Welcome to the Era of Drones! by Oliver DeMille

March 31st, 2015 // 5:57 am @ Oliver DeMille

(Transportation without Representation)

Question:

It’s a big thing in the print media, right now. It shows up in article after article. Where do property rights end and airspace rights begin? When the jet planes or smaller Cessna’s were flying above at 21,000 feet or even 900 feet, most people didn’t care if they went directly over one’s property.

But what happens in the coming Drone Era when drones fly 10 or 20 feet above your backyard on their way to deliver a book, a box of peaches, or toilet paper to your neighbors? (Popular Science, January 2015, page 71) Is that a violation of your property? Or your privacy? Certainly, if they run into your tree or hit your power line, you’re going to call it a bit intrusive, but what if they just fly past?

And, as more people are asking, how can you tell if they are simply delivering the morning paper or taking video of your family as they fly by? Or both? And who owns that drone that will be flying past, anyway? Amazon? WalMart? The government? Which government—state, local, federal? Or a private individual, like your teenage daughter’s stalker who is hoping to catch a glimpse of her in a swimsuit?

Sound creepy? A lot of people think so. In fact, Audi has taken advantage of this rising realization that drones are going to be part of our lives and made a commercial—a “horror” commercial, if there is even such a genre. Here’s how it unfolds:

A group of business people are standing in a lobby, waiting to go to the parking lot. A company spokesman tells them to act normal, “don’t run.” We all wonder what he means. Then the crowd leaves the building and we see the menace: a fleet of drones hovering above the parking lot like attackers in Hitchcock’s classic horror film “The Birds.”

“Stay calm,” everyone is told. But, of course, they all run away instead—sprinting for their cars, briefcases and handbags with coattails flapping in the wind as they go. There is screaming, drones dart down at the people like fighters on a sci-fi movie; everyone panics.

Except one guy. He quickly but calmly opens the door to his car, which just happens to be an Audi, and gets in. He tells the car computer to plot him a course to what seems to be his off-the-grid getaway—a cabin by the lake.

As he drives, the car is pursued by attacking drones, targeting it like an army of invading Cylons, or like X-wings racing along the surface of the Death Star. “The force, Luke. The force…”

But the Audi evades them, causing two of them to crash into each other. And “Luke” races off to safety. The voice in the commercial tells us that some technology is very helpful—no need to be afraid. If technology attacks, other, better technology will help us fight back.

It’s funny. It’s catchy. And it hits on a theme that is all too real for many people: Do we really want drones invading our personal airspace, every few minutes, all day long? Is there anything we can do to stop it? Or is it just a fait accompli?

Big Brother is Coming?

For decades, Hollywood has sold the dangers of technology gone wrong. The huge, awkward “communicators” of 1970s Star Trek have become a reality; in fact we now have phones much tinier than those once imagined on screen. On the one hand, technology is fascinating, and interesting to us all. On the other, are there real threats? Could fleets of robots be flying past our homes every day, every hour, without our permission? Answer: “Yes. Absolutely.”

Is this just “A Happy March to the Future” or should we be sounding the alarm, Paul Revere-like: “Big Brother is Coming”? Is it “A Better World!” or are we facing a major case of “Transportation without Representation!”?

Will the government be the problem in the Drone Era (sending its drones to spy on its own citizens), or will it be the solution (protecting us from private drone infringements)? Here are three thoughts on this:

13% of those polled by The Atlantic believe that within ten years 75% or more of Americans will own a personal drone. (The Atlantic, November 2014, page 84)

Instead of checking your bags and paying the extra fees, travelers might be able to ship their luggage directly via their personal drone—the bags will be waiting for you at your hotel’s front desk. Nice.

From an article in Popular Science: “Humphreys [director of the Radionavigation Laboratory at the University of Texas] thinks regular Joes will want to defend their privacy too [just like governments and corporations do].” Humphreys said: “I have a sense that a shotgun is going to be first thing they’ll grab…” (op cit., Popular Science) Joe Biden will prefer a double-barreled shotgun, no doubt.

But just like in Biden’s neighborhood, in many places shooting within city limits or populated areas is illegal. And shooting the drone itself is illegal as well. (Ibid.)

Behind the Curtain

So, what about your property and privacy rights? There are a lot of questions here. If the government considers a foreign drone flying over U.S. airspace a breach of national security, how can it logically argue that a drone flying over your private property doesn’t reduce your rights—especially if it is taking pictures or shooting video?

But make no mistake, this is exactly what governments are going to argue. If the water and mineral rights for your property are separate from land ownership, for example, why would airspace be any different?

Maybe there will be an airspace market, with special plat maps and zoning commissions, and lots of extra fees paid to attorneys—so that some people can own their own, personal airspace above their yards. Certainly the Clintons and Bushes will want to get in on this, just like they owned their own computer servers.

And, if airspace goes up for sale on the private exchange, maybe some of your neighbors—and various corporations—will want to license or own the airspace just above your yard.

In all of this, one thing seems to stand out: it’s not really the drones that are scary. Audi got it wrong. It’s the people who make the decisions. Heck, now it seems that they even own the air…

Solution:

Checks and balances could help. If only the majority of voters truly believed in them anymore.

Only parents and educators have the real power to resurrect a society that truly believes in checks and balances. This is a generational battle, and if we lose it again in the current generation (like we did in the last 2), it will likely remain lost for a very long time to come.

Category : Blog &Citizenship &Community &Culture &Current Events &Economics &Featured &Generations &Government &History &Information Age &Liberty &Politics &Science &Technology

2 Comments → “Welcome to the Era of Drones! by Oliver DeMille”

Tom

9 years ago

Airspace near airports is already an issue. And government owners of airports frequently buy airspace. Commonly called or known as avigation easements. Each state is a bit different.

In my state for example the local municipality can zone around the airport both for the type of land use as well as the height. This is so that development around the public use airport are not impeded nor is noise a problem and airplane won’t have tall towers and things they could hit while flying into and out of the airport.

in our case, the typical height that is zoned for height, starts about 50 feet above ground. If the approach slope into the airport runway requires something lower, certainly below about 35 feet above ground. it is common that the government owner will use eminent domain to buy the airspace easement from the property owner. This involves appraisals and property rights as provided in the state eminent domain laws.

So there appears to already be precedent about private property rights of the “air” above a person’s property. Basically at some height (usually something higher than say 50 feet above the ground) is navigatable airspace.

Of course all of this is subject to change. And while the limited number of people in the approach and very near an airport is one thing. But drones can fly anywhere and everywhere. Regulations restrict pilots from even small private planes to really be over congested development and manmade structures and many restricted and prohibited airspaces across the nation. And quite simply from a self preservation standpoint it is risky to fly low and in places where no emergency landing area’s are available. So pilots do not really want to be in those places anyhow so it is self policing in a way. Drones without a human being who is at risk do not have these logical human self preservation and self policing incentives or disincentives. So I do see the use of drones as being a MUCH bigger issue.

And with modern optics and zoom lens capabilities, even flying over at something 1,000 feet away really provides no assurance of privacy.

We often hear about our “right” to privacy. Yet those exact words are NOT used in the constitution or bill of rights. So do we as US citizens really have this “right”?

That is the discussion point I’d like to see debated. I have my personal opinions and basis and some based upon the “principles” of the constitution. But is that sufficient to extrapolate Constitutional principles to then conclude that we do in fact have a “right” to privacy?

I think it would be a compelling and stimulating debate to hear both sides of the issue.

And maybe it will be the technological aspect of drones that force our society to have that very debate.
Todd

8 years ago

This is going to be interesting to see how airspace limitations unfold. I realize people like their privacy and space. but who is to say who owns the air. In Canada the ground under your house is all owned by the government, meaning minerals and oil etc. And until now it seems like the government owned the air too. Would setting a minimum and maximum flight envelope for recreational drones be the way to ease into the inevitable.