Persistent Surveillance Systems

Persistent surveillance systems are an emergent technology that allows governments and authorities to survey entire cities at once through the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV’s) and drones. Outfitted with extremely high-resolution cameras that can monitor cities nearly 24/7, these systems can be used to solve crimes and track other criminal activity by literally turning back time in the imagery to track people and places associated with events that have occurred. 

As one can probably imagine, these incredibly powerful security tools also come with an incredible cost to the privacy of the residents living within a city under the watchful eye of one of these systems. If the information gathered by one of these systems were to be stored and analyzed through the use of a GIS database, entire populations every move could be tracked and catalogued. Originally used in Iraq to aid in war efforts, this technology has begun to work its way west and its ability to aid in not only solving and deterring crime, but also in other areas such as disaster assessment and emergency response is beginning to temp cities with the possibility of setting up their own persistent surveillance systems. The only question that remains is “are these systems worth it?”

In the past few decades, the world has slowly trended toward increases in security, often at the cost of privacy. This trend raises many ethical concerns about the appropriate uses and intensity of security practices. Where do we draw the line regarding when increases in security are not worth the privacy that we give up as a result? Persistent surveillance systems are great examples of this conundrum. While the security they stand to provide is unmatched, the privacy cost is accordingly monumental. In a city where a persistent surveillance system is being utilized, pretty much anytime you are outside you are being watched. The unethical aspects of these systems are obvious, but some may argue that constant surveillance is the price we pay for a safer world. Through the following case studies, I hope to examine both the benefits as well as the ethical concerns that arise from the use of these systems.

As we have seen in the various case studies explored above, persistent surveillance systems and the closely intertwined technologies of UAVs and drones are capable of both beneficial and harmful use, depending on where you stand and how you interpret peoples right to privacy. The ethical considerations of the use of this technology varies widely on a case by case basis, and while the use of this technology to monitor things like the environment, agriculture, and disasters is indeed hard to find fault in, its use to monitor human populations is much more ripe with unethical implications. While paraded as being used for noble causes, it is easy to see how the use of persistent surveillance systems can be twisted and used in unassuming ways that erode citizens rights to privacy. As we have seen in the initial case studies covered in this presentation, while military use of persistent surveillance systems in order to protect the lives of soldiers is one thing, the transition to use on civilians is much harder to justify. Beyond that, it is worth questioning whether or not these systems are worth the significant cost investment that goes into building and maintaining their operation over a city.

With the massive market size for persistent surveillance systems being made clear in the chart above, it begs the question about whether or not these resources would be better spent elsewhere. Why spend billions on expensive surveillance systems rather than using that money to address the root of the issue (things like poverty and other areas of inequality that drive crime) that make persistent surveillance systems like these necessary?

Abidi, B. R., Aragam, N. R., Yao, Y., & Abidi, M. A. (2009). "Survey and analysis of multimodal sensor planning and integration for wide area surveillance." ACM Computing Surveys, 41(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/1456650.1456657

“ACLU Comment on Federal Court Decision on Pilot Aerial Surveillance Case in Baltimore.” American Civil Liberties Union, 24 Apr. 2020, www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-comment-federal-court-decision-pilot-aerial-surveillance-case-baltimore

“Aerial Drone Services for Agriculture & Farming.” (n.d.). Dronegenuity, www.dronegenuity.com/for-businesses/agriculture/

Frew, Eric W., et al. “An Energy-Aware Airborne Dynamic Data-Driven Application System for Persistent Sampling and Surveillance.” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 18, 2013, pp. 2008–2017., doi:10.1016/j.procs.2013.05.370

F. R. Inacio, D. G. Macharet and L. Chaimowicz, "Persistent Monitoring of Multiple Areas of Interest with Robotic Swarms," 2018 Latin American Robotic Symposium, 2018 Brazilian Symposium on Robotics (SBR) and 2018 Workshop on Robotics in Education (WRE), Joao Pessoa, 2018, pp. 82-87, doi: 10.1109/LARS/SBR/WRE.2018.00024.

Grinberg, D. (2019). "Tracking movements: Black activism, aerial surveillance, and transparency optics." Media, Culture & Society, 41(3), 294-316. doi:10.1177/0163443718810921

“How Drones Aid in Disaster Response.” PrecisionHawk, 28 Aug. 2019, www.precisionhawk.com/blog/how-drones-aid-in-disaster-response

Jing, Tian, et al. “Dynamic Control Scheme of Multiswarm Persistent Surveillance in a Changing Environment.” Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, vol. 2019, 2019, doi:10.1155/2019/6025657

J. R. Peters, S. J. Wang and F. Bullo, "Coverage control with anytime updates for persistent surveillance missions," 2017 American Control Conference (ACC), Seattle, WA, 2017, pp. 265-270, doi: 10.23919/ACC.2017.7962964

Leahy, K., Zhou, D., Vasile, CI. et al. "Persistent surveillance for unmanned aerial vehicles subject to charging and temporal logic constraints." Auton Robot 40, 1363–1378 (2016). https://doi-org.ezproxy.proxy.library.oregonstate.edu/10.1007/s10514-015-9519-z

New Technology Initiatives. (n.d.). Retrieved November 29, 2020, from https://www.baltimorepolice.org/transparency/newtechnologyinitiatives

Nigam, Nikhil. “The Multiple Unmanned Air Vehicle Persistent Surveillance Problem: A Review.” Machines, vol. 2, no. 1, 2 Jan. 2014, pp. 13–72., doi:10.3390/machines2010013

N. Nigam, S. Bieniawski, I. Kroo and J. Vian, "Control of Multiple UAVs for Persistent Surveillance: Algorithm and Flight Test Results," in IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 1236-1251, Sept. 2012, doi: 10.1109/TCST.2011.2167331

Pavletic, J. (2018). "THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IN THE AGE OF PERSISTENT AERIAL SURVEILLANCE." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 108(1). Retrieved from https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A529516898/AONE?u=s8405248&sid=AONE&xid=120a2ad3

"Persistent Surveillance Systems Wide Area Surveillance in Support of Law Enforcement Presentation." (2014, June 12). Retrieved November 29, 2020, from https://publicintelligence.net/pss-wide-area-surveillance/

Persistent Surveillance Systems. (n.d.). Retrieved November 29, 2020, from https://www.pss-1.com/

Ross McNutt, PH.D. (n.d.). Retrieved November 29, 2020, from https://www.leadershipohio.org/ross-mcnutt

Simpson, J. C. (2020, August 5). "Prying Eyes." Retrieved November 29, 2020, from https://www.baltimoremagazine.com/section/community/surveillance-planes-watch-over-baltimore-but-catch-few-criminals/

Simpson, J. Cavanaugh, and Ron Cassie. “Baltimore ‘Spy Plane’ Initiative Gets Okay from Federal Court.” Baltimore Magazine, 27 Apr. 2020, www.baltimoremagazine.com/section/community/baltimore-spy-plane-initiative-gets-okay-from-federal-court/

Snyder, B. H. (2020). “Big Brother’s Bigger Brother”: The Visual Politics of (Counter) Surveillance in Baltimore. Sociological Forum. doi:10.1111/socf.12649

WNYC Studios. (2015, June 18). "Eye in the Sky: Radiolab." Retrieved November 29, 2020, from https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/eye-sky