Buzz Off ActThis bill prohibits federal law enforcement from using unmanned aerial vehicles to intentionally conduct surveillance of a specifically targeted U.S. citizen or the property of such an individual, with certain exceptions.Specifically, this prohibition shall not apply if (1) the federal law enforcement agency in question first obtains a search warrant, (2) the Department of Homeland Security certifies that such surveillance is necessary to counter a high risk of a terrorist attack by a specified person or organization, or (3) the citizen gives written consent for a photograph or recording that will be made available to the public.
The bill's implications for state and federal laws are significant. Should the Buzz Off Act be enacted, it would set a precedent limiting the capabilities of law enforcement agencies in their use of UAV technology. This regulation may not only impact surveillance operations at the federal level but could also influence local policing strategies that rely on similar technologies. As a result, the bill could prompt a reevaluation of existing policies regarding technology use in law enforcement and citizen privacy protections.
House Bill 96, titled the 'Buzz Off Act', aims to prohibit federal law enforcement agencies from using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), commonly known as drones, to conduct surveillance on United States citizens. The bill is rooted in concerns over privacy and civil liberties, asserting that the use of drones for surveillance purposes infringes on the rights of individuals. The legislation seeks to create a clear boundary regarding the use of technology for monitoring citizens, laying out conditions under which such practices could be considered legal.
Notably, the legislation includes exceptions that would allow UAV use if authorized by the President or if a federal agency obtains a search warrant from a judge under specific conditions, primarily related to national security or terrorist threats. This creates a potential point of contention as critics argue that such exceptions could undermine the intended protections against unwarranted surveillance while supporters believe they are necessary for maintaining security against threats. The debates surrounding these provisions highlight the ongoing tension between public safety and civil liberties in the legal framework.
Armed Forces and National Security