![]() Draeger noted that the Milwaukee Police Department doesn’t have any drones yet, but expects that all law enforcement agencies will use them within the next decade. The panelists also discussed the positive and negative aspects of drones under the broad umbrella of “security.” On the positive side, law enforcement agencies can use drones to perform tasks that are dangerous or otherwise difficult for humans. In Wisconsin, 2013 Act 213 provides that drones may not be used to photograph or observe individuals in locations that give rise to “a reasonable expectation of privacy.” Similarly, law enforcement must obtain a search warrant if using a drone to gather evidence from a location whose occupants have an “expectation of privacy.” Draeger commented that it’s not clear exactly what that means, in either context. Approximately 32 states have enacted a hodgepodge of far-from-uniform laws governing privacy concerns, according to the panelists. Privacy, on the other hand, is the responsibility of the states. Commercial use requires at least a sport pilot’s license, absent an exemption granted by the FAA. Compas explained that another difficulty lies in separating his personal roles as a drone user one set of regulations applies when he flies as a hobbyist, and a different set when he flies professionally as part of his research or teaching as a UW-Whitewater faculty member. Klingaman reiterated his comment in a recent interview that the so-called “line of sight” requirement – that the drone must be operated within the pilot’s field of vision – is the biggest limitation to commercial drone uses. The panelists touched on a variety of the currently applicable safety regulations. The agency is in the process of developing new rules, and Klingaman expects it to create “tiers” of regulations, one for nearby uses and others for longer distances. He admitted that the current regulations are often confusing and difficult to navigate, even for experts. Handling air safety falls within the FAA’s sphere of responsibility, Klingaman said. They grouped the top legal challenges related to drones into three categories: safety, privacy, and security. In a wide-ranging discussion, the panelists agreed that legal regimes governing drones are constantly evolving. On Friday, April 8, the Environmental Law Society hosted a discussion of the future of drone regulation at the federal and state levels, featuring three experts: Russ Klingaman, who teaches Aviation Law and is a licensed pilot Eric Compas, a UW-Whitewater professor and drone enthusiast who has received grant funding to investigate the use of drones for natural resource and disaster recovery purposes and Detective Eric Draeger of the Milwaukee Police Department. As a result, many of these millions of purchasers have at least one thing in common: uncertainty over how their flying activities are regulated. ![]() But as with many fast-emerging technologies, governance regimes have not kept pace with science. ![]() ![]() ![]() Drones have been or soon will be employed in an ever-broadening sphere of applications, including photography, natural resource mapping and management, hobbyist flying, military and police applications, and perhaps even package delivery. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) estimates that almost 2.5 million unmanned aerial systems, more commonly known as drones, will be purchased in 2016, and that annual sales will reach almost 7 million units by 2020. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |