Amazon attracted a lot of attention this weekend when, on “60 Minutes,” CEO Jeff Bezos a futuristic vision for the company: using drones to make deliveries within 30 minutes to homes in metropolitan areas.
The biggest import of the story is just the fact that Amazon has decided that it’s interested in this technology. That will have a couple of effects. First, it makes drones all the more real for people. The company’s illustrating how the system is envisioned as working—viewed by millions on “60 Minutes”—should not be underestimated in its cultural effects. There’s nothing like putting a concrete vision out there to make something happen. There’s also nothing like having a powerful, household-name company get behind a political cause to make it happen. All manner of aerospace companies have been pushing for the integration of drones into the national airspace, but now a company that many Americans have a direct relationship with is involved. And (as my colleague Chris Calabrese ), daily adoption of the technology by a company like Amazon would also likely smooth the way for drone deployments overall just by making it cheaper and more ubiquitous.
%3Ciframe%20allowfullscreen%3D%22%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20height%3D%22281%22%20src%3D%22%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2F98BIu9dpwHU%3Fautoplay%3D1%26autoplay%3D1%26version%3D3%22%20width%3D%22500%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E
Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from youtube.com.
We presume that Amazon is interested in delivery, not surveillance, and that it wouldn’t be retaining or even capturing video from its delivery vehicles. Nonetheless, others will, and it is in everyone’s interest to pin down solid drone privacy protections now, so that companies like Amazon can experiment with deployments that could prove useful for us all.
One other point: Bezos acknowledges that this use of drones is not “around the corner,” but everyone should be clear on just how far away it probably is. Congress has given the FAA a date of 2015 to “integrate unmanned aircraft into the national airspace system.” But “integration” of drones does not necessarily mean they could be used in anything like the manner Bezos envisions. Currently, government agencies deploying drones must comply with that include: below 400 feet in altitude, line-of-sight only, during daylight hours only, not over densely populated areas, with a spotter present in addition to a pilot, and with both of those operators possessing certain certifications. Drones could presumably be “integrated” with many of these conditions remaining in force.
Of course those conditions could all be lifted as technology and safety permits. The biggest obstacles are the ban on operation of drones over densely populated areas (which would prevent Amazon from taking advantage of the population densities probably needed to make the scheme work), and the requirement that each drone have a pilot. Having followed drones and attended drone conferences for several years, my sense is that for the FAA and the aviation world in general, allowing autonomous (as opposed to ground-piloted) drones would be a huge step. The biggest obstacle is the need for “sense and avoid” capability—the simple ability, possessed by all human pilots, to see other aircraft (not to mention things like towers and mountains) and steer around them properly. Creating a capability to reliably sense and avoid (also known as “Detect and Avoid” or DAA) requires very smart and robust technology.
That said, are already at work on these problems, and while it’s not clear how vigorously Amazon will push for its vision, its weight may now be added to that of all the other industry forces hoping to take to the unmanned skies. Let’s hope that the company will see clearly that the fate of this technology is inextricably tied to the privacy questions that surround it, and help us push to lay those questions to rest.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
ACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNAACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNA
PHOENIX — In a 7-0 decision, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a warrant is required to extract and analyze people’s DNA, saying that a person’s limited consent to a search of biological material for a specific purpose—in this case, a blood alcohol test for a DUI arrest—does not overcome that requirement. The ACLU and the ACLU of Arizona filed a friend-of-the-court brief in State v. Mitcham, arguing the government cannot genetically test biological material it already has in its possession—whether that’s blood taken from newborns to test for diseases or swabs collected from sexual assault survivors—to investigate the donors for a crime without first obtaining a warrant. In the decision, the court wrote that “in reaching this conclusion, we emphatically reject the State’s position that it was free to analyze Mitcham’s blood in any way it pleased simply because the State lawfully possessed the blood vials.” “Government analysis of our DNA can expose detailed information about our identity, appearance, family relationships, medical conditions, and more. We don’t consent to sharing all of that information each time we involuntarily shed our DNA or consent to a blood draw. The government’s argument in this case was a privacy nightmare,” said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “We are greatly heartened by the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to preserve the privacy of our sensitive genetic information.” In 2015, during a DUI arrest, the defendant in this case consented to the government collecting a sample of his blood solely to test it for blood-alcohol content, and was advised that the sample would be destroyed after 90 days. Instead, law enforcement held on to this sample for three years, at which point it used it for a completely different purpose—to extract and analyze his DNA, without a warrant or consent—while investigating another crime. Had the court accepted the government’s rationale here, all of us who consent to a biological sample collection, at any point in time, for any purpose, to any government entity, could have been subject to a warrantless DNA search after the fact. “Our DNA can reveal so much about us that our genetic privacy must be protected,” said Jared Keenan, legal director of ACLU of Arizona. “The Court’s decision is vital to protecting the strong constitutional rights that keep all Arizonans’ information safe from warrantless searches and unconstitutional intrusion.” -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
Face Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and BeyondFace Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and Beyond
You shouldn't participate in face recognition ticketing schemes. -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
AI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, BiasAI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, Bias
AI-generated police reports threaten to exacerbate existing problems in law enforcement, and to create new ones.