IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Fall 2014 - 24

imbalanced rule-making process appears antithetical
to a well-functioning democracy. In short, the public
and elected officials need a fair opportunity to influence drone regulations.
3) Drone Regulations Should
Have a Used-Based Component
The regulations underway in Canada are governed
from the perspective of safety - according to a drone's
size, weight, and flight condition (e.g., line of sight and
beyond line of sight). The intent of these regulations is
to create standardized rules specific to the class of drone
in operation. Ultimately this means that a type of drone
will be regulated in the same way across all of its potential uses. from a safety perspective, this is a reasonable
approach. However, upon considering that a type of
drone can be used in many circumstances resulting in
different impacts, this approach is inadequate. from the
regulatory standpoint of Transport Canada, it makes no
difference if said drone is being used to film a movie,
monitor wildlife, or surveil human beings. Canada's
drone regulations should not solely be based around the
safe design and operation of the aircraft, but must also
attend to the context of their use. Let us clarify this reasoning with a recent example.
In May 2013, the Saskatoon Royal Canadian
Mounted Police (RCMP) deployed a Dragan flyer
micro drone for a search and rescue mission [23]. In
March of 2014, another Dragan flyer was used by the
Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) to surveil a group of
protesters [24]. What this example begins to illustrate is
how one class of drone can produce two radically different outcomes for society, where one operation saved
a life as the other ultimately impinged on civil liberties.
Let's follow this up with some context for a future scenario. In three years time, Transport Canada will introduce a deregulated class of drone, called "low energy."
Their decision for minimum regulations for this class
of drone was based solely around the minimal physical
harm it poses to people and property. Hence the only
requirement to operate this low energy drone will be
an airworthiness document demonstrating that various safety conditions have been met.5 An example of
a low energy drone is the popular micro Aeryon Scout
weighing 3 lbs and operated by various police forces in
Canada. Deregulating certain micro drones such as the
Scout may be fine from a safety perspective, but from
a use-based perspective, it will not work, as we know
that drone operations can impact society in varying
4

Since Transport Canada's Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV) Systems Program Design Working Group was established in December 2006 [12] and
the regulatory process is due for completion in 2017 [20], the working group
will have nearly eleven years to review and discuss the rules.
5
for information about the classification of low energy drones and their
required safety criteria, see [25].
24

ways. Our regulations must be comprised of two parts:
a safety and use-based component.
4) Recreational Users Operating
Data-Capturing Drones Should at
Minimum Require Course Instruction
Currently, drones operated for recreational use are
not regulated in Canada; rather they are treated like
model aircraft. If such drones are equipped with
sensing equipment, users should at minimum require
course training of applicable airspace, privacy, civil,
and criminal laws (e.g., trespass laws).
5) Canada Should Focus on its Own
Sound Policy Before it Considers
Harmonization with other Countries
At the moment, Transport Canada is in the process of
harmonizing regulations with the U.S. federal Aviation Administration, the International Civil Aviation Organization, and other international regulatory
agencies. Civil aviation bodies worldwide are concerned mostly with safety requirements, and while
Canada should harmonize its rules with others where
feasible, it should not be at the expense of protected
rights and freedoms. A regulatory focus on civil liberties may at first glance seem prohibitive to growing a competitive industry. However, it's a winning
formula for the nascent industry in Canada, and elsewhere, in terms of overcoming the stigma of drones
as malicious surveillance and/or weaponized devices.
Thus if Canada's industry and government concern
themselves with regulating drone uses that generate
public unease, the industry can build and bank on
public trust. This way, there will be far fewer risks
involved for all concerned parties. Canada should
exercise sovereign control ahead of worldwide harmonization initiatives.
6) Under no Circumstances Should Drones
Carry Lethal or Nonlethal Weapons
Drones of the future will be smarter with increasing
autonomy, and equipped with even more advanced
weaponry. Humans do not need to develop robotic
airborne enemies.
7) We must Attend to Privacy, Civil Liberties,
and Ethical Issues before the Technology
Proliferates and is Made Routine
Some may argue that we should deal with privacy issues
after the fact. Instead, we must actively design our technologies to reflect the society we want to inhabit and
to ensure its uses fall in line with protected rights and
freedoms.6 As of 2012, Transport Canada issued 347
6

To read informative articles about privacy, civil liberties, and/or ethical issues surrounding the emergence of civil drones see [14]-[19] and [26]-[28].
IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

fALL 2014

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Fall 2014