Drones and Privacy: What You Need to Know
The Growing Prominence of Drones and Emerging Privacy Concerns
The previous year witnessed a significant surge in drone activity, prompting widespread attention. Projections indicate that 2015 will see an even greater expansion in drone usage, necessitating a serious examination of the associated privacy implications.
The Expanding Landscape of UAV Applications
The field of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) is constantly evolving. Current events are frequently marked by reports concerning drones. Instances include illicit activities, such as the use of drones by Mexican cartels for border crossings.
Furthermore, drones have been involved in security incidents, like landings on the White House grounds. Restrictions were implemented, notably a thirty-mile no-fly zone surrounding Super Bowl XLIX.
Innovative applications are also emerging, exemplified by drone-based delivery services, such as chocolate delivery in Hong Kong.
Public Perception and the Debate Surrounding Drone Technology
The term "drone" often evokes a diverse range of responses. Discussions surrounding UAVs extend beyond their military applications in counter-terrorism operations.
Concerns are increasingly focused on their potential domestic roles and the potential for personal drones to infringe upon individual privacy, already causing frustration among the public.
Technology vs. Human Behavior
Attributing blame to the technology itself is misguided. Disruptive behaviors, whether excessive noise or inconsiderate cell phone use, will occur irrespective of technological advancements.
Widespread societal acceptance of mainstream drone integration will require time and adaptation.
The Core Privacy Questions
The most critical questions stemming from UAV implementation aren't centered on their capabilities or current applications.
Instead, the primary concern revolves around the implications for personal privacy as drones become more commonplace and integrated into daily life.
It is the potential impact on privacy, once mainstream acceptance is achieved, that demands careful consideration.
The Future of Personal Privacy
Many individuals who have lived for a considerable period likely recall a time when societal privacy levels were significantly higher. Regrettably, it is probable that personal privacy will continue to diminish as technology becomes increasingly intrusive.
A 2013 report from the Congressional Research Service indicates that the FAA anticipates 30,000 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) will be operating in the nation’s airspace by 2030.
While 30,000 may appear to be a modest figure, it is important to recognize that this number represents a conservative estimate. Furthermore, these are not typical consumer drones purchased as gifts; the total includes those utilized by the military, law enforcement, government entities, and corporations.
Drones are already perceived as a potential invasion of privacy, perhaps even more so than widespread camera use or GPS tracking. It is not difficult to envision a scenario where law enforcement agencies acquire former military surveillance drones.
This possibility is heightened by the Department of Homeland Security’s practice of loaning such equipment to local police departments.
The Fourth Amendment in a Modern Context
The Fourth Amendment provides protection against unreasonable searches and seizures for all Americans. However, as technology evolves and greater acceptance of privacy compromises occurs, our understanding of what constitutes “unreasonable” also shifts.
Allowing companies like Google to track our locations would have been considered unacceptable two decades ago, yet it is now commonplace and often accepted as a trade-off for technological convenience.
Consider that GPS technology is readily available in mobile devices, enabling precise location tracking. Even with GPS disabled, phones communicate with cell towers and scan for WiFi networks.
As these technologies have become integrated into daily life, resistance has largely subsided. Consequently, what appears unreasonable today may become normalized in the future.
Drones and the Ease of Surveillance
The definition of a “search” is also evolving. Activities conducted within the privacy of one’s home generally require a warrant. However, actions visible from public spaces are subject to observation.
The area immediately surrounding a home is known as the curtilage, and enjoys similar protections as the home itself. Police typically require a warrant to search this area.
However, establishing a clear boundary between the curtilage and open fields – such as streets and sidewalks – is crucial. Fences, shrubs, and walls can help define this boundary.
Law enforcement is permitted to utilize airplanes and helicopters to observe curtilage from within FAA airspace without a warrant.
While effective for aerial observation, helicopters and airplanes have limitations. They require significant resources for operation and maintenance, and are not always discreet.
Drones, particularly larger models with extended battery life or fuel-powered engines, can remain airborne for extended periods. At sufficient altitudes, they can be virtually invisible and silent.
Furthermore, drones are relatively inexpensive to operate. While skilled pilots are still required, they present less risk than manned aircraft. The potential for loss of life is reduced in the event of a crash.
Therefore, the question arises: does UAV surveillance and searching equate to that conducted by manned aircraft? Is it a reasonable practice?
The issue becomes more complex when considering drones equipped with infrared sensors and radar capable of seeing through walls and ceilings. If law enforcement no longer needs physical access to a property to conduct a search, is a warrant still required?
Addressing Drone Concerns: Beyond the Use of Force
A careful assessment, free from speculative scenarios, reveals that a singular, straightforward solution to the challenges posed by drones does not exist.
One potential reaction involves the use of force. Instances of drones being shot down have been reported, and the idea of offering financial incentives for their destruction was even explored by a Colorado town.
Legal and Practical Considerations
However, discharging a firearm into the air is generally ill-advised and often carries legal consequences. Many cities and towns have ordinances prohibiting the unlawful discharge of weapons, even in states with more permissive gun laws.
Individuals driven to armed responses by drone-related frustrations may not prioritize legal repercussions. Nevertheless, even a substantial drone, such as an octocopter, represents a challenging and rapidly moving target.
Success requires exceptional marksmanship or considerable luck. More realistically, attempts to shoot down drones are likely to result in wasted ammunition and potential harm to bystanders.
Current Reality and Legal Ramifications
Despite anxieties surrounding widespread Federal drone surveillance, a pervasive presence of such aircraft is not currently observed. Consequently, shooting down a drone is not only inadvisable but also constitutes a violation of the law.
It's crucial to remember that resorting to violence is rarely the optimal course of action when dealing with drone-related concerns.
Consider these points:
- Firing a weapon carries significant legal risks.
- Successfully hitting a drone is difficult.
- Endangering others is a serious possibility.
Exploring alternative, legally sound methods for addressing drone-related issues is strongly recommended.
Alternative Approaches to Countering Drones
Beyond direct confrontation, several other methods exist for responding to unwanted drone activity. However, it’s important to recognize that these alternatives aren’t without their own drawbacks or legal implications.
Radio Frequency Jamming
One potential countermeasure involves disrupting a drone’s communication signals, specifically by jamming its radio frequency or GPS connection. However, this tactic carries significant risks and is comparable in severity to directly engaging with the drone.
Most commercially available drones, often referred to as microdrones, rely on a standard radio control system for operation, similar to those used for model aircraft. They also frequently incorporate GPS radios to enable autonomous navigation when required.
Acquiring or constructing a radio frequency jammer is feasible. One could scan for the specific frequencies utilized by the drone and selectively disrupt them, or alternatively, broadcast interference across the entire radio frequency spectrum.
Such actions are strictly prohibited in the United States, and similar regulations exist internationally. Interference with authorized communications, including police radio, emergency services (9-1-1), cellular networks, and Wi-Fi, is a serious offense.
The intentional blocking, jamming, or interference of authorized radio communications through the use of devices like “cell jammers,” GPS jammers, or signal blockers is a violation of federal law.
Engaging in RF jamming can result in substantial fines and potential imprisonment. Therefore, it is strongly advised against pursuing this course of action.
Geofencing Implementation
Geofencing presents another solution, functioning by restricting drones from entering designated geographic areas through limitations programmed into their firmware.
Many drone manufacturers currently implement geofencing to prevent flight near airports and other sensitive locations. Recently, a prominent Chinese drone company mandated a firmware update, effectively prohibiting its drones from operating within a 15.5-mile radius of Washington D.C.
Geofencing services are also becoming available to the public. NoFlyZone.org, for example, offers a service where users can submit their address, verify their location, and request that participating drone manufacturers prevent overflights of their property.
However, the long-term viability of this approach remains questionable. While it may deter casual hobbyists using drones from cooperating manufacturers, it won’t prevent governmental or law enforcement agencies from operating drones.
Experienced drone operators are aware that geofencing is not foolproof. Drones can be flown anywhere using first-person view or line-of-sight control. It’s important to remember that an unmanned aerial vehicle is essentially a more advanced version of a model airplane or helicopter and doesn’t necessarily require GPS for operation.
Furthermore, research is underway to develop fully autonomous drones capable of flight without GPS, rendering geofencing ineffective in such scenarios.
Legislative Measures
Currently, the most effective response to the increasing prevalence of drones may lie with lawmakers, although this may not inspire confidence in some. Amazon, for instance, has voiced its frustration with the slow pace of the FAA in addressing drone-related issues within the commercial sector.
Simultaneously, states are enacting their own legislation or establishing committees to address actual or potential problems associated with UAVs. In 2014 alone, “35 states considered UAS or UAV bills and resolutions; 10 states enacted new laws.”
Some laws are being passed to protect specific activities, such as safeguarding hunters from harassment, as seen in Michigan. Conversely, proposed legislation in Nevada would criminalize the surreptitious photographing of individuals in private settings, raising concerns about potential overreach.
The regulatory landscape is constantly evolving, presenting a dynamic and complex challenge. A comprehensive, universally applicable solution remains elusive. Drone manufacturers, legislators, and industry advocates have both the time and the opportunity to establish effective regulations. It is hoped that they will succeed in doing so.
If you have thoughts to share or questions to ask, we invite you to contribute to the discussion in our forum. We anticipate a lively exchange of ideas regarding drones and privacy concerns, and we encourage your participation.