UAVs in Civil Airspace: Complications with Privacy

STS Research Paper

Presented to the Faculty of the

School of Engineering and Applied Science

University of Virginia

By

Michael Becker

24 April, 2016

On my honor as a University student, I have neither given nor received unauthorized aid on this

assignment as defined by the Honor Guidelines for Thesis-Related Assignments.

Signed: ______________________Michael Becker____________________________________

Approved: _______________________________________ Date ________________________

Michael Gorman, Department of Engineering and Society

Becker 2

Response to Feedback Regarding Annotated Bibliography

To summarize my comments on your draft, I think the frontier has moved a bit since the start of

your paper--the licenses for drones issue is becoming larger, and the question of when it is

critical to get a license. I think you made a great point in conversation about the weight range,

from a toy-size drone to something that is 40-50 lbs and could go through a window. I imagine

your paper ending with recommendations--made humbly, of course, because you do not pretend

to be a regulator, but you are doing anticipatory governance--looking ahead at potential

problems (many of which are occurring already, as your opening case illustrates) and trying to

provide advice on how to head them off now. Early precaution is much better than crisis

management! (MG)

I have added that detail regarding the weight range for registration and how most smaller drones

flown by kids must abide by the registration rules nevertheless. I added more commentary to

explain black boxing of UAVs and references to Langdon Winner’s sociotechnical system

recommendations.

Peer review from Ruben Aghayan (done on paper).

I made some grammatical fixes, reworded sentences so they are more clear, and removed a

couple sentences that did not connect well with their respective paragraphs.

You have done an outstanding piece of work which could be improved by re-organization. The

figures 1-4 towards the end are brilliant--they need to be moved up to the points where you make

the argument that is summarized by each of the figures. You should refer to the figures in the

text, which will help you sharpen your argument--I lost the thread in a couple of places (my

earlier, longer commentary would have suggested where, but sticking with your figures will sort

that out--Latour loves to use figures to make his arguments!)

I recommend you add anticipatory governance, which pertains to the conclusion of your paper

where you talk about potential future uses. Here it may be possible to get multiple stakeholders

together to have serious conversations about where drones ought to go. The only stakeholder

that might balk at this is those concerned with national security, which may develop functions for

drones that have to be kept secret. But even national security professionals will be interested in

the civilian regulations and use of drones, so that they can fly necessary military missions

without fear of flying into civilian drones, or shooting down a civilian drone thinking it is an

enemy.

I like the way you come back to Allenby at the end. Drones are not an isolated technology--they

will fit into a complex sociotechnical-natural system with lots of other emerging technologies

which alter the way we work and play together and also steal from each other and kill each

other. Allenby would recommend adaptive management of drones linked to reversibility--the

capability of taking certain kinds of drones or drone functions out of the system if they appear to

have negative interactions. (MG)

I have decided to keep the paper’s basic organization: introduction, background info explaining

how drones impact privacy, current laws/regulations, and then I go into black box theory and

finally areas of further research. In the first half of the paper I am emphasizing the mechanisms

Becker 3

through which UAVs are interfering with privacy, and the misunderstandings between

stakeholders of what the entire UAV sociotechnical system encompasses. I feel like it is best to

explain the seriousness of UAV integration and its impact on individual privacy first then to go

into the theory after showing how a different perspective can lead to a better understanding of the

sociotechnical system and more effective drone integration. I took away any references to “black

boxing” prior to the STS theory section (but still use other language to hint towards the

usefulness of applying the theory). I also added a couple more comments on Allenby’s ideas and

how they pertain to the UAV sociotechnical system discussed.

I see your overall theme better in this draft.

What is black-boxed is not only the parts of the sociotechnical system, but the fact that drones

are in a sociotechnical system. If regulators, users and other stakeholders--like people whose

homes are overflown by drones--understood the sociotechnical system of which drones are a

part, it might make it easier to negotiate changes--perhaps across a trading zone.

Then all the figures are in the right place, but the last figure should show a relatively complete

view of the overall socio-technical system that combines pilots, users and regulators?

Your conclusion should refer back to this need for an overall understanding of the sociotechnical

system--show how it could benefit all stakeholders. Also include any suggestions for future

research on this problem/opportunity of better multi-stakeholder understanding of the system.

I’ve made some minor changes to my conclusion, tying together the importance of having a

multi-stakeholder understanding of the UAV sociotechnical system.

Becker 4

Abstract

The goal of this paper is to address research questions posed by FAA Administrator

Michael Huerta during an interview with NPR: “Is there the potential for UAVs to infringe upon

your right to privacy?” and “Does this technology in any way change current laws designed to

protect property and privacy?” (FAA Head, 2014). This paper informs the reader of the impact

civil drone use has on privacy rights and how current laws are addressing the issue, explores the

sociotechnical system and stakeholders involved using STS theory, proposes ideas for moving

forward with UAV integration, and suggests areas for further research. Bruno Latour’s “black

box” theory is used to demonstrate how certain technical aspects of UAVs and social effects are

hidden from various stakeholders. Therefore it is of critical importance to “open” these black

boxes to allow the public and government to gain a collective understanding of the technology

and how it raises privacy concerns. Throughout this paper Allenby’s sustainable engineering

principles also provide guidelines that might be useful in the integration and management of

UAVs in civil airspace. This paper is organized into six different sections: Introduction, How

Drones are Invading Privacy, Current Laws and Regulation Efforts, Application of STS Theory,

Ideas for Moving Forward, and Suggestions for Further Research.

Becker 5

Introduction

Just a year ago in a quiet neighborhood in Fairfax County, VA, a family was unloading

their minivan outside their house on the driveway. After hearing a strange buzzing sound, there

was a sudden, loud crash that came from the front of the house. A camera-equipped drone had

slammed into the family’s home and fell as its propellers flopping dangerously on the ground.

This sudden disturbance in the front yard was clearly a violation of privacy and safety. No

charges were filed against the person piloting the vehicle because Virginia does not yet have

laws regulating the use of private drones (Portnoy, 2015). Incidents like this one are occurring

more frequently and are driving the case for greater enforcement on public drone use. Unmanned

aerial vehicles (UAVs) are beginning to encroach on privacy rights in civil airspace. The

technology has developed rapidly over the years and is rising in popularity among the general

public and commercial organizations. Due to this rapid technological growth, UAVs are difficult

to regulate and their social effects are unpredictable. Current laws and regulations either fail to

define how drones relate to privacy, or they do not provide a clear set of rules in determining

whether or not privacy rights are violated in incidents involving UAVs. The rise in domestic

drone use is adding complexity to the civil sociotechnical system. STS theory may prove useful

in understanding the relationship between UAVs and civil society. Latour’s black box theory can

be used to explain how certain aspects of this sociotechnical system are hidden from the

perspectives of different stakeholders. A “black box” is defined as something that encompasses

the methods and workings behind science or technology, but conceals them from the outside

world. Instead, only the inputs and outputs are truly visible, while the internal complexity of the

system is hidden (Latour, 1987). It can be shown that in many cases a black box exists around

certain technical aspects of drones. More often a black box hides the social effects that result

Becker 6

from flying UAVs; instead of concealing internal workings of the technology, this black box

conceals the technology’s complex social interactions with the outside world. It is worth

investigating this system further through STS theory to promote the sharing of ideas and benefits

that this technology has to offer and to encourage responsible integration into civil airspace.

How Drones are Invading Privacy

“Is there the potential for UAVs to infringe upon your right to privacy?” Michael Huerta,

FAA administrator, believes this question needs to be addressed (FAA Head, 2014). Although

the most obvious invasion of privacy is through direct surveillance, UAVs also have the potential

to invade the privacy of individuals on both personal and behavioral levels. The relationship

between drone capabilities and privacy rights has raised ethical concerns as well. Taking a

second look at the incident that occurred in Fairfax County will reveal that the situation could

have been avoided altogether or at least mitigated if the stakeholders were more aware of UAV

technology.

Direct Surveillance: Direct UAV surveillance is made possible through recent

technological improvements: high quality imagery and video, optical character recognition,

location and tracking, and intercepting electronic communication (Clarke, 2014). In recent years,

law enforcement is beginning to utilize these capabilities in civil airspace for border surveillance,

large crowd monitoring, and policing in small areas (Finn, 2012). While these methods could

certainly improve security, citizens who do not fully understand the technology have raised

privacy concerns regarding surveillance. The public also has access to these UAV technologies

and can, without clear regulation, easily invade the privacy of others without consent. As these

drone capabilities become more available to the public, data privacy is becoming a concern.

Becker 7

Drones have the capability to collect large volumes of personal data, which can then be stored

indefinitely or exploited for malicious purposes (Clarke, 2014). Other consequences of UAV

surveillance go beyond just the physical and involve psychological and social effects on citizens.

Already, many equate UAV surveillance methods with “Big Brother” (Finn, 2012). These

behavioral consequences are discussed further in the next section.

Behavioral Privacy: One of the unintended consequences of the introduction of UAV

technology in civil airspace is the infiltration of behavioral privacy. Behavioral privacy

encompasses an individual’s activities, movements, associations, and preferences. By infringing

on each of these aspects of life, UAVs have lowered the quality of life for normal citizens by

instilling a sense of anxiety. Citizens, especially victims of drone incidents, are often subjected to

a “panoptic effect”. They feel anxious or fearful of the possibility that they could be under

surveillance at any moment (Clarke, 2014). This sense of uneasiness can stifle freedoms of

expression and innovation; citizens don’t feel the confidence or freedom to live out their unique

lifestyles. UAVs have the potential to downgrade a person’s way of life by invading the privacy

of the individual. However, if the limits of UAV surveillance can be revealed, the public will feel

safer and less restricted in living out their lives.

Ethical Concerns: Recently ethical issues have been brought forth concerning the flying

of drone aircraft in civil airspace. Primary importance lies in the interaction between the user

piloting the drone and the technical use of the drone invading another’s privacy. There seem to

be two important situations to consider when a privacy violation occurs: when a user

intentionally invades another person’s privacy (i.e. stalking, photographing, video recording) and

when a user unintentionally invades another’s privacy (i.e. accidental neighborhood

photography, loss of aircraft control) (Wilson, 2014). It could be argued that pilots should only

Becker 8

fly drones if they have a sufficient knowledge and understanding about their operation and

technological capabilities. UAVs are that much more dangerous because, due to the nature of the

technology, it is easy for users to fly them and as a result invade another’s privacy without

having the intention of doing so. This explains the situation when the drone crashed into the

family’s home in Fairfax County. Unintentional privacy violations could be prevented by

revealing to these users the risks involved in operating UAVs, which may promote responsible

flying. Not only should UAV laws discourage their misuse, but they should better protect the

privacy rights of unintended victims.

Relation to Fairfax County Incident: The UAV incident in Fairfax County introduced

in the opening paragraph contains elements of each of the three privacy considerations discussed:

direct surveillance, behavioral privacy, and flying ethics. The aircraft that flew into the house

and startled the family was equipped with a camera; assuming the camera was recording video or

taking photographs, the incident placed the family’s private property under direct surveillance.

As a result of the incident the family now feels a sense of anxiety about the possibility of UAVs

monitoring their home. The father of the family referred to the incident as “spooky” (Portnoy,

2015). It’s possible his seven-year-old daughter now feels uneasy going outside to play knowing

that drones could be flying around her house. Finally, it is probable that the pilot of the aircraft

did not intend to spy on the neighbors or crash his drone at all. From an ethical standpoint, the

pilot’s inadequate knowledge in operating the vehicle resulted in a violation of privacy rights. It

is obvious that none of the stakeholders involved had a complete understanding of the impact of

UAV technology. The incident could have been avoided if the pilot understood the risks

involved in flying drones and if the policymakers understood how UAVs are infringing on

privacy rights and passed laws regulating UAV and camera usage. Based on this evaluation, it is

Becker 9

obvious that FAA administrator Michael Huerta’s suspicion was correct; UAVs have the

potential to infringe on the public’s right to privacy. An in-depth breakdown on the stakeholders

involved in this incident is discussed further later in this paper.

Current Laws and Regulation Efforts

“Does [UAV] technology in any way change current laws designed to protect property

and privacy?” Michael Huerta, FAA administrator, believes this question needs to be addressed

(FAA Head, 2014). As UAV technology is on the rise, the FAA is gradually integrating

appropriate laws regulating civilian drone operation. This section explores two of the FAA’s

main approaches: the “Know before you fly” campaign and the newly required UAS registration

laws. Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment and previous Supreme Court cases also provide

an indication of what will be constitutionally allowable when it comes to UAV surveillance.

Current FAA Regulations: The FAA has partnered with other organizations to promote

a campaign called “Know Before you Fly” in an effort to educate the public about safely and

responsibly flying unmanned aircraft. Some of the basic rules they encourage include: flying

below 400 feet while remaining clear of obstacles, keeping the aircraft within visual line of sight,

and avoiding flying near people or stadiums (FAA, 2015, “Model…”). These are great practices

for the public to follow in flying responsibly and avoiding privacy violations, but the FAA

currently has no form of policy to enforce these guidelines. For example, the event in Fairfax

County described in the introduction highlights the importance of having enforced laws. Because

no laws existed in Virginia to regulate private drones, there were no charges filed on the case

even though a privacy violation occurred. The first step in enforcing UAV laws is for the public

to report incidents and developments in UAV technology to the policymakers. This collaboration

Becker 10

allows all stakeholders to see the UAV sociotechnical system from the same, overarching

perspective. The “Know Before you Fly” campaign is only a temporary solution; the FAA is

gradually working towards forming effective drone policy to keep up with the rapid development

of the technology. As of December 21st, 2015, the FAA now mandates that civilian drone users

register their aircraft online if the aircraft weighs between 0.55 and 55 lbs. To be considered

flightworthy, aircraft must clearly show a posted registration number, and pilots must carry their

registration card when flying. Registration costs five dollars and is valid for three years. Aircraft

and user information (email and home address) are then stored in a national database (FAA,

2015, “Unmanned…”). This is a step towards managing drone use in civilian airspace and will

provide the FAA with accurate data as to how often and what types of aircraft are being used,

which will help form future policy. Violating registration rules could result in three years of

imprisonment or $27,000 in fines (FAA, 2015, “Unmanned…”). Registration will create a

culture of accountability and further encourage smarter flying; however, it will not be able to

control all illegal drone activity or protect the privacy rights of citizens. While most pilots will

register their aircraft, some won’t and will continue to engage in illegal activities without fear of

repercussions. Any UAV, with or without a registration number, can engage in spying or aerial

photography without the pilot being discovered as long as the aircraft doesn’t crash. The FAA’s

registration policy is a step in the right direction and will likely lead to future, more stringent

regulations that will hopefully address privacy concerns.

Defining Privacy with the Fourth Amendment: The primary law that defines privacy

rights is the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. However,

there are different ways of interpreting the amendment in cases involving drones. Some

understand it as stating that privacy is violated unless there is a warrant and probable cause,

Becker 11

while others believe that privacy is not directly protected by the amendment (Carr, 2013).

Because no modern policy addresses UAVs directly, drone incidents are left to interpretation. To

add to the confusion, the operation of UAVs by private citizens often is protected by the First

Amendment, the freedom to gather information, which in some cases can cause a contradiction

(Villasenor, 2014). The fact is that drone use and misuse may or may not fall under Fourth

Amendment rights. Despite this, the amendment has been utilized repeatedly in cases involving

UAVs. The technology has developed at a faster rate than our legal system can keep up with.

After analyzing how the Fourth Amendment has been used, Koerner believes the reasonable-

expectation-of-privacy test from Katz vs. United States can provide a more effective way to

analyze the effect of drones on privacy (Koerner, 2015). This test provides protection for citizens

in private areas (e.g. private residence, hotel room) as well as public ones (e.g. public restroom,

phone booth) that are recognized as private by society.

Defining Privacy with Supreme Court Cases: Some of the confusion behind drones has

been clarified by Supreme Court rulings that define flying limitations. These cases help provide

an indication of what will be constitutionally allowable in the future. In California vs. Ciraolo

and Florida vs. Riley, it was established that an individual’s private property is not protected by

the Fourth Amendment as long as an aircraft is operating in navigable airspace and within flight

safety guidelines (Carr, 2013). One privacy concern with unmanned aircraft is the fact that

anyone can easily and inexpensively acquire overhead imagery of spaces that people consider

private (e.g. front yard, driveway, and porch). However, these cases imply that a civilian cannot

control the airspace above their private home, given that it is navigable airspace. Kyllo vs. United

States established that the use of extra-sensory equipment, like thermal imaging devices, on a

drone constitute an invasion of privacy unless the equipment was open to the general public

Becker 12

(Carr, 2013). This adds more complexity to the situation because, as technology progresses, an

increasing variety of sensors and payloads are becoming available to the public for decreasing

costs. Other important questions have yet to be answered due to the lack of clear policy, such as

whether UAVs will be mandated to fly with visual flight rules, or whether they have permission

to fly solely on GPS and electronic navigation. Debates continue over to what degree UAVs

should be regulated in civil airspace. The government and law enforcement intends to use this

technology for surveillance programs in order to prevent terrorist and cyberattacks. Recreational

users fly drones purely for the fun of it. As controversial debates continue between privacy

advocates and proponents for surveillance programs, it has proven difficult to define the balance

between safeguarding national security and maintaining civil liberties (Koerner, 2015). Despite

the difficulty of the task, finding the balance is the key to safely integrating UAV technology

into domestic airspace. Following the incident in Fairfax County, some argued that if every law

limiting UAV flight is passed then it will “stifle the growth and utilization of unmanned vehicles

in Virginia” (Portnoy, 2015). Effective drone policy should protect privacy rights without

limiting the benefits of UAVs, and prohibit malicious use without limiting the freedom to fly

UAVs. Drone policy should follow Allenby’s advice in his sustainable engineering principles;

integrated policies should address the system as a whole instead of addressing certain aspects of

a system (Allenby, 2012). Drones are not an isolated technology - they fit into a complex

sociotechnical system with lots of other emerging technologies which alter the way society lives

and acts. Technological growth of UAVs should continue so that new societal benefits may be

realized in the future. Therefore, no one entity should decide how to go about regulating UAVs

because there are so many groups interacting with the technology from the government,

commercial, and private sectors.

Becker 13

Application of STS Theory

In analyzing the privacy issues and current policies concerning UAV use in domestic

airspace, it has become obvious that the problem of integrating UAV technology is a complex

one. As already discussed, it appears none of the stakeholders involved have a complete

understanding of the impact of UAV technology. However, STS theory may prove useful in

explaining this complex system and its various stakeholder interactions. Black box theory,

developed by Bruno Latour, can be used to explain the complex sociotechnical system of UAVs

in society with respect to each stakeholder involved: users, policymakers, and victims of privacy

infractions. Many users who lack aviation and technical backgrounds, like photographers and

filmmakers, have an underlying purpose for using UAVs, like photography and video recording

(McGlynn, 2013). To these users, there exists a black box around the technical aspects and social

effects in flying UAVs (Figure 1).

Becker 14

For example, a photographer could be photographing a neighborhood scene without realizing

that he/she has invaded another person’s privacy by capturing detailed photographs of a

backyard or house. Policymakers, like the FAA, tend to focus too much attention on the

regulation of UAVs in terms of safety. While safety is a serious concern, the FAA does not

realize the black box that surrounds the many privacy violations, intentional and unintentional,

that occur with the operation of UAVs (Figure 2).

Most victims of UAV incidents (and those that rely on the media for an understanding of UAV

technology) have a negative outlook on drones as a result of traumatic experiences. A black box

conceals the benefits to society that UAV technology has to offer, such as police surveillance,

emergency response, environmental sampling and infrastructural maintenance (Figure 3).

Becker 15

By viewing this system of stakeholders using the black box method, it becomes clear how each

stakeholder interacts with the technology and what specific aspects they are exposed to and

hidden from. In this case, “opening” these black boxes will open the eyes of the stakeholders to

understanding the true nature of drone technology from a broader perspective. Responsible

flying can be promoted to the users by revealing to them the risks involved in operating UAVs. If

the limits of UAV surveillance can be revealed to the victims, they will feel safer and less

restricted in living out their lives. With a better understanding of the nature of this technology

and its capabilities, society is one step closer to smarter piloting, effective regulation, and a

reduction in drone incidents. At the least, more in-depth discussion on the integration of UAV

technology will result from opening these black boxes.

Becker 16

Stakeholders in the Fairfax County Incident: Referring back to the UAV that crashed

into the family’s house, the three primary stakeholders discussed above can be easily identified

(Figure 4).

In this case the user was the inexperienced pilot who did not understand enough about the

technology to fly a drone safely. He/she was probably occupied on how fun the flying experience

was and failed to recognize that everyone has a right to privacy. Despite the lack of policy

regulating drones at the time, the FAA would have been identified as the policymaker. The only

regulation in place at the time was the “Know Before you Fly” campaign, which purpose was to

encourage smart flying without any method of enforcement. These guidelines focused on safety

more so than privacy; currently there are no laws that fully address the issue of privacy.

Although this incident was publicly reported to the FAA, there is no doubt that other privacy

violations (intentional and unintentional) occur on a frequent basis and are never reported. This

stresses the importance of the public’s duty to report incidents and developments in UAV

Becker 17

technology to the policymakers. Finally, the victim involved in the incident was the family. As a

result of the traumatic experience, the family believed that drones “should be carefully

regulated” (Portnoy, 2015). Their negative outlook on drones may cloud their vision of the

possible social benefits UAVs can offer.

Ideas for Moving Forward

Community Effort: In order to develop effective UAV policy and to uphold privacy

rights, a community-wide effort is required. The media coined the term “drone” which gives a

strong, negative connotation to UAVs; they should be involved in “demilitarizing” UAV

technology by highlighting the benefits of the UAVs rather than exaggerating their capability for

destruction and violence. Hobbyists are also an important asset to involve on the topic of UAV

policy as they provide an understanding of the technology and how it’s being used by the public.

There exist communities with websites, forums, and meetings where enthusiasts can share ideas

and provide support, creating an “open source” environment. Many of these groups have goals of

education, creativity, and activism (Boucher, 2014). Leah Rowe of the Airforce Research

Laboratory believes that through public education on responsible UAV use and through the

coordination of experts in policy and Human System Integration (HIS), the approval for the

operation of UAVs in any airspace will be attainable. She asserts that policy and legislation

should be understood by both the lawmakers and the public (Cooke, 2014). FAA administrator

Michael Huerta also believes in the importance of public education. He thinks that the ability to

enforce regulations depends on “the public having a good understanding of what the rules are

and every citizen playing a role in working with their government.” He also admitted that the

FAA relies on the public and industry in making them aware of any developments regarding

UAV use (FAA Head, 2014). Huerta is discussing opening up black boxes to provide all

Becker 18

stakeholders, the public and the government, with the same information regarding UAVs. This

goes back to finding the healthy “balance” in regulation. Future goals should be to maintain

privacy rights, ensure national security, and yet allow for the continued growth and development

of the UAVs.

Framework for Integration: In order to ensure the safe integration of UAV technology

into society, Boucher outlines some useful steps to consider: to clearly communicate the purpose

and nature of the technology, to understand public and stakeholder views, to spread knowledge

about UAVs in order to promote responsibility, and to avoid pushing technological growth at an

early stage which can lead to irresponsible use (Boucher, 2014). Much of what Boucher

advocates corresponds with Allenby’s sustainable engineering principles for managing complex

human-technological systems. Allenby stresses the importance of incremental changes to an

engineering system to reduce the risk of social damage, and he believes in the significance of

identifying a desired trajectory of a system and guiding that trajectory. Although some of these

practices may be too late to enact, such as introducing the technology at a gradual pace, other

practices provide an effective framework for taking the next steps to integrate UAVs into society

and safeguard privacy rights. Understanding stakeholder views and their interactions will help

form effective policy. Clearly communicating the purpose and nature of the technology will

make clear to pilots and victims the capabilities, limits, and risks involved in flying drones.

According to Allenby, the technical and social aspects of a system are tightly coupled, and so

users, policymakers, and victims should have an understanding of both aspects. Allenby also

discusses the fact that there is always an element of chaos in a complex sociotechnical system

which will result in unintended consequences (Allenby, 2012). This is an important attitude to

keep in mind while “opening black boxes” among the system of UAV stakeholders. With an

Becker 19

increase in stakeholder interactions and the sharing of information, there are sure to be

unintended consequences.

Both Boucher’s and Allenby’s research relate back to the importance of all stakeholders

having a complete understanding of the impact of UAV technology. Users should be aware of

the risks involved in flying UAVs, policymakers should be aware of the frequent intentional and

unintentional privacy violations, and victims should understand the benefits UAV technology has

to offer to society. This paper focuses on these three major stakeholders, but it is possible there

are a number of other stakeholders involved due to the system’s sociotechnical complexity.

Anyone who impacts or is impacted by UAV technology can be considered a stakeholder of the

system. If all stakeholders have a common understanding of the technology and its effects, then

negotiations regarding drone development and new privacy policies will come about easier.

Suggestions for Further Research

As has been shown throughout this paper, the integration of drone technology into society

is a complex problem involving many factors and stakeholders. It is a sociotechnical system with

various input, outputs, and unintended consequences, some of which can be controlled and some

of which cannot be controlled. One factor that is difficult to regulate and that heavily determines

the proliferation of incidents is the availability of the technology to the public. UAV technology

has become very accessible and prices have plummeted; a drone and camera setup only costs

about $500 (Wingfield, 2014). Nowadays anyone can buy and operate a drone: photographers,

filmmakers, geologists, Amazon executives, and hobbyists. The current accessibility of this

technology is daunting because no regulation on privacy exists, and it is very easy for users to

(intentionally or unintentionally) misuse the technology. As a result, some kids and pranksters

Becker 20

have used UAVs to conduct criminal activities like smuggling contraband and disrupting

sporting events. The rapid development and diminishing costs of drone technology and its

relationship to privacy rights warrants further research.

Additionally, the newly created drone registration process is worthy of research. This

process should be monitored for its effectiveness at ensuring public safety and privacy. The

current weight range for registration is 0.55 – 55 lbs., but this range does not distinguish between

a harmless kid’s toy and a commercial-size aircraft that may be a serious hazard. It will be

interesting to see whether the FAA eventually decides to impose lesser restrictions on children’s

drones and more stringent constraints on larger UAVs. In the future, more effective privacy law

is required that goes beyond what simple registrations and campaigns can achieve. These

regulations must encompass all stakeholders involved in the operation of UAVs; they must

clearly define what constitutes a privacy violation to eliminate the ambiguity associated with

differing interpretations of the Fourth Amendment and Supreme Court rulings.

Despite tackling sociotechnical challenges we do not completely understand, there is

hope for a future where UAVs can be an asset, not a liability, to American cities. Muhammed

discusses the potential for UAV use in smart cities for geospatial surveying, civil security

control, traffic and crowd management, natural disaster monitoring, agriculture and

environmental management, and big data processing (Muhammed, 2014). Despite the media’s

depiction of “drones” as militaristic and destructive, UAVs have the potential to enhance the

human lifestyle, not aggravate it. As Boucher recommends, the first challenge to accomplishing

this will be to spread knowledge about the benefits UAVs can offer society and to better educate

the public on the positive nature of the technology. Other challenges faced by UAV proponents

Becker 21

include: ethics and privacy, cost, legislation and licensing, business adoption, and technical

development (Muhammed, 2014).

UAV technical development is progressing at a faster rate every year and lower costs are

making the technology more affordable. The FAA’s new requirement to register private drones is

a step closer towards effective legislation and controlled public usage. Privacy and ethical

concerns then become an important obstacle to overcome before drones can be considered safe

or commonplace. Technology, like that of unmanned aerial vehicles, involves multiple

stakeholders interacting in a multitude of ways. Further research is required in order to achieve a

better, multi-stakeholder understanding of the UAV sociotechnical system. With a community-

wide effort and an improvement in policy that fully protects the privacy rights of citizens, the

future benefits of UAVs can be realized and put into action.

Becker 22

Bibliography

Allenby, B. R. (2012). The Theory and Practice of Sustainable Engineering. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Prentice Hall.

Boucher, P. (2014). Domesticating the Drone: The Demilitarization of Unmanned Aircraft for

Civil Markets. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1–20. Retrieved from

http://www.springer.com

Carr, E. B. (2013). Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Examining the Safety, Security, Privacy, and

Regulatory Issues of Integration into U.S. Airspace. Retrieved from https://www.ncpa.org

Clarke, R. (2014). The regulation of civilian drones’ impacts on behavioral privacy. Computer

Law & Security Review, 30(3), 286–305. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/

Cooke, N. J., & Bennett, Jr., W. (2014). Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems: A Human Systems

Integration Perspective and Challenges. Proceedings of the Human Factors and

Ergonomics Society 58th Annual Meeting, 102–104. Retrieved from

http://online.sagepub.com/

FAA Head: Safety, Privacy Concerns Abound In Regulating Drones (2014). All Things

Considered, Literature Resource Center. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2015). Model Aircraft Operations. Retrieved from

https://www.faa.gov/

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2015). Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)

Registration. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/

Finn, R. L., & Wright, D. (2012). Unmanned aircraft systems: Surveillance, ethics and privacy in

civil applications. Computer Law & Security Review, 28(2), 184–194. Retrieved from

http://www.sciencedirect.com/

Becker 23

Kang, C. (2015, December 14). Drone Registration Rules Are Announced by F.A.A. The New

York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com

Koerner, M. R. (2015). Drones and the Fourth Amendment: Redefining Expectations of Privacy.

Duke Law Journal, 64(6), 1129–1172. Retrieved from

https://www.ebscohost.com/academic/academic-search-complete

Latour, B. (1987). Opening Pandora’s Balck Box. In Science in Action: How to follow scientists

and engineers through society (pp. 1–19). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University

Press.

McGlynn, D. (2013). Domestic Drones: Are unmanned aircraft safe? CQ Researcher, 23(37).

Retrieved from http://www.cqresearcher.com

Mohammed, F., Idries, A., Mohammed, N., Al-Jaroodi, J., & Jawhar, I. (2014). UAVs for Smart

Cities: Opportunities and Challenges. 2014 International Conference on Unmanned

Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), 267–273. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org

Portnoy, J. (2015, July 15). Virginia seeks to protect privacy while cashing in on emerging

drone technology. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://ic.galegroup.com

Villasenor, J. (2014). “Drones” and the Future of Domestic Aviation. Proceedings of the IEEE,

102(3), 235–238. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org

Wilson, R. L. (2014). Ethical Issues with the use of Drone aircraft. 2014 IEEE International

Symposium on Ethics in Science, Technology, and Engineering, 1–4. Retrieved from

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org

Wingfield, N. (2014, November 21). Now, Anyone Can Buy a Drone. Heaven Help Us. The New

York Times. Retrieved from http://ic.galegroup.com