The privacy implications of drones continue to raise concern around the country. Since our 2011 report and before, we have been warning about the potential privacy implications of this technology. Mainly, we’ve focused on the danger that they will be used in systems of mass suspicionless surveillance of entire cities and towns. But there is also a lot of discussion around the country—and some actual legislative efforts—to regulate private-sector drones.
While private drones do definitely raise privacy issues, they are a separate set of issues, and we have not called for any privacy regulation of private drones at this time. This is for several reasons:
- It remains to be seen what privacy invasions will actually emerge as real problems, and what won’t. There will inevitably be episodes, but it’s not clear where we will see abiding problems that demand regulatory solutions, unlike police and government use of drones for mass surveillance, which is far more predictable and, absent action to the contrary, probably inevitable.
- It’s less clear not only what privacy invasions we’ll see, but the extent to which they will be already covered by existing laws (such as trespassing, nuisance, and “peeping tom” statutes, and privacy torts).
- Unlike with government drones, First Amendment photographers’ rights issues come into play with private drones, which complicates the issue.
- There may be a flowering of private-sector innovation around drones, including many uses that bring not only conveniences and fun, but also that help Americans exercise and protect their civil liberties. Although we may be open to specific privacy regulations around private drones if the need becomes apparent, we don’t want to unnecessarily inhibit innovation.
That is why for now we’re taking a “wait and see” stance when it comes to privacy regulation of private-sector drones. Obviously when it comes to the safety regulation of drones, we have no problem. Safety is not our area of expertise, and we leave it to others to figure out what is needed in that area—and to figure out the right balance between safety and commerce. There’s no civil liberties dog in that fight—provided, at least, that safety is not being used as a pretext to prevent photography, as we’ve , or for other illegitimate purposes.
Update (7/16/15):
See this followup piece on regulations being proposed in New Jersey and their First Amendment implications.
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.