This post is also available in:
עברית (Hebrew)
Olga Grosman
Last week a law in North Dakota came into effect, allowing local police to use drones to disperse demonstrations and restraining demonstrators with non-lethal means, such as rubber bullets, tasers, tear gas launchers and more.
This, however, was not the original intention. The original law, proposed by Rep. Rick Becker, was supposed to prevent the drones from becoming weapons. Drones have been turning into a common item owned by many for private, commercial and governmental use – hence the wish to restrict them lest they lead to an injury or loss of human lives. Becker’s proposal stated that law enforcement agencies will not be able to use drones to take photos of people without a court order, nor will they be used as weapons.
Only the companies that develop aerial vehicles and weapons realized the loss of potential earnings in these drones restrictions, and managed to add sections to it which change it completely. The final version of the law – the version which was approved – allows the police to use weapons mounted on drones, as long as they are not considered lethal.
Some rushed to criticize the legislation, saying that operators, if not in the field, are emotionally detached from what is happening and it could cause their hand to be too light on the trigger. Others added that even a non-lethal weapon can kill. Indeed, according to The Guardian, 759 people were killed in the United States by police officers, 39 people of which – by taser guns.
True, these drones could perhaps reduce the chance of officers getting hurt during demonstrations. Officers do get hurt from rocks being thrown or other violent activities on the side of the protesters, just look as an example the violent protests now happening in Lebanon against the government. But we should decide soon, before it’s too late, if we intend to draw a clear red line against drones being weaponized, without any difference what type of weapon it might be, or if we are to allow another loop hold which might in the future cost in human lives.
No one promises that these vehicles will remain in the hands of the police alone, as they might arrive in the hands of non-military arenas, to crime and terror organizations. Therefore there is a dire need for us to engage in a broad debate concerning weapon control in the unmanned systems field, before we give too much power to the tools meant to help us.
