Gorgon Stare: A "Persistent Eye in the Sky" May Be Coming to a City Near You
The military and the drone manufacturers, principally General Atomics, are
arguing that the technology has advanced far enough that flying 79-ft.
wingspan, six-ton drones over populated areas and alongside commercial air
traffic is safe.
by Medea Benjamin and Barry Summers
September 15th, 2020
By Medea Benjamin and
Barry Summers
Gorgon Stare will be looking at a whole city, so there will be no way for
the adversary to know what we're looking at, and we can see everything. That
same persistent eye in the sky may soon be deployed over U.S. cities.
At the time he made that comment about surveillance drones over Afghanistan,
Maj. General James Poss was the Air Force's top intelligence officer. He was
preparing to leave the Pentagon, and move over to the Federal Aviation
Administration. His job was to begin executing the plan to allow those same
surveillance drones to fly over American cities.
This plan was ordered by Congress in the 2010 National Defense Authorization
Act. It directed the Departments of Defense and Transportation to "develop a
plan for providing expanded access to the national airspace for unmanned
aircraft systems of the Department of Defense." Gen. Poss was one of nearly
two dozen ex-military officers who, starting in 2010, were put into
positions at the FAA to oversee drone integration research. With little
public scrutiny, the plan has been moving forward ever since.
If you're thinking that this is a partisan issue, think again. This plan has
been enacted and expanded under Presidents and Congresses of both parties.
If you're uncomfortable with a President Biden having the ability to track
the movements of every Tea Party or Q-Anon supporter, you should be. Just as
we should all be concerned about a President Trump tracking.well, everybody
else.
Along with civil liberties, a major concern must be safety. The military and
the drone manufacturers, principally General Atomics, are arguing that the
technology has advanced far enough that flying 79-ft. wingspan, six-ton
drones over populated areas and alongside commercial air traffic is safe. We
have one response: self-driving cars. Self-driving cars present a
technological problem that is an order of magnitude simpler than aircraft
flying hundreds of miles per hour in three dimensions. Yet they still can't
keep these cars from plowing into stationary objects like firetrucks (or
people) at 60 mph in two dimensions. Are we really comfortable with
pilotless aircraft operating in the same airspace as the 747 at 30,000 feet
that is bringing your children home for Christmas? These drones have a
troubled history of crashing and unfortunately, the process for determining
whether these drones are now truly safe has been compromised by having the
military, which wants this approval, largely in charge of the testing.
Which brings us to San Diego. Last October, General Atomics announced that
they would be flying their biggest, most advanced surveillance drone yet,
the SkyGuardian, over the City of San Diego sometime this summer. The stated
purpose was to demonstrate potential commercial applications of large drones
over American cities. In this case, the drone would be used to survey the
city's infrastructure.
But when General Atomics first began preparing for the flight, the goal was
a very different one: Back in 2017, military technology analysts were
predicting that by 2025, drones similar to those used in Afghanistan and
Iraq would be hovering above U.S. cities, relaying high-resolution video of
the movement of every citizen to police departments (and who knows who
else). When there was public pushback to this police department drone
use-even a pro-industry reporter called the idea "dystopian"-General Atomics
changed the purpose of the flight from providing data to the police to
"mapping critical infrastructure" in the San Diego region.
The FAA, which is responsible for granting permission to General Atomics,
has kept the process secret. When the Voice of San Diego asked for more
information, the FAA refused on the grounds that this supposed commercial
demonstration was actually "military." The Voice of San Diego is now suing
to get answers and the ACLU has also expressed concern about the flight.
Amid the scrutiny, General Atomics quietly announced that the flight was
cancelled, but this is certain to be a small hiccup in their long-term plan.
In fact, General Atomics' drones are already being used domestically. U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) flies Predators over parts of the U.S.-
Mexico and U.S.-Canadian borders. Recently, CBP has expanded their reach,
using these drones to assist police in Minneapolis, San Antonio and Detroit
in the wake of protests against police brutality. Deeply concerned, members
of Congress wrote to federal agencies denouncing the chilling effect of
government surveillance on law-abiding Americans and demanding an immediate
end to surveilling peaceful protests.
The concerns of these members of Congress should be echoed by the general
public. What are the possible effects on our civil liberties from having
high-tech surveillance platforms circling over millions of Americans,
gathering information about our every move? We know from past experience
that every government surveillance technology that can be abused has been
abused. Allowing this powerful technology to be taken from overseas wars and
turned inward on American citizens isn't something that should happen
without a robust public debate. The implications for civil liberties are too
profound.
Feature photo | Thomas J. Cassidy, Former
