 A truism about any new technology, including drones, is that the technology is merely a tool, and that it then depends on how you use that tool. That's an oversimplification of the way that technologies interact with our social systems. The tools shape us, and we shape our tools. So this panel, we're going to talk a little bit about that process with respect to drones, with particular attention to privacy. But I think privacy oversimplifies the sort of complex set of questions we're trying to tackle a little bit. We're also trying to think a little bit about how the information that drones can gather reshape power dynamics, and reshape the employment market, whether that's a person who used to have a job walking down an electric power line, inspecting it doesn't have that job anymore, or whether it's a villager who was not able to sort of have a synoptic view of the area around his village, now can, which changes the way that that person interacts with their government. So privacy is one very large aspect, I think, of these set of questions. Shannon and Matthew Lippincott, who wrote a chapter for this primer that is available outside, framed the question as the political geography of aerial imaging, which is their framing, not mine. And I think that sort of encapsulates the set of questions we're going to try and tackle a little bit amongst ourselves, and then amongst the entire group. John Verdi is the director of privacy initiatives at the National Telecommunications Information Administration, or NTIA for short, which is part of the Department of Commerce, which is relevant to us, the part of the US government that the president on February 15th, I guess, put in charge of thinking about this set of questions. So we're very happy to have John here with us. Lisa Elman used to work within the government, and now, both at the White House and the Department of Justice, and now is at Hogan Levels, a law firm here in Washington, DC, and thanks, Lisa, for coming. And Shannon, as I mentioned, wrote part of this book, and is one of the co-founders and co-directors of Public Lab, which is a citizen science initiative, and it's many things that I can let you describe a bit better than I can, and a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard in Cambridge. So thank you all for being with us. What we might do is each of the panelists will sort of speak a little bit about their own interaction with these questions and their history, and then we'll talk. Thanks, Shannon, do you want to start? Sure, I will go ahead. So I think probably the first thing that I'll start off by saying is that Public Lab doesn't deal with or work with drones in the typical sense of the word. We actually fly large balloons, weather balloons, and nine-foot kites that are tethered. So we escape FAA regulations around what drones fall into. But we started the organization back in 2010. I come from a long history working in community organizing and community education. At the time, I was working in fence line communities in the newest oil and gas fields of Louisiana, focusing on the BP oil spill. And during that time, we came together with about 250 other people to capture images via balloons and kites, sending them up about 2,000 feet in the air with very basic point-and-shoot cameras attached and collecting an alternative narrative about how the spill was affecting people in a disaster that had just a very large media blackout happening around it. So from there, we've been working for five years. Like I mentioned, we have a number of different tools that go beyond the imaging portion of it. But within our aerial imaging toolkit, you could say, we have kite mapping. We have aerial mapping with balloons, pole mapping. And then we also create open browser-based software. The kind of key one for us is called Map Knitter so that you can stitch images that you've collected from your devices. And it could be balloons kites or even drones. And then also Map Mill, which is an image-sorting platform as well. So I'll pass it on to you. Okay, yeah. Thanks, Shannon. Thanks, Konstantin. It's great to be here. Thank you, Peter, and all of you for having us. First of all, this is what I would call drone's fever. This is amazing. It's so great to see you all here. It's so great to see so much excitement and curiosity about this industry. And it's great to be here with you all. Just a little background on where I come at this issue from. So I worked for the federal government for many years. I worked both in the White House and at the Department of Justice as part of the Obama administration in a policy-making role focused on technology and innovations and emerging technologies and incorporating them into the federal government. In 2012, of course, when Congress mandated that the federal government integrate drones into our national airspace, the FAA, including our friend Jim Williams here, we're actively looking at those issues at the time. But the whole of federal government, all of a sudden with this congressional mandate, really starting to pay attention to what this meant and all of the various policy issues that come along with the task of integrating drones into our national airspace and what that actually means and kind of the first order policy considerations in terms of privacy, security, and safety that come along with that mandate. So I was asked to run drones policy at the Department of Justice and to participate on a White House inter-agency working group that was considering all of these issues, including with John and others that was considering all these issues at kind of on what should our privacy rules be with regard to drones? Our, do UAS present unique privacy considerations? And if so, what are those? If not, do we just need to update our privacy rules? Where exactly is all this concern coming from across the country? Of course, in towns and communities, we've heard concerns about privacy, about security, with regard to the use of drones and how should we handle those and think about those? So I worked there for a year running that effort both at Department of Justice, working on the Presidential Memorandum that came out on February 15th, of course, setting up what we'll hear about from John, this NTIA stakeholder process, which we'll deal with a lot of these issues in the commercial sector. And I now am in the private sector, where I'm working with the industry and helping the industry. Companies love drones and they hate drones. They love drones because they all want to use them for their intake advantage of their amazing benefits, but they hate them because they don't want unauthorized users to be flying over their property. So, which makes a lot of sense, of course, if you're an oil refinery, you want to be able to use them for infrastructure inspection but you don't want others flying over your power plant. If you're Disney, you want to be able to use them as fireworks in the sky, but you don't want others to be able to fly at your theme parks. So there's a lot of concern kind of in the community but also incredible excitement. And we're at such a unique time in American history and in history, generally around the world as people are considering these issues really now, for the first time, it's so rare when you're in policy making roles and working on these issues that you have very little data and whether it's safety data or privacy data, we haven't had here in the United States or we haven't had broadly authorized use of commercial drones, consistent use, it's very different than as a hobbyist which has been broadly authorized for many years, going and flying once a month in a local park is very different from what Amazon is looking to do. And so it's a very exciting time to be thinking about all these issues and I look forward to our conversation today and moving forward with all of you. Thanks, I appreciate the intro and I appreciate all the great work that Lisa and Shannon have done on this issue. My work focuses on convening stakeholders who are interested in unmanned aircraft systems and UAS. Folks from industry, technical experts, academics, folks from the advocacy community and others to try to develop some common sense best practices that can guide commercial operators and individuals as they roll out UAS within the National Airspace System. And the president asked the Department of Commerce through my office to do this as part of the February memorandum because there is a recognition that privacy issues, transparency issues, accountability issues have the potential to be triggered by broad commercial UAS operation and that there is also an opportunity here for companies and individual operators to build trust with the individuals and communities that these systems will be flying above and smooth the integration so that privacy and transparency and accountability concerns don't stymie the very real and valuable innovations that these platforms promise to provide. And so what we are doing at NTIA is essentially deferring to the stakeholder community. Folks who care about these issues, who either operate commercially right now under three through three exemptions or who intend to operate commercially under the FAA small UAS rule when that is finalized, working with those folks, working with privacy advocates, working with NGOs and working with technical experts to try to find some common sense solutions to promote privacy, transparency and accountability in this space while the operation is being rolled out. And we recognize that operators are gonna need to iterate in this space and we recognize that some of these questions are tough questions that folks are gonna need, as Lisa said, more data to form some firm answers around. But from the beginning, I think it would be helpful for folks within the community to have a common understanding of how best to address these sorts of privacy, transparency and accountability issues. And I think there's a broad recognition that lots and lots of UAS operation, whether it's inspecting pipelines, whether it's doing aerial photography on closed movie sets, whether it is working in the precision agriculture realm, doesn't raise a ton of privacy issues at all, if any, but that there are circumstances, particularly when UAS are being operated over populated areas and are capturing images and other data about individuals who are not participating in the UAS operation. There are privacy issues there, there are transparency issues there in terms of landowners and individuals who would like to know who are operating those systems that are important and that folks need to start grappling with as these systems are rolled out. So I'm looking forward to engaging in that process. We took public comment on that a couple of months ago and we received some really awesome comments from across the range of the stakeholder community. The first public meeting of that process is gonna be August 3rd. We have additional meetings scheduled through the fall. And we're also having conversations publicly at events like this and sort of privately with stakeholders, anybody who sort of asks for a meeting with us and wants to chat about these important issues, we always sit down and we're happy to talk. And we're excited about beginning the process and we're excited about what innovative solutions, industry and other stakeholders are going to develop as they grapple with these important issues. Right, so I might start first by pushing back against John in one small way. Awesome. That specifically with pipeline inspections, you say, oh, this doesn't really raise any privacy concerns. And arguably it doesn't if it's the owner of the pipeline inspecting it. If somebody else wants to inspect it, say a local community, it does raise, the company might say, oh, you don't have the right, for exactly the reasons that Lisa was just saying. That sort of minor point as a more global question brings me to both Lisa and John, you mentioned sort of this desire for sort of more data to drive sort of sensible regulation. It seems to me that to an extent, we need to reason from first principles here about what we want as a society. Like it's hard to get data about privacy to say, oh, my privacy was violated, you know, 7% and now I'm 7% sort of less free in my mind. So my question to both of you is when you say you want more data, what, and from an air safety point of view, that's a little bit less problematic. But from the perspective of privacy, what is it that you're thinking about when you're thinking about data? Sure, so when I think about data in this area, I think about the sort of experiential data that companies and individuals develop as they actually operate these systems in the commercial space, in real world environments, right? So you mean experience essentially? So, sure, experience, I don't know whether it's quantitative data or qualitative data, but for example, when we talk about privacy issues in other realms, when we talk about internet privacy issues, we have many years of experience with static websites, web applications and data flows within that ecosystem and within that business community so that we are able to, when we start from first principles, identify particular issues that pose privacy risks, that pose security risks and that folks might want to mitigate, right? And we have that level of experience. With commercial UAS operation, we don't have a similar level of experience right now. Folks who have 333 exemptions are building some of that experience right now. The FAA has test sites where folks are trying to collect data and build some of that experience right now. But what you don't have is several years of experience of actual in-the-wild commercial operation from which folks can draw qualitative data, from which they can draw quantitative data and so that we can take a look at those first principles and then say, all right, here are some really crucial use cases that we know are major issues that we need to address in the privacy space and the transparency space and the accountability space. Instead, what we have are really smart folks in the commercial sector, in the advocacy sector, in the academic sector who are thinking a lot about these issues and who have certainly flagged privacy issues, transparency issues, accountability issues that we can talk about and build best practices around. But what's missing right now is a really large volume of experiential data. So that's what I mean when I talk about it. Lisa, I don't know what you mean when you talk about data. Yeah, well, I would just add, just building on what you just described in terms of once we have this experiential data, what do the American people want? What are our preferences? And one thing that I saw, there was a University of Oklahoma, a few researchers from University of Oklahoma recently did a very interesting study, and it was in the use of public drones. So this is in the law enforcement context. But they did a survey asking folks whether they, how they felt about the use of drone cameras versus ground-based cameras that captured the same information, the same data, and took the same exact photos by the ground-based camera versus the drone camera and drone-mounted camera. And the level of opposition was way higher for the drone-mounted camera than for the ground-based camera, even though it was capturing the same exact information for monitoring traffic incidents, that kind of thing. So for some reason, across the country, there has been a part of it as a lack of experience with drones. We're all coming at this in the fact that a small hobbyist drone has the same name as a predator or a reaper that are flown overseas for very different purposes. And so there's a lot of confusion across the country in terms of drones and what their capabilities are and what we're talking about here. As the experience grows and as folks become more comfortable with drones and see all of their benefits, I think that that will shift over time. But it's not until we get there that we'll be able to. And that's why this national conversation that we're going to be having hosted by NCA is going to be very important in this regard. So I guess in response to those a couple points, and then I want to throw it over to Shannon. I mean, we live in a democracy, and public opinion is important. But there's also a reason that we have sort of courts that sort of deal with, I mean, this distinction you're making that the public opinion was very different in a drone mounted versus a street mounted camera, the public's opinion about that is not necessarily a reasoned informed opinion. And that may be something where it's useful, where there's a reason that Oliver Wendell Holmes sort of writes about privacy, and we don't sort of do it all by acclimation. That is true, but I think that that's why we see all this action in state legislatures across the country, since those people are directly talking to their legislatures. And going to the point of sort of the way the legal system has tended to treat privacy, in the US, broadly speaking, sort of having a reasonable expectation of privacy is an important legal consideration, which is what worries me a bit about this sort of quest for experience and data. Insofar as you mentioned the example of the internet, as a sort of analogy of how we might want to do things. To me, the internet hasn't been, privacy on the internet hasn't been a tremendous success story, right? There's our emails are not, there's no reason why everybody's email shouldn't be encrypted all the time, because we send letters and envelopes. We don't only send postcards when I get my utility bill. And this isn't done, and other people might disagree. To my mind, this is a problem. And one can disagree about that. But what I wonder about in this quest for experience, if a sort of precedent is set that, OK, this company does X, Y, and Z with drones, and it's done. And now we can learn from that experience. It's not very good, but hey, it's already there. So now I don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy because it's already gone, which is why I wonder to what extent the desire for data or experience, whatever word you want to use, sort of pushes the can down the road. And we don't confront questions now. So let me be clear. We're going to start confronting the questions August 3. And in fact, we have already posed the questions a couple of months ago. And I think the president and the administration are committed to engaging on these questions now, and I think it's critically important. That is not to say that the administration doesn't see the value in data as folks move forward and that the administration does not understand that the UAS industry, particularly the commercial UAS industry, has valuable things to learn about everything from safety to privacy to supportable business models as it becomes more lawful and more widespread to operate these things. I don't think it's an either or necessarily. I mean, on others. And I would go back to your, for instance, around why would a corporation want me looking at a pipeline? So I'm going to come at this from who I am as an activist and a person who works on advocacy and has done a lot of work with fence line communities. And we share our air. We share our water. You could maybe explain what fence line communities are. Sure. So fence line are communities that are situated directly next to industrial facilities, pipelines, other types of infrastructure and that sort. I think very key to the way that we approach work, though, is if we don't need to collect data, then we're not going to collect it. If we can come to the table as stakeholders, if we can talk to a company with the community at the table with representatives from the DEQ or an EPA fraction and come together in the initial sense. Sorry, Department of Environmental Quality. Someone states its protection. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. If we can come to the table and reach conclusions without having to go into monitoring, I think that that's the approach that we prefer to take. When there isn't an ability to do that and when companies give communities pushback, data is an incredibly powerful tool to situate them as even players at a table. And so in that sense, I would say, well, you don't want us to monitor your pipeline, but this is also our land. This is our air. This is our water. It's a shared resource in a shared area. I would just add to that that part of it, too, is almost like we need a public education campaign kind of like the know before you fly, knowing what the safety rules are before you fly. There already are a whole lot of privacy rules that are not technology specific that are already in place. So if I trespass on someone's land, whether I go on there with a drone or myself, that's a trespass. There is nuisance laws. There's intrusion upon seclusion. There are various state laws, misappropriation of trade secrets, for example. If I try to take, you know, go on to someone's property and another company's property and steal their trade secrets. So whether it's happening with a drone or whether it's happening with a pole camera or any other technology, there are rules that do protect us already, but there has been a lot of, you know, this is what people are watching about. Did anyone see that modern family episode that with the drone? So the family was out sunbathing in their backyard and a drone came, flew above the swimming pool. The father to try to, they're all in their bathing suits. The father to try to, you know, get the net, the drone away, tries to take it out and the father's swimming trunks fall down. So the next day on the internet, it's on YouTube, there's a video of this, you know, the naked father trying to swat the drone away and the video is called drone one, idiot nothing. Now this is what the American public, this is what the American public is seeing. And so yes, it is true that perhaps folks, you know, it might be based on some kind of fear, but this is what, as an industry, we do need to confront as a government, we do need to confront. And so perhaps some kind of public education campaign around these issues where recognizing that people are protected in many ways already. Perhaps we do need some UAS specific rules and we should talk about that, but there already are a broad range of privacy rules that are already out there. But I think this question of sort of what constitutes trespassing with respect to a drone has not worked its way through the courts yet, to my knowledge at least. So even if laws exist, how those laws work out in practice is still unknown. Sure, and to flag that those laws have been developed in an era where air travel is relatively expensive, relatively technologically burdensome, and largely in the manned aircraft space operated by giant devices that cannot hover over a pool in a backyard without making their presence really well known, right? If it's a rotary aircraft, if it's a manned rotary aircraft. And one of the real promises of UAS technology is that it has a lower cost of entry, it is more nimble, the platform is more flexible in a lot of ways, and with those benefits come different implications for state tort laws and a variety of other laws that have cropped up and analyzed over the years with the assumption that operation of aircraft is expensive, that the aircraft themselves are large and obvious, and how do courts sort that out? That's a great question, and I think we're going to see. All right, well, I'd love to sit here and ask you questions till the audience is all entirely asleep, but I will not. We'll start with Gregor here in the front and then work our way back. Hi, a lot of this privacy discussion comes around the talks about individuals and being monitored in their swimming pool. I think Lisa bring up a really important point about the privacy of corporations, and as Shannon coming from a social advocacy community organizing perspective, the question about the public's right to kind of monitor and document the activities of a corporation is important, and in Peru, the reason there was oil spills and the photograph there was largely because it went unreported. Nobody knew what was happening until the communities fought for their right to photograph and document what was happening, and the company did not want to allow it, and I see a similar battle happening at the moment as possible to take a balloon and fly over the BP oil spill and show what the company was not allowing people to do on the ground. Drones are kind of circumventing this and allowing greater transparency of the way companies are operating, but the real question for me about privacy is how much of those laws going to be leveraged to kind of cut off this new avenue we have of calling companies to account for making their operations more transparent? I think it's a great question. I mean, I think it's an open question, and I think that's a conversation that we're going to have at the NTIA Secular Session. There's a clear balance between our right to know and also like news gatherers, for example. They have a First Amendment right to report the news and want to be able to use drones for that, but then, of course, we also have the privacy concern on the other side, and so you have that tension, and we see that tension running through many industries, and I think that's something that we'll have to have a conversation about. I know that corporations themselves are worried about their own privacy, but then, of course, what is the public's right to know, and they run right into each other, so. Yeah, and this was, this point was made, I think eloquently and repeatedly, in the comments we received from the public, from companies expressing the concerns that you express, public and news gathering organizations and members of the public expressing the desire for greater transparency and greater information flows, and how that sort of structure maps onto the individual privacy issues as well, and I'm looking forward to a robust conversation about it. I don't know that there are easy answers, but my hope is, and my expectation is, that folks are gonna be able to make progress on those issues and try to identify best practices that will at least be able to guide operation as it rolls out. The question then is how the actual commercial operation and individual operation identifies issues that we don't even know at this stage exist, right, and then how we grapple with those, so I think it's gonna be an iterative process. And I think just quickly, this balancing between the right to gather information and the right to privacy is not, I mean, there's not a universal prescription that balances that, and I think there's a desire, certainly on the part of industry, a logical desire to harmonize rules across jurisdictions, whether within states, within the US, or within nations in the world, and I think the difficulty of balancing that argues for not pushing harmonization too much, that different places can experiment with that balance in different ways, and it's useful to have variety in that sense. Peter. Thank you. I think, Constantine, you touch on this in the primer, which is the idea of who owns the heir. And so the question that I put to you is, how is government thinking about the envelope of private property rights? We're one of the few countries that has the default position that we own to the depths of hell, to the heights of heaven, and there have been some adjustments to that. And of course, drones are driving changes in that regard, and your modern family example is California, so they use a net. If they're in Texas, they probably use a shotgun. Great. It's a greater effect. But how do you think, how do you think, because there's a whole new area of law, if you will, and how are you thinking about that idea of who owns the airspace? So I think that the framing right now within the government, I'm not gonna speak for our fellow agencies. I mean, one of the things that we're trying to do is actually reach out to the community and get input from everybody, not just one sector, but everyone who has an interest in this to see if we can find some kind of agreeable answer to that question. And I think it's a super hard question, right? In terms of how that issue can be framed, I don't think that there's any question when you look at trespass law and nuisance law at the state level that operating a UAS six inches off the ground on private property that you don't own or control and that is causing a hazard or a nuisance to the owner of the property is certainly outside the bounds of what tort law is willing to recognize as a lawful use, right? I think that there's also the issue of flying, a very large UAS 40,000 feet above private property is at the other end of that extreme. Those are easy cases because they're edge cases, right? Nobody wants a UAS chopping them off at the ankles and everybody understands that UAS at 40,000 feet implicate different concerns. And where things fall in between those two extremes, super hard question. And we're trying to get the framing right and we're trying to get the wisdom of the academics, the industry folks, the advocates who have been thinking really hard about these issues and see if we can get some sort of synthesis and some sort of consensus on it. Yeah, and I would just add there's been a very dynamic discussion in the community about this issue exactly. It makes a lot of sense that if I own the airspace in my own backyard and why can't I take photos of my property and want to be able to use those photos to sell it right now that would be illegal because it's a commercial use that's my backyard. There was of course the 1946 Supreme Court decision, Cosby decision, which said you have control of the immediate reaches of your land. Now that this is all considered navigable airspace, I think the FAA would say from the blade of grass up is navigable airspace and they have the ability to regulate to keep the airspace safe and secure. So I think on the safety side, one question would be well, even if you're flying 90 feet in the air, what if it's a flyaway, there's reasons perhaps that regulators would want to regulate in that area, but then there's of course also reasons that the owner of their property wants to be able to use the immediate reaches of their land for their own use. Now I've seen a lot of proposals, there is one floating around of course that would say that would basically give you control 350 feet, perhaps, maybe the right answer is 200, maybe it's whatever it is, of course also allowing where does, if an Amazon delivery drone is flying across, like where are they able to traverse the airways as well? So there's a lot of competing interests here and I think it's a very, very important topic for conversation moving forward. We're running a bit short on time, but I do want to give everyone a chance to talk. So the first four people to get to the microphone, if we'll just go in a row, keep your interventions brief, and then we'll give the panel a chance to conclude and then move on to the next panel. This is a fascinating conversation, but can you pose some hypothetical end positions on these, would it be a federal law, local law, guidelines, what exactly are we talking about like 20 years down the line, what would it be? And my other question is, is there an organized opposition to drones? Lisa, you can take the last one first. Yeah, the answer is yes, there's absolutely an organized opposition. I mean, look, there's a lot of concern about the use of drones, whether by companies or by law enforcement, or a lot of the laws that you see proposed across the country actually are aimed at public agencies, state or local agencies being able to use them without a warrant, that kind of thing. So you have a lot of the advocates that are concerned about whether the ACLU or others that are very, very organized and concerned about the use of drones. As far as your first question, I think privacy has traditionally been regulated at the state level, it's traditionally a state law issue. And there are some federal laws on privacy, but they're pretty focused in certain areas where there's a clear need. I think the best practices are a great place to start. I think we go from there and see what we need. But in the meantime, we're definitely seeing lots of different states come up with lots of different proposed solutions. And I think we'll have to see how those play out. And just to clarify, by my interpretation, at least the ACLU's writing on this issue has been fairly nuanced and sort of like, they're not like anti-drone. Yeah, just to be clear. But there is, but there is. We're down to two more. We went too long for that. I just wanted to understand this. So for instance, with the San Monica Bay, Los Angeles Basin, if there were three places that you thought about, let's say the Chevron Refinery, a private estate in Malibu, and a boat, either a small privately owned boat or a oil tanker in the bay itself, are these, what is the law now on covering or being close by to any of these sites? Is there any established laws? So are you starting from scratch with your legislation? Thank you. Well, California actually just recently passed. It's a platform neutral law, but it was geared at paparazzi using drones that would impede a reasonable expectation of privacy. So in California, if you're talking about privacy in California, they would actually have to abide by that law. I will mention a NOTAM that was, the FAA issues noticed to airmen and there is one that would apply, for example, to oil refineries. It doesn't prohibit flying over oil refineries. It prohibits loitering above oil refineries, power plants, dams, that kind of thing. So there are some protections, but there is nothing that says you may not fly over an oil refinery, for example. There are in general, and Lisa, correct me if I'm wrong here, restrictions about flying below 500 feet for like, for manned aircraft. So in terms of what already existed, this is all. And there's of course restricted airspace. So we can't fly anywhere here in Washington, D.C. But there's various restricted airspace around the country and you can't really fly unless you coordinate with local air traffic controllers you can't fly within five miles when they report that kind of thing. So, yeah. We'll have Walter analyze the microphone. I think the last one. So I'm coming from a completely different angle. I'm a land surveyor. I'm using drones for mapping. I think that's a bona fide application. So all of these privacy issues set aside. I've been in this business now since 2008, waiting for those ever-promised regulations to materialize so that I can have some direction in life. Now you're telling us today, you want data. I could have given you data, my flight data, since 2008 if only you didn't banish and ban me from participating commercially in this kind of activity. You could have had a huge pool of data by now, possibly even had the regulations in place. So I don't understand why we can't have an approach of let's wait and see how this pans out before we preempt and dream up all sorts of phobic kind of scenarios that make us all feel insecure and stop us from progressing in this field. All right, go ahead. So I very much appreciate the point. And what I would flag concerning the administration's approach to this is the FAA has a very serious safety mandate in this area. And I am not, I don't work at the FAA. I am not an expert on the FAA's operation in this field. I do have some of my best friends are at the FAA and they seem like lovely folks. But I think that that process is moving forward. It's working itself out and I would be happy to follow up offline and sort of make those connections and have those discussions about the pace at which integration is occurring. Privacy transparency and accountability, the goal of our engagement is not to dream up hypothetical scare scenarios that will stymie development in this really important area. What we are trying to do instead is work with folks on a voluntary basis to try to identify best practices that will really smooth the integration. And I'm hopeful that that community-driven effort is going to be successful. So, but I very much appreciate the point. And I would just add you highlight a very important point which is a timeless issue, a timeless question of policy always lags behind technology. Technology is always moving more quickly than policymaking. So, and I like to talk about the concept of polarization. Policymaking must promote innovation, but innovators must also work hand in hand with policy makers. And now in moving forward, we've seen a bunch of, we now have a proposed rule out there, robust conversation, we're moving. It's the 333 process has become streamlined and it's much easier to be able to engage or sorry, fly drones commercially. And moving forward, I think it's very important for all of us in this room, innovators as well as policy makers to really work together to craft technology solutions to some of the privacy issues, for example, that we've talked about today. I told everybody else participating in the day that I was going to be very strict with time and I've now lost all credibility having let my panel run over. So we'll move on to the next one, but thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you.