> Sometimes, maybe. I'd argue rarely. I don't see much difference between an unmanned drone and an unmanned satellite or a manned helicopter in terms of applica

> Sometimes, maybe. I'd argue rarely. I don't see much difference between an unmanned drone and an unmanned satellite or a manned helicopter in terms of applicable law. I think the important distinction is police vs millitary, not drone vs satellite vs helicopter. As @protomyth pointed out, there is existing law (Posse Comitatus Act) which may prohibit such things. The article does say that the drone flights were done in accordance with existing laws. But, given the propensity for the FBI to flaunt laws and mislead the public about doing so, I'm not sure how much I trust that statement in the article. > Believing that a new law is needed because computers/drones/robots/AI/whatever now exist can lead to bad laws, or laws that are out-of-balance in terms of punishment. (i.e., commit a crime - 5 years. commit the same crime WITH A COMPUTER - 10 years) I agree with this. I don't think new laws should necessarily be specifically created for this. At any rate, it seems like the Posse Comitatus Act should cover this already.