Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Flying to New Destinations: The Future of Drones

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Future of Drone Use

Part of the book series: Information Technology and Law Series ((ITLS,volume 27))

Abstract

The number of drones in the air is expected to increase rapidly in the coming years. This will put enormous pressure on the systems of permits and exemptions that most countries require for drone use. Large numbers of drones will also put the enforcement of such rules under pressure. Banning drones from society is not a realistic option. Thus, properly regulating the use of drones in order to avoid or minimize the risks associated with the use of drones becomes critical. Expanding the possibilities for drone use while maintaining safety requirements would meet the demands of particular drone user groups and would help to regulate technological developments. This chapter addresses how to regulate the use of drones in the future by considering conditions and contents of future drone legislation and by analysing privacy and other potential safeguards regulating drone use. Conditions for future drone legislation include creating policy visions, further integration of aviation laws, telecommunication laws, privacy laws and criminal justice laws, regulation on international levels, mandatory evaluations and (to some extent) technology-independent legislation. Future drone legislation should focus on aviation law, privacy law, liability law and criminal law. Privacy safeguards for drones should include privacy impact assessments and the use of privacy by design, most notably geofencing. Other safeguards could include mandatory education for some groups of drone users as well as raising public awareness of drones and their capabilities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Custers et al. 2015 compared the legal systems for drone use in The Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States.

  2. 2.

    Perhaps the most well-known example is the US Patriot Act that provides US government agencies tools for addressing terrorism, including roving wiretaps, searches of business records and conducting surveillance of individual terrorist suspects.

  3. 3.

    Koops 2006.

  4. 4.

    Finn et al. 2014.

  5. 5.

    Weight classes in the Netherlands are 0–25 kg, 25–150 kg and >150 kg. Weight classes in France are 0–2 kg, 2–25 kg, 25–150 kg and >150 kg. Weight classes in Germany are 0–5 kg, 5–25 kg and >25 kg. Weight classes in the UK are 0–7 kg, 7–20 kg, 20–150 kg and >150 kg. In Australia there are no weight classes, but a special regime exists for drones for recreational use up to 25 kg. In the US there also exists a special regime for drones for recreational use up to 25 kg. For more details, see Custers et al. 2015, p. 141.

  6. 6.

    Custers et al. 2015.

  7. 7.

    See Chap. 17 and Finn et al. 2014; Giddens 2013.

  8. 8.

    See Chap. 14 and Clarke 2014.

  9. 9.

    Directive 95/46/EG of the European Parliament and the Council of 24th October 1995, [1995] OJ L281/31.

  10. 10.

    Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation), Brussels, 25.1.2012 COM(2012) 11 final 2012/0011 (COD). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0011:FIN:EN:PDF. Accessed 11 April 2016.

  11. 11.

    For more background on the proposed EU data protection regulation, see Kuner 2012 and Hornung 2012.

  12. 12.

    Bertolini 2013.

  13. 13.

    ECtHR 26th April 1979, 6538/74, Sect. 49 (Sunday Times/UK) and ECtHR 12th May 2000, 35394/97, Sect. 27 (Khan/UK).

  14. 14.

    ECtHR 24th April 1990, 11105/84, Sect. 32 (Huvig/France), ECtHR 1st July 2008, 58243/00, Sect. 62 (Liberty/UK) and ECtHR 2nd September 2010, 35623/05, Sect. 61 (Uzun/Germany).

  15. 15.

    ECtHR 25th March 1983, 5947/72, 6205/73, 7052/75, 7061/75, 7107/75, 7113/75, and 7136/75, Sect. 97 (Silver et al./UK) and ECtHR 26th March 1987, 9248/81, Sect. 81 (Leander/Sweden).

  16. 16.

    Cavoukian 2012.

  17. 17.

    See Chap. 17 and Wright and De Hert 2012.

  18. 18.

    Cavoukian 2012.

  19. 19.

    See Cavoukian 2013 on the concept of Privacy by Design. See also Hildebrandt and Thielemans 2013.

  20. 20.

    Munson and Gupta 2002; De Lara et al. 2008.

  21. 21.

    Humpheys 2015.

  22. 22.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_insurance. Accessed 11 April 2016.

  23. 23.

    Volovelsky 2014.

  24. 24.

    Cf. Walrave et al. 2012.

  25. 25.

    Custers et al. 2015.

References

  • Bertolini A (2013) Robots as products: the case for a realistic analysis of robotic applications and liability rules, law innovation and technology. Law Innovation Technol 5(2):214–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke R (2014) The regulation of civilian drones’ impacts on behavioural privacy. Comput Law Secur Rev 30(3):286–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavoukian A (2012) Privacy and drones: unmanned aerial vehicles. Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Ontario. https://www.ipc.on.ca/images/Resources/pbd-drones.pdf. Accessed 11 April 2016

  • Cavoukian A (2013) Operationalising privacy by design: a guide to implementing strong privacy practices. Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Ontario. https://www.privacybydesign.ca/content/uploads/2013/01/operationalizing-pbd-guide.pdf. Accessed 11 April 2016

  • Custers B, Oerlemans JJ, Vergouw B (2015) Het gebruik van drones (The Use of Drones). WODC, The Hague. English summary available at: https://www.wodc.nl/onderzoeksdatabase/2518-gebruik-van-drones.aspx?nav=ra&l=geografisch_gebied&l=europa. Accessed 11 April 2016

  • De Lara E, LaMarca A, Satyanarayanan M (2008) Location systems: an introduction to the technology behind location awareness. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, San Rafael, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Finn RL, Wright D, Donovan A, Jacques L, De Hert P (2014) Privacy, data protection and ethical risks in civil RPAS operation. D3.3: Final report for the European Commission

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens A (2013) The dangers of surveillance. Harvard Law Rev Cambridge 2013:19–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Hildebrandt M, Thielemans L (2013) Data protection by design and technology neutral law. Comput Law Secur Rev 29:517

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornung G (2012) A General Data Protection Regulation for Europe? Light and Shade in the Commission’s Draft of 25 Jan 2012. SCRIPTed 9:64–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humpheys T (2015) Don’t overregulate drones. Alcalde, 18 March 2015. http://alcalde.texasexes.org/2015/03/todd-humphreys-dont-overregulate-drones/. Accessed 11 April 2016

  • Koops BJ (2006) Should ICT regulation be technology-neutral? In: Koops BJ, Lips M, Prins C, Schellekens M (eds) Starting points for ICT regulation: deconstructing prevalent policy one-liners, IT & LAW SERIES, vol 9, pp 77–108. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuner C (2012) The European Commission’s Proposed Data Protection Regulation: a Copernican revolution in European data protection law. Privacy and Security Law Report. 6 Feb 2012, pp 1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Munson J, Gupta V (2002) Location-based notification as a general-purpose service. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Mobile commerce (ACM) pp 40–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Volovelsky U (2014) Civilian uses of unmanned aerial vehicles and the threat to the right to privacy: an Israeli case study. Comput Law Secur Rev 30:306–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walrave M, Vanwesenbeeck I, Heirman W (2012) Connecting and protecting? Comparing predictors of self-disclosure and privacy settings use between adolescents and adults. Cyberpsychology J Psychosoc Res Cyberspace 6(1), Article 3. DOI:10.5817/CP2012-1-3

  • Wright D, de Hert P (2012) Privacy impact assessment. Springer, Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. eLaw, Center for Law and Digital Technologies, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Bart Custers

  2. WODC, Research Center of the Ministry of Security and Justice, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Bart Custers

Authors
  1. Bart Custers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bart Custers .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, eLaw, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Bart Custers

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 T.M.C. Asser press and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Custers, B. (2016). Flying to New Destinations: The Future of Drones. In: Custers, B. (eds) The Future of Drone Use. Information Technology and Law Series, vol 27. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-132-6_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-132-6_19

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-131-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-132-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation