Earlier this week, I wrote about the use of drones overseas. Today I want to talk about drones on the domestic front.

In February, Congress ordered the Federal Aviation Administration to create guidelines for the use of drones domestically, paving the way for the technology to become more widespread here at home.

However, many Americans, including congressmen, are concerned about what this new technology may mean to privacy rights.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., introduced a bill last week that would prohibit any government affiliated person or entity from using drones for surveillance without first obtaining a warrant.

The bill, dubbed the Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012, would protect Americans from having their privacy violated at will by the unmanned aircraft and allows citizens to sue the government if it’s found in violation of the Act.

However, the bill did not completely cripple the security aspect of the drones. It explicitly specifies exceptions for domestic drone use for patrolling the border and in the risk of a terrorist attack.

Thus, Paul’s bill is one of the few examples of a law that embraces a new technology while still protecting citizens from its broad capabilities.

However, government agencies and other entities are rushing to make use of drones on American soil as soon as they can.

There are already 300 active operating licenses for drone use domestically, and plenty of organizations — from universities to law enforcement agencies — are lining up to have access to the technology. Drones are expected to become even more widespread in the coming decade. The aerospace industry has predicted that there may be as many as 30,000 drones patrolling the skies worldwide by 2018.

So who gains from the growing role drones are seeking?

First and foremost, there are the drone manufacturers themselves.

In 2010, the Teal Group, an organization that analyzes the aerospace industry, estimated that drone spending would more than double over the next decade from $4.9 billion to $11.5 billion annually.

Thus, drones would seem to become the newest addition to the military-industrial complex as taxpayer money subsidizes their creation and distribution around the country.

Drone supporters argue that the unmanned aircraft will assist in search and rescue missions, protecting the border and going after escaped criminals.

Most Americans, including Sen. Paul and myself, have no problems with drones being used this way, as a poll by the Monmouth University Polling Institute of New Jersey indicates. About two-thirds of Americans support using drones to capture escaped criminals, and 80 percent support their use in search and rescue missions.

However, the poll also showed that 67 percent of Americans are against using drones to issue speeding tickets, and about as many are at least somewhat concerned about their privacy should drones become a more common sight on
American soil.

Americans do not want a nanny state in which the
government continually has eyes looking over your shoulder, constantly checking if you are up to no good. Even the suggestion conjures Orwellian and dystopian images in my mind as I contemplate a future where people live under the supervising eyes of their mechanical overseers.

Privacy is still important to many Americans, and after years of bills like the Patriot Act, these drones may be yet another blow to what is such a fundamental right.

Of course, there are still those who welcome the boost in security, regardless of the blow to privacy.

You’ve probably heard the argument before: “If you haven’t done anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear.”

People who feel that way are free to send me their Internet browsing history, their diaries, or any homemade videos they have lying around.

My point is that privacy is not only important to those who have done something illegal. People may not wish to share information for a multitude of reasons, and each is valid absent a legally obtained warrant.

With luck, this bill protecting our rights will pass, and I won’t have to fear looking up into the sky only to be met with a robotic eye and a voice telling me “I’m afraid you can’t do that, Dave.”