Live Blog! Public Policy Inst's Drone Panel

[TheCat]

We'll be live soon.

This is the panel:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-oct-jus-public-policy-institute-hosts-panel-on-drones/page/3

[TheCat]

We're starting.

We just finished an over view summary of military drones.

Moderator is being introduced, Rick Mullaney.

See the above link to review panelists bios.

Rick Mullaney, the moderator, is up to the podium.  He introduces the rest of the panelists. These are their bios:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-oct-jus-public-policy-institute-hosts-panel-on-drones/page/3

[TheCat]

Mullaney - great speaker.

We're discussion military vehicles:

First question:

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are just one element of a broader movement towards automated/robotic military technology.

Currently, military UAV's are directly controlled by human operators and decisions to engage a target is one that still requires a human decision. This is a changing proposition. Technology already exists, though not explicitly used, to launch attacks based on predetermined algorithms.  This is referred to as "Lethal Autonomy," which essentially means, " when robots kill independent of direct human decision making."

*a) What are the potential risks/benefits of this sort of technology?

Brent: The technology is still far off. Pretty far off future. I do want to address "autonomy". Much like to day there is always a human making decisions.  Ultimately, I don't ever see a day where a human's won't be making a decision. 

Dare: We will have an autonomous military. Maybe, in the United States maybe we will always an person involved making a decisions. But, will all nations? no.

Soderberg: Things go wrong. people make mistakes. This is technology is revolutionizing the legal world. If a drone goes wrong who is liable.

Foley: If a drone goes wrong that is a strict liability against the manufacturer. I don't like that weapons are made by private contractors. It leads to a pressure to make more, sell more...to use more. The biggest problem is the for-profit nature of manufacturing.

[TheCat]

Freiberger: There is a standard ethical problem when you use any weapon. Once you automate it you have a real problem.

Soderberg: I don't think this is driven by profit; although, this i multiple billion dollar business. Still, I think there is another motivation that is driving this. This technology started 15 years ago when I was in the white house. Obama, campaigned against these technologies and now uses them because they work.  The constant use has pushed us into a whole new world of legal implicaitons.

Mullaney: Wasn't the safety of the pilot the initial purpose of the drive towards drones.

Freiberger: They work and they are very effective. That's part of the problem. They may be too effective.

He is saying, War can become more lacking in  contemplation because risk is low, which makes it easier to strike.

Mullaney: War is hell. Doesn't the problem of civilian casualties an issue whether it is a drone or a piloted vehicle?

Klavon: One use for UAV's is cargo delivery. The marines would prefer to transfer  cargo through air with UAVs


** There are about 85 people in the auditorium.**

[TheCat]

Is it in our best interest to develop the robotic technology:

Foley: there is a potential blowback.

Dare: It's absolutely not  in our interest to develop lethal autonomy. There is nothing more endearing than seeing a "killer death robot" with USA printed on the bottom of the UAV. I think what made us respected was the reputation that America was seen as the good guy.

Are we really doing a service to ourselves to figure out a way to figure out a way to kill people without thinking about it.

Soderberg: It's going to happen whether we want it to happen or not. It can used in our best interest if they are done correctly. It's not just about killing people. There are other uses for this.

Klavon: Does this technology threaten our way of life?

[TheCat]

Is Drone technology any different from other surveillance tools?


Klavon: The question is not about the technology but about what rights the government has to collect information on it's citizens.

Soderberg: There is a lot of uncertainty about surveillance. For instance, a tracker was placed on a JEEP for 28 days just tracking their movement. The court said that this was a "search" that requires a warrant and it violates privacy. BUT, there was a court case that tracked a car from the air via GPS and it was not considered a violation of privacy.

Klavon: This proves the point that it's not about the technology but about the government's right to collect information.

[TheCat]

Klavon: Japan has used unmanned helicopter drones since 1995. They are used for agriculture purposes. They have over 2000 of these and there haven't been any complaints.

Soderberg: Drones are not a threat to democracy if they are used properly. But if we are headed towards an Orwellian society yeah...we should prevent that.

Dare: Democracy relies on a certain amount  instability. Opposition presupposes a certain amount of shakiness.

Who regulates, federal, state or other?

Foley: It supersedes the ability of the FAA to regulate on privacy. They should be focused more on safety.

Soderberg: It will have to be legislated the US Congress which will inform the FAA policy.

[TheCat]

We're wrapping up. Thanks for joining us.