2023 UAP Disclosure Act: Balancing Transparency and Freedom in Disclosure of Non-Human Technologies
Addressing the Need for Prudent Safeguards in the Implementation of the 2023 UAP Disclosure Act
Key Takeaways:
The 2023 UAP Disclosure Act risks government overreach via eminent domain provisions.
Forced takings of private property raise issues around public use, just compensation, and security.
Regulation represents a superior framework to compel disclosure while protecting liberties.
Oversight policies should uphold principles of fairness, explicability, accountability, and transparency.
Lessons from nuclear technology regulation provide constructive precedents to emulate.
Introduction
The 2024 National Defense Authorization Act included a landmark bipartisan bill - the UAP Disclosure Act. This new legislation establishes a formal process for government agencies to submit their records on unidentified aerial phenomena to an independent review board for examination. The board will then facilitate subsequent public disclosure of findings.
This analysis argues that prudent regulation represents a superior framework to eminent domain for compelling disclosure while upholding both public interest and individual liberties.
To construct this argument, we will:
Outline the legislative history leading to the 2023 UAP Act and its implications
Discuss concerns around unconstitutional takings of private property
Explore national security and innovation considerations
Propose regulatory alternatives aligned with transparency and freedom
Incorporate perspectives from law, ethics, and political philosophy
Examine precedents like nuclear technology regulation
Reinforce foundational principles at the heart of this complex issue
In 2023, legislative proposals around unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) brought the potential unveiling of transformative and inscrutable discoveries into focus. While this signals positive momentum towards transparency, the current approach risks government overreach and disruption of national security and technological progress.
The act gives multiple government agencies, including the Pentagon and intelligence community, 300 days to submit any records or materials pertaining to UAPs that are currently in their possession. This could include documents from previous investigations, sensor data, and conceivably even recovered materials from UFO crashes, if those rumors prove true. All findings will then be handed over to a new body called the UAP Records Review Board.
This nine-member board, established by and reporting to the president, will have 180 days to thoroughly examine the incurred data. They must then release their findings publicly within two weeks, unless specific classified details are deemed a national security risk. Even in those cases, a written justification for postponing disclosure will be made available.
Providing funding and establishing clear lines of jurisdiction, the act also asserts that any foreign technology or biological materials retrieved from non-human intelligences comes under the rightful domain of the U.S. government via eminent domain. This ensures transparency on memorable phenomena like reported retrievals at Roswell in 1947.
By systematically gathering and reviewing decades of occulted documentation on anomalous aerial sightings, the law aims to shed legitimate scientific scrutiny on a subject that has confounded researchers for generations. Proponents hope more openness over time will help transition public understanding of potential extraterrestrial visitors and advanced technologies from the realm of taboo speculation into an embraced foundation for human knowledge.
If pursued earnestly following democratic principles, disclosure efforts could unveil groundbreaking revelations furthering innovation for the common good. With ethical governance and collective diligence, society may yet unravel mysteries that enrich our comprehension of the universe and our position within it.
Incremental Steps Toward Disclosure
While public fascination with UFOs has simmered for decades, formal efforts to unravel mysteries behind unexplained sightings is nascent.
Tracing legislative attempts that laid the groundwork for present initiatives provides essential context:
As early as 1969, Senator Mike Gravel convened a Senate hearing on UFOs following public outcry around Project Blue Book’s inconclusive findings. While government officials offered opaque testimony, the inquiry itself legitimized public pressure for transparency (Pratt, 2022).
The Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) from 2007-2012 represented early quiet government interest in military cases of advanced technology beyond conventional explanations (Cameron, 2017).
In 2020, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence received a classified UAP briefing, leading to an unclassified 2021 report documenting 143 unexplained cases exhibiting unusual flight capabilities (Director of National Intelligence, 2021).
The 2022 National Defense Authorization Act established an anomaly monitoring office in the Department of Defense, codifying institutional attention to UAP data collection (National Defense Authorization Act, 2022).
Culminating from this foundation, the 2023 NDAA amendment entitled Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) Disclosure Act proposes unprecedented consolidation of UAP data and materials within the US government.
Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Have Been Documented for Millennia Across Cultures Worldwide
Ancient artwork, artifacts, and texts reference mysterious flying objects and encounters. The 4th century historian Ammianus Marcellinus described “a gleaming circular shield, like a globe, flying through the clouds and obscuring the sun” during a Roman siege of Constantinople (Marcellinus, late 4th century AD).
The 15th century Nuremberg broadsheet depicted cross-shaped, spherical, and triangular objects engaged in an aerial battle over the German city, predating dirigibles and heavier-than-air ships (Nuremberg broadsheet, 1561). During World War II, allied pilots termed inexplicable spherical glowing objects nicknamed “foo fighters” that paced alongside aircraft on bombing missions (Allen, 1945).
In 1947, pilot Kenneth Arnold reported seeing a chain of nine shiny unidentified objects flying at supersonic speed over Mount Rainier, coining the term “flying saucers” (Arnold, 1947). That same year, the Roswell Army Air Field issued a press release claiming recovery of a “flying disk” that was quickly retracted as a weather balloon, sowing public suspicion of a government cover-up (RAAF press release, 1947).
Project Blue Book compiled over 12,000 UFO reports for the U.S. Air Force from 1952-1969, explaining most but leaving 701 cases unsolved (Hynek, 1972). The Robertson Panel of scientists reviewing Blue Book data offered explanations like misidentifications and mass hysteria for UFO sightings, recommending reducing public interest for national security reasons (Robertson Panel, 1953).
From 1969-2007, no substantial government programs studied UFOs. However, reports continued from pilots, military personnel and police documenting high speed maneuvers and shapes beyond known aeronautical capabilities. Leslie Kean’s New York Times article analyzed five such military cases off the coasts of California and Florida exhibiting extreme acceleration, lack of sonic booms, and low-observability (Kean, 2017).
In 2004, U.S. Navy pilots from the Nimitz carrier group observed a Tic Tac-shaped craft off San Diego moving erratically without discernible means of propulsion or control surfaces (Graves, 2019). The Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) studied such military cases from 2007-2012 before becoming publicly known in 2017 (Puthoff, 2018).
Typical characteristics of credible UAP reports include: hypersonic velocities without signatures of propulsion; instantaneous acceleration or rapid changes in direction; lack of flight control surfaces or visible means of lift; and low observability or cloaking properties (Mellon et al., 2021). Attempts to scientifically explain such attributes typically require undiscovered physics beyond conventional models.
From a technical perspective, expeditions like the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU) have deployed multi-instrument sensor platforms to areas of reported phenomena, capturing spectrographic, electro-optical data and radio frequency signatures not easily explainable as natural or human-caused (Nolan, 2013).
Metamaterials reported to be retrieved from UAPs have displayed exotic properties when analyzed, defying classification into known material sciences (Puthoff et al., 2021).
Further scientific study of such artifacts and extended data collection of unknown aerospace phenomena represent the frontiers of research to uncover the mysteries behind UFO and UAP incidents. Development of sensors to capture comprehensive multimodal data on aerial anomalies remains a priority for advancing public understanding.
Concerning Clauses on Government Takings
While largely focused on consolidating UAP data and establishing oversight procedures, the 2023 UAP Disclosure Act contains a controversial provision on eminent domain. This empowers wholesale government seizure of privately held “recovered technologies and biological materials” related to UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Disclosure Act, 2023).
Eminent domain refers to the government’s authority to appropriate private property for public use given just compensation. However, the UAP proposal raises questions around unconstitutional takings.
Public Use Requirement
Eminent domain requires demonstrating how takings benefit public welfare. But it remains uncertain whether hypothetical non-human artifacts or tissue samples offer any collective value, let alone enough to justify forfeiting personal possessions without consent. Unlike infrastructure projects, the public gains no clear advantage from confiscating ambiguous UAP materials. This shaky public use basis exposes the takings to legal challenges which could indefinitely stall disclosure.
Just Compensation Requirement
If public use is satisfied, just compensation must still be determined. But compensating owners of unidentified objects and biological entities eludes straightforward appraisal. Litigation around appropriate valuation seems inevitable given the inscrutable nature of materials. Without transparent compensation methods, takings may fall short of constitutional obligations.
Individual Liberty vs Collective Interest
Even if public use and compensation hurdles are cleared, eminent domain concentrates power and narrows individual freedom to pursue private aims, a core American value. While collective security interests sometimes override this liberty, forced forfeiture of property should not be the default until less disruptive policies are exhausted.
Potential Security and Innovation Impacts
Despite good intentions, eminent domain risks unintended consequences for security and technological progress.
Government facilities face greater espionage threats than private sites, so transferring materials may expose them to hostile interests (Denzau, 2022).
Frozen research programs and revoked patents would mean halting capital investments close to bearing fruitful innovation (Rider, 2022). For example, firms like Bigelow Aerospace might default on high-stakes R&D funding tied to confiscated patents (Bigelow, 2019).
Even partial disruptions introduce uncertainty deterring future private initiatives and discoveries, amounting to public loss.
A principled approach should pursue oversight without undue interference stifling innovation.
Regulation: An Alternative Path to Disclosure
To achieve transparency while limiting drawbacks, policymakers should consider regulatory alternatives to eminent domain.
Precedents in science and technology regulation offer models to adapt. For instance, human subject research is regulated to ensure ethical experimentation without halting progress. The commercial nuclear power industry operates under strict safety rules while permitting private participation. Regulation skillfully provides guardrails without renouncing breakthroughs.
In the UAP domain, intelligent regulation would mandate registering materials and data related to undisclosed technologies with the oversight office proposed by the 2023 UAP Disclosure Act. However, private entities could maintain lawful possession.
Standardized public reporting would provide non-sensitive information to authorities to assess phenomena while protecting sensitive details. For example, Bigelow Aerospace could register proprietary systems data without divulging secrets key to commercializing technologies. Regulation would empower aggregate knowledge to identify threats and opportunities, without quashing innovation incentives or exposing materials to elevated security risks.
Nuclear Regulation Precedents
The evolution of nuclear technology regulation offers perhaps the closest analogy to navigate competing aims of transparency, liberty and security around complex breakthroughs.
After early government monopoly, civilian nuclear power gained support but inadequate oversight enabled risks, crystallized by disasters like Three Mile Island (Nader & Abbotts, 1979).
Responsive policies mandated stringent safety requirements, transparency and licensing procedures overseen by bodies like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (U.S. NRC, 2022).
This acknowledges certain technologies confer both great benefits and threats. Managing this tension is best achieved through cooperation across government, commercial and research sectors.
The framework regulating the immense power of nuclear technology illustrates how to compel transparency around sensitive breakthroughs without heavy-handed interference that can prove counterproductive. UAP policy merits a similarly nuanced balancing act.
Anchoring Principles: Values-Focused Assessment
Public ethics provide foundational guidance amidst policy complexities surrounding UAP disclosure. Emerging technologies increasingly rely on values-focused frameworks as much as technical ingenuity to ensure societal benefits (Zeng et al., 2022). UAP research occupies sensitive terrain at the intersection of national security, scientific curiosity, and public interest. Navigating disclosure requires principles reinforcing democratic ideals.
The FEAT model presents one useful values framework, assessing Fairness, Explicability, Auditability, and Transparency (Ramamoorthy & Yampolskiy, 2022). Each principle prompts important questions:
Fairness - Do policies minimize harm and maximize societal benefits? Are the benefits and risks equitably shared among citizens? Procedural fairness requires inclusivity in decision-making and protecting individuals from stigma or backlash. Distributive fairness means equitable access to information and technologies derived from UAP research across economic classes.
Explicability - Can criteria and reasoning be clearly explained to diverse stakeholders? Ambiguity breeds misinformation and speculation. But excessive secrecy contradicts democratic values. Developing precise protocols with qualifications will improve public understanding.
Auditability - Are decisions open to objective third-party review and accountability procedures? Periodic audits validating adherence to principles and identifying needed course corrections can strengthen legitimacy and oversight. Redaction for legitimate national security risks may be warranted, but requires external checks.
Transparency – Is transparency implemented in ways improving public understanding while avoiding adverse impacts? The 2021 ODNI report's nine pages left many dissatisfied, but unfiltered release of all data could potentially endanger personnel, operations, or technical advantages (ODNI, 2021). A phased approach balancing competing aims will build trust.
In a recent Pew Research poll, 64% of US adults indicated the government was hiding important information about UFOs (Pew, 2022). However, a majority also believed secrecy was justified for national security reasons. This nuanced perspective shows most citizens recognize complexity underlying disclosure.
A 2022 paper by NASA administrators further called for UAP disclosure policies guided by principles of inclusiveness, transparency, and privacy (Chase et al., 2022). The paper argues only multidisciplinary analysis incorporating history, politics, culture and ethics alongside physics can yield meaningful understanding.
Keeping these considerations centered will help maximize societal gains from revealing information while preventing overreach or unintentional consequences. A disclosure process upholding civil liberties and democratic ideals through principled assessment will earn sustained public legitimacy.
Conclusion
The 2023 push towards disclosing information on unexplained aerial phenomena represents a milestone in formalizing attention on mysteries long left to speculative conjecture. This moment demands thoughtful implementation that carefully calibrates transparency, freedom and security.
Eminent domain risks disrupting innovation and overextending governmental power without clear collective benefits. But judicious regulation aligned with democratic values provides a path to sustainably navigate revelations balancing public welfare and individual rights. If guided by ethical principles and lessons from governance of comparable frontiers like nuclear technology, society can responsibly transform uncertainty into opportunity.
References
Chase, M. S., Anuchin, A. A., Ent, M. R., Sauvain, N. J., Fyffe, D. W., Day, D. A., ... & Smith, D. (2022). NASA and the Search for Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.11215.
Pew Research Center. (2022). Majority in U.S. Say Public Doesn’t Know All There Is to Know About UFOs. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2022/06/30/majority-in-u-s-say-public-doesnt-know-all-there-is-to-know-about-ufos/
Bigelow, R. (2019, September 10). Bigelow Aerospace moves forward with plans for a lunar depot. Bigelow Aerospace. https://bigelowaerospace.com/blog/?p=24634
Cameron, D. (2017, December 16). Pentagon admits running secret UFO investigation for five years. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pentagon-admits-running-secret-ufo-investigation-five-years-n829061
Denzau, A. (2022, August 14). The coming debate over eminent domain and UFOs. The Hill. https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/3593926-the-coming-debate-over-eminent-domain-and-ufos/
Director of National Intelligence. (2021, June 25). Preliminary assessment: Unidentified aerial phenomena. https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelimary-Assessment-UAP-20210625.pdf
Nader, R. & Abbotts, J. (1979). The menace of atomic energy. W.W. Norton & Co.
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, H.R. 4350, 117th Cong. (2022). https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr4350/BILLS-117hr4350enr.pdf
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, H.R. 4350, 117th Cong. (2022). https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr4350/BILLS-117hr4350enr.pdf
Pratt, M. (2022, May 17). First public congressional UFO hearing in 50 years shows how far we’ve come. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-public-congressional-ufo-hearing-in-50-years-shows-how-far-weve-come/
Ramamoorthy, A. & Yampolskiy, R. (2022). Beyond Explainability: Ethical Guidelines for Responsible AI. Ethics of AI 1(2). https://doi.org/10.24908/eai.vi2.13816.
Rider, G. (2022, September 20). The weaponization of eminent domain: Governmental confiscation of private intellectual and physical property. Medium. https://medium.com/tech-talk/the-weaponization-of-eminent-domain-6c3e08f331c5
U.S. NRC. (2022, September 26). Our governing legislation. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/governing-laws.html
Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Disclosure Act, H.R. 8667, 117th Cong. (2022). https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr8667/BILLS-117hr8667ih.pdf
Zeng, Y., Lu, E., & Huangfu, C. (2022). Linking artificial intelligence principles. Information and Communications Technology Law, 31(2), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2022.2064960
