Markey Introduces Drone Privacy Bill He Says is Needed to Address 'Dangerous' Environment
Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., introduced legislation that would impose strict privacy and data collection requirements on commercial and government drone uses. He acted before a Senate Commerce Committee hearing Wednesday at which Markey called the current environment "dangerous" and pressed Earl Lawrence, Federal Aviation Administration director-Office of Unmanned Aircraft Systems, about the agency's efforts on drone privacy: “There are no safeguards that are in place in order to ensure that there’s a baseline federal privacy protection about the collection, retention, the sale of personal information," Markey said.
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.
Asked by Markey whether the FAA should create federal rules for drone data collection, Lawrence replied the agency is working with commercial and government partners on that, including the NTIA in its multistakeholder development of voluntary privacy best practices (see 1605180044) and the work of the agency's Drone Advisory Committee (DAC) (see 1609160003). Lawrence also told Markey that the FAA doesn't offer a searchable public website detailing where, when and for what purpose commercial and government entities are conducting drone operations.
“That’s a dangerous environment," replied Markey. "It’s just going to get more and more dangerous because there’s going to be really bad people, really bad people who are going to take this information, compromise it, use it for purposes that they should not be allowed to use it." Senate Commerce Chairman John Thune, R-S.D., after the hearing said he hadn't looked at Markey's bill but the committee will continue to look at privacy. He said drone privacy is one of several issues that will be reviewed, since FAA reauthorization expires in September. The Electronic Privacy Information Center is suing the FAA for not developing privacy rules (see 1703140042).
Markey and Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., who introduced the bicameral Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act in the House, said it's similar to one they introduced in the last Congress. The new bill would prohibit the FAA from issuing or approving a license for a drone flight unless the operator provides details about who will fly it, where it will operate and what data will be collected, used and retained and if that data will be sold to third parties. The bill would require the agency to create a public website that lists all approved licenses and data collection and minimization statements as well as a licensee's data security breaches and times and locations of drone flights. Law enforcement agencies and their contractors and subcontractors would be required to provide a statement on how they will minimize the collection and retention of data unrelated to a criminal investigation, under the bill. It would require agencies to obtain a warrant for drone surveillance unless it's for emergency purposes.
Thune asked Lawrence about efforts to hold drone operators responsible for committing privacy or other violations. Lawrence responded it's one of the FAA's highest priorities, identifying needs and technologies that can help. He said the agency plans to pull that together in the summer and come back with recommendations to the committee about what standards they can use and about regulations and laws that could help. He said technologies are available and the difficulty may be to pick the right one. Some are low-tech, like a drone operator wearing a bright-colored vest or hanging Mylar ribbons on drones so law enforcement officials can identify them, he said.
Hoover Institution visiting fellow John Villasenor testified it would be "premature" to enact broad, new federal legislation on drones because existing constitutional, statutory or common law privacy protections may be enough. Later, when asked by Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., about state privacy laws, he said he's optimistic that existing privacy frameworks, including those developed by states, could work. He said it's a good thing for states to experiment.
Other witnesses said a national standard is needed to replace what they say is a patchwork of state and local laws, which hinders development of the technology. Those arguments previously have arisen within the drone and autonomous vehicle industry (see 1606280051 and 1702270047). Drone company DJI's Brendan Schulman, vice president-policy and legal affairs, said nearly 300 state bills were introduced last year along with other local legislation regulating drones. Some are "thoughtful and welcome," he said, but others were restrictive and conflicted with FAA rules. He said there's a great need to reconcile such issues so they don't hinder the industry, and the DAC is one entity reviewing the issue. Diana Marina Cooper, vice president-legal and policy affairs with PrecisionHawk, said it's difficult for a relatively small drone company like hers to grow when it has to deal with different rules across jurisdictions. A national standard would help, she said.