Overview
Title
To authorize Counter-UAS activities on and off commercial service airport property, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The SHIELD U Act is a plan to help make airports safer by letting special teams stop drones that shouldn't be flying there. It tells who can do this and how, making sure there are rules to follow so nobody’s privacy gets hurt.
Summary AI
S. 1250, also known as the "Stopping Harmful Incidents to Enforce Lawful Drone Use Act" or the "SHIELD U Act," aims to authorize and regulate counter-unmanned aircraft systems (Counter-UAS) activities at and around commercial service airports. The bill outlines the roles of federal and local authorities, including the Department of Homeland Security and state law enforcement agencies, in monitoring and mitigating risks posed by unauthorized drones. It includes provisions for testing and evaluating Counter-UAS equipment, updates to tactical response plans, and coordination between various federal and local bodies. Additionally, the bill provides for the use of jamming technology as a response to drone threats, while ensuring the protection of the traditional police powers of states.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The bill titled the "Stopping Harmful Incidents to Enforce Lawful Drone Use Act," or the "SHIELD U Act," aims to regulate the use of drones, especially around commercial service airports. It introduces provisions for detecting, controlling, and mitigating threats posed by unmanned aircraft systems, commonly known as drones. The bill outlines the roles of federal agencies, state, and local law enforcement in implementing these counter-drone activities. Additionally, it details the use of specific technologies, potential collaboration between government bodies, and updates to training programs for law enforcement.
General Summary
The SHIELD U Act primarily focuses on authorizing certain activities to counter potential threats posed by drones in and around commercial service airports. The bill empowers federal agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security, and local law enforcement to detect, intercept, and even disable or destroy drones perceived as threats to airport safety and public security. It also frames how these authorities could extend to areas off airport property. Meanwhile, the act provides provisions for collaboration with entities like the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The legislation also contemplates the use of kinetic and non-kinetic technologies and establishes avenues for training law enforcement on dealing with drone threats.
Summary of Significant Issues
A key issue raised by this legislation involves privacy and legal rights, particularly concerning the interception and disruption of communications without prior consent. The broad power granted to intercept wire and electronic communications raises concerns about potential infringements on communication privacy and wiretapping laws. Moreover, the bill’s language lacks specificity on what constitutes "reasonable force" in counter-drone activities, raising worries about potential overreach by law enforcement. Additionally, the terminology in terms of threat definitions yields subjectivity, leading to various interpretations and possible misuse.
Another prominent concern is financial: the bill doesn’t specify funding sources for these expanded activities, which could result in unfunded mandates burdening state and local governments. This ambiguity could hinder the practical implementation of the Act due to constrained resources.
Impact on the Public
The greater goal of the bill is to enhance public safety, especially in air travel and around airports. By authorizing measures to manage drone threats, the SHIELD U Act aims to protect passengers, airline operations, and surrounding communities from potential risks posed by rogue drones. However, the legislation also raises significant privacy issues, meaning the public could experience heightened surveillance and reduced privacy around drone operations.
For the aviation industry, this bill could help streamline and standardize responses to drone threats, potentially reducing hazards in airspace. Conversely, privacy advocates might criticize the bill for not offering sufficient checks and balances on how these powers are exercised.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Law enforcement agencies might benefit from clearer guidelines and additional training regarding drone threats, leading to enhanced capabilities for ensuring public safety. However, the agencies might also face increased burdens regarding coordination and implementation of this act without additional resources.
For commercial drone operators, this legislation may introduce further oversight and operational barriers. Increased monitoring and potentially severe actions against perceived threats could impact how businesses can use drones for commercial activities.
The technology sector related to drones and counter-drone solutions could see increased demand, driven by the need for advanced equipment and technology to detect and neutralize rogue drones. However, potential conflicts of interest and increased regulation might arise, requiring careful navigation by these industries.
Overall, the SHIELD U Act intends to address real concerns about drone safety near airports, though it presents challenges in terms of privacy, funding, and implementation that stakeholders will need to address moving forward.
Issues
The use of the phrase 'Notwithstanding any other provision of law' in SEC. 3(a)(1) raises concerns about the potential for this section to override other legal requirements without providing clear justification. This could lead to broader legal implications, as it may bypass existing laws and legal safeguards.
The authority granted under SEC. 3 and SEC. 4 to intercept communications and disable unmanned aircraft systems without prior consent raises significant privacy and legal concerns. This could potentially infringe on rights related to wiretapping and communication privacy.
The vague definition of what constitutes 'reasonable force' in SEC. 2(3)(F) when disabling, damaging, or destroying an unmanned aircraft or system could lead to legal disputes or misuse of power.
The delegation of powers to private sector entities to establish testing areas for Counter-UAS activities in SEC. 4(b)(1)(B) raises concerns regarding oversight, conflicts of interest, and potential favoritism, especially if there are no explicit guidelines on conducting such tests.
The bill lacks explicit budget allocations or funding sources for Counter-UAS activities in SEC. 4, creating ambiguity about financial responsibility, which could result in unfunded mandates on state or local entities.
The potential for privacy and civil liberties violations due to increased law enforcement and private entity authority in SEC. 4 is concerning, as the bill does not adequately address privacy protections or outline oversight mechanisms.
The requirement in SEC. 3(b)(2)(A) for the FCC and NTIA to designate offices within 30 days is quite stringent and could lead to rushed assignments, affecting the quality of implementation.
The definition of 'threats posed by an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system' in SEC. 2(6) is subjective, relying on activities 'reasonably believed' to threaten harm or damage, which could lead to varying interpretations and potential overreach.
The inclusion of both kinetic and non-kinetic equipment training in SEC. 6 for law enforcement without specified budgeting or funding raises concerns about potential overspending or resource misallocation.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of this bill gives it the official name, "Stopping Harmful Incidents to Enforce Lawful Drone Use Act" or simply "SHIELD U Act".
2. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Definitions section of this Act explains key terms used in the legislation, such as "commercial service airport," which is an airport defined by U.S. law and its airspace. It also describes "covered air carrier" as U.S. and foreign airlines, and "Counter-UAS activities" as efforts to detect, monitor, and potentially disrupt unmanned aircraft without consent. Additional definitions include the meaning of "navigable airspace," "non-kinetic equipment" used to intercept aircraft communications, threats posed by unauthorized unmanned aircraft, and what constitutes an "unmanned aircraft" or "unmanned aircraft system."
3. Counter-UAS activities on commercial service airport property Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section discusses how certain government agencies and local law enforcement can perform activities to protect airports from threats posed by drones, with specific requirements for testing equipment, getting airport operator consent, and coordinating with federal communication bodies. It establishes a task force to create response plans, allows airports to purchase necessary equipment as part of improvement programs, and sets guidelines for developing best practices in using technology to detect, identify, and manage these threats.
4. Counter-UAS activities off commercial service airport property Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section allows states and local law enforcement to detect and address threats from drones (unmanned aircraft systems) outside commercial airports, as long as they follow the Fourth Amendment and cooperate with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). It also outlines requirements for testing related equipment, including working with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and other agencies, and establishes ways to coordinate actions between law enforcement and the FAA to manage drone threats safely.
5. Authority to enter into contracts to protect facilities from unmanned aircraft Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill authorizes certain Federal departments to make contracts for protecting facilities from drones and requires the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council to update regulations accordingly. Additionally, it mandates the publication of a list of approved vendors and equipment by the Office of Management and Budget, which will be reviewed annually based on a risk assessment.
6. Federal law enforcement training Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 is being updated to include new training programs focused on countering threats from unmanned aircraft. These programs will cover various techniques and equipment to handle such threats and will be available to different law enforcement and security agencies at federal, state, local, and private levels.
7. Authorized use of jamming technology Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to the Communications Act of 1934 allows state and local law enforcement, as well as commercial service airports, to use special equipment to jam or disrupt drones if they pose a threat, by consulting with the relevant Commission. This exception is meant to help detect, identify, or handle potential dangers from unmanned aircraft systems without violating existing communication laws.
8. No abrogation of traditional police powers Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section clarifies that nothing in the Act or its amendments will take away a State government's traditional police powers. States retain the authority to use these powers, such as responding to immediate threats to public health or safety.