“21st century Toys”

Drones: The 21st Century Toys

Drones are fantastic, aren’t they? For good cause, these high-tech gadgets are dubbed “21st Century Toys.” They are sometimes considered solely as toys, with little regard for the burden of running them.

The New Frontier: Shooting for the Stars

One of the last frontiers that humans have yet to conquer is space. We have a complex mobility infrastructure, and each of us has keys to it: an 8-month-old child has a walker; a 2-year-old boy has a bike; a high school student has a car, and a college student has a skateboard. We are used to seeing little boys playing with toy cars. However, have you seen drones used as toys in movies? No. Drones are the newest and coolest toys in the world. Drones are a popular topic of conversation these days. Last year, the third annual International Drone Expo (IDE) took place here, in Los Angeles. IDE not only presents cutting-edge news for the drone industry, but also provides opportunities for drone-lovers to see the most exciting drone-related products in the world. Now that we have more ready access to the air space via drone technology, we can take our “eyes,” where they have never been before by using the onboard cameras some drones are equipped with. People are now able to take photoshoots of the night sky over a whole city and capture the whales and the sunset views without even leaving the ground. Even though drones are gaining in popularity, for hobbyists and business concerns, the use of drones needs to be regulated, because the misuse of drones leads to invasions of individual or group privacy, and drone flight can interfere with public safety in operation of commercial aircraft and police and fire emergency situations.

The Case of William Merideth

In July 2015, a Kentucky man, William Merideth, was arrested, because he shot down a $2,500 drone in his backyard. He claimed that the drone was loitering over his teenage daughter who was sunbathing in the privacy of their backyard. ”I would never have shot it if it was flying,” Merideth said, ”when he came down with a video camera right over my back deck, that’s not going to work. I know they’re neat little vehicles, but one of those uses shouldn’t be flying into people’s yards and videotaping” (Carter). Merideth was right. Drones with cameras attached are being misused as surveillance tools. According to Stephen Carter, ”Some argue that low-flying drones are trespasser. A telephone wire that strung across my property without my consent violates my property rights. Why not an aircraft?” So, is Merideth innocent? In my opinion, yes, he is innocent. His actions were a simple defense of his property from a trespassing party. Indeed, Merideth’s first-degree endangerment and criminal mischief charges were dropped, which indicates that either the owner of the drone saw no point in pursuing the case or the prosecutor saw no legal merit to the case. This case shows that laws and regulations need to be updated to reflect the introduction of new technology. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) established laws soon after this case, regulating drone flight near people or stadiums, and additionally, that recreational drone operators be required to register their aircraft.

State Laws and Privacy Concerns

Since 2013, 31 states have passed laws, regulating the use of drones. According to the article How Drones Raised Privacy Concerns across Cyberspace, ”12 laws related to privacy protections from other residents, 21 laws imposing restrictions on law enforcement, and 13 laws imposing criminal penalties on criminal misuse, such as stalking” have been enacted by states (Fifield). Apparently, privacy issues related to drones are not only restricted to civil relationships, but also public matters. To explain this point, Fifield lists some of the newer restrictions that have been placed on drone use: (1) ”A new law in Kansas makes it illegal to stalk with a drone”; (2) ”In Arizona, Louisiana, and Utah, drone operators are now restricted from flying drones near police or firefighter activity”; (3) ”In Oklahoma and Tennessee, operators can’t fly drones near some buildings, such as power plants”. These last laws prohibit drone flyover of police or firefighter activity to prevent disturbance of ongoing investigations or to prevent drones from getting in the way of the ongoing activity.

The Intersection of Public Safety and Privacy

This opinion from Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) website speaks volumes for me as to why drones are such a hot topic: ”Drone surveillance also implicates public safety issues as the drones operate in airspace that may also be used by commercial and private aircraft. For this reason, federal agencies should regulate and control the proliferation of drone surveillance” (EPIC). Even though the government exercises the right to conduct drone surveillance, it is also done with coordination from the FAA. As civilians, we must think of the traffic in the airspace as well. Drones are small, but they can be a lethal weapon if they distract or startle the pilots of commercial or private aircraft.

The Need for Common-Law Regulation

Where the new laws on drones will have the most effect on the public is in the areas of privacy and First Amendment rights. In these instances, a common-law approach to regulation of drones may be favorable. Relying on the common-law torts of intrusion upon seclusion and trespass will be useful in controlling technology which seems to change daily. As Cash explains, ”The common-law tort is already in place as a regulatory tool and has the advantage of experience in application with regard to emerging technologies” (724). Using tort law, legislators will be able to craft more precise legislation regarding the regulation of drone use by hobbyists and other private parties.

Protecting Privacy: The Role of Common Law

The right to be protected from intrusion upon seclusion covers protection from the snooping and eavesdropping of others, which is a perfect fit to protecting the privacy rights of citizens, while the laws catch up to the new technology. It is in the second Restatement of Torts (issued by the American Law Institute), where the explanation of where common-law can be useful in regulating drones from a privacy perspective comes from. It is in this publication, where it states that intentional intrusion on privacy, by physical or other means, on the privacy or solitude of someone or their personal activities or matters, is liable to the other person for the invasion of their privacy, if the invasion of privacy would be considered overly provocative to someone of reasonable senses.

Defining Aerial Trespass

The second tort that would be useful in regulating drone operation is in the Aerial Trespass section. In this case, trespass covers areas controlled by the landowner, and ”The space above and below a property was considered to belong to the owner. This is known as the ad coelom doctrine, short for the Latin phrase ‘cuius est solum, ejus usque ad coelum et ad infernos’ meaning ‘to him to whom the soil belongs, belongs also to heaven and to the depths’” (Cash 725).

Setting Limits and Ensuring Safety

This would be very useful information. Hence, one can define the limits of what drone operators can and cannot do. It also should be done with respect to how they operate and control their vehicles in proximity to private property. These two concepts seem to be the best options available for law makers and others concerned with drone operation by private citizens to consider.

Conclusion: Ethical Drone Use for a Better Future

In conclusion, commercially available drones are sometimes designed to be toys, or a hobby, but they are often also used as surveillance tools. If we keep misusing them for surveillance, the only victim here will be us. Therefore, drone operators should be ethical and follow all safety and legal restrictions while flying their drones. After all, technology is supposed to make our lives better, not hold us back.

Works Cited

Carter, Stephen. ”A Battlefield of Drones and Privacy in Your Backyard.” Chicago Tribune website. 02 Aug. 2015. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-drones-privacy-laws-20150803-story.html. Accessed 10 Apr. 2017.

Cash, Jordan M. ”Droning On and On: A Tort Approach to Regulating Hobbyist Drones.” University of Memphis Law Review, vol. 46, no. 3, Spring2016, pp. 695-732.

Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). ”Domestic Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Drones.” Electronic Privacy Information Center website https://epic.org/privacy/drones/. Accessed 10 Apr. 2017.

Fifield, Jen. ”How Drones Raised Privacy Concerns across Cyberspace.” Public Broadcasting Service website, 01 July 2016. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/how-drones-raised-privacy-concerns-across-cyberspace/. Accessed 10 Apr. 2017