FEIT31272 Project Management and the Professional Assignment 1 | Ethics of UAVs | 11035425 Ngo, Kevin 11035502 Truong, Matthew |

Table of Contents Executive Summary 2 Introduction 2 Overview 3 Definition 3 History of UAV 4 Civil Use 7 Background: 8 Small Picture Ethics 9 Big Picture Ethics 12 Deontology. 12 Relativism 15 Virtue ethics 17 Future use: 19 Recommendation 21 Individual Opinion 22 Kevin Ngo 22 Matthew Truong 25 Reference List 27

Executive Summary

Introduction
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) can generally be defined as a “device used or intended to be used for flight in the air that has no on-board pilot”. Current generations of UAVs “can be as small as an insect or as large as a charter flight”. They can be launched from a road or a small vehicle, but are often large enough to accommodate cameras, sensors or other information gathering equipment. Recently, discussions of UAVs have shifted most of the attention toward the ethical, legal and privacy implications that UAVs have, on society in global and domestic level.

Overview
Definition
-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------
There are many various terms used to identify these unmanned vehicles to which by its definition are that of a craft without a human pilot within. The most commonly accepted term would be UAV ( unmanned aerial vehicles); the US military much prefer to call it RPV( remote pilot vehicles) due to the prevalent negative connotations of warfare UAV has with the media ... ( reference guardian article) .
-------------------------------------------------
Regardless of name preference, we believe there is consensus that these vehicles are pieces of technology that have been, for decades, and will continue to be researched and revolutionised into a more refined state. The reason is because of its intended purpose and benefit of removing the burden, that is, the limitations of physical human function and loss of human life.
-------------------------------------------------
Mastering flight is a feat that humans have achieved yet it is constrained by adjusting and compromising designs to support human life within them. It was said earlier that UAVs by definition is a craft without a human pilot inside. That is the core meaning of what they are; they limit the burden of supporting human life as well as financial costs being associated with it.
-------------------------------------------------
According to an article, written by Michael Hoffman (2009). If the Air Force was to rework its training programs, by adding in an UAV program for both undergraduates and graduates, and eliminating unnecessary training on other aircraft, could result in savings of “at least $500,000 per pilot”. Not only will this cost saving will be beneficial for the country itself, but also in relation to social health costs, such as injuries experienced whilst going under rigorous pilot training. Some of the health issues are shown in Figure 1.0
-------------------------------------------------
Figure 1.0
Figure 1.0

History of UAV

-------------------------------------------------
The origins of the UAV can be derived back to the American Civil war (1861 - 1865) in which unmanned balloons were designed to not only spy with the pilots on board but also carried a payload of explosives. There was a mechanism that triggered the explosives to be released after a given time; however, was not practical given the weather and air factors that needed to be taken into account.
-------------------------------------------------
Figure 2 – Unmanned Balloons
Figure 2 – Unmanned Balloons

-------------------------------------------------
During the Spanish civil war (1898), large kites were used in which a shutter camera was attached onto the string making it the first military aerial reconnaissance device.
-------------------------------------------------
Figure 3
Figure 3

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------
In 1919, one of the first unmanned planes was tested called the “kettering bug”. A small plane that have many monitoring instruments and a computer to count the distance based on the engine which then triggered missiles to be launched.
-------------------------------------------------
Figure 4 - Kettering Bug
Figure 4 - Kettering Bug

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------
During World War 1, there was research into using radio control technology to create the first usable radio controlled UAV. The British Royal Navy created The Queen Bee which was the first returnable and reusable UAV and was implemented in war directly. It was only used for British pilots to practice with.
-------------------------------------------------
Figure 5 - Queen Bee
Figure 5 - Queen Bee

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------
Figure 6 - V1
Figure 6 - V1
During World War 2, the Nazis created a UAV known as the V-1 which was a 200 kg warhead powered by a pulseset engine controlled by a guidance system. In a sense it was a flying bomb that flew across the sea towards its target.
-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------
Figure 7- Ryan Firebees
Figure 7- Ryan Firebees

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------
During the Cold war, UAVs advanced again by introducing the first jet propelled vehicles known as Ryan Firebees. They were used extensively in the Vietnam War for reconnaissance and had the flexibility of being air launched and controlled by planes which stored them.
-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------
Figure 8 - Pioneer Model
Figure 8 - Pioneer Model
Israel soon developed in the 1970s and 1980s lighter UAV models, the Pioneers and Scout models. They were much more inexpensive to make and had the technology to provide a 360 degree view as well as a live video feed. The US purchased them from Israel to be used in The Gulf War.
-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------
As with all human involvement, there is always technological progression. But because this requires direct human control , example flying a plane, its use is designed to be based around the controller and so there is compromise in design to support them such as the compression and decompression of the cabin, or crash safe designs in cars. These compromises that had to be made have limited the opportunity to venture in particular uncharted areas due to the risk of losing human life in the vehicle to arrive at the point or the expenses are too high to invest in resources that can support and minimise this same risk. UAV technology has eliminated these constraints which bring into light the uses applied.
-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------
By observing the technological progression of UAVs there is a close affinity with its development and use with military and warfare. This type of context provides the most evident example of the value in using UAVs. It removes the risk of loss of human life from missions that involve travelling into hostile areas such as warzones.
-------------------------------------------------
It was already mentioned that there was a reduced cost from removing a human pilot due to the risk when using UAVs. The more detailed aspect to human flight risk is the limits of G force the human body can take without permanent damage or death.
-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------- and the additional benefit in relation to wartime usage is automation can surpass human reaction and process time.
-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------
These removals of the physical handicaps of a human allow more opportunities and risks to be taken with fewer costs. One use is in surveillance in which drones are employed to provide support and assist monitoring activity in visually difficult areas for ground troops such as mountainous areas concealing insurgents. There is a feeling of safety entailed when soldiers are supported by UAV’s monitoring activity, to which in one recollection UAV’s patrol provided time to rest for the troops.
-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------
These economical as well as tactical benefits perceived by the US explains the exponential increase in UAV presence within their air fleet from 5 % unmanned in 2005 to roughly 31% at present. Aaron Saenz (2012)
-------------------------------------------------

Civil Use

-------------------------------------------------
Though its origins lie with war aspirations, UAV technology is also used in advancing societal gains and values. An example of this is the growth in agricultural productivity within Japan. UAV helicopters are able to manoeuvre much more closer to the ground compared to planes when releasing pesticide, following a much more accurate flight path as well.
-------------------------------------------------
Figure 9 - Statistics from the Japan UAV Association - Within Japan: reflects the manpower equivalence
Figure 9 - Statistics from the Japan UAV Association - Within Japan: reflects the manpower equivalence

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------
An extension to this emphasis on the human limitation is introductory use in observing areas that would be biologically harmful to humans such as radiation. The meltdown of the Fukushima reactors in Japan has also been monitored for leakages after the earthquakes with the help of drone technology. Madrigal (2011). The small helicopter drone provided photos and video feed of the structural damage sustained and determining whether or not the reactors sensors have failed.
-------------------------------------------------

Background:
-------------------------------------------------
Though there has been technology progression with UAVs, with its uses being highly valued, there also bears controversial issues surrounding it. The uses of UAVs as weapons have caused concern globally, especially due to the prolific nature of stockpiling UAVs in countries.
-------------------------------------------------
Figure 10 - Map of UAVs globally
Figure 10 - Map of UAVs globally

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------
It’s not the accumulation of the UAV themselves that is concerning but rather the intended usage. The most recent and controversial of this includes the increasing amount of drone strikes in Pakistan by US UAVs. Though the aim is to eliminate terrorist threats, the act itself is condemned by the international community as challenging a country’s sovereignty. Woods (2012). This type of unchecked power acts as a catalyst for other countries to spur production of UAVs to protect their own nation’s interest. The controversy deepens due to topic of collateral damage when initiating these strikes as well, leading to the deaths of innocent civilians. These actions from the programmer of the UAV to the country’s leader who authorise it are faced with large ethical problems.
-------------------------------------------------
Figure 11 - CIA drone strikes in Pakistan
Figure 11 - CIA drone strikes in Pakistan

-------------------------------------------------
The driving demand for UAV’s will increase in the future, and therefore will create more uncertainty about their uses and missions. In March 2011, the Teal Group predicted that the worldwide UAS market could expand to more than $94 billion USD. In 2007, Eick reports that there were 259 companies that produced UAVs in 42 countries.
Small Picture Ethics
The growing research into UAV’s is now paving way into a more and extensive way in what some would call autonomous or near so. The question which is always at conflict with the use of UAVs is the responsibility of course of action. Can a machine have a code of ethics? And who is responsible when these machines don’t comply with the code of ethics?

With any professional body, there is always a set of code of ethics to which most members within an organisation adheres to. With regards to UAV’s, the people who work within this specific area also have to relate to a set of code of ethics, but it begs the question as to whether or not the people involved are adhering to the code, depending on the intended use of UAV’s.

The ACS is a recognised Australian Computer Society which deals with the implementation of a professional code of ethics for information and communication technology professionals within Australia. All members within this society strive for excellence and great professional conduct. The society has comprised a set of code of ethics which most organisations within the IT industry have adapted as the standard code or ethics or has adhered to ones which are pretty similar. It is through adhering to these codes, which are widely accepted by society, that we establish trust within these members to behave in a professional and diligent manner when using ICT.
Current uses of UAVs have generated issues which clash with some of the values in the ACS code. One such example is the first code from the ACS code of ethics states “The Primacy of the public interest”. Use of UAVs has a problem area in this regard because of the conflict of using UAV for surveillance in public areas clashing with privacy. This is interpreted by the ACS as an area where one must “preserve the confidentiality and privacy of information of others”. The issue is related to the US government’s allowance of the FAA (The federal Aviation Association) loosening restrictions on where domestic drones can gather data. Though not directly related to Australia’s use of UAV’s (which is not much); however, it acts as a form of precedence when UAV usage in Australia begins to increase and so would these ethical issues. The ACS code on public interest clearly states that it should be prioritised above business and in this case government interest. If the Australian government has also modified regulations that link to privacy, this will go against the interests of the public who are not comfortable with drone data gathering in their area. The ICT professional enters a grey area on what is the public interest and what should represent public interest in the form of laws but is manipulated by other industry’s agendas.

Another problem area that UAV usage conflicts with the ACS on is the value of enhancing the quality of life of those affected by your work, in this case the work of the ICT professionals developing the UAV computing. It goes against this code if your aim of enhancing life is challenged by the UAV, which you have worked on, conducting strikes which kill civilians. The attempt to increase satisfaction and competence are futile if those affected by your work are no longer present in this world. Life is not enhanced, it is removed.
At the moment Australia’s use of UAVs is premature in the fact they are only used to support soldiers are under conflict. However, there is concern Australia will emulate America’s drone strikes.
Figure 12 - NY times quote
Figure 12 - NY times quote

In such situations, the ICT professionals who would be in charge of programming these planes are challenged with the idea that their assistance in these vehicles will have a risk of ending the lives of civilians.

The proliferation of UAV drone technology is increasing with many countries demanding UAV models at lower prices. UAV sector is the most dynamic of the aviation industry. It is worth an estimated $6bn (£4bn) a year, according to US market analyst, the Teal Group. And that figure is expected to double within 10 years. This demand has resulted in cheaper production with main sales coming from China and has brought attention to observe how code of conduct is upheld and tested under this context.

The Hong Kong Computer Society is China’s non-profit professional body in relation to ICT ethics. They aim to create dialogue with the Chinese Government in relation to IT related agendas.
The issue of UAV proliferation and usage is also conflicting in regards to Hong Kong Computer Society’s code of ethics.
One principal area that it mainly challenges is the standard of Social Implications, in relation to the privacy concerns of drone surveillance which this clashes with the values of honouring confidentiality and respecting privacy.
In regards to drone strikes and the civilian casualties that result, the values of having regard for human rights is questioned. In addition it also covers another standard which is interesting because it relates more to the business aspect of IT ethics, the idea of conflict of interests between ICT professional and the client must be avoided. This is relevant to UAV sale trades China has with others and the implications of that to the manufacturers’ ethics.

It is interesting to note, observation wise that the culture behind these two countries ethical codes focus on some aspects differently in relation to UAV use. Public interest and quality of life, ACS standards, are separate yet their equivalents under the HKCS are all under the idea of social implications. It brings into light the eastern influences in HKCS of one’s actions towards community where a professional must “contribute to society”. In relation to UAVs there is a commonality in valuing life and so both are against the loss of human life in drone attacks but there is an implication under HKSC that one’s actions should not disturb a status quo yet under ASC it is more trying to deliver to what society wants.

Big Picture Ethics
Deontology

The ethical stance of Deontology is one which views morality as something that should be based on a matter of duty. Derived in Greek ‘Deon’ meaning duty, the belief is that some actions are judged in a sense similar to criteria of duty of what is moral and what is not. It cannot be justified that one’s actions are morally good based on the consequences (which is the premise behind another ethical standpoint consequentialism, ‘the end justifies the means’) that it brings or the state of the situation which forced that decision. Under this ethical standpoint some choices cannot be justified this way, no matter how morally good the goal is, the means or instruments to attain it is morally forbidden.
This type of objective view raises the topic of distinction of what is inherently and morally good compared to what is, in absolute terms, what is right. The former is a judgement of moral quality on a particular act, whilst the latter is the particular act judged in relation to a moral principle which bears the criteria of duty. Though it bears notions similar to absolutism in terms of adherence to rules; however, as shown above it affects ‘some choices’ based on how intrinsically right or wrong it is. Where it breaks from absolutism is that some duties may override and conflict others and from here is where different variations of deontology come about in regards to weighing duties based on intention which itself can be interpreted in various ways. Deontology will of course then will have preconceived ideas on what is right and what is wrong in relation to UAV usage in addition to its technology.
-------------------------------------------------

The relationship between Deontology and not just UAV in war, but warfare in general has been prevalent throughout history. A testament to that would be the Just War Principles, a doctrine which dictates military ethics during war. It is broken down into two criteria areas, Jus ad bellum (The right to go to war) and Jus in Bello (the rules of engagement during war).
One ethical conflict between the current use UAVs and deontology is that it goes against the principles of discrimination and proportionality.

According to statistics, there have been an alarming amount of civilian casualties associated with drone strikes conducted by the military. The most notable and recent examples is evident within Somalia, Yemen article.

The argument is that though UAV use protects the war fighter, the compromise is seen in the decrease ability to discriminate between combatant and non-combatant. A video feed of combat is not sufficient enough to discern friend from foe properly, and under the deontological view point the continued drone strikes and consequent casualties reflect the “intentional launch” of attacks disregarding civilian life and hence UAVs usage is condemned in this way. This in turn leads on to more deontological conflicts over whose intention was it to carry out the drone attacks. Is the remote controller of the drone at fault even though they were following their duties of obeying superior military rank? And if so does that in turn escalate to the person on top who is authorising the attacks who, in the United States context of drone use, is the President Barack Obama. Becker & Shane (2012). Under deontological views, Obama’s decision is under debate because officials are justifying the intention was to take out the threat to civilian life.
However, government officials from other nations accuse his intention under duty

On Sunday, Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani accused Obama of ordering unmanned aerial vehicle, or drone, strikes in his country to boost his political image, according to an Israeli security source that monitors Islamic nations. * NY Times

On Sunday, Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani accused Obama of ordering unmanned aerial vehicle, or drone, strikes in his country to boost his political image, according to an Israeli security source that monitors Islamic nations. * NY Times

and believe that Obama’s decision was that of ‘war crimes’.
-------------------------------------------------

The most noticeable implementation of drones in a civil environment is for surveillance and this itself is fraught with controversy in regards to conflict over privacy laws, another set of criteria in which deontology views question UAV use.
In relation to United States civil use of UAVs( given they have the most stockpiled), surveillance yielded positive results case in point, in relation to the increased efficiency in patrolling the US Mexico Border. “the reasonableness of drone surveillance [as considered by the courts] would likely be informed by location of the search, the sophistication of the technology used, and society’s conception of privacy in an age of rapid technological advancement.”
-Russian Times

“the reasonableness of drone surveillance [as considered by the courts] would likely be informed by location of the search, the sophistication of the technology used, and society’s conception of privacy in an age of rapid technological advancement.”
-Russian Times

However with the US government’s plans, these involve use in public space where there is concern over the conflict with the US constitution’s 4th amendment. This piece of constitution protects from “unreasonable searches and seizures”. According to the Congressional Research Service Report, there are problems in what is defined as “unreasonable”.

Under the ethical standpoint of Deontological, at present, there is a conflict with the 4th amendment and surveillance use of UAVs in the public space. There appears to be a public outcry against implementing such UAV technology as shown in Judge Napolitano Thus supporting the view of society’s “conception of privacy” still not including UAV usage and hence Deontology as stated before is about going against a morally good end if the means is morally questionable based on criteria.

Relativism

The ethical stance of relativism is that there is no single, ethical and absolute truth. Everything is relative and based on the culture, society and experiences of which the person has attained and all of which applied to decisions based on context. It is considered opposite of Deontology because it dictates that there is no criteria such as duty to follow and is distinct from consequentialism because consequences have no relevance because context will interpret the how right each consequence can be. It is in a sense similar to double standards yet is justifiable due to subjectivity. It has its benefits in relation to being able to decide outcomes in a society without the constraints of religion and rules from other societies in addition to it promotes tolerance that different cultures weight and value certain actions differently. Yet at times it can be considered very contradictory due to many interpretations of actions, even the idea itself can be considered contradictory because if it believes nothing is absolute, that premise itself is absolute hence the fallacy.

This idea of moral and value changes with contexts is most famously seen in the events leading on from the September 11th attacks in which the event which spurred a change was the massive of lives. Such change was with the United States view on torture of prisoners of war in which George Bush the US president at the time “seems to believe that, relatively speaking, torture is wrong, but that using electrodes to spark truth-telling is justifiable in certain situations, as long as it doesn't cause "a burn or physical disfigurement of a serious nature (other than cuts, abrasions, or bruises)" and in doing do pushed. Marino (2006).
This itself is a violation of the Third Geneva convention to which Mr Bush wants to modify since the language in Common Article 3 is deemed too vague and makes fighting terrorism impossible. Values and morals were adapted to be able to access the means to combat the war on terrorism.
In relation to UAV technology and its current use, there are many instances where situations are deemed to be implementing relativism and also highlight the effects of this idea of no “rules”.

A more recent example of moral relativism in relation to the war on terrorism in addition to UAV’s is the suicide bomber’s attack at a funeral in Yemen. BBC (2012) It was condemned by the US media for its lack of respect for the sanctity of life. This was the moral stance that was portrayed yet the concept of moral relativism as seen since

According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, drone attacks have been responsible for the deaths of “dozens of civilians who had gone to help rescue victims or were attending funerals.” As of February of this year, at least 535 civilians have been killed by drone strikes since President Obama took office; 20 of which were killed while attending funerals. Last June, a gathering of mourners was targeted for a strike in Pakistan. The 10 people killed in that attack had come together to grieve over the death of a “brother of a militant commander” killed just a day before in another drone strike.

The collateral damage which resulted in the death of civilians was accepted in order to kill high value Al Queda targets with UAVs perceived as victories yet if this was to happen when similar circumstances occurred but the other way around, values and morals would be changed in an instant.
Under the view of relativism, there was a need to push morale for the conflict on terrorism to which by praising UAV strikes and condemning the bombings, regardless of similarities, it pushed the goal the US government had of eliminating the threat of terrorism.

Going back to the issue of the fourth amendment conflict with privacy concerns, American Congress is hoping to modify the 4th amendment so it does not cover drone surveillance, Turley (2012). In regards to the absolute type nature involved with the rules and criteria followed by deontologists, this modification made by the government goes against this ethical standpoint. Yet at a Relativist standpoint, it is supported because the belief was that as technology rapidly advances society’s perception of privacy changes as well as the gathering of information by drones

Virtue ethics

Virtue ethics is focused more towards the idea that one should be judged based on moral character of person carrying out the action. It differs because it does not focus on moral criteria such as deontology nor does it focus on the consequences. It focuses on following virtues to be good rather than punishment and rules to discourage bad actions. A person’s character is an aggregate of character traits which can be an ideal valued trait known as virtue or bad know as a vice. Culture has a large influence on the particular virtues that are sought after forming people’s character morality. An example of this would that the ancient Greeks valued the virtue of pride and honour yet in ancient China, the value of humility is sought. Religion also influences which virtues are taken on as character traits given in some countries that are not secular it becomes an extension of the culture.
Another question that is raised about virtue ethics is whether or not people are instilled with an innate set of virtues or whether these are shaped and brought about through behavioural experiences and interactions in the real world. Regardless of origin, the ethical standpoint of virtue ethics is used to judge certain scenarios based on the content of character rather than action, intent, duty nor consequence.
In regards to UAV technology, virtue ethics focuses more on the controllers as well as the machines themselves which will be discussed based on their use in warfare and civilian activities.
Previously we mentioned the idea of intention in relation to authorising and executing the death of terrorist targets. Under the scope of virtue ethics, there is more scope on the authority in charge of this kill list President Barack Obama, because therein lies the burden in which he must decide whether a target is too dangerous or unreachable to be captured and needs to be killed. Under deontology, he would need to adhere to certain standard principles such as the Bill of Rights or even the actions seen by his predecessors which define his moral duty. However under virtue ethics, his upbringing comes into play on UAV decisions. His religion, which taught his set of virtues, will influence decision in addition to those imparted within his American education in addition to family. Are the virtues of Courage coming into play when deciding to end a life or is it cowardice? Anger or pride? There is a notable difference in virtues in combat that encompasses this and that in UAV combat due to the cognitive dissonance resulted from warriors and even administration being so far from the heat of battle. As stated before virtues can appear from experiences or lack of, which in this case would in turn form vices.

Another issue of UAVs with this ethical standpoint is with the introduction of automated UAVs not remotely controlled by humans but having a form of artificial intelligence. This brings on the issue of whether virtue traits can be programmed into automated UAVs and the ethical implications as a result. It was previously said that one idea of the origins of moral character was that virtue traits were innate since birth. UAVs do not fall under this category and so the question lies where the onus of judging virtue does lie on in the usage of automated, self-thinking UAV drones.
Programmers of the UAVs artificial intelligence cannot impart virtue into the vehicle that which it can only simulate due to the association of virtue with emotion to which machines lack. Which is why virtue ethics is at the ethical standpoint of being against automated UAVs rather than remotely controlled ones, because those that are remote still have a human control and therefore character morality can be determined?

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

Future use:
The implications of legal problems that will be faced with UAV development in the future can be seen now, with the recent lifted restrictions of public air space for drones in the US. (FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012)The most prevalent legal issue as evidenced here is that there are currently no regulations at the Australian level or internationally in regards to the commercial use of UAVs. This leads on to future privacy issues in which those consequences will be discussed in relation to privacy problems long term.

Another legal problem that will be detrimental long term is the legal justification for killing targets with drones. It brings into question what right one country has to enter another country and kill. The Australian perspective on legal justification is concerning due to heavy military ties with the US. This issue relates to the idea of sovereignty of another country you are abusing in addition to the lack of process in these killings. It is not different to a missile launch to another country to kill targets and at a cost also civilians of that affected country.
The problem with the US drone strikes on Pakistan is that, if these killings are truly recognised as being justified, in an international level, tension would rise similar to the cold war era. Goals and agendas will manipulate what can be “justified” for killing. If left unchecked there would be cases in which countries will use justified legal killings as an excuse to kill for respective countries self-interest. This leads onto the ethical implications of autonomous UAVs.

In relation to privacy problems in the long term, as mentioned above, UAV drones now have more access to domestic civilian lifestyle to gather information. With drones able to access more public space there is a projection that up to 30,000 drones will be in the US skies Hopkins and Bowcott (2012).
A report in The Economist notes that “UAVs can peek much more easily and cheaply than satellites and fixed cameras can”; they can hover almost silently above a property and that the tiny ones that are coming will be able to fly inside buildings.
Some of the consequences of the intrusions of UAVs on privacy include physical, psychological and social effects. For example, the conventional surveillance aircraft, such as helicopters, provide auditory notice that they are approaching and allowed a person “to take measures to keep private those activities that they do not wish to expose to public view”. The mass deployment of UAV surveillance vehicles which are imperceptible from the ground “could lead to an environment where individuals believe that a UAV is watching them even when no UAVs are in operation”. This could have a self-governing effect, where individuals adjust their behaviour as though they were being watched at all times. As a result, this advancement of surveillance technology threatens to erode society's expectation of privacy,
Just as the airplane once erased individuals' expectations of privacy in their fenced-in backyards.

Future-oriented rules and regulations surrounding the use of UAVs suggest ways to mitigate concerns around privacy in the deployment of UAVs for civil applications. Suggestions for future-oriented privacy standards have primarily come in the form of the relationship between UAV surveillance and the code of ethical conduct. It is established that the technological capabilities of UAVs mean that their relationship with the technological code of conduct must be explicitly examined. Thus, the future regulation of warrantless UAV surveillance should try to differentiate the features of UAV surveillance from military UAV surveillance and still be regulated accordingly.

Future Long term Ethical Problems is the idea of artificial intelligent drones. Drones at present are remotely controlled; however, as technology advances this is a plausible outcome. The issue with this is that there is and would be international opposition against the notion of a self-aware autonomous machine determining the death of human life. Many ethical stances are opposed to this due to the lack of morality, virtue and understanding autonomy will have.
In regards to the stockpiling and proliferation of drones, long term ethics wise many problems will ensue on a global scale. As proliferation increases overtime, technology as well and there have been indicators reaching towards self-sustaining UAV technology. This is where such technology advancements as nuclear powered drones bring to the table a whole lot of ethical problems. IT is interesting that similar circumstances have happened in the Cold War in relation to weapons proliferation which in turn ends in nuclear technology.
-------------------------------------------------

Recommendation
An investigation of these new technologies of surveillance suggests that existing regulatory principles do not offer adequate protection of society’s laws and regulations as well as privacy concerns and ethical concerns.
While there are potentials for privacy breaches, however, a number of academics have argued that the protections that individuals enjoy in relation to these current methods should be extended to the use of UAVs. In particular, that targeted surveillance activities should require legal documentation with high ranking officials to sign off upon, or to bear responsibility for decisions or increase public awareness, through disclosing information that is necessary for the public to know without compromising data protection principles.

Individual Opinion
Kevin Ngo
I, Kevin Ngo, believe that the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have primarily played a huge beneficial factor on societies development and growth. UAVs have been used for reconnaissance and spying since the beginning of the Cold War, and now have developed the use for a wide range of uses, such as civil uses and military uses . As technology has progressed over the years, so has the use of UAVs, both for civil and military purposes.
However, it can be said now that the rate of technology advancements far exceeds the rate at which thoughts that have been given to the ethical use of the piece of technology.
I believe that the moral debate on the UAVs use and development must be addressed appropriately in order to sustain and balanced world. There needs to be an understanding of what costs and benefits this UAV technology will bring to society. Like with most things in life, there are laws and regulations which govern the actions of society, creating a sense of order and peace of mind. Without these regulations and laws, chaos and uncertainty arises with the use of UAVs. From history, we have seen many technological milestones which brought great paranoia to society, through the uncertainty that these ‘new technologies’ will bring catastrophic events. Examples of such technology, was the introduction of nuclear power and the threat of the Y2K bug. These technologies brought upon fear and uncertainty of what might happen when these technologies were used in a way to create destruction and chaos, rather than good to society. The fear of nuclear missiles saw people building nuclear bunkers in their own backyards in precaution to the fact that a nuclear missile ‘might’ drop on them at any time. In effect, we saw laws and regulation being placed upon the use and development on these weapons.
Similarly, this situation resembles the same sought of fear as it once did in history. The use and development of UAVs have brought society to question the uncertainty that a misuse will occur.

While some have argued that privacy concerns represent a significant stumbling block to the
Large-scale deployment of UAVs, others have argued that UAV surveillance is no different
From current surveillance technologies and methods, Brecher (2003), states that privacy concerns are a near-term barrier to the deployment of UAVs but argues that this can be mitigated by highlighting the benefits of this science and technology development to the public.
Hence, I believe that by disclosing information about the intended use of UAVs, these barriers will start to breakdown. One way to do so is to relate UAVs surveillance to the use of standard cameras in public or CCTV cameras. With increasing use of camera devices, it could be argued that there is no place in an urban environment that you can go to in which you’re not being looked at with a video camera. Not only is this not a major concern, but the idea of proving in a case that taking pictures in public is an invasion of privacy could be seen as hysterical. Hence the issues regarding privacy concerns, for me, are irrelevant in modern society as well as in the future. The real concern, in my opinion, regarding the development and use of UAVs, is more to do so with legal problems related to the use of UAVs in the military. The interesting topic of debate, which caught my attention, is the issue of responsibility, governance, accountability, permissible and ethical use of autonomous platforms. In warfare, the problems and outcomes are complex, dynamic, uncertain and risky, and the application of critical judgement and decision making is crucial to successful conflict resolution. Context sensitivity is important for assessing the quality of military decision making. Humans encode context naturally and handle decision making adaptively with incomplete, partial and uncertain information. As UAVs become more autonomous or semiautonomous, we as society are benefiting from the fact that, through the use of UAVs, we are saving lives by not placing human personnel on the front lines, and hence placing large risk into who is responsible when an accident or incident occurs. It is said that human soldiers are subjected to irrational rage, and through the implementation of UAVs, eliminates this idea of discrimination in war.
However, the ability to push the blame to someone else is easily done so, as UAV’s have no regulations or laws distinguishing those who are responsible for pulling the trigger and those are controlling and developing the UAVs. This opens doors to war crimes being committed by those who are in possession of a UCAV.

Another negative aspect of developing and using UAVs is the issue with regards to the private companies which work with military organisations to develop and use these UAVs. It is assumed that the we increase the use of UAVs in the military, the more increased there will be in privatisation, and hence will create more unease with the general public with regards to what these ‘companies’ are doing with the military, through the use of UAV drones.

As growing research into UAV’s is now paving way into a more and extensive ways of uses. The question which is always at conflict with the use of UAVs is the responsibility of course of action. Can a machine have a code of ethics? And who is responsible when these machines don’t comply with the code of ethics?

Even though UAVs have become an increasingly frontline tool for the military, due to the fact that they are inexpensive to use and develop as well as commanding pilots are located at safer distance away, the responsibility of pilots, decisions makers and all those around the matter can be seen to relate to the quote “To whom much has been given ... much will be expected” Luke 12:48. This teaching is the variation of, “with great power comes great responsibility”. Hence the nature of the ethical and legal issues rely on the user of the technology and how they persist to use UAVs to benefit society, and therefore I firmly agree to and encourage the use and development of UAVs around the world, as long as the user is licensed to use the device and has undergone proper training.

Matthew Truong

Reference List
UAV pilot career field could save $1.5B - Air Force News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Air Force Times. 2012. UAV pilot career field could save $1.5B - Air Force News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Air Force Times. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/03/airforce_uav_audit_030109/. [Accessed 17 September 2012]. Future is assured for death-dealing, life-saving drones | World news | The Guardian . 2012. Future is assured for death-dealing, life-saving drones | World news | The Guardian . [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/04/future-drones. [Accessed 17 September 2012].
Inside the Drone Missions to Fukushima - Alexis C. Madrigal - The Atlantic. 2012. Inside the Drone Missions to Fukushima - Alexis C. Madrigal - The Atlantic. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/04/inside-the-drone-missions-to-fukushima/237981/. [Accessed 17 September 2012].
Drone Pilots, Waiting for a Kill Shot 7,000 Miles Away - NYTimes.com. 2012.Drone Pilots, Waiting for a Kill Shot 7,000 Miles Away - NYTimes.com. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/us/drone-pilots-waiting-for-a-kill-shot-7000-miles-away.html?pagewanted=all. [Accessed 17 September 2012].
The Era of Robotic Warfare Has Arrived – 30% of All US Military Aircraft are Drones | Singularity Hub. 2012. The Era of Robotic Warfare Has Arrived – 30% of All US Military Aircraft are Drones | Singularity Hub. [ONLINE] Available at: http://singularityhub.com/2012/02/09/the-era-of-robotic-warfare-has-arrived-30-of-all-us-military-aircraft-are-drones/. [Accessed 17 September 2012].
The kill chain: Australia's drone war - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). 2012. The kill chain: Australia's drone war - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-08/australias-drone-war-in-afghanistan/4058058. [Accessed 17 September 2012].
The Hong Kong Computer Society. 2012. The Hong Kong Computer Society. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.hkcs.org.hk/en_hk/intro/coe.asp. [Accessed 17 September 2012].
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) - AviationKnowledge. 2012. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) - AviationKnowledge. [ONLINE] Available at:http://aviationknowledge.wikidot.com/aviation:uav. [Accessed 17 September 2012].
Deontological Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). 2012.Deontological Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). [ONLINE] Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/. [Accessed 17 September 2012].
Deontology and Ethics: What is Deontology, Deontological Ethics?. 2012.Deontology and Ethics: What is Deontology, Deontological Ethics?. [ONLINE] Available at: http://atheism.about.com/od/ethicalsystems/a/Deontological.htm. [Accessed 17 September 2012].
Secret ‘Kill List’ Tests Obama’s Principles - NYTimes.com. 2012. Secret ‘Kill List’ Tests Obama’s Principles - NYTimes.com. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www. [Accessed 17 September 2012].
Ethics Forum: Obama's Drone Strike Legacy. 2012. Ethics Forum: Obama's Drone Strike Legacy. [ONLINE] Available at: http://college-ethics.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/obamas-drone-strike-legacy.html. [Accessed 17 September 2012].