you do, and you kill

somebody, you'll be thrown in jail because you missed use that technology. obviously, you can tell i am passionate about this. you cannot break the law. the utilization of any technology. >> -- host: michael toscano is the president and ceo of the association for unmanned vehicle systems international and he joins us from their event in washington, d.c.. thank you. guest: thank you. host: coming up, how does law enforcement deal with the implementation of unmanned vehicles -- our next guest is alan frazier was a deputy sheriff in north dakota. he is part of an event we have been talking about. greta bronner has more. host: we are here with the vice president of innovations at the sikorsky company.

why are there no windows in this helicopter? is sarah.s we have added so much intelligence to the helicopter that it can fly itself. we see versions that will fly completely autonomously and other versions that might have the windows. technology that it helps compensated tasks. host: is this operational? is a model. sara has a big brother with a

black hawk. company buildr helicopters? helicopterske large like this, that carries 12 passengers, all the way to those that are 80,000 pounds. unmanned part of this -- what is the technology -- what are you creating? a set we are introducing of software called matrix technology. thes almost a play on movie, but the helicopter creates a virtual representation of the world, so would understand how it is flying, where it is in space and how to move through that space having sensors that populate a supercomputer onboard the help and understand what it is doing and how to navigate through obstacles. host: what is the cost of ssar -- sara>

guest: it is a research project. it has been great to get feedback from customers and what they are interested in. as we understand, we will get to specific products and understand their cost. will it be millions once you understand the technology? guest: sure. taking this helicopter, this is a $12 million asset. adding the flight-control computers and technology we are talking about will increase the cost, but we will attack the lifecycle cost by taking out cruise, flying with one pilot instead of ew oh, and in some missions, no pilot -- two, and in some missions, no pilot. host: what goes into the lifecycle of a helicopter? developmentriginal

cost -- the design and development of a new platform. one of the exciting things is we can use existing platforms -- existing that have served the nation for 20 years and can now move into autonomous cargo movers, or example, or 76's already out in the fleet. the next lifecycle cost is the procurement of the system, and one of the neat things is we can use existing assets and interbank this advanced nature -- integrated this advanced matrix technology and support operations. used do you see this being in the military and how do you see it used commercially? guest: moving cargo is a logical early application. we can put cargo inside or externally, move it 150 knots across the battlefield, said it down to resupply forces without

the large convoys we have seen in action in the war. in commercial application, we have been talking to operators about offshore oil support, moving cargo to the oil rigs with fully autonomous platforms. in the near-term, it will be safety improvement to helicopters that have to helicopter up front. host: how many flight hours does the helicopter have? what are you hoping to build on its current capabilities? the platform has millions of flight hours. matrix, we are six hours in. we have been working on this technology for years. we have 200 more exciting hours to come. host: how will you do that? how much resource money will that take?

guest: it is a significant investment from sikorsky aircraft. we are using internal funds. host: chris, the vice president of sikorsky innovations, thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: you just heard from michael toscano, the president and ceo of the corporation. one of the several voices letting their thoughts and opinions known, law enforcement. join us to have that discussion, alan frazier, who is not only a deputy sheriff at the grand forks, north dakota, sheriffs department, but he is also a science professor. welcome to "washington journal." guest: good morning. thank you. host: from your law enforcement hat, can you give viewers a sense of how departments like

yours are using drones? guest: it has been in public safety -- looking for lost persons, assisting fire departments with assessing fire scenes. as far as i know there has been no overt use whatsoever -- covert use whatsoever. it has been assessing damage after natural disasters. host: how many drones do you have and how often do you use them? have four. we have only use them on two occasions to date. training?o years of guest: we are using a variety of systems for distinctly different aircraft and doing a lot of situational training. prior to using them in actual situations, we wanted to make sure personal was comfortable

with the operation of the systems and comfortable with using them in simulated law enforcement and disaster scenarios. is having this technology cost prohibitive? guest: i would not say it is cost prohibitive. it is one of the great as.antages of small u you have to understand these are completely different systems than what the department of defense is using. these are small systems. think an rc controlled aircraft. they're much smaller and more affordable. the 19,000 law agencies that mr. mentioned, those agencies have access to some type of i in the sky to be able -- i in the sky to be able to do that disastrous assessment. cost?what was the

guest: the most inexpensive is approximately 25 thousand dollars, and the most expensive is about $170,000. depending on which system we were discussing, that is the price range. host: our guest is joining us for a half-hour, maybe longer, to talk about law enforcement concerns when it comes to the use of this technology. alan frazier, from north dakota. you can asked him questions on three lines. mr. alan frazier, one is a warrant or some type of legal document come into play when it comes to the use of this technology? guest: at any point that we feel we would be infringing on a reasonable expectation of privacy of the public. pedro, is theing, use of this technology in a

domestic situation is so new that the cases have not filtered through the court system, so we are relying i merrily on man air support cases -- primarily on demand air support cases. ishares department in florida and utilized a manned helicopter to conduct observation of private property from about 400 feet above ground level. a are using that as guideline. if we were a to conduct surveillance below 400 feet, we would seek a search warrant. we have not had to do that because we have not used it for those type of your law enforcement purposes, but were that type of situation to come up, that is the guideline we are currently utilizing. host: who would be the person you turn to for the one? warrant.t --

guest: we would go through our detectives. host: what you think about the idea of moral laws put in place on the federal and state level, and how does that affect activities? guest: it is premature for states and the federal government to enact laws at this point. i would compare it to telecommunications. telephone technology was in place for many years before laws were enacted to provide detection. at this point, enacting laws at the federal or state level would have a chilling affect on the expansion of this technology. to my knowledge there has been no problems with the use of technology and that law enacted now would be fixing something that is not broken. let's let the technology evolve and expand, and if and when

problems are identified, that is a time to start legislating and enacting laws that might prevent future problems. host: as a law enforcement official, how do you talk to people about privacy concerns? guest: i tried to tell them about the protections that we have. at the grand forks sheriff's department, there is extensive policy directed solely at our unmanned units, and a significant part of that policy directs deputies and personnel to respect the rights of the public, the fourth amendment and case law in the area of aerial searches. we also utilize an outside putittee of 15 that was together by the university of north dakota and it involves the community, but with safety, university personnel and even the government officials. every mission set has been added -- vettedat committee

through that committee and received approval in we look at that committee -- approval. we look at that committee as our guidance and for what meets standards. host: who chooses who is on the committee? vice: it was chosen by the president of research at the university of north dakota, and objectively be trying to make it diverse. host: would you say there are those on the committee that are skeptical about drone used and offer their opinion as such? guest: yes, i would. especially in the beginning, there were some misunderstandings. members, theyhe thought what we would be using would be akin to a global or a predator. there was -- global hawk or a predator.

host: the law on one enforcement role in law enforcement for the use of drones. our guest is alan frazier, a professor of aerospace sciences at the university of north dakota. chuck. auburn hills, michigan. caller: i am 63 years old. i am no spring chicken. when i hear about these new devices for law enforcement, military, and so on and so forth, i flashback to a poster i saw when i was a young kid about the berlin wall, and it was about a russian soldier running across barbed wire to escape communist russia. "isn't itption was strange that they have to have guards to watch the guards?" you sayion to you is you have a committee to check on the people that are in control

of these things, but what happens if one person decides to do damage? the damage is done before you come to your committee. should this type of power be put in the hands of people that might have emotional or mental problems and they are in a powerful position? guest: you have a two part question. let me address the screening of the personnel utilizing the technology. every law enforcement entity in the nation has a screening process, and in most cases, a robust psychological screening. we are utilizing law enforcement personnel supervising the operations that have been through this weaning process. -- been through that process is so, hopefully, that is limiting or reducing the amount of people that would have the ability to use this technology inappropriately. secondly, with any type of

technology or tool, there is the potential a law enforcement officer or someone in public safety would misuse the technology. yes, there is the possibility. what would happen if that is detected? as a law enforcement agency, we would investigate that as we would for any allegation of misconduct, and if the allegation was sustained, we with discipline the deputy anything from a reprimand, to potential criminal prosecution. we take the trusting of the people -- we take the trust we have been given very seriously. i am the chief pilot. i would be the line level supervisor. i work for a lieutenant who is the first up in the administrative chain and he answers directly to the sheriff. from wisconsin on the

democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: the question i have -- host: tim, go ahead. caller: sorry. person from a ground-level identify these unmanned vehicles? would they have numbers written on their like they do on a plane, and if so, how could a person without binoculars be able to see them? guest: that is an excellent question. the altitude at which most of these aircraft are operating is at or below 400 from a ground-level identify these unmanned feet above ground level. we comply with the police guideline in that our aircraft are easy to see as far as the coloration of them. they are in bright colors.

there is no attempt on our part to make these aircraft covert. our policy at the grand forks sheriff's department prohibits covert use of the aircraft. it would be relatively easy for someone on the ground to see the aircraft. they do not currently have numbers on them. that is possibly a good idea as the number of vehicles increases, a right we are you the only agency in the entire state -- but right now we are the only agency in the entire state operating these aircraft, so anyone who saw the aircraft could make a reasonable guess it is associated with our program and it is widely known we are the only agency operating the aircraft. at this point, it would be natural for someone who had a concern about the aircraft to call the grand forks sheriff's department. host: what is attached to the aircraft? justin -- just a camera?

guest: just a camera. most of the technology you could buy at best buy. we have some infrared technology that looks for heat signatures, but it is relatively low resolution infrared. that is a mechanism of the weight of the payload, the ability of the small aircraft to carry a payload. they could not carry something that would have the sophistication we could put on a manned aircraft. policyne policy -- what exists for how this information is handled and kept? guest: excellent question. in our policy we have a minimization section that would dictate that deputies would delete nonessential images and those are images that are classified as not having evidentiary value or value to the current search for a lost person or assessment of a disaster. --y are in imminent

immediately eliminated in the field. there is no archiving whatsoever. if an image has value in evaluating the effects of a natural disaster, that evidence or those images are handled as evidence, so they are safeguarded by the deputy and booked into property and evidence of the grand forks sheriff's department or the other agency we are assisting because we actually have a mutual aid area that encompasses department, and each has slightly different evidence protection policies. the policy that would dictate how that evidence is stored would be the individual agencies policy that we are assisting at the time. host: because you are the chief operator, are you the one that makes the call to whether something is essential or nonessential? guest: no, that could be me, but

more commonly it would be one of our system operators. we feel they are in the best position because they view the images and actually control what we are capturing to determine what has evidentiary valley and what does not work -- value and what does not. host: pennsylvania. republican line. this is george. caller: good morning. thank you for your program. how are these small drones different from the old -- not old, but radio-controlled aircraft that amateurs fly around here? i have a radio-controlled boat > in some cases there is no differen difference. any of them is have it in remote so there is very little difference. small enesis is department of defense systems and in those cases just the testing this the components have

gone through to determine their robustness is greater than what an r.c. see in aircraft. but as far as the sophistication the aircraft, rd in every case i can think of no sophisticated than r.c. hobbyists using. host: jeremy up next from lawrence, kansas. independent line. caller: yes. i think that everybody wants the emerging technology to be used for the safeguarding of people servants of good faith. he issue becomes the footing that is taken and in this case he kind of technology the footing taken by the federal government is a replication of footing taken when the federal government started working with local law around the alleged ar on drugs, which is

militaristic that inputs weapons a war and tools of war and footing of that type into the enforcement. guest to d ask your comment comment. when we see the actual implementation of federal law with these drone technologies, -- the homeland security has named generals as he people who are going to oversee this, not civilians. it is a violation and if you see the replication in terms of the is what has it created centers around the have y to harmonize and local law enforcement to do the bidding of federal government disrupt constitutional ly rotected assembly and peaceful speech and local law enforcement to ensure they will protect the feds iftion against the

necessary. an inadequate m person to address the federal government's role and way they issue of sing the unmanned aircraft systems. but i can tell you that at a we are not addressing it as a militaristic of the technology. we have a completely transparent press. with the any legitimate member of the press that has contacted us from paper to my knowledge news networks we have cooperated with them, given them access to technology, allowed them to watch our training and given extensive interviews. there is no sniper on the grassy knoll. humanitarianit for purposes and we want the public to know about that and we has a right ublic to know about the capability of the technologies and how we are using them. host: does your state have any laws concerning drone operation? no.t:

there was a bill that made its way in the house and senate but didn't get senate approval. so, that was defeated in the senate. ut that was similar to many of the bills floating around through state legislatures country and had so draconian ieve, effects and i think it would have had a clinicaling effect on the expansion of the technology we are at a point where we don't know what we don't know deploy the e can aircraft systems we are not going to be able to determine hat their true capabilities are. and if privacy concerns are the to surface with technology. host: you said draconian in nature. give an example. the reporting requirements. every flight has to be reported. said you a clause that had to archive all of the footage which on one hand you allows the that

citizenry or independent body to at what we were capturing. but at least from our point of view at the sheriff's department, there were two problems with that. one, we felt that was counter to privacy of the public to be amassing potentially hundreds of many deployments of footage in many cases that would people not directly involved in the incident we were trying to analyze or gather on.dence so, we felt there was a problem there. econdarily, there is a problem especially as away start using ng -- as we start the technology to have enough server space it archive say a that uses the technology frequently, being of to archive hundreds hours of footage that is taken from it. so, we felt those things were misguided in the bill and were going to present to us technically

privacy-wise. host: david from arizona, democrats line. caller: it is arkansas. i'm a first-time caller. i have been listening to y'all to be the main problem with this technology is and how it is y going to be used. i was wondering -- and this may been touched on in your conversations prior -- is to catch a g.p.s. that o the drone in which would be archived, not necessarily the footage but just the locations, where the drone was flying, times and stuff like that could generally be, if it is for humanitarian purposes, accessed through one's iphone for example where citizenry would know exactly

where this drone is, where it is it is doing?at thank you very much. the answer is yes. in fact, each of the four ircraft we are current qualityizing are g.p.s. enabled. they capture that data and we do keep that. so there are mission files created each time we fly the aircraft. the g.p.s. coordinates that the at are were flown captured. now, making them available to a public, i think in humanitarian mission there would be no problem with that at all. only using them for humanitarian missions now there is the potential that they use them for, say, a tactical mission in the fort barricaded hostage situations, that type of thing. i think the answer is yes. i think we are walking along the concerns there

as well. so, is it feasible that that could be released to the public? yes. but it is something i would want closely with our state's attorney on as to whether or not that with praoeufrivacy of the public we are protecting. host: he's with the university f and mr. frazier there was a story stemming from last year about your state when came it drones. it said a north dakota court upheld the first ever use of unmanned drone in the arrest of an american citizens. host: can you expand on this

case and arguments being made by question?n in guest: i don't have a wealth of information on this case, but personally acquainted with the sheriff of nelson county transpired.ident i have met with him on it. n fact, as the incident was -- it was a multi-week incident from his first contact with this individual and that individual's family. i want to applaud the sheriff restraint he utilized in that incident. something , it is that i think cover expanded into or ruby pe of incident ridge type of incident, and keen,gh his, i think, very thoughtful consideration of how to handle it, in reaching out to other experts in the area about an appropriate way to peacefully resolve that, i think he should applauded for it. it is interesting, there was an "los angeles

times" that wanted to haracterize that incident as ling but that was the cattle wapbtder d -- wandered on to his property but he allegedly said was going to utilize force to shiv sheriff deputies from on his property. so the use of the system didn't gather evidence. it was a citizen and officer safety tool to determine when it deputiessafe for those to approach the accused persons on take them in custody lawfully issued warrants from a judge in nelson county. host: call from silver spring, maryland, independent line. thank you. my question is regarding the use vehicles in nned

public areas. areas andbout private the way that would be. but say would there be drones on highway taking a picture of my car when it is going fast? for example, god forbid there was an attack on american would these drones aid in capturing terrorists? events, these kinds of it could be said that unmanned drones -- would serve a beneficial event and and just implemented erode our privacy and in the end end up with very loose laws that will be misused we can see ed as what the government is trying to do but in is a lot of corruption and that is my question. guest: thank you for your question. really went into a broad spectrum from speed enforcement highway to trying to

prevent terrorism on u.s. soil. on the low side of that spectrum the utilization of these types of systems for speed don't seet, i hope we that and don't think we will. they are not particularly adept at that. markings at requires on the roadway and these lomw maximum very pace a vehicle on a highway or key two marks on a enforcement speed within their focal point of heir camera simultaneously is probably beyond the capability of most of these aircraft. in : there is a town colorado deer trail that is permit to shoot down drones and $100 if they hoot down a federal operated drone. you may have not heard of this or encountered something similar. your thoughts. . i have heard of it and my understanding is it was proposed as a was

city council resolution. i don't know the outcome. city ainly hope that the fathers in that town determined hat that was an inappropriate statue. anything in ing at the air is dangerous. when you put bullets up in the air they are coming down somewhere. they are not staying up there to bring down this unmanned aircraft. it is almost humorous and ridiculous. but were that town to actually that ordinance i would hope the federal government would f.a.a. apn andenthe statutes that make it a federal felony to fire at aircraft. host: one more call from california, independent line. my question is about weather and drones and having something in the air can be dangerous. what are the guidelines as far as using drones during marginal bad weather?

do you finded about weather can able to use being them? with you use them where you wouldn't send out a manned are you more cautious with unmanned vehicles? guest: currently aware more -- we are more cautious. e have a lot of different situations and all of the dispatched through the university of north dakota flight operations and we have a operateafety system and over 130 manned aircraft. and each of ouren manned dispatch -- ouren characteristaircraft is dispat and not only the pilot has it make the determination that it be made same and somebody who doesn't have a dog in the experienced supervisor who is not at the unmanned aircraft system operation also agree that that operation can be performed safely. university of

north dakota flight policies and procedures and we have specific each of that relate to our unmanned aircraft system air rames and they have specific maximum wind components. we can only operate the aircraft during daytime hours. the aircraftperate when the ceiling or lowest we ds are at 1,000 feet and have at least three statute mails of visibility. and eather is a factor because of the small mass of these aircraft wind is a huge factor. so, most of these systems can't be operated in winds greater miles an hour. host: alan frazier from the sheriff's department. thank you. guest: thank you, pedro. more again, we will have of this conversation taking a look at this topic. up next we will look at the hand inconcerns that go hand when this type of discussion companies up. aclu will ey with the

join us. more from this event in washington, d.c. >> we have the director of their systems and we are at their exhibit to alk about a boat that you have set up, unmanned boat. michael, tell us about this technology. looking at?ay -- we >> we have a 11-foot boat. electrical optical camera to allow us to see ahead very sically drive there much. we have a gun mount to show it does have a military application a customer. e can put additional sensing capabilitys in that position as well. this particular model is set up motor so ectric drive that gives us a very quiet kind it to move allows around without being very obtrusive. can imagine, you

will allow us to put solar anels on it and do wind generation so it allows us put it out there and do collections a long period of time. >> how do you see it being used? >> this could be used several ways. it could be used as a surveillance tool if you have an .rea it look at when i say surveillance i don't want to scare anyone away but checking simple as wildlife or to look for power ns if you have a plant, for example. and you want to send this on measure water quality nd make sure it is operating within its bounds. there is a lot of capability. >> what about some sort of disaster situation? >> we had the oil spill and so situation if you have a task that you want to go out and do some collection and don't to volume people and make sure they stay safe this would because you can

send it out and have it assess the situation and look around is there and bring that data whom and not endanger anyone. talk about le unmanned vehicles they mostly think of things flying in the air. don't think of beoats. hy did you put money into this type of technology? >> that's a great question. flying machines and we discovered that part of to problem is being able sense and see what is out this and avoid it. e thought that basically bringing that down to the water would allow us it develop some that with hnology solve that problem for actircra. found there was interest in it from various customers and we thought it might be a good offering. we have had some tremendous success at the show. we had someone who claims they want to buy one. hope to get a cashier's check. be? what would the number

>> i would say about $100,000 for the base. variables o many because the amount of electronics integration, sensor put on gy they want to it would drive the cause. >> it is 11 feet? feet.1 .> $100,000 for 11 feet >> well, there's a lot. there is the integration of control circuitry, communications. has to be robust. it can't get lost. all of that integration work and put being the pieces on there little bit of money. >> how do you see it being used? >> power plant. samples. we think about the ability to do that might be a good use for this particular much. those are probably the primary uses we are going after. where do you see this particul particular, this part of the growing?

the more we find uses for it the faster it will grow. i think the auto industry and ability has a robust so the ability of the precision and take people out of harm's extend eyes and ears in terms of sensor technology will us in the direction that allows us more freedom. also you started aerial vehicles. what do we have here? >> this is our aerial. also primarily a surveillance tool. mapping mostly so far. you could use it. mapped landing ones for helicopter, unknown terrain. a company can do that. put down power

lines or roads it would be a great way to explore the area in a very cost effective manner. >> people who are watching are companies like yours and others put their own money into this type of technology. how much does one of these helicopters cost? >> this would be a little more expensive. i probably won't give you an exact number. on the enginedent condition figure ration and payloads and communication packages. ou may notice there's a small satellite dish on top. that is very expensive by itself. customer needed to see over the horizon that is something in would have to include there and that with drive it. i'm not comfortable with a price.ular >> but research-wise how much ime and effort does it take to create this? >> this is the end of a couple work.ars of when we started with an airframe that was proven and tested it but again there

are several of these flying today in american air space by pilots. so away started with a proven design and extended it to -- i is probably worth mentioning we call them unmanned. arely that just means there not men in the cockpit. there is still a pilot flying plane or driving the boat. there is a person in the loop work. that >> thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. host: we have been showing you r sights and sounds from the association of un mannmanne international taking place in washington, d.c. you met folks that represent the industry and law enforcement. joining us now in our washington, d.c. set is a voice hat details with the privacy concerns that a lot of you have mentioned. aclu speech privacy and echnology analyst

editor of their blog. you attended the event and you have heard a lot of the voices this morning. this is a goodys technology because it replaces says er, law enforcement there are laws and standards in place, practices in place to make sure things are done directly. from the privacy aspect what are your concerns about the technology? that the is true technology does and will have a lot of good uses but in is a lot potential to be used for surveillance. puzzowerful surveillance technology and we need basic rules it enjoy the having to worry that from the moment you walk out of your front door until you invisible eye is tracking your every move. our biggest fear around the it comes to en privacy issues is it will be used for mass surveillance. we don't have a problem in the police are carrying out a raid want to use a

drone as a backup. away don't have a problem using rescue or ch and other uses like that. hat we don't want to see is drones used to watch everybody all the time. that technology is here. the current deployments of drones by law enforcement today limited. but in is a huge amount of for this mand technology. the technology itself is continued of a funny situation that e it is so advanced we see this show and this amazing technology on the floor. but most of it is not legal to use in the united states right ow because the f.a.a. has various safety concerns and are proceeding slowly. are going to s open. host: you said there is a fear widespread. too is there some basis or case to fear?that pblgts we have seen in american where law ases

enforcement likes to watch everybody all the time and federal agencies likes to watch all the time just in case somebody does something wrong. e believe and a lot of americans believe that is not our culture or history and our values. the government doesn't look over your shoulder just because you ight do something and doesn't invade your privacy because you might do something wrong. it has to have specific evidence wrongdoing.lved in this is in our constitution. instances where law enforcement indicated their desire to put an eye in the sky neighborhoods e and cities. utah, the mayor wanted to acquire a blimp to watch neighborhoods. we saw in dayton, ohio, they pten -- notten manned aircraft it manned circle the city. technologies that can

basically warm a 25 square mile and record every vehicle and pedestrian, where they start, where they massive, where travel. where they finish their journey it put it in data bases and can be sliced, diced and mined. right now we are in the early f.a.a. is holding back the deployment. he actual deployments you hear are limited today. but the potential is huge and hank is why so many americans have been so concerned. host: our guest to talk about privacy concerns when it comes use.rone you can ask him questions on one of three lines this morning. tweet us.so we have a couple of callers who said i don't do anything wrong. you be so worried. guest: that is a reaction we about privacy

questions and there are a number of answers. first of all there's a lot of illegal but re not you want to keep private whether singing in the shower or what our financial information. i don't want somebody following knows in my life business. their that is my right as an american. you say i haven't done anything wrong and one answer to that is are you sure you haven't wrong.ything there are a lot of laws on the books that are obscure and if prosecutor you get falsely accused of a crime and maybe you exonerated from that but the things on digs it pin you and they will find something on you there is a good chance if is an open book. host: we live in an age where even in washington, d.c. there cameras, red late cameras and technology taking any way.on about us

why not think even the use of to es may ultimately add that technology? guest: it is true, we are living revolutionary time and there are challenges to our privacy and we work on a number issues.cy cell phone tracking, n.s.a. surveillance, we should have a to communicate and send e-mails without worrying the government is keeping copies or we are talking to. we think that it is important to put in place privacy protections on drones and it is important to technologies. i think that in this are waysical age there we will lose our privacy. there are other ways in which we back, the to sit technology is not in control, we are in control. for example, we have cameras all over the country, but almost none of that ave microphones and is not because they are difficult or expensive. tapping ause our wire

laws make it problematic to put on cameras in public places. we put an expression of values the e law and it changed way the technology was implemented. stop who say you can't technology, there's nothing you can do, i think that is not a because we arenk in control of our values. if we do nothing, then i think americans ivacy that have always enjoyed and expected as part of our constitutional eritage all of that may disappear. this jay stanley on discussion. first call is george from west missouri, independent line. host: good morning. first concern is as far as we all acy issue goes know we have been peeked on by the government so that is not a issue and we are all right with that, it is not that big a deal. question is n and

what kind of safeguard is the government going it take to cells that terror are laiding in this country are -- hiding in this country are in going it use these to kill americans here like they have .een doing every attack on us has come from within our country. we have against us. is t anything that they can o to stop that before they get a hold of it? guest: well, i would say first not sure i agree with the premise that the government watches us so we should throw up our hands and not worry about it. we do despite the technology and n.s.a. what we regard as unconstitutional spying we have lot of strong privacy protectionle fight ions and we should for that. in terms of use of drones for errorist attacks, a drone is a tool like any other and will be used for the full range of human

intelligence and imagination and evil probably and we just need do the best we can to manage that. there was already somebody who a terrorist ith plot planning it fly an unmanned with explosives into the capitol building, i believe. from republican line pennsylvania. organic. host: good morning, mr. stanley. we already have hundreds of on telephone poles. what is the difference between cameras or a drone? hat is the difference between having one officer watching a city with a drone or hiring 100 1,000 more to put on the street? constitution nowhere does it say that you cannot look and see that is in sight is lawf lawful.

to use in an investigation. a very think that is good question and very logical question. drones are just an aerial version of surveillance and we at the ground, the aclu and those who carry about privacy don't love the our public spaces are becoming networked with video ameras not just independent cameras but what we are seeing is networks of cameras run by which is a new thing and brand-new in american life. bring another do element into it, which is they and peer rom the sky into private property and do so way.systematic when you have police officers in a city, number one when you are being watched by a police know you are being watched by a police officer. he or she can see you and you can see them. is an equality there. when there's something in the know you are t

being watched. and number two, is the systematic nature of it. it is not that a police officer sees this or that but the things constantly recorded and systematically everything recorded. the things we're seeing in a you believe can of cities are people complaining setting up ce are video cameras that actually point to their front door, front house. i think most americans would not want a government camera focused door. front i think that is what tkropbs have the potential to do. from here is linda knoxville, tennessee, democratic line. hi.er: no wait time. ok. i want to make an argument false analogy argument that comes up all the time. edro made the same argument earlier in this segment saying we have cameras on the streets.

really, what is the difference to have drones? thing?it the same kind of or companies are collecting data about us all the time. that the away care government is doing it? this is the counterarchitect. this is a bad example but it is upposed to have been said by left hand anyone in the 1920's hey had one of these huge military parades in most could you and somebody in the west ooked at the display of force and said yes, it is not the quantity that counts, it the quality. then lenin turned to him and aid smiling yes, but quantity quality all its own. meaning you get enough of omething it creates a qualitative difference that violates the false analogy. so, when the price of becomes small you get more surveillance. a drug surveillance you

have to put two officers in a police car and follow the that is expensive. you use it for the most important things. service bureau is willing g.p.s. you 1,000 tracking devices and computers you get more h surveillance. that is is wrong with drones. will get cheaper and there ill be more and in the end the quali qualitative difference you will have no more freedom. those are excellent points and you have put them very well. ne question i often here is we already have police headquarters and we have had them for decades. what is the difference? is as you were saying police helicopters are very expensive. you have to have ground crews and maintenance and pilot shifts expensiveth and it is for a police department to run a helicopter so it is less likely to overuse it. when it is cheap and easy

they tend to be overused. in terms of quantity versus uality the supreme court is dealing with this same issue. a police officer who is standing sees street corner and you drive by know you were at this corner at this time. have a g.p.s. tracker 28 our car and tracks you days straight this changes things. so the supreme court decided police cannot do that without a warrant. drones is the ue potential for location tracking. beforelan frazier was on and talked about the process his goes throughrtment -- sheriff's department goes through. we have a viewer off twitter who who watches the watchers. what safeguards are in place to the police.se from guest: i think people like alan, who are sort of the pioneers of technology, they are being

very careful. they are putting in place excellent collection and mechanic nd oversight numbers. but these are early days. i think it is something like 30,000 police departments in the united states. e will see all kinds of things and we're going to see if the technology and safety rules police we will see some departments that won't to use this for pervasive surveillance. practicesher are best in there case? guest: we would like to see ules that sort of define when the police can use drones. when they have evidence, when thathave reason to believe it will collect evidence of wrongdoing in emergency or reasonable nonlaw enforcement uses. in emergencies and so forth. we would like to see rules in place that govern how video that collected is stored and how long it is retained, who it is place some put in good best practices around that. then we also think that there openness rules so

the police departments are open how ederal agencies about they use the technology. police and federal agencies often need to be confidential details of particular investigations, but when it omes it a tool with such implications for our public life as citizens that is a discussion public.ht to be too often what we see is what i all policy making by prekaoufrppr prekaourplt where there is new echnology with privacy implications and instead of having an open discussion they just buy it and start using it. seen there with license plate scanners. they are recording the locations americans all over the country in increasing numbers. to see that happen with drones or other technology. there should be a public iscussion about the rules and police departments should be open about what their policies are. a call from takoma, washington. one, r: number

informational question. i read that there was something 800,000 people who have the ame level of clearance as mr. snowden. is that correct? guest: i don't know the exact numbers but there is an enormous number of people with security the united states. i believe it is in the millions. how long point in is before girl friends, wives, come they have been abused by their spouses at work, jealous husband, et cetera, there's got to be a pretty large out of that e initial policeman. aclu come across any vidence of that sort of shenanigans? -- shenanigans is sort of that. illegal the legal and

privacy invasion. illegal is when you have particular law enforcement bad carrying out personal becau abuses. in new york city, a police helicopter that was supposed to a big bicycle and st turned its camera filmed a couple making love on a rooftop and the new york police refused to apologize when the tape came out. is the kind of because we are worried about. we have seen abuses of police bases where officers do earches on their ex-wife's new by friends and that is a concern. we are the best practice increasingly seeing is put in mechanisms so say a particular video that was drone, every time that is accessed or copied or what have you it is recorded.

the officer's identity is recorded so any kind of abuse can be traced. kim from new york, independent line. thanks for waiting. go ahead. my question is what if they end up using this to create lawsuits and might not have merit, then the person defending themselves has to spend all of legal fees and they could even lose their house r their savings or whatever because there is some shenanigans going on in the system? guest: well, i think that a big ty issues is concern around drones, especially private sector use of drones. i think that one of the fears in as ial of surveillance is, said earlier, there are so many laws on the books. own protected o and er products from peru

you might be breaking a law areout knowing it and there so many laws on the books that if a government agency wanted to could probablyey find something to pin on you. that is one reason that is ssive surveillance getting too much power to the government. puower to the ch government and disrupts the balance of power. individuals are supposed to be the boss of the government in a democratic society and if you the government too much power it is unhealthy. host: states have enacted laws drones. how many and how effective are they? drone we have seen legislation proposed in over 40 states. believe four or five have passed legislation. it is still active in 3-something states. who works on body technology issues i have never seen such a grassroots upswelling of concern about and it reflects

legitimate concerns over where can go. they are all over the map. ome are very good, some are probably overbroad, some weak. it is aall i think that healthy development and shows that americans aren beginning in -- americans are eager it defend privacy. host: are they effective? guest: many of them are. controls n place on when the government can use the technology and we will see over evolve and how the technology use evolves. with a s good it start good strong principle to protect our privacy. lisa -- first, we should let you know there discussion is in part because of the techniques of an want this week in washington, d.c. that is the of unmanned vehicle systems international holding their event in washington, d.c. at the

walter e. washington convention center. we have been talking to people from the the morning site. our conversation now turns to the cy with jay stanley of aclu. north next from lisa, augusta, south carolina. independent line. thei would like to know what are some of the federal and would protect people that would like to come forward and bring forward mean they really don't -- one of the things they count on to staycy in being able anonymous. do these drones and the use the drones -- i myself have been within an arm's watching somebody use a drone in the city. but i would like to know are federal or state laws

that -- and any audit mechanisms can at the general public go to and research? one thing we've been concerned about with drones is our existing privacy laws are really adequate it protect us from this technology. we have the constitution, for which sets clear limits, for example, police almost certainly can't use a to invade where you have a reasonable expectation of and can'tke your home fly up to the third floor window and look in without a warrant. peeping tom laws on the books. very unclear is how the courts moving forward about whether le or not a drone can follow you , whether it lic would be stationed and watch a video your back yard 24-7, 365. s we said, there are states

that have passed laws on drones putting limits on how the use them.s can but i think what we have called standard ood strong federal law like one that has republican d by the from texas so away don't have to orry -- so we don't have to worry about this. once we put the operatives use it at rest we can for the potentials out there without worrying about the cloud of big brother. owhat are the high points powe promise? guest: it would been the drones.ation of that is one key thing. host: is there an appetite in legislationget this done? guest: i think that there's been in there iss st issue. it is a very difficult sraorplt -- environment for anything to pass so who knows. but i think what we are seeing the states is a strong

indicator that a lot of people in congress are hearing from a lot uents and there is of concern about this. host: jim is up next from new line.ity, democrat's caller: good morning. host: you are on. a commercialked as airline pilot in this country personal ncern about information is one thing. mentioned not doing work that volumes weaponization. if you look at the way the things tates uses these verseas, the united states has a temporary advantage in this area and i'm really dread being day when there is fatalities related to a drone. there is another side of this more serious if

legislative action isn't taken at this point? host: such as? my point.at is not only weaponization but afety of other people in the sky and safety of international east.e in the middle you walk outside the door and there is a drone. better start running. heading in e we're this country as well? guest: one thing we've said is really need to draw a strict line. no weaponized drones in the states. there's been a pretty broad consensus on the international of police have recommended against the weaponization of drones. the industry has recommended that.t proposed legislation has recommended against it. at the same time there have been police officers sucking that drones could be -- uggesting that they could be fixed for nonlethal weapons for crowd control or other weapons. who knows what will happen in future but that is a very

celebrate line we need to set. the safety issues are significant. the f.a.a. is very concerned that. that is why they have been sort of moving very slowly on what they will allow in terms of use. they don't want them going into roofs or colliding with passenger aircraft. host: salt lake city, utah. line.ats caller: when the local police began doing their training on how to fly drones they decided to do it over and around my house. i'm an american. there was buzzing on my roof. i was kept awake at night. then they were spraying whet on my yard. both my dog and i were being sprayed. after that, they started woofer the base of a sub

so i would hear boom, boom, boom house.y come to find out i was on prime real estate property. so the value of my house is going to go up two and a half times. land grab for my whom. tra tead of doing good training i was learning to fly let's get herles, out of the neighborhood and also became let's grab her home and then it became let's abuse her deprivation, pain .ith high frequency drones this is ust winning -- one example of because. guest: one of the ars that has worked out with drones s this idea of harassment and

nuisance law. it is an area of the law that is unclear. if a drone is hovering 200 feet making ur back yard and a buzzing noise is that a nuisance? above youris 10 feet back yard? it is a whole sort of new area doesn'taw where the law know how to deal with it because this is so new. host: jay stanley with us. a couple of recommendations they use is far as drone considered connection with inter, images collected only crime investigations. usage policy determined by public, not pennsylvania you open to audits and with ght and not equipped lethal or non lethlethal weapon. it is collection of data and done with it afterwards. guest: that is where you want protections in place so we have to worry that this technology will be a big brother sky.e

host: if if is a booming industry how down keep track of because we heard others mention technology often outpaces law. guest: there will be an enormous amount of information and probably uses for drones that are great that we all like. there is no reason we can't have ur cake and eat it too and enjoy the benefits of brilliant people coming up with confidential ideas of how to use the technology. at the same time, putting the privacy concerns it rest so we about that.o worry host: will there be a lot of ivil lawsuits when it comes to this technology? guest: undoubtedly. it sort of breaks existing our jurisprudence -- court rulings and the

about ill be questions peeping toms, harassment, and privacy torts. you can see somebody if you feel like your privacy has been invaded. it is going to be a whole new area of the law and the courts out. figure that but right now we know that the government is going to want to use it for surveillance and we put in place protections in that area without overregulating innovation. host: lancaster, south carolina, line.rat's ken. caller: i would like to state we already live in a police tate with the e-mail and big data base places in utah and you the drones flying above now and cameras in neighborhoods. kind of hing, i'm

nervous -- snowden, that leaker. reading a book about the secret wars of the c.i.a. and it the information they are saying he released he already spy ed in the back, the tapping, cables undercease and egypt.control a time e are living in of revolutionary technology. we love technology. big implications for privacy and we are sort of of battledle of a bit over the extent to which we will allow technology to take away our privacy. caller mentioned the n.s.a. scandal and in some ways the and n.s.a. arees the same, which is are we as a allow the ome to government to record everything caseeverybody does just in you might have happened it commit a crime? come to the attention of

the government they can play a rewiped on your life and -- your life and see who you have called and where you have been and where you have forth.your car and so our view is that is too much give to the government. too much power of the government violates iduals and our oldest traditions and we should not allow the government to use these new technologies that way. host: if i'm hearing you correctly, it seems like let's see where the technology goes regulatory what efforts we have it make. guest: in some areas, yes. no.other areas we call for regulations on drones in the area of law enforcement. area of private sector use that is where we think we a little bit,back see where innovation goes. invasions.otential i don't think most people would ant a google camera over their back yard any more than they would want a federal agency them.a hanging over

but let's see what happens in the private sector because are te companies also responding to customer concerns. reputations. so there may be problems, there may not be. aw we have not called for regulation in the private sector ut we think regulation is needed when it comes to the government. ost: what happens when it gets cheaper to purchase and more it?mon use comes out of guest: that will happen to both the government and individuals. the government has spent a helicopter and now for $50,000 today who knows with moore's law tomorrow they may be able to get and get huge 00 fleets of them and have them up and taking turns individuals. -- the hobby community is huge and we are seeing innovation.

host: do they have regulation, hobbyists? f.a.a. he way the regulates drones is sort of an exception. current rule if you have your own drone with a fly it around under 400 feet in daytime not congested areas. but if you take photographs and sell the photographs, that is it is banned use for commercial use. so if you are doing it for fun commercial use it is not. this is a rule a lot of people complained about. that is the state of the law. the call from leroy on democrats line from new jersey. caller: one of your answers was if the government situations?those right now most of the cameras in this area are run by private a profit on make it. that would be a very good through, just p

slip it to privatization. that is an nk excellent points. i wrote a report in 2003 called industrial ance complex that looked at how private sector surveillance and surveillance have dove tailed and reinforced each other. we see that and federal agencies using ernment agencies the private sector as an end run round constitutional protections. for example, f.b.i. and federal allowed to keep dossi dossiers and files on you because they want to. you have to be have a nexus to a criminal investigation. they have data aggregators who do keep files on americans. files on they have most americans and store as much information as they can about marketers.l them to they are also selling them to the government so the government is not keeping a file but the the governmentnd

base the file. this is a big privacy problem that needs it be addressed. one thing that drones are doing is it has received so much such a n and it is concrete interesting area it is anding the issue of privacy people realize it is not just other but other things, technologies where privacy is under assault. we need to put in place good protections. we need them to preserve the heritage that americans have had.s host: last call from victorville, california. line.on the independent caller: i was calling to -- you domestic ng about drones up to now. are you going to have any legislature the going to have any control over the military weaponized drones? >> the overseas use of drones hugely controversial topic. we have been involved in that somewh

somewhat, for example having a where the government has sought to use drones to kill citizens without trial. ut i think that one of the things that has americans so concerns about domestic drones they have seen and part of a larger trend which blue led the green to pipeline where we see advanced for overseasployed battlefield and military use and wars wind down the companies need new markets so 30,000 or so police agencies in the u.s. as a big market. departments are becoming ncreasingly militarized in america and it is a problem in adopting military technology often leads to excessive use of force and drones may be trend.f the host: jay stanley speech praoeufrps and technology and editor of the aclu

blog.free future guest: that is a blog on privacy and technology issues and implications. at new technology and that have the potential to be spying surveillance or and what we think ought to happen with them. you.: thank that is it for our program on unmanned vehicles, drones we calling it interchangeably. i hope you learned something. onwe leave you we will leave a shot from the association that wi about at en talking the washington convention center. the association of unmanned international. another "washington journal" comes your way at 7:00 a.m. tomorrow. then.l see you [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]