Regulation, Co-Regulation and Self-Regulation of Civil Unmanned Aircrafts in Europe

Authors: M. de Miguel Molina, V. Santamarina Campos, M. V. Segarra Oña, B. de Miguel Molina

Abstract:

Safety and security concerns play a key role during the design of civil UAs (aircraft controlled by a pilot who is not onboard it) by the producers and the offer of different services by the operators. At present, European countries have fragmented regulations about the manufacture and use of civil drones, therefore the European institutions are trying to approach all these regulations into a common one. In this sense, not only law but also ethics can give guidelines to the industry in order to obtain better reports from their clients. With our results, we would like to give advice to the European industry, as well as give new insights to the academia and policymakers.

Keywords: Ethics, regulation, safety, security.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1316369

References:

[1] M. L. Smith (2015) “Regulating law enforcement’s use of drones: The need for state legislation”. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 52(2):423– 454.
[2] R. L. Finn, and D. Wright (2016) “Privacy, data protection and ethics for civil drone practice: A survey of industry, regulators and civil society organisations”. Computer Law and Security Review, 32(4):577–586.
[3] C. Stöcker, R. Bennett, F. Nex, M. Gerke, and J. Zevenbergen (2017) Review of the Current State of UAV Regulations. Remote Sensing 9(5):459–485.
[4] B. Rao, A. G. Gopi, and R. Maione (2016) “The societal impact of commercial drones”. Technology in Society, 45:83–90.
[5] R. Clarke (2014) “The regulation of civilian drones’ impacts on behavioural privacy”. Computer Law and Security Review, 30(3): 286– 305.
[6] R. Clarke (2016) “Appropriate regulatory responses to the drone epidemic”. Computer Law and Security Review, 32(1):152–155.
[7] P. K. Freeman, and R. S. Freeland (2014) “Politics & technology: U.S. polices restricting unmanned aerial systems in agriculture”. Food Policy, 49(1):302–311.
[8] European Parliament (2016a) “Directive (EU) 2016/680 Of the European Parliament and Of the Council, of 27 April 2016, on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework (Decision 2008/977/JHA)”. http://eurlex. europa.eu/legalcontent/ EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2016.119.01.0089.01.ENG. Accessed 22 September 2017.
[9] European Parliament (2016b) “Regulation (EU) 2016/679 Of the European Parliament and Of the Council, of 27 April 2016, on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation)”. http://eurlex. europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj. Accessed 22 September 2017.
[10] R. C. Arkin (2016) “Ethics and Autonomous Systems: Perils and Promises”. Proceedings of the IEEE, 104(10): 1779–1781.
[11] K. B. Culver (2014) “From Battlefield to Newsroom: Ethical Implications of Drone Technology in Journalism”. Journal of Mass Media Ethics: Exploring Questions of Media Morality, 29(1):52–64.
[12] C. Coopmans (2014) “Architecture requirements for ethical, accurate, and resilient unmanned aerial personal remote sensing”. 2014 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems, (ICUAS) IEEE:1–8.
[13] S. Braun, M. Friedewald, and G. Valkenburg (2015) “Civilizing drones: Military discourses going civil?” Science and Technology Studies, 28(2):73–87.
[14] N. Ruchaud, and J. L. Dugelay (2015) “Privacy protection filter using Stego Scrambling in video surveillance”. In: CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1436. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1436/Paper62.pdf of subordinate document. Accessed 22 September 2017.
[15] R. Luppicini, and A. So (2016) “A technoethical review of commercial drone use in the context of governance, ethics, and privacy”. Technology in Society, 46:109–119.
[16] AEDRON (2016) “Code of conduct”. https://www.aedron.com/codigoetico. Accessed 22 September 2017.
[17] CAA (2015) “Guidance on using small drones for commercial work”. https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-industry/Aircraft/Unmannedaircraft/ Small-drones/Guidance-on-using-small-drones-for-commercialwork/. Accessed 22 September 2017.
[18] ARPAS-UK (2017) “Code of conduct”. https://www.arpas.uk/memcode- of-conduct/ of subordinate document. Accessed 22 September 2017.
[19] P. Boucher (2016) “‘You Wouldn’t have Your Granny Using Them’: Drawing Boundaries Between Acceptable and Unacceptable Applications of Civil Drones”. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22:1391–1418.
[20] European Commission (2015) “Opinion 01/2015 on Privacy and Data Protection Issues relating to the Utilisation of Drones. Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, 01673/15/EN WP 231”. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/index_en.htm. Accessed 22 September 2017.