Law enforcement, government agencies and others are itching to use drones for everything from finding lost hikers to tracking shifting wildfires. But privacy watchdogs are urging state legislatures to step in and head off any potential privacy violations.
That tension is on display as more than 35 states consider drone legislation this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The bills include ways to attract an industry that could generate billions — but also to impose restrictions on drone use and data collection.
“It’s in its nascent form now, but it’s growing and will be growing in the future,” Steve Erickson, who leads a privacy watchdog group called Citizens Education Project, told Utah lawmakers recently.
The balancing act is playing out in stark relief in Utah, where there’s a long history of suspicion over government intrusion, yet where drones are ideally suited to help authorities patrol the largely rural, unforgiving terrain.
State Sen. Howard Stephenson is warning that Utah needs to set ground rules about law enforcement use of drones before they become more widespread. To convince his colleagues, he played a clip from the movie version of George Orwell’s “1984” in which a drone hovers and peers into windows.
“I don’t think we want that type of thing happening in our society,” he said.
His legislation would restrict law enforcement agencies from collecting or using data from a drone without a warrant. It also would prevent the collection and storage of any unintended images captured by the drones, and prohibit nongovernmental agencies or individuals from sharing drone images with law enforcement, except in emergencies.
The restrictions, which are similar to those adopted in other states, also come with an olive branch — the legislation notes lawmakers do not want to hamper the industry and research and cites the expected benefits the drones will bring to society.
About an hour north of the capital in Brigham City, nestled against the Wasatch Mountains, Box Elder County Sheriff J. Lynn Yeates said that while he’s cognizant of the privacy concerns, his department’s new $7,000 multirotor drone is solely for search and rescue and fire spotting.
The black aircraft, about 20 inches long, buzzes like a swarm of bees and can travel up to 2 miles from the operator’s station. It’s equipped with GPS and a camera that sends a live high-definition feed to Yeates and his team.
Yeates said it can be used to find hikers and others who get lost in the county”steep, winding canyons and crevices. He said the device will save hours in rescue operations and will help keep his all-volunteer team safer.
“You can’t put a price on it,” he said.
Troy May, whose Ogden, Utah-based company Digital Defense Surveillance sells, and trains buyers to use, drone that can cost up to $50,000, supports the restrictions on an industry.
“It’s going all kinds of different directions,” he said.
That’s precisely the point economic development officials are trying to make as lawmakers consider restrictions. Government use of the technology is a big driver for industry growth, said Vincent Mikolay at the Utah governor’s economic development office.
Mikolay said unmanned systems are expected to become a billion-dollar industry in the U.S. over the next three years, and if states like Utah can land a portion of that business, they’ll see big economic gains.
Despite the economic appeal of drones, legislators in Utah and elsewhere aren’t waiting for judges to determine whether the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unlawful searches are sufficient to protect their constituents’ rights, and are instead diving in with specific rules.
In Rhode Island, lawmakers are considering legislation that requires law enforcement agencies to hold public hearings before acquiring drones. They would also need approval from local leaders or the governor, and would need to consult the state attorney general and a judge before using them.
California legislators are considering a measure that would require police to obtain a warrant when using drones and notify the public when they intend to use them. It also would require any data collected to be destroyed within six months and bars public agencies from arming the devices.
But one of the most restrictive drone-use bills in the country died after New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie declined to sign it.
Christie — whose administration is teaming with neighboring Delaware to seek approval as a federal drone testing site — gave no reason for his so-called “pocket veto.”
About the Author
