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

99–705 2016

THE DISRUPTER SERIES: THE FAST–EVOLVING 

USES AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF DRONES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, 

AND TRADE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 19, 2015 

Serial No. 114–103 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Missouri 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND TRADE

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

Chairman 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

Vice Chairman 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas, opening statement .................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois, opening statement .............................................................................. 4 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 5 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 6 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 70 

WITNESSES

Joshua M. Walden, Senior Vice President, General Manager, New Technology 

Group, Intel Corporation ..................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 73 

John Villasenor, Professor of Public Policy, Electrical Engineering and Management, Luskin School of Public Affairs, University of California, Los 

Angeles .................................................................................................................. 27 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 76 

Margot Kaminski, Assistant Professor, Moritz School of Law, Ohio State 

University ............................................................................................................. 37 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 80 

Brian Wynne, President and CEO, Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International ............................................................................................... 48 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 88 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

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

(1) 

THE DISRUPTER SERIES: THE FAST–EVOLVING USES AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF 

DRONES 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND

TRADE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in room 

2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael Burgess (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Burgess, Lance, Blackburn, 

Harper, Bilirakis, Brooks, Mullin, Schakowsky, Welch, and Pallone 

(ex officio). 

Staff present: Leighton Brown, Press Assistant; Rebecca Card, 

Assistant Press Secretary; James Decker, Policy Coordinator, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Andy Duberstein, Deputy Press 

Secretary; Graham Dufault, Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, 

and Trade; Melissa Froelich, Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, 

and Trade; Paul Nagle, Chief Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, 

and Trade; Dan Schneider, Press Secretary; Olivia Trusty, Professional Staff, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Dylan Vorbach, 

Legislative Clerk, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Michelle 

Ash, Minority Chief Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and 

Trade; Christine Brennan, Minority Press Secretary; Jeff Carroll, 

Minority Staff Director; Lisa Goldman, Minority Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; and Diana Rudd, Minority Legal 

Fellow. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BURGESS. The subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing 

and Trade will now come to order and the chair recognizes himself 

for 5 minutes for an opening statement and, again, good morning 

to all and welcome to our hearing on examining unmanned aerial 

systems, or drones. 

These are poised to up-end the status quo in many sectors across 

the country. 

This hearing is the latest installment of our Disrupter Series covering a variety of disruptive technologies that are literally redefining our lives and improving our economic condition. 

2 

This hearing is timely. Tomorrow, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration will hold an important 

gathering in its series of multi stakeholder meetings to develop privacy best practices for drones, and the Federal Aviation Authority 

has also set tomorrow as the deadline for recommendations from 

the Drone Registry Task Force. 

Drones promise to make life easier, make life safer, make life 

less costly for workers in a wide variety of industries. The American Farm Bureau has forecast that farmers will be using drone 

services to monitor their crops and could see significant return on 

investment. 

The technology now exists for telecommunications and utility employees to send up drones up to inspect telephone poles and monitor their findings from the truck. 

Insurance adjusters sent out to inspect a claimant’s home for hail 

damage could use a drone to conduct the examination without 

needing a ladder to walk around on the roof. And everyone from 

movie studios to broadcasters have interests. With nearly a million 

units expected to be sold, consumer drones are predicted to be the 

next wave in holiday purchases in just a few weeks. 

I’m sure many of us here today have noticed that trend as we 

start our holiday shopping. Check your gutters or a leak on your 

roof without leaving the ground, no problem. 

The sector-specific benefits of drones add up to a massive economic impact. According to one study by the Association for Unmanned Vehicles Systems International—one of our witnesses 

today—drones will produce about $82 billion in growth during the 

next 10 years as they are integrated into our National Airspace 

System. 

The study also predicts the addition of 100,000 jobs over those 

10 years, which encompasses drone makers, software engineers, 

suppliers, researchers and other workers that would support expanded drone production and use. 

To realize these benefits, the Federal Aviation Administration is 

working with stakeholders to safely integrate drones into the 

American airspace. 

Simultaneously, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration is holding multi stakeholder meetings with the 

goal of producing industry best practices. 

There are important questions around privacy laws and safety 

and United States companies like Intel are working to develop solutions that would enhance safety automatically, which no regulator could produce. 

In fact, I would be more worried that overregulation on safety 

could prevent the investment, testing and research needed to develop market-driven solutions. 

With the advent of drones, many have expressed concerns that 

they present novel privacy issues. Certainly, drones can go where 

people can’t. 

A neighbor can fly a drone over your fence and pester you and 

invade your privacy, and there have been disputes ending in drones 

being shot out of the air by an annoyed citizen. 

3 

There are interesting questions around whether how and when 

and under what circumstances a drone owner can be identified and 

held to account for his or her behavior. 

Those questions are now being addressed at the FAA as part of 

the development of its registry. I should note that I share the concerns of many with requiring small recreational drones to be registered with the federal government. 

Such an approach would involve casual users in a major government bureaucracy with seemingly little benefit. As regulators prepare to integrate drones into the airspace, it is clear that safety has 

to be the number-one priority. 

But cutting-edge drone testing and evaluation is occurring overseas because the current process to approve commercial drone use 

is both restrictive and cumbersome in the United States. 

I do want to thank our witnesses for being here this morning. I’m 

going to yield the balance of my time to Mr. Lance. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you, Chairman Burgess, for holding this hearing and welcome to the distinguished panel. 

Earlier this week, a drone crashed into a car while flying over 

an oil refinery in Linden, New Jersey. I used to represent a portion 

of Linden before the reconfiguration of the congressional districts. 

Linden is one of the major refining locations in the United States. 

The FBI is currently investigating whether or not this was an accident and is tracking down the operator who fled the scene. This 

is the second time in two months that a drone has crashed in Linden, which is located 10 minutes from Newark Liberty International Airport, one of the three major airports serving the New 

York metropolitan region. 

While so far there is no evidence of ill intent in either case, these 

incidents bring up important concerns regarding the safety of recreational drones and the possibility for bad actors to repurpose 

them to cause harm to others. 

I look forward to discussing these concerns and possible solutions 

as well as the potential benefits of UAVs with this distinguished 

panel. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burgess follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS

Good morning and welcome to our hearing examining unmanned aerial systemsor drones, which are poised to upend the status quo in sectors across our economy. 

This is the latest installment of our Disrupter Series covering a variety of disruptive technologies that are redefining our lives and improving our economic condition. 

This hearing is timely. Tomorrow, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration will hold an important gathering in its series of multistakeholder meetings to develop privacy best practices for drones. 

And the FAA has also set tomorrow as the deadline for recommendations from 

the Drone Registry Task Force. 

Drones promise to make life easier, safer, and less costly for workers in a wide 

array of industries. 

The American Farm Bureau has forecast that farmers using drone services to 

monitor their crops could see a return on investment of $12 per acre for corn, $2.60 

for an acre of soybeans, and $2.30 per acre of wheat. 

The technology now exists for telecommunications and utility employees to send 

drones up to inspect telephone poles, monitoring their findings from the truck. 

Insurance adjusters sent out to inspect a claimant’s home for hail damage could 

use drones to conduct the examination without needing to climb a ladder and walk 

4 

around a slippery roof. And everyone from movie studios to broadcasters have interests too. And with nearly a million units expected to be sold, consumer drones are 

predicted to be the next wave in holiday purchases this year. I’m sure many of us 

here today have noticed that trend as we start gift shopping. 

Check your gutters or a leak on your roof without leaving the ground, no problem. 

The sector-specific benefits of drones add up to a massive economic impact. 

According to one study by the Association for Unmanned Vehicles Systems Inter- national (AUVSI)—one of our witnesses today—drones will produce about $82 billion in growth in the first ten years after they are integrated into our National Airspace System. 

The study also predicts the addition of 100,000 jobs over those ten years, which 

encompasses drone makers, software engineers, suppliers, researchers, and other 

workers that would support expanded drone production and use. 

To realize these benefits, the Federal Aviation Administration is working with 

stakeholders to safely integrate drones into American airspace. 

Simultaneously, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration is holding multistakeholder meetings with the goal of producing industry best 

practices around privacy. 

There are important questions around privacy laws and safety. U.S. companies 

like Intel are working hard to develop solutions that would enhance safety automatically, which no regulator could produce. 

In fact, I would be more worried that overregulation on safety could prevent the 

investment, testing, and research needed to develop these market-driven solutions. 

With the advent of drones, many have expressed concerns that they present novel 

privacy issues. 

Certainly drones go where people can’t. A neighbor can fly a drone over your fence 

to pester you and invade your privacy-and there have been disputes ending in 

drones being shot out of the air by annoyed citizens. 

There are interesting questions around whether, how, and under what circumstances a drone owner can be identified and held to account for his or her behavior. Those questions are now being addressed at the FAA as part of the development of its registry. I should note that I share the concerns of many with requiring 

small recreational drones to be registered with the federal government. Such an approach would involve casual users in a major government bureaucracy with seemingly little benefit. 

As regulators prepare to integrate drones into the airspace, it is clear that safety 

is the number one priority. But cutting-edge drone testing and evaluation is occurring overseas because the current process to approve commercial drone use is both 

restrictive and cumbersome in the U.S. 

I join many in the drone development space in calling for quick but flexible regulatory solutions that allow for future innovation. The speed of innovation can’t remain at the speed of regulation for long. 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

The chair recognizes the subcommittee ranking member, Jan 

Schakowsky, for 5 minutes for an opening statement, please. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing on the evolution and the future of drones. I look forward to delving into this important issue. 

Drones are increasingly common in our communities and it is 

predicted that 1 million drones will be given as gifts over this holiday and drone usage will, clearly, rise in 2016. 

It is important to understand what this technology can do and 

how we can adequately ensure their safe and ethical usage. 

As the subcommittee of jurisdiction over the Consumer Product 

Safety Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, I am particularly interested today in the impacts of drone usage and public 

safety and privacy—the two issues that the chairman raised as 

well. 

5 

The FAA has received over 1,000 reports of unsafe drone activity 

by pilots already this year, double the number of such reports from 

2014. With their capacity to reach protected and secure areas including the White House lawn, which happened earlier this year, 

drones can pose a serious national security threat as well. 

We must ensure that drones are adequately regulated to maintain safety both for the public and for the country. The other important area for us to consider, as mentioned, is the privacy implications of the increased use of drones. 

Drones can and have been equipped with invasive technologies 

including cameras, infrared devices, even high-powered microphones. 

This new method of collecting information does not entitle individuals, corporations or government entities to violate privacy 

rights and we must ensure that our laws and regulations reflect 

that fact. 

So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses to gain from 

their perspectives this emerging technology and I yield back my 

time. 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentlelady yields back. The chair thanks the 

gentlelady. 

The chair recognizes the vice chairwoman of the full committee, 

Mrs. Blackburn from Tennessee, for an opening statement for 5 

minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 

thank each of you for being here before us today and for the information that you’re going to share with us and work with us. 

I appreciate this series that the chairman has put in place, the 

Disruptor Series, because we do live in a time when you’re going 

to see the Internet of things, if you will, begin to move forward and 

become more enmeshed with our daily lives—how we do business, 

how our military protects ourselves, how consumers use a product 

in recreation. 

All of those are components that we are going to be tasked with 

dealing with the issues and the implications. 

Now, we’re looking at privacy. We’re looking at safety, the utilizations and also we want to look at the mechanism—the drone 

itself—and then what you put on the drone, which is where you get 

into the privacy concerns and utilization of technology that can be 

a little bit invasive, if you will. 

But we do know that there is an enormous curiosity about these 

and such a desire to have a drone and play with a drone. I say I 

have a family full of big kids ranging from age 60 on down to age 

6, all male, by the way. 

And they love all of these gadgets and toys and the next new 

thing and they so like—yes, I hear you all chuckling. I do think 

that my husband is still a big kid and but there is such a fascination with this and the policy implications of that come to us—how 

do you encourage that curiosity, how do you allow consumer use, 

how do you allow commercial use and still look at the safety and 

6 

security. And, of course, as we have found out with our airplanes 

and with air travel make certain that we are securing that space. 

So thank you for your information and your wisdom. We appreciate having you here. Yield back. 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentlelady yields back. 

The chair recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, 

Mr. Pallone of New Jersey, 5 minutes for an opening statement, 

please. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As part of our ongoing Disruptor Series today we have the opportunity to discuss one of our fastest growing and most exciting industries. 

It seems there are drones for just about everything. Photographers can attach powerful cameras to drones to get shots from 

high in the air. Nature lovers can take footage of wildlife in hard 

to reach places. 

Surveyors use them to create more accurate maps. Both children 

and adults fly drones just for the fun of making something fly. 

If you want, you can buy a drone shaped like the Millennium 

Falcon from Star Wars and you could say that drones are the next 

generation of kites if kites were Bluetooth capable and had a thousand possible uses and companies are looking into how drones can 

improve business. 

Retail giants are exploring delivery by drone, which will get orders to consumers faster than ever. Farms use drones to oversee 

crop conditions and dozens of small startup companies are innovating new ways to use drones to protect the environment. 

One company has designed a drone that can sense water pollution from the air. Commercial and consumer drones are attracting 

a huge amount of interest in investment. 

The Federal Aviation Administration estimates that a million 

drones will be given out as gifts this holiday season, and according 

to one industry report investments in drone technology from January to May 2015 totaled $172 million, more than in the previous 

5 years combined. 

These investments are not limited to one industry or source. 

They come from government, venture capitalists, environmental 

groups and huge technology firms, among many others. 

So it’s exciting when technology leaps forward the way it has 

with drones. But as the industry develops, so do the risks. As more 

drones take to the air, safety becomes more of a concern. Pilots 

have raised concerns about sharing airspace with drones. 

Drones have been seen in sports arenas and pilot sightings of 

drones doubled since last year, and there has also been an increase 

in the number of safety accidents including a man who was killed 

after losing control of his drone. 

Also, many people are concerned that drones could enable new 

invasions of personal privacy. Drones can be equipped with cameras and recording devices and can be flown into people’s back 

yards or next to their bedroom windows. 

7 

States are beginning to pass laws to restrict drone use. Many of 

these laws are focused on protecting personal privacy. But some 

people are taking matters into their own hands by shooting down 

drones hovering over their homes. 

Innovation and growth are vital to the American economy but 

that innovation must also come with basic protections no matter 

which disruptor we’re talking about. 

So consumer protections are needed for those who use drones 

and for those who come into contact with them. By addressing 

these issues, businesses and consumers can have the certainty they 

need to continue growing and enjoying this exciting new space. 

I am confident that we can encourage innovation in the drone industry and ensure that there are strong protections in place for 

consumers and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses how 

we can do just that. 

I don’t know if Mr.—would you like some time? Fine. I yield 

back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentleman yields back. The chair thanks the 

gentleman and this does conclude member opening statements. The 

chair would remind members that pursuant to committee rules all 

members’ opening statements will be made part of the record. 

We do want to thank our witnesses for being here today, for taking the time to testify before the subcommittee. Our witness panel 

for today’s hearing will include Mr. Joshua Walden, the senior vice 

president and general manager of the New Technology Group at 

Intel; Mr. John Villasenor, professor of public policy, electrical engineering and management at UCLA’s Luskin School of Public Affairs; Ms. Margot Kaminski, assistant professor at the Moritz 

School of Law at Ohio State University; and Mr. Brian Wynne, 

president and CEO of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International. 

We appreciate all of you being here today. We are going to begin 

the panel with Mr. Walden. Just an editorial note—we are going 

to have votes on the floor soon. So I would ask that you each adhere to the 5 minutes for your opening statement. You will see the 

lights down below. 

Again, we appreciate all of you being here. We will begin with 

you, Mr. Walden. You are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening 

statement. 

We have technical assistance on the way. You would think in the 

major congressional committee that deals with technology we 

wouldn’t have wires running all over the place. We’d have a series 

of drones picking up every hiccup and cough from the witness 

table. 

Mr. Walden, I am going to blame the press for probably dislodging a cable as they were taking pictures of your aircraft, and 

our apologies. 

Are we there yet? I don’t think any of the microphones are working. Mr. Wynne, does your microphone appear to be on? 

Mr. WYNNE. Testing. There we go. 

Mr. BURGESS. Whoever’s is working please proceed 5 minutes. 

8 

STATEMENTS OF JOSHUA M. WALDEN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, GENERAL MANAGER, NEW TECHNOLOGY GROUP, 

INTEL CORPORATION; JOHN VILLASENOR, PROFESSOR OF 

PUBLIC POLICY, ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT, LUSKIN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, UNIVERSITY 

OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES; BRIAN WYNNE, PRESIDENT 

AND CEO, ASSOCIATION FOR UNMANNED VEHICLE SYSTEMS 

INTERNATIONAL; MARGOT KAMINSKI, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, MORITZ SCHOOL OF LAW, OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY 

STATEMENT OF JOSHUA M. WALDEN 

Mr. WALDEN. Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member Schakowsky 

and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify on behalf of Intel Corporation. 

We appreciate the invitation to appear before the subcommittee 

to discuss the continuously and rapidly evolving uses of unmanned 

aerial vehicles, UAVs or drones, and the vast economic potential of 

this growing industry. 

Innovation has been at the heart of Intel’s business since we 

were founded close to half a century ago. To quote our co-founder, 

Robert Noyce, innovation is everything. 

While we are a recognized leader with 80 percent of sales coming 

from outside the United States, Intel is viewed as a leading American technology company for good reason. We conduct approximately three-quarters of our advanced manufacturing in research 

and development in the United States at facilities located throughout the country. 

We invest billions of dollars annually in research and development and employ more than 50,000 people nationwide. Intel’s declared mission is to utilize the power of Moore’s Law to bring smart 

and connective devices to every person on the planet. 

With the help of Moore’s Law, we have driven computing innovation to the highest performing servers that speed discoveries in 

science and medicine to low-powered computing sensors that are always on and connected that make devices, homes and cities smarter. 

It has become increasingly clear to us that UAVs like cars and 

watches are a computing platform of the future. Applications and 

services by this new connected UAV ecosystem will spur significant 

economic growth and will be driven by innovations in UAV technology. 

From infrastructure inspection to delivery of goods, millions of 

Americans are on the cusp and enjoying the benefits of this continually developing technology. 

UAVs are being used to inspect bridges safely and efficiently, 

allow for real time repairs. Mobile carriers aim to keep workers on 

the ground by using UAVs for cell tower inspection, an application 

with potential lifesaving ramifications. From 2004 to 2013, there 

were 95 fatalities associated with cell tower inspections. 

Another up and coming usage will be having multiple drones 

working in conjunction with a single operator used for either surveillance, safety, agriculture and even entertainment. 

9 

Computing technology is what will help drive and manage this 

capability with more precision, safety and accuracy than manual 

control. 

Technology can and will improve drone safety. We are actively 

creating silicon architecture and computing power that will create 

onboard drone platforms that will have outstanding speed, performance, and functionality. 

And our most important contribution to date involves critical 

safety technology that will address real concerns expressed by regulators and consumers alike. Real Sense is an onboard sensor application that represents a key ingredient for best in class collision 

avoidance. 

It features several attributes for collision avoidance with realtime onboard computing. It is intuitive, self-aware, adaptable and 

self-guided. It will provide real-time depth-sensing capability for a 

flying drone and complying with GPS, altitude, and other on-board 

sensors can also avoid no-fly areas and comply within regulatory 

limits. 

I’d like to demonstrate the capability, if we could, please. So 

what you see Jan doing is he’s no longer utilizing the controller 

and what the 3D Real Sense camera technology is doing is essentially sensing using infrared and moving and making sure that nobody can run into the drone. So this is real-time collision avoidance 

utilizing 360 degrees of freedom. Thank you, Jan. 

So I think we’re going to demonstrate the sense and avoid of 

what the drone is actually seeing. If you could please look to the 

video screens, hopefully. There we go. 

So what you’re seeing is the ring sense, or the IR picture, of what 

the drone is seeing. Note this is not being seen by the pilot. None 

of these images are saved, from a privacy perspective. 

This is an IR image the drone is seeing and if someone gets closer to the camera you’ll actually see the image get darker and as 

they move away get lighter. 

So this is actually the depth that you’re seeing of what the drone 

is seeing which enables it to avoid people and objects. 

Thank you. 

Society, consumers, businesses, and overall worldwide economies 

stand to benefit in profound ways if the nascent drone ecosystem 

can develop safely, quickly, and in a manner where governments 

and private sector work cooperatively and expeditiously across a 

range of statutory, regulatory, and policy matters. 

We believe that it is critical for the United States to develop a 

regulatory framework for UAVs that role models innovation for the 

rest of the world. This framework should allow U.S. companies not 

only to compete in the global market but also lead and drive global 

UAV innovation. 

It is possible to both improve safety and promote American innovation involving advances in drone technology. However, a federal 

government approach that is overly prescriptive regarding the deployment of new hardware and software will deter the private sector’s ability to invent and compete in the marketplace. 

In addition, privacy is of paramount importance for the public’s 

acceptance in understanding the widespread UAV operations in all 

environments. 

10 

Protection of privacy has always been built into the fabric of 

Intel. Intel has embraced the Fair Information Practices Principles, 

FIPPs, as the Global Foundation for Privacy Protection to foster 

technology innovation. With respect to drones, the FIPPs can be 

applied to the drone platform in the collection, usage and distribution of data. 

As Intel and others innovate and then integrate those innovations into UAV platforms it will be critical to have a seamless and 

effective regulatory structure in place that supports such innovation. 

Approval processes that can stretch close to a year should be dramatically streamlined. Many commercial uses of small UAVs 

should be allowed without filing requirements just as hobbyists’ 

use is permitted today. 

Without the right regulatory balance, we risk delaying the social 

and societal benefits and U.S. economic opportunities. A recent 

study estimates over a 10-year span UAV integration with national 

airspace will count for $82 billion in job creation and growth. 

Thank you for conducting this hearing and for giving Intel the 

opportunity to testify in this exciting field of drone technology 

which, with modern regulations in place, will transform our society 

into a safe and responsible fashion. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

11 


99705.001
12 


99705.002
13 


99705.003
14 


99705.004
15 


99705.005
16 


99705.006
17 


99705.007
18 


99705.008
19 


99705.009
20 


99705.010
21 


99705.011
22 


99705.012
23 


99705.013
24 


99705.014
25 


99705.015
26 


99705.016
27 

Mr. BURGESS. Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Professor Villasenor, your 5 minutes, please. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN VILLASENOR 

Mr. VILLASENOR. Good morning, Chairman Burgess, Ranking 

Member Schakowsky and members of the subcommittee. I thank 

you very much for the opportunity to testify today. 

The views I’m expressing here are my own and do not necessarily 

represent those of any of the organizations I am affiliated with. 

Today, an unmanned aircraft can refer to everything from a small toy helicopter that might cost only $10 to a jet-powered Global Hawk which can weigh 15,000 pounds and cost over $100 million. 

There are solar-powered unmanned aircraft that can stay aloft in 

the stratosphere for weeks at a time and hobbyist quad copters 

that may only weigh only a pound or two and have flight durations 

measured in minutes. 

The Nano Hummingbird, developed by California-based 

AeroVironment under DARPA funding, weighs only two-thirds of 

an ounce including an onboard video camera, and that is technology that is now almost half a decade old. 

In 2013, a team of Harvard researchers reported the successful 

flight of the RoboBee, a robotic insect that weighs less than onethree-hundredth of an ounce. 

These examples underscore the incredible variety in unmanned 

aircraft and the near impossibility of predicting how this technology will evolve in the future. 

An additional complicating factor is the same unmanned aircraft 

platform can play many different roles. For example, a small quad 

copter weighing one or two pounds in the hands of a professional 

videographer would be considered a professional platform. 

That same unmanned aircraft in the hands of a hobbyist is a 

hobbyist platform and that same platform in the hands of a 10- 

year-old child might be considered a toy. 

Another issue and one that falls squarely under the jurisdiction 

of this committee is that far more than in the past unmanned aircraft are becoming consumer products. 

In the event of a defect creating a safety hazard, this creates 

some complex potential overlaps between agencies such as the FAA 

on the one hand and the Consumer Products Safety Commission on 

the other hand. 

For unmanned aircraft that are marketed as consumer products 

there is certainly a role for consumer protection. I believe the Consumer Products Safety Commission recognizes this. In fact, a 

search of recalls on the CPSC Web site shows that they have been 

very active in issuing recalls related to consumer unmanned aircraft products. 

Of course, no one would suggest the CPSC should have jurisdiction over a Global Hawk or that they should be involved in developing regulations governing flight operations. 

But precedent makes it clear that with respect to product safety 

the CPSC will be in the mix and in fact has already been in the 

mix for quite a few years when it comes to consumer unmanned 

aircraft. 

28 

As consumer unmanned aircraft offerings continue to grow, there 

will be an increased need for coordination between the CPSC and 

the FAA. 

For example, there will be some UAS products that serve both 

consumer and nonconsumer markets. The safety issue with one of 

those products might be initially reported to the FAA and not the 

CPSC or vice versa. 

The good news is that the CPSC has proven adept at addressing 

an extremely broad range of products in the past and there is every 

reason to believe it will be capable of addressing the growing number of consumer unmanned aircraft product offerings that fall within its jurisdiction. 

In closing, I would like to express my appreciation to the subcommittee for holding this series of hearings on disruptive technologies including the unmanned aircraft being discussed today. 

With rapidly changing technologies there can sometimes be a 

tendency to over regulate and in doing so to inadvertently stifle innovation, impede future growth or infringe civil liberties. 

To ensure a balanced approach when contemplating new policy 

solutions addressing these technologies, I think it is important to 

take a full accounting of existing frameworks, some of which can 

be more applicable than might initially be apparent. 

Integrating unmanned aircraft into the national airspace system 

will open up a host of socially and economically beneficial applications. 

In addition, that integration will help ensure continued American 

leadership not only in aviation but also in related sectors such as 

robotics. 

I am confident that with the proper mix of education, self regulation and government oversight the overs helming majority of commercial and hobbyist unmanned aircraft operators will fly safely 

and in a manner respectful of privacy and property rights. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on this important 

topic. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Villasenor follows:] 

29 


99705.017
30 


99705.018
31 


99705.019
32 


99705.020
33 


99705.021
34 


99705.022
35 


99705.023
36 


99705.024
37 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

Professor Kaminski, you are recognized for 5 minutes for the 

purpose of an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF MARGOT KAMINSKI 

Ms. KAMINSKI. Good morning, Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member Schakowsky and distinguished members of the subcommittee. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today on unmanned aircraft systems, or drones. 

I am a professor of law at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law and an affiliated fellow of the Information Society 

Project at Yale Law School. 

However, as a fellow panelist, the views I am expressing today 

are my own. In my testimony I am going to focus primarily on the 

impact of drones on privacy, which is a crucial aspect, as many 

members recognize, of consumer protection. 

For drones to be publically accepted and fulfill their economic potential, citizens must be able to trust that the surveillance powers 

drones have will not be abused. 

Drones will be used for a wide variety of economically and socially beneficial activities ranging from infrastructure inspection to 

precision agriculture. In the best scenarios, drones will reduce risks 

to human actors and enable important information gathering at a 

low cost. 

But it is precisely these beneficial aspects of drones that they enable low cost low risk information gathering that also raise the 

spectre of privacy harms. 

While many uses of drones will have little to no impact on 

human populations, a wide variety of commercial applications will 

take place in residential environments where citizens’ expectations 

of privacy have been recognized to be at their highest. 

AUVSI, in its analysis of the first 1,000 commercial UAS exemptions granted by the FAA noted that over half of the exemptions 

were granted for general aerial photography, real estate uses, 

which quintessentially impact residential areas, followed with a 

third of the exemption, 350 exemptions. 

Drones do raise privacy concerns on a spectrum with other technologies. Like smart phones, they make surveillance more pervasive by lowering its cost and raising the rate of social adoption. 

Like GPS, they make surveillance more persistent—that is, able 

to follow individuals over longer periods of time. And like helicopters, they enable surveillance from disruptive vantage points. 

Drones thus raise privacy problems both because of what they 

carry and where they carry it. Where a person used to be able to 

rely on a privacy fence, remote location or building height to manage their social accessibility, drones disrupt the use of these environmental management tactics that we all rely on. 

These disruptions have real social costs. Not only may citizens 

fear drones or even shoot them down but they will alter their behavior in ways that can be truly socially harmful. Surveillance has 

been shown to cause conformity, and conformity has costs to both 

democracy and the economy. 

Multiple states have, as a consequence, recently enacted privacy 

laws governing drones operated by nongovernmental actors. 

38 

These laws are often but not always technology specific, addressing drones but not other kinds of surveillance, and they typically 

govern the moment of actually surveillance when information is 

collected, not data privacy practices after the information has been 

gathered. 

The content of these laws range widely. At this point, I counted 

nine or ten states that have enacted them. They range from protecting from the moment of gathering in any location to protecting 

only gathering information on private property, which is a limited 

value when you consider where drones can fly. 

Privacy protection is crucially important but governing drones 

also implicates First Amendment interests. Drone journalism is a 

budding field. News gatherers will be able to and will use drones 

to gather information about droughts, land management and government actions, all information that enables democratic self-governance and raises significant First Amendment concerns. 

A number of courts of appeals have now recognized a limited 

First Amendment right to record. The scope of that right is still 

very much up for question. And for this reason, I actually caution 

the federal government against enacting legislation that governs 

information gathering by drones by private actors. 

Courts will need time to unravel the tension between the state 

privacy laws and countervailing First Amendment interests. In the 

meantime, federal energy can better be turned towards the data 

privacy issues that drones and similar new technology like the 

Internet of things raise. 

Drone surveillance implicates not just information gathering but 

data privacy. State drone privacy laws do not attempt to govern 

this data and this, I believe, is the place for federal action. 

The information privacy harms raised by drones sit, again, on a 

spectrum with other familiar technologies. It shares features with 

online surveillance. Information privacy harms will largely arise 

when large amounts of information are correlated, used out of context or used in a discriminatory fashion. 

Drone surveillance crucially differs, however, from online surveillance in that the surveillance subject will not be the person who 

clicks through a user agreement. 

Like the Internet of things, drones raise the question of how to 

govern information privacy when then surveillance subject has no 

relationship to the product manufacturer or service provider. 

Our current data privacy regime based on requiring companies 

primarily to comply with their own privacy policies is ill equipped 

to address issues raised by the Internet of other people’s things. 

A federal data privacy regime based instead on the Fair Information Practice Principles, or FIPPs, embraced internationally would 

protect the privacy of citizens who are not subject to user agreements, would bolster FTC authority in this area and would provide 

a backdrop of encouraging industries to establish best practices 

even when they have few incentives based on consumer relationships. 

To close, I support and have been participating in the Department of Commerce’s efforts through the National Telecommunications Infrastructure Agency to establish and recommend best 

practices governing drone use and privacy. 

39 

In the absence of federal data privacy law, however, industry is 

unlikely to agree to meaningful protection for third parties and in 

the absence of meaningful privacy protections drones will not get 

off the ground. 

Thank you very much for your time and attention and the opportunity to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kaminski follows:] 

40 


99705.031
41 


99705.032
42 


99705.033
43 


99705.034
44 


99705.035
45 


99705.036
46 


99705.037
47 


99705.038
48 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentlelady. 

Mr. Wynne recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement, 

please. 

STATEMENT OF BRIAN WYNNE 

Mr. WYNNE. Thank you, Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member 

Schakowsky. Thank you very much, members of the subcommittee 

for the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing on unmanned 

aircraft systems. 

I am speaking on behalf of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle 

Systems International, the world’s largest nonprofit organization 

devoted exclusively to advancing unmanned systems and robotics. 

UAS have a significant impact on our society and economy already and will continue to do so in the future. From inspecting oil 

pipelines and filming television shows and movies to providing 

farmers with aerial views of their crops, the applications of UAS 

are virtually endless and they enable researchers, public entities 

and businesses to do things safer and more cost effectively. 

UAS industry is poised to be one of the fastest growing in American history. The AUVSI numbers have already been referenced by 

several of the speakers. 

There is no question that under the right regulatory environment 

that these numbers could actually go higher. However, we are disappointed that the FAA missed the September 30th, 2015 congressionally mandated deadline for UAS integration and it still has yet 

to finalize a small UAS rule for commercial operations. 

As we wait, American businesses and innovators are left sitting 

on the sidelines or are operating under a restrictive exemption 

process. Let me explain. 

Under the small UAS rule, until the small UAS rule is finalized 

the primary way commercial operators may fly is through an exemption process. 

In May 2014, the FAA announced it would consider granting exemptions for low-risk commercial UAS applications under Section 

333 of the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act. 

Currently, the FAA has more than 2,400 pending requests and 

has granted more than 2,200 exemptions to businesses. According 

to AUVSI’s report on the first 1,000 exemptions businesses in more 

than 25 industries representing more than 600,000 jobs are now 

using UAS. 

These companies contributed about $500 billion to the U.S. economy in 2014 and provide essential services to citizens across the 

nation. 

For example, Texas businesses have received 82 approvals to fly 

commercially. More than a third of these companies are real estate 

businesses such as Austin-based Boyd & Boyd Properties. 

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 but it is easy to see the far 

reaching benefits UAS will add. But while some businesses are flying, the current system of case by case approvals isn’t a long-term 

solution. 

49 

Meanwhile, some of the requirements under the exemption process are more onerous than those contemplated in the draft’s small 

UAS rule. 

For example, the exemptions typically require UAS operators to 

hold at least a sport pilot certificate. The draft’s small UAS rule, 

however, would require commercial operators to pass an aeronautical knowledge test every two years. 

In addition to helping the UAS industry thrive, putting the small 

UAS rules in place will provide the necessary tools and training to 

create a culture of safety around the use of UAS. 

As more commercial operators are certified or certificated, they 

will join the long standing aviation community, which I have been 

part of for more than 20 years as an instrument rated general aviation pilot. 

They will foster the aviation community’s principles of 

airmanship and self-policing to promote safety and help thwart 

careless and reckless operations. And because safety is essential for 

all users, AUVSI, in partnership with the Academy of Model Aeronautics and the FAA, last year developed the UAS safety campaign 

Know Before You Fly to educate newcomers to UAS, many of whom 

have no aviation experience about where they should and shouldn’t 

fly. 

AUVSI also serves on the Department of Transportation’s Task 

Force on Registration. This collaborative effort to develop an efficient process for UAS registration should lead to increased accountability across the entire aviation community. 

Under the FAA’s draft small UAS rule, commercial operators 

would be required to register their platforms. Extending this to 

consumer UAS users will help promote responsibility and safety. 

UAS technology is at an exciting and pivotal stage. It is developing rapidly with new applications being introduced nearly every 

day and at a rate much faster than it takes to develop the necessary regulations. 

We need to ensure that the FAA adopts the proper framework 

to keep up with the rapid development of U.S. technology and to 

maintain the safety of our airspace. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wynne follows:] 

50 


99705.025
51 


99705.026
52 


99705.027
53 


99705.028
54 


99705.029
55 


99705.030
56 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentleman and there are 

votes on the floor. 

I am happy that we made it through all the openings statements. 

We will take a recess until the conclusion of this vote series. So 

until then the subcommittee stands in recess subject to the call of 

the chair. 

[Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 

10:56 a.m. and resumed at 11:43 a.m.] 

Mr. BURGESS. I call the subcommittee back to order and once 

again thank you all for your testimony. Thank you for being patient with us. 

We have moved into the question and answer portion of the hearing and I want to begin that by recognizing Mr. Harper from Mississippi 5 minutes for your questions, please. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to each of you witnesses that are here. This is such 

an important topic. Unmanned aerial systems, often called UAS, 

remotely piloted aircraft or drones or whatever the name, have certainly benefited the U.S. military immensely through surveillance, 

reconnaissance and combat missions. 

As has been the case throughout history, technologies developed 

for the Department of Defense have tremendous potential for commercial and civilian applications as well. 

However, to do so it will be essential that we safely integrate 

these systems into the national airspace, which is not an easy task, 

as you each know. 

While UAS has applicability in almost all areas which require 

the collection of data, I believe that there are really three areas 

which justify specific mention. Specifically, these are support for 

critical transportation and logistics infrastructure, emergency response such as search and rescue and wildfires. 

Finally, one area which is already showing I think possibly the 

greatest potential is precision agriculture. These are the applications. 

With the use of the technology within these applications is staggering and each should be a reminder to us that the safe integration of UAS into the national airspace should be our highest priority. 

I am pleased that the Federal Aviation Administration has chosen Mississippi State University, which is in my district, as the 

lead for its center of excellence for unmanned aerial systems relying on Mississippi State University and its 21 collaborating academic institutions along with over 100 industry partners to provide 

the research necessary for this integration. 

It is critical that we move quickly to execute this research so that 

we can address such critical issues as sense and avoid technologies, 

airworthiness, remote sensing, beyond line of sight operations, 

cyber security and low altitude operations to enable this industry 

to thrive. 

Following in that theme, I would like to focus my questions on 

FAA’s role as we move forward and I will start with you, Mr. 

Wynne, if I may, and ask you do you believe that the FAA has adequately defined the roadmap for UAS integration. 

57 

Mr. WYNNE. Yes, sir. I think there is a good roadmap available 

and actually a tremendous amount of work that has been done in 

the unmanned aircraft systems, ARC, Aviation Rulemaking Committee. 

So we know what the work is that needs to be done. I don’t that 

it is properly funded today. I think the center of excellence is doing 

excellent work. 

We have test sites as well that are not very well funded, not 

funded at all, indeed, by the federal government. I think it is going 

to be really important to move forward on that roadmap to identify 

equivalent level of safety. 

There is going to be research and development that needs to be 

done. The center of excellence will do some of that through its partners. We are participating in that as well. 

The test sites were essentially stood up for that purpose. But the 

FAA has to direct that. They have to—and in some instances they 

need to be able to fund some of that with, of course, appropriate 

industry resources as well. 

Mr. HARPER. Great. Mr. Wynne, there are clearly research priorities that can enhance the safe integration of UAS into the national 

airspace. 

What do you believe are the highest priorities in that regard that 

should be addressed? 

Mr. WYNNE. Well, the two that come to mind immediately, of 

course, are sense and avoid. If I am not on the aircraft and I can’t 

see it I need to miss it. 

So the question is what kind of technologies can we use for that 

and, there is on board radar for things that are flying at the flight 

levels and the military has been utilizing very successfully to keep 

manned and unmanned aircraft separated from one another for 

quite some time now in theater. 

But we need to be able to develop those technologies. There are 

some great technologies that are coming along for sense and avoid 

at the lower levels for smaller aircraft that are less energy intensive and less costly. 

C2 communications also very important. Lost link procedures— 

these are the kinds of things that we need to work on first and are 

being worked on. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you very much, Mr. Wynne. 

Mr. Villasenor, the FAA must define requirements for UAS integration into the national airspace without being so prescriptive as 

to stifle innovation. How might it do so? 

Mr. VILLASENOR. Well, first of all, I think it is an extremely hard 

task so I have a lot of respect for the work that the FAA is doing. 

I think it is important to take full account of the innovation in 

the ways of using unmanned aircraft that are going on not only in 

the commercial community but also in the hobbyist community as 

well because that is traditionally and I’m sure in the future where 

so much of our innovation comes from and it is important not to 

impede that community in terms of their innovation. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you very much, and my time is expired almost, Mr. Chairman, so I yield back. 

58 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentleman yields back. Chair thanks the gentleman. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. 

Schakowsky, 5 minutes for questions please. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

Professor Kaminski, I wanted to ask you something. We are always trying to balance, for example, national security and privacy 

issues. 

You also raised First Amendment versus privacy issues and you 

believe that there is a federal role for us to play. You did list, I 

think, four states in your written statement that have some laws 

that are technology specific, et cetera. 

So if you could elaborate a bit on what are the arenas in which 

the federal government ought to consider regulating drones? 

Ms. KAMINSKI. Absolutely. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

So the state laws that are being put into place primarily govern 

the capture of information with the drone, best described as drone 

photography or drone videography, and that is the moment at 

which the information is recorded. 

On the federal level, it would be useful to have in place a data 

privacy regime meaning a regime that deals with information that 

has already been recorded and addresses things along the lines of 

use specification, making sure that data that has been gathered for 

one use is not used for another purpose, trying to ensure transparency for consumers, trying to ensure some kind of auditing 

mechanism so the data is not taken out of context or used in a discriminatory manner. 

So the place for federal government, I believe, is in the general 

purpose nontechnology specific data privacy regime that complies 

with the Fair Information Practice Principles, or FIPPs. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Walden, in the demonstration you showed 

the safety feature so that they don’t bump. But you also said it 

isn’t saved. 

But certainly that kind of thing in fact could be saved, right? 

And so we could have even better photographs of who is avoiding 

the drone and, what assurances do you think there are that that 

information isn’t saved? 

Mr. WALDEN. No, I think it’s a great question. 

The way that we designed this technology is really for, again, detection and avoidance for an operator that is flying a drone and so 

right now the technology is actually built specifically with a circuit 

that only does that three-depth mapping and does not save it. 

So you’d actually have to go in and completely modify not only 

the camera but the interface that we provide for that. 

Now, that said, drones clearly could have a camera that is attached to it that isn’t part of the sense and avoid circuitry or technology. And so clearly, we as a company continue to advocate and 

support privacy. 

I am quite proud of the IUs that Intel has among both privacy, 

security, as well as safety. 

And so we have a very strict regimen of how we create, design 

and actually productize these things that have to go through a 

third party review board internal to Intel to ensure that we don’t 

break any of those. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. A third party within Intel? 

59 

Mr. WALDEN. Correct. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So, again, Professor Kaminski, is that a real 

concern? 

Ms. KAMINSKI. I appreciate Intel’s forthrightness on the programs that they have instituted and from conversation with them 

appreciate the amount to which they have taken privacy considerations to heart internally. 

However, effective auditing mechanisms usually involve a third 

party outside of the company as opposed to a third party within a 

company. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So that issue of—I guess it is immediate. 

When does that erasing happen? It is automatic? 

Mr. WALDEN. It is actually not captured. It has a buffer in there. 

So it only lasts for a few seconds, essentially. So it doesn’t even 

store that with regards to this camera, again. 

And I do agree and we do utilize, by the way, third parties to 

come in and audit to ensure that we are doing safe practices and 

following that. So I absolutely agree with Professor Kaminski 

there. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. But some sort of a legislative regime, and I 

heard you, Professor, you are saying we want to be cautious or 

maybe that is not the right word even. We want to strike the right 

balance. I wondered if you wanted to comment on that. 

Mr. VILLASENOR. Yes. I am fully appreciative of and share many 

of the concerns that have been raised about potential abuses of not 

only this technology but many others with respect to privacy. What 

I am adding is that I think that in addressing those we need to 

be careful not to inadvertently impede uses that have absolutely no 

privacy consequences at all inadvertently. So I think it is important 

to be aware of unintended consequences. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. What would that be? 

Mr. VILLASENOR. Well, for example, if there is a state law that 

prohibits photography of private property, does that mean if I am, 

3,000 feet up and I want to just take a picture out of an airplane 

as it is coming in for landing at an airport, I am sitting in a commercial plane, I can certainly do that and no one has a problem 

with that. 

If that same picture is acquired by an unmanned aircraft it 

would seem inconsistent for that to be unlawful. In fact, it is probably First Amendment violation to make that unlawful. So those 

are some of the examples of some of the constraints I worry about. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. OK. This is a really interesting area that we 

have to navigate to get it right. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BURGESS. Gentlelady yields back to chair. 

Thanks to the gentlelady. The chair recognizes the gentleman 

from New Jersey, Mr. Lance, 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. Good morning to the panel. 

To the law professors, are there state laws currently on the books 

regarding all of this? 

Ms. KAMINSKI. There have been—I listed it in my written testimony. I believe there have been 9 or 10 states that have enacted 

privacy laws regarding private actor use of drones but they vary 

greatly depending on which state you are in. 

60 

Mr. LANCE. And to the distinguished law professors, do you believe that we should take action here and should that action supersede state law or should there be a regimen where there is both 

state law and some law here at the federal level? 

Ms. KAMINSKI. I believe that on the information gathering front, 

the moment at which information is captured, that is appropriate 

for states to experiment with legislation in large part because it is 

similar to areas in which states have legislated in the past such as 

the privacy torts or related torts or misdemeanor such as the peeping tom torts. 

When you are talking about privacy governance, however, that’s 

an appropriate place for the federal government to step in and 

those two regimes could absolutely be complementary to each other 

rather than preemptive. 

Mr. LANCE. I was taught tort law by John Wade, who was the 

reporter for the restatement and he is deceased. I think what 

would he have done in this situation. It just shows the advancing 

nature of American society, world society and how a new tort might 

actually come into play. 

Professor? 

Mr. VILLASENOR. Yes, and just to make sure the record is 

straight, my primary affiliation is actually not in the law school at 

UCLA and I think there is express federal preemption in Title 49 

that says that the air space of the United States is under the exclusive control of the United States. 

Mr. LANCE. Of the United States, yes. 

Mr. VILLASENOR. Right. And so I do have some concerns to the 

extent that state laws, in some cases, would purport to create a bit 

of a conflict there. 

One of the most important and interesting questions, and it relates very directly to the privacy question, is this tension in some 

sense between where a property owner’s control over the space enveloping his or her property—where that stops and then where the 

control of the federal government starts. 

I don’t really think there is much of a role for state airspace in 

there. I think it is really between the property and the federal government. 

But the complexity is the trespassing and the invasion of privacy 

torts and common law of the torts and the criminal and civil statutes are, of course, at the state level and that would be where you 

worry about things right on your property. 

So it’s a complex mix of federal and state laws. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. Does the panel have any recommendations regarding what I mentioned in my opening statement, that 

there were recently violations near sensitive sites, oil refineries and 

one of the major airports in this country? 

And of course there have been violations as has been mentioned 

by the ranking member here in Washington including at the White 

House? Does the panel have any recommendations for us in that 

regard? 

Mr. WALDEN. So let me start. 

Mr. LANCE. Mr. Walden, yes. 

Mr. WALDEN. Absolutely. I think that technology, as it continues 

to progress and you utilize that such as geofencing, which enables 

61 

you to use altitude GPS as well as other sensors, you can actually 

create no-fly zones and implement them into drones or into 

other—— 

Mr. LANCE. That can be built into the technology? 

Mr. WALDEN. Correct. And it exists today in some drones. 

Mr. LANCE. Very good. And then I guess it does not exist in the 

drone that is here on the table? 

Mr. WALDEN. Actually, it does because what you do is you program out certain areas. So, for example, in Santa Clara where we 

are we happen to be located within the San Jose Airport—— 

Mr. LANCE. I see. 

Mr. WALDEN [continuing]. Space. I cannot fly a drone. It won’t 

allow me to start the drone. 

Mr. LANCE. I see. So that drone could not fly over the White 

House? 

Mr. WALDEN. This particular drone is a prototype so this one 

isn’t even for sale. But as far as the commercial drones that we—— 

Mr. LANCE. I was going to ask my wife to buy me that for Christmas. 

Mr. WALDEN. Sorry. Not available yet. 

Mr. LANCE. Not available. 

Mr. WALDEN. There may be other ones. 

Mr. LANCE. I see. Anyone else? Mr. Wynne. 

Mr. WYNNE. Yes, thank you. 

I am a big fan of technology and but I don’t think it takes the 

place of airmanship which I mentioned in my testimony and I 

think we have a big challenge right now. I am not fond of the distinction but there is a big challenge between hobbyists, producers, 

consumers, and commercial operators. 

I represent predominantly the commercial operators here and 

right now we are restricted from flying except by exemption. So we 

want to change that in a big hurry. 

My point simply is the sooner we have certificated operators up 

and running, much like in all of aviation it’s a self-policing community. 

If my ticket is at stake because someone who is doing something 

that is putting the use of UAS at risk because of being careless or 

reckless, I am going to want to say something about that and the 

FAA will never have enough enforcement personnel to be everywhere nor do they need to be for general aviation or for commercial 

aviation. 

We are a self-policing community. 

Mr. LANCE. My time has expired. Thank you very much to the 

entire panel. 

Mr. BURGESS. Chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman yields 

back. 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma 5 minutes for 

questions, please. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I may be going at 

this a little bit different than most because the thought of more 

regulations just hurts my head. 

But at the same time what is the point of more regulations if you 

can’t enforce it. And sir, you just made a point of that—it’s selfregulated almost. 

62 

But there has got to be something done. Mr. Walden, I hear what 

you say that it is built in but any technology that can be programmed in can also be programmed out. And unfortunately that 

may not be that particular unit but you can get it online. I can 

Google right now online and get a kit to build myself. 

I couldn’t build it but there’s a lot of people out there that could. 

So how do we actually enforce it? How do we actually police it? Because in our communities, and I come from very rural communities, 

they are useful. 

We can check pastures. We can check cattle. We can check fires. 

We can check areas that we couldn’t even normally get to. We’d 

have to horseback into it and we can go into. And so they are very 

useful, but at the same time very dangerous. 

And so I guess my first question would be how would you guys 

propose even looking into legislation that would be reasonable to 

enforce? 

Mr. WYNNE. Well, just for clarification I was arguing in favor of 

regulation. 

Mr. MULLIN. Well, I know what you’re saying but it doesn’t do 

any good to just self-police. A guy isn’t or a gal isn’t born a robber 

and it’s an opportunity that creates them to be a thief, right. And 

the first time you break the rule you’ll break the second one too. 

The hardest lie is the first lie. 

Mr. WYNNE. I agree with you and there is no technology that can 

be devised for mal-actors. 

So I think my point simply is that there has to be consequences 

to flying recklessly and carelessly and right now there—up until 

now, until very recently when we started talking about registering 

hobbyists, all drones essentially below or above a certain cut line 

that we would call toys, which is what’s currently being contemplated and worked on by a very good task force, there was no 

consequence essentially to flying other than careless and recklessly. 

And it is very difficult for the FAA to enforce that. 

What I am arguing is that as a community we stand for safe and 

responsible flying but we need rules under which—— 

Mr. MULLIN. I get that. So from the community what do you propose? If the lawmakers get involved in this, come on, we’re going 

to screw this up. 

None of us are experts in the field. What we’re wanting is outside information. What the chairman is doing here is holding a 

hearing to find out information for us to build safely and reasonably an act, some type of regulation to be proactive and not reactive. 

We’re asking professionals like you to come in and help us find 

this out so we don’t pick winners and losers because that’s what 

we do. 

Mr. WYNNE. The first thing is we need the small UAS rule finalized and implemented as quickly as possible. That is the lowest 

risk possible flying imaginable. 

Under 500 feet away from people, away from airports, within visual line of sight by a certificated operator. There is no reason why 

we can’t get that done soon and we need to get it done—— 

Mr. MULLIN. So how would that be enforced? 

63 

Mr. WYNNE. I am arguing that basically people will, that are certificated, will be economically incentivized to enforce their own 

rules and as is currently the case with—we are not going to be 

doing things that essentially put our livelihood at risk. 

Mr. MULLIN. Yes, but not everybody works with them. They are 

a toy. I mean—— 

Mr. WYNNE. I am talking about commercial operations. 

Mr. MULLIN. I understand that. But I am talking about the commercial operator is going to be affected by the few bad apples that 

is going to be in it. 

And is there technology that exists? Is there even a way to create 

the technology to self-monitor that? Professor? 

Ms. KAMINSKI. Yes. So technology is not my area of expertise but 

I have talked to a number of technologists working on this issue 

including at my own university and I think that the geofencing 

technology that was raised by Intel is something that is a potential 

solution for good actors. 

There are concerns that geofencing, if applied too broadly, is 

going to end up restricting use of technology that would be beneficial. So keep that in mind. 

When you are talking about bad actors, however, then the kind 

of technological solutions you’re going to look for are going to have 

to do with traceability on the one hand to try to identify the actor 

who is operating the drone. 

There are a variety of possible technical solutions for making 

drones traceable and writing on the side of a drone with a sharpie 

is not a technological solution. 

And the other point I’d make is that I believe there is significant 

of money going into counter drone technology that is supposed to 

try to stop bad actors safely when we’re talking about those that 

don’t integrate geofencing or traceability into their own operations. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. BURGESS. Chair thanks the gentleman. Gentleman yields 

back. 

I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions. And Mr. 

Walden, just very briefly, do you at Intel have cyber security solutions to prevent unauthorized users from controlling your device? 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes, we do, and once again, security is another 

area where we hold that very highly as part of our values together 

with privacy. 

From a cyber security perspective it’s connected technology such 

as UAVs, clearly, will be subject to cyber tax and we know that is 

going to happen and we just need to be one step ahead and continue innovating. 

We haven’t implemented a security development life cycle which 

is subject to technologies to industry best practice testing. 

It is important that UAVs are subject and then tested alike and 

we are committed to doing that and working with agencies and others to help move that forward. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, thank you for that. I would remind you I try 

to stay one step ahead of very clever and very nimble people who 

have no end of great ideas on how to thwart things that we think 

are good safeguards to put in place. 

64 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Wynne, I just wanted to ask you, like you I 

am no longer current but I am a licensed general aviation pilot, instrument rated. 

I appreciate your comments in some type of certification and 

knowledge of airspace maps. And I guess if I’m understanding 

some of the other testimony it’s possible to program one of these 

drone devices so that it could not enter, say, Class B airspace. 

And where I live in Lewisville, Texas, the southern part of the 

city of Lewisville, is in the area that is regulated from the surface 

to 10,000 feet around DFW Airport. So do I understand that concept correctly? 

Mr. WYNNE. Yes, sir. And prohibited airspace and restricted airspace and there was an announcement yesterday of one of the solutions that would do that literally real time with the drone. 

Mr. BURGESS. Now, when you first start flying you fly under visual flight rules, see and avoid and what Mr. Walden has shown us 

this morning is kind of a new take on that. 

There is see and avoid technology that they have built into this, 

something that looks enormously helpful and beneficial if I’m understanding it correctly. Would that be your take also? 

Mr. WYNNE. Absolutely, sir. To the extent that we can perfect 

sense and avoid, detect and avoid technology I don’t know why we 

wouldn’t deploy that on all aircraft. 

Mr. BURGESS. I wondered the same thing. 

And then Professor Kaminski and Mr. Walden, a question for 

both of you. We do spend a lot of time up here talking about privacy and it is important but in this situation in particular comes 

to mind whose privacy is it. 

Professor Kaminski, you referenced a First Amendment right to 

record. Did I hear that correctly? 

Ms. KAMINSKI. Yes. 

Mr. BURGESS. So you have a right to record, and I understand 

that has been challenged sometimes. People have gotten into some 

difficulty recording just with an Iphone on the street recording an 

altercation or police activity. But there is that right to record. 

Ms. KAMINSKI. It’s a developing right. A number of circuits have 

recognized it in a restricted way. So generally it’s been recognized 

as a right to record matters of public interest or public officials, 

yes. 

Mr. BURGESS. So then this pushes the boundary of public access, 

I guess. You fly a drone over your neighbor’s back yard and take 

a picture of their barbecue to see who’s there, perhaps a political 

figure, perhaps whoever, criminal figure, and who has the right of 

privacy in that instance? Is it the backyard owner or is it the drone 

owner? 

Ms. KAMINSKI. Right. So I’m going to actually add in the right 

to privacy for the drone owner is implicated by a registration system, right, so the national registration system that the FAA is putting in place ostensibly makes it hard to operate a drone in private, 

right. 

So in the scenario that you gave California has an anti-paparazzi 

law that creates a constructive invasion of privacy. 

65 

When you look into an area you previously could not have 

accessed but for physical trespass. So there are these attempts at 

the state level to define privacy in those scenarios that it will stand 

up against any assertive First Amendment right to record. 

Mr. BURGESS. Because that actually has happened with recording 

celebrity wedding and then that type of things. 

So Mr. Walden, are you looking at technology that would fit with 

that paradigm or is that just too hard and we’ll have to leave that 

up to the local sheriffs and enforcers? 

Mr. WALDEN. I’d say that we don’t have the answer. We are developing our technologies in ways to protect consumer privacy. 

We are working with the NTIA on privacy best practices. We do 

agree that it’s an issue and we don’t have the answer right now 

but we absolutely are open to working together in finding a technological solution. 

Mr. BURGESS. Unlike anything else, the technology is proceeding 

much more rapidly than this humble subcommittee. But we do welcome the opportunity to hear from all of you. 

We want to keep this conversation going because this is obviously, not a completed product. 

Are there any other members that wish any additional time for 

questions? 

Seeing that there are no further members wishing to ask questions, I do want to thank each of our participants. 

Yes. Absolutely. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. MULLIN. I just want to follow up real quick. Maybe not follow 

up, kind of change directions just a second. 

First of all, I got to brag a little bit on our state. University of 

Oklahoma—actually, I’m sorry, Oklahoma State University—I 

apologize. That’s where I went to school. I should have got that 

right. There’s a little bit of a game coming up in a few weeks. 

Anyway, they have been the leader in this for quite some time. 

In fact, they offered the first graduate degree for UAS and we’re 

proud of that. 

I also, at the University of Tulsa, which—give me a second here, 

I got to brag on my nephew, he plays football for them, Kyle 

McLaughlin—they have an advanced study going in right now— 

and Mr. Walden, this is for you—that at the University of Tulsa 

they are in the process of looking at cyber security space. 

Is there a concern with cyber security? I know they have been 

looking into vehicles lately. But now they switched it to the UAS 

and I am concerned about it from some of the briefings that we’ve 

received. 

Have you have any reason to raise concerns on this yet? 

Mr. WALDEN. So we are actually working with multiple universities in cyber security. We actually have sponsored the chair at 

University of Florida where they have set up a cyber security—— 

Mr. MULLIN. Why Florida? Why not Oklahoma? 

Mr. WALDEN. Pardon? We might be working with Oklahoma. I’m 

embarrassed to say I’m not sure. 

But yes, I think that, we have recognized years ago that cyber 

security is an area where you need to continually stay ahead and, 

as I think Mr. Burgess mentioned, the bad guys are going to continue trying to go fast than we are and we are looking to univerVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:19 Apr 20, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-103 CHRIS
66 

sities and partnering with them on ways of preventing cyber security attacks. 

Mr. MULLIN. Good. 

Mr. VILLASENOR. I was just going to add that, one, cyber security 

is an extremely important theme and one that is applicable to the 

Internet of things in its entirety and what I often say is that 

connectivity has outpaced security. 

So in the rush to create things that are highly connected sometimes we find that there are unintended linkages that—no one intentionally left these holes there but they’re there nonetheless and 

they are always found and they are always exploited. 

So it’s an incredibly important thought and one that we should 

do our best to stay in front of. But even then it’s going to be impossible to get 100 percent correct. 

Mr. MULLIN. OK. That’s it. I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

Oh, gentleman from Vermont recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WELCH. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks for that flight, by the way. After the committee is over 

let’s get those things revved up. 

Thanks so much for coming in. One of the things that we had 

recently was an incredible natural disaster in Vermont—tropical 

storm Irene, nearly a billion dollars worth of damage. A lot of folks 

stranded. 

And it just seems—I’m sorry, I missed some of the hearing but 

it seems obvious that drones could be very useful in an emergency 

situation getting some information that’s really relevant to first responders to families. 

I’ll start with you, Mr. Walden, if you want to comment on how 

you see drones as being a useful tool in the wake of catastrophic 

events. 

Mr. WALDEN. I agree 100 percent, and not only for catastrophic 

events but also the ability for a single operator to fly multiple 

drones in a safe manner to also help. Otherwise, you’re going to 

have lots and lots of people doing it. 

So I think back to—we need to, with the regulatory committees 

in enabling single operators to fly multiple drones as well as line 

of sight—out of line of sight because in the case of natural disasters you’re going to need that technological capability. 

Mr. WELCH. OK. Professor, how do I say—Villanor? No, no, I’d 

like to do it right. 

Mr. VILLASENOR. Villasenor. 

Mr. WELCH. Villasenor. Thank you. 

Professor Villasenor, are there any legal impediments to being 

able to exploit the drone technology in the situation of the catastrophic—— 

Mr. VILLASENOR. Well, certainly, there is regulatory impediments. For example, beyond line of sight, autonomous flight is 

something which is nowhere near being—there is not a regulatory 

framework for doing that any time that I can see in the immediate 

future. 

And that is, as Mr. Walden pointed out, that is going to be essential, for example, to deploy a set of unmanned aircraft to sweep 

67 

through an area that might be miles away from the people controlling it. So that’s an important area. 

Mr. WELCH. All right. Is that something that would—I guess we 

can talk about that after. Thank you. 

In addition a lot of folks like the recreational use of drones but 

they can be, as you pointed out, I think, benefits to consumers in 

many contexts such as real estate surveying, property maintenance, farming, insurance claims management. The drones could 

minimize potentially the time and cost for consumers and businesses in all of those sectors. 

Has any one of you studied the economic benefit of drones to consumers? Mr. Wynne. 

Mr. WYNNE. It’s difficult to actually capture it. The forecast that 

we’re operating with today, which is currently being updated, of 

$82 billion in economic impact over the first 10 years, once we have 

integration into the national air space system, does not contemplate the value added to consumers specifically. 

That is just specifically in our community. So the value to the agricultural sector to existing business models, whether it’s insurance 

or utilities or construction, et cetera, that’s on top of that economic 

forecast. 

If I might, sir, I’d also thank you for your question about disaster 

relief. We currently have Global Hawks flying off the east coast of 

Africa collecting data for hurricanes and doing hurricane hunting 

that—a little bit safer and a little bit more comfortable to be on the 

ground and actually penetrate—— 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you. I’ve got one more minute so thank you 

very much for that. I thought I’d ask Professor Kaminski a question. 

There is great commercial and consumer interest in drones. That 

interest has surged. There’s a number of questions that have come 

up about what the limits are, what the regulations need to be. 

Do you have any opinion as to whether it makes sense for the 

GAO to study current and potential commercial benefits of drones? 

Ms. KAMINSKI. I think that would be useful, especially if there 

is some way of categorizing what the different kinds of uses are 

and how the uses impact or don’t impact human populations. 

Mr. WELCH. I thank you all. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 

yield back. 

Mr. BURGESS. Chair thanks the gentleman. Gentleman yields 

back. 

Seeing no other members wishing to ask questions, again, I want 

to thank each of you on the panel for participating in today’s hearing. 

Before we conclude, I would like to include the following documents to be submitted for the record by unanimous consent—a 

statement for the record from the Motion Picture Association of 

America. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

68 


99705.039
69 


99705.040
70 

Mr. BURGESS. Pursuant to committee rules, I remind members 

that they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for 

the record and I ask the witnesses to submit their responses within 

10 business days upon receipt of the questions. 

Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

When innovative ideas become popular, they can be scary. They can threaten old 

ways of doing business and they usually conjure worst-case scenarios in public discourse. 

Drones are no exception. And we are now seeing just the tip of the iceberg. 

People across the nation are discovering new ways of putting drones to work at 

a rapid pace. 

Over 2,000 drone waivers have been approved and by all appearances the vast 

majority are small businesses. Many of these small businesses are in Michigan. One 

applicant from Kalamazoo, in my district, was able to get his application approved 

to use a drone because doing so would significantly enhance safety for his employees. 

Inspecting machinery and equipment or capturing video in high places is dangerous, and drones are taking over these tasks. As we tackle the safety risks with 

drones in the National Airspace System, we should be mindful that they are likely 

to improve safety for workers from wind farms to utilities. 

Silicon Valley is working hard to engineer new software specifically for drones 

that will make them useful in ways previously unimagined. These innovations on 

top of innovations are America’s strong suit and they can’t happen if we overreact 

and overregulate. 

This is why we are hosting the Disrupter Series. As new technologies emerge, 

they create issues of first impression that must be dealt with thoughtfully and with 

an eye toward the actual harms. 

However, many of the issues that arise have been seen before. And history can 

be instructive. 

Many of us think of the impacts drones will have on our privacy. We are accustomed to people walking around with cameras and being able to capture us at our 

worst, but what about drones? 

Cameras were in use in the early 1800s, but they really only presented privacy 

concerns after 1888, when the Kodak camera was introduced. This placed the power 

to take unauthorized pictures in the hands of the person holding the camera. 

Since then, American courts developed tort laws to protect against privacy intrusions, which are constantly updated to account for technology-driven contexts. In 

many ways, drones are raising the same fundamental questions as the Kodak camera. 

I encourage those in the drone industry to make safety and privacy a priority, but 

I also encourage policymakers to think about the actual harms presented and the 

unintended consequences of overly restrictive regulation. 

By imposing bureaucratic solutions in a growing and evolving market, we risk 

shutting down more cost-efficient and effective ways of addressing the very harms 

we seek to eliminate. 

I thank the witnesses for their participation today and look forward to the discussion. 

71 


99705.039
72 


99705.040
73 


99705.041
74 


99705.042
75 


99705.043
76 


99705.044
77 


99705.045
78 


99705.046
79 


99705.047
80 


99705.051
81 


99705.052
82 


99705.053
83 


99705.054
84 


99705.055
85 


99705.056
86 


99705.057
87 


99705.058
88 


99705.048
89 


99705.049
90 

Æ 


99705.050