“Eye in the Sky,” is not your typical war movie. Director Gavin Hood has created a military thriller without firefights, bombs, ear-shattering explosions or mud-and-blood spattered soldiers. Unlike most war movies, this one is not about boots-on-the-ground battles. The battle in “Eye in the Sky” is waged behind-the-scenes, at military bases thousands of miles away, in electronic control rooms, and  in high-level government offices. That’s where strategists, soldiers, lawyers and politicians engage in high-stakes decision-making that must balance military goals with morality and political considerations–all in the context of 21st Century, remote-control drone warfare.

The plot revolves around a British-led, targeted drone strike against a group of El Shabbab terrorists in Nairobi, Kenya. Military higher-ups have authorized the strike on a house in Kenya, where three of the most-wanted terrorists have been spotted and confirmed by drone cameras [including a nifty little, beetle-sized flying drone and sophisticated face-recognition software.]  But as the drone operator puts his finger on the trigger, a 9-year-old girl enters the kill zone and sets up shop selling bread. Her presence sets off  the moral/political/military dilemma that drives the movie.

Other movie makers might have added a dramatic, pulsating musical score to tell you that you’re supposed to be on the edge of your seat. Others might have tossed in extraneous characters, red herrings, comic relief, expensive special effects, or sentimental backstories for the main characters. Hood does none of this. The story itself is enough, and he tells it–to excellent effect–step by step and without embellishment. [No spoilers.] Insightful writing, restrained directing and excellent casting [Hellen Mirren and the late, lamented Alan Rickman, to name the top two] make “Eye in the Sky” a worthy, thought-provoking movie experience.

I have no idea if this film is based on a real incident. But if it’s not, it should be. I want to believe that the kind of forethought and ethical wrestling depicted in “Eye in the Sky” plays out in drone warfare. But I’m not that naive.

Sure, it would be reassuring to know that people up and down the decision-making hierarchy take morality into consideration as part of their duties. It was refreshing, for example, to watch the drone operators refuse to take action until they were reassured that what they were about to do was morally and legally justified. But we also see that each of the players– including the British Foreign Secretary, the British Attorney General, the US Secretary of State, the British Prime Minister, and the head of the prevailing party in Parliament–has a specific mission to fulfill. Each sees the situation through his or her own prism. And through them, we realize how complicated these kinds of decisions can be. And, by the way, no one wants to make the ultimate call.

“Eye in the Sky” raises many thorny questions: Which would be worse, saving one child by calling off a drone strike on terrorists who are arming up in suicide vests, or authorizing the strike, knowing that there’s a high probability of the child dying as “collateral damage?”  Should a drone operator have to follow orders that he thinks are immoral? Can the military legally kill a citizen of its own country who has joined up with terrorists in another nation? Does remote-control warfare make it too easy for generals and pilots to walk away from the destruction they inflict? Are these new issues, or the same ones faced over centuries of conventional war? None of these questions is easily answered, and to its credit, “Eye in the Sky” doesn’t try to.

But, as a viewer, you may.  Some movies leave you humming the theme song or repeating a recurring laugh line. Others leave you sniffling and wiping away tears. “Eye in the Sky” had a completely different effect on me: I left asking myself, “What would I do?”

The post Eye In the Sky: The moral choices of drone warfare appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Remember back in 2007 when we were freaking out at Google Maps photographing our neighborhoods? We were worried, and rightly so, about the invasion of our privacy. What if an online stalker or a thief figured out where we lived, saw what our house looked like and scoped out which doors and windows were vulnerable? What if we were inadvertently photographed where we shouldn’t have been? Oops!  Needless to say, except for the demise of a few marriages, we survived the invasion of  Google cars with cameras and learned to love Google street view.

Fast forward to today: In February of this year, President Obama signed the The Federal Aviation Administration Re-Authorization Bill, which among other things, requires the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to make plans to integrate unmanned aircraft systems, or drones, into American airspace. Right now drones are being used on the U.S.-Mexico border, over military airspace, and around 300 public agencies located away from cities and airports. This is scheduled to change on September 30, 2015 when they will be allowed to fly at low levels over all of our airspace.

The FAA estimates that by 2020, 30,000 public and privately owned drones, (sent aloft by news media, police departments, the FBI, Homeland Security, the NSA, disaster rescue teams, scientists, real estate agents, corporations, private citizens, crazy people and, of course, paparazzi) will be flying or hovering silently overhead. And yes, they will have the ability to spy on us. Makes that Google car seem pretty quaint doesn’t it?

Needless to say, this new law was pushed through because there is a lot of money to be made in expanding drone use. To date, much of it has been from military contracts, and, even though the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down, drone use in the military will continue to grow. According to June, 2011 article in the New York Times,

The Pentagon now has some 7,000 aerial drones, compared with fewer than 50 a decade ago. Within the next decade the Air Force anticipates a decrease in manned aircraft but expects its number of “multirole” aerial drones like the Reaper — the ones that spy as well as strike — to nearly quadruple, to 536. Already the Air Force is training more remote pilots, 350 this year alone, than fighter and bomber pilots combined.

But the drone industry is looking to expand beyond the military and has been lobbying congress to open up domestic markets. The Congressional Unmanned Systems Caucus, otherwise known as the “Drone Caucus” made up of Republican and Democratic representatives from states where drones are made, is responsible for introducing and fast tracking the legislation to allow drones over American airspace. According to the Drone Caucus website, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) have been the most dynamic growth sector of the world aerospace industry this decade. It estimates that UAV spending will almost double over the next decade from current worldwide UAV expenditures of $5.9 billion annually to $11.3 billion, totaling just over $94 billion in the next ten years.

Are there legitimate domestic uses for drones? They are cheaper to operate than police helicopters. They are useful for monitoring urban traffic patterns, rescuing people lost in wilderness areas, surveying public lands and protecting public property, to name a few. But the energy behind opening up American airspace to drone use is being driven by the industry and their minions in DC rather than a thoughtful public policy debate. Concerns about the invasion of privacy are given lip service by  congressmen who represent the industry. The industry association that lobbied Congress for passage of this bill, the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International refers to the concerns of the “privacy rights community” as obstacles to be overcome. And, then there are the safety issues. The FAA is freaking out about how to make the airspace safe with so many drones flying around.

When drones are unleashed in American skies on September 30, 2015, we will never know when the government, a corporation, or some weird person with deep pockets is monitoring us, or for what purpose.  We can avoid a surveillance camera mounted on a building, but how do we avoid a surveillance drone the size of a bird or an insect? These “microdrones” currently being developed by the military will most certainly be used for public and private domestic surveillance. And then, of course, with the skies being opened up to the proliferation of drones, what’s to keep someone from using a larger drone to drop a dirty bomb?

Drone use will only proliferate over time, as will government and corporate surveillance. Unfortunately, there is no going back. Technology has become a powerful tool for concentrating and expanding government and corporate power. But, as we know, technology can also be a powerful tool for confronting power and spreading democracy. Somehow, I don’t have a good feeling about drones.

The post Drones: Coming to a neighborhood near you appeared first on Occasional Planet.