Disclaimer: These links were collected and accessed on April 8, 2012. This list is not intended to be comprehensive, but rather is a short bibliography of recent articles on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV/ sUAV) and drones, with a primary focus on the legal and policy issues surrounding their use within the United States.
FAA LEGISLATION AND REGULATION OF DRONES
- The 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (H.R. 658 ENR; P.L. 112-95), signed Feb. 14, 2012, mandates that drones be fully integrated into American airspace by September 30, 2015. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.658: and http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00015
- Senate Floor Debate of Conference Report on H.R. 658, FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2012, February 6, 2012: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SenateSession4969
- Conference Report on H.R. 658, FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2012, Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 16 (February 1, 2012), House of Representatives, Pages H230 – H304, Posted to FAS Website: http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2012/02/faa-uas.html
- FAA requires government and research organizations to apply for authorization before they can operate a drone. The Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (SUAS), 76 Fed. Reg. 40,107 (July 7, 2011), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-07/pdf/2011-15494.pdf#page=16.
- Press Release – FAA asks for Public Input on UAS Test Site Selection, FAA, March 7, 2012: http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=13393
- FAA UAS General Information and Webinars: http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas
- Timeline for Rule-making (Geiger 2012): https://www.cdt.org/blogs/harley-geiger/2703drone-countdown
- Drones – Privacy Paradox: Privacy and Its Conflicting Values (Video), 2012 Stanford Law Review Symposium, The Center for Internet and Society, Stanford University, February 2, 2012 (video quality of symposium poor, but discussion interesting and includes video of what’s possible to do with drones): http://www.c-span.org/Events/Panel-Discusses-Domestic-Drones-and-Privacy/10737429618 and https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/multimedia/drones-privacy-paradox-privacy-and-its-conflicting-values-video
- The Impact of Domestic Drones on Privacy, Safety and National Security (Video), Brookings Institute, April 4, 2012: http://www.brookings.edu/events/2012/0404_domestic_drones.aspx
- Robots that fly…and cooperate (Video), Professor Vijay Kumar, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mathematics, GRASP Laboratory, School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Pennsylvania, TEDtalks [YouTube], March 1, 2012: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ErEBkj_3PY and links to Kumar’s other YouTube videos:
- Acerman, Spenser. 2011. “Occupy the Skies! Protesters Could Use Spy Drones,” Wired Magazine, November 18, 2011: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/11/ows-drones
- Ackerman, Evan. 2011. “Could Domestic Surveillance Drones Spur Tougher Privacy Laws?” IEEE Spectrum Blog, IEEE Website, December 19, 2011: http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/military-robots/could-domestic-surveillance-drones-spur-tougher-privacy-laws
Privacy in Europe and the United States: I Know It When I See It | Center for Democracy & Technology
by Omer Tene, Center for Democracy and Technology Website, June 27, 2011
This post is part of “CDT Fellows Focus,” a series that presents the views of notable experts on tech policy issues. This week, CDT Fellow Omer Tene is our guest contributor. Posts featured in “CDT Fellows Focus” don’t necessarily reflect the views of CDT; the goal of the series is to present diverse, well-informed views on significant tech policy issues.
There is a great deal of cross-Atlantic harmony with respect to fundamental legal concepts. A contract is a contract in both the United States and France; it is formed by offer and acceptance, and awards specific performance or damages upon breach. Likewise, a tort is a breach of a civil duty; and a corporation a distinct legal entity. Yet when it comes to privacy, the cross-Atlantic harmony breaks down. While the psychological need for and social value of privacy are universal, legal and societal privacy norms diverge to the extent that we must ask whether we are speaking about the same thing. …
For full text of the article visit Privacy in Europe and the United States: I Know It When I See It | Center for Democracy & Technology.
The Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law, has scheduled a hearing entitled “Protecting Mobile Privacy: Your Smartphones, Tablets, Cell Phones and Your Privacy” :
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 226
Bureau of Consumer Protection
Federal Trade Commission
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
Director, Project on Consumer Privacy
Center for Democracy and Technology
Director of Public Policy, Americas
Independent Researcher and Consultant
Guy L. “Bud” Tribble
Vice President of Software Technology
Association for Competitive Technology
- BREAKING: AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint CEOs Set to Testify (techdailydose.nationaljournal.com)
- Apple, Google summoned to Senate hearing on mobile device privacy (arstechnica.com)
- Apple, Google Summoned to Senate Hearing On Mobile Device Privacy (wired.com)
- Senate Judiciary names Franken head of new privacy, tech subcommittee (geodatapolicy.wordpress.com)
Recommendations for a Comprehensive Privacy Protection Framework | Center for Democracy & Technology
Recommendations for a Comprehensive Privacy Protection Framework
A Briefing On Public Policy Issues Affecting Civil Liberties from The Center For Democracy and Technology, February 4, 2011.
1) Baseline Privacy Legislation Needed
2) Safe Harbor Coregulatory Approach to Consumer Privacy Legislation
3) Rulemaking Authority for the Federal Trade Commission
4) Contours for Baseline Privacy Legislation
5) Innovation Needed for “Do Not Track,” But Not Complete Solution
The Commerce Department‘s Internet Policy Taskforce released a “Green Paper” outlining a proposal for a new privacy framework and asked the public to comment on the substance of the paper. CDT believes the paper is an important first toward establishing a long overdue comprehensive privacy protection framework in the United States. This Policy Post outlines the recommendations CDT submitted in response to the paper.
This Policy Post is online: http://cdt.org/policy/recommendations-comprehensive-privacy-protection-framework
Full text of the article via Recommendations for a Comprehensive Privacy Protection Framework | Center for Democracy & Technology.
- Will U.S. Government Crack the Whip on Online Privacy? (pbs.org)
- Is A “Privacy Bill of Rights” and New Federal Office the Answer to Our Online Privacy Woes? (socialtimes.com)
- Time to double team on Net privacy (politico.com)
- Christopher Wolf: Privacy Peace Talks (huffingtonpost.com)
- Groups, Firms Weigh In On Privacy Report (techdailydose.nationaljournal.com)
- Privacy Groups Critical Of Commerce Privacy Report (techdailydose.nationaljournal.com)
Source: Center for Democracy and Technology, October 15, 2010
The Smart Grid promises great benefits to consumers and the environment, including lowered energy costs, increased usage of environmentally friendly power sources, and enhanced security against attack and outage. At the same time, however, the Smart Grid presents new privacy threats through its enhanced collection and transmission of detailed consumption data – data that can reveal intimate details about activities within the home and that can easily be transmitted from one party to another.
Both the Commission and parties to this proceeding have agreed that a full set of “Fair Information Practice” principles, as previously outlined by CDT and EFF, is the best framework to adopt in order to protect consumers. Adopting rules based on the full set of FIPs is particularly important now, in light of a growing national consensus that consumer privacy is not adequately protected by mere “notice and choice.”
In these comments, we articulate a clear, concise set of policies and procedures that implement or “operationalize” the full set of FIPs for the Smart Grid. We respectfully encourage the Commission to require these policies and procedures of all regulable Smart Grid entities. CDT and EFF are interested in working with all parties on these proposed rules, and we invite other parties to offer suggestions for improvement or to express support for our framework.
- EFF Advises California PUC on Smart Grid Privacy Protections (eff.org)
- Ten Smart-Grid Trends to Watch in 2011 (environmentalleader.com)
- Hundreds of International Experts Address Global Energy Issues at 1st IEEE International Conference on Smart Grid Communications (pr.com)
- How Private Is Your Smart Grid Data? (blogs.hbr.org)
- Energy Dept. report: Make smart-grid data sharing opt in (news.cnet.com)
- Energy Dept. report: Make smart-grid data sharing opt in (news.cnet.com)
In testimony today before the Senate Government Affairs Committee, the Center for Technology and Democracy (CDT) called on Congress and the Executive Branch to work together on closing well-known gaps in the aging Privacy Act. Although the Act provides several privacy benefits, it has not kept pace with technology, CDT said. In its testimony, CDT made several recommendations consistent with those outlined by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
On a side note, Google apparently supports a federal privacy law. As reported by Reuters and published today in eWeek.com, Representative Joe Barton (R-TX), who serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, wrote to Google in May asking for details on the it’s privacy practices after its merger with DoubleClick. Google responded,
“Google supports the adoption of a comprehensive federal privacy law that would accomplish several goals such as building consumer trust and protections; creating a uniform framework for privacy, which would create consistent levels of privacy from one jurisdiction to another; and putting penalties in place to punish and dissuade bad actors,” the letter said. It was signed by Alan Davidson, Google’s chief lobbyist. …
Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, was skeptical of Google’s endorsement of a federal privacy law. Rotenberg said that when companies push for a “comprehensive” law, they often want something that would preempt more stringent state laws.
“We do not want the states to have their hands tied,” he said Rotenberg, citing California and New York as examples of states with tough privacy laws.
For more information, see EPIC’s article Privacy? Proposed Google DoubleClick Deal, last updated June 3, 2008.
For Bob Schneier’s call for a U.S. comprehensive privacy law, see posting on May 19, 2008.