IFSEC Insider is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.
Rob Ratcliff was the Content and Community Manager of IFSEC Global.com. He is a self-confessed everyman in the world of security and fire, keen to learn from the global community of experts who have been a part of IFSEC for 40 years now.
In recent years, drone aircraft operated by the military have become familiar to casual observers of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Just last week, the Ministry of Defence announced that it had flown drones over Afghanistan from the UK for the first time, from its base in Lincolnshire. Their use is controversial, with critics claiming that drone pilots are less able to react to a situation effectively, leading to an increase in civilian casualties.
There is also the issue of accountability and empathy. Is a pilot stationed thousands of miles away from the scene of a battle able to properly empathise with the targets on the ground, and understand the implications of a mistake? Can they even be held accountable, legally speaking, for firing weapons that resulted in civilian casualties?
The legal picture over the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) is extremely unclear as well. Last year, the UN’s special reporteur on extrajudicial killings, Christof Heyns, suggested that there may have been attacks made in Pakistan by the US using UAVs that amounted to international war crimes.
Home drones
The arguments for and against the use of UAVs in far-away countries are many and varied, but the latest scene of disagreements surrounds civilian use of drone technology.
Mobile CCTV is not just the preserve of the local council or professional security companies, thanks to the proliferation of relatively cheap consumer cameras (such as GoPros) and radio-controlled “quadcopters” — small four-bladed helicopters.
In a post on a US-based surveillance retailer’s website, we came across a selection of videos taken on home-made “mobile surveillance” equipment including this video showing some mischievous individuals giving the local police the run-around, teasing them with their flying camera.
There’s no crime committed here; in fact, from the birds-eye view of the quadcopter, it feels as if the camera itself has a cheeky personality, tapping the police officers on the metaphorical shoulder, then jumping to the other side in a slapstick Pink Panther-inspired Police chase.
But the technology is getting simpler. For the paltry cost of $300, you can pick up the Parrot AR.Drone 2.0 — a small quadcopter that comes with a camera capable of shooting HD video, taking photographs and broadcasting the images straight to your tablet or smartphone, which also acts as the remote control.
It’s so firmly autostabilized that on a hot day small children will gather under it to get the cool downwash from its rotors.
Time went on to describe drones as “an enormously powerful, disruptive technology” that could revolutionise the way farmers, builders, and your neighbours behave. If the Internet is an extension of your virtual presence, a drone is an extension of your physical presence, they say.
A groundbreaking idea then: A home mobile surveillance solution in the hands of the everyday consumer — and this has got some people worried, all the way up to Google CEO Eric Schmidt.
He told The Guardian that drones should be banned for use by the public amid fears that drone technology could fall into the hands of terrorists very simply.
He gave an example of a dispute between two neighbours. He asked:
How would you feel if your neighbour went over and bought a commercial observation drone that they can launch from their back yard. It just flies over your house all day. How would you feel about it?
Drone technology is already used to monitor farmers by the EU, who are strictly regulated in order to qualify for lucrative subsidies relating to the types of crops they grow, and now “home drone” technology allows farmers to monitor their own land from the comfort of the farmhouse.
Schmidt is calling for regulation at this early stage, before drone technology gets into the wrong hands.
It’s got to be regulated. You just can’t imagine that British people would allow this sort of thing, and I can’t imagine American people would allow this sort of thing. It’s one thing for governments, who have some legitimacy in what they’re doing, but have other people doing it… It’s not going to happen.
In the UK, where legislation is typically slow to keep up with technology, we are at the moment having a CCTV code of practice developed by the recently established surveillance commissioner. A CCTV code of practice 17 years after Axis Communications first invented the IP camera.
How long will it take to create regulations controlling the use of home drones? Too late to stop your neighbour taking photos of your garden in that planning dispute, probably.
Free Download: The Video Surveillance Report 2023
Discover the latest developments in the rapidly-evolving video surveillance sector by downloading the 2023 Video Surveillance Report. Over 500 responses to our survey, which come from integrators to consultants and heads of security, inform our analysis of the latest trends including AI, the state of the video surveillance market, uptake of the cloud, and the wider economic and geopolitical events impacting the sector!
Download for FREE to discover top industry insight around the latest innovations in video surveillance systems.
Surveillance Drones for the HomeIn recent years, drone aircraft operated by the military have become familiar to casual observers of the wars in Afghanistan […]
Robert Ratcliff
IFSEC Insider | Security and Fire News and Resources
Subscribe
19 Comments
Oldest
NewestMost Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Joe Harris
May 2, 2013 4:09 pm
Regulation already exists both in the US and UK regarding the use of drones and has done for a long while now.
This is regulated and controlled by the Civil Aviation Authority in the UK which is appropriate. The regulations are currently under review so that the potential benefits that Drones can bring for emergency services and in sectors such as security can be realised in a manner that respects privacy and health and safety considerations.
CAP-722 – Unmanned Aircraft System Operations in UK Airspace – Guidance
UK-CAA Policy for Light UAV Systems
Thanks joe. And I believe the US FAA have similar rules as you say aimed at getting more law enforcement and other organisations using drones. Forestry organisations as well want them to tackle fires. I’m not sure though how this would apply to things like the parrot: somewhere between a radio controlled toy and a full scale UAV
There is also current regulation under the UK Data Protection Act which covers images of members of the public that can be identified are concerned. Would be interesting to check the DPA compliance of the EU participants you mentioned regarding the farming surveillance. Our big problem in the UK is that the great majority of people have either not heard of it or just ignore it. The home drone does interestingly highlight the fact – for some strange reason – that the personel domestic CCTV is not covered by the Act. I can see another catchup exercise coming on. The… Read more »
SunitaT
May 4, 2013 8:04 am
@Robert Brown, thanks for the post. I think such drones should be banned around airport areas so that they dont pose threat to the flights. Other than that I dont see any reason why we should be worried about such drones.Infact I feel such drones will help photographers to take some unique angle photos.
@ Rob…you have raised a very pertinent issue. The drone issue is getting controversial especially in the War on Terror. As we have seen that military drone is being extensively used in troubled areas. These drones are able to hit the target based on intelligence information. The information could be right or wrong. The physical distances from the control stations is not much of significance as intelligence plays more important role. Home drone would surely raise the matter of privacy. As long as they are used for the right purpose …we should encourge technology.
But you can’t guarantee that the technology always will be used for the right purpose. And, what indeed is the right purpose? One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, and all that…
@ Rob … you are right and I have understood your point. But you see… its just like gun. which could be used for protection of innocent or killings by criminal elements. what we need is … a regulatory body which could control the misuse of technology. All new inventions have pros and cons. Till the time a firm control is not ensured on the use….the technology falling in the wrong hands could always be expected.
No matter what new technology (changing virually every day!) is used, the fundamanetal thing is WHY is it being used as Rob mentioned – “The Purposes” – and what is happening to the images being collected – “The Data”. Yes regulation is definitely needed – and it’s already there. It’s the Data Protection Act. The great majority of CCTV systems must be operated and managed under this law.
Our problem is that it is not implemented and policed properly – do that and we can dismiss the great majority of concerns that are raised.
Paul you are right, we follow the rules and every thing will fall in place but how can we manage to ensure that. I know its pretty difficult even where its implementation looks simple but what about those areas where its implementation is already a grave issue.
It only takes one concerned newspaper journalist for a national paper to raise the concerns. But they’re not interested at the moment. The US are having something of a love-in with CCTV in the immediate aftermath of the Boston bombings. It’ll be interesting to see if that leads to a mass proliferation of the technology in public spaces. As I understand it the scale of public CCTV in the states is a lot smaller than the UK.
Not even an national newspaper journalist, Rob……all it needs is for a defence lawyer to ask in a courtroom if the evidence being provided as evidence from a CCTV system complies with the law regarding data protection. Then the lawyer shows a few simple areas where the system does not comply with data protection in the gathering and managing of the data (possibly also including the handling by law officers) and heyho the CCTV evidence is deemed inadmissable. Big problem for CCTV and its reputation. And that’s what we don’t want. Can you imagine if just one of those thousands… Read more »
You make a good point, Rob. When incidents like the Boston bombing highlight the advantages of CCTV technology, people don’t mind when more are suddenly installed at the outset–but when someone decides to take issue with it and cause a stir in the media, then that’s when most problems start.
As for seeing what happens, I think we’ll see with time.
A conversation I had with someone recently, they worked out the cost of a proposed camera deployment in the city that would have covered the whole city and maybe have stopped the bombings would have been more then putting a police officer on every street corner. (or something like that). Obviously the investment in a system needs to be balanced against a) requirement and b) common sense.
John OConnell
June 30, 2014 12:35 pm
Hi Robert,
I wonder if you or anyone else can help? At the show there was a mini drone which one of the exhibitors were flying around. It was very small, not much bigger then the footprint of a mobile and very quiet with it. Do you know who makes and supplies it?
Hi Adam, thanks for the response. It may be them, however the drone was much smaller than the one in the article. I will go to e Surv to see if they have the small one as an option.
John OConnell No problem. Let me know if you fail to discover who had the drone in question and I will find out for you.
MargretSofia
November 12, 2015 3:27 am
Drones and also four rotors are the greatest stuff you can buy right now but they are actually quite a novice to the actual marketplace so this means it can be hard to get the excellent quadcopter suitable for you. http://www.topquadcoptersreviews.com/
Regulation already exists both in the US and UK regarding the use of drones and has done for a long while now.
This is regulated and controlled by the Civil Aviation Authority in the UK which is appropriate. The regulations are currently under review so that the potential benefits that Drones can bring for emergency services and in sectors such as security can be realised in a manner that respects privacy and health and safety considerations.
CAP-722 – Unmanned Aircraft System Operations in UK Airspace – Guidance
UK-CAA Policy for Light UAV Systems
Thanks joe. And I believe the US FAA have similar rules as you say aimed at getting more law enforcement and other organisations using drones. Forestry organisations as well want them to tackle fires. I’m not sure though how this would apply to things like the parrot: somewhere between a radio controlled toy and a full scale UAV
There is also current regulation under the UK Data Protection Act which covers images of members of the public that can be identified are concerned. Would be interesting to check the DPA compliance of the EU participants you mentioned regarding the farming surveillance. Our big problem in the UK is that the great majority of people have either not heard of it or just ignore it. The home drone does interestingly highlight the fact – for some strange reason – that the personel domestic CCTV is not covered by the Act. I can see another catchup exercise coming on. The… Read more »
@Robert Brown, thanks for the post. I think such drones should be banned around airport areas so that they dont pose threat to the flights. Other than that I dont see any reason why we should be worried about such drones.Infact I feel such drones will help photographers to take some unique angle photos.
@ Rob…you have raised a very pertinent issue. The drone issue is getting controversial especially in the War on Terror. As we have seen that military drone is being extensively used in troubled areas. These drones are able to hit the target based on intelligence information. The information could be right or wrong. The physical distances from the control stations is not much of significance as intelligence plays more important role. Home drone would surely raise the matter of privacy. As long as they are used for the right purpose …we should encourge technology.
Explain WHY! 😉
While it only applies to those bodies you mentioned, it may well go on to provide a best-practice blueprint for others, though?
But you can’t guarantee that the technology always will be used for the right purpose. And, what indeed is the right purpose? One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, and all that…
@ Rob … you are right and I have understood your point. But you see… its just like gun. which could be used for protection of innocent or killings by criminal elements. what we need is … a regulatory body which could control the misuse of technology. All new inventions have pros and cons. Till the time a firm control is not ensured on the use….the technology falling in the wrong hands could always be expected.
No matter what new technology (changing virually every day!) is used, the fundamanetal thing is WHY is it being used as Rob mentioned – “The Purposes” – and what is happening to the images being collected – “The Data”. Yes regulation is definitely needed – and it’s already there. It’s the Data Protection Act. The great majority of CCTV systems must be operated and managed under this law.
Our problem is that it is not implemented and policed properly – do that and we can dismiss the great majority of concerns that are raised.
Paul you are right, we follow the rules and every thing will fall in place but how can we manage to ensure that. I know its pretty difficult even where its implementation looks simple but what about those areas where its implementation is already a grave issue.
It only takes one concerned newspaper journalist for a national paper to raise the concerns. But they’re not interested at the moment. The US are having something of a love-in with CCTV in the immediate aftermath of the Boston bombings. It’ll be interesting to see if that leads to a mass proliferation of the technology in public spaces. As I understand it the scale of public CCTV in the states is a lot smaller than the UK.
Not even an national newspaper journalist, Rob……all it needs is for a defence lawyer to ask in a courtroom if the evidence being provided as evidence from a CCTV system complies with the law regarding data protection. Then the lawyer shows a few simple areas where the system does not comply with data protection in the gathering and managing of the data (possibly also including the handling by law officers) and heyho the CCTV evidence is deemed inadmissable. Big problem for CCTV and its reputation. And that’s what we don’t want. Can you imagine if just one of those thousands… Read more »
You make a good point, Rob. When incidents like the Boston bombing highlight the advantages of CCTV technology, people don’t mind when more are suddenly installed at the outset–but when someone decides to take issue with it and cause a stir in the media, then that’s when most problems start.
As for seeing what happens, I think we’ll see with time.
A conversation I had with someone recently, they worked out the cost of a proposed camera deployment in the city that would have covered the whole city and maybe have stopped the bombings would have been more then putting a police officer on every street corner. (or something like that). Obviously the investment in a system needs to be balanced against a) requirement and b) common sense.
Hi Robert,
I wonder if you or anyone else can help? At the show there was a mini drone which one of the exhibitors were flying around. It was very small, not much bigger then the footprint of a mobile and very quiet with it. Do you know who makes and supplies it?
Hope you can help.
Thanks
John O’Connell
[email protected]
John OConnell Hi John. I believe e Surv had a drone on show at IFSEC: http://www.ifsec.co.uk/exhibitor/Connexxa-SRL
Do you think it could be them?
Hi Adam, thanks for the response. It may be them, however the drone was much smaller than the one in the article. I will go to e Surv to see if they have the small one as an option.
Thanks again
John
John OConnell No problem. Let me know if you fail to discover who had the drone in question and I will find out for you.
Drones and also four rotors are the greatest stuff you can buy right now but they are actually quite a novice to the actual marketplace so this means it can be hard to get the excellent quadcopter suitable for you.
http://www.topquadcoptersreviews.com/