Whatever you call them UAVs, UASs, RPAs, HALEs, MALEs or
drones, unmanned systems don’t have the best reputation. But what is on the
horizon for this technology?
Over almost two decades, the Pixar company has turned out a
succession of highly successful movies using state of the art computer
generated imagery, aimed at children but sufficiently sophisticated to appeal
to their parents. Those have featured a various cute toys, insects, monsters,
fish, cars, robots but nothing much to do with the military.
So your correspondent was amused to come across an article
on the cracked.com satirical website titled Drones: The Movie Pixar Doesn’t
have the Balls to Make.
This recounted the touching tale of Preddy who once soared
the skies over Pakistan, hunting for Osama Bin Laden and even taking out a
couple of al-Qaeda’s highly imperilled second-in-commands. Preddy also
acknowledged there were innocents lost in the wake of his destruction.
Like lots of other veterans, Preddy found himself back home
in search of a meaningful job, variously delivering burritos from the sky,
babysitting and working as a security guard and even soaring over Sweden as a
hub for an illegal bit-torrent download site.
Preddy finally found peace scouting for rhino poachers over
India’s Kaziranga National Park, with the occasional foray into hurricanes on
behalf of the National Hurricane Centre.
The point of this is that drones don’t have a great rep and
any public discussion invariably goes to US operations using armed drones,
mostly over Pakistan and Afghanistan but increasingly over Yemen and Somalia.
There are plenty of drones in Australia’s future and the
debate has really only just begun. In early July, the Williams Foundation made
a worthy contribution with a variety of experts canvassing various issues.
Your correspondent will consider a few issues raised,
firstly admitting guilt for routinely using the word drone as media shorthand
for unmanned air systems (UAS). The experts, among them RAAF Chief Air Marshal
Geoff Brown, prefer to describe the collective capability as UAS and the actual
vehicle as remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) rather than unmanned aerial vehicle
(UAV).
Drone implies autonomous capability –specifically making of
targeting decisions without human involvement – which is in clear breach of the
Three Laws of Robotics as expounded by Isaac Asimov in 1942.
Rule one says: A robot may not injure a human being or,
through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. Rules two and three
require a robot to obey human orders and protect its own existence, so long as
that doesn’t conflict with rule one.
Other writers have come up with variations, some not
entirely serious, such as: A robot will guard its own existence with lethal
antipersonnel weaponry, because a robot is bloody expensive.
There is much heat in the debate about armed UAVs. Clearly
humans are involved in every aspect of UAV operations and that’s likely to remain
the case for some time. However, UAVs and other robotic systems will
increasingly gain the capability for autonomous operations with growing
potential for adverse consequences.
The US military has actually thought about this. For
example, a 2009 US Navy study says the coding for a war robot is so complex
that any glitches could cost lives. The author suggested inclusion of learning
logic for rights and wrong of ethical warfare.
In one area, an autonomous lethal capability is feasible now
– remote weapons systems (RWS), akin to those atop ASLAV and Bushmaster
vehicles. With appropriate sensors and embedded rules of engagement, RWS could
guard sensitive sites, either from fixed locations or as a roving security
guard.
In such barbed wire surrounded facilities, there would be a
minimal risk of intrusion by wandering farmers and anyone inside could be
deemed a risk and subjected to incapacitating or lethal force. That’s the
theory anyway.
There are certainly armed UAVs in Australia’s future.
AIRMSHL Brown said Australian forces deserved the best possible level of
protection and if that meant acquiring a capability that increased that
protection, it would be negligent not to do so.
However actual strike missions would be relatively few
compared to the number of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance tasks
which is wholly what the RPAs in inventory do now.
For most people, armed RPAs are a remote concept. What will
really grab their attention is when Qantas starts flying passengers on unmanned
aircraft. AIRMSHL Brown said modern aviation already relies heavily on
automation to deliver performance and safety expected by the travelling public,
who remained mostly unaware that for most of their trip, the crew rarely
touched the controls.
Then there’s the occasion when one of the small, inexpensive
camera-equipped drones steered by a nosy neighbour flies over your backyard
pool party, streaming vision to the internet to illustrate his grievance about
the pack of noisy bastards who live next door.
Gun-toting Americans are already threatening use of lethal
force against drones to protect their rights to privacy under the 4th and other
amendments. That’s not just a problem for annoying neighbours, assorted snoops
and media organisations. Police are increasingly using small RPAs for
surveillance.
In Australia, as everywhere else, the greatest use of RPA
capabilities will be on the land. The ability to check fencelines, crops or
bushfires speedily and at low cost using drone technology is just becoming
appreciated. There’s much more but, with that many small aircraft flying around
filming all beneath, including those operated by defence, privacy issues have
yet to be adequately considered.
To that end, a new inquiry by the Australian Law Reform
Commission may help.
Attorney General Mark Dreyfus launched that at the end of
July to consider privacy implications from the rapid growth in use of
information, surveillance and communications technology. The Commission will
also consider legal design of a statutory cause of action for serious breaches
of privacy. It has a year to report back to the government.
Preddy would approve. After a succession of dead-end jobs he
felt a growing sense of unease as he patrolled the grounds of Georgia Institute
of Technology.
“He thought he was fighting to prevent things like this
restriction of freedom from happening, yet here he was – keeping a watchful eye
over drunken frat kids who just wanted to get pledge-spanked in the nude with
dignity and a little privacy.”
