4.4 Article

Privacy, data protection and ethics for civil drone practice: A survey of industry, regulators and civil society organisations

Journal

COMPUTER LAW & SECURITY REVIEW
Volume 32, Issue 4, Pages 577-586

Publisher

ELSEVIER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DOI: 10.1016/j.clsr.2016.05.010

Keywords

Privacy; Data protection; Industry; Regulation

Categories

Funding

  1. European Commission through the EU programme

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article presents results of a survey of primarily, although not exclusively, European drone industry representatives, regulators and civil society organisations that examined privacy, data protection and ethics with respect to civil drone operations. The article provides snapshot information about the diversity of the drone industry, including information about the types of companies, the types of drones being manufactured and operated, their payloads, capabilities and applications. Using self-reported information from industry representatives, it also demonstrates that these stakeholders do not have a clear understanding of European privacy and data protection law, which can impact their levels of liability and protections for individuals on the ground. With respect to regulators and civil society watchdogs, the results demonstrate that law enforcement, commercial and private (or recreational) drone operators are all thought to be associated with significant privacy, data protection and ethical risks, and that recreational operators are thought to carry the highest risks. However, perceptions of high-risk operators vary among different organisations, raising a potential for regulatory fragmentation. The article concludes with a consideration of the implications of these findings for the regulation of privacy, data protection and ethics for civil drone operations. (C) 2016 Rachel L. Finn and David Wright. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available