The Federal Aviation Administration on Tuesday released regulations on the use of drones in American airspace, spelling out in more than 600 pages rules that will take effect in August relating to weight, speed, altitude, certification for commercial users, and other flight restrictions.
But despite recognizing that drones “pose risks to individual privacy,” the FAA declined to issue any privacy regulations at all.
More than 180 groups raised privacy concerns through the agency’s public commenting process, but the FAA decided that its “long-standing mission … as a safety agency” does not include privacy, and that “it would be overreaching for the FAA to enact regulations concerning privacy rights.”
The rise of drones gives both hobbyists and corporations access to a relatively inexpensive surveillance technology. In 2013, the Congressional Research Service warned that drones could be used for “stalking, harassment, voyeurism, and wiretapping.” In 2014, Business Insider reported on a real example: a Seattle woman who was being stalked through the windows of her high-rise apartment.
There are also few legal restrictions on the surveillance or data-retention abilities of commercial drones. Drones can be equipped with sophisticated imaging technology like Gigapixel cameras, infrared sensors, and facial recognition technology. According the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), some drones can track up to 65 targets across an area as wide as 65 miles.
The stalking capability of drones even persuaded Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that they had to be regulated. “I’m in my home and there’s a demonstration out front, and I go to peek out the window and there’s a drone facing me,” she explained in an interview with 60 Minutes. She said that for her, it raised “major” privacy concerns. Ironically, Feinstein is one of Congress’s foremost defenders of NSA surveillance.
Due to the frequency of drone crashes and near misses, Congress in 2012 required the FAA to develop a “comprehensive plan” for the integration of commercial and private drones into U.S. airspace. Congress did not mention privacy specifically, but advocates have argued that the prevalence and surveillance capabilities of drones makes regulating privacy an essential feature of drone safety.
“Commercial operators are free to collect data on people in public with little to no restriction on the information they collect, how they use it, or who they share it with,” said Jeramie Scott, an attorney with EPIC. “Congress mandated that the FAA come up with a comprehensive plan to integrate drones into the airspace,” he said. “The agency’s refusal to establish privacy standards is inconsistent with this mandate.”
The FAA has previously indicated that it may include privacy regulations in its rules. In 2013, privacy advocates celebrated when the agency directed each of its regulation test sites for the new rules to write and implement their own privacy recommendations.
Several weeks ago, however, EPIC published previously secret documents they obtained through Freedom of Information Act litigation, showing that the FAA declined to invite any privacy advocates to secret meetings between the government’s secret drone task force and drone industry representatives, which took place in November.
According to the FAA, many of the 180 groups who raised privacy concerns thought it was necessary for their business, including the Illinois Farm Bureau, Colorado Cattleman’s Association, and the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions, who argued that drones should not be permitted over private property without advanced authorization from the owner.
The FAA says it is “following up” on its concerns with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to “develop best practices concerning privacy.”
Bipartisan groups in both houses of Congress have introduced measures to restrict how law enforcement can use drones without a warrant, but those measures would not affect private users or corporations.
Top Photo: A drone in flight in the sky above Old Bethpage, New York.
Won’t somebody like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, at some point, put a drone if front of all these politician’s windows? Shouldn’t cost much, compared to all the litigation going on. It would certainly motivate the pols to consider some privacy legislation.
They’d probably just make themselves ‘Exceptions’ and/or codify that doing it to politicians and possibly high-profile individuals is illegal… or just interpret PATRIOT Act the way they’d like to and just say it’s scoping out an assassination/terrorist attack/etc, no need for a new law. I’ve lost my faith in anything but the most brutish interpretations of laws in this country, especially when it comes to surveillance, privacy, or protest.
thank you
The article you cite about a woman being “stalked” says nothing of the sort. It’s about a woman who saw a drone outside her window once and (incorrectly) assumed it was filming her. Read the whole before using it as evidence.
Also, as has been stated by other commenters, privacy is not the FAA’s job and existing privacy laws still apply regardless of the technology being used.
Along the same lines of privacy, I find it somewhat frustrating that the FAA did not use these rules as an opportunity to better define public vs private airspace below 500 ft. By purposefully relegating drones to below 400ft, the FAA is commercializing airspace that has never been defined as public. Previous supreme court cases have somewhat defined it by declaring that a plane encroached private airspace at 83 feet but a police helicopter did not at 400ft. I can see a lot of lawsuits coming as individuals attempt to define what is private airspace over their property in the name of privacy.
Personally, I agree with the determination that the scope of the FAA’s regulations should be limited to safety issues. While there are a few unique issues presented by drones, these specific privacy issues are best addressed by legislatures and the courts. And they need to be specific and limited because privacy issues have always been, and should be, balanced with the needs of society.
Frankly, I believe too many people are irrational about drone usage. One could make the same argument about drones that Second Amendment advocates make for firearms: Guns are just tools, and people are responsible for how they are used and should be held accountable. Drones themselves are not a threat to safety or privacy. The issue is how they are used. There are countless ways that drone use can make positive contributions to society. They offer a unique way to gather information – information that society can use to understand issues and make informed choices (like in news gathering, educational and scientific survey work and studies, etc.). Additionally, information that businesses can use to make business more productive and efficient (in agriculture, for instance).
As far as privacy goes, most existing laws regarding privacy and illegal surveillance can be applied to drone use. Law enforcement must still get warrants to collect private information, and news gathering is still limited to public spaces without permission.
Again, the responsible and safe use of drones is the issue. I think some common sense is in order, and this article seems to have a little bit of an alarmist tone to it.
[“Frankly, I believe too many people are irrational about drone usage. One could make the same argument about drones that Second Amendment advocates make for firearms: Guns are just tools, and people are responsible for how they are used and should be held accountable. Drones themselves are not a threat to safety or privacy.”]
http://www.occupy.com/article/drones-shoot-tasers-are-now-legal-police-use-north-dakota
[“Again, the responsible and safe use of drones is the issue. I think some common sense is in order, and this article seems to have a little bit of an alarmist tone to it.”]
https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-complex/
***Take a trip to the next level…Scott
I just found a good news on a drone use…(so my apologies to you Scott).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=170&v=4DxXWBySE9g
Milagro Summary – English
Published on May 3, 2016
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society’s Operation Milagro II has come to an end. Milagro is its campaign to fight the looming extinction of the vaquita porpoise, the most endangered marine mammal in the world. With an estimate of less than 100 surviving vaquita, Sea Shepherd ships the R/V Martin Sheen and M/V Farley Mowat patrolled the northernmost part of the Gulf of California, Mexico to locate and remove illegal fishing gear that entangle and drown the vaquita.
Learn more at: http://www.seashepherd.org/milagro2
I just found a good use for drones…(my apologies to Scott)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DxXWBySE9g
Milagro Summary – English
Published on May 3, 2016
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society’s Operation Milagro II has come to an end. Milagro is its campaign to fight the looming extinction of the vaquita porpoise, the most endangered marine mammal in the world. With an estimate of less than 100 surviving vaquita, Sea Shepherd ships the R/V Martin Sheen and M/V Farley Mowat patrolled the northernmost part of the Gulf of California, Mexico to locate and remove illegal fishing gear that entangle and drown the vaquita.
Learn more at: http://www.seashepherd.org/milagro2
Excuse double comment…the first one did not post. Sorry.
IMHO there need to be ‘No Drone Zones’ that people can choose to live in and around. Otherwise you’re depriving EVERYONE of a right to choose. Then again I also believe this should be true of surveillance cameras etc in general.
Uh, I’m with the FAA on this one.Privacy is extremely important, and so is air safety; air safety is very complex. Call the cops if you catch a drone snooping…enough swamping of police phone lines would probably give them a hint…along with capturing and/or destroying a drone.
Drone deliveries coming soon to every door step, and along with driver-less vehicles will wipe out millions of transport and delivery jobs. Add this to the damage to employment that Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, 3D Printing, Smart Machines, and the Internet of Things will cause and it paints a grim picture for the future. Welcome to dystopia, and a World of pervasive technologies, that are going to wipe out jobs and destroy privacy.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that they had to be regulated. “I’m in my home and there’s a demonstration out front, and I go to peek out the window and there’s a drone facing me,” she explained in an interview with 60 Minutes. She said that for her, it raised “major” privacy concerns. Ironically, Feinstein is one of Congress’s foremost defenders of NSA surveillance.
Feinstein’s arrogance surfaces once again. She has been willing to support all sorts of intrusion on the people, but when it can happen to ‘her eliteness’, all of a sudden it is bad. This is just one more example of how the rich and powerful like to impose rules on millions but exempt themselves from the consequences they impose on the ‘little people’.
The repugnant authoritarian and career hypocrite, Feinstein, may have major concerns about privacy, but only regarding her own, not that of others. She’s been consistent in this regard. Remember how indignant she became when learning that the NSA had been spying on her Senate Intelligence Committee?
Nary a thought was given by her for the lives of innocent Americans being put under the microscope by the abusive surveillance state she helped create, until she and her committee were the subjects of investigation.
For the life of me, I can’t understand how she stays in office…
Actually, she still didn’t care about the privacy of ordinary Americans after her discovery, and obviously, still does not care. Her concerns are about herself only.
Buzzing, privacy-invading, peacefulness-destroying “technology” will now be an increasingly constant feature of everyone’s lives, promulgated by the armies of asinine tech enthusiasts and moneymakers of the world.
It is not the horseless-carnage, computers, cell-phones or drones. It is not the “peacefulness-destroying technology” but rude, greedy, controlling people misusing and abusing technology.
1984. hate these things.
Aviation has been one of the great freedoms. I use to fly rotor craft, helicopters. A private pilot license literally reveals new horizons. The FFA gives generally reasonable necessary regulations and laws for flight and safety, privacy is generally not their venue. However, simple “good manners’ like not flying too low over populated areas is very important.
Drone operations private or commercial in an age of little regard for manners and privacy creates a novel problem. Taking matters into you own hands and destroying a drone could bring serious legal charges. Call the police if privacy or safety is compromised. A license can be suspended for a period of time or revoked.
There is no substitute for good manners. If using a drone to photograph a house for a realtor take a few minutes and inform the neighbor next door so the ladies at the pool can cover up.
The ladies at the pool shouldn’t *have* to cover up because some asshat wants a better photo for his ad.
Why is there concern over “drone peeping”? Talk about a made up problem.
You understand you’re already protected by trespassing and peeping tom laws.
Of course you don’t understand that, more laws is always the answer.
Are you a good drone or are you a bad drone?
Most people would say that they are not a drone at all.
I have long considered Feinstein and most of her colleagues
to be corporate drones which are used to control the
human resources for their corporate masters.
Are you telling me that she and her colleagues are really human?!
They may use words, but to me it sounds like the privatized
droning of machines plugged into a power source.
“even persuaded Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that they had to be regulated. “I’m in my home and there’s a demonstration out front, and I go to peek out the window and there’s a drone facing me,” she explained in an interview with 60 Minutes. She said that for her, it raised “major” privacy concerns.”
Yes, the powerful must not be subjected to what the rest of us get.
Sorry, one other question about drones. Has anyone considered what impact tens of thousands of drones flying around will effect the birds living at those altitudes, could our cities be totally denuded of bird life? Does anybody give a shit?
They don’t bother birds much, a few hawks and eagles will attack the drones and take them down but the smaller birds just see them as other birds.
I’ve flown in numerous places with wildlife and while some seem to be wary of drones none have shown fear, in fact there were crows watching me last time I was flying in a local park.
And as usual you forget animals ability to adapt, for example crows using passing cars to crack nuts and timing the placing of said nuts with traffic lights.
In general birds, especially corvids, are more intelligent than humans.
Well, there is a post from someone with actual expertise as opposed to your anecdotal “evidence”
“No, as a wildlife biologist, I definitely have concerns regarding impacts on wildlife. Your average citizen is unaware that additional stresses during critical periods like nesting and migration can dramatically increase mortality. There are many species of birds and mammals that require areas undisturbed by humans in order to successfully reproduce. Even just causing birds to flush off of their nests increases predation by other birds like crows and jays, who are then alerted to the sites of nests.”
This if from WWF those evil commies who want to take your freedom:
“Just to illustrate the degree of biodiversity loss we’re facing, let’s take you through one scientific analysis…
The rapid loss of species we are seeing today is estimated by experts to be between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than the natural extinction rate.*
These experts calculate that between 0.01 and 0.1% of all species will become extinct each year.
If the low estimate of the number of species out there is true – i.e. that there are around 2 million different species on our planet** – then that means between 200 and 2,000 extinctions occur every year.
But if the upper estimate of species numbers is true – that there are 100 million different species co-existing with us on our planet – then between 10,000 and 100,000 species are becoming extinct each year.
Adaptation indeed.
Privacy is gone and any right to it has been rejected by power. Remember Margret Thatchers chilling statement “Society doesn’t exist.” And she was right in the sense that power no longer would work for the “general welfare” that such calculations were no longer part of the calculations of power. The general population, the hoi polloi simply don’t matter.
Like sovereignty privacy is already dead, like the Great Coral Reef, it’s seriously damaged and unlikely to pull through.
Our further problem with power is that we still want to attack it as if it only exists in DC or Piking or Berlin, but that is not where to find the power which now spies and pries and steals our data, power is now diffuse, it is everywhere it is in all computers it is in the wi-fi it is everywhere and nowhere.
Welcome to dystopia.
A truth well said.
Fortunately, I have a SAM (surface-to-air missile) to protect my privacy. It’s a 410 model.
This has to be one of the most difficult topics to discuss. It’s all about freedom, but also about privacy. I’m guessing the only logical solution is to ban gov’t spying drones, and the business and private drones just take their chances when flying over private property. Flying over public property is A Ok! And yes I know Gov’t will not stop spying. Just my solution.
sounds like a good case for “drone jammers” mountable on 6ft poles, 110v, full spectrum. shouldnt be considered broadcasting.
This is where the Second will come in handy. If you see any drone watching you just shoot it down and then it’s yours.
Doesn’t anybody read the news?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/new-jersey-drone-shooting-case-213450
My livelihood is aviation, having worked as a pilot for nearly 30 years. The FAA’s purpose is primarily safety. Regulations in regards to privacy should, and I believe do, fall under the purview of law enforcement agencies, rather than regulatory agencies such as the FAA. When a pilot commits a crime with an aircraft, such as shooting at people from it or some other such act, the FBI gets involved. Violating an FAA regulation, such as accidentally flying through restricted airspace without a clearance (authorization) is treated as a violation of a regulation and not as a “crime”, i.e., the FBI is not involved.
When taking note of the FAA’s lack of interest in privacy concerns, we should give thanks, particularly in light of “Ag-Gag” laws and other such infringements on our First Amendment rights by congress. Let’s let the FAA keep the sky safe for aviation and those standing underneath the various flying machines without distracting it with redundant regulations, laws and enforcement duties, best performed by state and local police agencies or through civil lawsuit.
I would interpret this less as “there should be no privacy rules about drones,” and more as “Congress should write drone privacy rules, not the FAA.”
It’s actually kind of nice to see a government agency not overreaching its authority for once.
Good points.
KA-CHING!
600 pages, that’s all. The document is quite thoro. You can now be a college major in Air Space Law with a specialty in Drone Law. It’s called bureaucrazy. Want to do something in France? A constable can help you with that, “Your ly sonz see voo play”.
All kidding aside, the 600 pages is not so much about rules as it is a rationale for the current rules that exist governing aviation rules that apply to model airplanes. It’s actually a good thing – except that is doesnt mention the $500,000 fines and 20 years in prison for violations. Kidding – no idea what the penalties are but, you should ask.
Where’s the beef?
Beginning on page 571
Remote Pilot in Command Certification and Responsibilites.
yep. “Your ly sonz see voo play”
KA-CHING!
You get to pay (gov ala carte) $150 + $150 at intervals (as i read it). In case you think this is a rip-off, it isn’t. It says so on page 573 “…because $150 is relatively inexpensive to be licensed for operation of a commercial vehicle.”
= and that’s not all =
KA-CHING.
Your turn. Offer classes in passing the remote pilot test for $x to the public at large because page 580 says “take and pass an aeronautical knowledge test”.
Page 574 is the anti-terrorist restiction aka the “put it on a leash” provision. What do you want, coast to coast light powered vehicle? There’s a 1500 feet restriction. Cancel the pizza drone.
Say, are you eating that food with a 4-prong fork?
LY SONZ SEE VOO PLAY
Just another obfuscated tax hike.
The taxes, fees, licenses etc. are predictable. This is because using a drone is much like shooting a person. For a rich person to shoot a poor person, that’s home defense, castle doctrine, personal security, right to bear arms. But for a poor person to shoot a rich person (or even to have the gun to do it), that’s unlawful possession of a firearm, firearm in the wrong zone, fired too close to another house, some kind of highly punishable interference with repo men and bill collectors doing their lawful duties. AR-15s are the NRA’s poster children, but Saturday Night Specials and zip-guns will send you straight to jail.
The principal goal of drone law is to figure out a way that it is legal for the finance corporation, the casino two blocks away, the insurance agency, Google mappers etc. to fly all around your house looking in — while making it absolutely illegal and a severe prison term for you to get your toy consumer drone and try to look in the casino window or tape the foreclosure people trashing out a house or to make an amateur map of the neighborhood that might compete with the professionals. And that’s, obviously, a difficult exercise in dialectic. They’re going to have to think long and hard about exactly how to word the various prohibitions and ethics so that it only seems natural that your betters are watching you and you would never dare to watch them. But the first obvious steps are licensing and fees.
@Wnt –
Some interesting thoughts there. With all the seamlessness now between corporations/private stuff and the gov’t this is probably more of a concern than folks realize. Again, too many are just asleep to the dangers.
Add to this that they want to give the FBI more spying leeway… Oh, we’ve got problems all right.
Safety vs risk. Personal independence vs the perfect insect colony. What sort of species type are we really? Keep thinking and observing feline16.
yep. Power brokers. They got the power, the rest of us are broke. Licensing and fees. the ultimate wedge. The wedge of wealth.
[“But despite recognizing that drones “pose risks to individual privacy,” the FAA declined to issue any privacy regulations at all.”]
Target shooting anyone?
Fuck yeh…
WE MAKE OUR OWN PRIVACY
I was going to ask if anyone had looked through the regulations to see if they’d put some extreme penalties on that, which is what I’d expect. There have already been state-based prosecutions (shouldn’t have been shooting a gun in the air, etc.) but they might be piecemeal or unreliable or leave out some trick like using a net, and you’d expect the government to want to give corporations a clearer guarantee of their right to spy.
the right to spy… kinda funny.
i didnt see anything about drone defence. the FAA is all about airspace separation and zoning. They dont get into any criminal coding afaik.
Leaves the door open for me to buy that drone and fly it around the nearest Google building. See what they are doing, I need some data…..