Drones and Privacy: Analyzing the Need for Personal Drone Regulations

This essay delves into the multifaceted debate surrounding personal drones and their impact on individual privacy. It examines the arguments for and against placing limits on the use of these unmanned aerial vehicles, considering the social contract theory, ethical implications, and potential for misuse. The essay highlights concerns about drone surveillance, including the recording of private activities and the potential for criminal activity, while also acknowledging the benefits of drones for photography, leisure, and technological advancement. It explores the need for a balance between innovation and privacy, advocating for regulations such as licensing, drone identification, and restrictions on ownership to mitigate privacy risks and ensure responsible drone usage. The author concludes that limitations on personal drone use are necessary to protect basic human rights and maintain societal order, offering recommendations for the implementation of such regulations.

Drones and Privacy 1
DRONES AND PRIVACY
Student’s Name
Course
Professor’s Name
Institution
Location of Institution
Date

Drones and Privacy 2
Drones and Privacy
Limits Should Be Put On the Use of Personal Drones for The Privacy Reasons.
Background information on the Personal drones on basis of people’s privacy
Drones have for sometimes been used for many reasons by the photographers. Some
of these reasons are commercial, military actions or even for enjoyment. From the last
century, different countries have laid rules and regulation on using drones (Maxwell, 2016,
p.32).
Recently, photographers have started owning drowns as they are affordable to many
people. For this reason, an alarm has been heard from different peoples giving their views on
the personal drones. Photographers are now in a position to control them and take photos,
take videos in their areas of choice. The extent to which the personal drones are used has
therefore inconvenienced many people by having photos taken and videos recorded frothier
back yard (Cavoukian, 2012, p.09).
Arguments for the Affirmative
The limits to using unnamed aerial vehicles should be addressed in the society.
According to the social contract theory, the society lives the way they do because of the
agreed principles that guides the members. The agreement among these people can be said to
be the rules that people sets to live well with each other (Allen, 2014, p.461). The sense
impacts the drones and privacy in that, when people have guides of rules and regulation in
using personal drones, they will live morally appropriate by the choices they make and not
necessarily because it is required of them. The sense in social contract or the political contract
theory will affirm that people should decide for themselves in the society what to do and what
they don’t want to do.

Drones and Privacy 3
The limits to using personal drones are needed because they tamper with the basic
human right to privacy. Every individual needs privacy. The people who at times use private
drones are driven by individual interests rather than the social needs. The will take videos in
the peoples back yard, print them in media and then the privacy of people will be jeopardised
(Westin, 2003, p.431).
The personal drone photography has at many times caused social and civil crimes.
One would not like it to have their privacy revealed to the public. Many people who have
found out that there are some people taking photos and videos behind their back have
complained in the court. The mess makes people to live in suspicion thinking that there are
evil things associated with private drones’ photography which endangers their privacy. After
all, they ask themselves the reasons which would make other people need to take
photography of their backyard and their private home areas.
According to (Wang et al., 2016), these drones are like moving eyes and hidden
controllers. Criminals have at most times used private drones to find out the happenings or
the activities that people are in, or their locality and then proceed to make their attacks with
full knowledge of the grounds they had taken videos of. Suspicion, fear and terror has
therefore been made by people because who use the private drones irresponsibly to afflict
people’s privacy and therefore, limits should be bargained upon as per the social contact
theoretical ideas. The criminal activities caused by the unnamed aerial surveillance has for
instance been limited in some countries like USA. More than 300 cases have been reported to
the security department whereby, the unnamed drones have been recording peoples pin
numbers in Automated machines in the banks like ATMs, where the police service in
Northern Ireland revealed a drone at a cash point where it recorded people as they entered
their account’s pins. Some have been spotted recording hidden information from people
running personal websites on their windows and sometimes recording what people are doing

Drones and Privacy 4
in their bedrooms. This story is never interesting. There are not enough limitations to curb the
unnamed drones’ surveillance in private places (Finn, Wright and Friedewald, 2013, p.3-32).
Australia for example has experienced the dangers of unnamed aerial surveillance where
crimes happen in the expense of people’s privacy.
Arguments for the Negative
The use of drones in the photography and surveillance is not always driven by ill
motives. There are some people who engages themselves in the drones’ photography and
video recording for pleasure and leisure. Limiting such people would kill their ambitions and
their joy. For instance, the explorers who would like to take numerous pictures and videos in
their area of locality, and the learners would like to have their study along a certain area will
be limited through many procedures that may be laid to limit unnamed aerial vehicles in
videos and photographs.
According to virtue ethics theory, (Shafer-Landau, 2014), people in society have a
sense of knowing what is good and what is wrong to be done. The society holds the virtues
which one should not usually be reminded of what to do but the ethics guides people to select
either to do good or bad. These principles are not executable by a communal action. Ethics
such as honesty and faithfulness will not be executed by the society to check one’s behaviour.
However, one is ether labelled good or evil. For this reason, there should be no limits on
using aerial vehicles in taking photos and videos in the place of interest. This is because,
those people who use them should be in a position to determine that, recording a video of this
part or the other one would result to jeopardy of people’s rights of privacy and therefore,
there is no need to control or limit them (Buschman, 2016, p.419). Video recorders with the
unnamed drones can be oriented to the ethics of the society on the issues pertaining security
and privacy issues so that they can be more responsible in their endeavours.

Drones and Privacy 5
Limiting the use of drones will be a step towards reducing creativity, innovation and
technological advancement in the drones’ technology. The technological advancement in
media and groups and related disciplines incorporate individuals who are passionate in taking
videos of everything they came across. For this reason, there should be no such limitations as
to the privacy of individuals. Being guided by the moral obligations on ethics and passion to
videography and photography, the society should not restrict individuals from the exercise.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there should be an establishment of the limitations on using personal
drones for private reasons. The affirmative arguments to the statement are cantered on the
welfare of the society unlike the negative arguments that centres on the interests of the
individuals. For instance, to affirm that there should be limitations on using these drones,
there is the aspects of basic human rights of privacy, there is the issue of crime rates in
virtually all parts of the globe, there is creation of suspicion, terror and fear in the society due
to the unnamed drones and all these can be socially eradicated by strict regulations as they
involve the society (Thompson, 2012, p.93).
On the other hand, the arguments opposing the limitations to use of drones in taking
videos and photos are centred on the individual interest. For instance, the issue of passion and
career development are based on individualism. The aspect of technological innovation and
development can be attested to oppose limitations to the drones’ technology in capturing
videos and photos but it cannot be at any cost be adopted on the expense of human security to
live and property.
Technology can be adopted in the cases where there is no violation of basic human right as
privacy. When privacy for this matter is mentioned, the school of humanitarianism will call

Drones and Privacy 6
for security and take the technology in the better way than the one that jeopardises the rights
of individuals (Weissbach and Tebbe, 2016, p. 37).
Recommendations
I can therefore recommend for the limits to using the drones to be drafted. These
limits may include;
Individuals flying these drowns should be issued with licences through a training on
the ethics on using the drones in photography and videography. This will ensure that all
people who are using these materials are worth and can be credited by holding high standards
of ethics in the society.
Another recommendation is that, all the aerial vehicles should be labelled and named.
Through a provision or an act of the constitution or the user’s manual as provided by the
technology ministries of the state, they should bear all the relevant details of identification
The endeavour will make sure that any drown seen moving in the space can be
recognised by the virtue of the owner and the tasks the owner seeks to do with that drone.
The people will be in a position to know who are taking videos in their back yard and make
them accountable in the court of law if it is necessary.
Finally, there should be a regulation of those people who should be allowed to own
the private drones. It can be done through need assessment, in that, those people who go to
purchase the drones should be evaluated because drones have gone too low in price and many
people can own one, including the irresponsible users (Barnao, Ward and Casey, 2016,
p.766). People who seems to have clear motive on the use of drones can be advised not to buy
them. The big population that will be legible for the offer to purchase the drones of their
choice will be minimised. For instance, in Australia, United Kingdom and in United States
the number of unnamed drones is big, approximately 43% of this number do not have clear

Drones and Privacy 7
motives on using their drones. At many times, they will be surveying the places for fun and
ending in crimes. Under conditions and taxes either per annum or per month, the idlers will
not spend their money to purchase the drones without clear and good objectives for service.

Drones and Privacy 8
References
Allen, A.L., 2014. Taking liberties: Privacy, private choice, and social contract theory. U.
Cin. L. Rev., 56, p.461.
Barnao, M., Ward, T. and Casey, S., 2016. Taking the good life to the institution: Forensic
service users’ perceptions of the Good Lives Model. International journal of offender
therapy and comparative criminology, 60(7), pp.766-786.
Bowie, N.E., 2017. Business ethics: A Kantian perspective. Cambridge University Press.
Buschman, J., 2016. The Structural Irrelevance of Privacy: A Provocation. The Library
Quarterly, 86(4), pp.419-433.
Cavoukian, A., 2012. Privacy and drones: Unmanned aerial vehicles (pp. 1-30). Ontario,
Canada: Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Canada.
Finn, R.L., Wright, D. and Friedewald, M., 2013. Seven types of privacy. In European data
protection: coming of age (pp. 3-32). Springer Netherlands.
Maxwell, I.A., 2016. Technology and innovation: Drones, droids and robots. Chemistry in
Australia, (Aug 2016), p.32.
Randell-Moon, H., 2016. The Catastrophe of Images.
Shafer-Landau, R., 2014. The fundamentals of ethics.
Thompson, R.M., 2012, September. Drones in domestic surveillance operations: Fourth
amendment implications and legislative responses. Congressional Research Service, Library
of Congress.

Drones and Privacy 9
Wang, Y., Xia, H., Yao, Y. and Huang, Y., 2016. Flying eyes and hidden controllers: A
qualitative study of people’s privacy perceptions of civilian drones in the US. Proceedings on
Privacy Enhancing Technologies, 2016(3), pp.172-190.
Weissbach, D., Weissbach, D., Tebbe, K. and Tebbe, K., 2016. Drones in sight: rapid growth
through M&A’s in a soaring new industry. Strategic Direction, 32(6), pp.37-39.
Westin, A.F., 2003. Social and political dimensions of privacy. Journal of social issues,
59(2), pp.431-453.
Westphal, K.R., 2015. Hegel's Pragmatic Critique and Reconstruction of Kant's System of
Principles in the 1807 Phenomenology of Spirit. Hegel Bulletin, 36(2), pp.159-183.
Zylinska, J., 2016. The creative power of nonhuman photography. Preface: What is Helsinki
Photomedia?, p.132.