tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN July 23, 2012 10:00am-12:00pm EDT
oversight of the intelligence community live at 12:30 p.m. on c-span2. a discussion beckett's play at 1:00. but the house and senate are in session today. they have speeches with legislative work starting at 2:00 p.m. any requested votes take place after 6:30 p.m. eastern. we might hear some debate on tax policy. you can watch the house library here on c-span and the senate live on c-span2. >> it is like and if the electronic -- an electronic car.
we can tell you what traffic signs it saw. >> a smart phone with a 21 hour battery life. latest in technology devices from the consumer electronic association technology fair at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> what american history television the weekend of august 4-fed as local content = explore the literary culture -- content as local content of vehicles explore the literary culture. >> a lot of stores that have failed our stores open by people who were interested in having a
business, not that they had an attachment to books or a bug of books. they were business people. you have to have a gut attachments to care about them. your customers are like that. they come because they really care about books. >> august 4 and fifth on c-span2. >> the use of drums domestically continues to rise. there will be 300,000 runs in the sky by 2020. they are used by some federal agencies in college. we will hear from a college professor who is able to hijack a civilian drone to show their vulnerabilities. >> the committee will come to order.
first, as a matter of business, and he is running late. i would ask unanimous consent as a member of the said committee for this hearing. seeing no objection, do you have any objection? [laughter] i now recognize myself for an opening statement. our ability for the border. they began first looking at these drones back in 2004. now they own 10 uas aircraft. they have been used for bridges,
levies, riverbed at risk of flooding, and assisted with national guard resources responding to local flooding. they have also gained support of others. the systems have become a force multiplier for military operations and for border security. we are on the edge of a new horizon. currently there are 200 active certificates of authorization issued by the federal aviation administration to over 100 different entities such as law enforcement departments and academic institutions to fly drones institutionally.
the number of recipients since that time has increased. the faa plans to select six test cities for the use of non- government drones' this year and plans to allow the deployment of non-government drones' by the year 2015. while the faa is responsible to make sure they fly safely in u.s. airspace, with only a two- point five short years until they begin to dominate the skies, no federal agency is taking the lead to deal with the full implications of using unmanned aerial systems and developing the realm of policies. this is despite the fact that four years ago the accountability office recommended to the secretary of all land security that she direct the gsa administrator to examine the implications of future non-military operations
in the national airspace system and take any actions deemed appropriate. the recommendation was well- founded. the potential will disperse chemicals or biological weapons. they were interested in acquiring these efforts. and while the advisory knows there's no credible evidence to suggest a terrorist organization plan to use this, the government was concerned that these aerial vehicles could be modified and used to attack key asset in critical infrastructures within the united states. these concerns were validated.
last week in massachusetts men agreed to plead guilty to attempting to damage and destroy federal buildings. the individual was arrested september of 2011. his plot to use multiple remote controlled aircraft laden with explosives to collapse the dome of the united states ccapital and attack the pentagon. as if this plot was not frightening enough, cutting edge research out of the university of texas in austin has revealed more security vulnerabilities. specifically researchers from the cockle school of engineering led by dr. scott humphries proved that unmanned aerial systems can be hacked into and hijacked with a relatively small investment of money and time. these findings are alarming and revealed the gaping hole in the
security of using unmanned aerial systems domestically. now is the time to insure these vulnerabilities are mitigated to protect our aviation system as the use continues to grow. the department of common securities mission protect the homeland. d h s seems either a disinterested or unprepared to step up to the plate to address the proliferation of unmanned aerial systems in u.s. airspace spirit the potential threats they pose to our national security hwill be used including protecting civil liberties of individuals under the constitution. in discussion with my subcommittee staff, department officials repeatedly stated that the department does the see this function as part of their
mission and has no role in the domestic unmanned aerial systems. i strongly disagree. i cannot imagine how they would find they have no role when there is a terror plot bordered by the fbi attempting to hit the united states capitol and the pentagon. what more humble and security interests could there possibly be? lack of attention is incomprehensible. it should not take a 9/11-like to developcause them guidance. it should not take a hearing to have them develop policy when it comes to security of our homeland. what it should take is responsible leadership willing to recognize the threat. blacks this dhs
initiative. the 9/11 commission describes a lack of imagination in identifying threats and protecting the homeland. we are disappointed they decline to testify here today. this is another example of how dhs leadership is failing to get ahead of the curve on issues that directly impact the security of the united states. their widespread use. the chair now recognizes the .anking member per >> thank you for this opportunity to be with you.
we deal with border security. is it gives us an opportunity. we do have a caucus meeting tomorrow. we're going to have member representatives from the fbi and dhs tomorrow. i will get a copy to the members. it'll be an excellent opportunity for members and their staff to learn about current and domestic law enforcement use spirit a lot of the privacy issues have been
decided by the supreme court. we're looking at the use of a different type of platform. whether it is a helicopter or airplane, there is one page we have. if anyone was to learn about the privacy issues, please contact my office. it you do bring up a lot of good point we need to cover. fromk for ward to hearing a you teach graduate. i do have a few questions for you -- ut graduate. did you have a question for you. the faa, we just pass a reauthorization that talks about
the integration of more civilian uavs. there are different steps. i would ask you to spend some time with the faa. they have steps they will be going into the future use. i know the ranking member for the subcommittee is on its way. he does have a statement. i am not going to read it. he will be up here. you will give him the opportunity to make that statement when he shows up. thank you for allowing me here with you. >> thank you. i ask unanimous consent to include a statement from his the president and ceo of unmanned vehicle systems and the president of the air line pilots association describing the domestic use of the uas, both of whom are in favor of this hearing.
the chair and now will go to the panel. i had the pleasure to visit todd humphries yesterday appeared being from austin, i take pride that you're here today. growing up in a family of longhorns, i take even more pride than that. i have a little orange blood myself. he is the assistant professor at the cockrell school of engineering. for anybody here who understand that other than dr. humphreys. he directs the laboratory at ut austin where his focus is on
preventing spoofing and jamming. they can be high debt and controlled. he conducted experiments at white sands missile range at the department of common security. and i believe that the memorial stadium in austin. i believe we will see a video that describes that. he obtained his doctorate from cornell university. the chair now recognizes dr. humphreys for his statement. >> members of the said committee, you may have heard these reports that at about this time last month my students and i from the university of texas a hijacked a civilian unmanned aerial vehicle, a small helicopter, and brought it down relocation.
i'm here to talk about what we did and what the implications are and what can be done to address the problem. how did we hijack this small helicopter? we exploited a weakness in the global positioning system. gps signals come in two flavors. there is the second class of signals, a civilian signals. they are not been corrected. they are freely accessible. that explains their usefulness. it also opens up a vulnerability. it makes them easy to counterfeit. just like monopoly money, they have a detailed structure. they do not have any built-in protection against counterfeit ng.i
almost all civilian uavs depends heavily on civil navigation. if you can convincingly take a gps signal you can fool one into tracking your signal the onset of the authentic one. at that point you can make it move left or right, front or back, up or down. you have hijacked it. you can do this from miles away. my friends at the university of texas have a video i like to show you which illustrates what we did and helps me to explain the technique involved. you see a uav like the one we used flying above the desert floor. this person entering is a good guy. he is the remote operator. he is up loading a way point
that is a desk in node -- that is a destination. -the bad guy movie in here from the left is a spoofer operator. he will transmit a gps signals. i will pause and talk about what you see. this exists in every gps receiver. the corresponds to the authentic signals. you can go ahead and roll it. if you could create six signals coming because another one to appear. then the lines of with the authentic one. at it drops off, a ghost uav
slides at the back. that is where the uav thinks it is. as it moves toward its way point, the ghost uav is it considered the actual one. we did the same thing here making ours thinking it was rising upward. the bottom lot of you who is in control. the ground control is in control. at this time, it is not the hijacker who controls the -- now t he hijacker who controls the uav. then at white sands we were invited by the department of
common security so that we could conduct a test over the air or recaptured it in mid air. we did from about a half mile away. from a hilltop we broadcast our signals. in this case, the uav started in a hovering position and then came straight down, entirely under control of the remote hacker. so, what are the implications for our national airspace that they handed a mandate to develop a comprehensive plan for accelerating the integration into the national airspace system. i believe the results should factor heavily into that plan. the faa and its expertise is
geared more toward safety than security. our test implicated the security. may have ato say deteshs role to play. i'm happy to entertain questions from the committee. >> thank you. i think they canceled the ut football practice to do this. >> they moved the practice. >> that is a big deal. let me follow up on your last comment spirit this is as -- comment. this is astounding. i think it is an eye opener. let me also state that military uavs are incorrect it appeared this could not be done to a military uav. but ones used domestically have this vulnerability we are concerned about.
i will ask about that later. you mentioned you talked to the faa. their main concern is the security of the airways. -- safety of the airways. they want to make sure that i their airplanes or uavs when not interfere with the flight pattern. there is no federal agency that is providing oversight in terms of that security aspect. is that correct? >> as far as i know. i believe the dhs has a role to play in that spirit the faa could play a role there too. the expertise are not designed for that. >> in the report they said they directed the secretary of home with of security to the gsa to provide for that security a
sense of risk domestically and develop a national policy. i think you have some company there in terms of agreement. i find this to be a bit of a no one is minding the storm. dhs should be stepping up to the plate. they failed to even bring witnesses to testify on this important issue when you had a terror plot disported at the united states capitol less than a year ago using one of these uavs. let me ask you this. you have identified a real vulnerability with these domestic uavs. tell me what would be your nightmare scenario in
demonstrating if a terrorist or some other malicious person wanted to exploit the system. >> currently i am not terribly worried. this is only about 13 pounds. they could do some damage. i am not terribly worried at the present. my nightmare scenario would be looking for were three or four years or we have not adopted them into the national airspace without addressing the problem and now it is scaling up so we have more capable ones. this particular one is not addressed. that would be my nightmare scenario. >> i think in the next two years, it is predictable to have thousands of these things
around. does that give you concern given that there is no federal agency addressing the aspects? >> they made a prediction that there could be thousand -- 30,000. i would like someone to take ownership of the security components>> you have done the country a manned aircraft has some vulnerability to spoofing, with the energy distribution system gps for the timing.
all gets traced back to be authenticated civilian systems. >> i see that our time is about to expire. let me thank you for coming up here to testify in washington, performing a great service to the country. not only technology wise, but also from the bureaucratic standpoint. i intend for this committee to fix this problem. be>> i appreciate the work that you have done. the specific efforts were
successful again, and the encrypted gps systems -- >> it is important to remember this. >> this is civilian? and i noticed that my understanding is that there are different purposes, the law enforcement, universities, research purposes and all of that, and so for the civilian going to be small, but 11 pounds, small helicopters. these are used for specific instances, and this is usually the line of sight. >> that is how we currently operate.
>> this would be their most of the time, 11 pounds or whenever >> it helps to put things in goes beyond the unmanned aircraft. anything from cell phones to impact on anything dealing with gps for navigation. this could be other technologies. >> now, i think in a recent interview, he said the closest thing we had to a foolproof way to prevent this -- i think this is part of the air force that alters the civilian directorate. can you explain how this would be done without an impact for the system devices that depend
on the gps? >> this is the closest thing to foolproof. but it would take a long time. out and implemented. i am not holding my breath for a change in the signals being broadcast by the gps satellite. i would like to have it happen. it would be a solution for everybody worldwide that uses the civil gps signals. at least it would solve the problems to some degree. we can make it backward compatible, so that if you pay attention, it is like a watermark in a $20 bill. you can see the water mark. if you do not pay attention, you are not bothered by its presence. the same thing happens by adding authentication signatures to civilian gps. >> the bottom line is spoofing
gps signals, which means navigation -- >> you can think of this as one expression of the larger problem. >> most of the civilian purposes are going to be small. i think there have been types of uab's -- many helicopters will be within a specific size, for that specific purpose. law enforcement, scientific, whatever the case may be. >> that is right. i anticipate it will always be very specific when these get authorization. i am not sure how this will look, 10 or 20 years from now, whether you will have highways in the sky, like you see in the movies. as far as your comments, one of my recommendations in the written testimony is that those exceeding a certain amount in weight be required to have a spoof-resistant navigation system. but we would not want to
encumber the smaller vehicles, which are less of a danger and more sensitive to price, with that sort of requirement. there is a balance to be struck. we can debate about the 18 or 16 pounds. as they get above 18 pounds, they become quite deadly. >> the bottom line is, i really appreciate it. any time we go into a new technology, basically, the technology is a different platform. you have cameras are sensors, whatever it might be, whether it is a helicopter or airplane. i really appreciate what you are doing. i will be looking at your recommendations. i think it is a lot of good work that you and your students did. it is a great job will take in consideration. i thank you for your good work. >> i think the ranking member. i did not have a chance to ask
you about your recommendations for safety and security. i ask that you submit that for the record. that would be excellent. >> i recognize the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan. >> i want to thank dr. humphries for being here. this is very educational. thinking through, as we watch the video, thinking through what happened in 2011, with the iranians claiming to have hijacked a military uav, i know that was a unencrypted signal. but do think they were able to use a similar technology of spoofing to help bring it down? >> i think it is important to take whatever they say with a few doses of salt. in this case, there claims could have merit. they could have initiated a
sequence of events that led to capture. that means we have a lot of explaining to do. >> that type of electronic bearish -- barrage, is that possible in civilian aerospace to capture a law enforcement uav? >> similar techniques could be used. they typically have two important wireless signals. of course, the gps signal hopes it to navigate. mostly, they do well if you cut colony -- is to cut one of those two, but not if you cut both. i am broadly concerned about an electronic attack, and about
spoofing. >> in not only change the youth -- the gps symbol, but you tapped into command and control? >> we did not attempt that. but it could be done as a jamming attack. you could cut that cord and prevent the remote operator from controlling the uav. >> you were able to change the gps signal to fool the plane? >> yes. and the remote operator was in contact the entire time. it was just that nothing appeared wrong to his sensors in the current configuration that we attacked. >> it could have flown it to another runway and captured it?
>> ultimately, yes. it is not terribly easy to control it, once you have it. it is like a black stallion. you can jump on its back. can you ride it? the question we have asked is what could be done after you captured it, other than just moving it down are doing broad strokes. >> if the drone is used for surveillance purposes and has a real-time video feed, could that feed the hack into, or the replacement feed it sent to fool the operator? i am thinking of mission impossible. the operator is seeing something completely different. is that the possibility? >> ar sneak up and put a polaroid picture in front of the video feed. it turns up these are areas of research, in our laboratory and elsewhere. the truth is that those kinds of data feeds can take a vintage of the existing encryption utilities, which are very difficult to fete -- to crack.
if precautions have been put in place and those are unencrypted, it is not so easy. the attack we were successful in was going after the authenticated civil gps signal. nobody has bothered to protect that signal, and so that was the weakest link. >> you think most governmental agencies are using encrypted signals capability? >> only very few civil government agencies in the united states are using the encrypted military signal. almost all of them depend on these civilian signals. i had two of the lieutenants of the austin police department in my office on tuesday. they were asking me for guidance on what i would do with their newly purchased uav. what i recommend the use it during game day, to monitor for suspicious activities around the football stadium? would i recommend the use it
for swat activities, perhaps hostage situations? i gave them my recommendations. if you have risk on the ground already, i would get those eyes in the sky. but if there is not ongoing, risky activity on the ground, i would probably think it -- keep it down. >> could criminal activities use this technology to thwart law enforcement activity? >> the spoofing technology? >> the gps technology the students have come up with. >> i want to make a point that this is not easy. this has taken us years to build and perfect. the trouble is that civilian malefactors or others can get hold of what are called signals simulators. they can do almost everything we did. these are readily available. you can purchase them. i am worried that it could be a weapon in its arsenal of organized crime or state actors, or organized terrorists.
>> thank you. my time is up. >> the chair recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee. >> the thought of having two texas representatives here prompted me to get here with great alacrity. i want to thank you for your fine performance. i am asking for consent that my statement go on the record, so we can move expeditiously to questions. i have a question for dr. humphries. when you are comparing civilian reverses law enforcement, and the different codes of encryption, what is the cost differential? law enforcement wants more encryption. is the cost prohibitive? would there be a better track to take to differentiate it, so there is more the encryption are safety than spoofing?
>> you are voicing some of the recommendations of a group that wants us to use gps receivers that have formerly been dedicated just for military uses into the civilian uavs. >> these planes are large. they have good initial sensors. they have two pilots. there are reductions in play. they depend heavily on gps. they deal fairly well with an outage of gps. un not necessarily want to distribute the keys on a short-
term basis. that is cumbersome for the owners. you don't want it on a long-term basis because they could be used unauthorized. i do not see that as a solution. >> we have dealt quite a bit with airport security as well. any person has been told to turn your cellcell phon-- turn off phone. how could this be used to distract? >> this depends much more heavily on gps. they are using the civilian gps signals.
these plains are a large. there are some redundancies. they depend heavily on gps. a jamming attack, for example, or some other reason it goes away. i do not think the testing has been adequate for understanding how to deal with a spoofing attack. >> thank you. i yield back my time. >> the chair now recognizes -- it >> thank you very much. i think our ranking member for filling in. i find this whole topic fascinating. i served as ranking member on the subcommittee for cyber security and infrastructure detection.
a set to the ways in which we could counteract disruption or if need be disarm and diabsable the devices. it would seem to me, knowing what we know, at that the next generation of uav would be sensitive enough that if any spoofing activity were to take place, something could be put into the device that would protect us. what do you say about that? >> i agree. i would recommend efforts to bake in anti-spoofing
techniques. the problem would be finding ourselves 514 years from now with a great numbers of uavs plaguing our airspace. there are simple techniques that can increase the resistance to a spoofing attacks significantly. i recommended a long list. anti-spoofing is hard. there is no cheap solution. there are reasonable measures we can take in the short term to you say.s in, as to >> you say the problem should be solved at the source. do you believe this is likely to occur in? >> i did say that in an
interview. the kinds of institutional changes that would be required looking for funding, looking for political will to bring that about. in the best in area and might take five years before we see any protection. i am becoming more pessimistic that we can solve this problem with the gps satellites themselves. i suppose there's a more grass roots approach. >> you recommended that dhs committed to implementation of cryptographic authorization signatures. how did they respond to this recommendation? do you think they will make the suggested changes? >> this is of long term
recommendation. long-term i would like dhs to commit to funding this spirit the department of defense has indicated a willingness to change so they can be authenticated, like putting in water mark on a $20 bill. they do not have a fund to do it. they're looking for someone that would step up to fund it. i cannot say i am terribly optimistic. >> and listening what you had to say when you look at the rate of which these uavs are being produced. if your estimate is that and may take as five years to get there, we could be talking about tens of thousands of uavs having been deployed at some level, whether it is military
are low law-enforcement. i want to thank you for the work you have done, the research, at the capabilities you have uncovered. my concern is what you suggest we do right now. >> the suggestions i have right now are these grass-roots approach is for fixing the uav without having to ask permission of the dhs. there are reasonable things you can bake in. what they do not prevent sophisticated attacks, and they sure would make them much harder. >> thank you very much. >> you raise a great point. i hope we can fix these vulnerabilities we have. i ask that you put those recommendations into the record. >> thank you very much.
i bust confess that i am fascinated by this. i was sitting here thinking that we may have all of these things and the environment -- in the environments, what used to be science fiction. i am not sure if it is as much fiction now as it used to be. i am trying to figure out the utilization and utility, what is the usefulness of the continuous development of this technology? >> that is a great question. there are lots of great uses that these rooms can be used to put. i want to use them and our research so we can put better detection of interfering sources in the gps radio bands.
i am looking for it to a day when i could get a breather to my doorstep by a drone. [applause] other types of uses could be a monitoring power lines. they could help surveil difficult situations like a swat attack began somebody who has a hostage situation ongoing. i see these as being very useful. i would not want to put the brakes on the plan the faa has to roll them out. i would simply want to hold the faa to the language of the act passed in february so that we safely accelerate the adoption of these uavs and national airspace. >> we have a great deal concern about terrorism, it terrorist plots.
it to give us the opportunity to stay a step ahead of individuals or countries that might have other kinds of motivations for further development. >> that is true. if you put the brakes on this massive industry, he put us at a disadvantage compared to other countries. the revolution is coming. we might as well be on the cutting edge of its. >> how do we balance, i am asking of all the concerns we have right now about money and expenditures. licet $25 billion out -- when we cut $25 billion out of this, are we denying food stamps? when i think people having difficulty finding shelter or a
place to live, how do we balance the utilization of our resources in terms of what it would take to further develop the technology that we're talking about versus how you feed the hungry. >> that is a good question. in many cases they would save money. the austin police department were telling me that the cost of $5 million to buy a helicopter for man use and only $50,000 for a uav. i understand why they would be looking to those to save money. that frees up budgets for other uses. it is going to be a dynamo for innovation and jobs, a healthy uav industry.
my contention is let's go ahead. let's be vigilant about the uses they are put an insurance that people's privacy and security is the top priority. >> let me thank you very much. i support technological exploration and advancements. i just want to be as balanced about it as we can. i commend you for your work. thank you very much. to correct thank you. did the chair now indulges the gentleman from texas -- >> thank you. the chair now indulges the gentleman from texas for one question. >> there our military type of uavs and then there is the hobby uavs and then the commercial uavs. >> those are good broad
classifications. it was and $80,000 device. >> was it a hobby? >> and copies could use it but it was quite expensive for your average weekend hobbyists. -- a hobbyist could use it but it was quite expensive for your average weekend hobbyists. >> they can be easily taken over. my understanding is that most commercial uavs have been corrected information were hacking or spoofing will be a lot difficult. >> the communication from the remote pilot may well be secure. disposing of the gps signals is not secure. that is what we demonstrated. >> my understanding is most of the commercial uavs do have
encryption. having the encryption is very important. they were selling encryption keys. i appreciate the work. i want to make sure. >> it will have encryption on the command and control link but they do not have encryption on the gps link. >> those are the recommendations you mentioned to the chairmen? >> i recommended that the insurer uavs over 18 pounds are spoof resistance. entertain this in further research. >> thank you. let me reiterate. we have worked together very closely on getting these on the border. they were very needed and valuable.
about is thelking domestic use of uavs which are vulnerable. there is the policy set forth at the national level as to how we deal with these. we know they're going to multiplied by the thousands. it is incumbent upon the department of homeland's security, particularly in light of this terror plot to provide leadership and policy. i want to thank our witnesses. it is a row pleasure not only to hear your intelligent thoughts but to me as well. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> join us later today with a feinstein.diane weinstei
later a discussion on presidential campaign ads and how voters are proceeding them. this panel will come to us from the brookings institution. it gets under way at 1:00 eastern live on c-span3. a look at the u.s. capitol where the house and senate are in session today. begins atative work 2:00. any requested a vote take place after 6:30 p.m. at the senate gavels and at 2:00 eastern. we might also hear some debate on tax policy.
>> some of this we can see. once your car can see, it can help you avoid the accident with bicyclist spiris. >> web streaming thousands of channels, smart phones with a 21 hour battery life and social media based polling. from the consumer electronics association technology fair tonight at 8:00 p.m. on c-span2. >> more now from the recent hearing on domestic use of aerial drones. they criticize the homeland's security department for not regulating the increased use of drones in this country. there testifying at a homeland
meeting. the faa is predicting there will be 300,000 drones in the sky by 2020. portion is one hour. >> the chair now recognizes the second panel. i want to ask unanimous consent that this committee welcome a colleague and fellow texan, congressman kevin brady. >> thank you. i want to think he and other members for allowing me a special privilege. i am pleased to introduce the committee. they have hands on experience on this subject. the chief deputy.
montgomery county jurisdiction over houston's largest suburb. it is when the fastest-growing counties in america. it is the only agency in texas currently using unmanned aerial vehicles for law enforcement. it has tremendous potential for public safety, emergency response, for search and rescue, and at times the national disasters. chief mcdaniel is a decorated law enforcement officer with an impressive career spanning many decades. he has received the award for excellence, two awards in that arena. he received an air force commendation medal and combat your excellence award. he is a graduate of the fbi
national academy in virginia. it i know his testimony will be in sight fall -- insightful. thank you for allowing me to introduce this good friend. thank you for being here. >> thank you for the very good and kind introduction. i'm going to introduce the rest of the panel purity is the director of the civil aviation issues for the u.s. government accountability office. he is responsible for direction and analysis studies related to civilian aviation issues including air traffic control, airport development, and navigation. he served on the faculties of the university of california and the university of illinois.
he served on the national commission on terrorist attacks upon the united states and the 9/11 commission. our last witness -- last but not least, the legal counsel for the electronic privacy information center. her work includes issues of national security, government surveillance, digital security, and open government. she is the moderator of the weekly twitter-based privacy discussion and irregularly assists with ethics, internet, and social media web presence. i don't think anyone would
confuse you of being associated with them -- she graduated from new york law school where she pursued study on media law and the first amendment. we appreciate you being here as well to bring up these important privacy issues we see with the domestic use of these uavs. >> thank you, mr. chairman and members of the subcommittee. my statement discusses three areas. first, an overview of the findings and recommendations from our 2008 study that focused on some of the key challenges of the safe integration of unmanned aerial systems in the national airspace. second, the role in the domestic use of these systems and our preliminary operations on civilian issues. the four key challenges we edify or the ability to sense and avoid a aircraft, ensuring
uninterrupted command-and- control, the development of standards to ensure there is safety and reliability requirements and finally, to ensure the regulations being developed for unmanned aircraft equal to existing regulations for manned aircraft. to address these challenges, we developed a matter for congressional consideration and three recommendations, to for the faa and 148 yes. -- and one for dhs. we have closed the recommendations as being implemented. we suggested congress create an organization within the faa to coordinate government and private-sector efforts to address the safety challenges and we also recommended that the tsa exam and the security
implications and take appropriate actions. we have closed our matter for congressional action and our recommendations, but it is not being implemented. regarding dh role in net national airspace, it is one of several partner agencies working to integrate uas's. they have granted the customs and border authority to strengthen its mission across the u.s. northern and southern borders and provided support to other federal and state agencies in carrying out their mission. as the chairman described in his opening statement, tsa, acting in its role in its eight -- lead role in the transportation agency, issued an advisory indicating the federal government was concerned that uas's could be modified and used to attack key assets in the
united states. however, neither dhs nor tsa has taken any action to implement our recommendations. according to officials in 2008, and again as recently as this month, they believe the agency's current practices are sufficient and no additional actions are needed. with regard to emerging issues, our ongoing work has identified three key issues that warrant further consideration. first, privacy as relates to the collection and use of surveillance data. members of congress, several liberties organizations and civilians have expressed concerns that the potential increased use in the national airspace for law enforcement or commercial purposes has potential privacy implications. currently, no federal agency has a specific steps to regulate privacy matters related to uas.
by developing guidelines inappropriate ahead of widespread proliferation could preclude abuses of the technology and negative public perceptions of the potential uses planned for these aircraft. a second emerging issues is owners of model aircraft did not require permission from the faa to operate their aircraft. a man massachusetts pleaded guilty for plotting to use a large remote-control model aircraft filled with plastic explosives to attack the pentagon and the u.s. capitol. this kind of incident highlights the potential for model aircraft to be used to cause harm. a third emerging initiative until for jamming of gps signals . at control uas's in this scenario, the aircraft could lose its ability to
determine where it's located and in what direction it's traveling. low-cost devices that jam gps signals are readily available on the internet. mr. chairman and members of the subcommittee, we plan to is -- we plan to issue full report to this committee and other committees on our work later in the fall. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you for your good work. the chair now recognizes and other fellow texan, chief mcdaniel said. >> thank you. the montgomery county sheriff's office is the seventh largest in the state of texas and is responsible for law enforcement services for a county that covers over 1000 square miles and has a population of over 471,000. it is an extremely fast-growing county. the county is diverse in geography as well as population, with an extremely urban area with a very dense population on our southern
border with houston and harris county to an extremely rural area in the northern portion of our county. the sheriff's office is committed to protecting the lives and property of the people we serve and since my sheriff took office in 2005, we have sought out new and better technology to enhance both our efficiency as well as our effectiveness in carrying out our public safety mission. i believe the uav systems available to public agencies are the kind of things that will make us more successful. it's not just a law enforcement tool, but a public safety asset which can be used by fire departments, emergency management offices, and probably other government units as well. the sheriff's office has own dave shadow hawk uav, having
purchased it through a homeland security grant. the we have not used it for an operational mission to date, we absolutely see its benefits and the mission profile for swap operations, hybris warrants, locating lost persons, man hunts, hazardous material spills, fire scene, a traffic accident investigations or traffic management due to hurricane evacuation. we did not obtain this with a purpose of surveillance. i do not believe small uavs are particularly designed or suited for that type of mission. although the faa has expertise in the aeronautical field, they do not have the necessary public safety mission experience to effectively oversee this type of operational environment. if federal oversight is necessary, it was seem appropriate to establish a under
the department of home went security. different from the air nautical component, the faa would continue to manage dhs would manage the operational aspect by enforcing operational guidelines and procedures, establishing a database related to the uavs, agencies using them commission results, and act as a resource and information tool for current and interested public safety agencies. current case law supports the use of air assets by law enforcement this and i do not believe it's necessary to introduce new legislation that would severely restrict thevs effectiveness -- the uavs effectiveness. i encourage you to look at this tool for public safety agencies. i believe in this technology and the mission of protecting the
citizens in my county, the state, and this nation. >> the chair now recognizes mrs. stefonovich. >> and the number of a nonpartisan research organization focused on emerging issues in privacy and civil liberties. thank you for holding this hearing today and we believe it's important to address these issues early. drones' greatly increase the capacity for domestic surveillance and designed to carry highly invasive surveillance technology and a cheaper to buy and operate than typical surveillance vehicle and can operate undetected in it -- undetected in urban and rural environments. sensitive information is particularly are vulnerable to unlawful access. as previously discussed, there
are secure. drone hacking prosed -- poses a threat to operations. hackers are not only able to take over the movement but intercepted data feeds. we recognize drone has positive uses in that united states. it can help prevent the spread of forest fires and help them search and rescue operations. however, there are substantial legal and constitutional issues involved in the deployment of a real drones by federal agencies. as the technology becomes cheaper, it will become more widespread and the threat to privacy will grow. the current state of the law is insufficient to address the surveillance threat. legislation is needed to protect against the use of drums and surveillance tools and provide
redress against operators who fail to comply with those protections. congress has directed the faa to pass legislation that would encourage the widespread use of drones and that u.s. earlier this year, in a formal petition to the faa, we urged the agency to implement privacy rules for domestic fronts. the petition was joined by more than 100 organizations, experts and members of the public believe privacy rules are necessary before neurons and for our domestic skies in a more widespread way. -- before drones enter our skies and a more widespread way. cvp operates 10 drones in the united states.
the practice was recently assessed, making their use a bill to the other federal agencies including the department of defense, a service, many law-enforcement agencies and others. the inspector general says a standard i processes needed to request drones in order to provide transparency to the extent dhs chooses to operate them in the united states. they must develop appropriate regulations to ensure privacy. the privacy and security concerns and needs to be addressed. several colleagues have made suggestions about privacy threats but we believe the efforts are not sufficient. there are several steps that can protect privacy as the use of drones increases in our skies. congress should has targeted legislation, like congressman scott bill in a case where a warrant has not been obtained.
however, to fully address the invasive nature of drones you must print and targetted surveillance, limit the use of data collected, transmit, stored or shared and provide for independent audits and oversight. congress should act expressly request operators including dhs to implement regulations subject to public comment that address the implications of drone use. finally, congress should clarify the use where they can be deployed for other purposes. the failure to make clear the circumstances where half a barrel and state agencies can deploy them have raised concerns about the agency's program. thank you for the opportunity to testify and i would be pleased to answer your questions. >> thank you.
tsa identified a potential terrorist threat through the use of these uav systems. in colombia and they talked about with hezbollah and their concerns came to fruition last september when it was reported by the associated press man to blow up pentagon and u.s. capital is arrested and this was the drone he is going to use to do that. the guided state capitol and the peridot -- pentagon, that targets of 9/11. yet the department has a role in this to provide a security assessment and a national policy. the department apparently disagrees with you and frankly disagrees with me as the chairman. and they have refused to provide testimony before this committee
today. i find that reprehensible. i believe the department should come before this committee to answer why they believe they should not have a role in this when we had a direct threat to the capital and the pentagon yet they do not see it as the role of the department of homeland security to come up with a policy and security assessment to monitor the threat these domestic drones can pose it to the american people. do you have any idea what the rationale was? >> mr. chairman, we specifically followed up in preparation for this hearing, but before that, the gao has a policy of once we issue a recommendation that we do periodic follow-ups because those agencies are not only responsible for reporting to the gao, but they also report to congress. we followed up most recently and asked the tsa if their position
had changed and they indicated their position had not changed. but they added comments that they were doing -- they were taking actions they thought were sufficient to address the issue. as you know, one of the central tenants of tsa is risk assessment said they would know where to best deploy their resources. we would ask for some evidence of risk assessment that was done with regard to uavs and we were not able to obtain that from dhs. we still think our recommendation is valid and needed to be addressed. for balance, let me say that dhs is participating with the joint planning office as part of a cross-government-wide development for plans, but in
terms of what the nature and scope of their participation beyond the numbers of that particular group, we were not able to ascertain at this point but we continue to work that issue for our full report. >> i can't ascertain it either. and if they will come before this committee to describe what they're doing, and we possibly know what they're doing? you say they are taking certain precautions, and that they will not come before this committee to tell us what precautions they're taking. >> yes, sir. they have defied all you but the will of this committee and the american people. >> you have actually received, and security grants to purchase these drones, let yet they have no role. >> ps. >> i hope you're saying that facetiously. you say there needs to be federal oversight by the department of homeland's security. >> yes, sir.
there's a difference between the aviation aspect of but that certainly be a hit -- certainly the faa is entitled to an environment, but they do not have the understanding or expertise i believe an agency such as dhs would have in understanding the operational roles and missions at law enforcement have and the needs we would have. >> i agree. i think the faa would provide the safety of the routes but not security. tell me about the legitimate law enforcement purpose for these. i believe there is, but could you expand on it? >> we have. it needs for our swat teams to be called out and respond to critical incidents involving barricaded suspects, high-risk warrants, and this is an asset that provides that incident commander with a situational
awareness to see everything going on within that incident so that he can better manage that incident and bring it to a safe conclusion. >> i agree that it should be limited to a specific instance within a legitimate law enforcement purpose. what most american people do not want to see are thousands of these drones being is in the sky spying on the american people. when it comes to the privacy issues, which i think are legitimate concern, people can accept this is being used for a manhunt as we use helicopters in the sky for various law- enforcement purposes. what they do not want to see is spying without ammunition involved. so there is no policy. the department, insecurity has
working with state and locals, and i hope this hearing gets this attention and i hope your testimony gets their attention and they will step up to the plate and do something about it. with that, i recognize the ranking member. >> and not saying you would do this, chief, but a question for you -- if there was a law- enforcement or other official who wanted to replace or bullets with real bullets, do you know of any state law or regulation that could stop anyone from doing it right now? >> i am not aware of any law within the state of texas that would prevent that. >> i would suggest that is typical for all states. do you think we should be looking at this at the federal and state level? >> certainly i can understand it being a concern. the actuality of that ever
occurring is slim and none in my view based on the platform, accuracy that would be required, all of those things that go into a lethal or less than lethal force situation -- i do not believe these uavs are appropriate for that type of weapons platform. >> i can probably in addition a more extreme example of pappa razi of using these vehicles. is there a way that we could trace its someone is photographic or doing video camera work on people in their private lives? is there a way we can trace that said there could be civil action?
is there available civil action in the respect that could be brought forward? >> on the state level, you have to look at the peeping tom laws, but some of those very specific and require the motivation to catch a state of undress. other than that, there is no legislation that would address the circumstances. with the opaque process for losses -- for licensing these drones to be used and the fact that hobbyists can gain control and use it if without getting a license at all, there is additional barriers. >> do you believe that faa should be involved in setting these kinds of regulations? >> i believe the faa has a role. i do not believe there set up to the full district -- the full distance the department of homeland security can go. but they have a licensing authority and are able to
request a description of what the drone will be licensed and used for and held a license fee attached to that purpose. we do not believe that's happening now and we believe that would be inappropriate function of the faa. >> this i would -- i would like to say that i agree with the chair. people's privacy rights are in danger, there's the potential for terrorist activities involved and it could be misused that way. there should be some kind of control other than the good common sense of law enforcement as to how this is that -- how this is used as well. hopefully we can call up that meeting with the input from homeland security and the faa. >> the chair now recognizes mr. duncan from south carolina. >> thank you for holding this hearing. i think we do need a hearing with the faa to bring them and ask questions about what they're doing to implement permitting
and certificates with a flying unmanned aerial systems. we have a robust civilian aviation population in this country. if you have visual flight rules and you have a civilian aviator who goes up in a cessna, he is not following a flight plan and probably not looking to see if there is a certificate whether the sheriff is flying a drone in the area and the drone pilots are looking down on whatever they are surveiling. i think there's a real threat to civilian aviation with unmanned systems, especially if we see a dramatic increase that is projected based on the information provided today. i think that's a valid question and we need to talk to the faa with regard to civilian aviation. the gist of my concern about drones is the privacy issue.
it is a real issue and concern to the constituents i represent and a concern to americans across this great land, what the government is surveiling. we had an episode in nebraska where farmers were upset that the epa was a flying aircraft to check their fencing and whether their cattle were getting into the streams and are they going to use uafs for that. i make cosponsor of boston's scott's bill, which i think is an important piece of legislation. when i think about privacy issues, think about the war and terror and the police expect -- people suspect who are involved in terrorism. in order to listen on their phone conversations, the fisa court is involved. is it the court going to be
involved with these unmanned drones? where is the right of privacy edward is a court involved in this? i think these are legitimate questions the need to ask. we have an office of privacy within homeland's security. that office of privacy is there for a reason. it's to make sure the department of homeland security is involved in making sure privacy rights of u.s. citizens are not violated as we try to protect this great country. i think it's a valid question to ask and i want to thank amy for being here. what methods of civil liberty protection do you think is best to cooperate with this? >> we think the best practices to look at transparency and accountability. we're looking at procedures that
faa to make sure drone operators are not allowed to use them for what they have initially been licensed for. -- use them beyond what they have a license for. generalized surveillance we do not think is in line with constitutional principles. and as we proposed and are longer statement, we would like to see legislation geared toward protecting these rights. violations have not occurred yet and if we wait for the drones to go up in the air, i think we're going to regret it. >> thank you for protecting civil liberties in this country. we are on the coast and there's the threat of hurricanes. i could see and understand an issue whether it's that epa or homeland security or some organization to fly the coast line prior to a hurricane to
assess changes in the environment and take a real time photos. i could understand a certificate be issued for customs and border patrol if there's an area of the border being exploited. at one time certificate. i can understand the need for privacy committee to issue the certificates and i can understand the temporary certificate issued to a sheriff in canada -- if he had a prison break or drug activity. but these are isolated incidents. this is not the carte blanche flying of unmanned aerial systems. i would like to ask why has the department of homeland security been so slow to develop policies related to the domestic use of drones? >> that's a good question and we
have not been able to get an answer from dhs or tsa on why they have not followed our recommendations. we have been told by many stakeholders that it's better to act on these potential issues before we have a crisis or four some of these things occur because oftentimes not only does it take regulations two or three years to be enacted, but when regulations are enacted in a crisis situation, sometimes they are not the best work the agencies do. we continue to follow-up and point that we think a role in this situation as well as they are both in terms of privacy as well as security. >> i don't want to wait for a crisis situation. i believe we will have the department of, and security
sitting where you are city to answer these tough questions. >> let me just say not only have they not been slow, they have completely disregarded the gl and defied this committee by refusing to testify on the issue. -- disregarded bed g a l and defied this committee by refusing to testify on the issue. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. let me add my voice to that of my colleagues about a spurn -- might concern about the lack of response from dhs. clearly this is an emerging threat and this is within the jurisdiction of dhs to respond to this subcommittee and its request to know where they stand with regard to this. it is not acceptable to not
participate and not share with us their thinking when you think about the implications of these devices. you say that currently no federal agency has specific statutory responsibilities to regulate privacy matters related to uas. do you agree the responsibility should be -- the responsible agency should be dhs? which agency is most suited to take this on and why? >> the answer at this point is we're probably not in a position to say who should be responsible, but we think the process that is underway now in terms of the potential agencies, including justice, homeland
security, the faa, should work together to figure out who is going to take the lead in these particular areas. it is no one's mission at this point because these did not exist in the domestic area before not too long ago. this is something for collaboration and cooperation but definitely something that needs to be attended to now rather than later. >> do you agree? >> we do agree and we agree that as other agencies implement drones in the united states, those agencies should take on a role in regulating in protecting privacy of the people who may come under surveillance. >> the organization representing uav manufactures and operators recently released a code of conduct that included some privacy safeguards and
compliance both voluntary and unenforceable. although the -- although the attempt to address these matters with laudable, can you explain why enforcement is necessary? >> i am holding the voluntary code of conduct right here. its one page front and back. all they say on privacy as we will respect the privacy of individuals. we believe that without official action, if everything is left to one line on this page, privacy will not be sufficiently protected. >> is there a particular downside for the manufacturers in not providing a much more robust code of conduct? >> many privacy experts have said people in the united states will be very hesitant to accept the adoption of this technology
if privacy safeguards are not put into place prior to the adoption of it. we believe if we did not address this now, there will be a visceral reaction from the american public and we will not be able to comply with the spirit of the faa act which requires drones be allowed into the united states national airspace. >> from a commercial use standpoint or local law enforcement use standpoint, is it within the best interest of manufacturers to strengthen their code of conduct? >> we believe it's not only in the best interest for them to strengthen the code of conduct, it also in their best interest to support large-scale legislation related to privacy. >> thank you very much. >> the chair now recognizes billy long from missouri. >> thank you.
i guess any of you can answer -- can you define a drone for me? is there a certain size or altitude of flies that? what are we dealing with? >> it varies from hand-held model airplane types to the ones where most familiar with in terms of the predators and global hawks used mostly in the war theater. what we're talking about here for the most part is what is called a small uav, which is what the faa is trying to develop a role for. that is less than 55 pounds and relatively small in size. >> a flying trash can? >> i have heard that phrase before. it could be the size of a flying
trash can or it could be the size of a hummingbird. >> i thought you said 55 pounds. >> it varies in size. but it refers to 55 and down. >> i know the flying trash cans when they were developed, part of the thought process was to use them for police work if you are in a neighborhood chasing a suspect where they could fly that at a fairly low altitude but i just have a question on that. i think the transportation infrastructure committee has tried to tackle the problem of getting in general aerospace and
also faa air space. i think that's a separate may be issued we're trying to handle on that ankle. -- on that angle. it might understanding that anyone that can be seen by anyone driving down the street -- flying helicopter i guess i would say, but the guy sitting on his lawn smoking marijuana, you have the right to arrest that man, right? correct 3 >> it the as a backyard and a privacy fence, you are not allowed to go look up over the fence because that's not available. -- >> the norm is to be able to gravy -- to view it from what the public can see. >> that was by hillbilly way of getting there, i guess.
at 30,000 feet or whatever, we always think of the predator grounds that our armed that have been successful in military operations. but my constituents that i think a lot of constituents across the country are concerned about that type of surveillance, albeit if they're not armed, you can't see them come you can't hear them, that's a whole different level than what we were talking about a second ago, being able to see what you can normally see. >> certainly the utilization of day uav over an area was opened up to view from law enforcement or any other governmental entity. >> these small ones we are talking about today, the flying trash cans, i have seen those and i think they would be fairly apparent to people. i have not seen one operate. i have seen it on the shelf where they develop them.
but as far as the sound they put out, are most of those going to be -- are people going to be able to acknowledge there is something flying over their farm or their house looking to see if you are shooting doves? >> yes, sir. that's an excellent point. the uavs public safety organizations are looking to the allies are not the global talks or predator at $20 million a copy. these are very small in stature, the maximum time aloft on a car shadow hawk is two hours and 20 minutes. >> at what altitude? >> no more than 400 feet above ground level. >> people are going to be able -- the privacy concern would be d. ittle bit alleviate i
>> at that altitude, it sounds like a very powerful weed eater. >> maybe you could make a weeder out of one of them. the department of homeland's security will not testify before this subcommittee. is that correct? i rest my case. >> thank you for the point and i will close on that as well. >> it's refreshing to hear my good republican friends talking about civil liberties. i appreciate that. on the epa story by fox, fox actually took that back. it was not a uav, it was
aircraft they have been flying for the past 10 years under both democratic and republican presidents. i have a border sure who happens to be my brothers. if there are evidence collection techniques, i assume as a sure if you have procedures and follow that, correct? >> that's correct. >> if someone violates that, they would be liable for not falling at -- following that? >> yes, sir. >> having pre peace officers in my family, i put a lot of trust in law enforcement. even though there are bad apples, you have to follow the constitution, correct? >> absolutely. >> there is the fourth amendment of the u.s. constitution which prohibited a limited search and seizures and says warrants should be based on probable cause. the supreme court has
interpreted different cases, for example, talking about aircraft. keep in mind the supreme court has already talked about using a camera on aircraft. but this is a different platform. just to make sure we all understand, the supreme court has said there's an expectation of privacy when it is inside the house. it's a different type of privacy. once you go outside the house, there's a different type of privacy. they have less expectation of privacy that inside there, and the supreme court has talked about the open field doctrine. you are familiar with the dow chemical co. vs. the united states? i'm sure you are familiar with the open field doctrine of california case. the supreme court held up the
police did not have to obtain a search warrant when observing a person's backyard from an airplane more than 1,000 feet above the air, is that right? that's what the supreme court held. also the court defined aerial searches that said -- you mentioned 400 feet -- police officers do not need a search warrant when they are flying a helicopter above 400 feet. in this case, a different type of platform but if you are flying 400 feet, and a search warrant. but if you are flying below 400 feet, and i believe most of these uavs will be at 400 or below, therefore if is, if you are flying at 400 feet in altitude, you would need a search warrant whether you use a helicopter or uav, probably not
an airplane. the supreme court has already laid out the law on what does. i agree with my colleagues here that we probably need to look at some legislation. but as we draft the legislation, we have to keep in mind the supreme court has already defined open doctrine, home, business, and certain expectations, correct? >> guest, that is absolutely correct. as far as case law in my view and from those i have talked with, there is no difference between establishing a separate type of case law for uavs. the manned aircraft component is nothing more than an aircraft with people in it compared to one that has them on the ground. case law is the same because they're both air assets.
>> in the dow chemical co. vs. the united states, it involved the airborne use of thermal imaging. here is another case where technology is being used and i am one of those, i'm fascinated by these uavs but i understand there are concerns. who i look at the doctor's recommendations -- i looked at the doctor's recommendations and i think we should take a look at those. the supreme court has ruled on this and if we do any legislation, let's look at the legislation and use some common sense in applying some of this and put a little trust in our law enforcement, which i appreciate, having the three brothers and having won as a border share, i appreciate the work you do. >> let me just close by saying as we think the witnesses for
being here, as a formal -- as a former federal prosecutor -- is there somebody i missed? mr. davis. i sincerely apologize. >> i don't really have a lot to ask but let me ask -- you mentioned in your testimony something about using the instruments to jam signals. that could become a problem. would you mention that a little bit more? >> yes, sir. one of the emerging issues we have identified is the potential that this signals that control these uavs in flight --
and again we are talking about the small ones as opposed to the and scripted dod type -- they could be jammed and break command and control links with the uav, meaning the uav could go off course. it could include being taken control over. clearly breaking the command- and-control link with the appropriate persons or organizations controlling it is something that needs to be addressed now before we have these potentially serious kinds of incidents. >> thank you very much. let me ask you, chief mcdaniel, the data that is collected --
could you describe what kind of data is and what it is used for and how long is it kept? with the individuals have any idea that this data may be collected that involves them? >> the only data we are collecting off of our shadow hawk is color video. we can convert that to still photographs or video depending upon the situation. we would obviously store the video for criminal purposes, if our swat team is going in on an individual or high risk warrant, we would have that video or photographs preserved as evidence. it does have a forward-looking infrared camera system that can
identify heat sources in low light conditions. however, the idea behind that was worth were searching for lost persons of our national forest to more readily be able to identify them. it that say you got to a farmer -- let's say you got a tip that a farmer was using his or her acreage and had a little plot of marijuana growing. you wanted to check that out with one of these vehicles. would there be a way to do that without acquiring a search warrant or would you be within -- how would you handle a situation like that? >> as indicated earlier, the
supreme court established the open fields document that allows the things that could be observed that the majority of the public could see. responding to the example you present, the reality is -- and this is based upon what forssmann investigation techniques etc., -- based upon law enforcement investigation techniques, etc. -- using this drone to observe a marijuana field, it would not be a good investigative tool because of the restraint the faa puts on the use of uavs flying no higher than 400 feet and because of the noise and size of it. if we are trying to investigate whether there's a marijuana field to continue with our
destination and ultimately arrest suspects, the uav is not yet. -- is not it. >> are you comfortable enough attention is being given to that individual rights and civil liberties of citizens given the use of this type of surveillance? >> i'm not sure of comfortable be the right term. we do respect the fact law- enforcement does not plan to use drones for broad tent -- are brought and then targeted access and we it -- we respect the supreme court precedent that allows for aerial surveillance in open fields. however, recently, the supreme court did investigate a case of police using gps without a warrant to track a suspect. drone adult -- drones allow for
that kind of surveillance and justice alito wrote an eloquent defense saying the best solution to privacy concerns may be legislative and we agree with him and that we believe drones represent a similar jump in technology from normal tracking of an individual with a policeman in a police car as drones represent to aerial tracking in a helicopter or airplane. >> thank you for a very interesting hearing. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. davis and i apologize for my oversight. this has been a really productive hearing and very insightful. let me just close by saying as a former federal prosecutor, i recognize the value of look -- a legitimate law enforcement value of technology.
we have to balance privacy and security. obviously the fourth amendment applies here. the case was set forth are there. -- the case law set forth is there, but this is an evolving field of we have thousands of these things that could be deployed in the skies over the next couple of years. we may see 10,000 of these things and i think it is incumbent upon the department of homeland security to come up with the policy and security analysis. one thing we can all agree on, interestingly, both republican and democrat and all three of these witnesses agree on one thing -- that is that dhs has a role. i think local law enforcement needs that guidance and i think
as a privacy expert, the office of privacy within dhs should be involved in this issue. i hope we can all walk away from here with that common goal and understanding and i hope this week's up the department that they need to step up to the plate and do something. with that, i do want to thank the witnesses. this has been a very insightful and productive hearing and i thank the members for their questions. thank you very much. this hearing now is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]
>> join us later today for a speech by senator dianne feinstein. the california democrat chairs the intelligence committee and will be at the wilson center in washington talking about the oversight of the intelligence community and national security issues. that is live at 12:30 eastern on c-span2. later, a discussion on presidential campaign ads and how viewers are receiving them. that gets underway at 1:00
eastern, live on c-span3. ♪ >> watch "book tv" and "american history tv" as the c-span content vehicle looks at the culture of louisville, ky, home of the little slugger and the oldest independent bookstore, carmichael's. >> of the stores i have seen fail our stores opened by people who were interested in having a business, not that they had an attachment to books or love of books, but they were business people. i think you really have to have a gut attachment to book and care about them because your customers like them. your customers come because they really care about books. >> that august 4 and fifth on c-
span2 and 3. >> before we go live to the floor of the house, we will look at how the "washington times" is reporting a debate over the weekend. senate candidates in virginia offered glimpses of the lines of their attack in the first debate. the democrats repeatedly labeled the republican opponent george allen as a big spender and mr. allen painted mr. kaine as a serial tax hiker and cheerleader for president obama's agenda, particularly his high-profile health-care law. the face-off
was held at the tony homestead resort and was the two former governors first head-to-head matchup since mr. allen won the republican primary. both men begin by acknowledging the tragedy in