mr. calabrese, a simple question. what is the opportunity for racial profiling and how dangerous is that with the utilization of drones? >> we certainly see racial profiling in use, it is logical to believe it would be applied here. >> the gentlewoman's time is expired. the gentleman from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate you being here. i am curious, the line of questioning, to give an example, there is that friend in my town who said his incredible new camera with incredible new lens sky word and took pictures of a shuttle going over and later saw on the news that it had broken up and got that to the paper and it was the most -- it was a photograph that has been on more front pages of publications than any other. on the other hand if he took that same camera and pointed it in someone's window for a long distance than you would get an issue so obviously technology makes a difference and it seems we do get into some intent issues but i am curious, mr. calabrese, you said there is a lot of law in this are

mr. calabrese? you state in your testimony the uas would be acceptable to you for, quote, reasonable, nonlaw enforcement purposes, by nonlaw enforcement agencies, for where privacy will not be affected and surveillance will not be used for secondary law enforcement purposes, and to mr. -- to the previous gentleman, mr. maclin's comment. so it's your position, if i'm -- that the fourth amendment applies only to law enforcement agencies, for law enforcement purposes. >> to the government generally. i'm sorry. as opposed to -- the fourth amendment applies to the government generally. >> for reasonable nonlaw enforcement purposes it would no longer apply. >> well, wouldn't say the fourth amendment doesn't apply. i think the biggest -- the fourth amendment amendment is always going to apply -- >> i'm reading what you said. i'm sorry. what we believe the biggest danger is that law enforcement will use drones in an invasive manner. we still want to create the ability of government to use drones in a noninv

mr. calabrese, there's a lot of area. us if congress went about setting what we believed and i think there's a lot of room for agreement on both sides. mr. richmond questions and i think we agree on a great deal in this area. sewickley came to an agreement on what we in congress believe wasn't appropriate, reasonable expectation of privacy, are you guys aware of a law law that would create a problem for us in such an expectation -- reasonable expectation of privacy? >> no, i believe you are a powerful piece of legislation in front of you right now, h.r. 637 is a very good beginning on setting parameters for how drug should be used. just to answer your question replace existing law private use, stuff like that. >> is anybody aware of was the universe within reachable expectation of the? >> i'm not aware of that, but i would urge some caution there. and i'd decades. you might be better served by focusing the government conduct you want to control, defining terms like search and public place and what not and controlling -- fo

mr. calabrese, could use a word about how the technology has, could this issue in terms of the differencebetween one photograph all the way to tracking someone even in public for long amount of time with the expectation? >> certainly come a great question. it is not just drones, right? if you figure the technologies at issue, you can imagine tracking the drown her couples drone, allowing them mass people all the time. drones can penetrate more deeply, at night with smaller and greater camera. a nova special recently indicated one camera called the argus could cover multiple square miles and do detailed surveillance of an entire city. it changes the way people think of what public spaces. it really merits further regulation by congress. are weapons ever appropriate with drones? >> i think we need to explore the question of weaponization carefully. the immediate answer is no. weapons should be used because a drone is not in the same kind of as a police officer is. barely, a police officer has to be able to defense himself. or take appropriate action to apprehend someone. a drone will not ne