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.”

克丽丝. 莱特（Chris Wright）是解决麻烦的高手。她的客户带着问题和疑虑而来，她用尽各种工具帮助他们找到解决问题的最佳方案。“新老技术我都用，我需要解决问题，因此我得动用一切可以动用的工具，从野鸭、猎犬到伦巴（Roombas）吸尘机器人、无人机、以及GPS定位系统。”

Wright is a private investigator¹ – 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 important.More 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.

莱特是位私家侦探，也是总部位于加州的阿纳海姆的（Anaheim）莱特集团（Wright Group）的老板。从业四十余年，她见证了私家侦探可用工具巨大的变化。起初人们通常坐在货车里进行监视。近些年，小型照相机和社交媒体等新型科技崭露头角。对于这些变化她欣然接受。如今，若有需要，她会使用无人机作业。

She gives me a few examples. If two peopleare meeting in a public place, a drone can be a helpful way to discreetly² 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.

她给我举了几个例子。如果两个人要在公共场所见面，使用无人机就可以有效地在暗地里监控他们。“无人机悬停在大约50到75英尺（15-23米）的空中，因此你听不到任何声音。”对于步行难以到达的地方，使用无人机进行高空监视也很管用。如果某所学校或者教堂担心财产被窃或毁坏，可以使用无人机或小型越野车（她叫他们”打了鸡血的机器人”）对财物进行监控。

In one case, Wright was asked to figure outwhether or not a soda salesperson³ was crossing county lines and cheating on hiscontract. California is one of many states in which salespeople⁴ 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，莱特接到任务是调查一个汽水销售员是否跨越县境销售并进行合同诈骗。与很多州一样，加州的销售人员须签订区域合同——例如，鲍勃（Bob）在洛杉矶郡（Los Angeles County）卖百事可乐，南希（Nancy）在橘子郡（Orange County）卖百事可乐。如果南希到常去的商户推销汽水，发现他们的汽水进货量已经满了，那么很可能有人（也许是鲍勃）跨过了县境进行非法售卖。

Wright was asked to figure out whether thiswas happening. To do so meant visiting every major soda wholesaler⁵ 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 depots⁶. In one case, the warehouse⁷ 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.”

莱特受雇调查这一情况是否属实。这意味着要沿着全长300多英里（480千米）加州海岸线，拜访从圣路易斯（San Luis Obispo）到圣迭戈（San Diego）的每一个汽水批发商，检查是否有人从错误的销售人员进货的行为。如果有非法来源的汽水在售，她就会用无人机跟踪运货车至仓库。有一次，货车把她带到的仓库位于一片沙漠之中，无论人还是车接近都会被发现。但是无人机能够悄无声息地监视货车。“我们可以看见卡车在仓库门间卸货。”

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.

莱特从高端玩具店购买她的无人机，每架约200美元。这是一项昂贵的投资：你不仅仅要买设备，还要雇一到两个人对其进行操控。如果在执行任务中不幸损失了一架，你的荷包就要大出血了。但这笔买卖还是划算的，因为在它们能发挥作用的任务中，这些无人机确实非常实用。

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 introverts⁸.”)

莱特自己不操纵无人机。“我试着雇用无人机玩家，到大学和高中寻找极客玩家，然后雇用他们。”她说她永远赶不上手下那些飞行员们的技巧——而且他们喜欢挑战。有些人正在向拥有私家侦探执照方向努力，而他们操作无人机的小时数可以算作考取证书要求的工作时数。（莱特的无人机操纵员没有一个愿意接受采访的。“他们性格内向，”莱特告诉我。“不是害羞，而是内向。”）

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 Miller⁹ Playfield,” she told the Capitol Hill Seattle Blog. “Iinitially mistook its noisy buzzing for a weed-whacker on this warm spring day.After 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 standing¹⁰ nearby, tomove along –but the operator claimed to be acting¹¹ within his legal rights.

可以理解，不是每个人都能心安理得地认同用无人机监视别人的行为。2013年，一名女士报告称有人用无人机监视她。“今天下午，一个陌生人操作无人机飞至我的院子上空和我在米勒球场（Miller Playfield）附近的住宅。”她告诉国会山西雅图博客（Capitol Hill Seattle Blog）新闻网说。“今天是个暖洋洋的春日，起先我误以为嗡嗡的噪音是除草机的声音。几分钟后，我从家里三楼的窗户看出去，发现一架无人机就在几英尺外盘旋。”她丈夫让站在附近的操控者离开——但此人声称他是在法律允许下行使自己的权利。

Tightening¹² regulations

监管加强

Whether that’s true isn’t always clear.According 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 specifies¹³ thatit’s a misdemeanor to use drones for surveillance of people who arehunting or fishing.

这种说法是否正确目前还没有明确的判定。根据全美州议会会议（National Conference of State Legislatures），去年有35个州考虑增加与无人机相关的法案，10个州确实增加了相关的新法律。例如，在爱荷华州（Iowa），利用无人机执行交通法规目前是违法的。在北卡罗来纳州（North Carolina），谁都无权使用无人机对个人或私有财产进行监视。而田纳西州（Tennessee）明确规定使用无人机对打猎或钓鱼的人进行监视被视为轻罪。

Wright’s drone operations might soon becomelegally questionable¹⁴ 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.

莱特的无人机作业可能很快也将受到来自法律的质疑。本月早些时候，一位加州议员提出一项议案，要将财产权拓展到空中，这意味着在私有财产上空飞行的无人机将被视为入侵行为。这之前的几天，奥巴马总统（President Obama）和联邦航空管理局（Federal Aviation Administration）也宣布了新的无人机管理条例，其中规定无人机必须轻于55磅（25千克）且操纵者必须全程保证飞行器在自己视线内。

Because the laws are murky¹⁵, many privateinvestigators steer¹⁶ clear of drones. “The use of drones for surveillance ishighly restricted by law,” said Kelly Riddle¹⁷, 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.

由于法律界定模糊，很多私家侦探绕开了无人机。“使用无人机进行监视在法律上受到极大的限制，”德州（Texas）的一位私家侦探凯利. 里德尔（Kelly Riddle）说。“你很容易违反空间管制条例和隐私法。因此，早就有人提醒我们使用无人机摄像是违法的。”这是因为无人机经常用来观察一些活动，而这些活动在地面上是无法直接观察可得的。另辟蹊径来监视这样的活动被视作侵犯隐私，里德尔说。莱特的很多工作回避了这类隐私问题，因为它涉及帮助学校和教堂监控他们自己的财产。

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.”

在美国使用无人机很有可能将受到一系列综合性法律法规的约束，这是迟早的事。但同时当工作需要时，莱特会继续使用无人机。可她同时也说，撇开合法性问题不谈，如果有人认为个人隐私受到了侵犯，他们会对此采取行动的。这可能意味着把无人机打下来——这一行为是否合法尚不清晰。“我认为我的很多同事都已经损失过无人机了，而且也意识到了这只是个工具，如果你侵犯了别人的隐私，那么，如果他们能把它打下来，他们会的。