�鶹������ý

Tomorrow, the House of Representatives is expected to vote on H.R. 302, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, which includes the Preventing Emerging Threats Act of 2018. �鶹������ý’s Open Technology Institute (OTI) strongly opposes the Preventing Emerging Threats Act, which . Although it seeks to address a legitimate concern that aerial drones may pose a security risk to government facilities, the proposed legislation is overbroad and would provide sweeping authorities to the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to surveil, seize, and destroy drones. Unless this bill—which is contained as Division H of Title VI of H.R. 302—is stripped from the FAA Reauthorization Act, the House should vote against H.R. 302.

Specifically, the Preventing Emerging Threats Act would:

• Grant overbroad authority to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The bill would grant new and expansive authorities to DOJ and DHS to address “threats” that drones may pose to a “covered facility,” without defining what would constitute a “threat,” and without any requirement that it be imminent or that it involve a risk to life or safety.
• Authorize warrantless surveillance and hacking whenever the government determines this is “necessary to mitigate” a threat from a drone. The bill would authorize the government to monitor and track drones and would exempt the DOJ and DHS from certain requirements of federal criminal law contained in . This includes permitting the warrantless interception or collection of communications that would otherwise be in violation of the requirements of the , and exempting the government from the , which prevents the government from warrantlessly hacking Americans’ devices.
• Authorize the government to seize or destroy a drone without adequate due process. The bill would authorize DOJ and DHS to seize or use force to destroy any drone that they claim poses a threat to a “covered facility.” The bill does not include any requirement for the government to obtain judicial authorization before seizing or destroying a drone, nor does it contain any procedures for post-hoc review to prevent abuse of this expansive authority. The bill offers no mechanism for accountability or recompense to anyone whose property has been improperly seized or destroyed.

A . If the House does strip out the Preventing Emerging Threats Act from H.R. 302, it should reject the FAA Reauthorization Act.