红杏视频

This piece was originally in the Wall Street Journal

The drone industry and the Federal Aviation Administration are pushing to increase greatly the number of drones flying in and above U.S. communities. The question is: Do Americans want them?

The FAA is 鈥渂eyond the visual line of sight鈥� of the operator, which would open up the skies to drones for everything from package or food delivery to police patrols.

recently to introduce drone deliveries to 34 sites across six states by year-end, reaching up to four million households. Each drone can move 10 pounds of merchandise, remotely controlled by FAA-certified pilots. When the drone reaches its destination, it will hover above the customer鈥檚 property and lower the package on a cable.

While many Americans haven鈥檛 thought about the issue, consider this scenario. You鈥檙e sitting outside on a beautiful day in your backyard, in a park, or on a neighbor鈥檚 porch. Now imagine drones buzzing by or hovering overhead, taking pictures. They may not all have cameras aimed at you, but you have no way of knowing. Nor will you necessarily know who is flying the drone or why.

An entire ecosystem of companies is emerging based on the assumption that communities will welcome such flights. and Google have big plans, and other businesses are gearing up to offer drone operators services such as communications, mapping and things like 鈥渃onstraints services,鈥� which keep track of the often-shifting areas where aircraft aren鈥檛 permitted to fly.

The FAA recently convened an to give recommendations on what rules should govern this world. I was one of the few nonindustry members on the panel, and I came to appreciate the many ways drones can be used, such as delivering emergency medical supplies, inspecting railroads and power lines, and conducting environmental research. But I also understand the power of aerial surveillance鈥攁nd that it can be used to spy on people.

Many Americans seem uncomfortable with drones. There have been incidents of , and illegally shooting drones out of the sky. In the past decade, state legislative proposals to regulate the technology .

In December 2019, the FAA solicited feedback from the public on proposed rules for how a drone in flight should remotely provide its identification, location and other data. The that many concerned drone operators 鈥減rovided examples of confrontations, threats (including threats with firearms), and assaults that they or others have received during operations.鈥� It鈥檚 unclear to what extent such reactions stem from privacy concerns. But what happens if a community, whether out of concerns over intrusion, noise, safety or problems yet unforeseen, decides that it doesn鈥檛 want drones buzzing overhead? It might not have a say in the matter.

Americans in the history of aviation that uniform rules were needed for air traffic that crossed many jurisdictions. But small, noisy low-altitude drones flying locally in and around people鈥檚 homes are a whole new ballgame. As with other modes of transportation, such as the bicycle, the automobile and the electric scooter, widespread drone operations will have complex social, political and economic effects. Inevitably, conflicts will have to be resolved, and costs and benefits balanced.

The FAA has declined to engage in the privacy issues raised by drones, even when in 2014 to do so by Congress. When Americans feel there鈥檚 too much traffic near their homes, they can call up members of their city council and complain. They can push to lower the speed limit, or install speed bumps, or make the street one-way. When Americans have complaints about drone flights, are they going to have to contact the federal government? That seems like a recipe for political disaster鈥攆or elected officials, for the FAA, and for those who wish to see drones succeed and improve people鈥檚 lives.

Drones shouldn鈥檛 be imposed on unwilling communities in the disruptive way that Robert Moses did with New York City highways, acting out of a misguided vision of 鈥渢he future,鈥� or on behalf of companies that stand to profit by trampling community desires and the public interest.

Instead, policy makers should allow local communities to ban or restrict drone flights in their jurisdictions. These restrictions would be subject to limits imposed by the First Amendment, such as not banning some drone flights because of an operator鈥檚 political opinions. Communities could decide after weighing drones鈥� benefits, such as convenience, against their downsides, such as noise and privacy concerns.

If the technology proves practical, useful and popular, then communities that are overly restrictive will quickly come to feel that they鈥檙e missing out. If drones don鈥檛 work out for many of the uses now envisioned, then they will recede into the niches where their advantages are greatest and downsides the smallest without degrading Americans鈥� quality of life.

Reasonable local control is the best way to preserve the quality of life and to address privacy and other concerns, while avoiding overregulating to protect against harms that never materialize.