Congressman Releases Draft of Legislation On Domestic Drones and Privacy

An anonymous reader writes "Police would be required to get a warrant to use drones for certain types of surveillance under legislation introduced on Capitol Hill. The proposed bill would also tighten regulations on what kind of data can be collected by the government and private companies and how it can be used. To safeguard against abuses, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), co-chair of the Bipartisan Congressional Privacy Caucus and a longtime member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, released a draft of the Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act of 2012 on Wednesday." In related news, garymortimer points out that a North Dakota court has preliminarily upheld the first-ever use of an unmanned drone to assist in the arrest of an American citizen.

Comments

Simple Idea:

[jxander]

How about we just treat drones like Military Hardware, because that's exactly what they are.

I don't expect to see police officers in Tanks, or wearing flack jackets and kevlar helmets, wielding M-16s. At least not on a day to day basis. So what makes it even remotely ok to use the same level of tech/hardware in the skies? Just because we can't see it??

Maybe for emergency use. "Call the National Guard" type stuff, then sure, bust out whatever hardware is required to get the job done. But for day to day business, make the cops walk their beat.

Re:Simple Idea:

[jhoegl]

Nah, the easy solution is an umbrella hat.

Re:Simple Idea:

[Anonymous Coward]

Better idea: As long as they're unarmed how about treating drones the same way as police helicopters used for surveillance currently are, since they do the same thing except for Medevac missions? (Not to mention a higher-flying and undectable drone might be better in pursuit surveillance in terms of not panicking the pursued?)

And many police departments do indeed employ armored personnel carriers for SWAT or riot control duties. They do wear Flack Jackets and carry AR-15s, MP-5s, etc. as needed for their duties. In fact, there was a major felony bust at our complex where the entry team did indeed have everything you reference above.

Don't get me wrong, I'm thankful that in most day-to-day activities that gear stays stowed and out of the way, as opposed to countries whose beat police carry automatic rifles or subs. But if it's possibly trading fire with druggies, I'd still rather see the officers protected with everything possible short of heavy weapons.

Re:Simple Idea:

[snorris01]

Just because something starts out as military hardware, doesn't mean it doesn't have valid, peaceful uses.

The helicopter is a great example. Some military hardware has uses other than killing people and breaking things.

I could see something like an RQ-1 being used in much the same way as traffic and police helicopters are used today. They should have the hell regulated out of them, of course. Not just for privacy, but for safety.

Re:Simple Idea:

[PyroMosh]

What makes it military equipment? The fact that the military has used it?

The military uses helicopters too. What about helicopters? Ban police use of them?

And underwear The military wears underwear. Should police be prohibited from wearing underwear too?

I get it. Drones are the scary thing de jure lately and the Slashdot crowd is particularly paranoid about privacy issues. But seriously, they can observe. So long as any non-public observation continues to require a warrant, I really don't care.

Tricky defense

[InPursuitOfTruth]

This is tricky, because we certainly don't want our personal fun use of drones to be criminalized in any law, but we do want clear restrains on government and other forms of invasion of privacy.

The question I have is, if you're sitting on 3000 acres of land, you can probably use a jamming device without impacting your neighbor's cable reception. So, what type of jamming would impact a drone?

drone arrests and executions already

[harvey the nerd]

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Felony terrorizing??

[erroneus]

According to what I have found about this "nearly-Mount Carmel" repeat, since when is defending one's own property "terrorizing?" I can't speak to the laws of that area, but when living in a rural area and a neighbor fails to control his livestock (you know, through the use and maintenance of fences and other devices) the property owner whose land is tresspassed by such livestock has many options and rights he might exercise which include using deadly force against the animals. (My mother shot and killed a neighbor's goat at about 80 yards with a 22 pistol as it was eating her young Apple tree... no charges were filed though the neighbor who lost a goat complained... no law was broken and she acted within the law.)

The law also allows a land owner to prevent others from illegally trespassing on his land and deadly force is often allowed depending on local laws. The land owner is also under no obligation to return any livestock which wanders onto his property [especially due to the negligence of the livestock owner].

So to call it theft of property is really stretching things as far as I can tell. And to call defending one's land and rights under the law "terrorizing"??? Really? Now they are really redefining things in some dangerous ways. Think of the deeper ramifications. Redefining "unlimited" to mean "limited" pales in comparison to the government guaranteeing your rights to defend yourself and property under law while at the same time charging a person who does with terrorism essentially revokes the law selectively.

Re:Markings

[joe_frisch]

Are they covered by normal FAA regulations? Do they need transponders - if so, with new Mode-S requirements anyone can buy a receiver and know where they are.

  Do they need annual, and 100 hour inspections? Flight certifications? Will the manufacturers issue airworthiness directives? With this the cost of operating a drone could approach the cost of a conventional aircraft.

What are the requirements for drone pilots - do they need a commercial certificate with a "drone" rating? A type-rating for each type of drone? Who is responsible for accidental damage done by the drone?

Are drones equipped with cameras sufficient to meet see-and-avoid rules for flying in visual conditions (even if flying under IFR rules).

Are drones exempt from rules that prohibit low flight over high density areas? Are they treated like helicopters? If so, does that make sense since some can't land vertically or hover?

Basically there is a huge array of regulations that cover the operation of civilian aircraft in US airspace (and in most of the world). Drones do not carry passengers, but they can still destroy other aircraft or kill people on the ground. It isn't at all clear to me how they will operate alongside of conventional aircraft in the airspace, or how they will be treated with respect to aviation regulations.

Everyone seems to have missed

[Dunbal]

I guess no one read the article. It seems this person had the drone deployed because 6 cows wandered onto his farm, and he refused to return the cows or let the police on his land to get the cows. Yep, that surely warrants drone deployments, SWAT raidsm and felony charges. Good old US of A.