President Obama annouced rules related to targetted killings and drones

A guick description by the NYT:

In a widely anticipated speech at the National Defense University, Mr. Obama offered his most expansive defense of the drone war he has waged since taking office, but he signaled that he planned to wind down the strikes, which have stirred controversy at home and abroad. He referred obliquely to a new secret order imposing a higher standard on authorizing such attacks and shifting responsibility more from the C.I.A. to the military.

Beyond that, Mr. Obama proposed the creation of a secret court or some other independent body that would have to sign off on strikes in the future. He also called on Congress to revise the authorization of force it passed in the aftermath of Sept. 11 to reflect the changing nature of the war on terrorism. And he renewed his moribund effort to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, by saying that he would lift a moratorium on transferring scores of detainees to Yemen.

Taken together, the president’s words and deeds added up to an effort to move the country away from the perpetual war on terrorism envisioned by his predecessor, George W. Bush, toward a more limited campaign against particular groups that would eventually be curtailed even if the threat of terrorism could never be eliminated.

Andrew Sullivan has a compilation of reactions to the speech here.

And Foreign Policy offers a clift notes guide to four key points made in the speech.

1 - A location in the US will be found to try Guantanamo detainees.
2 - A process will begin to determine how to oversee drone strikes , like involving the creation of a special court.
3 - Drones strikes will be carried out by the military, not the CIA.
4 - The War on Terror will end, someday.

Police drones are coming

Grits for Breakfast reports on the FAA's licensing of Arlington PD's drones, and the efforts in the legislature to regulate them. Private drones are soon to follow:

Since the FAA won't be licensing private drones until September 2015, I'd prefer to see the focus for now remain on a warrant requirement for police surveillance and curtailing their regulatory use by government. By 2015, the issues surrounding private use of drones will be in sharper focus, the issue will be more ripe for legislation, and there is still time to enact it before the FAA approves private use use of drones in their airspace the following September. Today, in 2013, the goal should be to limit their use by state and local government which, as in Arlington, is the main consumer at the moment of privacy invading drone technology.

The Anti-Drone

The potential onslaught of drones has created a market for counter-drone technology.

A student sends this story about such a company:

"We understand the nature of the equipment drone manufacturers are using and understand how to counter their sensors," Faucett says. "We're not going to be countering Predator drones that are shooting cruise missiles, but we're talking about local law enforcement drones and commercial ones that people might be using for spying."

For now, Faucett admits the technology is "expensive," but the company is already ready to design custom anti-drone boxes for customers.

"We envision it could be cheap enough for residential use very soon," he says. "It's quite possible to deploy it if you were shooting a movie and wanted to protect your set, or if you had a house in Malibu and wanted to protect that, we could deploy it there. If a huge company like Google wanted to protect its server farms, it can be scaled up for a larger, fixed installation."

As drones become more commonplace, Faucett says more people will begin searching for a way to protect their privacy.

"The thing that brought it home for me was Senator [Rand] Paul doing the filibuster, there's a lot of unanswered questions," he says. "We think there might be as much business for this counter drone stuff as there is for the drones themselves."

The Drone Lobby and the Drone Caucus

Why not?

We've had Drone Court and Drone Journalism, now here's a story about the individuals who argue in favor of drone technology and the members of Congress who support them.

Here's a snippet describing a meeting among drone supporters worried about how the technology is perceived:

“As you can see,” [Lobbyist Ben] Gielow said dryly, “we have a challenge with the media.”

As the second day went on, the focus shifted to solutions. I overheard attendees muttering that maybe the safest thing to do for now was to market to farmers who wanted drones to survey their crops. “No one’s gonna say you’re spying on the corn,” one said darkly.

It was also agreed that the D-word had to go. “That term ‘drone’ kills us every time,” said Don Roby, a garrulous Baltimore County police captain leading a nationwide push to deploy drones for police work. Barton mentioned that, when doing business in England, he’d been urged to call drones “remote-sensing platforms.” Unfortunately, this euphemism proved to be overly euphemistic. One potential investor told Barton: “That remote-sensing platform—if it had wings, just imagine what it could do!”

Jerry Wright, a retired Air Force colonel, had another idea. When the police chief of Seattle sought approval to use drones, he brought in an ominous-looking black Draganflyer X6 to display during his presentation. City officials recoiled in horror. So, Wright said, the chief went back to the manufacturer. “They came back with the same platform painted pink and they were going to call it the Soft Kitty 2000.” To Wright, there was a clear lesson to be drawn here: “As an industry, we need more pink ones and less black ones.”

A pink drone - great idea. The Soft Kitty 2000.

Here's a link to the Congressional Unmanned Systems Caucus. Local Reps Gene Green, Michael McCaul, and Pete Olson are members.