Foreign Policy
Summer 1998

The Entomopter Cometh

In April 1986, Moscow remained tight-lipped about a rumored leak at its Chernobyl nuclear facility, but a U.S. government "Keyhole" satellite captured an unobstructed view of the exploded power plant. Only 24 hours after Pentagon analysts first saw the wreckage, ABC News broadcast the same view from a private satellite. The pictures were blurry, but the underlying message was clear: So much for the government monopoly on high-tech surveillance technology.

Since then, private aerospace ventures have further narrowed the technology gap. Privately owned satellites scheduled for launch this year can resolve images to one meter, rivaling the best technology of the world’s intelligence services. Once these commercial systems are on line, detailed images of any spot on the planet will be available on the open market.

On the ground, ever cheaper surveillance cameras are catching on as a means of law enforcement, most often for traffic control. The British, however, have been more ambitious. Today, more than 300,000 video cameras scan intersections across the United Kingdom for street crime and terrorist activity. Although some civil libertarians find the cameras Orwellian, the reality of safer streets has won over much of the population.

All these systems rely on clunky hardware mounted in plain sight—but this too may change. Researchers at MIT are developing a camera that weighs less than one-tenth of an ounce and transmits high-definition television–quality images. And a 1992 RAND study on unmanned surveillance aircraft has spawned at least a dozen competing designs for "micro air vehicles" (MAVs) with both military and civilian applications. Also known as "airplanes-on-a-chip," these MAVs are intended to weigh two to four ounces and to be no bigger than six inches across. One of the most unusual designs on the drawing board is a four-inch-long, insect-like craft dubbed "the entomopter," equipped with legs for crawling through buildings or ventilation ducts, and flapping wings for airborne reconnaissance.

Nevertheless, no matter how small, efficient, or cost-effective surveillance hardware becomes, there will always be limits to what technology can accomplish. Indeed, it is a double-edged sword—witness the polemics in Washington and on the Web over who, if anyone, should regulate electronic encryption. From untappable communications to pixel-by-pixel photo and video editing, technology is often as good at hiding secrets as it is at revealing them. Without a norm of transparency, technology will continue to protect private information as well as ferret it out.