NTIA Drone Multistakeholder Meeting Likely To Be Extended; Consensus May not Occur
Consensus seems unlikely anytime soon among industry and privacy advocates on drones, both sides and the government facilitator signaled during their meeting Wednesday. With agreement a way's off, there may be more meetings than had been scheduled. By the end of the meeting, the parties didn't appear any closer together than when the gathering began.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Members of the NTIA drone multistakeholder process were encouraged to submit comments to the Transportation Department and Federal Aviation Administration, after DOT and FAA said this week that a 25-30 member task force is to create a new unmanned aircraft systems registration process (see 1510190039). A list of task force members is to be finalized this week, and a list of recommendations was requested by Nov. 20, said Transportation Department attorney-adviser Anne Bechdolt during the drone multistakeholder meeting Wednesday. Though the new task force is considering safety concerns, the group isn’t considering transparency and accountability as in depth as the NTIA participants are, said NTIA Director-Privacy Initiatives John Verdi.
Bechdolt said the anticipated wealth of new drones expected to be purchased this holiday season has sparked the quick deadlines for the task force, saying DOT has concluded that the exemption program that has been in effect is too burdensome. The task force's goal is to streamline the registration process, she said. What kinds of information should be requested, stored and made publicly available are all questions that will be posed to the task force, Bechdolt said. The agencies have asked for comment to help the task force in its work and ask comments be made within the next 15 days, she said. The docket will remain open while the task force meets, she said.
FAA attorney Dean Griffith said the task force process would allow for a range of viewpoints. Bechdolt wasn’t able to confirm whether it would be required that a privacy or civil liberties group be a part of the task force.
Wednesday’s drone multistakeholder meeting was supposed to be the second-to-last meeting in the NTIA multistakeholder drone process, with one more meeting scheduled for November. Halfway through the Wednesday meeting, Verdi said he was skeptical the group would come to consensus during the Nov. 20 final meeting. Part of Verdi’s concern stemmed from a heated discussion between privacy advocates and representatives from industry. He asked participants to return at that meeting with a preference for a best practices draft that had already been proposed or a new draft. Verdi proposed the group meet again at the end of January, citing difficulties of scheduling a meeting in December due to the holidays.
During the Wednesday meeting, the groups reviewed best practices drafts submitted by industry and privacy groups, and versions reviewed by the law firm Hogan Lovells. Attorneys for Amazon proposed that instead of relying on the Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS), the group use the administration’s proposed Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights as a best practices framework. The proposal was supported by Information Technology Industry Council Research Assistant Alan McQuinn, who said the FIPS framework isn’t good for emerging technologies.
A working group document spearheaded by Management Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors Government Affairs Manager John Byrd listed the societal benefits of using drones. NetChoice Policy Counsel Carl Szabo recommended the group create a document looking at how the best practices issued by the multistakeholder group would enhance or reduce the benefits outlined by the group.
A document spearheaded by National Association Realtors Policy Representative Stephanie Spear examined state laws that address voyeurism, stalking, data security, nuisance and surveillance. A lot of laws and unlawful behavior already are articulated in the universe, Spear said. She recommended the group “fill in the gaps and address what isn’t covered” in its best practices. Szabo said the group had to make sure that its best practices don’t conflict with state laws. If a state considers flying below 50 feet to be trespassing, the best practices shouldn’t recommend flying only under 50 feet, he said.
Center for Democracy & Technology Advocacy Director Harley Geiger proposed it may be more helpful to identify best practices that conflict with state laws, noting that he expected in 99 percent of instances, there would be no conflict. Szabo and Geiger were on opposite ends of the spectrum on several issues, including whether best practices would limit free speech. Whenever a company adopts a privacy policy, it is in a way limiting free speech, Geiger said. These best practices wouldn’t infringe upon First Amendment rights because companies would be voluntarily abiding by them, he said.
Geiger raised concerns with a proposal Szabo introduced and was supported in his concerns by members of other privacy groups including the American Civil Liberties Union, Access and the Open Technology Institute. Industry largely supported Szabo.