Suchergebnisse

ew technologies that simplify lives and improve our understanding of the world around us inevitably pose new, difficult legal questions. This maxim is true for commercial drones. The recent proliferation of these devices creates a multitude of opportunities for commercial use. To borrow a phrase from Justice Robert H. Jackson, the ability of drones to navigate the sky like "vagrant clouds"4 also means that these devices pose significant regulatory challenges for federal, state, and local governments. Governments attempting to address the safety, privacy, and region- specific concerns raised by increased commercial drone use must also consider the concomitant burdens placed on commercial drone use. This Note proceeds in four parts. Part I highlights novel journalistic uses of drones for content production and investigative reporting and discusses the pitfalls of under- or overregulating commercial drones. Part II details the current state of federal, state, and local regulation of commercial drone use. Keeping in mind potential changes that may result to the FAA's Part 107 commercial drone regulations from the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, this Note considers the FAA's current regulations as a baseline for whether new regulations would help or hinder drone journalism. The state and local picture is more intricate, and this Note discusses those regulations in three parts: safety regulations, privacy regulations, and region-specific regulations. Part III discusses federal safety regulations and the First Amendment and proposes simplifying the regulatory picture by preempting most state and local safety regulations. Part IV examines whether the federal regulatory scheme preempts state and local privacy regulations and common law torts, the application of those common law torts, and First Amendment limitations on state and local privacy regulations. The Conclusion details how an aspiring drone journalist would experience the regulatory scheme proposed herein.

In unserem Beitrag fassen wir drei Themen einer jüngst veröffentlichten Studie zur Technikfolgenabschätzung ziviler Drohnen zusammen. Erstens legen wir dar, dass der Rechtsbegriff der Drohne unklar geregelt ist und dass eine technische Definition des Begriffs "Drohne" der falsche Weg ist. Wir präsentieren eine alternative Einbindung des Drohnenbegriffs in das europäische Luftfahrtrecht. Zweitens beschreiben wir die Komplexität der technisch zu regelnden Aspekte, um eine Einbindung von Drohnen in das Luftraumsystem ohne direkten Sichtkontakt zu ermöglichen. Wir beschreiben das Problem der technischen Sicherheit und die Komponenten eines Verkehrsmanagementsystems für Drohnen. Drittens verdeutlichen wir, dass bei der Bewältigung der ethischen, rechtlichen und sozialen Herausforderungen von Drohnen eine Vollzugslücke besteht, insbesondere im Datenschutz.

Recently, governments, commercial firms, and individuals have increased their use of unmanned aerial vehicles (i.e., "drones"). As with many new technologies, drone use has outpaced government oversight. Attempts to regulate the technology have been met with intense public backlash. Therefore, governments need to understand the public's preferences for a regulatory regime. Analyzing national survey data, we address two questions: (a) What policies do Americans prefer for the regulation of drones? and (b) Does the public believe the federal, state, or local government or nongovernmental actors should be responsible for regulating drone use? Public preferences are one of several important inputs affecting policymaking; therefore, our results provide an important overview of current public opinion toward drone policy, as well as a theoretical blueprint for understanding how such opinions might fluctuate overtime.