05 Oct “Cry ‘Havoc’ and let slip the moths of war!”
Remember the killer badgers and cyborg spy squirrels? Well, as they say, truth is stranger than fiction. Consider the following report from the EE Times:
Cyborg insects with embedded microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) will run remotely controlled reconnaissance missions for the military, if its ‘”HI-MEMS” program succeeds. Hybrid-Insect MEMS–a program hatched earlier this year at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa)–aims to harness insects the way horses were harnessed by the cavalry.
Wow. Charge of the Light Brigade, indeed. Anyway, the article goes on to explain:
“Michigan is focusing on horned beetles, while MIT and Boyce Thompson are working with large moths,” said Darpa spokesman Jan Walker. “The program’s first major milestone is scheduled for January 2008, when the contractors have to demonstrate controlled, tethered flight of the insect.”
The final milestone at the end of phase three will be flying a cyborg insect to within five meters of a specific target located some one hundred meters away using remote control or a global positioning system (GPS). If HI-MEMS passes this test successfully, then Darpa will probably begin breeding in earnest. Insect swarms with various sorts of different embedded MEMS sensors–video cameras, audio microphones, chemical sniffers and more–could then penetrate enemy territory in swarms to perform reconnaissance missions impossible or too dangerous for soldiers.
The sticks-in-the-mud at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) are not enthused by the implications of impressing moths into recon operations.
“Anyone who is just a little bit creative can imagine both useful and non-productive applications of remote-controlled animals–especially if ordinary people will mistake them for normal animals,” said Peter Eckersley, staff technologist at the EFF. ” Darpa likens remote-controlled insect to saddling horses, but the difference between a police officer using a horse and a police officer controlling one of these cyborg insects is that you can clearly see the police officer on the horse, whereas you can not easily see whether an insect is a cyborg. If people in a free society have to start worrying that any insect they see might be conducting surveillance, then that could seriously inhibit their ability to develop their character and express themselves.”
However, before you start buying massive amounts of insect repellent, please note the following:
If Darpa’s track record is any indicator, then we have some breathing room before we have to start worrying whether that insect crawling on the wall is conducting unwarranted surveillance. Only a fraction of the wide-ranging programs that Darpa sponsors are successful–at least in the way they were originally imagined. Despite a few stunning successes, like the Internet, Darpa’s history is littered with broken dreams.
And soon lots and lots of little broken wings as well.
Hat Tip: Futurismic
I think the Cleveland Indians managed to get their hands on a prototype.
I fail to see how the legal requirements for a police search would be modified by the use of an cyborg animal. We’ve already addressed the use of non-modified animals in law.
Matthew:
OK, actually taking the cyborg moth thing seriously for a minute… in terms of domestic legality, I think the interesting question would be in areas where there is a certain amount of leeway given for electronic surveiilance. As this is an area of the law that is currently in flux, let’s just take the basic idea that under certain circumstances, law enforcement may go ahead and commence electronic surveillance and then seek a warrant (if at all). Normally, if someone was moving around locations or in a publc space, he may not have a huge concern that his conversation was (legally or illegally) being recorded (unless law enforcement could be in place with some parabolic mics). Here, though, you could “bug” someone by flying a literal bug to wherever they were, even without a warrant. Is this a huge change from the current system? Well, in conjunction with lax wiretapping rules it does make it easier to record anyone, anytime.
But, honestly, am I going to lose sleep over the specific scenario of cyborg beetles? No. Well, at least not yet. And, anyway, the current challenges to FISA are worrisome enough before factoring in bionic butterflies.
Normally, if someone was moving around locations or in a publc space, he may not have a huge concern that his conversation was (legally or illegally) being recorded (unless law enforcement could be in place with some parabolic mics). Here, though, you could “bug” someone by flying a literal bug to wherever they were, even without a warrant.
Yes, but you already have limited rights to privacy of speech in public. The mere fact listening becomes easier doesn’t substantially alter that.
Matthew: I understand that but I also wanted to include “moving around locations” which relates to the (formerly)legally controversial and practically difficult “roving wiretap” that follows someone through different public and private spaces.
Ultimately, could such a technology alter the balance on privacy rights? As I said before, I think the issue of how we balance such rights is at hand now, without worrying about future tech.
I would be interested to know what the purpose of the surveillance is. Is it to ensure public safety? Spy on protesters? Create a database of information on specific individuals for potentially invidious purposes? Given today’s WaPo article, I don’t think these concerns are too far-flung.