STS Thesis UAVs in Civil Airspace Complications with Privacy

UAVs in Civil Airspace: Complications with Privacy
STS Research Paper
Presented to the Faculty of the
School of Engineering and Applied Science
University of Virginia
By
Michael Becker
24 April, 2016
On my honor as a University student, I have neither given nor received unauthorized aid on this
assignment as defined by the Honor Guidelines for Thesis-Related Assignments.
Signed: ______________________Michael Becker____________________________________
Approved: _______________________________________ Date ________________________
Michael Gorman, Department of Engineering and Society

Becker 2
Response to Feedback Regarding Annotated Bibliography
To summarize my comments on your draft, I think the frontier has moved a bit since the start of
your paper--the licenses for drones issue is becoming larger, and the question of when it is
critical to get a license. I think you made a great point in conversation about the weight range,
from a toy-size drone to something that is 40-50 lbs and could go through a window. I imagine
your paper ending with recommendations--made humbly, of course, because you do not pretend
to be a regulator, but you are doing anticipatory governance--looking ahead at potential
problems (many of which are occurring already, as your opening case illustrates) and trying to
provide advice on how to head them off now. Early precaution is much better than crisis
management! (MG)
I have added that detail regarding the weight range for registration and how most smaller drones
flown by kids must abide by the registration rules nevertheless. I added more commentary to
explain black boxing of UAVs and references to Langdon Winner’s sociotechnical system
recommendations.
Peer review from Ruben Aghayan (done on paper).
I made some grammatical fixes, reworded sentences so they are more clear, and removed a
couple sentences that did not connect well with their respective paragraphs.
You have done an outstanding piece of work which could be improved by re-organization. The
figures 1-4 towards the end are brilliant--they need to be moved up to the points where you make
the argument that is summarized by each of the figures. You should refer to the figures in the
text, which will help you sharpen your argument--I lost the thread in a couple of places (my
earlier, longer commentary would have suggested where, but sticking with your figures will sort
that out--Latour loves to use figures to make his arguments!)
I recommend you add anticipatory governance, which pertains to the conclusion of your paper
where you talk about potential future uses. Here it may be possible to get multiple stakeholders
together to have serious conversations about where drones ought to go. The only stakeholder
that might balk at this is those concerned with national security, which may develop functions for
drones that have to be kept secret. But even national security professionals will be interested in
the civilian regulations and use of drones, so that they can fly necessary military missions
without fear of flying into civilian drones, or shooting down a civilian drone thinking it is an
enemy.
I like the way you come back to Allenby at the end. Drones are not an isolated technology--they
will fit into a complex sociotechnical-natural system with lots of other emerging technologies
which alter the way we work and play together and also steal from each other and kill each
other. Allenby would recommend adaptive management of drones linked to reversibility--the
capability of taking certain kinds of drones or drone functions out of the system if they appear to
have negative interactions. (MG)
I have decided to keep the paper’s basic organization: introduction, background info explaining
how drones impact privacy, current laws/regulations, and then I go into black box theory and
finally areas of further research. In the first half of the paper I am emphasizing the mechanisms

Becker 3
through which UAVs are interfering with privacy, and the misunderstandings between
stakeholders of what the entire UAV sociotechnical system encompasses. I feel like it is best to
explain the seriousness of UAV integration and its impact on individual privacy first then to go
into the theory after showing how a different perspective can lead to a better understanding of the
sociotechnical system and more effective drone integration. I took away any references to “black
boxing” prior to the STS theory section (but still use other language to hint towards the
usefulness of applying the theory). I also added a couple more comments on Allenby’s ideas and
how they pertain to the UAV sociotechnical system discussed.
I see your overall theme better in this draft.
What is black-boxed is not only the parts of the sociotechnical system, but the fact that drones
are in a sociotechnical system. If regulators, users and other stakeholders--like people whose
homes are overflown by drones--understood the sociotechnical system of which drones are a
part, it might make it easier to negotiate changes--perhaps across a trading zone.
Then all the figures are in the right place, but the last figure should show a relatively complete
view of the overall socio-technical system that combines pilots, users and regulators?
Your conclusion should refer back to this need for an overall understanding of the sociotechnical
system--show how it could benefit all stakeholders. Also include any suggestions for future
research on this problem/opportunity of better multi-stakeholder understanding of the system.
I’ve made some minor changes to my conclusion, tying together the importance of having a
multi-stakeholder understanding of the UAV sociotechnical system.

Becker 4
Abstract
The goal of this paper is to address research questions posed by FAA Administrator
Michael Huerta during an interview with NPR: “Is there the potential for UAVs to infringe upon
your right to privacy?” and “Does this technology in any way change current laws designed to
protect property and privacy?” (FAA Head, 2014). This paper informs the reader of the impact
civil drone use has on privacy rights and how current laws are addressing the issue, explores the
sociotechnical system and stakeholders involved using STS theory, proposes ideas for moving
forward with UAV integration, and suggests areas for further research. Bruno Latour’s “black
box” theory is used to demonstrate how certain technical aspects of UAVs and social effects are
hidden from various stakeholders. Therefore it is of critical importance to “open” these black
boxes to allow the public and government to gain a collective understanding of the technology
and how it raises privacy concerns. Throughout this paper Allenby’s sustainable engineering
principles also provide guidelines that might be useful in the integration and management of
UAVs in civil airspace. This paper is organized into six different sections: Introduction, How
Drones are Invading Privacy, Current Laws and Regulation Efforts, Application of STS Theory,
Ideas for Moving Forward, and Suggestions for Further Research.

Becker 5
Introduction
Just a year ago in a quiet neighborhood in Fairfax County, VA, a family was unloading
their minivan outside their house on the driveway. After hearing a strange buzzing sound, there
was a sudden, loud crash that came from the front of the house. A camera-equipped drone had
slammed into the family’s home and fell as its propellers flopping dangerously on the ground.
This sudden disturbance in the front yard was clearly a violation of privacy and safety. No
charges were filed against the person piloting the vehicle because Virginia does not yet have
laws regulating the use of private drones (Portnoy, 2015). Incidents like this one are occurring
more frequently and are driving the case for greater enforcement on public drone use. Unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAVs) are beginning to encroach on privacy rights in civil airspace. The
technology has developed rapidly over the years and is rising in popularity among the general
public and commercial organizations. Due to this rapid technological growth, UAVs are difficult
to regulate and their social effects are unpredictable. Current laws and regulations either fail to
define how drones relate to privacy, or they do not provide a clear set of rules in determining
whether or not privacy rights are violated in incidents involving UAVs. The rise in domestic
drone use is adding complexity to the civil sociotechnical system. STS theory may prove useful
in understanding the relationship between UAVs and civil society. Latour’s black box theory can
be used to explain how certain aspects of this sociotechnical system are hidden from the
perspectives of different stakeholders. A “black box” is defined as something that encompasses
the methods and workings behind science or technology, but conceals them from the outside
world. Instead, only the inputs and outputs are truly visible, while the internal complexity of the
system is hidden (Latour, 1987). It can be shown that in many cases a black box exists around
certain technical aspects of drones. More often a black box hides the social effects that result

Becker 6
from flying UAVs; instead of concealing internal workings of the technology, this black box
conceals the technology’s complex social interactions with the outside world. It is worth
investigating this system further through STS theory to promote the sharing of ideas and benefits
that this technology has to offer and to encourage responsible integration into civil airspace.
How Drones are Invading Privacy
“Is there the potential for UAVs to infringe upon your right to privacy?” Michael Huerta,
FAA administrator, believes this question needs to be addressed (FAA Head, 2014). Although
the most obvious invasion of privacy is through direct surveillance, UAVs also have the potential
to invade the privacy of individuals on both personal and behavioral levels. The relationship
between drone capabilities and privacy rights has raised ethical concerns as well. Taking a
second look at the incident that occurred in Fairfax County will reveal that the situation could
have been avoided altogether or at least mitigated if the stakeholders were more aware of UAV
technology.
Direct Surveillance: Direct UAV surveillance is made possible through recent
technological improvements: high quality imagery and video, optical character recognition,
location and tracking, and intercepting electronic communication (Clarke, 2014). In recent years,
law enforcement is beginning to utilize these capabilities in civil airspace for border surveillance,
large crowd monitoring, and policing in small areas (Finn, 2012). While these methods could
certainly improve security, citizens who do not fully understand the technology have raised
privacy concerns regarding surveillance. The public also has access to these UAV technologies
and can, without clear regulation, easily invade the privacy of others without consent. As these
drone capabilities become more available to the public, data privacy is becoming a concern.

Becker 7
Drones have the capability to collect large volumes of personal data, which can then be stored
indefinitely or exploited for malicious purposes (Clarke, 2014). Other consequences of UAV
surveillance go beyond just the physical and involve psychological and social effects on citizens.
Already, many equate UAV surveillance methods with “Big Brother” (Finn, 2012). These
behavioral consequences are discussed further in the next section.
Behavioral Privacy: One of the unintended consequences of the introduction of UAV
technology in civil airspace is the infiltration of behavioral privacy. Behavioral privacy
encompasses an individual’s activities, movements, associations, and preferences. By infringing
on each of these aspects of life, UAVs have lowered the quality of life for normal citizens by
instilling a sense of anxiety. Citizens, especially victims of drone incidents, are often subjected to
a “panoptic effect”. They feel anxious or fearful of the possibility that they could be under
surveillance at any moment (Clarke, 2014). This sense of uneasiness can stifle freedoms of
expression and innovation; citizens don’t feel the confidence or freedom to live out their unique
lifestyles. UAVs have the potential to downgrade a person’s way of life by invading the privacy
of the individual. However, if the limits of UAV surveillance can be revealed, the public will feel
safer and less restricted in living out their lives.
Ethical Concerns: Recently ethical issues have been brought forth concerning the flying
of drone aircraft in civil airspace. Primary importance lies in the interaction between the user
piloting the drone and the technical use of the drone invading another’s privacy. There seem to
be two important situations to consider when a privacy violation occurs: when a user
intentionally invades another person’s privacy (i.e. stalking, photographing, video recording) and
when a user unintentionally invades another’s privacy (i.e. accidental neighborhood
photography, loss of aircraft control) (Wilson, 2014). It could be argued that pilots should only

Becker 8
fly drones if they have a sufficient knowledge and understanding about their operation and
technological capabilities. UAVs are that much more dangerous because, due to the nature of the
technology, it is easy for users to fly them and as a result invade another’s privacy without
having the intention of doing so. This explains the situation when the drone crashed into the
family’s home in Fairfax County. Unintentional privacy violations could be prevented by
revealing to these users the risks involved in operating UAVs, which may promote responsible
flying. Not only should UAV laws discourage their misuse, but they should better protect the
privacy rights of unintended victims.
Relation to Fairfax County Incident: The UAV incident in Fairfax County introduced
in the opening paragraph contains elements of each of the three privacy considerations discussed:
direct surveillance, behavioral privacy, and flying ethics. The aircraft that flew into the house
and startled the family was equipped with a camera; assuming the camera was recording video or
taking photographs, the incident placed the family’s private property under direct surveillance.
As a result of the incident the family now feels a sense of anxiety about the possibility of UAVs
monitoring their home. The father of the family referred to the incident as “spooky” (Portnoy,
2015). It’s possible his seven-year-old daughter now feels uneasy going outside to play knowing
that drones could be flying around her house. Finally, it is probable that the pilot of the aircraft
did not intend to spy on the neighbors or crash his drone at all. From an ethical standpoint, the
pilot’s inadequate knowledge in operating the vehicle resulted in a violation of privacy rights. It
is obvious that none of the stakeholders involved had a complete understanding of the impact of
UAV technology. The incident could have been avoided if the pilot understood the risks
involved in flying drones and if the policymakers understood how UAVs are infringing on
privacy rights and passed laws regulating UAV and camera usage. Based on this evaluation, it is

Becker 9
obvious that FAA administrator Michael Huerta’s suspicion was correct; UAVs have the
potential to infringe on the public’s right to privacy. An in-depth breakdown on the stakeholders
involved in this incident is discussed further later in this paper.
Current Laws and Regulation Efforts
“Does [UAV] technology in any way change current laws designed to protect property
and privacy?” Michael Huerta, FAA administrator, believes this question needs to be addressed
(FAA Head, 2014). As UAV technology is on the rise, the FAA is gradually integrating
appropriate laws regulating civilian drone operation. This section explores two of the FAA’s
main approaches: the “Know before you fly” campaign and the newly required UAS registration
laws. Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment and previous Supreme Court cases also provide
an indication of what will be constitutionally allowable when it comes to UAV surveillance.
Current FAA Regulations: The FAA has partnered with other organizations to promote
a campaign called “Know Before you Fly” in an effort to educate the public about safely and
responsibly flying unmanned aircraft. Some of the basic rules they encourage include: flying
below 400 feet while remaining clear of obstacles, keeping the aircraft within visual line of sight,
and avoiding flying near people or stadiums (FAA, 2015, “Model…”). These are great practices
for the public to follow in flying responsibly and avoiding privacy violations, but the FAA
currently has no form of policy to enforce these guidelines. For example, the event in Fairfax
County described in the introduction highlights the importance of having enforced laws. Because
no laws existed in Virginia to regulate private drones, there were no charges filed on the case
even though a privacy violation occurred. The first step in enforcing UAV laws is for the public
to report incidents and developments in UAV technology to the policymakers. This collaboration

Becker 10
allows all stakeholders to see the UAV sociotechnical system from the same, overarching
perspective. The “Know Before you Fly” campaign is only a temporary solution; the FAA is
gradually working towards forming effective drone policy to keep up with the rapid development
of the technology. As of December 21st
, 2015, the FAA now mandates that civilian drone users
register their aircraft online if the aircraft weighs between 0.55 and 55 lbs. To be considered
flightworthy, aircraft must clearly show a posted registration number, and pilots must carry their
registration card when flying. Registration costs five dollars and is valid for three years. Aircraft
and user information (email and home address) are then stored in a national database (FAA,
2015, “Unmanned…”). This is a step towards managing drone use in civilian airspace and will
provide the FAA with accurate data as to how often and what types of aircraft are being used,
which will help form future policy. Violating registration rules could result in three years of
imprisonment or $27,000 in fines (FAA, 2015, “Unmanned…”). Registration will create a
culture of accountability and further encourage smarter flying; however, it will not be able to
control all illegal drone activity or protect the privacy rights of citizens. While most pilots will
register their aircraft, some won’t and will continue to engage in illegal activities without fear of
repercussions. Any UAV, with or without a registration number, can engage in spying or aerial
photography without the pilot being discovered as long as the aircraft doesn’t crash. The FAA’s
registration policy is a step in the right direction and will likely lead to future, more stringent
regulations that will hopefully address privacy concerns.
Defining Privacy with the Fourth Amendment: The primary law that defines privacy
rights is the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. However,
there are different ways of interpreting the amendment in cases involving drones. Some
understand it as stating that privacy is violated unless there is a warrant and probable cause,

Becker 11
while others believe that privacy is not directly protected by the amendment (Carr, 2013).
Because no modern policy addresses UAVs directly, drone incidents are left to interpretation. To
add to the confusion, the operation of UAVs by private citizens often is protected by the First
Amendment, the freedom to gather information, which in some cases can cause a contradiction
(Villasenor, 2014). The fact is that drone use and misuse may or may not fall under Fourth
Amendment rights. Despite this, the amendment has been utilized repeatedly in cases involving
UAVs. The technology has developed at a faster rate than our legal system can keep up with.
After analyzing how the Fourth Amendment has been used, Koerner believes the reasonable-
expectation-of-privacy test from Katz vs. United States can provide a more effective way to
analyze the effect of drones on privacy (Koerner, 2015). This test provides protection for citizens
in private areas (e.g. private residence, hotel room) as well as public ones (e.g. public restroom,
phone booth) that are recognized as private by society.
Defining Privacy with Supreme Court Cases: Some of the confusion behind drones has
been clarified by Supreme Court rulings that define flying limitations. These cases help provide
an indication of what will be constitutionally allowable in the future. In California vs. Ciraolo
and Florida vs. Riley, it was established that an individual’s private property is not protected by
the Fourth Amendment as long as an aircraft is operating in navigable airspace and within flight
safety guidelines (Carr, 2013). One privacy concern with unmanned aircraft is the fact that
anyone can easily and inexpensively acquire overhead imagery of spaces that people consider
private (e.g. front yard, driveway, and porch). However, these cases imply that a civilian cannot
control the airspace above their private home, given that it is navigable airspace. Kyllo vs. United
States established that the use of extra-sensory equipment, like thermal imaging devices, on a
drone constitute an invasion of privacy unless the equipment was open to the general public

Becker 12
(Carr, 2013). This adds more complexity to the situation because, as technology progresses, an
increasing variety of sensors and payloads are becoming available to the public for decreasing
costs. Other important questions have yet to be answered due to the lack of clear policy, such as
whether UAVs will be mandated to fly with visual flight rules, or whether they have permission
to fly solely on GPS and electronic navigation. Debates continue over to what degree UAVs
should be regulated in civil airspace. The government and law enforcement intends to use this
technology for surveillance programs in order to prevent terrorist and cyberattacks. Recreational
users fly drones purely for the fun of it. As controversial debates continue between privacy
advocates and proponents for surveillance programs, it has proven difficult to define the balance
between safeguarding national security and maintaining civil liberties (Koerner, 2015). Despite
the difficulty of the task, finding the balance is the key to safely integrating UAV technology
into domestic airspace. Following the incident in Fairfax County, some argued that if every law
limiting UAV flight is passed then it will “stifle the growth and utilization of unmanned vehicles
in Virginia” (Portnoy, 2015). Effective drone policy should protect privacy rights without
limiting the benefits of UAVs, and prohibit malicious use without limiting the freedom to fly
UAVs. Drone policy should follow Allenby’s advice in his sustainable engineering principles;
integrated policies should address the system as a whole instead of addressing certain aspects of
a system (Allenby, 2012). Drones are not an isolated technology - they fit into a complex
sociotechnical system with lots of other emerging technologies which alter the way society lives
and acts. Technological growth of UAVs should continue so that new societal benefits may be
realized in the future. Therefore, no one entity should decide how to go about regulating UAVs
because there are so many groups interacting with the technology from the government,
commercial, and private sectors.

Becker 13
Application of STS Theory
In analyzing the privacy issues and current policies concerning UAV use in domestic
airspace, it has become obvious that the problem of integrating UAV technology is a complex
one. As already discussed, it appears none of the stakeholders involved have a complete
understanding of the impact of UAV technology. However, STS theory may prove useful in
explaining this complex system and its various stakeholder interactions. Black box theory,
developed by Bruno Latour, can be used to explain the complex sociotechnical system of UAVs
in society with respect to each stakeholder involved: users, policymakers, and victims of privacy
infractions. Many users who lack aviation and technical backgrounds, like photographers and
filmmakers, have an underlying purpose for using UAVs, like photography and video recording
(McGlynn, 2013). To these users, there exists a black box around the technical aspects and social
effects in flying UAVs (Figure 1).

Becker 14
For example, a photographer could be photographing a neighborhood scene without realizing
that he/she has invaded another person’s privacy by capturing detailed photographs of a
backyard or house. Policymakers, like the FAA, tend to focus too much attention on the
regulation of UAVs in terms of safety. While safety is a serious concern, the FAA does not
realize the black box that surrounds the many privacy violations, intentional and unintentional,
that occur with the operation of UAVs (Figure 2).
Most victims of UAV incidents (and those that rely on the media for an understanding of UAV
technology) have a negative outlook on drones as a result of traumatic experiences. A black box
conceals the benefits to society that UAV technology has to offer, such as police surveillance,
emergency response, environmental sampling and infrastructural maintenance (Figure 3).

Becker 15
By viewing this system of stakeholders using the black box method, it becomes clear how each
stakeholder interacts with the technology and what specific aspects they are exposed to and
hidden from. In this case, “opening” these black boxes will open the eyes of the stakeholders to
understanding the true nature of drone technology from a broader perspective. Responsible
flying can be promoted to the users by revealing to them the risks involved in operating UAVs. If
the limits of UAV surveillance can be revealed to the victims, they will feel safer and less
restricted in living out their lives. With a better understanding of the nature of this technology
and its capabilities, society is one step closer to smarter piloting, effective regulation, and a
reduction in drone incidents. At the least, more in-depth discussion on the integration of UAV
technology will result from opening these black boxes.

Becker 16
Stakeholders in the Fairfax County Incident: Referring back to the UAV that crashed
into the family’s house, the three primary stakeholders discussed above can be easily identified
(Figure 4).
In this case the user was the inexperienced pilot who did not understand enough about the
technology to fly a drone safely. He/she was probably occupied on how fun the flying experience
was and failed to recognize that everyone has a right to privacy. Despite the lack of policy
regulating drones at the time, the FAA would have been identified as the policymaker. The only
regulation in place at the time was the “Know Before you Fly” campaign, which purpose was to
encourage smart flying without any method of enforcement. These guidelines focused on safety
more so than privacy; currently there are no laws that fully address the issue of privacy.
Although this incident was publicly reported to the FAA, there is no doubt that other privacy
violations (intentional and unintentional) occur on a frequent basis and are never reported. This
stresses the importance of the public’s duty to report incidents and developments in UAV

Becker 17
technology to the policymakers. Finally, the victim involved in the incident was the family. As a
result of the traumatic experience, the family believed that drones “should be carefully
regulated” (Portnoy, 2015). Their negative outlook on drones may cloud their vision of the
possible social benefits UAVs can offer.
Ideas for Moving Forward
Community Effort: In order to develop effective UAV policy and to uphold privacy
rights, a community-wide effort is required. The media coined the term “drone” which gives a
strong, negative connotation to UAVs; they should be involved in “demilitarizing” UAV
technology by highlighting the benefits of the UAVs rather than exaggerating their capability for
destruction and violence. Hobbyists are also an important asset to involve on the topic of UAV
policy as they provide an understanding of the technology and how it’s being used by the public.
There exist communities with websites, forums, and meetings where enthusiasts can share ideas
and provide support, creating an “open source” environment. Many of these groups have goals of
education, creativity, and activism (Boucher, 2014). Leah Rowe of the Airforce Research
Laboratory believes that through public education on responsible UAV use and through the
coordination of experts in policy and Human System Integration (HIS), the approval for the
operation of UAVs in any airspace will be attainable. She asserts that policy and legislation
should be understood by both the lawmakers and the public (Cooke, 2014). FAA administrator
Michael Huerta also believes in the importance of public education. He thinks that the ability to
enforce regulations depends on “the public having a good understanding of what the rules are
and every citizen playing a role in working with their government.” He also admitted that the
FAA relies on the public and industry in making them aware of any developments regarding
UAV use (FAA Head, 2014). Huerta is discussing opening up black boxes to provide all

Becker 18
stakeholders, the public and the government, with the same information regarding UAVs. This
goes back to finding the healthy “balance” in regulation. Future goals should be to maintain
privacy rights, ensure national security, and yet allow for the continued growth and development
of the UAVs.
Framework for Integration: In order to ensure the safe integration of UAV technology
into society, Boucher outlines some useful steps to consider: to clearly communicate the purpose
and nature of the technology, to understand public and stakeholder views, to spread knowledge
about UAVs in order to promote responsibility, and to avoid pushing technological growth at an
early stage which can lead to irresponsible use (Boucher, 2014). Much of what Boucher
advocates corresponds with Allenby’s sustainable engineering principles for managing complex
human-technological systems. Allenby stresses the importance of incremental changes to an
engineering system to reduce the risk of social damage, and he believes in the significance of
identifying a desired trajectory of a system and guiding that trajectory. Although some of these
practices may be too late to enact, such as introducing the technology at a gradual pace, other
practices provide an effective framework for taking the next steps to integrate UAVs into society
and safeguard privacy rights. Understanding stakeholder views and their interactions will help
form effective policy. Clearly communicating the purpose and nature of the technology will
make clear to pilots and victims the capabilities, limits, and risks involved in flying drones.
According to Allenby, the technical and social aspects of a system are tightly coupled, and so
users, policymakers, and victims should have an understanding of both aspects. Allenby also
discusses the fact that there is always an element of chaos in a complex sociotechnical system
which will result in unintended consequences (Allenby, 2012). This is an important attitude to
keep in mind while “opening black boxes” among the system of UAV stakeholders. With an

Becker 19
increase in stakeholder interactions and the sharing of information, there are sure to be
unintended consequences.
Both Boucher’s and Allenby’s research relate back to the importance of all stakeholders
having a complete understanding of the impact of UAV technology. Users should be aware of
the risks involved in flying UAVs, policymakers should be aware of the frequent intentional and
unintentional privacy violations, and victims should understand the benefits UAV technology has
to offer to society. This paper focuses on these three major stakeholders, but it is possible there
are a number of other stakeholders involved due to the system’s sociotechnical complexity.
Anyone who impacts or is impacted by UAV technology can be considered a stakeholder of the
system. If all stakeholders have a common understanding of the technology and its effects, then
negotiations regarding drone development and new privacy policies will come about easier.
Suggestions for Further Research
As has been shown throughout this paper, the integration of drone technology into society
is a complex problem involving many factors and stakeholders. It is a sociotechnical system with
various input, outputs, and unintended consequences, some of which can be controlled and some
of which cannot be controlled. One factor that is difficult to regulate and that heavily determines
the proliferation of incidents is the availability of the technology to the public. UAV technology
has become very accessible and prices have plummeted; a drone and camera setup only costs
about $500 (Wingfield, 2014). Nowadays anyone can buy and operate a drone: photographers,
filmmakers, geologists, Amazon executives, and hobbyists. The current accessibility of this
technology is daunting because no regulation on privacy exists, and it is very easy for users to
(intentionally or unintentionally) misuse the technology. As a result, some kids and pranksters

Becker 20
have used UAVs to conduct criminal activities like smuggling contraband and disrupting
sporting events. The rapid development and diminishing costs of drone technology and its
relationship to privacy rights warrants further research.
Additionally, the newly created drone registration process is worthy of research. This
process should be monitored for its effectiveness at ensuring public safety and privacy. The
current weight range for registration is 0.55 – 55 lbs., but this range does not distinguish between
a harmless kid’s toy and a commercial-size aircraft that may be a serious hazard. It will be
interesting to see whether the FAA eventually decides to impose lesser restrictions on children’s
drones and more stringent constraints on larger UAVs. In the future, more effective privacy law
is required that goes beyond what simple registrations and campaigns can achieve. These
regulations must encompass all stakeholders involved in the operation of UAVs; they must
clearly define what constitutes a privacy violation to eliminate the ambiguity associated with
differing interpretations of the Fourth Amendment and Supreme Court rulings.
Despite tackling sociotechnical challenges we do not completely understand, there is
hope for a future where UAVs can be an asset, not a liability, to American cities. Muhammed
discusses the potential for UAV use in smart cities for geospatial surveying, civil security
control, traffic and crowd management, natural disaster monitoring, agriculture and
environmental management, and big data processing (Muhammed, 2014). Despite the media’s
depiction of “drones” as militaristic and destructive, UAVs have the potential to enhance the
human lifestyle, not aggravate it. As Boucher recommends, the first challenge to accomplishing
this will be to spread knowledge about the benefits UAVs can offer society and to better educate
the public on the positive nature of the technology. Other challenges faced by UAV proponents

Becker 21
include: ethics and privacy, cost, legislation and licensing, business adoption, and technical
development (Muhammed, 2014).
UAV technical development is progressing at a faster rate every year and lower costs are
making the technology more affordable. The FAA’s new requirement to register private drones is
a step closer towards effective legislation and controlled public usage. Privacy and ethical
concerns then become an important obstacle to overcome before drones can be considered safe
or commonplace. Technology, like that of unmanned aerial vehicles, involves multiple
stakeholders interacting in a multitude of ways. Further research is required in order to achieve a
better, multi-stakeholder understanding of the UAV sociotechnical system. With a community-
wide effort and an improvement in policy that fully protects the privacy rights of citizens, the
future benefits of UAVs can be realized and put into action.

Becker 22
Bibliography
Allenby, B. R. (2012). The Theory and Practice of Sustainable Engineering. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Boucher, P. (2014). Domesticating the Drone: The Demilitarization of Unmanned Aircraft for
Civil Markets. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1–20. Retrieved from
http://www.springer.com
Carr, E. B. (2013). Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Examining the Safety, Security, Privacy, and
Regulatory Issues of Integration into U.S. Airspace. Retrieved from https://www.ncpa.org
Clarke, R. (2014). The regulation of civilian drones’ impacts on behavioral privacy. Computer
Law & Security Review, 30(3), 286–305. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/
Cooke, N. J., & Bennett, Jr., W. (2014). Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems: A Human Systems
Integration Perspective and Challenges. Proceedings of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society 58th Annual Meeting, 102–104. Retrieved from
http://online.sagepub.com/
FAA Head: Safety, Privacy Concerns Abound In Regulating Drones (2014). All Things
Considered, Literature Resource Center. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2015). Model Aircraft Operations. Retrieved from
https://www.faa.gov/
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2015). Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)
Registration. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/
Finn, R. L., & Wright, D. (2012). Unmanned aircraft systems: Surveillance, ethics and privacy in
civil applications. Computer Law & Security Review, 28(2), 184–194. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/

Becker 23
Kang, C. (2015, December 14). Drone Registration Rules Are Announced by F.A.A. The New
York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
Koerner, M. R. (2015). Drones and the Fourth Amendment: Redefining Expectations of Privacy.
Duke Law Journal, 64(6), 1129–1172. Retrieved from
https://www.ebscohost.com/academic/academic-search-complete
Latour, B. (1987). Opening Pandora’s Balck Box. In Science in Action: How to follow scientists
and engineers through society (pp. 1–19). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press.
McGlynn, D. (2013). Domestic Drones: Are unmanned aircraft safe? CQ Researcher, 23(37).
Retrieved from http://www.cqresearcher.com
Mohammed, F., Idries, A., Mohammed, N., Al-Jaroodi, J., & Jawhar, I. (2014). UAVs for Smart
Cities: Opportunities and Challenges. 2014 International Conference on Unmanned
Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), 267–273. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org
Portnoy, J. (2015, July 15). Virginia seeks to protect privacy while cashing in on emerging
drone technology. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://ic.galegroup.com
Villasenor, J. (2014). “Drones” and the Future of Domestic Aviation. Proceedings of the IEEE,
102(3), 235–238. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org
Wilson, R. L. (2014). Ethical Issues with the use of Drone aircraft. 2014 IEEE International
Symposium on Ethics in Science, Technology, and Engineering, 1–4. Retrieved from
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org
Wingfield, N. (2014, November 21). Now, Anyone Can Buy a Drone. Heaven Help Us. The New
York Times. Retrieved from http://ic.galegroup.com

STS Thesis UAVs in Civil Airspace Complications with Privacy

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to STS Thesis UAVs in Civil Airspace Complications with Privacy

Similar to STS Thesis UAVs in Civil Airspace Complications with Privacy (20)

STS Thesis UAVs in Civil Airspace Complications with Privacy