Drone Industry Says Markey, Welch Privacy Bill Unnecessarily Targets Specific Technology
Drone industry officials said privacy legislation introduced last week by Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., unnecessarily singles out unmanned aircraft systems, especially since an NTIA multistakeholder process developed best practices for privacy (see 1605180044 and 1605190007). "We don't create a separate and distinct privacy requirement silo for operators," said Kara Calvert, who heads the Drone Manufacturers Alliance, in an interview. She said it's not about the type of technology but about the data, operator and behavior. Targeting drones is an "unnecessary requirement," she said, adding her group had the same concern with NTIA's development of privacy best practices last year (see 1605200048). She said DMA is a strong proponent of education that will address concerns and about complying with Federal Aviation Administration rules.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
The bicameral Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act (HR-1526) would bar the FAA from issuing drone licenses unless operators provide a statement explaining who will fly the drone and where, what data will be collected and used, and for how long, and whether information will be sold to third parties (see 1703150012). The agency would have to create a public website that lists all approved licenses and data minimization statements, data security breaches, and times and locations of drone flights. The legislation would impose requirements on law enforcement agencies to provide a data minimization statement and get a warrant for any surveillance use. "Our statutes must be updated to reflect the emergence of this soon-to-be ubiquitous technology to ensure privacy and transparency in their operation and use," said Welch in a news release last week.
Akin Gump's Michael Drobac, who represents the Small UAV Coalition, emailed that the legislation "not only singularly targets responsible commercial operators but it ignores the dedicated work by industry" with the Department of Transportation, FAA, NTIA and others. He called the legislation "flawed" because it exempts recreational users of drones, resulting in a lack of parity. Markey and Welch didn't comment Monday.
Drobac said commercial operators have been active in working with agencies about cybersecurity, privacy and safety issues and have a stake in acting responsibly. He said the bill is unclear on jurisdiction and he didn't think it would pass standing alone.
Privacy questions have always been raised when new technologies arise, said Calvert: Technologies may be used in "new and interesting ways but they don't necessarily create a new and interesting privacy concern." States and localities have laws that cover nuisances or other types of behavior, and anti-surveillance laws as well as other mechanisms such as the FTC and state regulators to oversee commercial data collection and use. These laws should be harmonized in some cases, said Calvert. On the recently introduced privacy bill, she said she thinks the issues will play out in the FAA reauthorization package. She said her group is working with all stakeholders to ensure it's "balanced and tech neutral."
The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International said in a statement last week it understands the lawmakers' concerns but said the NTIA best practices are in place "to ensure the responsible and ethical use" of drones. AUVSI representatives didn't comment Monday. "Guidelines build on an existing and robust legal framework that apply to [unmanned aircraft systems] and other technologies," said AUVSI. "By continuing to work together, government and industry can ensure that civil liberties are protected, while taking full advantage of the economic and societal benefits that UAS offer.”