Pentagon Admits Deploying Spy Drones Over US, Claims All Were 'Lawful' (msn.com)

lightbox32 writes with this excerpt from MSN News confirming what many people suspected with the proliferation of military and law-enforcement drones would happen, already has: A report by a Pentagon inspector general, made public under a Freedom of Information Act request, said spy drones on non-military missions have occurred fewer than 20 times between 2006 and 2015 and always in compliance with existing law. ... The use of unmanned aerial surveillance (UAS) drones over U.S. surfaced in 2013 when then-FBI director Robert Mueller testified before Congress that the bureau employed spy drones to aid investigations, but in a "very, very minimal way, very seldom." The inspector general analysis was completed March 20, 2015, but not released publicly until last Friday. ... The report quoted a military law review article that said "the appetite to use them (spy drones) in the domestic environment to collect airborne imagery continues to grow, as does Congressional and media interest in their deployment."

Comments

Re:Should we really be surprised this is legal?

[Firethorn]

Surveilling or gathering intelligence on civilians in the pursuit of aiding law enforcement is not in the list of exceptions.

With 20 missions over the past 10 years, I could see an average of 2 missions a year for 'non-military' purposes also being unrelated to law enforcement. Search & Rescue and map updating also aren't law enforcement use.

"Lawful" needs more explanation

[gurps_npc]

There is a huge difference between "lawful" as in 'We did nothing that any civilian could not also do, without any special authorization." and "lawful" as in "our lawyers, whom we pay and have previously said that drowning someone is an acceptable information gathering technique, claim is consistent with the law".

Basically, the word "lawful" is not in any way helpful without further explanation. It's the equivalent of saying "Nah, nah, my mother said it's OK."

You want to convince me it's lawful, state the supreme court ruling or specific law that allows it. Otherwise, don't talk about it being lawful, it just makes you look like a fascist.