Privacy is extensively valued, mainly in individualistic cultures because people desire to control access to their bodies and to information about their personal choices, and, of course, privacy can support a great variety of goods. Also, it can protect intimacy among friends/acquaintances and colleagues and construct trusting relations of tolerance among outsiders/stranger, and can uphold dignity, since it could be discomforting to disclose secret or hasty thoughts or opinions, or to reveal one's naked body or other private spaces. Privacy can also contribute to our individuality, self-respect, and autonomy; and can protect us from a wide array of emotional or psychological harms associated with unwanted publicity. But we must not forget that privacy can also promote significant political and legal goods, including property rights, fraud prevention, and non-discrimination. However, one needs to consider the dark side as well, since privacy can also be disvalued. It can assist crime and oppression of the vulnerable, whereas secret communications among gangs and terrorists can jeopardize safety. Privacy is therefore, as A. E. Cudd, M. C. Navin argue as well, not an absolute good. Instead, if we intend to reveal the conditions in which privacy is adequately valuable to justify the protection of privacy rights, we are supposed to commence philosophical and legal investigations into the domains of privacy, the content of privacy, and the goods and harms that privacy protection might cause. Iván Székely states that "behind the anomalies currently besetting the notion of privacy - anomalies that arise from different cultural, political and social milieus both at the group and at the individual level - there lies a common conceptual element: individuals and small communities carry an increasing weight vis-"a-vis the external world"[3]. Moreover, he assumes that the notion of freedom of information reveals similar anomalies even if one examines it from different perspectives, such as, geographical, cultural or political, or observes it in historical context[4]. The digital/technological age has given rise to renewed concerns about privacy, as new technologies make possible novel sorts and magnitudes of privacy violations. The inventions related to computers and smart techs have accelerated the pace of statistical analyses, while the internet and the Internet of all Things have extremely hastened communication and the sharing and collection of information[5].
The question is how serious those concerns that I have already mentioned are? To this question, neither Attila Péterfalvi nor his co-editors have a satisfactory answer, they appear to place their confidence in the passing of time.[6] Other authors, such as Tamás Klein and András Tóth focus on two aspect of novel innovations, "disruptive" and "unknown" innovations, but they mostly center their attention on legal challenges in connection with technological innovations and related issues such as data protection, robots, cyber law and drones.[7] It seems visible that the process of political integration in Europe has advanced considerably since the era of the first attempts at legislating protections for personal/private information. Although the concerns surrounding the Brexit may have an undesired effect and might put a halt to an even stronger political integration. The governing bodies of the European Union exercise significantly more influence over patterns of economic regulation in the E.U. Member States than the national governments do. While it is also admitted that the individual member states of the European Union still uphold separate laws addressing privacy issues, the scope of European privacy protection has
- 458/459 -
been motivated principally by the European Union for the past decade or more. The European Union's privacy regime will be reviewed as a "national" policy, notwithstanding its many member states. The foundation of privacy protection in the European Union arises from Directive 95/46 (Data Protection Directive)[8]. The Data Protection Directive was a result of the national regulatory schemes supported by the OECD Guidelines[9], which had produced a collage of different privacy regimes throughout Europe. The Data Protection Directive was intended to harmonize Member States' data protection legislation, thereby reducing obstacles to economic activity within the European Union while preserving (or even enhancing, depending on the pre-existing level of national data protection) the privacy rights of individual residents.
I intend to examine the legal challenges, issues, and obstacles concerning privacy in connection with the evolution of novel technologies, such as drones. The evident doom of the present regulatory systems/laws, concerning new technologies, is based on the fact that the progress of technology is obviously unstoppable. But I need to emphasize the point that my doomsday approach, regarding the regulation of novel tech, where a drone, for instance, is just a fine example besides mobile/cell phones or biometrics, does not mean that law makers are not up to their task, on the contrary. What I really endeavor to highlight is the fact that legal regulations and laws are destined to lag behind because of the inherent nature of the relationship between technology and law. Thus, I may opt for a revisionist[10] regulatory system instead of the existing perfectionist one. In order to avoid being misunderstood, I state that a revisionist method to deal with regulation of novel technologies may not attempt to construct flawless system of laws, since the liaison between law and technology can foreshadow a constant need for revision, as opposed to this, a perfectionist law-maker feels the need and the urge to create a "perfect" laws and regulatory systems in order to assume to fulfil the traditional/classical ideology based on legal certainty and continuity. Obviously, my stand does not mean that we do not need legal certainty and continuity, but as for the tech related laws, I firmly believe that they are required to be revised time after time. As for the proof of my argument, or at least, one part of it, I aim to show how chaotic the regulation of drones all through the world is, including UK, the USA, Italy, Spain, Hungary and more, and to join to those, for example, Stuart Casey-Maslen, who seem to recognize that Pandora's Box has been opened, and, as far as the regulations are concerned, I assume it will stay open.
In order to get a better scope of the relation between law and technology and their effect on each other, we should be familiar with the work of Susan Brenner: Law in an Era of "Smart" Technology. It is reasonable to analyze whether law should be technologically neutral, or it should progress as human relationships with technology become more advanced. In Law in an Era of "Smart" Technology, Susan Brenner analyzes the multifaceted and evolving interactions/collaborations between law and technology and provides a thorough and detailed account of the law in technology at the beginning of the 21st century. Brenner draws upon current technological developments/advances, weighing how emerging novel technologies might alter the way how humans interact with each other and with their milieu[11]. She analyzes the progress of technology as shifting from one of "use" to one of "interaction," and argues that this interchange requires us to (re)concep-tualize our approach to legal rules, which were initially designed to prevent the "misuse" of "older" technologies. As technologies continue to develop over the next several decades, Brenner argues that the laws directed between human and technological relationships should stay neutral. She explains how older technologies are dependent on human implementation, but new "smart" technology will be completely automated. She prophesizes that this can/will ultimately lead to, as it is explained, the ultimate progression in our relationship with technology: the fusion of human physiology and technology.[12] Law in an Era of "Smart" Technology provides a detailed, historically-grounded explanation as to why our traditional relationship with technology is developing/surfacing and why an equivalent/parallel shift in the law is forthcoming and essential. Moreover, analyzing the same, or rather similar challenges of
- 459/460 -
the law created by the progress of technology, Emilie Cloatre and Martyn Pickersgill assume that the relationships between knowledge, technologies, and legal processes are central to the constitution of contemporary societies. As such, they have come to provide the focus for a range of academic projects, across interdisciplinary legal studies and the social sciences. The domains of medical law and ethics, intellectual property law, environmental law, civil law and criminal law are just some of those within which the pervasive place and 'impact' of techno-science is immediately apparent. At the same time, social scientists investigating the making of technology and expertise - in particular, scholars working within the tradition of science and technology studies - frequently interrogate how regulation and legal processes, and the making of knowledge and technologies, are intermingled in complex ways that come to shape and define each other. They endeavor to chart the important interface between studies of law, science/technology and society, as explored from the perspectives of socio-legal studies and the increasingly influential field of science and technology studies.[13] When one needs to consider the effect of the development or the (r)evolution of technology, one is flooded by complex and (mostly) problematic current issues. The 21th century triggered a chain reaction with several (re)vibra-tions in connection with privacy related issues. Since privacy is often said to be one of the most urgent issues associated with technology in total, information technology and digital media. It can be stated that what people really care about when they make a complaint and object that privacy has been violated is not the act of sharing technology or information itself, most people recognize that this is essential and has become ordinary to social life -but the wrongful, improper, and most importantly illegal use of technology. Since technologies appear to continue to advance without a halt over the next several decades, Susan Brenner seems to argue that the laws directed between human and technological relationships should stay neutral. She explains the difference between "old" and "novel" technology and their "connection" to human factors, such as dependence on human implementation, and, in addition, she highlights the "basic" difference that older technologies rely on human implementation, but new "smart" technology are and will be completely automated. This fact will eventually lead to, as she explains, the ultimate progression in our relationship with technology: the fusion of human physiology and technology. She provides a detailed, historically-grounded explanation as to why our traditional relationship with technology is evolving and why a corresponding shift in the law is imminent and necessary.[14] The digital revolution in the last two decades has affected almost all aspects of human life, its impact might be found on several fields, including healthcare, education and communications and the list may go on and on. Endre Győző Szabó, Katinka Bojnár and Péter Búzás argue that ICTs are present throughout the whole lifespan of an individual, from birth until the inevitable end, and, in some cases, even after death[15]. Similarly, Susan Brenner argues that the historical rootedness is undeniable, and progress can be seen and defined in various ways.[16] However, progress not only makes everyday life easier, it also provides an opportunity for the relevant actor, stakeholders of the public and the private sector to scrutinize the lives and activities of millions of people by collecting and analyzing an unprecedented amount of information. The more people count on modern technologies, the more defenseless and fragile their human dignity and privacy becomes. Although, among many others, Gregory N. Mendel argues that a wide range of emerging technologies, including biotechnology, nanotechnology, and synthetic biology, can transform society. Handling the development/progress and regulation of these promising technologies is a formidable task as the risks presented will not be assumed until the technologies are further advanced. In his paper, he proposes a new governance model that seeks manage the dynamic of emerging technology promise versus risk by moving the point of first governance earlier in a technology's improvement and expansion.[17]
My aim is also to deal with the regulatory issues of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) or Remotely-Piloted Aerial Systems (RPAS), which have profound consequences for privacy, security and other fundamental liberties. What is
- 460/461 -
collectively known as "drones," can be used in several ways, and they were initially deployed for military purposes: reconnaissance, surveillance and extrajudicial executions. This work will also be of interest to researchers in Criminology and Criminal Justice as interested in issues related to surveillance, security, privacy, and technology. It will also provide a criminological background for related legal issues, such as privacy law, aviation law, international criminal law, and comparative law.
Nowadays, it can also be said that we are witnessing a growth of their use in the civilian and humanitarian domain. One cannot deny the fact that drones, for instance, are increasingly used for goals as diverse as news gathering, aerial inspection of oil refinery flare stacks, mapping of certain terrains, crop spraying or search and rescue operations. The civil use of drones is becoming a reality in the European Union and in the US. The revolution of the drones may be a new technological revolution with many effects in connection with almost all walks of life. Proliferation of the next generation of "recreational" drones shows how drones will be sold as any other consumer item. The cultural perception of the technology is shifting and keeps changing, as drones are increasingly being used for humanitarian activities, on one hand, but they can also firmly and decisively be situated in the prevailing (known) modes of postmodern governance on the other hand. Furthermore, I assume that the arguments and questions brought up by Timothy M. Ravich[18] appear fairly relevant, since he states that within the "Internet of Things," few contemporary subjects more than "drones" encapsulate "informatics," loosely defined as the study of the application of computer technology to succeed information and knowledge in business, legal, and social processes, think of, for example, Facebook, political polling, and medical records storage. Aviation, from free-floating balloons to orchestrated jet operations, is nothing novel in public, military, and private settings, but the use of unmanned aerial vehicles ("UAVs") for civil, commercial, educational, law enforcement, and national security purposes is fairly fresh. This is not because UAV technology automatically or inevitably offers anything groundbreaking in the way of aeronautics; rather, UAVs are transformational information collection, storage, and management systems in terms of digital forensics. The range of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance ("ISR") capabilities made possible by sensor suites and software solutions deployed on UAV platforms seems limitless. This boundless use extends to legal processes, where the job of litigants and triers of fact could be eased and optimized through the use of drone-acquired evidence, for example, high-definition video of accident or crime scenes[19].
Also, Helen Nissenbaum calls our attention to the fact, in connection with technological development, especially that development in of information technology, that "a fixture in public discourse at least since the 1960s, when the dominant concern was massive databases of government and other large institutions housed in large stand- alone computers, concerns have multiplied in type and extent as radical transformations of the technology have yielded the remarkable range of present- day systems, including distributed networking; the World Wide Web; mobile devices; video, audio, and biometric surveillance; global positioning; ubiquitous computing; social networks; sensor networks; databases of compiled information; data mining; and more.[20]" Thus, I may add the emerging new family of "equipment," the drones, to the formerly listed items, they can also be easily associated with each of these developments as a set of reservations and fears about privacy. Whether uttered in the resigned grumbles of individuals, the verbal protests of advocacy groups and articulate politicians, or the pages of scholarly studies and popular media, the common feature of worries time after time is that an important value might fall prey to progress driven by technologies of information. Countless books, articles, and commentaries call for reform in law and policy to shore
- 461/462 -
up defenses against the erosion of privacy due to swelling ranks of technology based systems practices. It seems relevant to mention that Hillary B. Farber shed a light on the fact that a couple of years ago one may have seen a small object flying overhead without any clues what it might be. Today, it is fairly commonplace to see drones flying around our neighborhood skies[21]. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) calculates/assumes that there will be seven million drones populating our skies by 2020. Also, Hillary B. Faber reveals that in 2015 hobbyists, recreational users, and commercial businesses purchased unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly referred to as drones, in record-breaking numbers.[22] There are boundless civil applications for drones, and the potentials will continue to grow at even higher rates as the technology progresses and becomes more accessible to the public. In response to this exceptional growth, the FAA increased regulation and oversight of drone operation for not only commercial operators but recreational users as well. December 2015, the FAA introduced a registration requirement for all recreational drone operators.[23],[24] The registration process is intended to make it easier for the FAA to keep track of and identify the thousands of drones swarming in the sky[25].
In addition to the above mentioned actualities, David Hambling argues that "small unmanned aircraft are already transforming warfare, with hand-launched scouts like the Raven and lethal tactical drones like Switchblade already in use by US forces. A bigger revolution is on the way, as swarming software allows a single operator to control large numbers of drones, and Smartphone technology means they can be built for $1,000 each - by anybody, not just governments. His book looks at the history of drone warfare, deeply into their origin, the rise of big drones like the Predator and how they are being eclipsed by smaller unmanned aircraft. He also attempts to predict how the future is being or is going to be shaped by Smartphone technology, swarm software, miniaturized munitions and energy-harvesting that allows small drones to fly forever. Then goes on to analyze why current air defense cannot stop the swarms, and what drone swarms will mean for the balance of power and future wars. This is the world of Swarm Troopers.[26]" His prediction is able to raise many issues to alert legal experts in order to avoid immanent dangers concerning the private sphere.
Sarah E. Kreps states that in the last couple of years, many of the military advancements have been rivaled by those in the commercial realm. Civilian industries have clamored to acquire drones for everything from monitoring crops to filming Hollywood movies to delivering packages.
Not surprisingly, the use of drones has generated a lively debate, but no book thus far has engaged the range of themes surrounding drones. She goes on to ask some relevant question, such as: How do drones work? To what extent has the technology proliferated to other nations outside the USA? How can they be used on the ground and in maritime environments? How are they being integrated into both military and civilian life?[27]
I firmly state that the need to unravel the operation of drones may lead to the betterment of legal regulation of them, and by implication, it may guide the development of a highly developed understanding of technologically based regulatory systems, being capable of answering future challenges provided by upcoming novelties of technological development. Though the above mentioned questions remain partly unanswered by the authorities and might seem doubled by authors like Primoľ Gorkič who in his study, The (F) utility of Privacy Laws: The Case of Drones?, argues that "the Problem," and as he puts it, can easily be highlighted by an example as well, Consider the following hypothetical example: "one morning, the citizens of Townsville wake up only to receive a letter from their local law enforcement. In the letter, they learn that the law enforcement is about to start using several drones. The drones will operate at an altitude of 300 m and will have state-of-the-art surveillance equipment and data-processing capabilities. These will include thermal imaging cameras, high resolution cameras, GPS tracking capabilities, long-range microphone, automated license plate recognition system, face recognition capabilities, international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) catcher and a wideband real-time connection to available person-
- 462/463 -
al data records.[28]" The Townsville[29] scenario as he describes can be seen as a realistic one and seems to fortify a darker setting in connection with technologically related issues.
Thus, it does not really seem far-fetching to pose important questions to be considered, for instance: How should an average citizen feel when confronted with such a development? While some may feel that the application of drones will contribute to the safety of their communities, others may feel less inclined to accept such practices. Some e citizens of Townsville may consider that the application of drones will provide authorities with information they were previously capable of retrieving only by "classic" judicially supervised measures, such as search of premises or orders to produce communication traffic data; or, at least, by measures that each individual was aware of, for example, stopping and identifying an individual, a vehicle, and so on. Shortly, some would feel that the application of drones have severe impacts on those areas of their lives that they feel should be left alone and unrevealed or private to others, including law enforcement agencies. In legal terms, application of drones may raise yet unsolved questions of privacy protection. Those that consider drones a threat to privacy will no doubt seek an adequate legal framework which would enable them to face such threats to privacy. While they may instinctively feel that drones raise privacy issues, an attempt at a legal analysis with serious considerations as well. The privacy concerns relating to drones may come from their capabilities. These aerial observers enable operators to collect information about people and places via cameras, live video-streaming capability, and sensory-enhancing technologies, and drones can be easily equipped by other techs as well[30]. And, of course, as soon as data collected, information can be stored forever and broadly distributed electronically. Furthermore, the drones' aerial positioning system makes it tricky and complicated for anyone without prior notice to avoid being caught on their cameras[31].
The study by Policy Department, Directorate-General for External Policies points out that "as human lives transition online, so do human rights. The main challenge for the European Union and other actors is to refine the definitions of all human rights in the digital sphere. In recent years, many governments have upgraded their capacity to use more advanced digital tools for censorship and surveillance. The second chapter provides an overview of countries and companies that violate human rights in the digital sphere. It focuses on freedom of expression and the right to privacy, but it also attempts to demonstrate a link between offensive practices and the broader set of human rights."[32]
Though the study attempts to demonstrate how novel technology, including information technology, can and could influence and as well as violate human rights, it does not seem far-fetching to see that the issues on drones can easily overlap each other, since drones are usually computer controlled unmanned vehicles.
According to Italy's national aviation authority, the Italian Civil Aviation Authority (ENAC), flying a drone is legal in Italy, but we recommend being aware of and compliant with the drone regulations listed General Rules for Flying a Drone in Italy There are a lot of rules concerning drones, but the most important rules to know for flying a drone in Italy as follows: Drones must be identified by a plate showing the identification of the system and of the operator. An identical plate shall be installed also on the remote ground pilot station. As of the 1st of July 2016, in addition to plates required by the Art 8.1, all drones that let the transmission of data in real time must be equipped with an Electronic Identification Device. Also, drone pilots must maintain a direct line of sight with their drone during operations, and the drones may not be flown at night. In addition, drones are not permitted to fly over people or crowds, including sports events, concerts, and other large events. There is a special/additional regulation for drones used for recreational aims or commercial purposes, since drones being flown for recreational purposes may not fly more than 70 meters (230 feet) above the ground, and drones being flown for commercial purposes may not
- 463/464 -
fly more than 150 meters (492 feet) above the ground. Plus, drones may not be flown within 5 kilometers (6.8 miles) of any airport or airfield. Commercial drone pilots conducting low-risk operations must submit a statement of compliance with specific requirements to ENAC along with a 94 Euro processing fee. For higher risk operations commercial drone pilots must obtain a training and operating certificate as well as a health certificate. Learn more about the requirements for commercial operations on the ENAC website[34].
However, it is not surprising for me that another, slightly different, interpretation of Italian drone laws can be found on the website of UAV systems international.[35] On this site, it is stated that drone use is allowed in Italy, but it is very strict compared to many countries, and there are several drone laws that need to be followed when flying in the country. Operators must ensure that they follow the following drone laws when flying in Italy. You shall not fly your drone over people or large crowds, this rule is taken seriously, and there are numerous reports online of individuals being arrested and having their drones seized within minutes of take-off when trying to fly them around tourist attractions with many people nearby. While using a drone, one shall respect others privacy when flying your drone and must fly during daylight hours and only fly in good weather conditions. Your drone are not supposed to fly/be flown in/over sensitive areas including government or military facilities because the use of drones or camera drones in these areas are prohibited. You may not fly your drone higher than 230 feet and further than 650 feet horizontally or out of visual line of sight, whichever is first. Additionally, one is not supposed to control your drone using goggles such as the DJI Goggles unless you have someone else next to you visually watching the drone at all times. To fly over some places requires permission, thus you may not carry dangerous goods on your drone and may not fly your drone over beaches (during summertime), national parks, urban areas, infrastructures, railways, highways, or industrial plants without prior permission Supplementary rules are the following: You must stay at least 5km away from airports and must only fly your drone during daylight. As for the weight of drones is concerned, a drone must weigh under 25 kg, and one must keep the drone 50m away from persons/property not under control of the drone operator. Moreover, you must carry third-party insurance if you will be using your drone for commercial use.[36]
Drone use is permitted in Hungary, but there are several drone laws that require to be followed when flying in the country. Operators must ensure that they follow the following drone laws when flying in Hungary[37], one shall not fly the drone over people or large crowds and shall respect others privacy when flying your drone. Also, one is not supposed to fly your drone over airports or in areas where aircraft are operating, and drones are assumed to be flown during daylight hours and only in good/fair weather conditions. Any drones era not permitted to fly in sensitive/protected areas including government or military facilities. And lastly, the use of drones or camera drones in these areas is prohibited. The rules and regulations on unmanned aircraft systems (drones) in Hungary are aligning with international trends, and have been tightened by an amendment to Act CXXXVI of 2016 on the Amendment of Act XCVII of 1995 on the Aviation (the "Act"). The new rules were in force as of 31 December 2016.
However, most of the details are to be regulated in an upcoming government decree, and lawmakers are also expected to cover data protection aspects. For example, the Act does not differentiate between toy machines and heavier ones. Effective data protection regulations, according to this issue's importance in the world, are still to come in Hungary.[38] Also, the condition for the legal operation of a drone: operators shall be aware of the airspace, territories and restricted areas where they shall not enter with their drones. These areas may vary from time to time, they can be different types, such as, accidents, entourages of protected persons, protected objects or territories, for instance, filming locations. The aviation authority intends to create a mobile phone application to inform drone operators and the public on airspace closure. As for as liability insurance is concerned, in order to protect operators and third
- 464/465 -
parties, operators shall have liability insurance regarding the aviation activity performed with their device. The insurance shall, at least, cover the following amounts of compensation for damage caused by the drone: below 2 kg takeoff mass: up to HUF 3,000,000 (approx. EUR 10,000) between 2 kg and 10 kg: up to HUF 5,000,000 (approx. EUR 17,000). And above 10 kg: up to HUF 10,000,000 (approximately EUR 33,340).The government decree is expected to enter into force on 2018. It may ease the strict rules of the Act, red tape and unrealistic requirements with more detailed provisions. The draft provides that not every drone shall be registered, but each category of drone falls under the obligation of completing an e-course on aviation. The toy drones less than 250 grams are not regulated under the scope of the regulation. The decree attempts divide the drones into three plus one categories. According to the latest amendment of the upcoming government decree, the weight of the drones shall be applied on the takeoff mass. Except for toy drones, devices may not fly above 130 meters from ground and more than 500 meters away from the operator who must maintain continuous and direct visual contact without the use of supporting tools throughout the entire duration of the flight[39]. Although it seems similar to the EU regulations on drones[40], Hungary has an additional, 4[th], category, in the first category for drones below 2 kg, the operator shall perform the minimum requirements, such as visibility and passing online training, but in the second category, the operator shall register the drone and have an operating license issued by the aviation authority after attending training and passing theoretical and practical exams. For drones between 2 and 25 kg, liability insurance is not obligatory. For devices above 25 kg in the third category, the operator shall have a qualified professional license, after the device has passed the airworthiness test. In this case, the operator shall keep an (electronic) logbook, and shall conclude liability insurance for the aviation activity. The fourth, extra, additional category, drones of over 150 kg in weight, falls within the competence of the European Aviation Safety Agency. With the imminent government decree, inhabited areas will reach a special position among restricted areas.
The operator may use the device there if conforming to specific visibility requirements for drones and operators. The devices may not be operated within an altitude of 30 meters above private property without consent. According to the draft, specific rules will apply on drone operation for sports and private purposes. Drones may approach residential buildings not closer than 100 meters. Drones can approach individuals not involved in the aviation closer than 30 meters only upon their prior written consent. The drones shall have such paint and built-in lighting, and operators shall wear such clothing like safety vests, which ensure their visibility in daylight as well[41].
Unmanned aircraft (most people call them 'drones') is a sector of aviation that is developing very fast and has a great potential for producing new jobs and growth. The term 'unmanned aircraft' includes very large aircraft similar in size and complexity to manned aircraft, but also very small consumer electronics aircraft. Especially the smaller ones are increasingly being used in the Europe Union (EU), but under a fragmented regulatory framework. Basic national safety rules apply, but the rules differ across the EU and a number of key safeguards are not addressed in a coherent way.
One may ask many evident/reasonable questions in order to clarify the legal status of drones, but not surprisingly several answers can be found to tell us, for example, about civilian drones. Thus, the question what a civil drone is might be answered and categorized differently according to different authorities. One of the memos of the European Commission attempts to answer some frequently problematic questions concerning drones.
It is stated by the European Commission that "the term drone is used to describe any type of aircraft that is automated and operates without a pilot on board. There are two types of drones.
1. Remotely Piloted Aviation Systems (RPAS), in short a drone where the aircraft is controlled by a human pilot from a distant lo-
- 465/466 -
cation. This means that there is always a pilot in charge - even if remotely. These are the only types of drones that can be authorized currently, and under the new framework, for use in EU airspace.
2. Unmanned drones. These are drones which are automatically programmed - without being piloted, even remotely. These are not yet authorized for use, either by ICAO or under EU rules."[43]
It is also can be admitted that the term "civil" drones is used to cover those RPAS that are applied for civil purposes such as delivering mail or examining an oil platform out at sea. Over time, civil drones have a great potential to perform various tasks, including jobs which are dirty, dull or dangerous for people. As for the usage of the Civil drones, the European Commission states that they have already been used to take over tiresome or sometimes hazardous/risky tasks which could be more efficiently or securely be performed by a technological instrument. In Europe, drones are being used for safety inspections of infrastructure, such as rail tracks, dams, dykes or power grids and other infrastructural facilities.
National authorities are making more use of drones in rescue operations or disaster relief actions, for instance, to overfly flooded areas or to support the fighting of forest or building fires. Elsewhere, drones operators back precision farming through more effective and timely application of fertilizers or insecticide. What one may be able to predict is that in the (near) future drones could make it possible to improve more efficient wind turbines and produce more "green" electricity, or to execute coverage of telecommunications in a cost-effective way. At the opposite side of the scale, engineers are working on miniaturization of drones, for example, micro drones which could be applied and maneuvered to tackle gas or chemical leaks, or which could be programmed to act like bees to pollinate plants The sector is progressing rapidly with industries indicating their interest in adapting drones to execute specific/qualified services for which there is a market.[44] It seems reasonable to note that the rules covering drones have been set at UN level, by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the UN body dealing with civil aviation. ICAO permits drones operations (RPAS) as long as a national authority gives a specific authorization, for example, authorizing the use of drones in a non-segregated airspace (this means in the same airspace also used by 'manned' air traffic). Such authorizations are characteristically limited/controlled to specific operations under specific circumstances in order to avoid security/safety hazards. Some EU member states, such as Sweden, France, Denmark, Italy, Germany, Czech Republic, Lithuania and the UK have adopted legislation for simple operations by light RPAS, to avoid this case-by-case authorization process.[45]
However, one problem seems to be evident that national authorizations do not benefit from mutual recognition and do not allow for European wide activities, either to produce or to operate drones. The authorization procedures also do not provide a rational framework, with the required legal protections/precautions in connection to concerns about safety, security, privacy, liability to be built in. The European Commission raises its concerns and endeavors to alarm the member states since drones have already started to appear in our skies but there are no clear general rules, at national or at European level, which put in place the obligatory safety measures protect the safety, security and privacy of people. Moreover, operational and technical rules are also supposed to be further improved in order to guarantee that civil drones can fly like 'normal' air traffic and be integrated among 'normally piloted' aircraft in non-segregated airspace without affecting the safety and the operation of the whole aviation system.
It looks obvious that mastering civil drones (RPAS) technology is key to the future competitiveness of the European aeronautics industry, on some approximations in the next 10 years it could be worth 10% of the aviation market. The impact of drones and their countless applications on the economy could potentially be compared to the development of the internet in the nineties. It means that the safe development of the European market for drones is crucial step towards building the aviation market of the future.[46]According to the memo of the European Commission, the Communication on opening the market for RPAS is an invita-
- 466/467 -
tion to all stakeholders to build together a policy framework for the development of a competitive drones market as well as rules that will tackle all citizens' concerns. This policy framework will concern civil rules and commercial operations, in line with EU competence. It does not discourse military applications, for obvious reasons. There are some novel attempts for regulating drones, one of the latest developments on drones is the Notice of proposed Amendment (NPA) Unmanned aircraft system operations in the open and specific category and its Impact Assessment. On request by the European Commission, Member States and other stakeholders, the Agency started to develop a proposals for an operation centric, proportionate, risk- and performance-based regulatory framework for all unmanned aircraft (UA) establishing three categories with different safety requirements, proportionate to the risk: open' (low risk) is a UA operation category that, considering the risks involved, does not require a prior authorization by the competent authority before the operation takes place; 'specific' (medium risk) is a UA operation category that, considering the risks involved, requires an authorization by the competent authority before the operation takes place and takes into account the mitigation measures identified in an operational risk assessment, except for certain standard scenarios where a declaration by the operator is sufficient; 'certified' (high risk) is a UA operation category that, considering the risks involved, requires the certification of the UAS, a licensed remote pilot and an operator approved by the competent authority, in order to ensure an appropriate level of safety.
Following the publication of an Advance-NPA 2015-10 in July 2015, a Technical Opinion in December 2015, a 'Prototype' regulation was drafted for the 'open' and 'specific' categories. In August 2016 the 'Prototype' regulation was published proposing actual rules providing the necessary clarity, notably on what are the responsibilities of the Member States and what is the flexibility offered to them. The proposal provides a framework to safely operate drones while allowing this industry to remain agile, to innovate and continue to grow. The risk posed to people on the ground and to other aircraft as well as privacy, security and data protection issues created by such drones are also taken into account.
I have decided to highlight some issues concerning Britain as well, since it seems obvious that the upcoming challenges provided by the Brexit "paradox" must be effecting all walks of life. Though we are getting closer and closer to Brexit as a grim reality of the European Union, it seems fair not to leave out Britain as a crucial player in the market, in order to obtain a clearer picture of drones and their regulations, United Kingdom gives us a fairly nice example how deep this problem can go without exaggeration. Therefore, I intend to outline recent regulations for the use of recreational and commercial drones in the UK. I also aim to present the latest policy development in the UK and internationally, as well as emerging technological and regulatory issues linked to drone integration into domestic airspace.
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is the independent statutory authority liable for regulating civil aircraft, including (among many things) drones. Applicable legislation is contained primarily in the Civil Aviation Act 1982 and the Air Navigation Order 2016, with detailed guidance set out in the CAA's Unmanned Aircraft System Operations in UK Airspace -Guidance (CAP 722). What we can easily identify is that drone policy and relevant legislation can be mainly said to be the liability of the Department for Transport (DfT) and the CAA. It is also fair to state that the Government does not (really) have an (or any) official policy or strategy on drones this is clearly an area where policy is moving fast.[47] In December 2016 the DfT consulted on proposals to fill any gaps in drone regulation. The outcome was published in July 2017 with a number initiatives such as registration, training and 'geo-fencing' to be taken forward in different ways.[48]
It is relevant to observe that Adrew Haylen and Louise Butcher argue that "achieving the full and safe integration of drones into non-segregated airspace is the underlying policy objective of Government. To achieve this requires technology, which is not yet fully developed, for sensing and avoiding air traffic under all possible scenarios."[49]
They go on to claim that, in the intervening time policy and regulation is expected to focus
- 467/468 -
on drone system reliability, and enforcement, as well as training and qualification standards for drone pilots and operators.[50],[51] Although one may ponder upon the legal "tools" to be effective, since it may look easy to starve for regulations but how to create a relevant and effective regulatory system of drone matters may prove to be more difficult as far as the current developments seem to suggest. Andrew Haylen and Butcher Loise argue that many experts view the use of the term 'drone' as inaccurate and ambiguous/deceptive, as it fails to capture/define either their purpose or degree of technological sophistication.
A far as I can see we have to admit there are several additional issues likely to emerge world-wide, predominantly connected to privacy and third-party liability, to improve integration and perhaps as importantly, the public perception of novel technologies, including drones. The regulatory framework applicable to drones is multifaceted, and the paper has only attempted to highlight some connected and relevant aspects of privacy and personal data protection law, aviation law, public international law in some countries. The so-called drone acts are not even close to being ready, let alone effective, but to bury them would be too early, since they can be seen as newborn babies without any (relevant) experience. The legal and institutional framework of privacy and data protection are doom to face new challenges offered by the use or applications of novel technologies. The technology, of course, might be applied to serve the individuals' interests, though this solution is frequently overdue: the appropriate, (legally) "proper" use often lags behind the conceivable abusive application of ICTs. For these reasons, legislators and public institutions shall adopt the relevant novel laws, as "revisionists rather than perfectionist[52]" and take all the required measures to provide answers to the concerns/alarms raised by the use of ICTs. ■
NOTES
[1] This study is going to be developed further by raising relevant issues in connection with drones concerning privacy and personal data protection law, aviation law, public international law, media law and migration law.
[2] As a study, some parts of the dissertation was made under the scope of the Ministry of Justice's program on strengthening the quality of legal education'
[3] Székely Iván: Freedom of Information versus Privacy: Friends or Foes? In: Gutwirth, Serge et al (eds.): Reinventing Data Protection? Springer, 2009. p. 293.
[4] As it can be seen In: Székely Iván: Central and Eastern Europe: Starting from Scratch, In: Florini, Ann (ed.) The Right to Know. Transparency for an Open World. Columbia University Press, New York 2007.
[5] Cudd, A. E., Navin, M. C. (eds.): Core Concepts and Contemporary Issues in Privacy. Springer International Publishing AG, Amintaphil: The Philosophical Foundations of Law and Justice 8, (218 ) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74639-5_1fcccessed 9 Jan 2019]
[6] Péterfalvi Attila, Révész Balázs, Búzás Péter. (szerk): Magyarázat a GDPR-ról. Wolters Kluwer, Budapest 2018.
[7] Klein Tamás, Tóth András. (szerk.): Technológiai jog-Robotjog-Cyberjog. Wolters kluwer, Budapest 2018.
[8] Council Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, 1995 O.J. (L 281) 31, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1995:281:0031:0050:EN:PDF [hereinafter Data Protection Directive].
[9] Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): The OECD is a group of 30 countries committed to the promotion of democratic governance and economic development. As part of these efforts, the members of the OECD join forces to produce a variety documents, including model treaties, reports, and recommendations to support an methodical/logical international system and assist trade not just between its members, but between all interested nations.
[10] Through my chapters, I intend to use the expressions, such as revision, revisionist, and perfectionist, as my own coinage/technicus terminus as I have defined above.
[11] Brenner, Susan: In Law in an Era of "Smart" Technology. Oxford University Press, New York 2007. p. 1-8.
[12] Brenner: i.m. p. 1-8.
[13] Cloatre, Emilie, Pickersgill, Martyn (Eds.): Knowledge, Technology and Law. Routledge, New York 2015.
[14] Brenner: i.m. p. 1-8.
[15] Szabó Győző Endre, Bojnár Katinka, Búzás Péter: Új globális technológiák kihívásai a magyar jogban/Challenges Created by Modern Technologies in Hungarian Law. In: Tóth András (szerk.): Technológia jog: Új globális technológiák jogi kihívásai. Károly Gáspár Református Egyetem Állam- és Jogtudományi Kar, 2016. p. 51-55.
[16] Brenner: i.m. p. 1-8.
[17] Mandel, Gregory N.: Regulating Emerging Technologies. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228124638JRegulatingJEmergingJTechnologies [accessed Oct 10 2018].
[18] Assistant Professor, University of Central Florida, College of Health and Public Affairs, Department of Legal Studies. The author, a Florida Bar Board Certified Aviation Lawyer, presented aspects of this article by invitation at the 2015 Law + Informatics Symposium on Digital Evidence at the Northern Kentucky University Salmon P. Chase College of Law.
- 468/469 -
[19] Ravich, Timothy M.: Courts in the Drone Age. Northern Kentucky Law Review 2015. [Vol. 42:2] p. 162-163.
https://chaselaw.nku.edu/content/dam/chase/docs/lawreview/v42/v42Jno2.pdf [accessed Oct 24 2018].
[20] Nisselbaum, Helen: Privacy in Context Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford University Press, Stanford 2009. p. 1-2.
[21] Farber, Hillary B.: Keep out the efficacy of trespass, nuisance and privacy torts as applied to drones. Georgia State University Law Review 2017 [Vol. 33:2], p. 1-2.
[22] https://www.faa.gov/dataJresearch/aviation/aerospaceJforecasts/ Fed. Aviation Admin. FAA Aerospace Forecast 31 (2016). [accessed 24 February 2018]
[23] Press Release, FED. Aviation Admin. FAA Announces Small UAS Registration Rule 2015. Dec. 14. https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=19856.
[24] https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=19856 [accessed 24 February 2018]
[25] Also, it is worth examining: Kang, Cecilia: Drone Shopping? F.A.A. Rules May Hover Over Holidays. N.Y. Times 2015. Nov. 23, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/24/technology/proposed-regulations-for-dronesarereleased.html.
[26] Hambling, David: Swarm Troopers: How Small Drones Will Conquer the World. Archangel Ink Publishing, Venice, Florida, 2016. p. 5-15.
[27] Kreps, Sarah Elizabeth: Drones : what everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press, New York 2016. p. 1-7.
[28] Gorkič, Primoz: The (F)utility of Privacy Laws: The Case of Drones?. IN: Zavrsnik, Aleą. (Ed.): Drones and Unmanned Aerial Systems: Legal and Social Implications For Security and Surveillance. SpringerInternational Publishing, New York 2016.
[29] This might be a reference to the popular cartoon, titled Power Puff Girls.
[30] Just. Tech. Info. Ctr., Law Enforcement Guidance Concerning Suspected Unauthorized UAS Operations 2 (2016), https://www.justnet.org/pdf/UAS-LEA-Guidance-White-Paper-7_8_16.pdf; see also Mcneil, Bill: The Top Five Things You Need to Know About Drones and GIS. Directions Magazine 2014. Aug. 25 http://www.directionsmag.com/entry/top-five-thingsyou-need-to-know-about-drones-and-gis/414810; Goldman, Joshua: This Is What It's Like to Live Stream from a DIG Drone to Facebook, CNET (May 24, 2016, 10:14 AM), https://www.cnet.com/news/djidrones-now-let-you-facebook-live-from-the-sky/.
[31] Dealing with similar issues, check: Bilton, Nick: When Your Neighbor's Drone Pays an Unwelcome Visit. N.Y. Times 2016. Jan. 27 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/28/style/neighbors-drones-invade-privacy.html.
[32] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/549034/EXPO_STU(2015)549034_EN.pdf: Surveillance and censorship: The impact of technologies on human rights, a study by Policy Department, Directorate-General for External Policies.
[33] Notice: Spanish regulations will be added later.
[34] https://uavcoach.com/drone-laws-in-italy/ [accessed 31 October in 2018]
[35] https://www.uavsystemsinternational.com/drone-laws-by-country/italy-drone-laws/ [accessed 31 October in 2018]
[36] https://www.uavsystemsinternational.com/drone-laws-by-country/italy-drone-laws/ [accessed 31 October in 2018]
[37] https://www.uavsystemsinternational.com/drone-laws-by-country/hungary-drone-laws/ [accessed 1 November 2018] On these website there is a warning, and we are informed that drone laws are constantly changing. To stay up to date on the latest drone laws changes, one should sign up for an account to receive drone law notifications.
[38] http://www.cms-lawnow.com/ealerts/2017/02/hun-gary-new-drone-regulations [accessed 1 November 2018]
[39] https://www.uavsystemsinternational.com/drone-laws-by-country/hungary-drone-laws/ [accessed 1 November 2018]
[40] There are some new attempts for regulating drones, one of the most recent developments on drones is the Notice of proposed Amendment (NPA) Unmanned aircraft system operations in the open and specific category and its Impact Assessment.
[41] https://www.uavsystemsinternational.com/dronelaws-by-country/hungary-drone-laws/ [accessed 1 November 2018]
[42] https://www.easa.europa.eu/easa-and-you/civildrones-rpas
[43] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-384_en.htm & http://europa.eu/rapid/pressreleaseSTATEMENT-14-110_en.htm
[44] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-384_en.htm & http://europa.eu/rapid/pressrelease_STATEMENT-14-110_en.htm
[45] I intend to devote a subchapter analyse some of the above mentioned countries in order to highlight the differences in contrast to other attempts.
[46] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-384_en.htm & http://europa.eu/rapid/pressrelease_statement-14-110_en.htm
[47] Let us not forget the fact that is a global problem realised in many countries, as I have already outlined in the case of Hungary.
[48] Haylen, Andrew, Butcher, Loise: Briefing Paper: Civilian drones: p. 3. Number CBP 7734, 31 August 2017: on: www.parliament.uk/commons-library
[49] Haylen, Butcher: i.m. p. 3.
[50] Haylen, Butcher: i.m. p. 3.
[51] I intend to examine the regulations currently launched in the Eu, the USA, and some common law countries as well, in connection with technology related topics, such as Internet regulations.
[52] This argument will be fully developed in the upcoming chapter of my dissertation.
Lábjegyzetek:
[1] The Author is PhD student, Géza Marton Doctoral School of Legal Studies University of Debrecen Faculty of Law.
Visszaugrás
