MSNBC's Morning Joe political news program led at 6am with a discussion of the drone privacy hearing yesterday and the growing, odd alliance of the left and right to question domestic drones, mostly on the fear of abuse by government and law enforcement. The body language of Mika, Joe, and their guest Richard Haas from the Council on Foreign Relations indicated a general shock about the technology and the large gaps in consensus and understanding generated by the larger drone debate.

What would have happened in the news cycle if instead of a Senate staff person walking a 2lb drone from the Mesa, AZ, police department up to Chairman Leahy as a prop, that a small drone was flown live inside the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing room?

The room was packed yesterday and with a noticeably young audience.  People stood in line outside in the hallway hoping to get in and many went to the overflow room to watch the hearing live.

The hearing generally showcased a lot of negative feelings toward drones and fears about how law enforcement may use them domestically. Lots  of fear about how new the technology is and how fast it is moving.

The hearing did a good job of teeing up many issues.  But it did provide more runway to those on the left and the right already critical of drones used by the government to fight terrorism.  Chairman Leahy mentioned that Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), Chairman of the the Constitution, Civil Rights & Human Rights Subcommittee, will soon have a hearing on drones and the Constitution.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), is the Ranking Member (or top Republican), on that Subcommittee.  Cruz has attracted headlines for his questioning of the Obama Administration on drones and how they may be used domestically and Constitutionally.  This Durbin-Cruz hearing should attract yet more commentary on fears.

The good news for the DIYDrones community is that these hearings and the legislation already introduced won't lead to a change in the law next week, next month and probably not this year.  Drone regulation is likely to get bogged down in the broader privacy/cybersecurity reform debates (ECPA, DNT, CISPA) and in the general debate about the President's use of drones.

Worth noting that commentary at the hearing indicated that the FAA does not have the authority to deal with drone privacy issues.  Now it is only a matter of time for other agencies to volunteer to be the "lead" regulatory or for someone to propose that a new agency be created.

If the odd alliance of the left and the right continues that coalition could be a driver for legislation.  And even if there is not legislation that becomes law, this coalition is likely to exert influence on public opinion and on government agencies including those that will act on drone issues including the FAA.

And the activism is clearly being driven by groups that fear drones or at least the government exercise of authority via drones.  Yesterday two dozen civil liberty and privacy organizations petitioned the U.S. Bureau of Customs & Border Protection.  It is good to see an open debate and privacy and other concerns raised.  This should be encouraged.

However, it needs to be balanced with activism for the positive and creative developments resulting from drones.  Too much fear (or ignorance, grandstanding) of technology risks disrupting disruption. Descending ingenuity and entrepreneurship in the drone area is not good policy.

Michael Toscano of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, one of the witnesses yesterday, tried to present the positive story of how drones create jobs and economic growth.  Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) was not impressed. She fears that drones will be armed. 

There is some hope for the positive story.  Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) spoke at the hearing about his constituents bidding for one of the six FAA drone test facilities.  Lee, a backer of Sen. Cruz on the drone Constitutionality debate, may be opening the door for fostering drone innovation.  Sanctioned safe zones in politically connected communities, however, may or may not impede innovation. 

What has made the Internet great is that an entrepreneur (anyone) can think of something and put it out on the Web and see if it takes off.  Little to no permission is needed in advance.  Doing the same with physical innovations in the public airspace is going to be different.

On Wednesday, March 20th, at 10:30am Eastern time, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hosts “The Future of Drones in America: Law Enforcement and Privacy Considerations” hearing.  Webcast link, witness list, and prepared written statements by witnesses are available here. (If you miss the live webcast the hearing should be available in the archives.)

This hearing may be managed or influenced by the "Privacy, Technology and the Law" subcommittee.  Then again, Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the full Judiciary Committee, may want to drive the hearing. He has been vocal about drone privacy issues since at least January, 2013.  And Chairman Leahy spoke out on Vermont Public Radio on 3/20/13 on the need to have many hearings and how new technology outstrips society.  Leahy appears to be concerned about the increasing use of drones by law enforcement and the impact on privacy.  Leahy has a strong record on technology policy issues. Leahy should bring thoughtful leadership to the drone issue.  He is likely to open it up to the positive aspects, especially with regard to ingenuity and the breadth of uses of drones.

This blog has done a good job of covering policy, legislative, and regulatory developments, especially at the state and local level in the U.S.

General media coverage of this hearing focuses on how drones impair or may otherwise impact privacy, mostly in terms of the use of drones by the government.  Not much coverage in this legislative context of the innovations resulting from drones and the benefits from individuals creating and deploying drones.  To date it appears that most of the lobbying on drones is coming from the larger manufacturers.  This may be skewing the perception of drones and will color the privacy debate.


For example, POLITICO Morning Tech (3/19/13) frames the hearing as a part of the debate raised to a national level by the filibuster by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and points out that drone privacy legislation has been introduced by Reps. Ted Poe (R-TX) and Zoe Lofgren (D-CA).  H.R. 637 enjoys several cosponsors: Jeff Duncan (R-SC), Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Trey Gowdy (R-SC), Rush Holt (D-NJ), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Billy Long (R-MO), Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), and Ted Yoho (R-FL). Statements by Poeand Lofgren describe H.R.637.

According to Thomas, H.R.637 has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.  No public information is available re hearings.  Thomas does provide links to additional statements and other background information.   There is no companion bill in the Senate indicated by Thomas at this time.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), introduced his own drone privacy bill on 3/19/13.  It is an update of his bill from 2012.

 
The Electronic Privacy & Information Center or EPIC, one of the hearing witnesses, says that this hearing will help raise awareness of domestic use of drones by the government and how that violates privacy.  EPIC has been active on drone issues especially with regard pending FAA request for comments.  This blog recently covered this FAA request for comment issued on 2/14/13 regarding privacy policy requirements to be levied on the Unmanned Aircraft Systems Test Site operators.