Privacy - a burning issue for UAV operators

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are getting a lot more exposure these days. Unfortunately, the public perception is largely negative due to the use of ‘drones’ in warfare. These military drones are large and fully packed with surveillance equipment and munitions. People in Australia are extremely unlikely to see anything like this unless they go to places like Avalon.

Aircraft face constant battle with their weight. UAVs are no different. Civilian UAVs are still largely multirotors, generally electrically powered from batteries. These systems are limited in flight times and have a small payload capacity.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority regulates all the aircraft operating in Australia, even model aircraft and UAVs. There are particular rules which permit use of these classes of aircraft without an overbearing approach by the authorities but it is not correct to suggest they are ‘unregulated’.

CASA has these main considerations for safe use of a UAV:

• It must remain within line-of-sight.
• It must not be flown over populous areas, such as beaches, parks, other people’s backyards or sporting events.
• It must remain less than 120 m high.
• It must not be flown within 5.5 km of an airfield.
• It’s illegal to fly for money or other economic reward if you do not have a CASA Operators’ Certificate.

From the above list you can see that there are significant restrictions on UAVs. There have been high-profile cases of UAVs crashing into iconic bridges or into runners; they have intruded on crime scenes and bushfire sites; they have also been seen at a high altitude. Prosecutions have been undertaken in many of these instances.

Anecdotally, FPV (first-person view) operators, who use goggles to watch from their craft’s onboard camera, appear most likely to lose control of their craft because they are not taking note of where the craft is until it has gone out of control range or crashed. Cheaper, less capable or incorrectly set up craft have flown out of range and been lost, resulting in possible hazards to people and aviation.

UAVs can be seen to offer people a means to peer into others’ lives in a way which was unthinkable not too long ago. However, the rules and regulations prevent most of this from occurring, if these rules are obeyed. However, some people are ignorant of, or decide to simply ignore, such rules.

There are laws in place in all states protecting privacy, such as the Privacy Acts and the likes of the Surveillance Devices Act in NSW, but these may not apply where individuals are performing the acts; it is a source of hot debate in the legal fraternity.

Realistically, do we need to do anything at all? Just as paparazzi have intruded on other peoples’ lives for years, so now could an errant UAV operator. But then, so could someone with binoculars or a telescope - do we ban everything that may intrude? With the UAVs commonly in use today it is relatively easy to find the operator if the UAV is seen.

It would be pointless to try to ban UAVs. Anyone with an ounce of DIY skill could put one together in their garage. Making a UAV smart enough to be safe is another task again; however, banning them would more likely make unsafe equipment flourish and not necessarily improve safety or privacy.

The answer is a more concerted campaign of education, which CASA has been engaged in, but support needs to be gained from the likes of model flying clubs, trade and hobby magazines, and probably even in schools. Even then it will not prevent potential or actual invasions of privacy, but a few high-publicity prosecutions for incorrect operation of UAVs would go a long way in the education process.

The results of the abovementioned incidents have not been made public by the authorities. People need to realise that public safety and personal privacy go hand in hand and more support for the regulatory regime is warranted.

We can’t go back to the ‘good old days’ before UAVs were freely available, but a suitable combination of commonsense operation, consideration for other people’s privacy and publicised prosecution of the errant user will go a long way towards minimising physical and privacy risks for the general public.

For further reading, check out Roger Clarke’s piece: http://www.rogerclarke.com/SOS/Drones-BP.html