back to article We don't NEED NO STEENKIN' DRONE RULES, peers told

No further regulation is needed to address privacy concerns around the use of commercial drones, a House of Lords sub-committee was told. Baroness Kramer, the minister of state for the Department for Transport, said yesterday: "We do not believe that any additional regulatory changes are needed to ensure adequate privacy and …

  1. Alister

    Wow, a Minister of State with some common sense...

    Whatever next?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Or a large amount of cash from www.ukdronesforxmas.com moved from one bank account to another....

      Basically if its the option of common sense in a politician vs anything else at all, I know which one I'd go for every time :)

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Or, to see just how common he can be, why not fly a drone over Baroness Kramer's house for a bit?

      What can be done with a flying camera today just wasn't possible before, especially to the mass public for cheap (not to mention the capabilities of modern low light telephoto cameras). To say privacy laws are suitable today just as much as they were yesterday, is similar to saying driving laws don't need to change to account for mobiles texting. With new technology comes a new society, and new criminals.

      Give it time and new houses will all come with "security" drones, all pointing at other houses. Sounds crazy, but you can buy a drone for this supposed purpose for a lot less than a current home security system, so security companies just might think why not bundle in drones too?

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        "To say privacy laws are suitable today just as much as they were yesterday, is similar to saying driving laws don't need to change to account for mobiles texting."

        You mean driving recklessly, driving without due care and attention, dangerous driving, not being in full control of the vehicle? There was never a need for a new law banning the use of mobile phones in the same way there is no special law saying you can't eat an apple while driving. Just as the use of camera drones is already covered by existing privacy laws.

        Apologies for the Daily Mail link. I feel dirty.

  2. Hargrove

    "It is the job of lawyers, regulators and judges to interpret [existing laws] in the light of a new technology," he said.

    In other words, the elected representatives of the people, and the people themselves can butt out of the discussion. (Not that it matters much in societies like the US and UK where the so-called representatives uncompromisingly serve the special interests who feed their campaigns and egos.)

    Still, in theory, it seems we, the people should have some say on whether we want to be spied on from above.

    The overriding problem, at least in the US, is that the laws have become so convoluted and arcane that no one can interpret them. The government crafts regulations that benefit the special interests, and that are also, increasingly, crafted to allow for selective interpretation and enforcement by those who govern.

    When it comes to court, individuals are hopelessly overmatched by the phalanx of "expert witnesses" that those who govern and large special interests can bring to bear. ,At least in the US, judges are loathe to bring in expert "masters" to provide objective testimony.

    My work day job for that last thirty plus years has been in an area that is heavily regulated by the federal government, and where the federal regulations provide for criminal charges.

    I have a colleague, who is an attorney who has practiced in the field for decades. Recently he was asked, "When was the last time you heard of a case where the court found for the defendant?" His answer, "I can't recall any."

    And this is doubtless why the Minister of State for the DIT is so content with the status quo.

    1. btrower

      @Hargrove:

      Re: "Still, in theory, it seems we, the people should have some say on whether we want to be spied on from above."

      We do have some say and we have said it and codified it in our constitutions. The answer is 'no'.

      Our laws are clear enough to me, but obviously not to the people entrusted with enforcing them. I am no fan of additional legislation but in this case some explicit guidance is needed.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        The rules are already overbearing applying commercial rules to hobbiests just because they stick an FPV camera on to aid flying or treating lightweight craft made of balsa or foam, that could hit a person with no risk of injury whatsover, like the 20kg commercial drones with carbon blades that might chop your arm off. What we need is a relaxation of the rules for toys and clear distinction of actual safety concerns, rather than paranoia.

        As for privacy, if you can be seen from a public place then you are being viewed and not spied upon. The air is a public place. People can see you from their upstairs windows, they can see you from a block of flats, they can see you from a ladder, they can see you from a hot air balloon, they can see you from a drone. If you want privacy then draw your curtains! The fact is the vast majority of people with drones have no interest in you whatsoever, they just want to fly in peace.

        1. btrower

          Re: "As for privacy, if you can be seen from a public place..."

          Seriously? Putting a camera on a drone and flying it beside a sixth floor window is not consistent with old-style notions of 'public place'. Sure, if you are on a subway platform in your underwear you can't complain if people look, but if you are just getting out of the shower in a high-rise you should have a reasonable expectation that you are not at the mercy of voyeurs.

          I am not saying that we should make flying toys illegal or putting cameras on flying toys illegal. What I am saying is that if your toy is streaming video to the Internet then you have a responsibility to make sure that it is not streaming pictures of my kids having a bath.

          Privacy in this regard is quickly vanishing anyway, but until it does I am in no hurry to make life easier for peeping toms.

          In case you missed a meeting, people are already filming up women's skirts in public and putting the videos up on the internet. You may not have an interest in invading people's privacy, but some people do and they don't need any more help from us. As a dad I take a dim view of people being careless with pictures of my kids.

          1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            "In case you missed a meeting, people are already filming up women's skirts in public and putting the videos up on the internet."

            ...and that's already illegal in many if not most jurisdictions under either or both of privacy laws or decency laws. There is no need for a new law forbidding that activity. I'm not sure if that was just a crap analogy or if you are in favour of no new anti-flying camera laws.

    2. Graham Marsden

      @Hargrove

      > In other words, the elected representatives of the people, and the people themselves can butt out of the discussion

      No, it means that the "elected representatives of the people" (well, more like "representatives of their Party leaders' wishes to the people") don't need to pass any more draconian knee-jerk "we must be seen to be doing something to appease the tabloid media" legislation when we *already* have laws which cover the situation.

      For once it seems that a modicum of common sense is actually being applied.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Privacy in this regard is quickly vanishing anyway, but until it does I am in no hurry to make life easier for peeping toms."

    The UK Sexual Offences Act 2003 included clauses dealing with voyeurism. The definition was the watching, or taking pictures, of someone "inside a structure" who believed themselves unobserved. So the law already covers taking pictures through a window on any level of a building.

    The Act upset home naturists because it did not include gardens in the definition "inside a structure". So people peering through a crack in the fence were not voyeurs in that legal definition. So drones filming people in gardens etc would not be prosecuted under SOA 2003.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like