Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ben Tsai
English 112
Mrs. Barnes
14 May 2017
Drones are discreetly affecting everybody, in both positive and negative ways. When
there is a highly controversial topic, it can be extremely difficult to make an important decision
regarding the subject. The issue of drones is one of these topics. Drones are unmanned aircrafts
that can navigate autonomously. These aircrafts are very diverse and have many different
attributes and sides. They are used for both military purposes and as commercial/recreational
drones, each with their own dark and light sides. Since drones have conflicting views, it makes it
challenging for opinions to be formed, or an impactful decision to be made which would appeal
to both sides of the argument. While drones can be beneficial and helpful, they can also have
negative aspects.
The possibilities of the future are endless. With all of the technological advancements
occurring everyday, there is no telling what humans will accomplish. Many people have hope for
the future of drones, and believe they can be very helpful. Along with being used to deliver
packages, take aerial videos and pictures, race, and create jobs, drones also play a much more
important role. Drones are currently being used to protect U.S. citizens in the military aspect by
patrolling the borders, as well as responding to disasters. Michael Kotelnik, a retired United
States Air Force major general and the assistant commissioner of the Office of Air wrote an
article on the issue. In the article he said, Drones have several advantages as a homeland
Tsai 2
security tool: they can provide over twenty hours of surveillance on one mission and carry
sensors to meet evolving threats (Kotelnik). Military drones are very useful for the protection of
the united states. Along with this, they are very efficient and are able to supply air support
without risking the life of a pilot. That is why drones are so important, because not only do they
protect people, but they also keep pilots out of harm's way. These drones, such as the predator
and guardian drone, are all said to be operating legally and safely. The U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP), as well as the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of
Defense, all help to regulate and control these drones. They have multiple Certificates of
Aviation from the Federal Aviation Administration to ensure the drones meet all requirements.
The CBP, work with many organizations and operational limitations that ensure the safety of
other NAS users and people and property on the ground (Kotelnik). When working
domestically the CBP go to great lengths to make sure all of their work with drones is done
With all the future possibilities for drones, one must fear the dangerous opportunities
which drones create. With every positive, comes a negative, and drones are no exception.
Although there are many positive uses, it would be unwise to neglect the negative uses as well.
Naturally, people will be worried about their privacy, but when thinking practically, it is easy to
see that privacy is not the biggest concern. An attorney, John Whitehead, shares his point of view
for the future of drones. He, along with others, are concerned drones will eventually be used to
control and contain people and law enforcement officials will likely weaponize domestic
drones (Whitehead). He provides evidence from past occurrences to prove that his thoughts are
not unrealistic. In the past, law enforcement have used military tools in domestic situations. They
Tsai 3
incorporated both tear gas and tasers into their arsenal. Whitehead writes almost like a
conspiracy theorist when he talks about how drones are advancing more dangerously, and cant
decipher between suspect and innocent. Drones can hurt people in more than just purposeful
situations, there can also be the inevitable accidents. Even with the current laws in no flight
zones, it is still probable that drones could interfere with commercial flights and potentially
cause a disaster. In both of these ways, drones are seen as the inevitable destruction of human
lives.
Now, Whitehead was writing about law enforcement, who are, in the United States,
ultimately on the civilians side. Drones being used to commit malicious and truly despicable
atrocities, is a completely different subject. Probably the most prevalent danger of drones is the
weaponized threat. This threat is very real. David Stuckenberg, a national security expert, states
that, In recent years, lone actors and groups acting on behalf of extremist organizations have
tried, failed, and succeeded with drone attacks (Stuckenberg). The weaponization and terrorist
use of commercial drones was inevitable the moment drones were created. It is evident drones
can deliver a very lethal outcome. With the ever advancing technology of the twenty-first
century, there also comes more ways to potentially hurt people. Along with drones possibly
being an obvious loaded killing machine, they can also cause harm in less obvious ways.
Stuckenberg writes, drones could potentially deliver chemical, biological or other weapons.
And it's already been done (Stuckenberg). The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons in Netherlands explained an incident in 2014 in which radioactive material was used on
a drone in an attack in Japan. Although there are many outgoing positive effects of drones, the
The overwhelming abundance of both positive and negative consequences of drone use
show that a solution needs to be made in the upcoming future. Unfortunately, the general
population has split opinions. A survey was conducted where fifty people, chosen at random,
answered questions about drones. After the results were viewed, it seemed relevant that exactly
half of the people think drone laws need to be more strict, while the other half do not. In an
interview conducted with a deputy sheriff and the assistant safety director for Jackson Local
School District, Eric Escola introduced a brilliant point when he agreed drone laws need to be
more strict. He then said, It will be a challenging task to enforce stricter drone laws. It will take
local, state, and federal cooperation to enforce laws as they are enacted. Past experiences and
current trends lead some to believe drone laws need to either stay the same or become more
strict. It has also led others to believe drones need to be banned as a whole. Mr. Escola is right,
there does need to be a change within the drone laws, but in which direction?
Since people cant seem to reach a consensus, it is challenging for the government to
reach a mutually beneficial solution. While some think that drone laws need to stay the same for
the uses of racing, filming, package delivering, etc., many others believe a drone ban is necessary
for the protection of the American people. But the unbiased viewpoint of Vivek Wadhwa, a
fellow at stanford university, brings important information to the table. He is aware of the
dangers of drones, and he takes them into account, but he still strongly believes a ban is not
necessary. He states, then there is the practicability of enforcement. If the government should
institute restrictions and penalties, who will enforce them? and there needs to be a core
technology framework for collision avoidance (Wadhwa). Much like the Prohibition, Wadhwa
believes it will be unenforceable and become more of a serious problem. There are many
Tsai 5
problems with drones, but it seems logical that a ban is not the best option. Changes do need to
be made, big changes, for better or for worse. Whatever side the changes benefit doesnt matter,
because both sides are looking to benefit American citizens. But with the disagreements between
each side, it is nearly impossible for a decision to be reached. It is evident, that drones affect
people in both positive and negative ways, and that a nearly impossible compromise needs to be
made.
Tsai 6
Works Cited
Kostelnik, Michael C. "Drones Are Effective for Border Security and Disaster Assistance."
Viewpoints in Context,
link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010888213/OVIC?u=mass12242&xid=be9ab075.
Stuckenberg, David, and Sarah Nilsson. "MEETING THE DRONE THREAT." Tampa Bay
link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A466802282/GIC?u=mass12242&xid=a0218767. Accessed
12 Jan. 2017.
Wadhwa, Vivek. "Banning Commercial Drones Is Not the Answer." Drones, edited by Tamara
Context,
link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010977228/OVIC?u=mass12242&xid=8786e6f3.
Accessed 11 Jan. 2017. Originally published as "Banning Drones Won't Solve the
Whitehead, John W. "The Domestic Use of Drones Poses Serious Threats to Civil Liberties."
Viewpoints in Context,
link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010888211/OVIC?u=mass12242&xid=d07181e5.