This Wednesday at 9:30 a.m. CDT, the US Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on "The Future of Drones in America: Law Enforcement and Privacy Considerations." See here for details.Increasingly, as discussed in this post, Grits is convinced that Texas' pending drone privacy bill, HB 912, has First Amendment problems that would get it thrown out in federal court (the filed version bans private-sector photography by drones flying in FAA-approved airspace). However, I'm also convinced those problems can be fixed. On Friday, I went to visit with the bill author's staff and shared with them language that would require a warrant for law enforcement's use of drones for surveillance - as well as placing limits on other government actors - while retaining the rights of private citizens and companies to operate FAA-approved drones including ones that take photographs.As Ryan Calo, who will testify at the US Senate hearing on Wednesday, recently wrote, we should seek "an end to bad privacy law [rather] than an end to drones." Just as the Fourth Amendment bans unreasonable searches by government, state legislation can legitimately limit government surveillance for enforcement purposes. But it's probably not realistic to ban private photography without running afoul of First Amendment rights to free expression. There has to be a way to distinguish good drones from bad drones. Luckily, there is a potential middle path.
↧