Technologies meant to counter unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are becoming more numerous as people become more concerned about bad actors using UAVs for illicit purposes. The Cipher Brief asked Dr. Robert Griffin, Deputy Undersecretary for Science and Technology at the Department of Homeland Security, about the risks and benefits of these emerging technologies.
The Cipher Brief: Concerns about the malicious use of UAVs have been rising for some time. How would you assess the threat posed by UAVs, and are the concerns about them valid?
Dr. Robert Griffin: I would first like to reset the question. UAVs are not a threat any more than a car, plane, or cell phone camera. UAVs provide some new, novel ways to do things like collect imagery and deliver packages, but they are not themselves dangerous. There are, however, people who look to use technology to commit crimes, so, just like any new tool, UAVs provide new physical security challenges as well as civic issues primarily involving privacy. The security concerns of illicit use of this technology will have to be balanced against the numerous societal benefits of this emerging technology.
TCB: The concerns about bad actors using UAVs have prompted the creation of systems like the Blighter Anti-UAV Defense System. What are the advantages of using a system like this? What are the potential downsides?
RG: While any given countermeasure system may be useful in certain specific situations, no single system can address the spectrum of operational conditions where they are needed. There is a need to develop multiple countermeasure technologies that can be used in various environments. For example, the downside to the use of any directed energy system is primarily its effect on its surroundings. These types of devices are specifically designed to interfere with signals. A lot of testing needs to be conducted to determine the effect on things such as medical implants, Wi-Fi routers, cellphone, Bluetooth transmissions and first responder devices.
TCB: The Blighter uses a radio-frequency inhibitor to disable drones – what are some alternative means of achieving this same goal? What are their pros and cons?
RG: There are many potential concepts for countering UAVs, ranging from electronically disabling drones or blocking their communication signals, to more physical methods like nets or kinetic countermeasures. The best approach is a multilayered detection and defense architecture that doesn’t rely on any single method. Each approach has its own specific set of pros and cons. One significant con is disabling the UAV, no matter what method is used to do so, would likely result in it falling out of the sky crashing into whatever is below it. This is a highly variable issue depending on the size, type, and contents of the UAV. A concern specific to electronic countermeasures is potential interference with critical public safety and life-saving systems in the vicinity. When you consider the possible consequences of the use of countermeasures in and around critical infrastructure, including mass gatherings like sporting events, concerts, or civic events, there are considerable technological, legal, and policy challenges.
TCB: Are there any regulatory issues that may complicate the use of counter-UAV technology domestically? If so, how is the regulatory environment changing in regards to the creation of these technologies?
RG: There are a number of policies and safety regulations regarding the use of RF emitting technologies in certain environments because of potential interference with other systems. A great deal of testing needs to be done to determine safe operating parameters. There are regulatory precedents regarding privacy and other potential infringements, which all must be considered. Once acceptable technologies become available, there may need to be some regulatory reviews on who can own and operate such a system. A lot of work is still needed to understand the impact of the deployment and use of any new technology.
TCB: What is the role of the government in this area?
RG: The principle role of government is to ensure safety and security, without infringing on the rights of citizens to operate these devices in a lawful and safe manner, respectful of their fellow citizens. We will have to balance competing public policy and societal needs — UAVs could fundamentally change our communities, agriculture, and society. At the same time, they represent new challenges to public safety officials and dramatically expand the capacity and potential for illicit behavior. Government’s role is to balance these competing objectives without stifling innovation.
