With police this week warning a House of Lords committee that off-the-shelf “drones” are being used to harass people, there are growing calls for tighter regulations to prevent criminal use of the technology. Are these concerns justified? With which of the following statements do you most strongly agree
The largest group of the 452 respondents to last week’s poll thought that drones should be treated with caution, and a clear majority were concerned abou uses of the technology as consumer models become more advanced. While 44 per cent thought that regulations should anticipate the rapd pace of development of the technology, 18 per cent thought that privacy was a valid concern and15 per cent thought they could be used to mount terrorist attacks. Of the less cautious respondents, 16 per cent thought that consumer drones could inspire budding aerospace engineers, and just 4 per cent thought they would be a short-lived fad.
The regulations to police the operation of drones is largely covered by Air Navigation Orders. The relevant paragraphs are largely the same ones which model aircraft fliers have had to obey for years. If the hobby drones are carrying cameras which allow clear close-up images from over 500ft away then the infringement of privacy laws may need to revised to take account of this.
The drones are here now and there will be so many doing useful work in the near future that would be foolish to think that banning any of them would be workable.
There is already a body organising, governing and informing about this type of flying activity. In the UK it’s the BMFA.
http://www.bmfa.org/Multi-Rotors/tabid/1425/Default.aspx
I agree with the comment above. The ANO covers use of model aircraft and how near they may be operated to people, structures etc. It equally covers drones. Further regulation would hardly deter terrorists in any case. I think it would be very short sighted to try to restrict their use too excessively.
You can’t legislate for terrorists. They’ll acquire and use whatever technology that’s available to them and a quadcopter drone would be easily smuggled into the country if necessary.
So the way I see it is that any legisation would be directed towards the general populace and would no doubt be driven by “privacy” concerns. Well if that’s the case they can also include all of the CCTV cameras that abound in the country!!
It’ll be tricky legislation to frame and I can see it constraining legitimate practical and leisure uses for drones.
Better not to rush things and to leave it for a while to get some experience of how this is going to pan out ……
Lovely sentiments above about the rules and regulations…
Lets be honest though – a lot of people will be getting these for xmas presents – are they seriously going to be checking for government regulations before rushing outside? No they aren’t… They really are inspiring pieces of kit – but have been rushed into the consumer market without any consideration for their potential uses…
“It’ll be tricky legislation to frame…”
Not only tricky, impossible! Here again, we have a situation where the technology [hurrah!] has outstripped the ability of our ‘betters’ to frame their continued wish to control… into words that mean the same to two of them, let alone any technologist who might have to abide by such.
Fellow Bloggers will know my views on patents: and frankly what is the difference between such and trying to create a Law which deals with this concern
unless and until the guarding of intellectual property (a contradiction in terms if ever there was one) rights? is placed into the hands/minds of Engineers and technologists, who actually understand the equations and ‘laws’ that define such…
Many years ago, I was asked to give an ‘opinion’ about a patent for a fabric ‘spreading’ device [a rotating cylinder comprised of a series of discs -with relevant surfaces (rubber, etc) that touched the fabric and which could be ‘bent’ to various curves to maintain the fabric prior to entry into printing ranges. Amazingly, the complainant was claiming that their design of a disc-harrow for breaking-up soil….was prior art! My opinion (accepted by the judge) was that this was so-much B******t.
What lessons were learned? that lawyers will do whatever….to increase their rewards.
No matter where terrorists originate from they will not be looking at what the legislation dictates, they will use whatever the technology best suits their aims.
I am a drone owner in the US. We are seeing instances of drone misuse here on a daily basis. We also see misuse of drugs, automobiles, and many other useful things. Drones have a stigma attached due to the very effective way some of the more sophisticated models have turned many bad people in to tiny burning embers for all to watch on youtube. I am a farmer and outdoorsman and I fly only over my own property. The uses for a landowner are unlimited. I can look for lost livestock, check on remote fields, etc. from my front yard. I surely hope the quest for restrictions to satisfy those who fear drones does not limit my activity here at home.
Most Model Quad flyers are responsible people, you can’t have the odd loony spoil the hobby.
As for Terrorists? Rules are of no interest to them, they’ll will do as they please, with little chance of stopping them.
So I do hope the House of Lords doesn’t conclude that anyone flying a quad with a camera, must be a terrorist, or something equally evil? which would be an over-kill knee-jerk reaction.
This is in a country that has the Highest number of CCTV camera’s, per head of the population, any where in the world.
The drones represent a tiny number by comparison.
Firstly, the word ‘Drone’ really blows my bagpipes, I hate it and it does not accurately describe the aircraft that have been causing a fuss recently.
I fly quadcopters as a hobby. My quadcopters have cameras fitted to capture some of the most amazing views of the natural and man made beauty of this country. I would hate to have to give this up just because some irresponsible people have taken to using them. Oh, and if I wanted to spy on someone, I certainly wouldnt use a noisy quadcopter to do it…..
Try googling CNN+ drone. There have been several near misses in the US with private drones flying too near commercial planes at airports.A `£1k drone is a flying brick -flown into a commercial aircraft engine it may cause catastrophic damage – terrorism on the cheap!
I have a quadcopter with a camera its fantastic i use it for pleasure and work although i am not aloud to charge for the work element, i would welcome some additional clarity guidelines laws call them what you like as what we have now is rubbish, just try to find out if you can take a photo of a persons house and charge £50 as they want it for a present you can’t unless your a lawyer, the CAA is rubbish try to call them about your quadcopter!!!! interesting i tried !!!! there is no governing body to guide you, good laws are required to what can be done and what cannot it will take a accident to wake the relevant bodies up taking notice
I’ll have to go on the euroUSC UAV flying course when I start deploying kites for commercial utility or above 200m.
It’s the CAA standard for air safety… using NOTAMS etc
How relevant it’ll be to kites, who knows. I will have to follow drone rules even though I have many more layers of redundant safety.
I 100% agree with: Though current technologies are limited, capabilities are advancing fast and regulations should anticipate this.
Allow them the weapons to take them down. Oh and the Lawyers always win.
Policing the use of remotely controlled flying devices is and will remain largely impossible. Once again the law of unintended consequences rules supreme.
Yet another annoying invention along with leaf blowers and strimmers. Designed to irritate all those who don’t play with them.
How long will it be before internet is flooded with even more trivial videos of people enjoying the sun in the nude.
Rag hacks won’t have to bother with long lenses any more.
Everything of any value in our back gardens is at even greater risk than ever.
Is it legal to shoot them down over private land I wonder? That would go viral in seconds.
Drones are of great importance in a situation of destroying any terror group without manual intervention.
Link
As has been rightly mentioned above there are perfectly good regulations in place with the Air Navigation Order and CAP658 which clearly state what is and is not legal. The problem is that no one is made aware of this. The first step is to ensure that distributors and retailers are made to pass on this information in the form of written instructions with the product so there is no excuse for operators not knowing their responsibility. It is no different to selling guns, immitation guns, or any other restricted sports/activity equipment. As a model flyer myself I repeatedly see instructions regarding the FAA regulations for use in the USA but never anything about the ANO and CAA in the UK. Make it compulsory for distribution and retail. Flying over private property without consent, flyinging within 50m of buildings, flying within 100m of public gatherings, taking photographs without permission are all covered by existing rules, ignorance is the problem.
I agree with the other US citizen. It is a useful technology, that can have many advatages. Like all other technolgies [digital SLR cameras with extreme lenses] there will be invasions of privacy. The only recourse we should be allowed is the free use of pellet guns [air pump] on our properties to control invasion.
”
•Editor’s comments | 19 Nov 2014 10:46 am
Not with the UK’s firearms regulations it wouldn’t.”
It’s quite legal to own an air rifle of below a certain power
without needing a firearms licence – this would certainly sort out a largely plastic quadcopter…
Robert, there are restrictions on discharging an air rifle which would effectively prevent their use to bring down an unmanned aircraft unless you had a large estate. I do not own enough land to keep within the law to use my pelet gun. It would also take a skilled shot to hit a flying object with a single low velocity projectile. As for shooting down an aircraft, there may be rules about that also. Dont forget that as stated previously there is no difference in the eyes of the law between a small aircraft and a model aircraft. They are all controlled by the air navigation order (ANO) and governed by the CAA under CAP393. There are only differences based on weight and manned/unmanned.
Or am I taking this conversation too seriously 😉
WOW! Paranoia is a much larger problem than I thought.
As for the talk of shooting them down….how ridiculous can you get? Unless of course these are the same people who burn speed cameras and spray paint cctv cameras.
If I was stood outside your house tapping away on my smartphone would you come out and shoot it? I could be getting far more information about you that way…..
Surprised that the police are not aware that non-commercial use is well covered by the CAA in their exceptions to the Air navigation Order. Privacy is well covered by other laws anyway
Commercial uses do need a lot more thought, such as regular drone deliveries. However uses such as photographic or surveying type applications should be covered by the same rules as the amateur flyers – basically limited to line of site usage with an observer.
I think that these so called drones ( used to be a military term for unmanned aircraft usually used for target practice) will do more good than harm. The usual youtube footage of naked celebs in their gardens will not increase much. The only reason the police have to complain is that the populace can spy on them breakng the law at peaceful demonstrations and the like. Or beating up civilians or breaking road trffic rules ec. They think it will mean that more of them will be held to account for acting above the law of the land. Imagine what would have happened if these quad copters with cameras were available during the miners strike !
It seems paranoia is rife and some people need to take a step back and calm down. Considering the UK is currently littered with CCTV cameras by almost every authority and nearly every building has security cameras there is little privacy anyway. If those complaining about privacy had gotton off their backsides and objected to the multitude of current surveillance then they would have a point.
We use a drone for surveying land prior to beginning a new contract and they are a godsend, they are also useful when work begins. They have enormous potential to improve safety and have saved one of our employees from serious injury.
Why legislate? do criminals and terrorists obey the law? NO; if you ban them these groups would simply build them from scratch anyway. Once you invent a technology you can’t uninvent it.
And what did I say… No trace of the drone or its owner, this is just a small slice of what could happen…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30369701