Drones produce constant terror because targets never know when they are tracked.

Evidence

Apart from these “personal strikes,” there are also “signature strikes,” here meaning strikes authorized on the basis of traces, indications, or defining characteristics. Such strikes target individuals whose identity remains unknown but whose behavior suggests, signals, or signs membership in a “terrorist organization.” … In such cases, the strike is made “without knowing the precise identity of the individuals targeted.” It depends solely on their behavior, which, seen from the sky, appears to “correspond to a ‘signature’ of pre-identified behavior that the United States links to militant activity.” Today, strikes of this type, against unknown suspects, appear to constitute the majority of cases. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 211 (#qualifies, via linked claim)

In other words, the argument here is that, so far as the capacity for discrimination goes, the drone technology destroys the traditionally established link between visual acuteness and physical proximity. The proximity of the operator is no longer necessarily a pertinent factor in the identification of targets. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 1016 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Most drone strikes target suspects whose identity is unknown at the moment of killing. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 211; Drone surveillance cannot reliably distinguish combatants from civilians; Drone technology severs visual discrimination from physical proximity to targets. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 1016

Related

• Most drone strikes target suspects whose identity is unknown at the moment of killing. (similarity 0.93)
• Drones are less precise than rifles and grenades at discriminating targets. (similarity 0.89)
• Drone surveillance cannot reliably distinguish combatants from civilians (similarity 0.88)
• Drone strikes depend on a network of remote invisible human observers (similarity 0.87)
• Drone targeting hinged on remote visual guesses about sex and combatant status (similarity 0.84)
• Drone targeting decisions rest on probabilistic inference from behavior rather than observed facts. (similarity 0.83)
• Drones are nondiscriminatory because excluding combat erases the combatant-noncombatant distinction. (similarity 0.82)
• Pattern-of-life strikes kill civilians through unconfirmed behavioral inference (similarity 0.82)
• Drones abolish the condition of combat that makes combatants identifiable. (similarity 0.82)
• Drone targeting presumes guilt until innocence is proven posthumously. (similarity 0.81)
• Drone technology severs visual discrimination from physical proximity to targets. (similarity 0.81)
• Drone strikes constitute weapons of state terrorism (similarity 0.81)
• Weapon precision cannot improve the adequacy of target identification. (similarity 0.80)
• Drone surveillance transforms the panopticon from a punishing to an annihilating gaze. (similarity 0.80)
• Signature strikes kill based on behavior patterns, not confirmed identity (similarity 0.80)

Broader Connections

• Drone surveillance cannot reliably distinguish combatants from civilians #complicates (0.50)
• Most drone strikes target suspects whose identity is unknown at the moment of killing. #qualifies (0.45) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 211
• Drone technology severs visual discrimination from physical proximity to targets. #expands (0.35) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 1016