Skip to main content

Drones over America? Time for debate

By Daniel Suarez, Special to CNN
November 12, 2013 -- Updated 2024 GMT (0424 HKT)
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Daniel Suarez: FAA releases road map for drones in civilian airspace by 2015
  • He says privacy advocates complain but believes FAA's approach is sound
  • He says civilian drones inevitable and useful; we must hash out best guidelines
  • Suarez: Outcry over aircraft resulted in formation of FAA; drone debate is necessary

Editor's note: Daniel Suarez is the author of "Daemon," "Freedom," "Kill Decision" and the upcoming "Influx," high-tech and sci-fi thrillers that focus on technology-driven change. A former systems consultant to Fortune 1000 companies, he has designed and developed mission-critical software for the defense, finance and entertainment industries.

(CNN) -- On Thursday, the Federal Aviation Administration released its "Road Map" to integrate drones into civilian airspace by 2015, and it provoked strong reactions from privacy advocates. I've been a vocal critic against the creation of lethally autonomous combat drones, so you might expect I'd be concerned about the vague civilian privacy protections the FAA proposed for their six domestic drone test sites.

But actually I think their approach is a good one.

FAA Administrator Michael Huerta rightly pointed out that his organization is focused on maintaining aviation safety and not proposing new privacy regulations.

Daniel Suarez
Daniel Suarez

The 74-page FAA civilian drone road map focuses a lot on developing "sense and avoid" technology to enable civilian drones to operate safely in skies already crowded with manned aircraft. But each of the test sites will come up with its own drone privacy policies and make them public, to (as the FAA put it) "help inform the dialogue."

Consider that last statement the starting gun for what promises to be a vociferous and active debate on robotic vehicles in an open society. This is a debate that needs to happen, and with the FAA establishing these six "sand boxes" in which to practice various drone privacy approaches, we'll see the good, the bad and the just plain ugly well before regulations are more widely adopted.

That might sound messy, but this is how an open society should ingest revolutionary technologies -- by arguing like hell about them.

And make no mistake, there will be a constituency speaking on behalf of drones. That's because in the next three years, civilian drones -- that is Unmanned Aerial Systems -- could be a $10 billion industry (with part of that presumably spent on public relations). And on both sides of this struggle, the first combatants will be legions of lawyers arguing drone law and establishing legal precedents in local, state and federal courts.

"In case you missed the starting gun for the civilian drone privacy debate --it's just been sounded."

This has happened before. Few will remember that at the birth of aviation, property laws were such that landowners owned the air above their heads, too-- theoretically all the way up into space. And landowners were not happy with the idea of aircraft noisily "trespassing" over their property, and yet it was difficult for aviators to fly only over public right-of-ways, especially in poor weather conditions.

What followed were legal battles, with one railroad trying to stop rival airmail by claiming "aerial trespass" if aviators followed their rail lines. There was aviation litigation about wrongful deaths, noise pollution, canceled flights, air crew working conditions, deferred maintenance, etc.

Eventually all that debate, legal precedent and working knowledge was boiled down into a regulatory framework that became the Federal Aviation Administration. Few would argue that FAA regulation has harmed the aviation industry or society. Just ask yourself if you'd be willing to step on an unregulated commercial aircraft. I thought so. Those regulations made a level playing field for airlines and allowed the entire industry to prosper while simultaneously benefiting the public.

But getting there wasn't pretty.

And so it will be with civilian drones. It will take the passionate debate of civil rights activists, entrepreneurs, hobbyists, aerospace engineers, farmers, environmentalists, ethicists and many more for society to arrive at a stable legal framework to safely and equitably integrate robotic aviation and autonomous vehicles into our society.

There is no agency or bureau that will do this for us, and these are thorny issues.

For every privacy activist I agree with on the subject of drones, there is also someone with a compelling vision of how they could be used for good, such as entrepreneurs who envision precision agriculture drones that could reduce pesticide use through surgically precise and infinitely patient ministering to crops. Agriculture alone could represent 80% of the civilian drone industry. And as one drone industry executive put it: "corn doesn't mind if you watch it."

In case you missed the starting gun for the civilian drone privacy debate, it's just been sounded.

Follow us @CNNOpinion on Twitter.

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Daniel Suarez.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
September 16, 2014 -- Updated 1305 GMT (2105 HKT)
LZ Granderson says Congress has rebuked the NFL on domestic violence issue, but why not a federal judge?
September 16, 2014 -- Updated 1149 GMT (1949 HKT)
Mel Robbins says the only person you can legally hit in the United States is a child. That's wrong.
September 15, 2014 -- Updated 1723 GMT (0123 HKT)
Eric Liu says seeing many friends fight so hard for same-sex marriage rights made him appreciate marriage.
September 15, 2014 -- Updated 1938 GMT (0338 HKT)
SEATTLE, WA - SEPTEMBER 04: NFL commissioner Roger Goodell walks the sidelines prior to the game between the Seattle Seahawks and the Green Bay Packers at CenturyLink Field on September 4, 2014 in Seattle, Washington. (Photo by Otto Greule Jr/Getty Images)
Martha Pease says the NFL commissioner shouldn't be judge and jury on player wrongdoing.
September 16, 2014 -- Updated 1315 GMT (2115 HKT)
It's time for a much needed public reckoning over U.S. use of torture, argues Donald P. Gregg.
September 16, 2014 -- Updated 1225 GMT (2025 HKT)
Peter Bergen says UK officials know the identity of the man who killed U.S. journalists and a British aid worker.
September 16, 2014 -- Updated 1128 GMT (1928 HKT)
Joe Torre and Esta Soler say much has been achieved since a landmark anti-violence law was passed.
September 12, 2014 -- Updated 2055 GMT (0455 HKT)
David Wheeler wonders: If Scotland votes to secede, can America take its place and rejoin England?
September 16, 2014 -- Updated 1241 GMT (2041 HKT)
Jane Stoever: Society must grapple with a culture in which 1 in 3 teen girls and women suffer partner violence.
September 12, 2014 -- Updated 2036 GMT (0436 HKT)
World-famous physicist Stephen Hawking recently said the world as we know it could be obliterated instantaneously. Meg Urry says fear not.
September 12, 2014 -- Updated 2211 GMT (0611 HKT)
Bill Clinton's speech accepting the Democratic nomination for president in 1992 went through 22 drafts. But he always insisted on including a call to service.
September 12, 2014 -- Updated 2218 GMT (0618 HKT)
Joe Amon asks: What turns a few cases of disease into thousands?
September 11, 2014 -- Updated 1721 GMT (0121 HKT)
Sally Kohn says bombing ISIS will worsen instability in Iraq and strengthen radical ideology in terrorist groups.
September 11, 2014 -- Updated 1730 GMT (0130 HKT)
Analysts weigh in on the president's plans for addressing the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
September 11, 2014 -- Updated 1327 GMT (2127 HKT)
Artist Prune Nourry's project reinterprets the terracotta warriors in an exhibition about gender preference in China.
September 10, 2014 -- Updated 1336 GMT (2136 HKT)
The Apple Watch is on its way. Jeff Yang asks: Are we ready to embrace wearables technology at last?
ADVERTISEMENT