用無人機開展調查的私家偵探

Chris Wright is a problem solver. Herclients come to her with an issue, a question, a mystery, and she figures outthe best way to find the answer – using whatever tools she can. “I use acombination of new technology and old technology, because I have to solve aproblem. So I’ve used everything from geese and dogs to Roombas to drones to GPS.”

克麗絲. 萊特（Chris Wright）是解決麻煩的高手。她的客戶帶着問題和疑慮而來，她用盡各種工具幫助他們找到解決問題的最佳方案。“新老技術我都用，我需要解決問題，因此我得動用一切可以動用的工具，從野鴨、獵犬到倫巴（Roombas）吸塵機器人、無人機、以及GPS定位系統。”

Wright is a private investigator – andowner of the Wright Group – based in Anaheim, California. She’s worked in thebusiness for more than 40 years, and has seen the tools available toinvestigators change dramatically. Early on, stakeouts in vans were recently new technology in the form of tiny cameras and social media hasbegun to play a role. And she’s embraced those changes. Today, when the problem calls for it, sheuses drones to do her work.

萊特是位私家偵探，也是總部位於加州的阿納海姆的（Anaheim）萊特集團（Wright Group）的老闆。從業四十餘年，她見證了私家偵探可用工具巨大的變化。起初人們通常坐在貨車裏進行監視。近些年，小型照相機和社交媒體等新型科技嶄露頭角。對於這些變化她欣然接受。如今，若有需要，她會使用無人機作業。

She gives me a few examples. If two peopleare meeting in a public place, a drone can be a helpful way to discreetly watchthem. “We stay at about 50-75 feet [15-23 metres] above so nothing can beheard.” Drones are also helpful for aerial surveillance of locations that arehard to access on foot. And if a school or church is worried someone might bestealing or vandalising property, drones or small off-road vehicles (“Roombas onsteroids”as she calls them) can film the property.

她給我舉了幾個例子。如果兩個人要在公共場所見面，使用無人機就可以有效地在暗地裏監控他們。“無人機懸停在大約50到75英尺（15-23米）的空中，因此你聽不到任何聲音。”對於步行難以到達的地方，使用無人機進行高空監視也很管用。如果某所學校或者教堂擔心財產被竊或毀壞，可以使用無人機或小型越野車（她叫他們”打了雞血的機器人”）對財物進行監控。

In one case, Wright was asked to figure outwhether or not a soda salesperson was crossing county lines and cheating on hiscontract. California is one of many states in which salespeople have regionalcontracts – for instance, Bob sells Pepsi in Los Angeles County and Nancy sellsPepsi in Orange County. If Nancy arrives at her usual businesses to sell herPepsi and finds the soda supply has already been topped up, there’s a goodchance that someone (perhaps Bob) has crossed county lines and sold illegally.

有一次，萊特接到任務是調查一個汽水銷售員是否跨越縣境銷售並進行合同詐騙。與很多州一樣，加州的銷售人員須簽訂區域合同——例如，鮑勃（Bob）在洛杉磯郡（Los Angeles County）賣百事可樂，南希（Nancy）在橘子郡（Orange County）賣百事可樂。如果南希到常去的商戶推銷汽水，發現他們的汽水進貨量已經滿了，那麼很可能有人（也許是鮑勃）跨過了縣境進行非法售賣。

Wright was asked to figure out whether thiswas happening. To do so meant visiting every major soda wholesaler from SanLuis Obispo to San Diego – about 300 miles (480km) of California coast – andchecking whether any were selling soda from the wrong salesperson. When therewas illegal soda on sale, she would use a drone to follow the soda deliverytrucks back to their depots. In one case, the warehouse the truck led her backto was out in the desert and would have been impossible to approach by car orfoot without being noticed. But the drone was able to spy on the truckscovertly. “We could see between the warehouse door and the truck loading.”

萊特受僱調查這一情況是否屬實。這意味着要沿着全長300多英里（480千米）加州海岸線，拜訪從聖路易斯（San Luis Obispo）到聖迭戈（San Diego）的每一個汽水批發商，檢查是否有人從錯誤的銷售人員進貨的行爲。如果有非法來源的汽水在售，她就會用無人機跟蹤運貨車至倉庫。有一次，貨車把她帶到的倉庫位於一片沙漠之中，無論人還是車接近都會被發現。但是無人機能夠悄無聲息地監視貨車。“我們可以看見卡車在倉庫門間卸貨。”

Wright gets her drones from high-end toystores, for about $200 each. They’re an expensive investment: not only do youhave to buy the device, you also have to pay one or two people to pilot andspot the thing. And if you lose one during a mission, you’re out a good chunkof your budget. But it can be worth it, because for the cases in which they’re useful,they can be very useful indeed.

萊特從高端玩具店購買她的無人機，每架約200美元。這是一項昂貴的投資：你不僅僅要買設備，還要僱一到兩個人對其進行操控。如果在執行任務中不幸損失了一架，你的荷包就要大出血了。但這筆買賣還是划算的，因爲在它們能發揮作用的任務中，這些無人機確實非常實用。

Wright doesn’t pilot the drones herself. “Itry to hire gamers. I go to the colleges and high schools and I find out whothe geeks are, and then I hire them.” She said that her pilots are more skilledthan she would ever be – and they like the challenge. Some of them are workingtowards their own private investigator licences, and their hours piloting thelittle devices can count as hours towards their certification. (None ofWright’s gamer pilots were willing to talk for this article. “They’reintroverts,” she told me. “Not shy, but introverts.”)

萊特自己不操縱無人機。“我試着僱用無人機玩家，到大學和高中尋找極客玩家，然後僱用他們。”她說她永遠趕不上手下那些飛行員們的技巧——而且他們喜歡挑戰。有些人正在向擁有私家偵探執照方向努力，而他們操作無人機的小時數可以算作考取證書要求的工作時數。（萊特的無人機操縱員沒有一個願意接受採訪的。“他們性格內向，”萊特告訴我。“不是害羞，而是內向。”）

Understandably, the idea of using drones tospy on people isn’t something everybody is comfortable with. In a case in Seattlein 2013, a woman reported that someone was using a drone to spy on her. “Thisafternoon, a stranger set an aerial drone into flight over my yard and besidemy house near Miller Playfield,” she told the Capitol Hill Seattle Blog. “Iinitially mistook its noisy buzzing for a weed-whacker on this warm spring r several minutes, I looked out my third-story window to see a drone hoveringa few feet away.”Her husband asked the drone operator, who was standing nearby, tomove along –but the operator claimed to be acting within his legal rights.

可以理解，不是每個人都能心安理得地認同用無人機監視別人的行爲。2013年，一名女士報告稱有人用無人機監視她。“今天下午，一個陌生人操作無人機飛至我的院子上空和我在米勒球場（Miller Playfield）附近的住宅。”她告訴國會山西雅圖博客（Capitol Hill Seattle Blog）新聞網說。“今天是個暖洋洋的春日，起先我誤以爲嗡嗡的噪音是除草機的聲音。幾分鐘後，我從家裏三樓的窗戶看出去，發現一架無人機就在幾英尺外盤旋。”她丈夫讓站在附近的操控者離開——但此人聲稱他是在法律允許下行使自己的權利。

Tightening regulations

監管加強

Whether that’s true isn’t always rding to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 35 statesconsidered adding drone bills to the books last year, and 10 states actuallydid add new laws. In Iowa, for example, it’s now illegal for the state to usedrones to enforce traffic laws. In North Carolina, no one can use a drone forsurveillance of a person or private property. And Tennessee now specifies thatit’s a misdemeanor to use drones for surveillance of people who arehunting or fishing.

這種說法是否正確目前還沒有明確的判定。根據全美州議會會議（National Conference of State Legislatures），去年有35個州考慮增加與無人機相關的法案，10個州確實增加了相關的新法律。例如，在愛荷華州（Iowa），利用無人機執行交通法規目前是違法的。在北卡羅來納州（North Carolina），誰都無權使用無人機對個人或私有財產進行監視。而田納西州（Tennessee）明確規定使用無人機對打獵或釣魚的人進行監視被視爲輕罪。

Wright’s drone operations might soon becomelegally questionable too. Earlier this month, a California senator introduced abill that would extend property rights into airspace, meaning that drones flyingover private property would be considered trespassers. Just a few days beforethat, President Obama and the Federal Aviation Administration announced newdrone regulations as well, requiring – among other things – that drones must beunder 55lb (25kg) and that operators must keep the flying vehicles in sight atall times.

萊特的無人機作業可能很快也將受到來自法律的質疑。本月早些時候，一位加州議員提出一項議案，要將財產權拓展到空中，這意味着在私有財產上空飛行的無人機將被視爲入侵行爲。這之前的幾天，奧巴馬總統（President Obama）和聯邦航空管理局（Federal Aviation Administration）也宣佈了新的無人機管理條例，其中規定無人機必須輕於55磅（25千克）且操縱者必須全程保證飛行器在自己視線內。

Because the laws are murky, many privateinvestigators steer clear of drones. “The use of drones for surveillance ishighly restricted by law,” said Kelly Riddle, a private investigator in Texas.“There are air space regulations as well as privacy laws that can easily beviolated. Obtaining video using a drone has thus far been something that wehave been advised is illegal.” That’s because drones are often used to observeactivities that can’t be seen via a direct line of sight at ground level. Goingout of your way to spy on such activities is considered an invasion of privacy,says Riddle. A lot of Wright’s work sidesteps this privacy question, because it involves helpingschools and churches monitor their own property.

由於法律界定模糊，很多私家偵探繞開了無人機。“使用無人機進行監視在法律上受到極大的限制，”德州（Texas）的一位私家偵探凱利. 裏德爾（Kelly Riddle）說。“你很容易違反空間管制條例和隱私法。因此，早就有人提醒我們使用無人機攝像是違法的。”這是因爲無人機經常用來觀察一些活動，而這些活動在地面上是無法直接觀察可得的。另闢蹊徑來監視這樣的活動被視作侵犯隱私，裏德爾說。萊特的很多工作迴避了這類隱私問題，因爲它涉及幫助學校和教堂監控他們自己的財產。

In all likelihood, the use of drones will berestricted under a more comprehensive set of rules and regulations in theUnited States sooner than later. But in the meantime Wright will continue touse them when they can help with her work. But she also says that regardless ofthe legality, if someone thinks their privacy is being compromised, they’regoing to do something about it. That can mean shooting down drones – anotheractivity that may or may not be legal. “I think a lot of my colleagues havelost them and realised that it is a tool, and if you invade someone’s privacy,well, if they can hit it they will.”

在美國使用無人機很有可能將受到一系列綜合性法律法規的約束，這是遲早的事。但同時當工作需要時，萊特會繼續使用無人機。可她同時也說，撇開合法性問題不談，如果有人認爲個人隱私受到了侵犯，他們會對此採取行動的。這可能意味着把無人機打下來——這一行爲是否合法尚不清晰。“我認爲我的很多同事都已經損失過無人機了，而且也意識到了這只是個工具，如果你侵犯了別人的隱私，那麼，如果他們能把它打下來，他們會的。