![\"Melanie](\"https:\/\/cdn.defenseone.com\/media\/img\/upload\/2018\/05\/03\/AP_17243424943144\/defense-large.jpg\")
DENVER<\/span>, Colorado \u2014 Last winter, on the outskirts of a large\u00a0U.S.<\/span>city, an\u00a0FBI<\/span>\u00a0hostage rescue team set up an elevated observation post to assess an unfolding situation. Soon they heard the buzz of small drones \u2014 and then the tiny aircraft were all around them, swooping past in a series of \u201chigh-speed low passes at the agents in the observation post to flush them,\u201d the head of the agency\u2019s operational technology law unit told attendees of the\u00a0AUVSI<\/span>Xponential\u00a0conference here. Result: \u201cWe were then blind,\u201d said Joe Mazel, meaning the group lost situational awareness of the target. \u201cIt definitely presented some\u00a0challenges.\u201d<\/p>\nThe incident remains \u201claw enforcement-sensitive,\u201d Mazel said Wednesday, declining to say just where or when it took place. But it shows how criminal groups are using small drones for increasingly elaborate\u00a0crimes.<\/p>\n
Mazel said the suspects had backpacked the drones to the area in anticipation of the\u00a0FBI<\/span>\u2019s arrival. Not only did they buzz the hostage rescue team, they also kept a continuous eye on the agents, feeding video to the group\u2019s other members via YouTube. \u201cThey had people fly their own drones up and put the footage to YouTube so that the guys who had cellular access could go to the YouTube site and pull down the video,\u201d he\u00a0said.<\/p>\n Mazel said counter surveillance of law enforcement agents is the fastest-growing way that organized criminals are using\u00a0drones.<\/p>\n Some criminal organizations have begun to use drones as part of witness intimidation schemes: they continuously surveil police departments and precincts in order to see \u201cwho is going in and out of the facility and who might be co-operating with police,\u201d he\u00a0said.<\/p>\n Drones are also playing a greater role in robberies and the like. Beyond the\u00a0well-documented incidence of house break-ins, criminal crews are using them to observe bigger target facilities, spot security gaps, and determine patterns of life: where the security guards go and\u00a0when.<\/p>\n In Australia, criminal groups have begun have used drones as part of elaborate smuggling schemes, Mazel said. The gangs will monitor port authority workers. If the workers get close to a shipping container that houses illegal substances or contraband, the gang will call in a fire, theft, or some other false alarm to draw off security\u00a0forces.<\/p>\n Andrew Scharnweber, associate chief of\u00a0U.S.<\/span>\u00a0Customs and Border Protection,\u00a0described how criminal networks were using drones to watch Border Patrol officers, identify their gaps in coverage, and exploit\u00a0them.<\/p>\n \u201cIn the Border Patrol, we have struggled with scouts, human scouts that come across the border. They\u2019re stationed on various mountaintops near the border and they would scout \u2026 to spot law enforcement and radio down to their counterparts to go around us. That activity has effectively been replaced by drones,\u201d said Scharnweber, who added that cartels are able to move small amounts of high-value narcotics across the border via drones with \u201clittle or no fear of\u00a0arrest.\u201d<\/p>\n Nefarious use of drones is likely to get worse before it gets better, according to several government officials who spoke on the panel. There is no easy or quick technological solution. While the\u00a0U.S.<\/span>military has effectively deployed drone-jamming equipment to the front lines in Syria and Iraq, most of these solutions are either unsuitable or have not been tested for use in American cities where they may interfere with cell phone signals and possibly the avionics of other aircraft, said Ahn Duong, the program executive officer at\u00a0DHS<\/span>\u2019s homeland security, science and technology\u00a0directorate.<\/p>\n The most recent version of the\u00a0FAA<\/span>\u00a0reauthorization\u00a0bill contains two amendments that could help the situation, according to Angela Stubblefield, the\u00a0FAA<\/span>\u2019s deputy associate administrator in the office of security and hazardous materials safety. One would make it illegal to \u201cweaponize\u201d consumer\u00a0drones.<\/p>\n The other \u2014 and arguably more important \u2014 amendment would require drones that fly beyond their operators\u2019\u00a0line of sight\u00a0to broadcast an identity allowing law enforcement to track and connect them to a real\u00a0person.<\/p>\n \u201cRemote identification is a huge piece\u201d of cutting down on drone crime, Stubblefield said. \u201cBoth from a safety perspective\u2026 enabling both air traffic control and other \u00a0UAS<\/span>\u00a0[unmanned areal systems] to know where another is and enabling beyond line-of-sight operations. It also has an extensive security benefit to it, which is to enable threat discrimination.\u00a0Remote\u00a0ID<\/span>\u00a0connected to registration would allow you to have information about each\u00a0UAS<\/span>, who owns it, operates it, and thus have some idea what its intent is,\u201d said\u00a0Stubblefield.<\/p>\n But even if both amendments pass as part of the re-authorization, it will be some time before they take effect, so it will be the Wild West in America\u2019s skies a while\u00a0longer.<\/p>\n