back to article ICO warns UK broadcasters over filming using drones

UK broadcasters have been warned that their use of unmanned drones for filming purposes must adhere to data protection laws. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) said that drones "can be highly privacy intrusive" because they can capture images of individuals "unnecessarily". The watchdog said organisations using …

  1. Robert E A Harvey

    Confused

    The abbreviation of UAV for "unmanned aerial vehicles" is causing me some confusion. Back when I used to build them a UAV was an "underwater autonomous vehicle", although the Leftpondians used to call them AUV "autonomous underwater vehicle".

    can't we just call them "targets" and have done with it?

  2. MrXavia
    Facepalm

    Why is this different from using a telephoto lens on a camera?

    How can there really by any more privacy implications than any other form of filming by a camera crew?

    Unless the drone is flown into places that you cant walk into, i.e. onto private land, then there are no new privacy implications vs a guy with a camera, drones are noisy, you will not miss one!

    And i is not like they have any less right to film in public (although I believe they need a license to fly near the public?)

    It is not like there is a difference to filming through a window with a drone or with a telephoto lens from another building...

    So really its a non story just reminding broadcasters to follow the laws they have to anyway...

    1. jaywin

      Agreed, it's not like the broadcasters have never had access to cameras that can fly above the public in the past. I would hope their risk assessments for using a full blown helicopter with two or three occupants is a bit bigger than what they produce for using a UAV (which isn't allowed within a few hundred metres of the public, and has to be line-of-sight to the operator anyway).

    2. richardcox13

      > Why is this different from using a telephoto lens on a camera?

      Well the camera is remote, potentially significantly remote, from the operator (photographer).

      And unlike, conventional, helicopter based news filming, a UAV is far less noticeable while being able to get much closer.

      Then you get into the difference between private only use and commercial use (eg. requirements for release forms).

      So it is somewhat different. But I suspect it'll take a court case or few to really determine the rules.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Hardly going to take a court case. Firstly the chance of the ICO taking anyone to court even for major privacy breaches is very slim, also the laws are clear and easy to follow.

        The ICO may make these guidelines every now and then for attention seeking however the underlying law is unchanged.

        Just remember that live filming is also not covered by data protection regulations, only the recordings. Filming a an unclad lady through her window does not breach data protection laws (it will break other laws, though).

      2. jaywin

        > And unlike, conventional, helicopter based news filming, a UAV is far less noticeable while being able to get much closer.

        However, a UAV isn't going to be carrying a 72x + zoom lens.

        You only need to look at the police TV shows like Interceptors to see how oblivious people can be to full size helicopters.

        1. Peter2 Silver badge

          I think the main issue is that somebody deciding to sunbathe or take part in other activities in their garden may do so with a legitimate expectation of privacy due to reasonably high fences/walls of trees forming the boundary, probably emplaced specifically to frustrate zoom lenses by making it virtually impossible to see into the back garden of the property from ground level.

          Helicopters to peek over such boundaries are expensive, noisy and highly visible.

          Off the shelf UAV's are relatively cheap, (and cheap enough to be used where you'd never use a helicopter) could sound like next door attacking their garden with a strimmer/lawnmower and are generally relatively hard to see if your not specifically looking for them so there is clearly a privacy concern, especially when dealing with the gutter press.

    3. This post has been deleted by its author

    4. waldo kitty
      FAIL

      Why is this different from using a telephoto lens on a camera?

      unless you are up in a tree, that telephoto lens can't accidentally take a photo of someone in the privacy of their 4th floor bedroom while trying to get an aerial shot of a building or even a crowd gathered below... or 3rd floor or 2nd floor... and these drones can go quite a bit higher, too...

      Unless the drone is flown into places that you cant walk into, i.e. onto private land, then there are no new privacy implications vs a guy with a camera, drones are noisy, you will not miss one!

      really? they use fuel powered engines in them? or perhaps they are quiet running electrical motors with battery packs? ;)

      1. jaywin

        What about this sort of camera then - as used at Wimbledon - the ball under the basket has a 44x zoom, and the crane itself is parked right next to homes.

        http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rDV3DHxEZYo/UcnF5_xMewI/AAAAAAAABBI/dFZMcS0Qn3Q/s1600/IMG_0794.JPG

        Surely that would be in a position to get infringing shots which the broadcasters would already have to be aware of?

  3. frank ly

    Hypothetical situation:

    If a flying 'thing' flies over my property (lower than a certain height) and it's not obviously a plane or helicopter and it's not a protected species, can I legally shoot at it with a legally held weapon?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Terminator

      Re: Hypothetical situation:

      You probably can... but what if it decides to defend itself (using all means possible!)

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hypothetical situation:

      IANAL but I can guess the answer ...

      The actions of the drone (via it's operator) would be trespass. A civil matter.

      Your damaging the craft would be criminal damage, unless you could present a valid defence. Trespass is not a valid defence.

      If you feared for your or someone elses safety as a result of the actions of the drone, you would have a valid defence.

    3. Steve Foster
      Alert

      Re: Hypothetical situation:

      I rather think the answer would be to equip your garden with a big ole' water sprinkler, and if the drone happens to get in the (ahem) "line of fire", that'd hardly be your fault!

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Where's me 12-bore?

    Given the recent number of postings from a Reg contributor who is apparently well-up on the legal side of weapons ownership in the UK, what's the situation vis-a-vis giving one of these effing things a barrel or two full of no. 3 shot?

    Anonymous for obv. reasons as I don't want Mr. Plod coming round to see how many no. 3 shot cartridges I possess.

    1. FutureShock999

      Re: Where's me 12-bore?

      From a practical point of view, you would have to ensure that none of the shot falls outside of your own property. For anyone in the suburbs, that will be difficult. Given a sufficiently pastoral setting, this is not a problem.

      However, even with a 32" barrelled trap gun with full chokes (I shoot a 32" Gold E Xtrap), you are not going to be hitting much beyond 60-80 yards - and that is both in horizontal and vertical distance. I know highly skilled clay competitors like George Digweed can hit out to 100+ yards, but frankly, that isn't you, and your likely gun and chokes. And after they operator hears the first shot, he will send that drone straight up at full throttle, if he has any sense. So you have one or two shots at most, likely at a target just at or beyond your maximum range.

      The real issue is that it is likely that the drone will have a camera, and will quite possibly have you on video as firing at it, and.or destroying it. That is destruction of property, and unless you can prove the drone was a threat to you, you will likely be done for that. I don't think it will be a firearms offence per se - but with the plod trying to do it's utmost to limit ownership, being convicted of the destruction of property may very well be enough for them to pull your Section 2 Shotgun license, and certainly your Section 1 Firearms license if you have one. These are being pulled for convictions such as even getting into a physical fight in self-defence, or too many speeding tickets, or a single drink driving conviction, to put that in perspective. Wanton destruction of other's property is pretty close to that sort of thing, and at that point I believe you would be at the mercy of whatever judgement your local firearms team would happen to make. Some may laugh it off, some may put you under caution, some may revoke or suspend. You can challenge any action in court of course, at your own expense. In my mind, it isn't worth the risk, given how hard they are to get back.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Where's me 12-bore?

        The obvious British solution is for you to have a model aircraft (note a flying model aircraft not a UAV) - say a large petrol engined Spitfire, with working guns, and send that up to deal with the blighters.

        tally-ho

        1. Robert E A Harvey

          Re: Spitfire

          The obvious way to bring it down is with a net, rather than gunfire. You would recover it more or less intact and could hold it to ransom, or re-purpose it.

      2. LucreLout
        Black Helicopters

        Re: Where's me 12-bore?

        Just wear a disguise while taking potshots at it with your hose/catapult/shotgun/other.

        I really don't see these things taking off in a big way in most residential areas. Sure, somewhere built up like london, or near a student halls of residence during freshers week, they might be fun for the perverts, but how many people actually want to spy on their near neighbours - mine are in their 50s, and time ain't been kind. Its the primary reason I'm not worried about people spying on me - I look like shit and my life just isn't that interesting to other people.

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Where's me 12-bore?

          > I'm not worried about people spying on me

          But what about when you commit terrorism-related offences, like watering your garden during a hosepipe ban or putting out your recycling bin before 7:00am ?

        2. Ralara
          Coat

          Re: Where's me 12-bore?

          "I really don't see these things taking off in a big way"

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Where's me 12-bore?

            Couldn't you take one out with an air rifle? I'm pretty sure I could hit one at 80 or so yards with a bow and arrow (unless an experienced operator sees it coming of course).

            Better still, I could use my own drone to see them off. A bit like a three dimensional robot wars..... cool!

    2. graeme leggett Silver badge

      Re: Where's me 12-bore?

      "Git orrf moi land airspace" ?

    3. Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese Silver badge
      Stop

      Re: Where's me 12-bore?

      "Where's me 12-bore?"

      That sort of short-sighted comment really makes my blood boil. You see a problem like this, and the immediate knee-jerk response is "get me a 12-bore shotgun".

      Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

      The 12-bore is much of a ladies' gun. If you're going to do the job, do it right, and use a 20-bore.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Where's me 12-bore?

      Hmm, solving a problem by shooting it. Trying to be anonymous so that the Plod don't visit.

      Becomes difficult for commentators to be outraged at spot checks ("all shotgun/firearms owners are highly responsible") with comments like this.

      Maybe it would be better to give up your licence voluntarily now before another incident happens which affects all responsible gun owners?

  5. Beornfrith

    Sadly, I don't think the general public appreciates that there are laws and regulations governing the use of drones and the type of flight they are undertaking. In the UK at least it's simply not a case of 'do whatever you want' with them.

    Of course, the real problem is the drone-flyers themselves that are equally unaware of the laws and regulations that we need to follow.

    Although there are indoor toys available once you start talking about a multirotor with enough heft to fly outside they're really no longer toys but are objects to be taking as seriously as any model aircraft.

    I honestly think all drones purchased in the UK should come with a leaflet outlining the restrictions that must be followed. I don't know about other flight controllers but the APM's computer-based configuration software has a clear display indicating nearby airports and the restricted airspace around them - which is something, at least.

  6. Lamont Cranston

    I do like the suggestion that

    social media be used to inform people that their privacy might be being violated.

    1. Mark 85

      Re: I do like the suggestion that

      Which makes several presumptions: 1) Everyone uses social media. 2) That they all go look at the relevant webpage or Twit or whatever (how many police, news, and production companies, again?).

  7. kain preacher

    Hmmm could you use a laser to burn out the optics on the camera ?

  8. Vernon

    I wonder if you were to get a pet sheep or two -and if you should see one of these flying perverts, proclaim loudly that it is worrying your flock, retreat inside for ye rusty shotgun and shoot it down.

  9. Omniaural

    ibeacons?

    Why not use something like the ibeacon, or similar functionality, that just broadcasts a short message in the local area informing those with such notifications enabled that Channel 5 is currently in your area using UAV's for a new reality show where it is following random people around for a day and editing together the 'best bits', and to get in touch with Ian Telly-Producer if you don't want to appear on the program?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like