CENTER FOR CRIME
AND JUSTICE POLICY
Center
Center
for
for
Crime
Crime
and
and
Justice
Justice
Policy
Policy
Center
for
Crime
and
Justice
Policy
Center
for
Crime
and
Justice
Policy
Research
Research
inin
Research
inBrief
Brief
RESEARCH
Research
inBrief
Brief
July 2014, CCJP 2014-03
IN BRIEF
July
July
2014.
2014.
CCJP
CCJP
2014-03
2014-03
July
2014.
CCJP
2014-03
July
2014.
CCJP
2014-03
Aerial
Aerial
Drones,
Drones,
Domestic
Domestic
Surveillance,
Surveillance,
and
and
Aerial
Drones,
Domestic
Surveillance,
and
Aerial
Drones,
Domestic
Surveillance,
and
Public
Public
Opinion
Opinion
of
of
Adults
Adults
in
in
the
the
United
United
States
States
Public
Opinion
of
Adults
in
the
United
States
Public
Opinion
of
Adults
in
the
United
States
By
Joel
D. D.
Lieberman,
Ph.D.,
Terance
D.Lieberman,
Miethe,Ph.D.,
Ph.D.,
Emily
Ph.D.,
and
Milia
Heen,
M.A.
Miethe,
Ph.D.,
Joel
D.D.
Lieberman,
Emily
I. I.Troshynski,
Ph.D.,
and
Milia
Heen,
M.A.
By
Terance
By
Terance
D.
Miethe,
Ph.D.,
Joel
D.
Ph.D.,
Emily
I.
Troshynski,
Ph.D.,
and
Milia
Heen,
M.A.
By
Terance
D.
Miethe,
Ph.D.,
Joel
Lieberman,
Ph.D.,
Emily
I. Troshynski,
Troshynski,
Ph.D.,
and
Milia
Heen,
M.A.
Aircraft
Systems
[UAS])
Aerial
drones
(Unmanned
Aerial
drones
(Unmanned
Aircraft
Systems
[UAS])
Aerial
drones
(Unmanned
Aircraft
Systems
[UAS])
Aerial
drones
(Unmanned
Aircraft
Systems
[UAS])
represent
an
evolving
visual
technology
that
has
represent
an
evolving
visual
technology
that
has
represent
an
evolving
visual
technology
that
has
represent an evolving visual technology that has
been
increasingly
applied
in
a
variety
of
situations.
been
increasingly
applied
in
a
variety
of
situations.
been
increasingly
applied
in
a
variety
of
situations.
been increasingly applied in a variety of situations.
Most
Americans
have
heard
about
drone
usage
for
Most
Americans
have
heard
about
drone
usage
for
Most
Americans
have
heard
about
drone
usage
Most
Americans
have
heard
about
drone
usage
forfor
military
operations,
search
and
rescue
activities,
military
operations,
search
and
rescue
activities,
military
operations,
search
and
rescue
activities,
military
operations,
search
and
rescue
activities,
climatic
and
geographical
photo
mapping,
land
climatic
and
geographical
photo
mapping,
and
land
climatic
and
geographical
photo
mapping,
and
land
climatic and geographical photo mapping, and
and
land
management
practices.
The
vast
majority
of
management
practices.
The
vast
majority
of
management
practices.
The
vast
majority
of
management practices. The vast majority of
residents
support
the
application
drone
residents
support
the
application
ofof
drone
residents
support
the
application
of
drone
residents
support
the
application
of
drone
technology
in
these
fields
(Miethe
et
al.,
2014).
technology
in
these
fields
(Miethe
et
al.,
2014).
technology
in
these
fields
(Miethe
et
al.,
2014).
technology in these fields (Miethe et al.,
2014).
However,
when
the
focus
shifts
“domestic
However,
when
the
focus
shifts
toto
“domestic
However,
when
the
focus
shifts
to
“domestic
However,
when
the
focus
shifts
to
“domestic
surveillance”
(i.e.,
the
visual
monitoring
citizens
surveillance”
(i.e.,
the
visual
monitoring
ofof
citizens
surveillance”
(i.e.,
the
visual
monitoring
of
citizens
surveillance” (i.e., the visual monitoring
of
citizens
open
public
places,
at
their
workplace,
and/or
inin
open
public
places,
at
their
workplace,
and/or
in
open
public
places,
at
their
workplace,
and/or
in open public places, at their workplace, and/or
near
their
home),
far
less
support
found
for
aerial
near
their
home),
far
less
support
isisis
found
for
aerial
near
their
home),
far
less
support
is
found
for
aerial
near
their
home),
far
less
support
found
for
aerial
drone
usage.
In
fact,
a
recent
national
survey
drone
usage.
In
fact,
a
recent
national
survey
drone
usage.
In
fact,
a
recent
national
survey
drone usage. In fact, a recent national survey
(Miethe
al.,
2014)
indicates
that
most
U.S.
adults
(Miethe
etet
al.,
2014)
indicates
that
most
U.S.
adults
(Miethe
et
al.,
2014)
indicates
that
most
U.S.
adults
(Miethe
et
al.,
2014)
indicates
that
most
U.S.
adults
were
“very
concerned”
about
drones
monitoring
were
“very
concerned”
about
drones
monitoring
were
“very
concerned”
about
drones
monitoring
were
“very
concerned”
about
drones
monitoring
people
around
their
homes
(72%)
and
a
people
around
their
homes
(72%)
and
a
substantial
people
around
their
homes
(72%)
and
a
substantial
people around their homes (72%) and a substantial
substantial
minority
of
them
voiced
similar
levels
of
concern
minority
of
them
voiced
similar
levels
of
concern
minority
of
them
voiced
similar
levels
of
concern
minority of them voiced similar levels of concern
about
drone
surveillance
work
(48%)
and
public
about
drone
surveillance
atat
work
(48%)
and
public
about
drone
surveillance
at
work
(48%)
and
public
about
drone
surveillance
at
work
(48%)
and
public
places
(26%).
Even
for
monitoring
criminal
places
(26%).
Even
for
monitoring
criminal
places
(26%).
Even
for
monitoring
criminal
places (26%). Even for monitoring criminal
activities
(e.g.,
street-level
drug
dealing),
less
than
activities
(e.g.,
street-level
drug
dealing),
less
than
activities
(e.g.,
street-level
drug
dealing),
less
than
activities
(e.g.,
street-level
drug
dealing),
less
than
half
(48%)
said
they
support
aerial
drone
use.
half
(48%)
said
they
support
aerial
drone
use.
half
(48%)
said
they
support
aerial
drone
use.
half
(48%)
said
they
support
aerial
drone
use.
This
Research
Brief
summarizes
the
results
aa a
This
Research
inin
Brief
summarizes
the
results
ofof
a of
This
Research
in
Brief
summarizes
the
results
This
Research
in
Brief
summarizes
the
results
of
national
survey
designed
further
assess
the
national
survey
designed
toto
further
assess
the
national
survey
designed
to
further
assess
the
national
survey
designed
to
further
assess
the
nature
of
public
opinion
about
aerial
drone
use
for
nature
of
public
opinion
about
aerial
drone
use
for
nature
of
public
opinion
about
aerial
drone
use
nature of public opinion about aerial drone use
forfor
domestic
surveillance
activities.
These
attitudes
domestic
surveillance
activities.
These
attitudes
domestic
surveillance
activities.
These
attitudes
domestic surveillance activities. These attitudes
were
gauged
several
prompts
describing
the
were
gauged
byby
several
prompts
describing
the
were
gauged
by
several
prompts
describing
the
were
gauged
by
several
prompts
describing
the
context
of
visual
surveillance
of
citizens
in
open
context
of
visual
surveillance
of
citizens
in
open
context
of
visual
surveillance
of
citizens
in
open
context of visual surveillance of citizens in open
public
places
(e.g.,
parks,
streets),
around
their
public
places
(e.g.,
parks,
streets),
around
their
public
places
(e.g.,
parks,
streets),
around
their
public
places
(e.g.,
parks,
streets),
around
their
homes,
and
as
employees
at
their
workplace.
homes,
and
as
employees
at
their
workplace.
homes,
and
as
employees
at
their
workplace.
homes, and as employees at their workplace.AAA A
summary
these
findings,
factors
associated
with
summary
ofof
these
findings,
factors
associated
with
summary
of
these
findings,
factors
associated
with
summary
of
these
findings,
factors
associated
with
support
and
opposition
to
drone
use
in
these
support
and
opposition
to
drone
use
in
these
support
and
opposition
to
drone
use
in
these
support and opposition to drone use in these
different
contexts,
policy
implications
the
results,
different
contexts,
policy
implications
ofof
the
results,
different
contexts,
policy
implications
of
the
results,
different
contexts,
policy
implications
of
the
results,
and
limitations
of
this
study
are
described
below.
and
limitations
of
this
study
are
described
below.
and
limitations
this
study
are
described
below.
and
limitations
ofof
this
study
are
described
below.
Highlights
Highlights
Highlights
HIGHLIGHTS
Highlights
• •Over
Over
95%
95%
ofofU.S.
U.S.
adults
adults
ininthis
this
survey
survey
are
areare to
Over
of
U.S.
in this
survey
of 95%
U.S.
adults
inadults
this
survey
are
opposed
• •93%
opposed
opposed
to
to
using
using
drones
drones
to
to
monitor
monitor
people’s
people’s
daily
daily
opposed
to
using
drones
to
monitor
people’s
daily
using drones to monitor people’s daily activities
activities
activities
around
around
their
their
home.
home.
The
The
majority
majority
of
of
activities
around
their
home.
The
majority
of
around their home. The majority of respondents
respondents
respondents
are
arealso
also
opposed
opposed
totodrones
drones
respondents
are
opposed
to
drones
are
also opposed
toalso
drones
monitoring
people at
monitoring
monitoring
people
people
atatwork
work
(77%)
(77%)
and
and
inintheir
their
daily
daily
monitoring
people
at
work
(77%)
and
their
daily
work (77%) and in their daily activities ininopen
activities
activities
ininopen
open
public
public
places
places
(63%).
(63%).
activities
in
open
public
places
(63%).
public places (63%).
• •Public
Public
attitudes
attitudes
about
about
using
using
drones
drones
for
fordomestic
domestic
Public
attitudes
about
using
drones
domestic
• •Public
attitudes
about
using
drones
forfor
domestic
surveillance
surveillance
vary
vary
across
across
different
different
social
social
groups.
groups.
surveillance
vary
across
different
social
groups.
surveillance vary across different social groups.
For
ForFor
surveillance
surveillance
ininboth
both
public
public
and
and
private
private
places,
places,
surveillance
in
both
public
and
private
places,
For surveillance in both public and private places,
opposition
opposition
totodrone
drone
use
use
isishighest
highest
among
among
persons
persons
opposition
to
drone
use
is
highest
among
persons
opposition to drone use is highest among persons
with
with
lower
lower
incomes
incomes
and
and
those
those
who
who
emphasize
emphasize
with
lower
incomes
and
those
who
emphasize
with
lower
incomes
and
those
who
emphasize
individualism
individualism
(i.e.,
(i.e.,
prefer
prefer
a agovernment
government
that
that
individualism
(i.e.,
prefer
a
government
that
individualism (i.e., prefer a government that
focuses
focuses
ononindividual
individual
rights
rights
over
over
public
public
safety).
safety).
focuses
on
individual
rights
over
public
safety).
focuses on individual rights over public safety).
• •AA•strong
strong
majority
majority
ofofrespondents
respondents
agreed
agreed
that
that
strong
majority
respondents
agreed
that
• AA
strong
majority
ofof
respondents
agreed
that
drone
drone
surveillance
surveillance
is
is
an
an
invasion
invasion
of
of
privacy,
privacy,
drone
surveillance
is
an
invasion
of
privacy,
drone surveillance is an invasion of privacy,
especially
especially
when
when
it itoccurs
occurs
around
around
the
thehome
home
(88%)
(88%)
especially
when
it occurs
around
the
home
(88%)
especially
when
it occurs
around
the
home
(88%)
ororator
atwork
work
(79%).
(79%).
High
High
levels
levels
of
of
agreement
agreement
across
across
at
work
(79%).
High
levels
of
agreement
across
or at work (79%). High levels of agreement across
context
context
were
were
also
also
found
found
ininpeople’s
people’s
views
views
ofof of
context
were
also
found
in
people’s
views
context were also found in people’s views of
drones
drones
asas“excessive
“excessive
surveillance.”
surveillance.”
These
These
two
twotwo
drones
“excessive
surveillance.”
These
drones
asas
“excessive
surveillance.”
These
two
concerns
concerns
were
were
the
the
major
major
reasons
reasons
for
for
opposition
opposition
toto to
concerns
were
the
major
reasons
opposition
concerns
were
the
major
reasons
forfor
opposition
to
domestic
domestic
surveillance
surveillance
by
by
drones.
drones.
domestic
surveillance
drones.
domestic
surveillance
byby
drones.
• •AA•belief
belief
that
that
drones
drones
increase
increase
public
public
safety
safety
isisthe
thethe
belief
that
drones
increase
public
safety
• AA
belief
that
drones
increase
public
safety
is is
the
primary
primary
reason
reason
given
given
by
by
respondents
respondents
who
who
support
support
primary
reason
given
respondents
who
support
primary
reason
given
byby
respondents
who
support
their
their
use
use
forfordomestic
domestic
surveillance.
surveillance.
This
This
isis is
their
use
domestic
surveillance.
This
their
use
forfor
domestic
surveillance.
This
is
especially
especially
true
true
for
for
public
public
opinion
opinion
about
about
the
the
especially
true
public
opinion
about
the
especially
true
forfor
public
opinion
about
the
government’s
government’s
use
use
ofofdrones
drones
ininopen
open
public
public
places.
places.
government’s
use
drones
open
public
places.
government’s
use
ofof
drones
in in
open
public
places.
• •Respondents
Respondents
were
were
most
most
supportive
supportive
ofofdrone
drone
use
use
• Respondents
were
most
supportive
drone
use
• Respondents
were
most
supportive
ofof
drone
use
forforsurveillance
surveillance
ininopen
open
public
public
places
places
when
when
it itwas
was
for
surveillance
in
open
public
places
when
it
was
for surveillance in open public places when it was
being
being
conducted
conducted
bybyaby
afederal
federal
government
government
agency
agency
being
conducted
a
federal
government
agency
being conducted by a federal government agency
(33%
(33%
supported
supported
this
thisthis
activity),
activity),
followed
followed
bybystate
state
and
and
(33%
supported
activity),
followed
state
and
(33%
supported
this activity),
followed
byby
state
and
local
local
police
police
(28%),
(28%),
mass
mass
media
media
(18%),
(18%),
commercial
commercial
local
police
(28%),
mass
media
(18%),
commercial
local police (28%), mass media (18%), commercial
business
business
(14%),
(14%),
and
and
private
private
citizens
citizens
(13%).
(13%).
business
(14%),
and
private
citizens
(13%).
business
(14%),
and
private
citizens
(13%).
CENTER FOR CRIME
AND JUSTICE POLICY
Data Source and Methods
This study uses an online survey approach to
assess public attitudes about drone use for
domestic surveillance. The survey was conducted
over a 2-day period in mid-June of 2014 and it was
restricted to U.S. residents over 18 years of age.
The national sample frame was generated through
the Mechanical Turk survey platform. A total of 524
surveys were completed within this time frame.
Compared to the U.S. national population, sample
respondents were overrepresented by males and
younger adults.
Post-stratification weighting by gender and age was
used to adjust this sample to its known population
distribution. Although imposing these weights had
little impact on the observed results, this type of
sample adjustment is a widely accepted practice
within the field of survey research (see Loosveldt &
Sonck, 2008). Accordingly, post-stratification
weighting is used in this report without a loss of
generality of the obtained results.
Views about Domestic Surveillance by Aerial
Drones in Particular Places
Survey participants were asked several questions
about their views regarding drone use and
domestic surveillance in three different places or
contexts: (1) in open public places, (2) at the
workplace, and (3) around their homes. The
specific wording of the questions asked about
drone use in each location include the following:
• In general, do you support or oppose the use of
aerial drones in the U.S. for monitoring people’s
daily activities in open public places?
• In general, do you support or oppose the use of
aerial drones in the U.S. for monitoring
employee’s daily activities at their workplace?
• In general, do you support or oppose the use of
aerial drones in the U.S. for monitoring citizen’s
daily activities around their homes?
As shown in Table 1, a clear majority of survey
respondents were opposed to using drones for
domestic surveillance activities, but this general
level of opposition varied across contexts. In
particular, almost all (93%) of these adults oppose
drone surveillance around their homes and over
Aerial Drones, Domestic Surveillance, and Public Opinion
2 Aerial Drones, Domestic Surveillance, and Public Attitudes
three-fourths of them oppose drone use for
workplace surveillance. They were most supportive
of drone use for monitoring people in open public
places, but about two-thirds of adults were opposed
to drone surveillance even in this context.
Table 1: Opposition to Drone Use for
------------Surveillance
by Particular
Particular Locations
Domestic
Surveillance by
Locations
%"Opposed"to"Drone"Use"for:
Monitoring Ordinary Citizen’s
Daily Activities around their Home
Monitoring Employee’s Daily
Activities at their Workplace
Monitoring People’s Daily
Activities in Open Public Places
93%
77%
63%
Source: National Survey, June 2014 (n = 524)
Group differences in these public attitudes about
drone use and domestic surveillance were also
found in some cases. For example, across each
type of location, people with lower incomes,
residents of Western states, and those who hold
more individualistic views about government’s
protection of citizen’s rights were more opposed to
drone surveillance than their counterparts. In
contrast, there are no major differences in public
attitudes about drone surveillance based on the
individual’s gender, age, educational level, marital
status, or political party affiliation.
Perceived Costs and Benefits of Drone Use for
Domestic Surveillance
To explore the possible reasons underlying these
public attitudes about drones and domestic
surveillance, we asked survey participants whether
they agreed or disagreed with a series of
statements. These statements represent some of
the potential costs, benefits, and issues associated
with using drones for monitoring people’s behavior
in different locations.
As shown in Table 2, the proportion of adults who
agree with each statement about drones varies
2
CENTER FOR CRIME
AND JUSTICE POLICY
Table
Domestic
Surveillance
Conducted
by Particular
Groups
Groups
by Particular
Conducted
Surveillance
Domestic
and
Dronesand
aboutDrones
Attitudesabout
2: Attitudes
Table2:
Percent Agreeing with Statement:
Governmental Use
of Drones in Open
Public Places …
Business Use of
Drones at the
Workplace …
Private Citizen Use
of Drones around
their Homes …
is excessive surveillance?
73%
84%
92%
violates personal privacy?
70%
79%
88%
is an effective monitor of people?
60%
48%
42%
is an injury threat from user error?
42%
45%
53%
is an injury threat from "hackers"?
39%
44%
48%
increases public safety?
39%
13%
16%
increases your personal safety?
33%
14%
17%
is a necessary form of surveillance?
10%
17%
9%
Source: National Survey, June 2014 (n = 524)
across contexts and location of the surveillance.
Overall, survey respondents strongly indicated
agreement that drone use for monitoring people’s
activities is “excessive surveillance” and “violates
personal privacy.” The frequency of agreement
with these two statements is greatest when it
involves citizens monitoring other people around
their homes, followed by workplace surveillance
and the governmental use of drones to observe
people in public places. In contrast, only a small
minority of survey respondents viewed aerial drone
usage as a “necessary form of surveillance” and
this was true across all three contexts for domestic
surveillance.
In terms of potential benefits of drone surveillance,
the highest level of agreement was found in the
public’s view of its effectiveness and impact on
public safety. This was especially true for the
governmental use of drones in open public places.
As shown in Table 2, a large proportion (60%) of
respondents agreed that the government’s use of
Aerial Drones, Domestic Surveillance, and Public Opinion
drones in public places “is an effective way of
monitoring people” and a substantial minority (39%)
agreed that drone use in public places would also
“increase public safety.” However, only a small
proportion (13-17%) of the sample believed that
drone use at the workplace or at their home would
increase either public safety or their own personal
safety.
When asked to indicate why they would oppose
drone surveillance in different locations, most
respondents selected either that it is “excessive
surveillance” or an “invasion of privacy” as their
primary reasons (see Table 3). The concern about
invading one’s privacy was the predominant source
of opposition to drone surveillance by private
citizens around their homes. In contrast, the
primary reasons mentioned for supporting drone
surveillance include beliefs that this practice would
“increase public safety” and, to a lesser extent, that
drone use is a “reasonable method for monitoring
people’s activities.”
Aerial Drones, Domestic Surveillance, and Public Attitudes 3
3
CENTER FOR CRIME
AND JUSTICE POLICY
Table 3: Reason for Opinions about Domestic Surveillance Conducted by Particular Groups
Table 3: Reasons for Opinions about Domestic Surveillance Conducted by Particular Groups
A. Major Reason for Supporting Drone Use for Domestic Surveillance by:
Increases Public Safety
Reasonable Monitoring Method
Effective Monitoring Method
Innovative Technology
Government
Business
79%
13%
4%
4%
100%
38%
23%
27%
12%
100%
Private Citizens
39%
36%
12%
13%
100%
B. Major Reason for Opposing Drone Use for Domestic Surveillance by:
Excessive Surveillance
Invasion of Privacy
Injury by Technical/Human Error
Injury by "Hackers"
Ineffective Monitoring Method
Government
Business
50%
48%
1%
1%
1%
100%
51%
45%
1%
2%
2%
100%
Private Citizens
23%
70%
5%
1%
1%
100%
Source: National Survey, June 2014 (n = 524)
Some group differences are found when examining
beliefs about the potential benefits and costs
associated with drone surveillance. The nature of
these group differences include the following:
•
•
Beliefs about drone surveillance increasing
public safety are more prevalent among:
o
younger than older respondents (i.e., 18-30
years old vs. 50 and older).
o
persons of lower than higher educational
attainment (i.e., high school vs. college
educated).
o
Democrats than Republicans.
o
persons who prefer a government that
emphasizes public safety rather than
individual rights.
Beliefs about the effectiveness of drones for
monitoring people are more prevalent among:
4 Aerial
Drones,Domestic
Domestic Surveillance,
Surveillance, and
Attitudes
Aerial
Drones,
andPublic
Public
Opinion
•
o
older than younger respondents (i.e., 50
and older vs. 18-30 years old).
o
persons of higher than lower educational
attainment (i.e., college vs. high school
educated).
o
residents of larger than smaller cities (i.e.,
over vs. under 50,000 population).
o
Republicans than Democrats.
o
persons with higher than lower annual
household income (i.e., income over and
under $50,000).
Beliefs about drone surveillance being an
invasion of personal privacy are more prevalent
among:
o persons of higher than lower educational
attainment (i.e., college vs. high school
educated).
o Democrats than Republicans.
4
CENTER FOR CRIME
AND JUSTICE POLICY
o persons who prefer a government that
emphasizes individual rights rather than
public safety.
o persons with lower than higher annual
household income (i.e., income under and
over $50,000).
•
Beliefs about drone being excessive
surveillance are more prevalent among:
o persons of higher than lower educational
attainment (i.e., college vs. high school
educated).
o Democrats than Republicans for drone use
in the workplace vs. around the home.
o persons who prefer a government that
emphasizes individual rights rather than
public safety.
o persons with lower than higher annual
household income (i.e., income under vs.
over $50,000).
Views about Drone Surveillance by Particular
Groups
Most respondents in this survey are opposed to
drone surveillance of people’s activities across
various contexts (see Table 1). This opposition is
based primarily on beliefs about drone use being
an invasion of privacy and an excessive form of
surveillance (see Table 2 and 3). However, a
remaining question about drone use for domestic
surveillance involves whether public opposition or
support for these practices depend on the
characteristics of the user of this technology.
Answers to this question are shown in Table 4.
Based on this national survey, public attitudes
about using drones for domestic surveillance are
strongly influenced by the person or group that is
using the technology. The level of opposition for
drone surveillance is highest when it involves use
by private citizens (81%), followed closely by
corporate or business users (79%) and the mass
media (75%).
Aerial Drones, Domestic Surveillance, and Public Opinion
Table 4: Attitudes Toward Particular Groups'
Drone Use for Domestic Surveillance
Private Citizens
Corp/Business
Mass Media
State/Local Police
Federal Government
0%
Oppose
50%
Support
100%
Unsure
Source: National Survey, June 2014 (n = 524)
The greatest support for using drone technology for
domestic surveillance activities is found when the
user is the federal government (33% support) or
state/local law enforcement agencies (28%). Even
among these groups with the highest support for
drone usage, however, it is important to emphasize
that the clear majority of respondents were
opposed to drone surveillance of people’s activities
regardless of the source of that monitoring.
Implications for Public Policy on Using Aerial
Drones for Domestic Surveillance
The growth of aerial drone technology and its
application in various substantive fields has
become a major issue for public policy. Currently,
sites in six states (Alaska, New York, Nevada,
North Dakota, Texas and Virginia) have been
designated as locations for developing operational
practices and policies about this technology. In
addition, many states are now drafting legislation
to regulate how, when, and where aerial drones
may be used in both public and private places.
If public opinion is an important basis for
developing public policy, the results of the current
national survey raise serious questions about the
public’s willingness to support drone use in any
context of domestic surveillance. In fact, opposition
to drones was nearly unanimous when they are
used to monitor people’s daily activities around
Aerial Drones, Domestic Surveillance, and Public Attitudes 5
CENTER FOR CRIME
AND JUSTICE POLICY
their home. Public opposition is also substantial for
watching people at their workplace and in more
open public places.
Given this widespread opposition and the primary
reasons for it (i.e., beliefs that aerial drone use is
excessive surveillance and a violation of privacy),
legislative efforts to regulate aerial drone usage in
the areas of domestic surveillance face a major
challenge. This challenge involves establishing
public policy that achieves the delicate balance
between (1) maximizing the benefits of this
technology (e.g., increasing public safety through
domestic surveillance activities) and (2) minimizing
its costs on individuals' rights to privacy.
Legal efforts to balance these dual concerns may
be less problematic when drones are used for very
specific reasons (e.g., search/rescue operations,
geological/climate mapping, land management).
This could be true because drone monitoring in
these contexts is generally less intrusive to
people’s sense of privacy. Also, the specific
benefits of using drones in these domains (i.e.,
crisis, environmental sustainability) are more
readily apparent. However, when applied
specifically to domestic surveillance, the results of
the current study suggest that the public's general
opposition to using drones and their widespread
concerns about violations of privacy are major
issues that warrant serious attention in any
formulation of public policy.
For developing empirically-based public policy,
several additional questions about aerial drones
and domestic surveillance require further study.
These questions include the following:
•
How are public attitudes about drone
surveillance different from opinions about other
types of visual surveillance (e.g., close-circuit
television and remote video cameras)?
•
Does the level of public opposition to drone use
for domestic surveillance depend on the
specific types of public places being monitored
(e.g., school property, public arenas for
concerts and sporting events, transportation
stations and government buildings)? And, does
it depend on the time of day that drones are
used (e.g., day vs. night)?

What are the major situational and contextual
factors that influence public support and
opposition to using aerial drones for domestic
surveillance? For example, do these attitudes
vary on the basis of (1) the frequency of
monitoring (e.g., does it provide continuous or
sporadic images, real time or delayed
recording?), (2) the quality and details of the
visual images, (3) the size and distance of the
aerial drone from its target (e.g., can the drone
be seen or heard?), and (4) the explicit purpose
for its usage (e.g., monitoring protesters, streetlevel drug transactions and gang activity).
Limitations of this Study
The primary limitations of the current study involve
its sampling design, time frame, and the wording of
questions in the survey. Specifically, by using an
internet sampling frame, our results may not be
representative of all U.S. adult residents. Our
results are also restricted to internet users over a
two-day period in mid-June of 2014. To minimize
threats to the measurement validity of our study, we
used less affective and pejorative language in the
survey (e.g., using the term "monitoring" rather than
"surveillance"). Unfortunately, even words like
"monitoring" may have negative connotations that
also affect response patterns.
Due to these limitations of the current study, we
recommend that some caution be exercised when
interpreting the observed findings and making
inferences about national trends.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Loosveldt, G. and N. Sonck (2008). “An evaluation of the weighting procedures for an online access panel survey.” Survey
Research Methods 2(2):93-105.
Miethe, T. D., J.D. Lieberman, M. Sakiyama, and E.I. Troshynski (2014). "Public Attitudes about Aerial Drone Activities: Results
of a National Survey." State Data Brief. Center for Crime and Justice Policy: Las Vegas, NV. CCJP 2014-02.
Aerial Drones, Domestic Surveillance, and Public Opinion
6 Aerial Drones, Domestic Surveillance, and Public Attitudes
6
CENTER FOR CRIME
AND JUSTICE POLICY
Center
forCRIME
Crime AND
and Justice
CENTER
FOR
JUSTICEPolicy
POLICY
STATE
DATA
BRIEF
SERIES
Center
for
Crime
Policy
State
Dataand
BriefJustice
Series
State Data Brief Series
This Research in Brief is part of the "State
Data Brief" series produced by the Center for
This
Research
in Brief
is part
of University
the "State of
Crime
and Justice
Policy
at the
Data
Brief"
series
produced
by theBriefs
Center
Nevada,
Las
Vegas.
State Data
arefor
Crime
and
Justice
Policy
at
the
University
of
modeled after the Bureau of Justice Statistics'
Nevada,
Las Vegas.
State DataThe
Briefs
are
Special Reports
and Bulletins.
Briefs
modeled
after
the
Bureau
of
Justice
Statistics'
provide statistical summaries of various
Special
and Bulletins.
The
Briefs
criminalReports
justice system
practices
in Nevada
provide
statistical
summaries
of
various
over time, and highlight differences between
criminal
system
practices
Nevada
Nevada justice
and other
states.
Theseinreports
cover
over
time,
and
highlight
differences
between
all aspects of the criminal justice system,
Nevada
other
These
reports
cover
includingand
trends
instates.
crime and
arrests,
police
all
aspects
of
the
criminal
justice
system,
practices, prosecution, pretrial activities,
including
trends
in crime and
police
adjudication,
sentencing,
andarrests,
corrections.
practices,
prosecution,
pretrial
activities,
Although State
Data Briefs
typically
focus on
adjudication,
sentencing,
and
corrections.
criminal justice issues within Nevada,
Although
State
Datareports
Briefs typically
focus
“Research
in Brief”
may focus
on on
criminal
justice
issues
within
Nevada,
national issues as well.
“Research in Brief” reports may focus on
national
The dataissues
briefs as
arewell.
designed to provide
members of the general public, local officials,
The
data briefs
are designed
provide
community
organizations,
andtomedia
outlets a
members
of
the
general
public,
local
officials,
concise and objective statistical profile
of
community
organizations,
and
media
outlets
current crime related trends in Nevada and a
concise
andthat
objective
statistical
profile of for
elsewhere
may serve
as a foundation
current
crime
related trends
in Nevada
and
informed
discussions
of future
crime control
elsewhere
that
may
serve
as
a
foundation
for
policies and practices.
informed discussions of future crime control
policies
andInformation
practices.
Contact
CONTACT INFORMATION
Questions or comments about the State Data
Contact
Information
Briefs, information contained in this current report,
or other resources
available
related
to this
topic
Questions
or comments
about
the State
Data
shouldinformation
be addresscontained
to:
Briefs,
in this current report,
or other resources available related to this topic
Terancebe
D.addressed
Miethe, Ph.D.
should
to:
State Data Brief Project Coordinator
Center for
and
Justice Policy
Terance
D.Crime
Miethe,
Ph.D.
University
Nevada,
Vegas
State
Data of
Brief
ProjectLas
Coordinator
4505
Maryland
Parkway
Box
5009
Center for Crime and Justice Policy
Las Vegas,
89154-5009
University
ofNV
Nevada,
Las Vegas
Phone:
702-895-0236;
702-895-0252
4505
Maryland
ParkwayFax:
- Box
5009
Email:
miethe@unlv.nevada.edu
Las Vegas, NV 89154-5009
Previous State Data Briefs
Previous State Data Briefs
Arrest-Related Deaths in Nevada, 2009-2011
Arrest-Related
Deaths
in Nevada,
2009-2011
Arson Trends in
Nevada,
1997-2006
Arson
Trends
in Nevada,
1997-2006
Auto Theft
in Nevada,
1994-2008
Auto
TheftTrends
in Nevada,
1994-2008
Burglary
in Nevada,
1990-2007
Burglary
Trends in Nevada,
1990-2007
Capital Punishment
in Nevada,
1977-2008
Capital
Punishment
in Nevada,
1977-2008
Clearance
Rates in Nevada,
1998-2009
Clearance
RatesIntercepts
in Nevada,Authorized
1998-2009in
Communication
Nevada, 1997-2008
Communication Intercepts Authorized in
Nevada,
Criminal 1997-2008
Victimization in Nevada, 2008
Criminal
Criminal Victimization
Victimization in
in Nevada,
Nevada, 2008
2011
Criminal
in Nevada,
2011
Deaths inVictimization
Custody in Nevada,
2001-2006
Deaths
in Custody
in Nevada,
2001-2006
Impact of
Foreclosures
on Neighborhood
Crime in Nevada, 2006-2009
Impact of Foreclosures on Neighborhood
Crime
Nevada, 2006-2009
JusticeinAssistance
Grant (JAG) Program in
Nevada, 2005-2010
Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program in
Nevada,
Patterns 2005-2010
in School Violence in Nevada
Patterns
in School
Violence
Nevada
Public Attitudes
about
AerialinDrone
Activities:
Results of a National Survey
Public Attitudes about Aerial Drone Activities:
Results
of aother
National
Survey in Nevada,
Rape and
Sex Offenses
1990-2007
Rape and other Sex Offenses in Nevada,
1990-2007
Phone: 702-895-0236; Fax: 702-895-0252
Email: miethe@unlv.nevada.edu
Aerial Drones, Domestic Surveillance, and Public Attitudes 7
Aerial Drones, Domestic Surveillance, and Public Opinion
7
CENTER FOR CRIME
AND JUSTICE POLICY
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
4505 S. Maryland Parkway
Box 455009
Las Vegas, NV 89154-5009
Postage
Required