 All right. So welcome to our, we're track one here, our 11 o'clock talk is who will rule the sky. We have Matt Cagle and Eric Chen here to give us a nice talk. And please help me welcome Matt and Eric. Yeah. Hi, everyone. Sure. I can stand up. Hey, everyone. I'm Matt Cagle. I'm a technology and civil liberties policy attorney at the ACLU of Northern California. And today we're here to talk about drones owned by people like you and me, not drones used by law enforcement, but drones owned by normal human beings. There's a ton of really interesting policy issues that private or civilian drone ownership raises. And they're going to be decided by manufacturers, they're going to be decided by policy makers and they're going to be decided by people who understand code. So free expression and privacy are obviously central issues at the core of civilian drone use. And we're going to, excuse me, today we're going to talk about those issues through the lens of two pretty interesting case studies. But first I'm going to hand it off to Eric from DJI. You've got it. I don't have to hand anything off. Hi, guys. My name is Eric Chang. I'm director of imaging at DJI. How many of you actually, how many of you have seen a phantom in the air? Yeah? Okay. Slow clap. That's great. Thanks for that. How many of you have flown a phantom? That's a pretty big percentage. Okay. So everybody look under your seats right now. Yeah. I was told not to fly this on the way in. So there will not be any fun stuff unless we can get away with it later. Yeah. And anyway, DJI has been manufacturing phantoms and other aerial imaging products for quite some time. But over the past say two and a half years there's been obviously a huge explosion in the number out there. And if you do a search on YouTube or something you'll find several million videos of people doing great things and not so great things with them. And that leads to discussions like this. So one of the things I did was put together a short video. So those of you who haven't seen these videos yet can see what people are using them from. Not all the footage is mine. Some of it is. Yeah. And I do want to mention that if anyone has questions, I'm going to be looking at my Twitter mentions when I get a chance. So folks have questions and we don't get the questions at the end potentially. So just tweet them at me and we'll try to get to some of them during the talk. But here's the video. Okay. So that was an awesome video. Thanks for putting that together. So we're here today again. I want to emphasize to talk about the million use of drones. Oh, yeah. Thank you. Great editing. How I encounter drones as an ACLU attorney is predominantly in the context of government agencies using drones. As folks are pretty aware probably federal funding is allowing law enforcement to purchase any number of surveillance technologies. Drones are one of these toys and technologies that police departments want to get their hands on as well. But when it comes to the civilian context, it's different. There are privacy and free speech issues that the use of drones by all of us raise. And there are separate set of issues. And so today's talk overlaps with those somewhat. But it's really about drones used by people like you and me to look at police protest, to take footage of whatever things we want to take footage of. And so I'm going to hand it off to Eric now because we need to give a little bit of a framework for where the law is at on this right now. As folks know the FAA has primary jurisdiction at the federal level over drones. And there's been some recent movement on that and things are kind of in flux both for the commercial space and also for hobbyists. So right now we have proposed set of proposed rules that have not been finalized. And those govern commercial usage. What we're here to talk about mostly is noncommercial usage of drones both how people are using them today and how they might use them going forward. So according, I mean, if you look up here there's basically there are model aircraft guidelines that were issued in 1981. And then there was also an FAA reform act in 2012. And these basically carved spaces out for model aircraft hobbyists to operate in a space outside of FAA jurisdiction. So there are set of these categories and rules that you have to follow. So that would be less than 55 pounds with, you know, not close to an airport either three miles or five miles depending on what you've read. And if you're closer you have to notify the tower and of course sets of safety guidelines. So all of these things if you follow end up putting you in a category that is outside of what an unmanned aircraft might be, the regulations that would apply to an unmanned aircraft by the FAA. So and being a little bit vague and talking around this stuff because that's of course what the FAA says and there was a big comment period that was just last year. And I don't know, do you have more from the legal standpoint about this? Yeah, I mean it's really interesting that the FAA went forward with these rules for commercial drone use and then they specifically because of the law that Congress passed specifically carved out the space for hobbyist drones and it told the FAA, you know it should tread lightly in the space right now. And so there's really kind of a vacuum when it comes to rules that besides these general criteria and guidelines that the FAA has put out there, an extension of their previous model airplane kind of rules, there's kind of a vacuum as to like where the FAA is moving right now. Could you tell me, I was curious, Eric, we talked about the other day you said that there's kind of like a gap in the rules at least when it comes to like different designations of drones and how that might kind of play out. Yeah, what we're seeing in the U.S. right now is one giant category which is between zero to 55 pounds. Now obviously the kinds of products that are within zero to 55 pounds are huge. I mean, you can literally buy a remote controlled paper airplane right now which would be close to zero and that would be in the same category. So we're seeing a lot of, well some momentum around potentially a micro drones category which would be two kilograms and under and this matches what a lot of countries who have already figured this out have done which is categorized by basically by kinetic energy and how much damage can this thing cause. If it's small and fast it can cause damage and if it's big and slow it can also cause damage. And what you're seeing here on the right, what can I do with my model aircraft? This is part of a new publicity campaign called Know Before You Fly by FAA and some others and this is kind of the state of education right now. You get this thing in a box maybe if you buy a product maybe you don't get it but we're largely left to figure out by ourselves what is okay and what is not because the information is not ingrained in us yet because it's such a new technology. So it's a pretty interesting space. Now the other thing that complicates things is that these products, the consumer products that companies like DJI are making are actually the same products that are being used commercially. So it's very hard to just draw an arbitrary line around commercialism and have rules on one that don't apply to the other. So I think it's going to be a really interesting space going forward. And in the meantime while these rules are still pending at least for the commercial space the FAA has started issuing certificates of authorization and exemptions which they're authorized to do to the commercial space. But again the hobby of space is relying on a smaller set of criteria and guidelines that aren't going through a formal rule making process right now. So one interesting thing that is kind of missing from the FAA's rules and regulations that they're going forward with right now is guidelines for privacy and guidelines for addressing privacy issues and free speech issues really. So they're very focused on safety, getting drones into the sky in a way that they see fit. But as the FAA waits states are really moving forward with their own legislation. This is just kind of a chart I pulled together, only part of the chart that starts to canvas the sorts of laws that states are proposing and passing that apply to the private drone use, drone use by people like you and me. There's a whole other slew of laws that states are passing that govern and limit the government's use of drones. But there's a ton of bills and a ton of laws now, quite a few laws that govern things like peeping Tom statutes, criminal trespass laws are being extended into the drone space and states are looking at where the privacy harms and where do we need to act. And while there are absolutely legitimate areas where states should be acting in this space, there are also a few very interesting examples of laws that are just being drafted in a very broad sense. So at the top there is actually a provision that is now law in Idaho and this provision actually says you may not use a drone to photograph somebody without their written consent if your purpose is to publish or otherwise disseminate that photo. So that's pretty broad language and it's not really cabined elsewhere in the statue. That language could be read to limit your ability to take photos of police officers during a protest with the drone if you are part of the news media for instance. That language could also be read to limit my ability to take the SD card out of my drone and to take the photo and to send it out over Instagram for instance. That would be dissemination. Another interesting area just as a sidebar states are passing a lot of drone laws that relate to hunting. There are at least I think half a dozen laws that prevent using a drone to hunt for game or fish. So apparently people are either trying that or hunters are concerned that sort of thing is going to happen. But that is... So that would be to document hunting, right? Not necessarily to look for... Not necessarily to put guns on the drones these days but I think it's also to do scouting for game and fish. And so I think about half a dozen states have passed laws or proposed bills that would govern that sort of activity. There's also some laws that actually prevent surveillance of hunters while they're hunting. I think there's about two bills that are on the table that prevent and prohibit one from using a drone to surveil a hunter while they're in the process of hunting. Again those raise interesting questions and that might be triggered by animal rights activists or fear that animal rights activists are going to use drones for instance to monitor hunting patterns in people who are hunting. Here's another interesting thing. On the left you see a story from last week. A federal judge in Idaho struck down this law that's called an ag-gag law. You might have heard about these laws. They've been passed pretty recently in a handful of American states and they limit photography of commercial agricultural facilities. So this includes poultry farms, places where cows are raised and stuff. A federal judge last week said that that sort of law violated the First Amendment because it specifically carved out a type of speech and a type of content and said that it could not be recorded. What's interesting is just a few months ago the state of Louisiana on the right passed a law that prohibits it gets at this in a different way. It requires if you want to use a drone to film one of these facilities you need to have a license from the state. It has a few conditions. I think the drone footage will actually be owned by the commercial agricultural facility once you take it even if you have a license. This is just very interesting because licensing regimes and having to ask the government for permission to speak kind of raises the eyebrows of First Amendment advocates. I think what's been really interesting too is that the bills being proposed are actually about drones. They're not about the application of drones or drones just being cameras that can be in space. I think we've seen some application of existing law like tort law and privacy being applied to drones and when that happens we're sort of almost okay. I feel like that's a perfectly good use of an existing law but there's a lot of reactive rule making happening. I do want to emphasize that there are a few laws being passed and bills being proposed that are addressing the real privacy harms and privacy harms things like trespass with drones and where there were gaps in the laws and that's absolutely legitimate to address real privacy harms and places where your current laws are actually not addressing those harms. What I'm focusing on here, what we're focusing on here are interesting kind of sectorial use of legislation to get at the drone question and as you can see lawmakers are still really figuring it out. Here's one thing that might remind people of a story from last week. This is a law or bill that's currently pending in California that prohibits flying a drone over a state jail or prison and as folks may have heard last week in Ohio there was a story about a drone that was strapped with like three pounds of marijuana or three ounces of marijuana, some heroin and some tobacco and it dropped it over the prison and then a prison fight ensued. Yeah, that was a real thing last week and months before that even happened in Ohio, California legislator was thinking about a way that that might happen and trying to write a bill that would address that issue. Originally this bill also prohibited photography of state prisons or jails. The ACLU and a few other advocates raised some concerns and luckily that has been amended out of the bill. So that's all to say that the privacy concerns are not new. Privacy issues related to flight overhead are not new and policymakers coders and legislators or excuse me judges have had to address these questions before. This is actually from a case in the 1930s where homeowner sued United Airlines and Pacific Air Transport because planes were flying overhead and the court in that case had to figure out where do we draw the lines with this new technology that's flying overhead, does it make sense to allow the homeowner to sue for trespass because somebody's flying overhead? So the lines have been adjusted before and right now we're in a moment where the courts and lawmakers and all these entities are figuring out where the lines are. So anyways, that brings us to the case of a Kentucky man. Eric, you can talk about this Kentucky man if you want. Yes, so somebody in Kentucky shot a drone out of the sky using a shotgun because he said he was flying over, he said he was flying 10 feet over his property and taking pictures of his daughter, something like that was basically his what he said. And of course the media went nuts with this and that was the story. I mean this has happened a few times in the past we've seen people shooting drones out of the air and it leads to a lot of interesting discussions. Yeah, so this guy was charged with criminal mischief I believe and wanton endangerment and he claims that the drone was I think flying 10 feet over the ground and that it was taking pictures of his daughter and that it had been over his property or some other sort of drone had been over his property and he thinks his privacy rights were violated because his drone was flying over his property and the law here is really like unsettled right now. As far as trespass goes like trespass law in Kentucky only makes it a trespass if you go on to the property of somebody else whether the drone at 10 feet or 200 feet was on his property that's a question that the courts have been grappling with for a while and then they've drawn different lines but not really in the drone context yet. Sometimes folks will say that sort of thing is a nuisance and it's possible that if that drone had flown over his property like constantly and had interfered with his enjoyment of the land that there may be a nuisance like tort claim there but even that is kind of an untested space right now. Whether or not he can shoot that drone at all or if a tracer is probably going to fall on the side of no, you cannot shoot a drone because it's flying over your property unless that drone is threatening your life or your safety and you really think it is. I think in the same way that you can't burn your neighbor's car to the ground when they park in your driveway just because they parked it there like that doesn't really make sense that same sort of like does this make thinking is going to probably be applied to this space of drones but currently because there's no laws that go one way or the other clearly and because he shot the drone he's been charged with some crimes some very kind of broad crimes criminal mischief under Kentucky law and there are a couple of issues I wanted to bring up one is whether a drone is an aircraft and this has been something that I think was decided in court in November by some parties to saying yes it is an aircraft so you're not allowed to shoot at aircraft as far as I know and so potentially you wouldn't be allowed to shoot at a drone and those same parties FAA, NTSB would probably want to get engaged if someone shot at a drone but we're hearing actually maybe they don't want to be engaged so a lot of people are kind of calling that classification the question isn't an aircraft or is it not or is it this third thing that doesn't exist yet and will the NTSB show up when the drone crashes and gets shot down because there's been an air accident or is it up to the states to decide how the law should intervene when this sort of conflict occurs right now states are either ad hoc finding ways to address these issues or they're proposing and passing laws that would actually try to address them and there's going to be conflicts going forward I'm not sure we know what the NTSB really is going to do yet in this space but one interesting thing is like how will we know what actually happened here this is a visual flight record that the operator of that Kentucky drone produced from his iPad after the drone went down so I'm interested Eric and wondering like I want to know like how do we know in these situations like how do we resolve conflicts how do we know what happened what's being collected that sort of thing Convergence Hello Very good Thank you but I need the microphone So we have a tradition about a 12 hour old tradition with new speakers for DEF CON we invite them to partake in a little bit of a beverage Hurry up Paul Let them talk about drones which is really fucking cool Drones are really fucking cool Alright We can keep going We'll keep going while it's being poured So this is really interesting so the guy who flew the drone then produced his flight log and we're going to talk about logging and what that means in this space in a second and he showed his flight what he said was his flight over it and that perhaps he had never been under 193 feet and never stopped over the property and he was able to show exactly when he flew over the property and for how long of course since the media already had the original story nobody knows that but this is the sort of thing that could be used as evidence to show that maybe he didn't do what the guy said Yeah and the fact that it was 200 feet over the ground potentially rather than just 10 feet over the ground might actually play into any sort of claim he would have that there was like a trespass happening because courts well this is more interesting than courts Are these guys doing a good job? I think it's to get the drone a shot I think that is the loudest cheer for shot the noob that I've heard all weekend so good job guys Yeah, wow, alright so there you go gentlemen you know how this works to all the new attendees to the new speakers welcome to DEF CON for the record I just tried to shoot the mic I went I'll be sure to wipe it off alright so at least in like I don't know if the operator wanted sorry if the gentleman wanted to sue for trespass it might matter that there is actually evidence showing where exactly that drone was in the sky not just geographically but like the altitude it was at and this is a more detailed version So I wanted to show really quickly what exactly gets logged and I can talk about the greater industry as well but we have flight logs in part because users like gamification they want to see their flights they want to be able to go back and refer to where they've been flying this one on the right is a flight that I did not too long ago in Italy and it shows this flight path along with where I took pictures and it stores things like it also stores your stick movements which is very interesting flight logs not only because users have asked for this feature but also because when someone says they had a fly away or the drone malfunctioned we can take the log data if they submitted to us and look at it and actually see where their sticks were we can see exactly what they did during flight to determine whether they did something or whether we did something and if it was something that we did then we'll fix it but if it's something that they did level of detail is there so as a privacy attorney I often wonder where can governments go and where can civil litigants go if there's a dispute and someone wants to put somebody in jail for doing something who do they demand this information from and what can they get from the drone owner and what can they get from DJI on our side we have two kinds of logging we have black box logging on board which lives in the memory on the flight controller and that logs pretty much everything all the inputs in the system including you know I don't know voltages to VSEs, RPMs of motors, battery cell monitoring that sort of thing we do not transfer those back to the app in real time what you get here is essentially where you were so GPS coordinates which is I know sensitive information altitude and what the user was doing with the sticks for example and we have a cloud sync service if you like which is opt in but I think all of these issues are new for this industry for essentially consumer electronics and toys do we want to do questions now or at the end because we had one here sure we'll take one real quick oh yeah so verification so we have not put that much energy into that the question was about whether you can verify that this data and so the answer is you know we essentially are going from consumer electronics basically toys into something that's much more useful those are all still open questions and what you see in traditional photography for example is that for example Canon will release a product that allows you to sign images to prove that they're authentic but their normal cameras even their professional cameras do not have those features so you're allowed to go monkey with the data if you want now in other companies open source products you have full access to the logs and the full logs are often transferred to the radio and because that's totally open there's really no attempt to even encrypt it you know so I think we're in a stage where you can find data that's completely open, not protected and then you can find companies like DJI who are doing things as they become more and more important due to numbers being in the population and then of course some just don't log at all so some governments are actually trying to address this issue of privacy and the ability to shoot drones, this is an ordinance that was put forward in a small Colorado town last year or earlier this year actually and it grants the right to engage a drone or aerial vehicle if it's coming on to your property it reads a little bit like a day out of a tea partier's diary but the FAA took this really seriously the FAA I think issued some statements that said shooting drones is not okay because you can't shoot aircraft this ordinance has not moved forward there was actually another bill in Oklahoma this year that would allow property owners to shoot drones just the same that bill is also dead now so just to say like yet again there's a gap in the law there's a gap in where the policy is and states and localities are trying to fill that gap in proposals there's actually one that offered cash too if you shot one down question how's it going I'm actually from Oklahoma and I have a 333 status the question is really to the attorney if we have a DJI matrice for example and we're flying it in engagement for commercial use it does have an FN number of the FAA how would the FAA classify that that drone it would be considered an aircraft at that point and how would they classify other aircraft that are shot at so your question was if you take a drone that is certified for commercial uses and you fly it for non-commercial uses during yeah during a commercial engagement if somebody was to shoot at our drone that is classified with the FAA with an FN number, tail number all that stuff and you mentioned earlier that nobody really knows if they're classified as aircraft or not if it is classified with them as an aircraft what is the law state about shooting an aircraft that is besides drones I'm sorry I'm confusing if somebody was to shoot in an airplane what would happen to them I'm not super aware of the drone shooting law precedent that actually doesn't exist the current regulations I know the FAA regulations they don't actually provide what would happen if one shoots at a drone specifically but my understanding is that current FAA, longstanding FAA rules are going to apply in that sort of situation if one endangers an aircraft or something like that but I haven't seen this actually be adjudicated the FAA has gone after folks joy riding with their drones and there's been case law created around that but there hasn't been as far as I'm aware that someone has decided in that context Eric do you have more on that I think we can assume that it's not going to be okay and the FAA is going to find a way to make it not under the law they're going to say it's illegal if someone does that another question I was just curious when you're seeing these policies being created are you seeing more on the end of the the privacy side or are you seeing them more of the drone operators seeing it more on the privacy side and so we haven't really focused on the many bills out there that are extending traditional privacy law into this space there's multiple bills that are saying you can't be a peeping Tom but with a drone you can't trespass onto somebody's property but with a drone what we're focusing on are those bills that are getting at privacy issues or just sectors of the economy with often a privacy interest in the mix but they're sweeping in a different direction a lot of the time so this brings us to our next case study this is from January of this year Eric do you want to chat about this I don't know if I want to but I will a phantom I think it was an original phantom ended up on the White House lawn and this obviously caused a huge uproar and I think what I mean I'm not sure that the details are actually that clear but what we understand what we've been told by media mostly is that a government employee was drunk and flew it out of his apartment window or flew a friend's quadcopter out of the apartment window probably lost contact and then what's going on probably lost contact with it and then it decided to go home probably lost power on the way and unfortunately ended up on the lawn and we have a DEF CON first we have a recreation of that day okay here we go we could do it with a bigger one do you need another shot first I think where's the lawn though yeah right so that's the White House secret service go for it now can everybody jump on it yeah everyone jump on it okay thank you for that okay now I can't fly to the airport okay can somebody get the drone please there we go yay alright so what was DJI's response to this I think there's a lot of unanswered questions which actually started so there's the public perception of what happened and what was going on behind the scenes so our response was to make pretty much all of DC a no fly zone and that caused mostly hobbyists to perhaps not be so happy but actually that whole area is already a no fly zone and because it's critical critical infrastructure those are the same rules that if you were flying a private aircraft you would have to abide by and so that had not made it into DJI's no fly feature set so what we had done not long before was make it very difficult to fly near an airport not the five miles that FAA had talked about but we had some kind of fall off for maximum altitude and you were grounded at a certain radius around major airports and it's important to note that these features the geofencing is not necessarily intended to prevent bad actors from doing things because it's not right now not that difficult to buy another brand fly without GPS in the long term GPS is unlikely to be the primary and only form of positioning you know there's visual positioning there are also things that are being developed now that would serve as redundancy or alternate methods of navigation so these no fly zones right now were done proactively to really prevent people who maybe didn't know that they shouldn't be flying in the middle of DC for example or close to an airport from doing it on accident right and I think your point about the restriction you've placed or that have been placed on geofencing in this case there's often talk of DRM on devices people own and not allowing computers general purpose computers and I think when folks advocate for more restrictions like this be it on a drone or on a computer that I own or a car that I own I think it's important to remember and this is something that policy makers especially at the state level need to be aware of is that when you're going after the bad actors and you're creating these restrictions in order to get at the bad actors those folks are exactly the folks who are going to be smart enough to that these restrictions aren't going to matter so I think it really it should inform it should continue to inform the way these restrictions are talked about and debated at both the company level and at the policy maker level one thing that's really interesting I think is that there's often this talk of I won't know who owns the drone that's right outside my window I won't know who's drone landed in the White House lawn what sort of methods of attribution are being imposed right now to create that sort of connection what's possible DJI specifically requires activation of new product in the same way that an iPhone does for example and this is not something that all companies are doing in this space but I think as companies grow up they sort of realize that we need to do something to help users and to help us to figure out who's liable but to also offer maybe some features that might be useful and of course customers can always make the decision about which one to buy so we have activation it's tied to an email address so it's tied to some form of real ID necessarily could I use a proxy like web address you could absolutely use a proxy you can use anything you want and the other thing that we have is serial number data so serial number data is loosely connected to how it was sold we don't necessarily know who it was unless they've registered but we might know what dealer purchased it historically we've gotten a couple requests we haven't gotten any super high profile ones and have so far been operating based on subpoena like a lot of companies do but as more information your newest model allows for streaming video into both YouTube and also into your cloud and there's going to be developing questions of whether and how law enforcement can gain access or litigants who want to like sue their neighbor for trespassing there's going to be questions about what sort of content is available to and what sort of sensitive metadata is available as well so another thing I had a question about is like was the initial firmware update mandatory and are firmware updates mandatory now or how did that play out very very brief period in which we had a mandatory firmware update but we very quickly made all firmware updates optional so right now they are optional so if we add something that users don't like they can choose not to update and we will be annoying about it until you should probably update there's a red thing that flashes pretty much constantly but we don't force people to do it now the question is if we patch something that was a bug security vulnerability then who's liable are we liable because the user didn't upgrade and these are all questions we're not sure right now though it's voluntary the patch would not come unless they wouldn't get the patch without the firmware update in complete form so this is another you can explain this Eric this is interesting so there's a whole software economy we'll get into this later if we have time but this is a screenshot of an app called AirMap which has set out to basically map all of these areas that might be a problem for flight so whether you're flying recreationally or commercially so you can basically toggle on and off airports of different kinds whether you're operating commercially or as a hobby heliports these things that might be hard that you might not actually know about and so we're seeing some companies grow up around no fly compliance safety very likely that we'll start to see a lot more integration between manufacturers who may not want to do this themselves or may, I think some may and companies like this so right now you have to check this yourself and determine whether you can fly there but going forward I think there could be a lot more integration and so this is just getting at two other sorts of no fly zones of recent vintage the one on the left is a letter that the ACLU sent to the FAA last fall during the protests in Ferguson there was an ad hoc no fly zone was issued by the FAA that prohibited flight around this area over Ferguson and the ACLU raised the serious First Amendment concerns with that sort of restriction where it wasn't based on like a compelling need to protect officer's safety on the ground and that no fly zone would have applied to both aircraft traditional aircraft and to drones there was an interesting one you told me about last week Eric that relates to Burning Man I went last year to do live streaming to the Burning Man Ustream channel and this year BLM has gotten a lot more aggressive about restricting drone use altogether so what's happened is they've come to an agreement with basically an application process based on merit so you submit an application to fly a drone at Burning Man and it could be based on artistic intent or media coverage or they have categories and there are lots of rules and they're going to issue 30 of them I think the day it opened I think on the first day someone I know applied he was on the waiting list as number 400 so there's certainly a lot of demand and part of this is because last year there were rules set up and everybody ignored them so it's sort of hard but what's interesting is that's a little model of what's going on in the US sort of blanket, no commercial operation and then section 333 exemptions being granted and then at this sort of smaller level around Burning Man you see that same thing happening so you see both the no fly zones at the manufacturer level also at the ad hoc governmental level and then private groups of people are deciding when and where drones should fly that's just to say it's not entirely clear yet where these decisions are going to be made about who can fly drones and where the authorities in flux right now and it's very interesting that everyone's kind of filling the gaps there was actually a bill last year so state legislatures also concerned about infrastructure there was a bill earlier this year in fact that prohibited photography of critical infrastructure in the state of New Jersey the ACLU raised the First Amendment concerns with this because critical infrastructure under this bill could mean like really anything including and it was so vaguely defined that it swept into the rights of people to collect information and to disseminate that information so states are getting at this from their own angle but it's not always with regards to like flight restrictions it might be they're trying to prevent terrorists quote unquote terrorists from taking photos of toll booths or bridges or nuclear power plants and this is all going to get even more interesting because what's happening right now is we're starting to see drones become a platform for developers that might be of particular interest here but there's an application layer now that would be basically the same as what we saw in the smartphone world drones will become a platform for vertical or horizontal applications to be written by third parties and so some of the first examples we're seeing are things like mapping kind of standard aerial imaging when data is being used so we're seeing 3D mapping and 2D mapping and using all sorts of different kinds of cameras mostly for agriculture, construction, mining utility inspection those sorts of things, commercial operations but we're also seeing some creative tools things that cinematographers might want if you wanted a very beautiful flight around your house there are some apps coming online in the next few months that will allow you to plan and preview them using 3D environments say using Apple Maps and then you just play it back and your drone takes off and does that same flight and it's repeatable so in that case if something happens do we just get terms of service when you run iTunes there's a 73 page thing but you're going to have terms of service for the platform and then the app they're going to be like no that guy is liable for players in this ecosystem there's going to be a lot more collection of information and no longer is it just going to be the SD card living on the drone there's going to be footage being streamed not only to YouTube potentially or DJI's cloud or also a bunch of apps out there who are collecting information say for real estate purposes or to survey property so again like if you're thinking of security and where the data is going to be flowing and there's going to be a lot more ways potentially that that data can be compromised and accessed by third parties so it's interesting and I think we have we can maybe take another question if someone has a question there are mics wandering around fascinating talk I want to thank you so in the early 90's or maybe mid 90's in the northeast I want to say New York there was a case where wildlife photographers cameras you know the hunting cameras that are motion activated on private property property owner found the cameras destroyed the cameras the photographers then went and said hey we have every right to photograph these beautiful deer or whatever and the courts disagreed said no you put free stuff on someone's property they have an absolute right to deal with it in any manner they so choose the drone question then what is that to private property and the photography of private property regardless of whatever is on it whether it's your daughter, your deer or a blade of grass seems to hinge on is the drone on private property so the question is have you seen a revision or a set of cases that look at the revision of property rights definition meaning air rights definition how high do my air rights go or do I have it like sovereign nations do into space yeah like we were saying earlier courts have had to grapple with that before as commercial airliners started flying over people's houses and say you lived in the path of the local airports ascent area courts have had to move those lines around before where the law has shifted at least in the trespass sense is towards lower to the ground is where your property rights end but again drones are different they can fly and get into private property in ways that traditional airplanes and helicopters couldn't so wouldn't be a surprise if the courts and policy makers had to readjust those lines again where right now again that's all in flux I have seen a lot of discussion about it but no real proposals for how it might change and mostly again it's around commercial use of drones which is certainly not close to the numbers that are being used in a hobby so here's an interesting fact I guess national parks have banned drones so there's an open question about whether you can take off across the street from a national park and fly into the national park they can certainly prevent you from launching from the ground but they're not sure where does the airspace start I think according to FAA it's at zero like you don't own any of your airspace so these are all things that are in flux and we hear discussions constantly about them alright guys thanks for having us today thanks so much