U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

96–054 PDF 2015

UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES: 

COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS AND 

PUBLIC POLICY IMPLICATIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, 

AND THE INTERNET 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2015 

Serial No. 114–42 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DAVE TROTT, Michigan 

MIKE BISHOP, Michigan 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND THE INTERNET

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia, Vice-Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

JOE KEELEY, Chief Counsel 

JASON EVERETT, Minority Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2015 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Darrell E. Issa, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet .......................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual 

Property, and the Internet .................................................................................. 3 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 5 

WITNESSES 

Brian Wynne, President and CEO, Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 9 

Chris Calabrese, Vice President for Policy, Center for Democracy & Technology 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 15 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 17 

Chris Polychron, 2015 President, National Association of Realtors®

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 27 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 29 

Tom Karol, General Counsel—Federal, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 38 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 40 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 5 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Motion Picture Association of America .................... 71 

(1) 

UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES: COMMERCIAL 

APPLICATIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY IMPLICATIONS 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, 

AND THE INTERNET

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:02 p.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Darrell E. 

Issa (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Issa, Goodlatte, Collins, Chabot, Forbes, 

Poe, Chaffetz, Marino, Nadler, Chu, Richmond, DelBene, Cicilline, 

Peters, Lofgren, and Johnson. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Vishal Amin, Senior Counsel; Eric Bagwell, Clerk; and (Minority) David Greengrass, Counsel. 

Mr. ISSA. The Committee will come to order. Members will be 

joining us throughout the next few minutes, but we will get started 

because we have a vote likely at 4:30 p.m. And as a result, as I 

previously announced, our goal is to get all the statements in and 

questions in so that we not hold you over into the dinner hour. 

I want to welcome everyone here today. Today’s hearing is on 

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Commercial Applications and Public 

Policy Implications. And unspoken very clearly in that title is the 

rights and responsibilities of individuals and the people who are 

underneath those aerial vehicles. 

Today, we will discuss commercial applications for unmanned 

aerial vehicles, otherwise known as UAVs or drones, and the potential public policy implications. It is my hope that this and future 

hearings on new technologies will educate Members so they have 

a more informed understanding of the policy decisions before us. 

There is significant potential for UAV markets. Some of that potential has already been realized on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan and in providing safe observation of hurricanes and 

other activities around the world. But today, drones—drones as 

small and simple as this few hundred dollar one up to drones costing $18,000 and more are commercially available. These drones are 

often used in novel ways never possible before. 
2 

This includes and is not limited to one of our testimony today, 

which will talk about the significance of unmanned aerial vehicles 

for real estate. The ability to know and see the property you may 

buy while you are, in fact, thousands of miles away has been a 

dream for a long time. And until inexpensive unmanned aerial vehicles became available with high-performance cameras, it was impossible to demonstrate from the air how you would get there, what 

it looked like, the condition of it, or even what the backyard properly looked like in a way in which the potential buyer could appreciate it well before coming to see the property. 

Companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon are investing in 

developing new drone technologies that have the potential to 

change how we receive Internet service, various goods, and even 

how we monitor and access remote places around the world or disaster areas. Responsible drone use across industries, including 

Internet services, movie and news industries, sports coverage, and 

more are part of daily operations. 

As drone technology has become rapidly more prevalent over the 

past few years, both the Government and private sector have been 

faced with challenging questions over privacy, airspace access, and 

more. Such a debate broadly echoes the theme that this Committee 

sees in new technology. How do we allow new, innovative technologies to come to market and advance economic interests without 

stifling private industries through outdated or inflexible regulations? 

UAV technology has the potential to deliver genuine services to 

society, and at the same time, the public and private sectors must 

work together to protect consumers’ safety and privacy. Such a cooperation should focus on flexibility, and I am interested to hear 

from our witnesses suggestions on how we can balance the needs 

of consumers and technology developers. 

Before I conclude and yield to the Ranking Member, I want to 

say on a very personal basis that I have seen these vehicles operate. I have had the opportunity to operate some of the small vehicles. I have seen them operate as long ago as the beginning of the 

Gulf War in 2001. 

These and their consumer smaller versions represent a great opportunity, one that more than a decade—or not more than a decade, 6 years ago, Ray LaHood, then the brand-new Secretary of 

Transportation, said one of his priorities to accomplish during his 

tenure. He pledge to work on the FAA to develop standards for 

safety and deployability not just for these smaller ones like the one 

I held up earlier, but, in fact, for the Global Hawk, the Predator, 

and other large-scale UAVs. 

He is a dear friend of mine, but the FAA let us down. And today, 

as a private pilot, I find it reprehensible that we are, in fact, constantly talking about the danger of very small ones while the FAA 

has essentially punted on their responsibility to set standards. 

The FAA is not within this Committee’s jurisdiction, and we appreciate that. But at the same time, we understand that the possibilities for these vehicles flying typically below 400 feet cannot be 

stifled by just the inaction of the FAA. 
3 

And so, with that, I look forward to my Ranking Member’s statement and our witnesses, and I yield to the gentleman from New 

York. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today, we examine another emerging technology, unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVS or, as they are commonly referred to, drones. 

Like the Internet of Things, which was the subject of a recent hearing in our Subcommittee, drone technology holds great promise but 

also raises significant questions of privacy and security. 

Today’s hearing is not about our military’s use of drones overseas, nor are we considering drone use by domestic law enforcement. Those are important topics that raise many questions to be 

discussed at another time. Our focus today is on the commercial 

application of drones in the United States, which raises its own set 

of important issues. 

Once upon a time, if you talked about a remote controlled aircraft, you conjured up images of a child playing with his or her toy 

airplane in the backyard or in the park. The plane was fairly small, 

had a limited range, and wouldn’t cause much damage except to 

itself if it fell to the ground or crashed onto your roof. This was 

hardly something that would concern Congress. 

But we are now entering a very different world, where today’s remote controlled aircraft may be as heavy as a few hundred pounds, 

can travel many miles, and might be equipped with sophisticated 

cameras and sensors, sending images and data to your computer in 

real time. In some cases, the aircraft might not even be remotely 

controlled. It might be following a preprogrammed flight path. 

And the operator isn’t a child in the backyard. It may be a major 

company delivering packages, monitoring farm land, or reporting 

on traffic jams. How we address the privacy and safety implications 

of this new kind of unmanned aircraft is very much the province 

of Congress, and I hope this hearing will help us answer some of 

the important questions raised by the commercial use of drones. 

Drone technology has the potential to unleash a wave of innovation across numerous industries. For example, real estate agents 

can provide aerial views of prospective properties. Insurance adjusters can quickly survey flood damage over a wide area. 

Companies like Amazon hope to deliver packages by air within 

30 minutes, and photographers and film directors can take footage 

of their subjects from unique angles. An Israeli company recently 

developed a drone that can quickly deliver a defibrillator to the site 

of a heart attack victim in the street, along with a camera and a 

microphone so that the operator can instruct a bystander on how 

to use the drone to save the person’s life while the ambulance and 

the medical technicians are still on their way. 

Meanwhile, entrepreneurs are launching companies that offer 

drone services for hire or act as brokers between drone operators 

and businesses that need their services. The possibilities for innovation are almost endless, but so are the questions that these services can raise. 

Most critically, how can we assure individuals that their privacy 

will be protected as these unmanned aircraft fly overhead? Drones 

have the ability to collect massive amounts of data regarding the 

people and places below. What sort of notice should be given to the 
4 

individuals whose data is collected, whose backyard may be 

surveilled? 

What rights should they have to control how this data is stored, 

shared, and used? And what sorts of security protocols are in place 

to protect against this data being compromised by hackers? 

Drones also raise significant safety concerns. We are all familiar 

with the drone that accidentally crashed into the White House 

lawn in January. Just last week, a drone crashed into the U.S. 

Open tennis tournament. And last month, a college student mounted a handgun on a drone and posted a video on YouTube of the 

handgun firing live ammunition from the flying drone. 

Although each of these incidents involved privately operated 

drones, they highlight the danger that can be posed by misuse of 

this technology. Not only must we protect against drones being 

used for malicious purposes, we must also ensure that drones are 

operated safely and do not interfere with other objects in the sky. 

In addition, we must seek to minimize the noise or other nuisance that drones may present to individuals on the ground as they 

pass by. Recognizing the growing potential of drone technology, in 

2012, Congress called on the FAA to develop a plan to safely integrate civil use of unmanned aerial vehicles into the National Airspace System. 

The FAA has yet to complete this rulemaking, but its proposed 

rule naturally focuses on issues of safety in the skies as that is the 

agency’s domain rather than on privacy concerns. Therefore, in 

February, President Obama directed the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to convene a multi-stakeholder process to develop and communicate best practices regarding privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. 

But these best practices would be merely voluntary in nature. 

Given the vast array of issues raised by the commercial application 

of drones, it would seem that a mandatory regulatory structure is 

warranted. 

We should also consider where such regulatory power should lie. 

For example, the FAA regulates the safety of objects in flight, while 

the Federal Communications Commission regulates the airwaves 

through which drones are controlled. The Federal Trade Commission plays a strong role in protecting consumer privacy, while the 

Departments of Justice and Homeland Security take the lead in 

protecting our security. 

These agencies are one problem, and they are in addition to the 

many laws that have been passed on the State level concerning 

drones. I hope our witnesses today will help us sort through what 

a proper regulatory scheme might look like for drones and commercial use and who should administer these laws and regulations. 

Despite the many potential benefits of drone technology, there 

are too many questions that must be answered before we can fully 

embrace it for commercial use. 

I appreciate the Chairman calling this hearing so that we can 

begin a thoughtful consideration of these important issues. I thank 

you, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Nadler. 
5 

I would now like to recognize the Chairman of the full Committee, Chairman Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, for his opening statement. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

your holding this hearing. 

And today, we are here to learn more about the commercial applications and policy implications of unmanned aerial vehicles. This 

new area of technology is of particular interest to the Judiciary 

Committee, considering our longstanding jurisdiction when it 

comes to issues pertaining to intellectual property and security. 

UAVs have the opportunity to transform a wide range of industries from farmers monitoring their crops to realtors trying to sell 

a home, to utility companies monitoring power lines, to delivering 

emergency supplies, to changing the way we view sports or film 

movies. As this Committee continues to study this new technology, 

it is important for us to keep in mind the issues surrounding UAVs 

and be cognizant of their effects on public policy today and in the 

future. 

In particular, we need to examine the privacy and security implications of this technology and look into the security and privacy 

measures that industry is building now and the measures they intend to implement as open standards are developed. I am hopeful 

that this new technology will help fuel the engine of American innovation, prosperity, and creativity, and I think we have a great 

panel with us here today, and I look forward to hearing from our 

witnesses. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

All Members, including the Ranking Member, will have their entire opening statements placed in the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:] 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary 

The commercial use of unmanned aerial vehicles—or drones—presents substantial 

public policy considerations but also promises potential benefits. 

As we hear from today’s witnesses, I would like for us to consider the following 

points. 

To begin with, unmanned aerial vehicles present potentially serious privacy, safety, and security issues. 

I am already concerned about law enforcement’s use of drones for surveillance 

purposes. 

But widely-available drones sold commercially present different but just as important privacy implications. 

These drones have the capability to violate the expected privacy of individuals by 

peeking into windows and take photographs. 

Drones can collect data through identification technologies, such as automated license plate scanners and facial-recognition software, that could be used for surveillance purposes. 

Not only do drones raise privacy concerns, they also can create safety and security 

issues. 

Just last week, for example, a drone crashed into the stands where thousands 

were viewing the U.S. Open Tennis Championships. Fortunately, no one was injured. 

Earlier this year, drones on two separate occasions crashed onto or were flown 

over the White House grounds presenting serious national security concerns. 
6 

There have also been reports of drones being weaponized, and the resulting shooting down of drones by individuals protecting their privacy or finding the drones a 

nuisance. 

And, there have been numerous reports of drones violating the restricted airspace 

of commercial and military airplanes. 

So, as a starting point, we must protect against the threats to privacy and public 

safety presented by the use and proliferation of commercial drones and, to that end, 

have a thorough discussion on how the government can best achieve those goals. 

For example, Congress could consider Representatives Poe and Lofgren’s H.R. 

1835, the Preserving American Privacy Act, and Representative Welch’s H.R. 1229, 

the Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act. These bills attempt to address 

privacy concerns. 

At the same time, I believe Congress should consider ways to foster the 

development of the commercial use of unmanned aerial vehicles as this industry could play a major role in helping to grow our Nation’s economy 

and create new jobs. 

The technologies inherent with drones provide expansive opportunities for 

innovators and investors. 

It is estimated, for instance, that within three years after drones are integrated 

into the national airspace, the unmanned aircraft industry could generate more 

than $16 billion in value to our Nation’s economy. 

This, in turn, could create thousands of new jobs. 

Finally, I am also particularly interested in hearing how consumers could 

benefit from unmanned aerial vehicles. 

For example, realtors are utilizing unmanned aerial vehicles to survey land and 

photograph properties to provide more informative perspectives for potential homeowners and investors. 

The news media are using drones to record events that are too dangerous for humans to cover, such as the wildfires that have been ravishing the Western U.S. 

And, it is hoped that one day high altitude drones that can stay aloft for significant time periods will provide Internet access to consumers living in remote areas 

who otherwise would lack such access. 

We need to strike a balance that protects the privacy, safety, and security of individuals while encouraging the legitimate and commercial use of unmanned aerial 

vehicles. 

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses. 

Mr. ISSA. We now go to our distinguished panel of witnesses. For 

all the witnesses, your written statements have been entered into 

the record in their entirety, and I ask you to please summarize 

within 5 minutes or less your opening statements. 

To help us stay within the time limit, you will see the light on 

the table. My former Chairman of another Committee, Mr. Ed 

Towns of New York, often said there is nothing easier for us to understand than the red, green, and yellow light. Green means keep 

talking if you want to, yellow means go faster, and red means stop. 

So having quoted my predecessor on another Committee, I would 

ask you to please abide by the Ed Towns rule. 

Pursuant to the Committee’s rules, would you please all rise to 

take the oath and raise your right hand? 

Thank you. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 

about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing, but 

the truth? 

Thank you. Please be seated. 

Let the record indicate that all the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

Our witnesses today include Mr. Bryan Wynne, President and 

CEO of Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International; 

Mr. Chris Calabrese, Vice President of Policy at the Center for Democracy & Technology; Mr. Chris Polychron, the 2015 President of 
7 

the National Association of Realtors®; and Mr. Tom Karol, General 

Counsel at the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies. 

And with that, I would now recognize for 5 minutes Mr. Wynne. 

TESTIMONY OF BRIAN WYNNE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ASSOCIATION FOR UNMANNED VEHICLE SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL 

Mr. WYNNE. Chairman Issa, I thank you very much. Ranking 

Member Nadler and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate 

very much the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing regarding unmanned aircraft systems. 

I’m speaking on behalf of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle 

Systems International, the world’s largest nonprofit organization 

devoted exclusively to advancing the unmanned systems and robotics community. 

The UAS industry is poised to be one of the fastest growing in 

American history. During the first decade following UAS integration into the National Airspace System, the industry will create 

more than 100,000 new jobs and provide more than $82 billion in 

economic impact. From inspecting infrastructure to filming movies, 

the applications of UAS are virtually limitless, enabling researchers, public agencies, and businesses to do things more safely and 

cost effectively. 

As with any emerging technology, there are public policy issues 

that can help or hinder its growth. Let me explain. 

We are less than 3 weeks away from the congressionally mandated deadline of September 30th for the integration of UAS international airspace. The FAA has had more than 3 years to put a 

small UAS rule in place. There is tremendous pent-up demand for 

commercial UAS operations, yet the FAA isn’t expected to meet 

this deadline. 

Until the small UAS rule is finalized, the primary way commercial operators may fly is through an exemption. That process started in May of 2014. The FAA has received more than 2,700 requests 

and granted more than 1,400 exemptions. 

According to AUVSI’s report on the first 1,000 exemptions, businesses in more than 25 industries representing more than 600,000 

jobs and $500 billion in economic impact are now using UAS technology. And we’ve outlined the top 10 States with exemptions on 

the screen before you so you can see how they’re distributed. Just 

the top 10. 

For example, San Diego Gas and Electric provides energy services to 3.4 million people in southern California. It plans to use 

UAS to help inspect 26,000 miles of power lines, improving safety 

and efficiency. 

The Associated General Contractors of America represents 

26,000 member companies in the construction industry. Some are 

using UAS to improve project planning and execution. These are 

only a couple of examples, and you’ll hear from more industries on 

the panel. 

It’s easy to see the far-reaching benefits UAS will add. At the 

same time, the absence of Federal regulations means many busi-
8 

nesses remain grounded. The current system of case-by-case approvals isn’t a long-term solution. 

The lack of regulations—regulations isn’t just limiting economic 

potential of this industry, it’s also causing States and municipalities to fill the void with laws they may not have the authority to 

enforce. The most recent example is California’s Senate Bill 142, 

which would have restricted UAS from flying below 350 feet over 

private property if it were not for Governor Brown’s veto last night. 

While my industry supports the safe, nonintrusive use of UAS 

technology, SB 142 would have created inconsistencies with Federal law. Only the FAA can regulate airspace. States and municipalities cannot. According to the U.S. Code, and I quote, ‘‘The 

United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of 

the United States.’’ 

It’s critical for the Federal Government to assert its preemptive 

authority over the national airspace. In the absence of FAA action, 

we may soon be facing a legal quagmire. Challenges to questionable State laws will tie up the courts and at significant expense to 

taxpayers. 

If the FAA feels it needs clarification of its authority, I would 

urge Congress to provide such clarity and legislatively settle this 

issue. Putting the small UAS rules in place will also help increase 

the safety of the airspace. It’ll provide the necessary tools and 

training to create a culture of safety around the use of UAS. 

As more commercial UAS operators are certified, they’ll join the 

longstanding aviation community, which I’ve been part of for more 

than 20 years as an aircraft owner and instrument-rated general 

aviation pilot. They will foster the aviation community’s principles 

of airmanship and self-policing to promote safety and discourage 

careless and reckless operations. 

Because safety is essential for all users, AUVSI, in partnership 

with the Academy of Model Aeronautics and the FAA, last year developed the Know Before You Fly campaign to educate newcomers 

to the UAS, and I’d be pleased to answer more questions about this 

and other matters of interest to the Subcommittee. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wynne follows:] 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

Mr. Calabrese? Calabrese, I’m sorry. 

TESTIMONY OF CHRIS CALABRESE, VICE PRESIDENT FOR 

POLICY, CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY & TECHNOLOGY 

Mr. CALABRESE. Thank you, Chairman Issa. Oh. 

Mr. ISSA. Push the button. 

Mr. CALABRESE. Thank you, Chairman Issa, Ranking Member 

Nadler, and Members of the Committee. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on unmanned aircraft systems, or drones. 

I’m Chris Calabrese. I’m the vice president for policy at the Center for Democracy and Technology. 

CDT is a nonpartisan, nonprofit technology policy advocacy organization dedicated to protecting civil liberties, such as privacy and 

free speech while enabling Government agencies to provide security 

in the private sector to innovate. 

There are three key realities that should drive congressional action around drones. The first is that unmanned aircraft systems 

are a promising technology but have the potential to erode civil liberties through pervasive surveillance. 

The second is that current laws do not provide strong privacy 

protections from Government or private unmanned aircraft invasions. This lack of privacy protections undermines public trust in 

drone technology, which holds back the industry. 

Third, to earn public acceptance of drones, both Government and 

the UAS industry should fully address civil liberties issues through 

a combination of legislation and an industry code of conduct. 

CDT hopes and believes that UAS can become a valuable tool for 

commerce, journalism, disaster relief, scientific research, and more. 

However, privacy rules are a necessary predicate to all of this. 

Without baseline standards, we will continue to see State restricts on drone use as well as public distrust. It is telling that in 

a recent Pew poll, almost two-thirds of the public thought personal 

and commercial drone development would be a negative in spite of 

being generally positive about technology overall. 

Drones represent a new privacy threat because they are inexpensive, can stay in the air longer, and surveil previously private locations. In other words, UAS have the potential to be persistent, pervasive, and cheap. 

Our fear is that law enforcement might establish a ‘‘drone dragnet’’ that constantly tracks individuals in popular—populated outdoor areas, chilling the public’s right to assemble and free association. At the same time, a network of commercial unmanned aircraft 

could constantly record video footage of anyone who steps out of 

their home, even if the individual remains on private property. 

UAS can also be equipped with a variety of sensors, such as cell 

phone trackers, enabling even greater tracking. While this scenario 

is clearly not going to happen tomorrow, there are no existing laws 

that would prevent it from happening, and the Government does 

not—or the public does not yet trust the Government or the UAS 

industry to do anything—or excuse me, to do enough to prevent 

that reality. 
16 

When it comes to Government UAS, CDT believes that prolonged 

physical surveillance of individuals in public places violates Fourth 

Amendment principles. However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that Americans have no expectation of privacy from aerial 

surveillance. 

The court even held that the Fourth Amendment is not violated 

when a police helicopter looks into the interior of a private building 

through a hole in the ceiling without a warrant. Bottom line, there 

is very little privacy protection from Government UAS even outdoors. 

Law enforcement use is the most acute public concern with UAS. 

To address this public concern, Congress should pass legislation 

that, among other things, establishes due process protections for 

UAS. And while I know that’s not this Committee’s jurisdiction, it’s 

certainly something Judiciary Committee Members are concerned 

with. Note—and the most important thing is that that legislation 

be accompanied by a warrant. 

When it comes to private sector UAS use, common law privacy 

torts provide Americans with some protection outside of the home, 

but only if the conduct is highly offensive to a reasonable person. 

However, any Government regulation of private UAS must not violate the First Amendment and Americans’ right to take photographs in public. 

An industry code of conduct would help provide privacy protections from UAS where direct regulation cannot. But it would only 

be effective if the industry agrees to adopt a strong and enforceable 

code. 

This code should establish reasonable limits on UAS collection 

and retention of personally identifiable information. It should create a publicly accessible registry that includes data collection practices and—and we should establish cybersecurity standards to prevent hijacking or unauthorized damage to UAS systems. 

Thank you for holding this hearing. I appreciate the opportunity 

to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Calabrese follows:] 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

Mr. Polychron? 

TESTIMONY OF CHRIS POLYCHRON, 2015 PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®

Mr. POLYCHRON. Chairman Issa and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Chris Polychron, and I’m the 2015 President of the National Association of Realtors®. 

I’ve been a realtor for 28 years. I’m an executive broker with 

First Choice Realty in Hot Springs, Arkansas. I specialize in both 

residential and commercial brokerage. 

NAR is America’s largest trade association. Realtors are involved 

in all aspects of residential and commercial brokerage. NAR is 

America’s largest trade association. Realtors are involved, again, in 

all aspects of commercial real estate. 

Realtors are excited about the prospect of using unmanned aircrafts, or UAS, in their businesses, including using UASs for aerial 

photos, videos, and property inspections. Realtors are early adopters of new technology. 

In fact, a realtor from Arizona was the first to successfully apply 

for and receive a Section 333 waiver. A 2015 AUVSI study determined that of the first 500 waivers, real estate was the leading industry, making up over a quarter of all waivers. 

Commercial use of UASs has the potential to create new jobs and 

businesses specializing in their uses. NAR is excited about the possibilities, but also understands the need to balance them with protecting the privacy and safety of citizens and the national airspace. 

As end-users of this technology, realtors want clear regulations 

that permit the commercial use of UASs in a way that is affordable 

and safe on the ground and in the national airspace. The potential 

applications for UASs in real estate are plentiful and will grow. 

Currently, UASs can provide the opportunity for real estate practitioners to offer photographs and videos of properties that would 

otherwise be difficult to obtain. Using UAS technology to do the 

same thing is typically less expensive, less time-consuming, and 

less dangerous for everyone involved. 

As UAS technology progresses, the type of applications will grow 

as well. Real estate practitioners are excited about the potential to 

use the technology to conduct property inspections, appraisals, insurance valuations, and land surveys. And most importantly, to 

allow consumers to make better-informed decisions. 

Citizens’ safety and privacy are a primary concern of realtors, 

and we truly appreciate the steps that the FAA and the National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration have taken to 

protect these values. This requires clear regulations and strong 

education efforts for operators and their clients. Realtors are committed to being safe and responsible UAS end-users. 

NAR will continue educating its members about the importance 

of safe UAS operations. NAR’s participation in the Know Before 

You Fly safety campaign is merely one part of NAR’s efforts to talk 

about UAS safety with being a key priority. Through seminars material and Web site content, NAR has already informed its members about the safety precautions necessary when using UASs. 
28 

NAR is pleased that the FAA is moving forward with its rulemaking. NAR believes the proposed rules’ risk and safety-based approach is common sense and a reasonable one, and NAR supports 

the FAA’s attempt to address different levels of risk posed by different sizes and uses of UAS technology. A ‘‘one size fits all’’ approach will not effectively integrate technology as diverse as UAS 

into a complex airspace, which is why we are pleased that FAA has 

proposed a micro UAS category. 

UAS will continue to evolve and will require flexible regulations 

in order for it to meet their full potential. NAR is committed to 

working with the FAA to create a culture of safety surrounding the 

use of UAS while still enabling users to easily use UASs. 

NAR will continue to educate members on safety and privacy 

issues surrounding UAS operations, and we look forward to working together with lawmakers on this as well. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I, too, look forward 

to any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Polychron follows:] 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

Mr. Karol? 

TESTIMONY OF TOM KAROL, GENERAL COUNSEL—FEDERAL, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANIES 

Mr. KAROL. Thank you, Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Nadler, 

and Members of the Subcommittee. 

On behalf of the National Association—— 

Mr. ISSA. If you could—— 

Mr. KAROL. Sorry. 

Mr. ISSA. Yeah, add a little mike and pull it, pull it a little closer, 

too. Perfect. 

Mr. KAROL. Thank you, Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Nadler, 

and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, for the opportunity to testify today. 

NAMIC is the largest and most diverse property casualty trade 

association in the Nation with more than 1,300 property casualty 

insurance companies. NAMIC members serve more than 135 million auto, home, and business policyholders with more than $208 

billion in premiums, accounting for 48 percent of the automobile/ 

homeowners market and 33 percent of the business insurance market. 

The development of commercial UAS is accelerating. More and 

more sectors are contemplating the use of UAS, but regulations 

and laws in the United States have not kept up. NAMIC believes 

a reasonable, effective, and efficient regulation of the commercial 

use of UAS is not only possible, but should be a primary goal of 

policymakers in all levels of government. 

NAMIC members themselves are exploring the use of UAS to 

help appraise property, evaluate risk, and assess damage more 

quickly and accurately for policyholders. UAS can significantly reduce, if not eliminate, the dangers inherent in important tasks that 

our insurance personnels now put themselves in precarious positions, including roof inspections, damage assessments, and disaster 

response. 

A number of companies have already obtained Section 333 exemptions for insurance services from the Federal Aviation Administration. Additionally, NAMIC has had very productive meetings 

with the FAA in exploring the use of UAS in disaster situations, 

where the speed of processing and payment is paramount to victims of the disaster. 

At present, however, Federal and State UAS restrictions can 

limit, if not preclude, practical UAS by insurance companies. Our 

consumers have also asked NAMIC members about providing insurance coverage for their personal and commercial use of UAS. Insurance coverage for both the UAS itself and liability for any damage or loss are key parts of responsible commercial use. 

While many insurance companies are willing, few now offer such 

coverage. This is primarily due to the lack of legal and regulatory 

clarity at all government levels. Insurance contracts need to comport with Federal, State, and local law and regulations, which are 

presently in a state of flux. Insurance contracts that address liabil-
39 

ity and compensation depend on civil law and judicial determinations, which may or may not apply to commercial UAS usage. 

Until standards of UAS liability are better defined, it will be extremely difficult for insurance companies to understand and provide such risks. Furthermore, these standards must be integrated 

into an existing system of privacy and property rights at the appropriate Federal and State and local level. 

The question of liability may seem fairly close if a UAS crashes 

into a house or a person, but basic questions about property, privacy, and negligence need to be resolved for NAMIC members to 

understand the risks, underwrite the coverage, and price policies 

for those coverages. 

For example, if a UAS flies on your lawn, at what level do you 

consider that UAS to be trespassing upon your property? If a UAS 

is flying in your backyard and you or your family feel threatened, 

can you hit it with a baseball bat or a 9-iron? 

In making decisions concerning underwriting risks and paying 

claims related to UAS, it will be critical to understand the application of specific torts as well as the State and Federal laws that can 

permit UAS use and/or generate lawsuits or fines against a UAS. 

For example, concerning trespass and personal injury liability, 

an FAA designation of UAS navigable airspace will greatly inhibit, 

if not preclude, allegations that a UAS in that airspace trespassed 

on private property or violated privacy. The FAA has opined that 

UAS navigable airspace extends from the ground up, which could 

practically eliminate private property rights. It could also eliminate 

State jurisdiction over UAS. 

California legislature, on the other hand, has recently passed a 

law that defines a UAS flight of less than 350 feet over private 

property as trespassing. 

While certain legal questions remain surrounding UAS damage 

and injury, there is potential liability for harm from even the 

smallest UAS. Among the host of other issues, it will be important 

to address the question regarding the duties of a UAS operator to 

limit the foreseeable risk to others. 

In conclusion, there will always be risks associated with the commercial use of UAS. The FAA’s issuance of final rules on small 

UAS will eliminate some of the more significant barriers for UAS 

insurance at the Federal level. However, NAMIC members—for 

NAMIC members to provide comprehensive liability coverage for 

this emerging area, it will require the further development of Federal, State, and local regulations, as well as standards of liability, 

negligence, and property rights. 

NAMIC is committed to working with Federal, State, and local 

regulators in an effort to promote responsible UAS regulatory developments that protects aircraft, people, business, and property. 

As UAS regulations and civil liability standards evolve, NAMIC 

will work to ensure the development of regulations provide for the 

necessary clarity and breadth that its members need to serve and 

protect the policyholders. 

Again, on behalf of the more than 1,300 members of NAMIC, I 

thank you for the opportunity to testify today and look forward to 

any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Karol follows:] 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

And before I recognize the Ranking Member, do you want to clarify the status of that law in California? 

Mr. KAROL. I believe it was vetoed by Governor—— 

Mr. ISSA. That is correct. It was vetoed. So it was rejected by 

Governor Brown last night. 

I now take have the pleasure of—— 

VOICE. Are you sure? 

Mr. ISSA. Yeah. They do those things at night in California. We 

work all the time. 

Now I recognize the gentleman from New York, and it was definitely night in New York when he did it, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. NADLER. Well, thank you very much. 

Mr. Wynne, you make a strong argument that the FAA’s proposed rule regarding drones should be enacted without delay. But 

the FAA’s proposal focuses on safety in the skies rather than on 

the privacy implications of the vehicles they would regulate. Do you 

think there is also a role for Government regulation of the data 

that may be collected by the drones? 

Mr. WYNNE. Absolutely, sir. I think that those regulations also 

need to apply to body cameras and to license plate readers and all 

kinds of other technologies. There’s nothing specific about drones, 

which are just platforms for data collection that—that—— 

Mr. NADLER. Do you think they should be the same regulations? 

Mr. WYNNE. I beg your pardon? 

Mr. NADLER. They should be the same regulations, regardless of 

the platform? 

Mr. WYNNE. I think we have this problem. We’re all in favor of 

privacy, and it’s in our code of conduct. So the question is how do 

we do that in a way that’s technology neutral and that it actually 

doesn’t inhibit this technology? 

Mr. NADLER. But if—if I am wearing a body camera, I can’t enter 

your backyard. A drone can surveil—can engage in surveillance of 

your backyard. So you don’t think that it might be necessary to 

have somewhat different regulations? 

Mr. WYNNE. Well, forgive me, sir. I was trying to address your 

question about data retention and such. 

Mr. NADLER. Oh, okay. 

Mr. WYNNE. I think—I think the question—you know, I have— 

actually, the partner in my airplane is chief of police in Arlington 

County, and this is the question that we talk about a good deal. 

The retention of the data, the protection of that data, how that 

data is utilized, transparency, et cetera. These are things the industry is for and has to be for. 

We will not be a sustainable industry if we don’t take care of our 

customers’ data. 

Mr. NADLER. Now any—thank you. 

Anyone who lives near an airport, and certainly my constituents 

in New York who suffer from tourist helicopters buzzing in the sky, 

can tell you that noise pollution is a real problem. If commercial 

drone use increases substantially, as you envision, what sort of regulation should we put in place to protect against noise pollution 

and other nuisances caused by drones, particularly in residential 

neighborhoods? 
49 

Mr. WYNNE. Well, I think there’s a good—a very robust conversation going on right now about where drones, the commercial drones 

would fly, what kind of flyways would be created, et cetera. One 

thing I’m absolutely certain of is they will make less noise than 

helicopters. 

Mr. NADLER. Well, that is not saying much. 

Mr. WYNNE. This is a very robust conversation inside the helicopter community. Many helicopter operators would like to utilize 

drones because they are less expensive and somewhat more capable 

for certain kinds of missions and certainly safer than a 3,000- 

pound vehicle in the air. 

So, so I think we’ve got the same kinds of conversations going 

on that we always have in aviation. Noise abatement is—is an extremely important topic, and it’s one that will be. As we have more 

and more drones in the air, it will be—— 

Mr. NADLER. You are going to have to deal with it. Thank you. 

Mr. Calabrese, in your testimony, you point out that Americans 

have a First Amendment right to take photographs of things visible—visible from public places, and you warn that some drone-specific privacy laws may run afoul of the First Amendment. Do you 

think the First Amendment poses a barrier to reasonable restrictions on how data collected by drones is used, stored, or shared? 

Mr. CALABRESE. I don’t think it’s a barrier so much as something, a balancing that we need to do between our right to privacy 

and our right to the First Amendment. I think, as an initial matter, it’s not the subject of this discussion, but certainly, we could 

require a warrant for law enforcement use. That has nothing to do 

with the First Amendment. 

Secondly, industry could adopt voluntary codes of conduct, and I 

urge them to do so. We’re part of the NTIA process. That also 

would not violate the First Amendment. 

And then I think that there are non—you know, we can have 

neutral regulations that, for example, protect data or make people 

reveal exactly who was flying a drone, their privacy policies, all of 

those issues can obviously be addressed in a way that doesn’t affect 

the First Amendment. But there are going to be some areas—— 

Mr. NADLER. Yes, well, let me ask you a specific on that. You say 

that Americans have a First Amendment right to take photographs 

of things visible from public places? 

Mr. CALABRESE. Correct. 

Mr. NADLER. Is 200 or 300 feet above my backyard, which is 

fenced in, a public place when that drone may be looking at my 

children playing in the backyard or my wife sunbathing there, or 

whatever? 

Mr. CALABRESE. It’s a very difficult question. I mean, there are 

some, obviously, privacy torts that would apply here, as well as the 

peeping tom laws. But I mean, it’s worth remembering that the 

Rodney King video was shot from a balcony. You know, there are 

going to be places, times, when you are going to be above a fence, 

and things are going to happen, and they are going to have—deserve First Amendment protection. So it’s not an easy question. 

Mr. NADLER. And finally, I think my—I see my time is running 

out. But what rights do an individual whose data is captured by 

a drone have to determine how this data is used, if any? 
50 

Mr. CALABRESE. Right now, very few rights. 

Mr. NADLER. Right, right. Let me rephrase the question. What 

rights should they have? 

Mr. CALABRESE. I believe they should have the right to know 

what’s being collected in most cases. They have the right, you 

know, and I believe that what we should do or I hope we can do 

is find a way to get all of these advantages, many of which have 

nothing to do with data collection about individuals, and then limit 

this data collection and agree to not collect it or not store it. So we 

can get all of this advantage without the privacy invasions. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

We now go to the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think it is going to be a continuing thing, but I don’t think 

there is very many probably on the panel that would not see the 

benefits of a drone and the benefits to business, benefits to many 

others. As someone in the military who actually also worked with 

them in Iraq, the benefits on the military are substantial. 

And I think the interesting issue, and I think it is going to be 

drumbeat by both sides here today, though, goes back to these 

issues of privacy, these issues of how we store, how we do these 

things. And I think, going off of what the gentleman from New 

York was just talking about, is really we are in a society today in 

which big data, big collections have sort of blurred those lines of 

what is a public—public or what is a reasonable expectation of privacy? 

We have been going through this for a while. In fact, Justice 

Sotomayor in U.S. v. Jones made an interesting statement. She 

quoted Justice Alito, ‘‘As Justice Alito incisively observes, the same 

technology advances that have made both possible nontrespassory 

surveillance techniques will also affect the Katz test by shaping the 

evolution of societal privacy expectations.’’ That is already happening now. 

And so, the questions that I want to go off of is, you know, the 

difference between one shot and a video, one picture as opposed to 

a tracking? How do we, you know, look at ongoing behavior? I 

think it is—and I would like to get—this will be a free for all. I 

will just let anyone jump in on this. 

Mr. Calabrese, if you want to start or wherever. It is a fine line 

here. I am out doing this, and I decide, well, I just want to give 

this to another agency. Or I want to share this. Where—where are 

we headed here with who can access this, and what is appropriate? 

Mr. CALABRESE. It’s a wonderful question. Thank you. 

Sir, clearly, the Supreme Court is grappling with this question 

of what I would call a mosaic whereas we’re collecting so much information that we have a detailed profile about someone’s life. 

That’s something that we are very worried about in a wide variety 

of contexts and technologies. 

I think here there are so many beneficial uses that, hopefully, we 

can avoid the mosaic. I mean, if you go to Google Street View, 

you’ll see people’s faces are blurred. You know, there are ways that 

technology can also be used to protect privacy in data collection. 
51 

Most of the uses that I’ve heard here are not things where someone 

wants to be invading someone’s privacy in their backyard. 

And I would hope that what we can do is have industry agree 

that they’re going to, for example, not create a pervasive surveillance, that they’re going to discard information immediately that 

has nothing to do with what they are trying to accomplish so we 

can sort of avoid this pervasive surveillance. 

Mr. COLLINS. But what if they don’t? I think that is the question. 

Mr. CALABRESE. Right. 

Mr. COLLINS. And Mr. Polychron, from a realtor’s perspective, I 

know there is a—you could see it sort of from a we are just looking 

at land or looking at this. But what if there is an action or a data 

kept that is breached? It is hacked. It is something that gets in, 

and we are keeping data. 

Why are we keeping data? How long are we keeping data that 

may or may not deal with realty or anybody else that wants to deal 

with this? I would like your perspective—— 

Mr. POLYCHRON. In other words, if they accidentally get something? 

Mr. COLLINS. It gets out there or is used. The data retention part 

is becoming the issue, and I think the concern I have, and again, 

looking at that, how do we protect against that and especially in 

light of a mosaic that is developing out there? 

Mr. POLYCHRON. Well, you know, speaking from a realtor viewpoint, I mean, we have a code of ethics from 1908, which private 

property rights is the central tenet of that document. And I feel 

like realtors are going to respect privacy. I—the rules that we set 

to engage that I think are going to be very important. 

Mr. COLLINS. And I am—and I am dealing with realtors, a great 

realtor right now in some different areas, and I am not questioning 

the realtors. And I am also questioning the concern here is what 

about the retention? How long is that property pic used or that 

video used that could have something? Could it be turned over? 

Is that—you know, it is just a lot of issues. Mr. Karol, anything 

to weigh in on this? And I am just trying to get a good perspective 

here because it is an interesting issue. 

Mr. KAROL. With respect to at least the commercial use by our 

members, the insurance members, we’re focusing very hard on the 

technological side of that to capture data that is not personal information. If we’re looking at hail damage to a roof, we’re looking at 

technology that will capture spectrographic components of that roof 

to show damages and wouldn’t capture images of people. 

And to try to define what is private and personal information 

and what is not private and personal information and to collect 

that for our commercial purposes to collect only that information 

in which relates to our business. We don’t—we understand very 

highly the protections with respect to information on the financial 

side, and we want very strongly to avoid that. 

Mr. COLLINS. All right. Mr. Polychron, do you have something? 

Mr. POLYCHRON. I was just thinking, I mean, bottom line is we’re 

going to be taking pictures of houses—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. POLYCHRON [continuing]. Primarily. We’re—we’re—I mean, I 

don’t know—— 
52 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, I think you may have one of the more 

unique—and I am not going to, you know, say realty has this difference. I think it is just a blending of the whole, you know, issue 

and how do we deal with it going back to really right now on a Federal level you said mosaic, but there is just—there is a—the courts 

are having to piece together law as we go, and I think that is the 

concerning part here on how we go in with that. 

Mr. Chair, I know my time is up. But I will—much more we 

could describe it. I will yield back. 

Mr. ISSA. You know, ending on the term ‘‘mosaic’’ is always a 

winner. [Laughter.] 

With that, we go to the gentlelady from California, Ms. Chu. 

Ms. CHU. Mr. Wynne, I want to ask you about a rather serious 

issue we are dealing with in California. We see several wildfires 

each year, and the severity ranges with each one. Some can be put 

out rather quickly without much harm, while others may destroy 

homes and even take lives. 

Combating the fire from the air is rather common. However, in 

recent years, firefighters have had to ground their aircraft because 

they see drones in the area. These aerial attacks are called off 

when the drones are spotted because the consequences of a collision 

are too great. 

So I wanted to know whether your organization has looked into 

this issue, and if so, do you think the FAA should address this? 

Mr. WYNNE. Yes, ma’am, I sure do. And my son is a firefighter 

and, believe it or not, actually aspires to being in a place where he 

can fight wildland fires, which, unfortunately, is a growing business. 

I have phenomenal respect for people that fly and drop fire retardant on fires, not only doing something very useful and very valuable for public safety, but they’re doing something that’s highly, 

highly dangerous to do. So this is extremely important for us to get 

right. 

Anyone that puts an aircraft in danger, a manned aircraft in 

danger or any aircraft in danger, is violating FAA rules already. 

It’s careless and reckless. And so, the FAA already has the capability of doing something about this today. 

In addition to that, in most instances for wildfires, there’s a temporary flight restriction, TFR, put up around the fire, particularly 

when there’s air operations going on. So anyone that’s flying in 

that TFR that’s unauthorized is automatically breaking the law, 

and they should be prosecuted for doing that. 

The irony here, ma’am, is that—is that, and there’s a great 

YouTube video now from a wildfire, I believe in Washington State, 

just this past week where they were utilizing a UAS to look down 

on operations to make certain that they were putting their fire retardant in the right place. This technology can be used and will be 

used and is being used by firefighters to create greater situational 

awareness. 

It’s a tremendous tool for the person that’s in charge of that operation on the ground who’s responsible for lives and property. So we 

want to be responsible users, and we want those who are flying 

recklessly and carelessly to be prosecuted. 
53 

Ms. CHU. So the tool is already there to remove those drones or 

at least to prosecute against them in these wild—— 

Mr. WYNNE. I’m sorry, ma’am. I can’t quite hear—— 

Ms. CHU. The tool is already there? 

Mr. WYNNE. Yes, ma’am. I believe they are. 

Ms. CHU. Okay. Mr. Polychron, you state that there is currently 

no standardized protocol for notice to bystanders before or during 

a drone flight, and this is a question about bystanders. And you 

asked the FAA to provide greater detail regarding what is expected 

of the drone operators when providing notice to and protecting the 

safety of individuals who are near the location of a UAS operation. 

So, in other words, a drone could be taking pictures, but there 

are bystanders that have not given their permission to be filmed, 

and so do you or the NAR have a suggested protocol that the FAA 

should consider? 

Mr. POLYCHRON. I do not think we have a protocol at this time. 

I see your question. I understand your question. And I can certainly tell you I think we should. 

Ms. CHU. Mr. Calabrese or Wynne? 

Mr. CALABRESE. I will just—I think that one of the things that 

we need to deal with as a baseline matter, which is sort of a privacy issue, but it’s also a notice issue, is just knowing who’s flying 

a drone, you know? And just having an ability to recognize and 

know whether that’s the CNN drone or your realtor’s drone, know 

where the data is going. And then you have the opportunity to contest it or say, ‘‘I think that this was improperly collected of my private property’’ and, you know, is a tort that maybe I can bring a 

civil suit. 

But the baseline is that I know the data collection practices. I 

know who is doing the collection. I know where it’s going. 

Ms. CHU. Yes. And Mr. Calabrese, we have talked about the 

drone that can look into the backyard from 200 feet above. Of 

course, on the other hand, the human eye and the helicopters can 

be doing exactly the same thing. Should there be restrictions, and 

does the industry code of conduct developed by the Association of 

Unmanned Vehicles System International provide meaningful protections? 

Mr. CALABRESE. I mean, with all due respect to AUVSI, I don’t 

think that their current code does provide enough protection. And 

we can—and I hope that the industry will do more as part of the 

NTIA process. 

We’re really concerned that drones are different than being in an 

airplane. They’re just much less expensive. They have the potential, for example, if they’re a blimp, to stay up much longer, and 

they have just the potential to be much more invasive. 

We’re not picking on the technology. All technology can be good 

or bad, but this deserves some regulation. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

We now go to the gentleman—oh, I am sorry. We now go to Mr. 

Marino. Thank you for being so prompt. 

Mr. MARINO. Chairman, I am sorry. I was delayed longer than 

I thought I was going to be, and I am sure the questions I was 

thinking of asking are already asked. 
54 

Mr. ISSA. None of the good questions have been answered yet. 

They are all available to you. 

Mr. MARINO. Okay. I will be very brief. Thank you. 

I apologize if this question was asked, but who are we going to 

put in charge of making certain that whoever—if I own a drone 

and I am out there flying it, who is responsible for having that information, and do we want people to have that information? 

As I read an article in the newspaper not too long ago, that there 

was a drone flying over a man’s property while his teenage girl— 

daughter and her girlfriends were in the swimming pool. And the 

drone was hovering over, obviously, watching the girls. The guy 

went in and got a shotgun and shot it out of the air. 

Now he got arrested for that. I don’t know the details of was it 

in the city or how it worked, but how do we keep people accountable for and know who has a drone if we are going to down that 

road? Anyone, please? 

Mr. KAROL. I believe what he was arrested for was discharging 

the firearm in an area that was not allowed. I don’t think he was 

charged with firing at the drone. 

But I think your question goes to the fundamental concept of the 

property rights because the property rights, to a large extent, decide the privacy rights. If the drone is where it’s allowed to be by 

the property owner, then the privacy issue becomes substantially 

different than if it’s not allowed to be there. 

So that if the property owner allows the drone to be on that property, that’s one area. But if it’s—and to some extent, it’s very different if, for example, an insurance capability, if an adjuster is on 

the roof taking pictures of the damage from the roof, it’s no different than if the drone is up there taking pictures. 

So that the property owner has given his permission and the access from that permission so that the privacy of that area is defended thereon. 

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Wynne and Mr. Polychron—am I pronouncing 

that name correctly? 

Mr. POLYCHRON. Polychron. 

Mr. MARINO. Polychron, okay. I have a question that we wrote 

down. We know that while the FAA drags out the proposed rulemaking process, UAV innovation continues to move forward 

abroad. This not only hurts innovation in the drone industry itself, 

but the industries who would benefit most as well, two of which are 

critical in my district, agriculture and energy. 

Where do you believe the U.S. currently stacks up, and what impact could this drag have on our economy and jobs if the regulatory 

environment continues as it is, as it currently stands? So, Mr. 

Wynne and then—— 

Mr. WYNNE. I’m having a little difficulty hearing, sir. Was it the 

question was—— 

Mr. MARINO. I am sorry. 

Mr. WYNNE [continuing]. Are we falling behind? 

Mr. MARINO. Are we falling behind? 

Mr. WYNNE. I think we are—— 

Mr. MARINO. Nicely put. 

Mr. WYNNE [continuing]. To some extent. I don’t think it’s irreparable at this stage in the game. So it’s not an argument that I’m 
55 

fond of trotting out. We spend a lot of time working with our counterparts overseas, and ultimately, our objective is to have global 

harmonization of regulations around the world. 

So, so in some respects, if we could get the FAA to finish the 

rules that have been proposed, some ways we kind of zoom ahead 

of some countries that are out there, and I think that would allow 

us to unlock a great deal of value for a number of industries, including the energy sector and the agriculture sector, which I heard 

you refer to. 

Mr. MARINO. Okay. And my last question. It was mentioned that 

the FAA has received more than 2,700 requests for exemptions to 

be able to fly drones, only 1,400 of which were granted in the absence of a finalized rule. What does this mean to us as far as moving ahead in the process? Anyone again? 

Mr. WYNNE. Well, I think the significance of the numbers right 

now is that, you know, we’re operating—we’re regulating by exemption, and we’ll never keep up. There is vastly more people out 

there, whether they’re real estate—real estate brokers or—or large 

utility companies or insurance companies that want to fly. 

So we’re just scratching the surface. There is a—I want to say 

a more bureaucratic process in place now than there will be once 

we have final regulations. But one way or the other, it’s no way to 

regulate. We don’t want to be regulating by exemption. 

We want to basically put the rules out there. We want to encourage certification of operators. We want to train operators. We want 

to stand up an aviation community here that can actually act safely and responsibly under FAA regulations. 

Mr. MARINO. Sir? 

Mr. POLYCHRON. I would like to add that from a realtor’s standpoint, time is a deal killer. That’s just a saying that we use in our 

business. 

Because only a few realtors are, you know, permitted to do this 

under the Section 333, it puts some of us at a disadvantage if we 

cannot present a listing in a manner that someone does. So from 

a competitive standpoint, time is of the essence. 

Mr. MARINO. Okay. Thank you. And again, I apologize if these 

questions are already asked. 

And Chairman, thank you very much. You have been more than 

fair to me. I yield back. 

Mr. ISSA. I thank the gentleman for yielding back, and we will 

take that extra time and go to the gentleman from Louisiana for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I guess I will kind of start where Mr. Marino went a little 

bit about who is flying the drone and not in terms of data collection, but about public safety. And we have dealt with this issue in 

homeland security also because the question arises, can an individual or law enforcement shoot down a drone if they determine 

that that drone is a safety risk? 

And the information we have, and I would like your opinion on 

it, is that law enforcement can’t do anything with it because it is 

considered an aircraft. Is that consistent with what you all see and 

hear? 
56 

Mr. KAROL. I’ll take a shot. My understanding is that the FAA 

rules prohibit the interference with an aircraft, but at the same 

time, at the State level, there are privacy rights. And under the 

basic restatement of torts, if something trespasses, you have the 

right to protect yourself. 

So, again, it goes to the central issue we have is it’s not particularly clear to us which law would prevail there. Because the State 

law that says that you have the right to protect your own property 

supersede the FAA’s interference with an aircraft provision. It’s 

very difficult to understand. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Well, I will tell you the testimony that we heard, 

and the example was if a drone was flying over a high school football game and law enforcement could not determine whether it was 

adversarial or just a hobbyist flying a plane over. And their comment was if we found out it was adversarial, we do not have the 

permission to take it down. 

And I guess I am giving you all that charge because I think as 

we push Government to rush to some sort of rules, we have to also 

look at the safety concerns that are there also. You can go on 

YouTube right now, and you can look at a Russian assault rifle attached to the drone that they sell in Sam’s Club, and it is shooting 

mannequins. 

And the question for me while we rush to get things to market 

in all due speed, to make sure that we have policies that also protect our families. So when we were—and I started getting interested when you started talking about the ability to know who is 

flying the drone. And maybe that technology about who is flying 

the drone can help us in terms of knowing where they are and help 

us decipher some other intentions. 

So I just want us to think about that because from a homeland 

security standpoint, we are absolutely terrified in the position of 

how do we protect mass gatherings and other things when we start 

talking about unmanned aircrafts and not only the privacy concerns, but the safety. 

And Mr. Karol, just with the 10th anniversary of Katrina, I just 

can’t help but to say I would be very excited about using unmanned 

aircraft to assess property damage so that you all could get the information very quickly. I would also be in favor of you delivering 

the checks that way, too—— [Laughter.] 

So that people could get them in a very quick manner. But I 

think what my biggest charge to you all, then I will yield back the 

rest of my time, is that I think that industry is going to have to 

get together and figure out some parameters because, as Government makes the rules, we can’t make them fast enough to keep up 

with technology. 

And we are going to have to find a balancing act between the 

commercial interests, public safety, public privacy, and all of those 

things. And I think that if we can get the interested parties at the 

table to really start digging into that, it may help us along in terms 

of how quickly we can get to a comfort zone. 

Because I will just tell you—and my colleague Ms. Jackson Lee 

from Texas is also on Homeland—we have very—we have a lot of 

unreadiness coming from Homeland Security Committee in terms 
57 

of the safety of unmanned aircrafts and how we protect our citizenship. So, hopefully, you all can help us in that respect. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. 

Mr. ISSA. I thank you. 

We now go to the gentlelady from Washington, a tech leader in 

her own right, Ms. DelBene. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And thanks to all of you for being here with us today. 

Mr. Wynne, you talked about a code of conduct, and Mr. 

Calabrese, you also talked about the code of conduct and also kind 

of the Know Before You Fly program. Could you describe in a little 

more detail what is in the code of conduct, and also Know Before 

You Fly, what is made up as part of that program? 

Mr. WYNNE. I’d be happy to provide our code of conduct for the 

record, ma’am. And, but the—by and large, we’ve covered that a little bit in my earlier—I mean, at the end of the day, it’s really 

about common sense. 

There’s—you know, I think, by and large, as I indicated, this is 

an industry that recognizes that if it doesn’t fly safely and responsibly, it will not be sustainable. We will have all kinds of challenges not only at the Federal level, but at every State level and 

potentially at the municipal level. 

We do have a code of conduct. You know, the word ‘‘potential’’ is 

being used a lot on this panel. Potential for this, the potential for 

that. I would urge us not to try and solve, you know, create solutions for problems that don’t yet exist. But I would commit to you 

that this—I represent a community that will fly safely and responsibly, and as our code of conduct needs to be strengthened, it will 

be strengthened. 

One of the reasons why we need regulations from the FAA is because we need more trained operators out there. As with aviation, 

it is a self-policing community. We do not tolerate careless and 

reckless behavior. If I see someone doing something careless and 

reckless with an aircraft, I report them. I talk to them, and I report 

them. 

Know Before You Fly is a campaign that was largely stood up 

in conjunction with the Academy of Model Aeronautics and the 

FAA to train nonaviators, which are the people that anyone can 

now walk into an Apple store and buy a drone and go fly. But that 

doesn’t mean that they’re in a place where they should. 

So the whole idea is to try and train people about where it’s appropriate to fly and where it’s not appropriate to fly. And there are 

an increasing number of tools that are available to the general public and to nonaviators, things that I just have on my iPad already, 

which would allow me to look at and see how far am I from an airport, for example, and so forth. 

There is also technology that is coming into these different devices that will help for, you know, to make certain that the device 

won’t fly—— 

Ms. DELBENE. Yes, I was going to ask you about that. So you 

could use technology to limit, using GPS and other things, to limit 

where a device was able to go. Are folks looking at implementing 

that type of technology so that even if you wanted to, you couldn’t 

go, for example, into airspace that is—that is off limits? 
58 

Mr. WYNNE. That’s never a substitute for airmanship and education. But those technologies increasingly are going to be leveraged going forward. They can also be disabled by people who wanted to do that. 

So, again, it’s important to have trained operators out there. And 

increasingly, not only will our community have its own code of conduct and its own safety best practices, but every single industry 

that’s utilizing this technology will be doing the same thing. 

Ms. DELBENE. Mr. Calabrese, any comment? 

Mr. CALABRESE. Yeah, I think it’s important to say that we don’t 

have codes of conduct that are really robust yet. And clearly, we 

need them. And I think there’s a great example is the delivery aspect of drones, right? 

No one sees a lot of data collection need in the delivery of things. 

I mean, there may be some, but it’s relatively limited. So why don’t 

we find ways that we can constructively say we may have drones 

all over the place in 5 years delivering my packages, but none of 

them are going to be collecting data. Or if they are, we have the 

flexibility to say it’s immediately deleted. 

So, you know, we’re not trying to be overly prescriptive. CDT believes in the power of technology to make things better. But we 

also believe that we have to be responsible about the data we collect, and so a lot of these industries, and we’ve already heard that, 

can do more to collect less, if you will. And so, I think we all need 

to push for codes that do that, and Congress needs to step in if 

they don’t. 

Ms. DELBENE. Well, we know that we are behind on some laws, 

even things like Electronic Communications Privacy Act. So we 

have a lot of work to do to make sure our laws are up to date with 

the way technology works, and this is another place where we want 

to make sure we support innovation, but also make sure we protect 

privacy and safety. 

And that is why I think it is very, very important that we continue to work hard on all these efforts so that we have—we understand there are incredible uses like agriculture or wildfires, as you 

brought up, in Washington State. We have—there are important 

uses, but we also have to make sure we have consumer protections 

in place as well. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back. 

Mr. ISSA. I thank the gentlelady. 

We now go to my colleague and seatmate on many airplane 

flights from California, Mr. Peters. 

Mr. PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, this expectation of privacy thing is I feel like I am in 

a really complicated law school exam. But let me first ask about 

wildfires, just to follow up on Ms. Chu. 

Has someone talked about the balance between interfering with 

firefighting and the ability to assist with firefighting and how that 

might be arbitrated? Anybody? 

So I am sorry. So in terms of the use of UAS, we have already 

seen instances where they have interfered with, you know, people 

are looking, interfering with firefighting. There has been a number 

of efforts. I think those are more simple to deal with restricting the 

use of these vehicles in the course of a wildfire. 
59 

Has someone—are you aware of any efforts or any models, you 

think, to talk about how it is useful to use these implements or this 

equipment in the course of helping with firefighting? 

Mr. WYNNE. As I indicated, there are firefighting departments 

that are already embracing and leveraging the technology, but it 

has to be authorized use. You know, if there’s an air boss at a site, 

then, you know, they’re going to leverage that technology. 

If someone gets in the air that’s not in positive control of the air 

boss, that’s a problem. 

Mr. PETERS. Is it in process with the FAA? Do you know that 

those discussions are taking place now? 

Mr. WYNNE. Well, you know, I’ve discussed this with the Administrator. You know, at this point, if there is a TFR up, we just— 

you know, it’s a little bit like the campaign about the Super Bowl, 

right? 

Mr. PETERS. Right. 

Mr. WYNNE. It was a very successful campaign because nobody 

flew at the Super Bowl. 

Mr. PETERS. Right. Okay. 

Mr. WYNNE. We were discussing the potential for doing things 

at—you know, broader for sporting events, not unlike the problem 

with laser pointers. There’s got to be a very targeted campaign, no 

pun intended. And now there is a very good campaign—If You Fly, 

We Can’t—by those that are fighting wildfires. And that’s, you 

know, whatever is in the air. They need to be in control of it—— 

Mr. PETERS. Right. 

Mr. WYNNE. - when it’s inside of that space. 

Mr. PETERS. Let me go back to Mr. Marino’s swimming pool example. I think it is a little bit different when you think about expectation of privacy to envision someone looking at you from a balcony rather than high above the sky. And is it were you just going 

to expand expectation of privacy so that there is no expectation of 

privacy? Is that what is going to happen? 

Mr. CALABRESE. I certainly hope not. I’ve spent my whole career 

trying to avoid that outcome, and I do think the technology allows 

you to be more invasive, and so you need to be—you need better 

protections. The reality is that the First Amendment makes this 

hard. 

I mean, we have First Amendment protections. You can take 

video from a public place. That’s—that is a cherished First Amendment value, and we just never had a circumstance where you could 

take so much video and keep it forever. And I think—— 

Mr. PETERS. From a place where you are not even visible. 

Mr. CALABRESE. What’s that? 

Mr. PETERS. From a place where you are not even visible to the 

person being filmed. 

Mr. CALABRESE. And there are—there are tricky First Amendment questions there. So I guess what I would say is we look at 

privacy torts. We look at things like peeping tom laws. We start 

there. Then we look at data collection generally and whether we 

can, for example, create technologies where you can geotag a space 

and say, ‘‘No drones allowed in this space.’’ 

Mr. PETERS. Yes. 
60 

Mr. CALABRESE. And then, you know, keep people out. So there 

are ways that we have to try to do this, but we do have to navigate 

the First Amendment. 

Mr. PETERS. So here is another question that occurred to me, just 

the two of you gentlemen talking about your two proposed—or your 

two issues, is suppose, you know, you have real estate agents flying 

around. There is no intention on their part to be deleting this data, 

but they’re also filming swimming pools at the same time. 

Mr. CALABRESE. Certainly I just would say to Mr. Polychron, 

given that the realtors have said pretty clearly they don’t want to 

photograph people, maybe it becomes we have a code—— 

Mr. POLYCHRON. Yeah, let me go a step further. In our code of 

ethics, there is also, of course, we protect—— 

Mr. PETERS. Is your microphone on, sir? 

Mr. POLYCHRON [continuing]. Their information, and data is very 

private. So at the same time, I know that our staff is working with 

the NTIA to try to establish an industry standard. 

When I spoke earlier to Mr. Marino, we haven’t done that yet, 

but we are working on it. So we are very cognizant of privacy and 

always have been and will continue to be. 

Mr. PETERS. But that doesn’t really—that doesn’t answer what 

the standard is going to be and how you are going to come to—how 

you come to balancing that. I mean, you are going to—you want to 

capture pictures of real estate. I mean, I suppose there are ways 

to delete—— 

Mr. POLYCHRON. It is not our intent to take pictures of—let’s just 

say we would love to take a picture of that swimming pool while 

no one’s there. But I don’t think—— 

Mr. PETERS. Good luck this week in San Diego finding a swimming pool with nobody in it. So—— 

Mr. POLYCHRON. Or in Arkansas, as far as that goes. But you can 

do that. 

Mr. PETERS. Okay. All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 

yield back. 

Mr. ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

We now go—we are on a California roll. We now go to the 

gentlelady from just north of our districts, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, thank you. 

I think this has been a very useful hearing. Getting back to the 

security/privacy question, what—what is the industry doing, either, 

you know, the association or the realtors, to make sure that the 

data that is collected is encrypted and secure from hacking? 

Mr. POLYCHRON. As I just stated, in our code of ethics, our data 

and information is very private. And I would go a step further to 

tell you that if I had a client and I was abusing this privilege, they 

wouldn’t be my client very long. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I don’t mean—certainly I don’t question your 

intent. The question really is about the technology. Is your data 

encrypted or not? 

Mr. POLYCHRON. Encrypted from what standpoint? Just—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, you can encrypt data so that it can only be 

opened with a key. Is it encrypted, or is it kept open in the—— 

Mr. POLYCHRON. Well, I mean, when you look at the data of a 

listing, I mean, you know, I’m going to—— 
61 

Ms. LOFGREN. No, no, what you are collecting. 

Mr. POLYCHRON. You’re going to be able to look at it on Realtor.com or Zillow as well, a lot of that information. So it can’t be 

encrypted. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, yes, it could, and then you could—— 

Mr. POLYCHRON. Well, I mean right now. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And you could selectively make available—if you 

get pictures of, you know, people in a pool, you are not going to delete that necessarily. But you are not going to make it available because you want—you know, you respect. I don’t question your ethics at all. I am just asking about the technology. 

Mr. KAROL. I can speak for the insurance industry at least. What 

has been done so far is predominantly the capture of single pieces 

of property—of data from that single pieces of property in a unit 

underneath the UAS, which is then directly loaded into the systems of the insurance company, which is not open to anyone else. 

So that there is no distribution of that data. It’s used internally 

for appraisal values and damage assessment. So there’s no—there’s 

no openness to that system that would require any sort of 

encryption to prevent any problem. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I question that because look at the number 

of, well, material that was supposed to be secure but was hacked, 

and when it was hacked, it was available because it wasn’t 

encrypted, including, unfortunately, a lot of information—sensitive 

information that the Government held that was supposed to be secure. 

Mr. CALABRESE. Yeah, I mean, CDT certainly believes that we do 

need encryption between the device—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I was going to ask about that, too. 

Mr. CALABRESE. Right, yeah. I mean, it’s between the aircraft 

and the operator that the information needs to be encrypted so it 

can’t be intercepted so the control of the aircraft itself can’t be 

taken over by someone else. I mean, clearly, encryption needs to be 

a best practice. 

It seems like maybe we’ve got a ways to go before we get that— 

get there in terms of how the devices are operating now. 

Ms. LOFGREN. It sounds like we do. In terms of—that was the 

other question, I guess, for the association. What—is the control 

encrypted, and is there authentication between the control link of 

the operator and the vehicle? 

Mr. WYNNE. I’m going to say yes because there is a strong desire, 

a requirement really, to keep the control in one place. So, you 

know, this is probably point number one, the reliability, the fidelity 

of the link is also extremely important and as well as building in 

safeguards, in fact, if that connection is lost. But we don’t want 

anyone hacking that link. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. Do you know that is there an industry 

standard? Or if I go down to the Apple store and buy a drone, is 

the link between the controller and the unit authenticated and 

encrypted, do you know? I mean, is—— 

Mr. WYNNE. I’m going to—I can’t answer that question specifically, but I will follow up for the record with an answer. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. I just think that there are a lot of difficult 

questions that have been gone through, and some of these ques-
62 

tions are policy, but the implementation of that policy is going to 

be technological. And you know, so often, we think about the technological protections after the fact, and it would be really super to 

think about them before the problem occur in this instance. 

And I am going to yield back because we are going to have votes 

in 10 minutes, and I want my colleague—— 

Mr. ISSA. And with one intermission, he will be next. With that, 

we go to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poe. 

Mr. POE. I thank the Chairman. 

Thank you all for being here. 

Mr. Calabrese, it is good to see you again. Thanks for coming to 

Houston during our privacy forum, and thank you for your work on 

the Preserving American Privacy Act that I am a sponsor and Ms. 

Lofgren is the cosponsor on the minority side. 

Privacy is an issue with me. Technology in the United States is 

the best, I think, in the world, especially even in this area, and we 

are moving faster than anyone ever thought, at least I thought we 

would, in the area of drones. 

We have had the issue of drones pending in the Judiciary for a 

while, a year at least. We have the domestic use of drones regarding private companies and people, and then we have Government 

use of drones. And we leave all of this drone regulation up to the 

FAA, of all people, to decide who gets a drone and when they get 

a drone. 

Do you think that we should let a Government agency determine 

and determine the Fourth Amendment right of privacy, whatever 

it means? Mr. Calabrese? 

Mr. CALABRESE. Well, of course, we’re strong supporters of your 

bill. So I think you already know the answer. The central tenet of 

your legislation, at least from our perspective, is, you know, get a 

warrant to use a drone if you’re the police. And we think that is 

a constitutional standard that has, you know, long served us and 

should continue to be the standard. 

So when it comes to law enforcement use, and I think that is a 

lot of the public concern in this area, we should have a warrant 

standard. It doesn’t mean that we don’t have exceptions for things 

like exigency and emergencies and, you know, hot pursuit and consent. But the standard should, by and large, be a warrant-based 

standard. 

I think that deals with a lot of the problems on the law enforcement side, and then, you know, once we’ve dealt with that and once 

the Government is not going to kick down your door, then we can 

take on some of these other thornier questions about commercial 

data collection and getting the right standards in place for that. 

Mr. POE. My question is should we just let the FAA deal with 

this? And then the courts decide years from now was this a violation or not of the Fourth Amendment when the police or a private 

citizen using a drone got information? Should we just let the courts 

decide? I mean, that is what we hear around here all the time. Let 

the courts decide. 

Mr. CALABRESE. Yeah, no. Congress. Congress should step in. 

Clearly, they have a constitutional role in this process, and I don’t 

think the FAA is going to feel like it has the ability to dictate 

Fourth Amendment standards to local law enforcement, and I 
63 

think that’s why Congress needs to make clear right now what the 

right standard is. 

Mr. POE. I agree with you. I think that Congress has an obligation to set the standards, the rules, whatever they are, protect the 

right of privacy, but also put everybody on notice what the rules 

are, what the law is. 

I would think that the folks in the drone industry would like to 

know when and when they cannot use one of these even in civilian 

areas. And I think that is our obligation, along with the other privacy issues that are pending that we have not resolved as well. 

In your testimony, you mention now that 16 States have privacy 

laws regarding drones. What about letting the States just make up 

their mind? What is privacy in Texas may not be privacy in California or whatever. So should we just let all 50 States and the territories make the decision as to drone regulation regarding the 

issue of privacy? 

Mr. CALABRESE. You know, that’s a tough question. I mean, I— 

some of the—some of the State laws have been really progressive. 

Some of them have raised concerns, frankly, around First Amendment issues. I think CDT believes that until we get the floor of a 

search warrant across the country, Americans won’t have the privacy they deserve from Government access to their personal lives. 

So I think that’s the standard. 

Whether it comes to the States or the Federal Government I 

think is less important, though I think the way things are going 

right now, we really are going to need a Federal fix. 

Mr. POE. Congress sets the right of privacy, whatever expectation 

of privacy is, makes it law, and then everybody is on notice. And 

for the record, I am a big supporter of the use of drones. Everybody 

just needs to know what the rules are, but Congress needs to come 

up with what the rules are. 

And I will yield back to the Chairman. 

Mr. ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

We now go to another gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In addition to insurers and realtors and retailers like eBay, you 

know, you got law enforcement, all of these operations using 

drones. And you have even got hobbyists out there who have their 

drones. And so, everybody is participating in the use of drones in 

the airspace, and it creates—in addition to privacy issues, it creates safety issues and other areas of interest. 

It is an important issue that needs to be regulated. Now the 

problem that we have here in Congress is that we are in the midst 

of an anti-regulatory crusade. There are those who adhere to the 

Grover Norquist philosophy of making Government so small that 

you can strangle it in the bathtub. In other words, people who don’t 

believe that Government, that the Federal Government should be 

involved in anything other than the defense of the Nation. Everything else left up to the States and the private sector. 

And speaking of Grover Norquist, in the 114th Congress, 218 Republicans, that is just one over the number it takes to constitute 

a majority in the House of Representatives. So they can pass whatever they want to pass. Two hundred eighteen have signed onto the 
64 

Grover Norquist ‘‘no new tax money’’ pledge, and 49 in the Senate 

have done so, just shy of a majority. 

And so, we are in the midst of an anti-regulatory, anti-Federal 

Government binge among those who are in control, and that bumps 

up against this 2012 order for us. We knew it was coming. We 

knew all of these segments would be flying drones. We knew what 

was coming, but yet what did we do? 

We passed the Budget Control Act of 2011, the Ryan Budget 

Control Act, the Republican Budget Control Act, sequestration, cutting 10 percent for year after year. And so, if that is not stifling 

the private sector as it seeks to develop the drone business, I can’t 

think of anything—I don’t know what else is stifling the private 

sector. 

And then we are hearing on this very Committee, we—during 

this same session of Congress, we are doing everything we can to 

gum up the regulatory workings of Government. We don’t want the 

Government to issue the regulations. 

We have passed out of this Committee what is called the REINS 

Act, which purports to rein in an out-of-control Government seeking to over regulate, when we know we don’t have the regulations 

that we need in this particular area that you all are here concerned 

with. We voted out the ALERRT Act. Both of these acts would essentially stop the rulemaking process. 

So while we are having this hearing and we are talking about 

the need for the rules, overall, we are doing everything we can to 

not do anything in this area. And so, what is at risk is the health, 

safety, and welfare of the citizens, and it is also the ability of our 

country to compete on a global level. 

Mr. Wynne, do you agree that these budget cuts have prevented 

the expansion of private industry? 

Mr. WYNNE. Congressman, I certainly agree that this is a community that’s asking for regulation, and Congress has mandated 

that this area be regulated. 

Mr. JOHNSON. We are working at cross purposes with that objective. Mr. Calabrese, how do you see it? 

Mr. CALABRESE. I have to admit I’m not familiar with the REINS 

Act. So I can’t really comment on its—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, but you do understand the financial implications of the—of the Ryan Republican Budget Control Act of 2011, 

do you not? 

Mr. ISSA. The time of—the gentleman’s time has expired, but to 

the extent that you are very familiar with that, you may answer. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CALABRESE. I am going to take the opportunity to pass on 

that. Sorry, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I know it is a difficult question to answer, 

but I think we—— 

Mr. ISSA. It is perhaps too complex for a drone hearing. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I do think we must look at things overall. 

We must look at it holistically. What is the role of the Federal Government in the affairs of the Nation? I think that is basically the 

overarching issue, and right now, our Government is gummed up 

with gridlock. We can’t even pass a budget for the next fiscal year, 

2016. 
65 

We are going to put it all on the line because we want to defund 

Planned Parenthood. So while we have these important—— 

Mr. ISSA. Would the gentleman wrap up this? The gentleman’s 

time has expired. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I will, and I appreciate the Chairman’s ability to 

let me speak. And so, with that, I think I have made my point, and 

I will yield back. 

Mr. ISSA. I thank the gentleman. He did make his point. 

And with that, I would like to make my point. So, Mr. Karol, if 

you would pick up that piece of Styrofoam. I am not going to ask 

you to estimate the exact weight, but does it weigh practically 

nothing in your hand? 

Mr. KAROL. Practically nothing. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay, and the rest of it is here balanced on this pencil, 

and I am going to guess it weighs a pound and a half, 2 pounds. 

We have been talking about a lot of things here. I think Mr. 

Calabrese or, actually, Mr. Wynne I am going to start with, aren’t 

we talking about a multitude of different products here? I just 

want to go through it. 

We are talking about things like this, which are really, they are 

the equivalent of the toy that we all grew up with, extremely lightweight, really doesn’t—couldn’t get over 400 feet, can’t go a long 

distance. Notwithstanding that it might have a camera mounted on 

it, this is, in fact, an extension of what children grew up with, remote controls that were available 50 years ago. Is that right? 

Mr. WYNNE. Well, I don’t think so, actually. I think it looks a little bit like what my son used to play with, but honestly, it’s a little 

bit like the difference between a plug-in phone and an iPhone. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, but and I want to make sure I get to the point, 

which is—and Mr. Karol, I started with you—from a safety standpoint, the damage that this product would do from a safety standpoint, if it falls on your roof and so on, is substantially similar perhaps to what that old little alcohol-fired plane that I grew up flying 

would do, right? 

Mr. KAROL. That particular drone, yes, sir. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. So the first question we have to ask is are we 

addressing products based on their risk of safety, right, is something that your company deals with? 

Mr. KAROL. That’s correct, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. And the second one, of course, is the FAA. And 

I heard a lot of comments. I don’t know how many pilots are in the 

room. If there are, they are all better pilots than I am. But for four 

decades, I have been flying, nearly. And during those years, the 

one thing I knew was that my floor was 500 feet. 

And the ceiling of these products is 400 feet, and there is a reason for that, which is that I am not allowed to come down except 

by an airport into the remote control toy airspace, and these products, if they want to remain unregulated, have to stay below where 

I am allowed to fly. Again, reasonable safety standard today. 

Is that correct, in your estimation? 

Mr. KAROL. I think for that particular aircraft, yes. But I think 

that there are many other different aircrafts. 

Mr. ISSA. Right. And we are talking about heavier aircraft, the 

30-pound, 40-pound drone is still covered by the 400-foot lid. But 
66 

there is a different question of if it falls. So I want to go through 

a number of quick questions. 

Mr. Calabrese, you are not an advocate of the status quo. That 

is a given. But let me ask a couple of questions. Today, the realtors, or association represented by Mr. Polychron next to you, if 

they have the permission of the owner and they fly only over the 

owner’s airspace or ground space, unless they have the waiver for 

commercial use, they are breaking the law. 

Flying this product or one very similar over somebody’s own private property with their permission, they have to get a kind of a 

weird exemption that says they can use it for commercial purposes. 

It takes time. They have to describe in detail. 

Wouldn’t you agree that the private use or even the commercial 

use over one’s own property is an example where perhaps the Government needs to weigh in and say you know what, commercial use 

with the owner’s permission in which you are only flying over their 

land, we never should have had regulations over it. Is it really any 

different than if I raise a balloon up that has a camera on it? 

And I would just like to get your comments on it because I want 

to try and divide the concerns we all have with a question of are 

we even approaching this based on intrusion into my privacy 

versus the right of a landowner to regulate what goes on in their 

own area? 

Mr. CALABRESE. So certainly from a privacy point of view, and 

I can’t speak to the safety issues, you’ve always had the ability to 

consent to sort of essentially your own—giving up your own personal information, and I think it probably is an appropriate—I’m 

sure I could think of a fact pattern where it wasn’t the case. 

But by and large, you can certainly make a case that that falls 

under consent and that collection is appropriate. You know, typically, the drones are not limited in that way. So that makes it 

harder. But certainly, that’s a place to start. 

Mr. ISSA. Sure. Well, and I am going to ask you to answer sort 

of on behalf of realtors. If in the near future, the FAA looks and 

says if a commercial use is only over somebody’s own property, now 

that would include I am a farmer. I am flying it over my own property. But that is a commercial use when I do so. If I am exclusively 

flying over my own property, taking my own risk and so on, do I 

need a commercial waiver or, in fact, should we take those out and 

eliminate the bureaucracy of it? 

And in your case, if you are only photographing and flying over 

the property of the client, if you will, is there really any reason in 

your estimation that that isn’t a consent for these products? And 

let us assume for a moment we are talking about the 30-pound aircraft and below. 

Mr. POLYCHRON. I would concur explicitly that I would want the 

right to do that, yes, sir. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. And I am going to close fairly quickly, even 

though there is nobody else left. But with just a couple of quick 

questions. 

Mr. Calabrese, you had a lot of concerns. Let us talk about privacy for a moment. I am going to ask you because this Committee 

does have beyond the commercial questions of this hearing, we cer-
67 

tainly are the Committee of people’s civil rights and people’s constitutional rights, including privacy. 

These vehicles, large and small, represent a cheap and easy extension of a problem that is as old as the Brownie instamatic camera, isn’t it? 

Mr. CALABRESE. Yes. 

Mr. ISSA. And we are dealing with something where, in your estimation, I am leading you, but that this Committee should look at 

a privacy questions, and my question to you in a more open format 

is should we look at them, assuming that these are going to make 

it pervasive. But should we look at them equally based on, if you 

will, the body camera, this product, the man who simply has a hillside and a telephoto lens that looks down on your backyard? 

Should we be looking at those holistically, and should this Committee begin to look at that in light of, if you will, the pervasiveness of high-resolution, long-range capable cameras? 

Mr. CALABRESE. Certainly the Committee should explore all the 

new technologies. I mean, that’s something that we’ve talked about 

for a while. I mean, a great example of this is—that we haven’t 

talked so much about is stingray devices that can capture cell 

phone and can be used to learn your location from your cell phone. 

Mr. ISSA. We have been working pretty good on those in Congress. 

Mr. CALABRESE. Yeah, they’re—yeah, you’re making some headway. You’re definitely raising some attention. 

So I do think that all of these need to be addressed. I don’t think 

they all need to be addressed together. I mean, I think that’s a very 

big bite. And nor are they all the same. They don’t raise the same 

issues. 

So I guess I would encourage Congress to continue to look at 

some of these different things. Mr. Poe’s bill, I think, is a great way 

to say let’s have the warrant standard for Government access, and 

then we can, again, deal with some of the trickier issues around 

how private collection happens. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. And I am going to follow up quickly on the warrant, and if somebody else wants a second round, I am going to 

give them that until the bell rings. 

But you mention warrant, and that is an area of interest to me. 

Let us assume for a moment that police have a myriad of good reasons and other law enforcement, safety, and so on to fly, just to see 

what is happening. In other words, to be in the air to see if there 

is a fire, to be in the air for other reasons, and that those reasons 

are broadly in the public interest. Would you agree that that can 

happen? 

Mr. CALABRESE. Sure. 

Mr. ISSA. So, again, this Committee, the Committee of the Constitution, you suggested that we look at it. You mentioned Judge 

Poe’s bill. Aren’t you also in a sense saying that we need to address 

the question of if you collect it through other purposes, but you are 

law enforcement, public safety, that you are perfectly willing to collect it. But you have still got to get a warrant and recollect it in 

order to be able to use it. 

Is that sort of implied in yours that we will collect all the time, 

but the question of, for example, knocking on the door is a question 
68 

of, jeez, somebody reported that we saw something. What is the 

basis then to enter the home? 

Because this is going to happen. There is no question at all you 

are going to have drones in the air on behalf of public safety. 

Mr. CALABRESE. So there’s a lot there. Thank you for the opportunity to address it. 

I think, first of all, talking about non-law enforcement use is not 

talking about warrant. So if we’re talking about how the police— 

or excuse me, how like a firefighter can use a drone, we’re talking 

about Government use, but not law enforcement use, and I don’t 

think we’re talking about a warrant. 

I do think that we can see exceptions to the warrant requirement. So if you’re flying for, for example, in a public place and you 

see a criminal activity or you see a fleeing suspect, you can continue to follow them the same way law enforcement could continue 

to follow them. We have clear rules around exigency there. 

We also could, I think, see some exceptions for if we had a suppression remedy, for example. So I’m a law enforcement. I’m looking for a missing person. I’m not looking for criminal conduct, and 

I happen to find some. 

If there is a clearly defined non-law enforcement, but police activity, you may be able to do that collection. It may fall under an 

exception or may or may not be admissible in court. I mean, there 

are fine gradations that we have to have here. 

So I don’t want to oversimplify the issue, but I do think that 

given the ability and the possibility of persistent long-term surveillance, something I think the public rightly fears, they should have 

the security of when they see that drone up there, knowing that 

the police have gotten a neutral third-party judge to approve that 

kind of surveillance on them and that there’s a good reason for it. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. And I am going to quickly close with a 

story. 

Last weekend, I was at my home in the backyard, and a drone 

flew over, and it hovered over my backyard. Now as far as I could 

tell, it is a Phantom 3 Professional. And it had a camera onboard, 

nicely stabilized, and it hovered over exactly where it could see me. 

And then it went away, and I jumped up, followed it, found that 

one of my neighbors had a friend, a very adult friend, who had 

flown it on this mission. 

I have no idea what he is going to do with it. Being a politician, 

I am going to assume that it will show up somewhere, some day, 

somehow. What was interesting for me was I know how easily violated people feel when there is a camera that is no more able to 

track me than across a ravine, somebody with a long-range camera 

would, but it felt very personal. 

So as a Member of one of the Committees that has been called 

on to have a likely series of hearings on this, I want to make it 

clear today was about commercial, and I brought up one of the 

many points of are there exemptions where we can carve some of 

the commercial out so that we take that out of the clutter. And we 

start viewing some of the issues that are particularly important to 

Mr. Marino, as a former prosecutor, and others on the Committee, 

and we start dealing with the privacy, the warrant questions and 

so on, that come from it. 
69 

So although this hearing was limited in scope, I want to thank 

you all for helping us expand our understanding and, of course, 

probably define some of the future areas of other hearings of this 

Committee. 

I want to ask all of you if you have additional comments or statements, I will keep the record open for 5 remaining days so that you 

can add supplemental material and would also ask that if we receive any questions, would you be glad to respond to those in writing from Members that were not able to be here today? 

I want to thank you for the answer in the affirmative, and looking left and right, we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:44 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(71) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Motion Picture Association of America 

The Motion Picture Association of America is excited to be on the forefront of 

small unmanned aircraft system innovation. The MPAA has worked closely with the 

Federal Aviation Administration and sUAS operators to secure cinematography as 

among the first approved commercial applications of unmanned aircraft in the 

United States. Incorporating sUAS in domestic film and television production is not 

only safely advancing aerial photography and helping tell stories in new and exciting ways. It is also starting to generate the economic benefits that the technology 

can bring our country by reducing costs and keeping film productions here at home 

rather than sending these jobs overseas. 

As the voice of the motion picture, home video and television industries, the 

MPAA submits this statement on behalf of its members: Paramount Pictures Corp., 

Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., Universal 

City Studios LLC, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. The film and television industry is currently employing sUAS under 

exemptions the FAA granted vendors to use the aircraft in scripted, closed-set filming. The controlled nature of our sUAS use greatly limits exposure to the general 

public, minimizing any safety or privacy concerns. 

When the first handful of sUAS operators received exemption approval from the 

FAA last year at this time, Senator Dodd, MPAA’s Chairman and CEO, called the 

announcement ‘‘a victory for audiences everywhere as it gives filmmakers yet another way to push creative boundaries and create the kinds of scenes and shots we 

could only imagine a few years ago.’’ The MPAA and its members look forward to 

the continued development of this budding sector of the film industry as we work 

with the FAA to establish formal rules allowing the continued use of sUAS in domestic movie and television production. 

Filming with sUAS is already authorized abroad and we have now built a positive 

safety track record here at home, having completed a growing number of successful 

flights. One of the small businesses we work with that received an exemption from 

the FAA in September 2014, has already completed more than 60 film projects to 

date totaling more than 1,200 successful flights. Advancing such domestic use will 

help keep production revenues from leaving our shores, promote jobs, expand the 

U.S. aviation industry, and provide real-world experiences in controlled environments to help pave the way for other uses of sUAS. 

Looking ahead, we asked the FAA earlier this year in the formal rulemaking proceeding to allow additional flexibility, such as night flying, for filming in controlled 

environments as technology advances. We are in the initial stages of sUAS cinematography in the United States and, as use grows, the capabilities of the systems 

will likely evolve rapidly and beyond what we can predict now. 

We thank Chairman Issa and Ranking Member Collins and the other members 

of the Committee for their attention to this matter. We are excited to continue our 

work to further integrate the use of sUAS into domestic film and television productions, and are eager to see how the creative minds of our industry use the technology to the benefit of audiences around the world. 

Æ