Further Discussion and Criticism of Amazon's Drone Delivery Proposal

I recently posted about Amazon's announcement that it plans to use drones to deliver small packages to customers once the legal landscape allows it to do so.

Amazon's proposal has continued to attract media attention, and an increasing wave of criticism.  The New York Times labels the proposal as "Pie in the Sky," and characterizes the idea as "loopy."  While noting that if the idea worked, it would be an incredible step forward for Amazon, the Times quotes several critics of the proposal, including Jaron Lanier:

“I can easily picture a scenario where drones deliver things to upscale tech-savvy customers,” [Lanier] said. “But note the implication, whether intended or not, that working-class truck drivers will no longer transgress geographic class lines. It’s also hard to imagine delivery drones flying unmolested in restive working-class or poor areas. They’d become skeet or be ‘occupied,’ depending on the nature of the neighborhood.”

Lanier's concerns are not isolated. Kashmir Hill of Forbes notes that Amazon's system would hinder law enforcement's ability to track packages and that this type of delivery system could enable the easy shipment of drugs.  Nidhi Subramanian of NBC notes that rolling out a drone delivery service would be a long-term process that would require Amazon to consider several questions, such as who will pilot the drones, and how to prepare for situations where people are injured by the drones.  The Associated Press quotes additional skeptics who reiterate the danger of injuries that these drones may pose.  And the National Journal notes that some localities are notably hostile to drones (referring to Deer Trail, Colorado's issuance of drone hunting licenses -- which I discuss further here).

I think that the law can and will develop to accommodate these drones, and I think some of the worries about people attacking drones, and the injuries these drones may cause, are a little overstated.  There are laws in place that can probably adapt to deal with drone torts, and while novel factual scenarios may arise, I don't think that wider use of drones is enough of a paradigm shift to make regulation impossible.

Finally, the time it will take the FAA to develop the regulations that would allow this sort of drone activity will allow for further discussion of the legal ramifications of these drones, and will also give the technology more time to develop -- mitigating the injuries the drones may cause or sustain.  While seemingly outlandish now, after several years I expect that these drones will be accepted by society and accommodated by laws.