The FBI's revelation that it makes use of drones in the US has sparked some concern on the part of privacy advocates, but in many respects, this concern is overblown.
In fact, the domestic use of drones is less dangerous to the privacy of the US people than the recently revealed electronic surveillance by the National Security Agency (NSA) and Department of Justice.
It is likely that the primary use of drones among US law enforcement agencies will be to supplement the use of aerial assets such as helicopters and aircraft.
While this may increase the number of aerial platforms available to law enforcement agencies, it will not change the nature of that surveillance.
The most important point to consider is the fact that when evaluating whether or not information obtained by a drone should be admitted as evidence, the courts will use the same standards applied to manned helicopters.
Those Americans who fear this greater surveillance should also consider the very real benefits the explosion of police dashboard cameras have provided individuals who may have had their rights infringed on by a police officer.
The more available aerial surveillance becomes, the more likely it is that any claims of police brutality will have a visual record available to prove or debunk them.
However, the recent revelations about extensive electronic surveillance on the part of both the NSA and the Department of Justice are very much a cause for concern. Unlike the use of drones, there is little transparency in these operations, making it impossible to determine if they are in fact violating the rights of Americans and foreign nationals alike.
Even worse, there is no effective way for an individual to determine if he or she is currently under surveillance or to demand that the government justify that surveillance.
The information provided by Edward Snowden about the NSA's activities demonstrates that there is wide-ranging and confidential surveillance of Americans being undertaken without any public debate or input.
The existence of these programs should be far more troubling than any use of drones by the FBI. Put simply, the privacy of the US people is at far greater risk from electronic intelligence gathering activities.
This is already having a chilling effect on confidential news sources, who are now uncertain if their phone or e-mails are being monitored. The secrecy surrounding these programs makes this issue harder to address than the use of drones by the FBI and other law enforcement organizations.
The US people have the ability to make their concerns known when it comes to the use of drones, but it is far more difficult to do so concerning programs whose reach has largely remained secret from US citizens.
Although the government claims that the programs have been carefully crafted to avoid infringing on privacy rights, without greater public transparency it is difficult to determine if these measures have been followed.
This makes it impossible to determine how wide-ranging the NSA's programs were and what safeguards were put in place in order to prevent the abuse of this information.
This does not only include government abuse, but the danger that confidential information could be obtained and used by unauthorized individuals.
For example, the very criticisms of Snowden's character that have been levied by some government and private individuals raise grave concerns about the nature of the screening process used by the government to ensure that this data is not misused.
What Snowden did out of philosophical disagreement with this program, others could do for monetary gain.
Ultimately, it is not the drone buzzing around in the air that should trouble the US people, but the silent intelligence gathering activity that increasingly records virtually every aspect of an individual's online life.
This is a far more serious issue than any number of FBI drones that may interrupt an afternoon's nap.
The author is a freelance writer based in Corona, California. charlesgray109@gmail.com