Source: https://kipdf.com/the-sky-is-the-limit-uavs-by-private-actors-and-the-implications-to-common-law-p_5aeb18497f8b9a45378b4663.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 14:08:32+00:00

Document:
referred to as an unmanned aircraft system (UAS), which includes the unmanned aircraft, as well as the associated communication and control components used in its operation. Brendan Gogarty & Isabel Robinson, Unmanned Vehicles: A (Rebooted) History, Background and Current State of the Art, 21 J.L. INF. & SCI. 1, 1-2 (2011). 2 Zach Garcia, What Flies When it Comes to Drone Laws Across the Globe, THE MISSOURI DRONE JOURNALISM PROGRAM (Nov. 20, 2013, 9:04 PM), http://www.missouridronejournalism.com/ 2013/04/what-flies-when-it-comes-to-drone-laws-across-the-globe/. 3 Matt Haldane, U.S. Slowly Opening up Commercial Drone Industry, REUTERS (Aug. 8, 2013, 5:45 PM), http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/08/us-usa-drones-commercial-idUSBRE97715U2013 0808. 4 Dana Liebelson, Map: Is Your State a No-Drone Zone?, MOTHER JONES (Oct. 27, 2013, 10:03 AM), http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/map-are-drones-illegal-your-state. 5 Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA), Pub. L. No. 112-95, 126 Stat. 11. 6 U.S. DEP’T OF TRANSP. FED. AVIATION ADMIN., Integration of Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS) Roadmap (Nov. 20, 2013), http://www.faa.gov/ about/initiatives/uas/media/uas_roadmap_2013.pdf [hereinafter FAA Roadmap]; see also Andrea ShalalEsa, FAA unveils plan for integrating drones into U.S. airspace, REUTERS (Nov. 20, 2013, 7:44 PM), http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/07/us-faa-drones-idUSBRE9A61H220131107 (explaining that the “release of the FAA road map . . . would help frame the policies needed to ensure greater use of such aircraft in coming years—and help the United States maintain its edge in the unmanned vehicle market”). 7 Fed. Aviation Admin., Pilot/Controller Glossary, in AERONAUTICAL INFO. MANUAL: OFFICIAL GUIDE TO BASIC FLIGHT INFO. & ATC PROCEDURES (2006), available at http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ PCG/PCG.pdf. National Airspace System is “[t]he common network of U.S. airspace; air navigation facilities, equipment services, airports or landing areas; aeronautical charts, information and services; rules, regulations and procedures, technical information, and manpower and material. Included are system components shared jointly with the military.” See also Mark Edward Peterson, The UAV and the Current and Future Regulatory Construct for Integration into the National Airspace System, 71 J. AIR L. & COM. 521, 528 (2006). 8 FAA Roadmap, supra note 6, at 68. 9 John Villasenor, Observations from Above: Unmanned Aircraft Systems and Privacy, 36 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL’Y 457, 459 (2013) (identifying examples in which UAS can be used for commercial purposes: surveying, crop spraying, and traffic congestion monitoring).
protect against drone-privacy intrusions. Part I of this Article provides background on drones. It defines what a drone is, which is more difficult than one might expect. It also explores their technological capabilities and what makes this technology uniquely invasive. This Article further examines the drone industry and its current and potential commercial uses of these systems. Part II encompasses a brief history of how the FAA came into existence and why they are the agency responsible for regulating drones. It further outlines the FAA’s current regulatory framework under which there are three distinct types of operators (public, recreational, and commercial) that are governed by a different set of rules. Additionally, this Article will explore the impact of drone test sites in developing future FAA regulations. Because this is a pressing issue, many federal and state legislatures have taken matters into their own hands and have enacted legislation as it relates to drone-based privacy intrusions. This Article reviews and analyses a brief survey of several enacted and proposed bills. Part III considers the common law framework that informs privacy rights in regard to the commercial uses of drones. It begins by exploring the development of privacy law. It further addresses the operation of UAS by private, non-governmental actors, who are unconstrained by the privacy protections embedded in the Fourth Amendment. Most importantly, it gives a comprehensive examination of the privacy tort intrusion upon seclusion, which, this Article argues, would be the most applicable to drone privacy intrusions. Finally, this Article applies the current common law to drones and concludes that the legal framework is inadequate to provide protections against this unique technology. The variety of commercial uses of drones, limited only by the human imagination, will pose a significant threat to the privacy of American citizens. Privacy as we know it is coming to an end, and it will not be the government or the military that is responsible, but transnational business networks.
Dakota). Id. 20 Dave Cawley, Many Concerned about Invasion of Privacy with Personal Drones, KLS.COM (UTAH) (Sept. 26, 2013, 3:20 PM), http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=27013640#HmVxdquOXRW yx0Xa.99. 21 Id.; see also Ben Wolfgang, Drone Industry Gives Journalists Not-So-Subtle Hint—Don’t Use the Word ‘Drones’, THE WASH. TIMES (Aug. 14, 2013), http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/ aug/14/drone-industry-journalists-dont-use-word-drones/. Michael Toscano, leader of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), stated “the word [drone] instantly conjures up mental images of large Predators firing missiles at hostile targets around the world.” Id. 22 See Gogarty & Robinson, supra note 1, at 2 (“Modern UVs are all ‘controlled’ to one degree or another.”). 23 Villasenor, supra note 9, at 458. 24 Ashley Halligan, Drones: A Controversial Eye in the Sky for Property Managers, SOFTWARE ADVICE (Mar. 25, 2013), http://blog.softwareadvice.com/articles/property-management/drones-an-eyein-the-sky-for-property-managers-1091212/; see also Sara Sorcher, Drone Lobbyist: ‘I Don’t Use the Word Drone’, NAT’L J. (Mar. 27, 2013), http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/drone-lobbyist-i-don-tuse-the-word-drone-20130327. Interview with Michael Toscano, chief of Washington’s drone lobby, the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, in which he stated “I don’t use the word drone. There’s a Hollywood expectation of what a drone is. Most of it is military; most of it is very fearful, hostile. These things are not that.” 25 FAA Roadmap, supra note 6, at 8. 26 Memorandum from the Fed. Aviation Admin. on Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations in the U.S. National Air Space System—Interim Operational Guidance, AFS-400 UAS Policy 05-01 (Sept. 16, 2005), available at http:// www.uavm.com/images/AFS-400_05-01_faa_uas_policy.pdf [hereinafter AFS-400 UAS Policy]. 27 See id. 28 Peterson, supra note 7, at 528. UAV is a more traditional term.
10 frames a second.’”). 46 US Army Unveils 1.8 Gigapixel Camera Helicopter Drone, BBC NEWS (Dec. 29, 2011, 6:11 PM), http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-16358851. 47 Randy Jackson & Chris Haddox, Phantom Eye High Altitude Long Endurance Aircraft Unveiled (June 12, 2010), http://www.boeing.com/Features/2010/07/bds_feat_phantom_eye_07_12_ 10.html. Darryl Davis, President of Boeing Phantom Works stated “[t]he capabilities inherent in Phantom Eye’s design will offer game-changing opportunities for our military, civil and commercial customers.” Id. (emphasis added). 48 Domestic Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Drones, supra note 45. 49 THOMPSON II, supra note 11, at 2. 50 See Draganflyer X6, Thermal Infrared Camera, D RAGONFLY INNOVATIONS INC., http:// www.draganfly.com/uav-helicopter/ (last visited Mar. 12, 2014, 5:04 PM). 51 THOMPSON II, supra note 11, at 2. Current technology permits drones to be outfitted at a relatively low cost with high-powered cameras, thermal imaging devices, license plate readers, and laser radar. But the list of potential technologies that can be employed via UAVs is far more extensive and, due to astonishingly rapid technological advances, the list will continue to expand. FISHMAN AND MCKENNA, WIRETAPPING AND EAVESDROPPING: SURVEILLANCE WITH OTHER ELECTRONIC DEVICES; RADIO AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS § 30:33 (2013). 52 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Support Border Security, CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION TODAY (July 2004), http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2004/Aug/other/aerial_vehicles.xml. 53 Domestic Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Drones, supra note 45. See also FAA Says It’s Behind Schedule on Guidelines for Drones in US, ALJAZEERA AMERICA (Nov. 7, 2013, 1:58 PM), http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/11/7/faa-setsroadmapformassdroneuseinuswithfewprivacygui delines.html. Jeramie Scott, a national security fellow at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, stating that unmanned aircraft “can fly with lots of advanced surveillance equipment, including HD cameras, potential facial recognition, license plate recognition and infrared cameras.” Id. 54 Timothy T. Takahashi, Drones and Privacy, 14 COLUM. SCI. & TECH. L. REV. 72, 86 (2012). The concept behind “perch-and-stare” surveillance is to “avoid energy-intensive moving or hovering flight by securing itself to a vantage point and turning off its propulsion mechanism.” Id. “‘Perch-andstare’ capability in a small surveillance [UAS] offers great tactical advantage . . . . By powering down the propulsion system, the persistence of surveillance can be extended greatly.” Id. Olivito, supra note 17, at 702 n.52.
64 Muhammed El-Hasan, Businesses See Opportunity in Civilian Drones, but Regulations Stand In the Way, THE DENVER POST (Oct 27, 2013, 10:15 AM), http://www.denverpost.com/ci_23522851/ businesses-see-oppurtunity-civilian-drones-but-regulations-stand. 65 Id. 66 FAA Fact Sheet, supra note 36. 67 Other countries with significant UAS development include Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, Pakistan, Turkey, Russia, and the United Kingdom. Villasenor, supra note 9, at 466. 68 FAA Roadmap, supra note 6, at 14. In order to integrate UASs into the airspace, “the FAA requires an equivalent level of safety, comparable to ‘see and avoid’ requirements for manned aircraft” as defined in 14 C.F.R. § 91.113 (2012). Florent Martel, Richard R. Schultz & Zimming Wang, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Sense and Avoid Flight Testing Utilizing ADS-B Transceiver, AIAA [email protected] Conference, AIAA, Atlanta, GA, 2010, available at http://www.enu.kz/repository/ 2010/AIAA-2010-3441.pdf [hereinafter Sense and Avoid Flight Testing]. 69 Id. at 12. 70 El-Hasan, supra note 64. 71 For examples of agencies using UAV see Kaveh Waddell, Few Privacy Limitations Exist on How Police Use Drones, NAT’L J. (Feb. 5, 2015), http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/few-privacylimitations-exist-on-how-police-use-drones-20150205.
72 Somini Sengupta, U.S. Border Agency Allows Others to Use Its Drones, N.Y. TIMES (July 3, 2013), http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/business/us-border-agency-is-a-frequent-lender-of-itsdrones.html?_r=0. 73 Id. 74 THOMPSON II, supra note 11, at 2. See also Hon. Brian Stern & Matthias Rubekeil, Coming Home to Roost—Domestic Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, 62-DEC R.I. B.J. 5 (2013). 75 Brian Bennett, Drones Tested as Tools for Police and Firefighters, LOS ANGELES TIMES (August 5, 2012, 5:00 AM), http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-drones-testing20120805,0,6483617. 76 Sengupta, supra note 72. 77 Id; see also 2013 Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Legislation, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES (Oct. 27, 2013, 11:00 AM), http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminaljustice/unmanned-aerial-vehicles.aspx. 78 In 2011, the North Dakota Sherriff’s Department requested the assistance of nearby Air Force base to deploy its UAS in order to locate three men believed to be rustling cattle. The Air Force deployed its UA and within hours the UA was able to detect the three men who were subsequently arrested. Hon. Brian Stern & Matthias Rubekeil, Coming Home to Roost—Domestic Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, 62-DEC R.I. B.J. 5, 6 (2013) (citing Defendants’ Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss, State of North Dakota v. Rodney Brossart, N.E. Cen. D. (N.D. 2012) (Nos. 32-2011-CR00049, 00071). 79 UAV Search and Rescue Systems Are Life Savers (Sept. 22, 2013), http:// www.fireflightuas.com/2013/09/22/uav-search-and-rescue-systems-are-life-savers/. 80 The Rise of the Drones: Experts Discuss Legal Implications of UAVs in Civilian Airspace, AM.
BAR ASSOC. (Oct. 22, 2013), available at http://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news archives/2013/10/the_rise_of_the_dron.html. 81 Id. (listing several examples of how drones are being used for commercial and civilian purposes). 82 THOMPSON II, supra note 11, at 2. 83 The Rise of the Drones: Experts Discuss Legal Implications of UAVs in Civilian Airspace, supra note 80. 84 Id. 85 Dylan Love, A Look At Our Inevitable Drone-Filled Future, BUSINESS INSIDER (Dec. 16, 2013, 10:24 AM), http://www.businessinsider.com/how-drones-will-be-used-in-the-future-2013-12. 86 Joseph Dussault, 7 Commercial Uses for Drones, BOSTON.COM (Mar. 14, 2014), http:// www.boston.com/business/2014/03/14/commercial-uses-for-drones/dscS47PsQdPneIB2UQeY0M/ story.html. 87 “Amazon Prime Air” will be able to deliver an item to your house within 30 minutes of ordering it via a UAV. Love, supra note 85. On March 19, 2015, the FAA granted Amazon an experimental airworthiness certificate, discussed infra, to test their Amazon Prime Air delivery drone. The restrictions on the certificate, however, require all flights be during the day in clear weather and be at altitudes of no more than 400 feet. Amazon must also provide monthly reports to the FAA, including number of flights, any software/hardware malfunctions, unintended behavior and loss of communications. Even with the restrictions, the FAA’s approval of the experimental certificate provides some hope for Amazon’s drone delivery service to still prove itself after the FAA proposed regulations in February that placed heavy restrictions on drone flights. Christopher Pangolos, FAA Gives Approval For Amazon to test Drones, SPACECOASTDAILY.COM (Apr. 2, 2015), http://spacecoastdaily.com/2015/ 04/faa-gives-approval-for-amazon-to-test-drones-with-restrictions/. 88 Dussault, supra note 86. See Julianne Pepitone, Domino’s Tests Drone Pizza Delivery, CNN MONEY (June 4, 2013, 6:29 PM), http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/04/technology/innovation/dominospizza-drone/ (in the U.K., a Domino’s franchise has developed a UAV, named the “DomiCopter,” that can deliver pizzas.).
107 See, e.g., PowerPoint Presentation by Susan Goplen, Jeff Sloan & Mark A. Bauer, Certificate of Authorization (COA) Process, USGS National UAS Project Office, http://rmgsc.cr.usgs.gov/UAS/ pdf/USGS_COA_process.pdf. 108 FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, defines “public aircraft” as an aircraft: (1) “used only for the United States Government;” (2) “owned by the United States Government and operated by any person for purposes related to crew training, equipment development, or demonstration;” or (3) “owned and operated (except for commercial purposes), or exclusively leased for at least 90 continuous days, by a government (except the United States government), including a State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or possession of the United States, or political subdivision of that government False.” Philip J. Hiltner, The Drones Are Coming: Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for Police Surveillance and Its Fourth Amendment Implications, 3 WAKE FOREST J.L. & POL’Y 397, 415 (2013). 109 DOLAN AND THOMPSON II, supra note 96, at 3. 110 Id. (citing Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-95, § 332(a)(1) 126 Stat 11). 111 DOLAN AND THOMPSON II, supra note 96, at 3. 112 THOMPSON II, supra note 11, at 2 n.18 (“There are over 300 total, including those issued to the following entities: City of Herrington, KS; Cornell University; Department of Energy Idaho National Laboratory; Eastern Gateway College Community College—Steubenville, OH; Miami-Dade Police Department; Mississippi Department of Marine Resources; North Little Rock Police Department, AR; Ogden Police Department, UT; Ohio University; Seattle Police Department; Texas A&M—Texas Engineering Experiment Station; Texas Department of Public Safety; Texas State University; University of Connecticut; University of Florida; U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service; Utah State University; Virginia Tech.”); see also Unmanned Aircraft Systems, FED. AVIATION ADMIN., http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/. 113 FAA Fact Sheet, supra note 36. 114 Id. 115 See, e.g., Advisory Circular 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards (June 1981), available at http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/91-57.pdf [hereinafter Advisory Circular 91-57].
159 Frank Matt, Drones over Upstate New York: A Look at an FAA Test Site, AL JAZEERA AMERICA (Jan. 21, 2014, 7:00 PM), http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/the-stream/multimedia/ 2014/1/drones-over-upstatenewyorkalookatanfaatestsite.html. 160 Id. 161 Id. 162 Id. 163 See id. 164 Id. 165 See id. 166 Matt, supra note 159; see Letter from Lawrence H. Brinker, General Counsel for Griffiss International Airport, to FAA (Apr. 23, 2013), available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/201292879/ NUAIR-privacy-letter. 167 Matt, supra note 159. 168 Id. 169 Id. 170 Id.
On November 7, 2013, the FAA published a seventy-four page report titled, Integration of Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System Roadmap.171 The document describes in detail not only how UAVs will be used domestically, but also, how the FAA will continue to change protocol in order to safely integrate the aircraft.172 While the UAS industry welcomed the report because it gave them some guidance as to upcoming regulation, privacy advocates were not so thrilled.173 The FAA Roadmap only briefly mentions potential privacy implications.174 The FAA indicates that it will take steps to ensure that any regulation governing the use of UAVs “addresses privacy concerns.”175 “But at some point [the FAA] [is] going to have to move from process to substance,” stated Chris Calabrese, legislative council for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).176 Calabrese urges the FAA to establish substantive policies and limitations on the use, collection, and retention of information gathered by UAVs.177 One thing is certain; once the new regulations are in place (wherever they may come from), UAVs are bound to proliferate. The FAA estimates that 7,500 commercial UAVs will be flying in the U.S. NAS in the next five years.178 By 2020, the FAA anticipates as many as 30,000 UAVs,179 and by 2025, there will be tens of thousands of the unmanned aircraft.180 While the debate continues as to what role the FAA should play in regards to privacy concerns, federal elected officials and many state legislatures are not waiting but are taking matters into their own hands.
See e.g., Jim Harper, Old Laws Can Cover New Technologies, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 22, 2012, 11:46 AM), http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/02/20/civilian-drones-in-the-united-states/ old-laws-can-cover-new-technologies. 199 M. Ryan Calo, The Drone as Privacy Catalyst, 64 STAN. L. REV. ONLINE 29, 29 (2011), http:/ /www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/drone-privacy-catalyst. 200 Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Legislation, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES, (Oct. 27, 2013, 11:00 AM), http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/ unmanned-aerial-vehicles.aspx. 201 Id. 202 Liebelson, supra note 4.
Nader v. Gen. Motors Corp., 25 N.Y.2d 560, 566 (1970). Pavesich v. New England Life Ins., 50 S.E. 68 (Ga. 1905). Id. Id. Id. William L. Prosser, Privacy, 48 CAL. L. REV. 383, 389 (1960). Palyan, supra note 211, at 389. Id. Id. at 171. Tutaj, supra note 202, at 669. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 652B (1977).
intrusion are looking into someone’s upstairs windows with binoculars; tapping an individual’s telephone wires; opening private and personal mail; or it may be by some other form of investigation or examination into one’s private concerns). 243 Pearson, 410 F.2d at 704. In other jurisdictions, the cases that have recognized a remedy for invasion of privacy founded upon intrusive conduct have generally involved the gathering of private facts or information through improper means. Nader, 25 N.Y.2d at 567. 244 DOLAN AND THOMPSON II, supra note 96, at 14; see also Shorter v. Retail Credit Co., 251 F. Supp. 329, 332 (D.S.C. 1966). 245 Shorter, 251 F. Supp. at 332. 246 Id. 247 Id. 248 Id. 249 RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 652B (1977) (emphasis added). 250 “There is no liability for knocking at the plaintiff’s door, or calling him to the telephone on one occasion or even two or three, to demand payment of a debt. It is only when the telephone calls are repeated with such persistence and frequency as to amount to a course of hounding the plaintiff, that becomes a substantial burden to his existence, that his privacy is invaded.” RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 652B cmt. d. (1977). 251 See id. 252 “[A]n evaluation of the claimed misconduct must be undertaken to determine, as objectively as is possible, whether it is ‘atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.’” Stoddard v. Wohlfahrt, 573 So. 2d 1060, 1062-63 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991) (applying the standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress to evaluate the offensiveness of conduct in an intrusion claim). 253 DOLAN AND THOMPSON II, supra note 96, at 14. 254 Id. at 15.
Evans v. Detlefsen, 857 F.2d 330, 338 (6th Cir. 1988) (internal quotations omitted). DOLAN AND THOMPSON II, supra note 96, at 14. Souder v. Pendleton Detectives, Inc., 88 So. 2d 716, 717-18 (La. Ct. App. 1956). Id. Id. at 719. DOLAN AND THOMPSON II, supra note 96, at 15. Schifano v. Greene Cnty. Greyhound Park, Inc., 624 So. 2d 178, 179 (Ala. 1993). Id. at 180. Fogel v. Forbes, Inc., 500 F. Supp. 1081, 1084 (E.D. Pa. 1980). Id. at 1087. Id. DOLAN AND THOMPSON II, supra note 96, at 15.
First, an intrusion by a UAV will likely be defined based on the type of UAV employed in the surveillance. UAVs that could fly at low altitudes would probably be committing a technical physical intrusion, whereas, high-flying UAVs would most likely not. Thus, UAV surveillance is capable of eliminating the need to trespass.285 Establishing this element by a complaining subject of UAV surveillance would perhaps be easier to satisfy. Second, the location of surveillance via a UAV will weigh heavily when determining the success of a claim.286 In Pearson v. Dodd, the court provided that the common law, like the Fourth Amendment, should “protect people, not places.”287 The question therefore becomes whether a UAV intruded into the protected sphere of an individual who exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy.288 Applying this standard generally limits violations to surveillance of the home.289 Using a UAV to look into a target’s home through a window, as well as, using extra sensory technology290 that would expose intimate details about the home would constitute an intrusion upon seclusion.291 The caveat to that, of course, would be that the subject of surveillance is aware that (s)he is being watched.292 However, in instances of UAV surveillance in public spaces or in private spaces that could be observed from a public vantage point, tort liability is significantly diminished.293 While it is well established that people do not have a privacy interest while in public, it is unclear how this technology would impact that rule. The scope of information that could be obtained by an UAV following an individual is limitless. The practical limitations of an individual following another individual are simply not present with this technology. It seems that there would be a significant difference between a single or a few observations of a person on public roads and continuous, indiscriminate surveillance by a UAV over a long period of time. Protections against such surveillance by private actors are noticeably absent unless the public spying is particularly egregious.
privacy intrusions by private actors who unleash their flying bots. Some may argue that integrating this technology is no different than other technologies that have previously presented similar privacy challenges (i.e. location-tracking). However, UAS technology may be just what privacy law needs to push the legal framework forward. Government UAS privacy intrusions are afforded more protections under the Fourth Amendment and surrounding jurisprudence, than the common law provides for private-actor UAS intrusions. So while this technology may not be any different when it comes to privacy and the Fourth Amendment, undoubtedly, nongovernmental use of UAVs unleash an entirely new set of problems, unshielded by existing common law privacy torts. The limitations of privacy torts are that they are hard to prove by a complaining plaintiff and they have not kept pace with contemporary privacy problems. Federal and state legislatures have tried to address the problem on their own, but their efforts have come up short. Few of the legislative proposals have actually crystallized and many only addressed the Government’s use of UAS. Private actors will be able to surveil individuals and construct complete profiles of their lives. A future where UAVs will be able to distinguish our individual likes and dislikes, styles and secrets is not far away. A future where UAVs are following us around continuously and indiscriminately is upon us. The possibility that data collection will be abused is imminent. Thus, the private sector side needs a more deliberate path for protecting privacy—one that recognizes the serious privacy dangers, limits sharing information with the Government, explores existing legal protections, designs new privacy laws, and actively monitors rules promulgated by the FAA. In thinking about the private uses of UAS, the sky literally is the limit. Without adequate guidance, privacy as we know it could be coming to an end.
Report "The Sky Is the Limit: UAVs by Private Actors and the Implications to Common-Law Privacy"

References: § 30
 § 91
 v. 
 § 332
 v. 
 v. 
 § 652
 v. 
 § 652
 § 652
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.