The Associated Press reports that a bill to limit the use of drones is scheduled for a hearing in the Massachusetts Senate Transportation Committee. Nashoba Publishing has more details on the bill here. The bill would restrict the use of drones by law enforcement to situations where officers obtain a warrant, or when there is an emergency. The bill would also ban the use of weaponized drones. Beyond the ban on weaponized drones, there appears to be no limit on the use of drones by non-government parties.
The full text of the bill is available here.
After looking over the bill, I notice that it is very similar to Rhode Island's proposed bill to limit the use of drones by law enforcement. I blogged about the Rhode Island legislation here.
The similarity between these two bills can probably be explained by looking to a supporter that both bills have in common: the ACLU. Here, the ACLU of Rhode Island announces that it is supporting H7170, the bill that I blogged about earlier. And here, the ACLU announces that it is supporting S1664, the Massachusetts bill that would limit law enforcement's use of drones. The ACLU is also supporting H1357 in Massachusetts, which seems to be the same as S1664.
Since the Massachusetts bill is extremely similar to the Rhode Island bill, I will not repeat my earlier evaluations of the Rhode Island bill, which you can read here. I will only add that the ACLU seems to be doing an effective job of trying to limit government use of drones, but private use of drones is something that state legislatures will need to address as drones become more available to private parties.
Massachusetts and Rhode Island focus on government drones, but legislatures in these states must not forget that private parties can violate privacy rights too.
Showing posts with label Rhode Island. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rhode Island. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Rhode Island's Proposed Drone Law
Boston.com reports on a recent bill proposed in Rhode Island's House of Representatives:
The bill focuses on law enforcement use of drones, and there are very few sections of the bill that seem to apply to private parties. One exception might be 12-5.3-2 (d) which broadly bans the use of weaponized drones.
The bill's restriction on law enforcement's use of drones is a bit restrictive, but seems pretty good overall. The bill would require officers to seek a warrant before using drones, although there are some exceptions to this requirement in emergency situations. The bill would also require prompt deletion of information collected on people who are not the subject of warrants, although I did not see any provision that would govern the retention or deletion of information on individuals who are the subjects of properly-obtained warrants.
One notable part of this bill is 12-5.3-2 (b) which would require a public hearing before a government could obtain a drone. The governor would need to approve the acquisition of a drone for a state agency, while the town or city councils that oversee municipal authorities would need to approve those authorities' acquisition of drones. Different towns may have vastly different opinions on the use of drones, with some towns (like Iowa City) favoring even more stringent restrictions on police use of drone technology. Rhode Island's requirement that a municipalities approve local drone acquisition gives local governments a greater say when it comes to police use of drone technology.
No vote has yet been scheduled on this bill, and as far as I can tell, the bill remains in the House Committee on Judiciary.
The bill from Democratic state Rep. Teresa Tanzi would require law enforcement agencies to hold public hearings before acquiring a drone aircraft. The agency would need the approval of local leaders, or, in the case of a state agency, the governor.
Finally, the agency would have to consult with the state attorney general and get court approval before using the drone in specific investigations. Drones would also be prohibited from carrying weapons.The full text of the bill is available here.
The bill focuses on law enforcement use of drones, and there are very few sections of the bill that seem to apply to private parties. One exception might be 12-5.3-2 (d) which broadly bans the use of weaponized drones.
The bill's restriction on law enforcement's use of drones is a bit restrictive, but seems pretty good overall. The bill would require officers to seek a warrant before using drones, although there are some exceptions to this requirement in emergency situations. The bill would also require prompt deletion of information collected on people who are not the subject of warrants, although I did not see any provision that would govern the retention or deletion of information on individuals who are the subjects of properly-obtained warrants.
One notable part of this bill is 12-5.3-2 (b) which would require a public hearing before a government could obtain a drone. The governor would need to approve the acquisition of a drone for a state agency, while the town or city councils that oversee municipal authorities would need to approve those authorities' acquisition of drones. Different towns may have vastly different opinions on the use of drones, with some towns (like Iowa City) favoring even more stringent restrictions on police use of drone technology. Rhode Island's requirement that a municipalities approve local drone acquisition gives local governments a greater say when it comes to police use of drone technology.
No vote has yet been scheduled on this bill, and as far as I can tell, the bill remains in the House Committee on Judiciary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)