[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE DISRUPTER SERIES: THE FAST EVOLVING USES AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF
DRONES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND TRADE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 19, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-103
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
_____________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
99-705 WASHINGTON : 2016
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
GREG WALDEN, Oregon GENE GREEN, Texas
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas LOIS CAPPS, California
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
Vice Chairman JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio DORIS O. MATSUI, California
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington KATHY CASTOR, Florida
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey JERRY McNERNEY, California
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky PETER WELCH, Vermont
PETE OLSON, Texas BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BILL JOHNSON, Missouri JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
BILLY LONG, Missouri Massachusetts
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina TONY CARDENAS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
BILL FLORES, Texas
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
CHRIS COLLINS, New York
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
Chairman
JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey Ranking Member
Vice Chairman YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi Massachusetts
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky TONY CARDENAS, California
PETE OLSON, Texas BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois PETER WELCH, Vermont
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana officio)
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, opening statement.............................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois, opening statement........................... 4
Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee, opening statement.......................... 5
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 6
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, prepared statement................................... 70
Witnesses
Joshua M. Walden, Senior Vice President, General Manager, New
Technology Group, Intel Corporation............................ 8
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Answers to submitted questions............................... 73
John Villasenor, Professor of Public Policy, Electrical
Engineering and Management, Luskin School of Public Affairs,
University of California, Los Angeles.......................... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Answers to submitted questions............................... 76
Margot Kaminski, Assistant Professor, Moritz School of Law, Ohio
State University............................................... 37
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Answers to submitted questions............................... 80
Brian Wynne, President and CEO, Association for Unmanned Vehicle
Systems International.......................................... 48
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Answers to submitted questions............................... 88
Submitted material
Statement of the Motion Picture Association of America........... 71
THE DISRUPTER SERIES: THE FAST-EVOLVING USES AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF
DRONES
----------
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in
room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael Burgess
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Burgess, Lance, Blackburn,
Harper, Bilirakis, Brooks, Mullin, Schakowsky, Welch, and
Pallone (ex officio).
Staff present: Leighton Brown, Press Assistant; Rebecca
Card, Assistant Press Secretary; James Decker, Policy
Coordinator, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Andy
Duberstein, Deputy Press Secretary; Graham Dufault, Counsel,
Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Melissa Froelich, Counsel,
Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Paul Nagle, Chief Counsel,
Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Dan Schneider, Press
Secretary; Olivia Trusty, Professional Staff, Commerce,
Manufacturing, and Trade; Dylan Vorbach, Legislative Clerk,
Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Michelle Ash, Minority
Chief Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Christine
Brennan, Minority Press Secretary; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff
Director; Lisa Goldman, Minority Counsel, Commerce,
Manufacturing, and Trade; and Diana Rudd, Minority Legal
Fellow.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Burgess. The subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing
and Trade will now come to order and the chair recognizes
himself for 5 minutes for an opening statement and, again, good
morning to all and welcome to our hearing on examining unmanned
aerial systems, or drones.
These are poised to up-end the status quo in many sectors
across the country.
This hearing is the latest installment of our Disrupter
Series covering a variety of disruptive technologies that are
literally redefining our lives and improving our economic
condition.
This hearing is timely. Tomorrow, the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration will hold an
important gathering in its series of multi stakeholder meetings
to develop privacy best practices for drones, and the Federal
Aviation Authority has also set tomorrow as the deadline for
recommendations from the Drone Registry Task Force.
Drones promise to make life easier, make life safer, make
life less costly for workers in a wide variety of industries.
The American Farm Bureau has forecast that farmers will be
using drone services to monitor their crops and could see
significant return on investment.
The technology now exists for telecommunications and
utility employees to send up drones up to inspect telephone
poles and monitor their findings from the truck.
Insurance adjusters sent out to inspect a claimant's home
for hail damage could use a drone to conduct the examination
without needing a ladder to walk around on the roof. And
everyone from movie studios to broadcasters have interests.
With nearly a million units expected to be sold, consumer
drones are predicted to be the next wave in holiday purchases
in just a few weeks.
I'm sure many of us here today have noticed that trend as
we start our holiday shopping. Check your gutters or a leak on
your roof without leaving the ground, no problem.
The sector-specific benefits of drones add up to a massive
economic impact. According to one study by the Association for
Unmanned Vehicles Systems International--one of our witnesses
today--drones will produce about $82 billion in growth during
the next 10 years as they are integrated into our National
Airspace System.
The study also predicts the addition of 100,000 jobs over
those 10 years, which encompasses drone makers, software
engineers, suppliers, researchers and other workers that would
support expanded drone production and use.
To realize these benefits, the Federal Aviation
Administration is working with stakeholders to safely integrate
drones into the American airspace.
Simultaneously, the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration is holding multi stakeholder
meetings with the goal of producing industry best practices.
There are important questions around privacy laws and
safety and United States companies like Intel are working to
develop solutions that would enhance safety automatically,
which no regulator could produce.
In fact, I would be more worried that overregulation on
safety could prevent the investment, testing and research
needed to develop market-driven solutions.
With the advent of drones, many have expressed concerns
that they present novel privacy issues. Certainly, drones can
go where people can't.
A neighbor can fly a drone over your fence and pester you
and invade your privacy, and there have been disputes ending in
drones being shot out of the air by an annoyed citizen.
There are interesting questions around whether how and when
and under what circumstances a drone owner can be identified
and held to account for his or her behavior.
Those questions are now being addressed at the FAA as part
of the development of its registry. I should note that I share
the concerns of many with requiring small recreational drones
to be registered with the federal government.
Such an approach would involve casual users in a major
government bureaucracy with seemingly little benefit. As
regulators prepare to integrate drones into the airspace, it is
clear that safety has to be the number-one priority.
But cutting-edge drone testing and evaluation is occurring
overseas because the current process to approve commercial
drone use is both restrictive and cumbersome in the United
States.
I do want to thank our witnesses for being here this
morning. I'm going to yield the balance of my time to Mr.
Lance.
Mr. Lance. Thank you, Chairman Burgess, for holding this
hearing and welcome to the distinguished panel.
Earlier this week, a drone crashed into a car while flying
over an oil refinery in Linden, New Jersey. I used to represent
a portion of Linden before the reconfiguration of the
congressional districts. Linden is one of the major refining
locations in the United States.
The FBI is currently investigating whether or not this was
an accident and is tracking down the operator who fled the
scene. This is the second time in two months that a drone has
crashed in Linden, which is located 10 minutes from Newark
Liberty International Airport, one of the three major airports
serving the New York metropolitan region.
While so far there is no evidence of ill intent in either
case, these incidents bring up important concerns regarding the
safety of recreational drones and the possibility for bad
actors to repurpose them to cause harm to others.
I look forward to discussing these concerns and possible
solutions as well as the potential benefits of UAVs with this
distinguished panel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burgess follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Michael C. Burgess
Good morning and welcome to our hearing examining unmanned
aerial systems-or drones, which are poised to upend the status
quo in sectors across our economy.
This is the latest installment of our Disrupter Series
covering a variety of disruptive technologies that are
redefining our lives and improving our economic condition.
This hearing is timely. Tomorrow, the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration will hold an
important gathering in its series of multistakeholder meetings
to develop privacy best practices for drones.
And the FAA has also set tomorrow as the deadline for
recommendations from the Drone Registry Task Force.
Drones promise to make life easier, safer, and less costly
for workers in a wide array of industries.
The American Farm Bureau has forecast that farmers using
drone services to monitor their crops could see a return on
investment of $12 per acre for corn, $2.60 for an acre of
soybeans, and $2.30 per acre of wheat.
The technology now exists for telecommunications and
utility employees to send drones up to inspect telephone poles,
monitoring their findings from the truck.
Insurance adjusters sent out to inspect a claimant's home
for hail damage could use drones to conduct the examination
without needing to climb a ladder and walk around a slippery
roof. And everyone from movie studios to broadcasters have
interests too. And with nearly a million units expected to be
sold, consumer drones are predicted to be the next wave in
holiday purchases this year. I'm sure many of us here today
have noticed that trend as we start gift shopping.
Check your gutters or a leak on your roof without leaving
the ground, no problem.
The sector-specific benefits of drones add up to a massive
economic impact.
According to one study by the Association for Unmanned
Vehicles Systems International (AUVSI)--one of our witnesses
today--drones will produce about $82 billion in growth in the
first ten years after they are integrated into our National
Airspace System.
The study also predicts the addition of 100,000 jobs over
those ten years, which encompasses drone makers, software
engineers, suppliers, researchers, and other workers that would
support expanded drone production and use.
To realize these benefits, the Federal Aviation
Administration is working with stakeholders to safely integrate
drones into American airspace.
Simultaneously, the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration is holding multistakeholder meetings
with the goal of producing industry best practices around
privacy.
There are important questions around privacy laws and
safety. U.S. companies like Intel are working hard to develop
solutions that would enhance safety automatically, which no
regulator could produce.
In fact, I would be more worried that overregulation on
safety could prevent the investment, testing, and research
needed to develop these market-driven solutions.
With the advent of drones, many have expressed concerns
that they present novel privacy issues.
Certainly drones go where people can't. A neighbor can fly
a drone over your fence to pester you and invade your privacy-
and there have been disputes ending in drones being shot out of
the air by annoyed citizens.
There are interesting questions around whether, how, and
under what circumstances a drone owner can be identified and
held to account for his or her behavior. Those questions are
now being addressed at the FAA as part of the development of
its registry. I should note that I share the concerns of many
with requiring small recreational drones to be registered with
the federal government. Such an approach would involve casual
users in a major government bureaucracy with seemingly little
benefit.
As regulators prepare to integrate drones into the
airspace, it is clear that safety is the number one priority.
But cutting-edge drone testing and evaluation is occurring
overseas because the current process to approve commercial
drone use is both restrictive and cumbersome in the U.S.
I join many in the drone development space in calling for
quick but flexible regulatory solutions that allow for future
innovation. The speed of innovation can't remain at the speed
of regulation for long.
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman.
The chair recognizes the subcommittee ranking member, Jan
Schakowsky, for 5 minutes for an opening statement, please.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Ms. Schakowsky. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding
today's hearing on the evolution and the future of drones. I
look forward to delving into this important issue.
Drones are increasingly common in our communities and it is
predicted that 1 million drones will be given as gifts over
this holiday and drone usage will, clearly, rise in 2016.
It is important to understand what this technology can do
and how we can adequately ensure their safe and ethical usage.
As the subcommittee of jurisdiction over the Consumer
Product Safety Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, I
am particularly interested today in the impacts of drone usage
and public safety and privacy--the two issues that the chairman
raised as well.
The FAA has received over 1,000 reports of unsafe drone
activity by pilots already this year, double the number of such
reports from 2014. With their capacity to reach protected and
secure areas including the White House lawn, which happened
earlier this year, drones can pose a serious national security
threat as well.
We must ensure that drones are adequately regulated to
maintain safety both for the public and for the country. The
other important area for us to consider, as mentioned, is the
privacy implications of the increased use of drones.
Drones can and have been equipped with invasive
technologies including cameras, infrared devices, even high-
powered microphones.
This new method of collecting information does not entitle
individuals, corporations or government entities to violate
privacy rights and we must ensure that our laws and regulations
reflect that fact.
So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses to gain
from their perspectives this emerging technology and I yield
back my time.
Mr. Burgess. The gentlelady yields back. The chair thanks
the gentlelady.
The chair recognizes the vice chairwoman of the full
committee, Mrs. Blackburn from Tennessee, for an opening
statement for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
thank each of you for being here before us today and for the
information that you're going to share with us and work with
us.
I appreciate this series that the chairman has put in
place, the Disruptor Series, because we do live in a time when
you're going to see the Internet of things, if you will, begin
to move forward and become more enmeshed with our daily lives--
how we do business, how our military protects ourselves, how
consumers use a product in recreation.
All of those are components that we are going to be tasked
with dealing with the issues and the implications.
Now, we're looking at privacy. We're looking at safety, the
utilizations and also we want to look at the mechanism--the
drone itself--and then what you put on the drone, which is
where you get into the privacy concerns and utilization of
technology that can be a little bit invasive, if you will.
But we do know that there is an enormous curiosity about
these and such a desire to have a drone and play with a drone.
I say I have a family full of big kids ranging from age 60 on
down to age 6, all male, by the way.
And they love all of these gadgets and toys and the next
new thing and they so like--yes, I hear you all chuckling. I do
think that my husband is still a big kid and but there is such
a fascination with this and the policy implications of that
come to us--how do you encourage that curiosity, how do you
allow consumer use, how do you allow commercial use and still
look at the safety and security. And, of course, as we have
found out with our airplanes and with air travel make certain
that we are securing that space.
So thank you for your information and your wisdom. We
appreciate having you here. Yield back.
Mr. Burgess. The gentlelady yields back.
The chair recognizes the ranking member of the full
committee, Mr. Pallone of New Jersey, 5 minutes for an opening
statement, please.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As part of our ongoing Disruptor Series today we have the
opportunity to discuss one of our fastest growing and most
exciting industries.
It seems there are drones for just about everything.
Photographers can attach powerful cameras to drones to get
shots from high in the air. Nature lovers can take footage of
wildlife in hard to reach places.
Surveyors use them to create more accurate maps. Both
children and adults fly drones just for the fun of making
something fly.
If you want, you can buy a drone shaped like the Millennium
Falcon from Star Wars and you could say that drones are the
next generation of kites if kites were Bluetooth capable and
had a thousand possible uses and companies are looking into how
drones can improve business.
Retail giants are exploring delivery by drone, which will
get orders to consumers faster than ever. Farms use drones to
oversee crop conditions and dozens of small startup companies
are innovating new ways to use drones to protect the
environment.
One company has designed a drone that can sense water
pollution from the air. Commercial and consumer drones are
attracting a huge amount of interest in investment.
The Federal Aviation Administration estimates that a
million drones will be given out as gifts this holiday season,
and according to one industry report investments in drone
technology from January to May 2015 totaled $172 million, more
than in the previous 5 years combined.
These investments are not limited to one industry or
source. They come from government, venture capitalists,
environmental groups and huge technology firms, among many
others.
So it's exciting when technology leaps forward the way it
has with drones. But as the industry develops, so do the risks.
As more drones take to the air, safety becomes more of a
concern. Pilots have raised concerns about sharing airspace
with drones.
Drones have been seen in sports arenas and pilot sightings
of drones doubled since last year, and there has also been an
increase in the number of safety accidents including a man who
was killed after losing control of his drone.
Also, many people are concerned that drones could enable
new invasions of personal privacy. Drones can be equipped with
cameras and recording devices and can be flown into people's
back yards or next to their bedroom windows.
States are beginning to pass laws to restrict drone use.
Many of these laws are focused on protecting personal privacy.
But some people are taking matters into their own hands by
shooting down drones hovering over their homes.
Innovation and growth are vital to the American economy but
that innovation must also come with basic protections no matter
which disruptor we're talking about.
So consumer protections are needed for those who use drones
and for those who come into contact with them. By addressing
these issues, businesses and consumers can have the certainty
they need to continue growing and enjoying this exciting new
space.
I am confident that we can encourage innovation in the
drone industry and ensure that there are strong protections in
place for consumers and I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses how we can do just that.
I don't know if Mr.--would you like some time? Fine. I
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burgess. The gentleman yields back. The chair thanks
the gentleman and this does conclude member opening statements.
The chair would remind members that pursuant to committee rules
all members' opening statements will be made part of the
record.
We do want to thank our witnesses for being here today, for
taking the time to testify before the subcommittee. Our witness
panel for today's hearing will include Mr. Joshua Walden, the
senior vice president and general manager of the New Technology
Group at Intel; Mr. John Villasenor, professor of public
policy, electrical engineering and management at UCLA's Luskin
School of Public Affairs; Ms. Margot Kaminski, assistant
professor at the Moritz School of Law at Ohio State University;
and Mr. Brian Wynne, president and CEO of the Association for
Unmanned Vehicle Systems International.
We appreciate all of you being here today. We are going to
begin the panel with Mr. Walden. Just an editorial note--we are
going to have votes on the floor soon. So I would ask that you
each adhere to the 5 minutes for your opening statement. You
will see the lights down below.
Again, we appreciate all of you being here. We will begin
with you, Mr. Walden. You are recognized for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
We have technical assistance on the way. You would think in
the major congressional committee that deals with technology we
wouldn't have wires running all over the place. We'd have a
series of drones picking up every hiccup and cough from the
witness table.
Mr. Walden, I am going to blame the press for probably
dislodging a cable as they were taking pictures of your
aircraft, and our apologies.
Are we there yet? I don't think any of the microphones are
working. Mr. Wynne, does your microphone appear to be on?
Mr. Wynne. Testing. There we go.
Mr. Burgess. Whoever's is working please proceed 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF JOSHUA M. WALDEN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, GENERAL
MANAGER, NEW TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INTEL CORPORATION; JOHN
VILLASENOR, PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC POLICY, ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
AND MANAGEMENT, LUSKIN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES; BRIAN WYNNE, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
ASSOCIATION FOR UNMANNED VEHICLE SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL; MARGOT
KAMINSKI, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, MORITZ SCHOOL OF LAW, OHIO STATE
UNIVERSITY
STATEMENT OF JOSHUA M. WALDEN
Mr. Walden. Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member Schakowsky and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on behalf of Intel Corporation.
We appreciate the invitation to appear before the
subcommittee to discuss the continuously and rapidly evolving
uses of unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs or drones, and the vast
economic potential of this growing industry.
Innovation has been at the heart of Intel's business since
we were founded close to half a century ago. To quote our co-
founder, Robert Noyce, innovation is everything.
While we are a recognized leader with 80 percent of sales
coming from outside the United States, Intel is viewed as a
leading American technology company for good reason. We conduct
approximately three-quarters of our advanced manufacturing in
research and development in the United States at facilities
located throughout the country.
We invest billions of dollars annually in research and
development and employ more than 50,000 people nationwide.
Intel's declared mission is to utilize the power of Moore's Law
to bring smart and connective devices to every person on the
planet.
With the help of Moore's Law, we have driven computing
innovation to the highest performing servers that speed
discoveries in science and medicine to low-powered computing
sensors that are always on and connected that make devices,
homes and cities smarter.
It has become increasingly clear to us that UAVs like cars
and watches are a computing platform of the future.
Applications and services by this new connected UAV ecosystem
will spur significant economic growth and will be driven by
innovations in UAV technology.
From infrastructure inspection to delivery of goods,
millions of Americans are on the cusp and enjoying the benefits
of this continually developing technology.
UAVs are being used to inspect bridges safely and
efficiently, allow for real time repairs. Mobile carriers aim
to keep workers on the ground by using UAVs for cell tower
inspection, an application with potential lifesaving
ramifications. From 2004 to 2013, there were 95 fatalities
associated with cell tower inspections.
Another up and coming usage will be having multiple drones
working in conjunction with a single operator used for either
surveillance, safety, agriculture and even entertainment.
Computing technology is what will help drive and manage
this capability with more precision, safety and accuracy than
manual control.
Technology can and will improve drone safety. We are
actively creating silicon architecture and computing power that
will create onboard drone platforms that will have outstanding
speed, performance, and functionality.
And our most important contribution to date involves
critical safety technology that will address real concerns
expressed by regulators and consumers alike. Real Sense is an
onboard sensor application that represents a key ingredient for
best in class collision avoidance.
It features several attributes for collision avoidance with
real-time onboard computing. It is intuitive, self-aware,
adaptable and self-guided. It will provide real-time depth-
sensing capability for a flying drone and complying with GPS,
altitude, and other on-board sensors can also avoid no-fly
areas and comply within regulatory limits.
I'd like to demonstrate the capability, if we could,
please. So what you see Jan doing is he's no longer utilizing
the controller and what the 3D Real Sense camera technology is
doing is essentially sensing using infrared and moving and
making sure that nobody can run into the drone. So this is
real-time collision avoidance utilizing 360 degrees of freedom.
Thank you, Jan.
So I think we're going to demonstrate the sense and avoid
of what the drone is actually seeing. If you could please look
to the video screens, hopefully. There we go.
So what you're seeing is the ring sense, or the IR picture,
of what the drone is seeing. Note this is not being seen by the
pilot. None of these images are saved, from a privacy
perspective.
This is an IR image the drone is seeing and if someone gets
closer to the camera you'll actually see the image get darker
and as they move away get lighter.
So this is actually the depth that you're seeing of what
the drone is seeing which enables it to avoid people and
objects.
Thank you.
Society, consumers, businesses, and overall worldwide
economies stand to benefit in profound ways if the nascent
drone ecosystem can develop safely, quickly, and in a manner
where governments and private sector work cooperatively and
expeditiously across a range of statutory, regulatory, and
policy matters.
We believe that it is critical for the United States to
develop a regulatory framework for UAVs that role models
innovation for the rest of the world. This framework should
allow U.S. companies not only to compete in the global market
but also lead and drive global UAV innovation.
It is possible to both improve safety and promote American
innovation involving advances in drone technology. However, a
federal government approach that is overly prescriptive
regarding the deployment of new hardware and software will
deter the private sector's ability to invent and compete in the
marketplace.
In addition, privacy is of paramount importance for the
public's acceptance in understanding the widespread UAV
operations in all environments.
Protection of privacy has always been built into the fabric
of Intel. Intel has embraced the Fair Information Practices
Principles, FIPPs, as the Global Foundation for Privacy
Protection to foster technology innovation. With respect to
drones, the FIPPs can be applied to the drone platform in the
collection, usage and distribution of data.
As Intel and others innovate and then integrate those
innovations into UAV platforms it will be critical to have a
seamless and effective regulatory structure in place that
supports such innovation.
Approval processes that can stretch close to a year should
be dramatically streamlined. Many commercial uses of small UAVs
should be allowed without filing requirements just as
hobbyists' use is permitted today.
Without the right regulatory balance, we risk delaying the
social and societal benefits and U.S. economic opportunities. A
recent study estimates over a 10-year span UAV integration with
national airspace will count for $82 billion in job creation
and growth.
Thank you for conducting this hearing and for giving Intel
the opportunity to testify in this exciting field of drone
technology which, with modern regulations in place, will
transform our society into a safe and responsible fashion.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burgess. Chair thanks the gentleman.
Professor Villasenor, your 5 minutes, please.
STATEMENT OF JOHN VILLASENOR
Mr. Villasenor. Good morning, Chairman Burgess, Ranking
Member Schakowsky and members of the subcommittee. I thank you
very much for the opportunity to testify today.
The views I'm expressing here are my own and do not
necessarily represent those of any of the organizations I am
affiliated with.
Today, an unmanned aircraft can refer to everything from a
small toy helicopter that might cost only $10 to a jet-powered
Global Hawk which can weigh 15,000 pounds and cost over $100
million.
There are solar-powered unmanned aircraft that can stay
aloft in the stratosphere for weeks at a time and hobbyist quad
copters that may only weigh only a pound or two and have flight
durations measured in minutes.
The Nano Hummingbird, developed by California-based
AeroVironment under DARPA funding, weighs only two-thirds of an
ounce including an onboard video camera, and that is technology
that is now almost half a decade old.
In 2013, a team of Harvard researchers reported the
successful flight of the RoboBee, a robotic insect that weighs
less than one-three-hundredth of an ounce.
These examples underscore the incredible variety in
unmanned aircraft and the near impossibility of predicting how
this technology will evolve in the future.
An additional complicating factor is the same unmanned
aircraft platform can play many different roles. For example, a
small quad copter weighing one or two pounds in the hands of a
professional videographer would be considered a professional
platform.
That same unmanned aircraft in the hands of a hobbyist is a
hobbyist platform and that same platform in the hands of a 10-
year-old child might be considered a toy.
Another issue and one that falls squarely under the
jurisdiction of this committee is that far more than in the
past unmanned aircraft are becoming consumer products.
In the event of a defect creating a safety hazard, this
creates some complex potential overlaps between agencies such
as the FAA on the one hand and the Consumer Products Safety
Commission on the other hand.
For unmanned aircraft that are marketed as consumer
products there is certainly a role for consumer protection. I
believe the Consumer Products Safety Commission recognizes
this. In fact, a search of recalls on the CPSC Web site shows
that they have been very active in issuing recalls related to
consumer unmanned aircraft products.
Of course, no one would suggest the CPSC should have
jurisdiction over a Global Hawk or that they should be involved
in developing regulations governing flight operations.
But precedent makes it clear that with respect to product
safety the CPSC will be in the mix and in fact has already been
in the mix for quite a few years when it comes to consumer
unmanned aircraft.
As consumer unmanned aircraft offerings continue to grow,
there will be an increased need for coordination between the
CPSC and the FAA.
For example, there will be some UAS products that serve
both consumer and nonconsumer markets. The safety issue with
one of those products might be initially reported to the FAA
and not the CPSC or vice versa.
The good news is that the CPSC has proven adept at
addressing an extremely broad range of products in the past and
there is every reason to believe it will be capable of
addressing the growing number of consumer unmanned aircraft
product offerings that fall within its jurisdiction.
In closing, I would like to express my appreciation to the
subcommittee for holding this series of hearings on disruptive
technologies including the unmanned aircraft being discussed
today.
With rapidly changing technologies there can sometimes be a
tendency to over regulate and in doing so to inadvertently
stifle innovation, impede future growth or infringe civil
liberties.
To ensure a balanced approach when contemplating new policy
solutions addressing these technologies, I think it is
important to take a full accounting of existing frameworks,
some of which can be more applicable than might initially be
apparent.
Integrating unmanned aircraft into the national airspace
system will open up a host of socially and economically
beneficial applications.
In addition, that integration will help ensure continued
American leadership not only in aviation but also in related
sectors such as robotics.
I am confident that with the proper mix of education, self
regulation and government oversight the overs helming majority
of commercial and hobbyist unmanned aircraft operators will fly
safely and in a manner respectful of privacy and property
rights.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on this
important topic.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Villasenor follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman.
Professor Kaminski, you are recognized for 5 minutes for
the purpose of an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF MARGOT KAMINSKI
Ms. Kaminski. Good morning, Chairman Burgess, Ranking
Member Schakowsky and distinguished members of the
subcommittee. Thank you very much for the opportunity to
testify today on unmanned aircraft systems, or drones.
I am a professor of law at the Ohio State University Moritz
College of Law and an affiliated fellow of the Information
Society Project at Yale Law School.
However, as a fellow panelist, the views I am expressing
today are my own. In my testimony I am going to focus primarily
on the impact of drones on privacy, which is a crucial aspect,
as many members recognize, of consumer protection.
For drones to be publically accepted and fulfill their
economic potential, citizens must be able to trust that the
surveillance powers drones have will not be abused.
Drones will be used for a wide variety of economically and
socially beneficial activities ranging from infrastructure
inspection to precision agriculture. In the best scenarios,
drones will reduce risks to human actors and enable important
information gathering at a low cost.
But it is precisely these beneficial aspects of drones that
they enable low cost low risk information gathering that also
raise the spectre of privacy harms.
While many uses of drones will have little to no impact on
human populations, a wide variety of commercial applications
will take place in residential environments where citizens'
expectations of privacy have been recognized to be at their
highest.
AUVSI, in its analysis of the first 1,000 commercial UAS
exemptions granted by the FAA noted that over half of the
exemptions were granted for general aerial photography, real
estate uses, which quintessentially impact residential areas,
followed with a third of the exemption, 350 exemptions.
Drones do raise privacy concerns on a spectrum with other
technologies. Like smart phones, they make surveillance more
pervasive by lowering its cost and raising the rate of social
adoption.
Like GPS, they make surveillance more persistent--that is,
able to follow individuals over longer periods of time. And
like helicopters, they enable surveillance from disruptive
vantage points.
Drones thus raise privacy problems both because of what
they carry and where they carry it. Where a person used to be
able to rely on a privacy fence, remote location or building
height to manage their social accessibility, drones disrupt the
use of these environmental management tactics that we all rely
on.
These disruptions have real social costs. Not only may
citizens fear drones or even shoot them down but they will
alter their behavior in ways that can be truly socially
harmful. Surveillance has been shown to cause conformity, and
conformity has costs to both democracy and the economy.
Multiple states have, as a consequence, recently enacted
privacy laws governing drones operated by nongovernmental
actors.
These laws are often but not always technology specific,
addressing drones but not other kinds of surveillance, and they
typically govern the moment of actually surveillance when
information is collected, not data privacy practices after the
information has been gathered.
The content of these laws range widely. At this point, I
counted nine or ten states that have enacted them. They range
from protecting from the moment of gathering in any location to
protecting only gathering information on private property,
which is a limited value when you consider where drones can
fly.
Privacy protection is crucially important but governing
drones also implicates First Amendment interests. Drone
journalism is a budding field. News gatherers will be able to
and will use drones to gather information about droughts, land
management and government actions, all information that enables
democratic self-governance and raises significant First
Amendment concerns.
A number of courts of appeals have now recognized a limited
First Amendment right to record. The scope of that right is
still very much up for question. And for this reason, I
actually caution the federal government against enacting
legislation that governs information gathering by drones by
private actors.
Courts will need time to unravel the tension between the
state privacy laws and countervailing First Amendment
interests. In the meantime, federal energy can better be turned
towards the data privacy issues that drones and similar new
technology like the Internet of things raise.
Drone surveillance implicates not just information
gathering but data privacy. State drone privacy laws do not
attempt to govern this data and this, I believe, is the place
for federal action.
The information privacy harms raised by drones sit, again,
on a spectrum with other familiar technologies. It shares
features with online surveillance. Information privacy harms
will largely arise when large amounts of information are
correlated, used out of context or used in a discriminatory
fashion.
Drone surveillance crucially differs, however, from online
surveillance in that the surveillance subject will not be the
person who clicks through a user agreement.
Like the Internet of things, drones raise the question of
how to govern information privacy when then surveillance
subject has no relationship to the product manufacturer or
service provider.
Our current data privacy regime based on requiring
companies primarily to comply with their own privacy policies
is ill equipped to address issues raised by the Internet of
other people's things.
A federal data privacy regime based instead on the Fair
Information Practice Principles, or FIPPs, embraced
internationally would protect the privacy of citizens who are
not subject to user agreements, would bolster FTC authority in
this area and would provide a backdrop of encouraging
industries to establish best practices even when they have few
incentives based on consumer relationships.
To close, I support and have been participating in the
Department of Commerce's efforts through the National
Telecommunications Infrastructure Agency to establish and
recommend best practices governing drone use and privacy.
In the absence of federal data privacy law, however,
industry is unlikely to agree to meaningful protection for
third parties and in the absence of meaningful privacy
protections drones will not get off the ground.
Thank you very much for your time and attention and the
opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kaminski follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentlelady.
Mr. Wynne recognized for 5 minutes for an opening
statement, please.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN WYNNE
Mr. Wynne. Thank you, Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member
Schakowsky. Thank you very much, members of the subcommittee
for the opportunity to participate in today's hearing on
unmanned aircraft systems.
I am speaking on behalf of the Association for Unmanned
Vehicle Systems International, the world's largest nonprofit
organization devoted exclusively to advancing unmanned systems
and robotics.
UAS have a significant impact on our society and economy
already and will continue to do so in the future. From
inspecting oil pipelines and filming television shows and
movies to providing farmers with aerial views of their crops,
the applications of UAS are virtually endless and they enable
researchers, public entities and businesses to do things safer
and more cost effectively.
UAS industry is poised to be one of the fastest growing in
American history. The AUVSI numbers have already been
referenced by several of the speakers.
There is no question that under the right regulatory
environment that these numbers could actually go higher.
However, we are disappointed that the FAA missed the September
30th, 2015 congressionally mandated deadline for UAS
integration and it still has yet to finalize a small UAS rule
for commercial operations.
As we wait, American businesses and innovators are left
sitting on the sidelines or are operating under a restrictive
exemption process. Let me explain.
Under the small UAS rule, until the small UAS rule is
finalized the primary way commercial operators may fly is
through an exemption process.
In May 2014, the FAA announced it would consider granting
exemptions for low-risk commercial UAS applications under
Section 333 of the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act.
Currently, the FAA has more than 2,400 pending requests and
has granted more than 2,200 exemptions to businesses. According
to AUVSI's report on the first 1,000 exemptions businesses in
more than 25 industries representing more than 600,000 jobs are
now using UAS.
These companies contributed about $500 billion to the U.S.
economy in 2014 and provide essential services to citizens
across the nation.
For example, Texas businesses have received 82 approvals to
fly commercially. More than a third of these companies are real
estate businesses such as Austin-based Boyd & Boyd Properties.
The Associated General Contractors of America represents
26,000 member companies in the construction industry. Some are
using UAS to improve project planning and execution.
These are only a couple of examples but it is easy to see
the far reaching benefits UAS will add. But while some
businesses are flying, the current system of case by case
approvals isn't a long-term solution.
Meanwhile, some of the requirements under the exemption
process are more onerous than those contemplated in the draft's
small UAS rule.
For example, the exemptions typically require UAS operators
to hold at least a sport pilot certificate. The draft's small
UAS rule, however, would require commercial operators to pass
an aeronautical knowledge test every two years.
In addition to helping the UAS industry thrive, putting the
small UAS rules in place will provide the necessary tools and
training to create a culture of safety around the use of UAS.
As more commercial operators are certified or certificated,
they will join the long standing aviation community, which I
have been part of for more than 20 years as an instrument rated
general aviation pilot.
They will foster the aviation community's principles of
airmanship and self-policing to promote safety and help thwart
careless and reckless operations. And because safety is
essential for all users, AUVSI, in partnership with the Academy
of Model Aeronautics and the FAA, last year developed the UAS
safety campaign Know Before You Fly to educate newcomers to
UAS, many of whom have no aviation experience about where they
should and shouldn't fly.
AUVSI also serves on the Department of Transportation's
Task Force on Registration. This collaborative effort to
develop an efficient process for UAS registration should lead
to increased accountability across the entire aviation
community.
Under the FAA's draft small UAS rule, commercial operators
would be required to register their platforms. Extending this
to consumer UAS users will help promote responsibility and
safety.
UAS technology is at an exciting and pivotal stage. It is
developing rapidly with new applications being introduced
nearly every day and at a rate much faster than it takes to
develop the necessary regulations.
We need to ensure that the FAA adopts the proper framework
to keep up with the rapid development of U.S. technology and to
maintain the safety of our airspace.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wynne follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman and there are
votes on the floor.
I am happy that we made it through all the openings
statements. We will take a recess until the conclusion of this
vote series. So until then the subcommittee stands in recess
subject to the call of the chair.
[Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record
at 10:56 a.m. and resumed at 11:43 a.m.]
Mr. Burgess. I call the subcommittee back to order and once
again thank you all for your testimony. Thank you for being
patient with us.
We have moved into the question and answer portion of the
hearing and I want to begin that by recognizing Mr. Harper from
Mississippi 5 minutes for your questions, please.
Mr. Harper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to each of you witnesses that are here. This is
such an important topic. Unmanned aerial systems, often called
UAS, remotely piloted aircraft or drones or whatever the name,
have certainly benefited the U.S. military immensely through
surveillance, reconnaissance and combat missions.
As has been the case throughout history, technologies
developed for the Department of Defense have tremendous
potential for commercial and civilian applications as well.
However, to do so it will be essential that we safely
integrate these systems into the national airspace, which is
not an easy task, as you each know.
While UAS has applicability in almost all areas which
require the collection of data, I believe that there are really
three areas which justify specific mention. Specifically, these
are support for critical transportation and logistics
infrastructure, emergency response such as search and rescue
and wildfires.
Finally, one area which is already showing I think possibly
the greatest potential is precision agriculture. These are the
applications.
With the use of the technology within these applications is
staggering and each should be a reminder to us that the safe
integration of UAS into the national airspace should be our
highest priority.
I am pleased that the Federal Aviation Administration has
chosen Mississippi State University, which is in my district,
as the lead for its center of excellence for unmanned aerial
systems relying on Mississippi State University and its 21
collaborating academic institutions along with over 100
industry partners to provide the research necessary for this
integration.
It is critical that we move quickly to execute this
research so that we can address such critical issues as sense
and avoid technologies, airworthiness, remote sensing, beyond
line of sight operations, cyber security and low altitude
operations to enable this industry to thrive.
Following in that theme, I would like to focus my questions
on FAA's role as we move forward and I will start with you, Mr.
Wynne, if I may, and ask you do you believe that the FAA has
adequately defined the roadmap for UAS integration.
Mr. Wynne. Yes, sir. I think there is a good roadmap
available and actually a tremendous amount of work that has
been done in the unmanned aircraft systems, ARC, Aviation
Rulemaking Committee.
So we know what the work is that needs to be done. I don't
that it is properly funded today. I think the center of
excellence is doing excellent work.
We have test sites as well that are not very well funded,
not funded at all, indeed, by the federal government. I think
it is going to be really important to move forward on that
roadmap to identify equivalent level of safety.
There is going to be research and development that needs to
be done. The center of excellence will do some of that through
its partners. We are participating in that as well.
The test sites were essentially stood up for that purpose.
But the FAA has to direct that. They have to--and in some
instances they need to be able to fund some of that with, of
course, appropriate industry resources as well.
Mr. Harper. Great. Mr. Wynne, there are clearly research
priorities that can enhance the safe integration of UAS into
the national airspace.
What do you believe are the highest priorities in that
regard that should be addressed?
Mr. Wynne. Well, the two that come to mind immediately, of
course, are sense and avoid. If I am not on the aircraft and I
can't see it I need to miss it.
So the question is what kind of technologies can we use for
that and, there is on board radar for things that are flying at
the flight levels and the military has been utilizing very
successfully to keep manned and unmanned aircraft separated
from one another for quite some time now in theater.
But we need to be able to develop those technologies. There
are some great technologies that are coming along for sense and
avoid at the lower levels for smaller aircraft that are less
energy intensive and less costly.
C2 communications also very important. Lost link
procedures--these are the kinds of things that we need to work
on first and are being worked on.
Mr. Harper. Thank you very much, Mr. Wynne.
Mr. Villasenor, the FAA must define requirements for UAS
integration into the national airspace without being so
prescriptive as to stifle innovation. How might it do so?
Mr. Villasenor. Well, first of all, I think it is an
extremely hard task so I have a lot of respect for the work
that the FAA is doing.
I think it is important to take full account of the
innovation in the ways of using unmanned aircraft that are
going on not only in the commercial community but also in the
hobbyist community as well because that is traditionally and
I'm sure in the future where so much of our innovation comes
from and it is important not to impede that community in terms
of their innovation.
Mr. Harper. Thank you very much, and my time is expired
almost, Mr. Chairman, so I yield back.
Mr. Burgess. The gentleman yields back. Chair thanks the
gentleman. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois,
Ms. Schakowsky, 5 minutes for questions please.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
Professor Kaminski, I wanted to ask you something. We are
always trying to balance, for example, national security and
privacy issues.
You also raised First Amendment versus privacy issues and
you believe that there is a federal role for us to play. You
did list, I think, four states in your written statement that
have some laws that are technology specific, et cetera.
So if you could elaborate a bit on what are the arenas in
which the federal government ought to consider regulating
drones?
Ms. Kaminski. Absolutely. Thank you, Congresswoman.
So the state laws that are being put into place primarily
govern the capture of information with the drone, best
described as drone photography or drone videography, and that
is the moment at which the information is recorded.
On the federal level, it would be useful to have in place a
data privacy regime meaning a regime that deals with
information that has already been recorded and addresses things
along the lines of use specification, making sure that data
that has been gathered for one use is not used for another
purpose, trying to ensure transparency for consumers, trying to
ensure some kind of auditing mechanism so the data is not taken
out of context or used in a discriminatory manner.
So the place for federal government, I believe, is in the
general purpose nontechnology specific data privacy regime that
complies with the Fair Information Practice Principles, or
FIPPs.
Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Walden, in the demonstration you showed
the safety feature so that they don't bump. But you also said
it isn't saved.
But certainly that kind of thing in fact could be saved,
right? And so we could have even better photographs of who is
avoiding the drone and, what assurances do you think there are
that that information isn't saved?
Mr. Walden. No, I think it's a great question.
The way that we designed this technology is really for,
again, detection and avoidance for an operator that is flying a
drone and so right now the technology is actually built
specifically with a circuit that only does that three-depth
mapping and does not save it.
So you'd actually have to go in and completely modify not
only the camera but the interface that we provide for that.
Now, that said, drones clearly could have a camera that is
attached to it that isn't part of the sense and avoid circuitry
or technology. And so clearly, we as a company continue to
advocate and support privacy.
I am quite proud of the IUs that Intel has among both
privacy, security, as well as safety.
And so we have a very strict regimen of how we create,
design and actually productize these things that have to go
through a third party review board internal to Intel to ensure
that we don't break any of those.
Ms. Schakowsky. A third party within Intel?
Mr. Walden. Correct.
Ms. Schakowsky. So, again, Professor Kaminski, is that a
real concern?
Ms. Kaminski. I appreciate Intel's forthrightness on the
programs that they have instituted and from conversation with
them appreciate the amount to which they have taken privacy
considerations to heart internally.
However, effective auditing mechanisms usually involve a
third party outside of the company as opposed to a third party
within a company.
Ms. Schakowsky. So that issue of--I guess it is immediate.
When does that erasing happen? It is automatic?
Mr. Walden. It is actually not captured. It has a buffer in
there. So it only lasts for a few seconds, essentially. So it
doesn't even store that with regards to this camera, again.
And I do agree and we do utilize, by the way, third parties
to come in and audit to ensure that we are doing safe practices
and following that. So I absolutely agree with Professor
Kaminski there.
Ms. Schakowsky. But some sort of a legislative regime, and
I heard you, Professor, you are saying we want to be cautious
or maybe that is not the right word even. We want to strike the
right balance. I wondered if you wanted to comment on that.
Mr. Villasenor. Yes. I am fully appreciative of and share
many of the concerns that have been raised about potential
abuses of not only this technology but many others with respect
to privacy. What I am adding is that I think that in addressing
those we need to be careful not to inadvertently impede uses
that have absolutely no privacy consequences at all
inadvertently. So I think it is important to be aware of
unintended consequences.
Ms. Schakowsky. What would that be?
Mr. Villasenor. Well, for example, if there is a state law
that prohibits photography of private property, does that mean
if I am, 3,000 feet up and I want to just take a picture out of
an airplane as it is coming in for landing at an airport, I am
sitting in a commercial plane, I can certainly do that and no
one has a problem with that.
If that same picture is acquired by an unmanned aircraft it
would seem inconsistent for that to be unlawful. In fact, it is
probably First Amendment violation to make that unlawful. So
those are some of the examples of some of the constraints I
worry about.
Ms. Schakowsky. OK. This is a really interesting area that
we have to navigate to get it right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Burgess. Gentlelady yields back to chair.
Thanks to the gentlelady. The chair recognizes the
gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Lance, 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Lance. Thank you. Good morning to the panel.
To the law professors, are there state laws currently on
the books regarding all of this?
Ms. Kaminski. There have been--I listed it in my written
testimony. I believe there have been 9 or 10 states that have
enacted privacy laws regarding private actor use of drones but
they vary greatly depending on which state you are in.
Mr. Lance. And to the distinguished law professors, do you
believe that we should take action here and should that action
supersede state law or should there be a regimen where there is
both state law and some law here at the federal level?
Ms. Kaminski. I believe that on the information gathering
front, the moment at which information is captured, that is
appropriate for states to experiment with legislation in large
part because it is similar to areas in which states have
legislated in the past such as the privacy torts or related
torts or misdemeanor such as the peeping tom torts.
When you are talking about privacy governance, however,
that's an appropriate place for the federal government to step
in and those two regimes could absolutely be complementary to
each other rather than preemptive.
Mr. Lance. I was taught tort law by John Wade, who was the
reporter for the restatement and he is deceased. I think what
would he have done in this situation. It just shows the
advancing nature of American society, world society and how a
new tort might actually come into play.
Professor?
Mr. Villasenor. Yes, and just to make sure the record is
straight, my primary affiliation is actually not in the law
school at UCLA and I think there is express federal preemption
in Title 49 that says that the air space of the United States
is under the exclusive control of the United States.
Mr. Lance. Of the United States, yes.
Mr. Villasenor. Right. And so I do have some concerns to
the extent that state laws, in some cases, would purport to
create a bit of a conflict there.
One of the most important and interesting questions, and it
relates very directly to the privacy question, is this tension
in some sense between where a property owner's control over the
space enveloping his or her property--where that stops and then
where the control of the federal government starts.
I don't really think there is much of a role for state
airspace in there. I think it is really between the property
and the federal government.
But the complexity is the trespassing and the invasion of
privacy torts and common law of the torts and the criminal and
civil statutes are, of course, at the state level and that
would be where you worry about things right on your property.
So it's a complex mix of federal and state laws.
Mr. Lance. Thank you. Does the panel have any
recommendations regarding what I mentioned in my opening
statement, that there were recently violations near sensitive
sites, oil refineries and one of the major airports in this
country?
And of course there have been violations as has been
mentioned by the ranking member here in Washington including at
the White House? Does the panel have any recommendations for us
in that regard?
Mr. Walden. So let me start.
Mr. Lance. Mr. Walden, yes.
Mr. Walden. Absolutely. I think that technology, as it
continues to progress and you utilize that such as geofencing,
which enables you to use altitude GPS as well as other sensors,
you can actually create no-fly zones and implement them into
drones or into other----
Mr. Lance. That can be built into the technology?
Mr. Walden. Correct. And it exists today in some drones.
Mr. Lance. Very good. And then I guess it does not exist in
the drone that is here on the table?
Mr. Walden. Actually, it does because what you do is you
program out certain areas. So, for example, in Santa Clara
where we are we happen to be located within the San Jose
Airport----
Mr. Lance. I see.
Mr. Walden [continuing]. Space. I cannot fly a drone. It
won't allow me to start the drone.
Mr. Lance. I see. So that drone could not fly over the
White House?
Mr. Walden. This particular drone is a prototype so this
one isn't even for sale. But as far as the commercial drones
that we----
Mr. Lance. I was going to ask my wife to buy me that for
Christmas.
Mr. Walden. Sorry. Not available yet.
Mr. Lance. Not available.
Mr. Walden. There may be other ones.
Mr. Lance. I see. Anyone else? Mr. Wynne.
Mr. Wynne. Yes, thank you.
I am a big fan of technology and but I don't think it takes
the place of airmanship which I mentioned in my testimony and I
think we have a big challenge right now. I am not fond of the
distinction but there is a big challenge between hobbyists,
producers, consumers, and commercial operators.
I represent predominantly the commercial operators here and
right now we are restricted from flying except by exemption. So
we want to change that in a big hurry.
My point simply is the sooner we have certificated
operators up and running, much like in all of aviation it's a
self-policing community.
If my ticket is at stake because someone who is doing
something that is putting the use of UAS at risk because of
being careless or reckless, I am going to want to say something
about that and the FAA will never have enough enforcement
personnel to be everywhere nor do they need to be for general
aviation or for commercial aviation.
We are a self-policing community.
Mr. Lance. My time has expired. Thank you very much to the
entire panel.
Mr. Burgess. Chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
yields back.
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma 5 minutes for
questions, please.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I may be going at
this a little bit different than most because the thought of
more regulations just hurts my head.
But at the same time what is the point of more regulations
if you can't enforce it. And sir, you just made a point of
that--it's self-regulated almost.
But there has got to be something done. Mr. Walden, I hear
what you say that it is built in but any technology that can be
programmed in can also be programmed out. And unfortunately
that may not be that particular unit but you can get it online.
I can Google right now online and get a kit to build myself.
I couldn't build it but there's a lot of people out there
that could. So how do we actually enforce it? How do we
actually police it? Because in our communities, and I come from
very rural communities, they are useful.
We can check pastures. We can check cattle. We can check
fires. We can check areas that we couldn't even normally get
to. We'd have to horseback into it and we can go into. And so
they are very useful, but at the same time very dangerous.
And so I guess my first question would be how would you
guys propose even looking into legislation that would be
reasonable to enforce?
Mr. Wynne. Well, just for clarification I was arguing in
favor of regulation.
Mr. Mullin. Well, I know what you're saying but it doesn't
do any good to just self-police. A guy isn't or a gal isn't
born a robber and it's an opportunity that creates them to be a
thief, right. And the first time you break the rule you'll
break the second one too. The hardest lie is the first lie.
Mr. Wynne. I agree with you and there is no technology that
can be devised for mal-actors.
So I think my point simply is that there has to be
consequences to flying recklessly and carelessly and right now
there--up until now, until very recently when we started
talking about registering hobbyists, all drones essentially
below or above a certain cut line that we would call toys,
which is what's currently being contemplated and worked on by a
very good task force, there was no consequence essentially to
flying other than careless and recklessly. And it is very
difficult for the FAA to enforce that.
What I am arguing is that as a community we stand for safe
and responsible flying but we need rules under which----
Mr. Mullin. I get that. So from the community what do you
propose? If the lawmakers get involved in this, come on, we're
going to screw this up.
None of us are experts in the field. What we're wanting is
outside information. What the chairman is doing here is holding
a hearing to find out information for us to build safely and
reasonably an act, some type of regulation to be proactive and
not reactive.
We're asking professionals like you to come in and help us
find this out so we don't pick winners and losers because
that's what we do.
Mr. Wynne. The first thing is we need the small UAS rule
finalized and implemented as quickly as possible. That is the
lowest risk possible flying imaginable.
Under 500 feet away from people, away from airports, within
visual line of sight by a certificated operator. There is no
reason why we can't get that done soon and we need to get it
done----
Mr. Mullin. So how would that be enforced?
Mr. Wynne. I am arguing that basically people will, that
are certificated, will be economically incentivized to enforce
their own rules and as is currently the case with--we are not
going to be doing things that essentially put our livelihood at
risk.
Mr. Mullin. Yes, but not everybody works with them. They
are a toy. I mean----
Mr. Wynne. I am talking about commercial operations.
Mr. Mullin. I understand that. But I am talking about the
commercial operator is going to be affected by the few bad
apples that is going to be in it.
And is there technology that exists? Is there even a way to
create the technology to self-monitor that? Professor?
Ms. Kaminski. Yes. So technology is not my area of
expertise but I have talked to a number of technologists
working on this issue including at my own university and I
think that the geofencing technology that was raised by Intel
is something that is a potential solution for good actors.
There are concerns that geofencing, if applied too broadly,
is going to end up restricting use of technology that would be
beneficial. So keep that in mind.
When you are talking about bad actors, however, then the
kind of technological solutions you're going to look for are
going to have to do with traceability on the one hand to try to
identify the actor who is operating the drone.
There are a variety of possible technical solutions for
making drones traceable and writing on the side of a drone with
a sharpie is not a technological solution.
And the other point I'd make is that I believe there is
significant of money going into counter drone technology that
is supposed to try to stop bad actors safely when we're talking
about those that don't integrate geofencing or traceability
into their own operations.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you. My time has expired.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Burgess. Chair thanks the gentleman. Gentleman yields
back.
I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions.
And Mr. Walden, just very briefly, do you at Intel have cyber
security solutions to prevent unauthorized users from
controlling your device?
Mr. Walden. Yes, we do, and once again, security is another
area where we hold that very highly as part of our values
together with privacy.
From a cyber security perspective it's connected technology
such as UAVs, clearly, will be subject to cyber tax and we know
that is going to happen and we just need to be one step ahead
and continue innovating.
We haven't implemented a security development life cycle
which is subject to technologies to industry best practice
testing.
It is important that UAVs are subject and then tested alike
and we are committed to doing that and working with agencies
and others to help move that forward.
Mr. Burgess. Well, thank you for that. I would remind you I
try to stay one step ahead of very clever and very nimble
people who have no end of great ideas on how to thwart things
that we think are good safeguards to put in place.
Mr. Walden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burgess. Mr. Wynne, I just wanted to ask you, like you
I am no longer current but I am a licensed general aviation
pilot, instrument rated.
I appreciate your comments in some type of certification
and knowledge of airspace maps. And I guess if I'm
understanding some of the other testimony it's possible to
program one of these drone devices so that it could not enter,
say, Class B airspace.
And where I live in Lewisville, Texas, the southern part of
the city of Lewisville, is in the area that is regulated from
the surface to 10,000 feet around DFW Airport. So do I
understand that concept correctly?
Mr. Wynne. Yes, sir. And prohibited airspace and restricted
airspace and there was an announcement yesterday of one of the
solutions that would do that literally real time with the
drone.
Mr. Burgess. Now, when you first start flying you fly under
visual flight rules, see and avoid and what Mr. Walden has
shown us this morning is kind of a new take on that.
There is see and avoid technology that they have built into
this, something that looks enormously helpful and beneficial if
I'm understanding it correctly. Would that be your take also?
Mr. Wynne. Absolutely, sir. To the extent that we can
perfect sense and avoid, detect and avoid technology I don't
know why we wouldn't deploy that on all aircraft.
Mr. Burgess. I wondered the same thing.
And then Professor Kaminski and Mr. Walden, a question for
both of you. We do spend a lot of time up here talking about
privacy and it is important but in this situation in particular
comes to mind whose privacy is it.
Professor Kaminski, you referenced a First Amendment right
to record. Did I hear that correctly?
Ms. Kaminski. Yes.
Mr. Burgess. So you have a right to record, and I
understand that has been challenged sometimes. People have
gotten into some difficulty recording just with an Iphone on
the street recording an altercation or police activity. But
there is that right to record.
Ms. Kaminski. It's a developing right. A number of circuits
have recognized it in a restricted way. So generally it's been
recognized as a right to record matters of public interest or
public officials, yes.
Mr. Burgess. So then this pushes the boundary of public
access, I guess. You fly a drone over your neighbor's back yard
and take a picture of their barbecue to see who's there,
perhaps a political figure, perhaps whoever, criminal figure,
and who has the right of privacy in that instance? Is it the
backyard owner or is it the drone owner?
Ms. Kaminski. Right. So I'm going to actually add in the
right to privacy for the drone owner is implicated by a
registration system, right, so the national registration system
that the FAA is putting in place ostensibly makes it hard to
operate a drone in private, right.
So in the scenario that you gave California has an anti-
paparazzi law that creates a constructive invasion of privacy.
When you look into an area you previously could not have
accessed but for physical trespass. So there are these attempts
at the state level to define privacy in those scenarios that it
will stand up against any assertive First Amendment right to
record.
Mr. Burgess. Because that actually has happened with
recording celebrity wedding and then that type of things.
So Mr. Walden, are you looking at technology that would fit
with that paradigm or is that just too hard and we'll have to
leave that up to the local sheriffs and enforcers?
Mr. Walden. I'd say that we don't have the answer. We are
developing our technologies in ways to protect consumer
privacy.
We are working with the NTIA on privacy best practices. We
do agree that it's an issue and we don't have the answer right
now but we absolutely are open to working together in finding a
technological solution.
Mr. Burgess. Unlike anything else, the technology is
proceeding much more rapidly than this humble subcommittee. But
we do welcome the opportunity to hear from all of you.
We want to keep this conversation going because this is
obviously, not a completed product.
Are there any other members that wish any additional time
for questions?
Seeing that there are no further members wishing to ask
questions, I do want to thank each of our participants.
Yes. Absolutely. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Mullin. I just want to follow up real quick. Maybe not
follow up, kind of change directions just a second.
First of all, I got to brag a little bit on our state.
University of Oklahoma--actually, I'm sorry, Oklahoma State
University--I apologize. That's where I went to school. I
should have got that right. There's a little bit of a game
coming up in a few weeks.
Anyway, they have been the leader in this for quite some
time. In fact, they offered the first graduate degree for UAS
and we're proud of that.
I also, at the University of Tulsa, which--give me a second
here, I got to brag on my nephew, he plays football for them,
Kyle McLaughlin--they have an advanced study going in right
now--and Mr. Walden, this is for you--that at the University of
Tulsa they are in the process of looking at cyber security
space.
Is there a concern with cyber security? I know they have
been looking into vehicles lately. But now they switched it to
the UAS and I am concerned about it from some of the briefings
that we've received.
Have you have any reason to raise concerns on this yet?
Mr. Walden. So we are actually working with multiple
universities in cyber security. We actually have sponsored the
chair at University of Florida where they have set up a cyber
security----
Mr. Mullin. Why Florida? Why not Oklahoma?
Mr. Walden. Pardon? We might be working with Oklahoma. I'm
embarrassed to say I'm not sure.
But yes, I think that, we have recognized years ago that
cyber security is an area where you need to continually stay
ahead and, as I think Mr. Burgess mentioned, the bad guys are
going to continue trying to go fast than we are and we are
looking to universities and partnering with them on ways of
preventing cyber security attacks.
Mr. Mullin. Good.
Mr. Villasenor. I was just going to add that, one, cyber
security is an extremely important theme and one that is
applicable to the Internet of things in its entirety and what I
often say is that connectivity has outpaced security.
So in the rush to create things that are highly connected
sometimes we find that there are unintended linkages that--no
one intentionally left these holes there but they're there
nonetheless and they are always found and they are always
exploited.
So it's an incredibly important thought and one that we
should do our best to stay in front of. But even then it's
going to be impossible to get 100 percent correct.
Mr. Mullin. OK. That's it. I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman.
Oh, gentleman from Vermont recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Welch. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks for that flight, by the way. After the committee is
over let's get those things revved up.
Thanks so much for coming in. One of the things that we had
recently was an incredible natural disaster in Vermont--
tropical storm Irene, nearly a billion dollars worth of damage.
A lot of folks stranded.
And it just seems--I'm sorry, I missed some of the hearing
but it seems obvious that drones could be very useful in an
emergency situation getting some information that's really
relevant to first responders to families.
I'll start with you, Mr. Walden, if you want to comment on
how you see drones as being a useful tool in the wake of
catastrophic events.
Mr. Walden. I agree 100 percent, and not only for
catastrophic events but also the ability for a single operator
to fly multiple drones in a safe manner to also help.
Otherwise, you're going to have lots and lots of people doing
it.
So I think back to--we need to, with the regulatory
committees in enabling single operators to fly multiple drones
as well as line of sight--out of line of sight because in the
case of natural disasters you're going to need that
technological capability.
Mr. Welch. OK. Professor, how do I say--Villanor? No, no,
I'd like to do it right.
Mr. Villasenor. Villasenor.
Mr. Welch. Villasenor. Thank you.
Professor Villasenor, are there any legal impediments to
being able to exploit the drone technology in the situation of
the catastrophic----
Mr. Villasenor. Well, certainly, there is regulatory
impediments. For example, beyond line of sight, autonomous
flight is something which is nowhere near being--there is not a
regulatory framework for doing that any time that I can see in
the immediate future.
And that is, as Mr. Walden pointed out, that is going to be
essential, for example, to deploy a set of unmanned aircraft to
sweep through an area that might be miles away from the people
controlling it. So that's an important area.
Mr. Welch. All right. Is that something that would--I guess
we can talk about that after. Thank you.
In addition a lot of folks like the recreational use of
drones but they can be, as you pointed out, I think, benefits
to consumers in many contexts such as real estate surveying,
property maintenance, farming, insurance claims management. The
drones could minimize potentially the time and cost for
consumers and businesses in all of those sectors.
Has any one of you studied the economic benefit of drones
to consumers? Mr. Wynne.
Mr. Wynne. It's difficult to actually capture it. The
forecast that we're operating with today, which is currently
being updated, of $82 billion in economic impact over the first
10 years, once we have integration into the national air space
system, does not contemplate the value added to consumers
specifically.
That is just specifically in our community. So the value to
the agricultural sector to existing business models, whether
it's insurance or utilities or construction, et cetera, that's
on top of that economic forecast.
If I might, sir, I'd also thank you for your question about
disaster relief. We currently have Global Hawks flying off the
east coast of Africa collecting data for hurricanes and doing
hurricane hunting that--a little bit safer and a little bit
more comfortable to be on the ground and actually penetrate----
Mr. Welch. Thank you. I've got one more minute so thank you
very much for that. I thought I'd ask Professor Kaminski a
question.
There is great commercial and consumer interest in drones.
That interest has surged. There's a number of questions that
have come up about what the limits are, what the regulations
need to be.
Do you have any opinion as to whether it makes sense for
the GAO to study current and potential commercial benefits of
drones?
Ms. Kaminski. I think that would be useful, especially if
there is some way of categorizing what the different kinds of
uses are and how the uses impact or don't impact human
populations.
Mr. Welch. I thank you all. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
yield back.
Mr. Burgess. Chair thanks the gentleman. Gentleman yields
back.
Seeing no other members wishing to ask questions, again, I
want to thank each of you on the panel for participating in
today's hearing.
Before we conclude, I would like to include the following
documents to be submitted for the record by unanimous consent--
a statement for the record from the Motion Picture Association
of America. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burgess. Pursuant to committee rules, I remind members
that they have 10 business days to submit additional questions
for the record and I ask the witnesses to submit their
responses within 10 business days upon receipt of the
questions.
Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton
When innovative ideas become popular, they can be scary.
They can threaten old ways of doing business and they usually
conjure worst-case scenarios in public discourse.
Drones are no exception. And we are now seeing just the tip
of the iceberg.
People across the nation are discovering new ways of
putting drones to work at a rapid pace.
Over 2,000 drone waivers have been approved and by all
appearances the vast majority are small businesses. Many of
these small businesses are in Michigan. One applicant from
Kalamazoo, in my district, was able to get his application
approved to use a drone because doing so would significantly
enhance safety for his employees.
Inspecting machinery and equipment or capturing video in
high places is dangerous, and drones are taking over these
tasks. As we tackle the safety risks with drones in the
National Airspace System, we should be mindful that they are
likely to improve safety for workers from wind farms to
utilities.
Silicon Valley is working hard to engineer new software
specifically for drones that will make them useful in ways
previously unimagined. These innovations on top of innovations
are America's strong suit and they can't happen if we overreact
and overregulate.
This is why we are hosting the Disrupter Series. As new
technologies emerge, they create issues of first impression
that must be dealt with thoughtfully and with an eye toward the
actual harms.
However, many of the issues that arise have been seen
before. And history can be instructive.
Many of us think of the impacts drones will have on our
privacy. We are accustomed to people walking around with
cameras and being able to capture us at our worst, but what
about drones?
Cameras were in use in the early 1800s, but they really
only presented privacy concerns after 1888, when the Kodak
camera was introduced. This placed the power to take
unauthorized pictures in the hands of the person holding the
camera.
Since then, American courts developed tort laws to protect
against privacy intrusions, which are constantly updated to
account for technology-driven contexts. In many ways, drones
are raising the same fundamental questions as the Kodak camera.
I encourage those in the drone industry to make safety and
privacy a priority, but I also encourage policymakers to think
about the actual harms presented and the unintended
consequences of overly restrictive regulation.
By imposing bureaucratic solutions in a growing and
evolving market, we risk shutting down more cost-efficient and
effective ways of addressing the very harms we seek to
eliminate.
I thank the witnesses for their participation today and
look forward to the discussion.
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]