H.R.96 - Buzz Off Act (119th Congress)
Summary
The Buzz Off Act (H.R. 96) aims to restrict the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or drones, by federal law enforcement agencies to conduct surveillance on United States citizens. It prohibits intentional surveillance, evidence gathering, or recording of targeted individuals or their private property without a warrant or consent. An exception is provided if the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies a high risk of a terrorist attack by a specific individual or organization.
Expected Effects
If enacted, the Buzz Off Act would limit the ability of federal law enforcement agencies to use drones for surveillance purposes. This could lead to a decrease in the amount of data collected on citizens via aerial surveillance. It may also increase the burden on law enforcement to obtain warrants or consent for drone surveillance, potentially impacting the efficiency of certain investigations.
Potential Benefits
- Increased privacy for US citizens by limiting government surveillance via drones.
- Greater protection of individual rights and civil liberties.
- Enhanced transparency and accountability in law enforcement's use of drone technology.
- Reduced potential for abuse of surveillance technology by federal agencies.
- Encourages law enforcement to rely on traditional investigative methods.
Potential Disadvantages
- Potential hindrance to law enforcement's ability to effectively monitor and prevent criminal activities, including terrorism.
- Increased difficulty in gathering evidence in certain cases, potentially leading to fewer successful prosecutions.
- Possible delays in responding to emergency situations where drone surveillance could be beneficial.
- The exception for terrorist threats could be subject to broad interpretation and potential abuse.
- May require law enforcement agencies to invest in more expensive or less efficient surveillance methods.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The Buzz Off Act aligns with the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. By requiring warrants or consent for drone surveillance, the act reinforces this constitutional protection. The act also touches on First Amendment concerns regarding freedom of assembly and association, as unrestricted surveillance could chill these rights. However, the exception for terrorist threats, authorized by the Secretary of Homeland Security, could potentially raise concerns about the balance between national security and individual liberties.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).