By: Jack Dorsey

The world is firmly in the age of drone technology, and the effects are increasingly being felt. From transforming warfare on the frontlines in Ukraine, revolutionizing medical aid logistics in African countries, postponing NFL games, impacting fire suppression operations in Los Angeles, or playing a role in the recent events in New Jersey and New York, the prevalence and usage of drone technology will only continue to increase. As of 2022, the commercial drone market is valued at $4.79 billion USD and is expected to grow 9.1% between 2023 and 2030, a trend largely driven by lower costs. E-commerce giants like Amazon and Temu both sell a variety of drones, the cheapest of which retail for well under $100. As technology advances and costs decrease, high-performance drones will be available to more people. 

Increased access to drone technology will likely result in cascading legal consequences that implicate concepts such as privacy, property rights, airspace regulations, criminal law, law enforcement, and broader national security. Currently, drones are subject to both Federal and State law. In 2016, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) promulgated regulations that created some federal framework around the use of commercial drones, i.e., drones used in commerce or for surveying. For drones used in this manner, drone pilots needed to pass a knowledge test, obtain an FAA Tracking Number, and register the drone with the FAA. Recreational drone pilots, on the other hand, were encouraged to take the Recreational Unmanned Aerial System test but were not required to do so. All drone operators are required to adhere to a maximum altitude limit of 400 feet. Moreover, states have also implemented various laws to regulate the usage of drones. In Washington for example, commercial drone operators are required to also register with the Washington State Department of Transportation. 

In 2024, the FAA began enforcing a regulation that mandates all drones operated or manufactured in the U.S. and weighing more than 0.55 pounds be outfitted with Remote ID. Remote ID acts as a digital emitter, which means that it transmits information such as the drone’s ID number, location, altitude, and speed, as well as information about the drone pilot. Further, remote ID applies to all drones regardless of whether they are flown for recreational or commercial purposes. Pilots who fail to comply with this rule may be subject to confiscation of their drone pilot license and may face up to $27,500 in penalties. 

 While Remote ID will help hold irresponsible drone operators accountable, there are several open questions. First, will the broader drone pilot community implement remote ID? Second, whether foreign manufactured drones above the 0.55 threshold will be grounded without the Remote ID feature? Finally, even with this remote ID technology, what enforcement body is keeping a record of the drones flight plan and activities while airborne? In addition to these questions, the fact remains that drones below the 0.55 pound threshold are not required to register with remote ID. Despite not having to register, Some of these smaller drones are capable of distances exceeding 13,000 feet and can still perform in ways that implicate the various legal issues previously discussed. 

Besides detecting drones or countering them with physical projectiles or objects, technology is still in its infancy when it comes to frequency jamming or hijacking countermeasures. Current hijacking and jamming technology relies on wide-band radio frequencies that emergency services and other communications devices also rely on. The effectiveness of deploying this technology in highly populated areas is currently not known, but would likely create problems for other technological devices that utilize these frequencies. 

Imagine a scenario where a malicious actor uses a drone to target and attack critical infrastructure. Tracking down such an individual becomes exceedingly difficult if the drone lacks a Remote ID. Moreover, it’s unlikely that the FAA would directly pursue the drone pilot; they would probably rely on the FBI or local law enforcement for assistance. The FAA has programs, such as the Law Enforcement Assistance Program (LEAP), to support state and local agencies, but several factors complicate the situation. These include compliance with Remote ID, the existence of smaller drones that are exempt from this requirement, and the limited effective countermeasures available. As a result, the response from local, state, and federal officials to a drone attack remains unclear.

To effectively hold drone operators accountable, it is essential to expand Remote ID regulations to include all drones, regardless of size. Ensuring that every drone, whether manufactured in the U.S. or abroad, is equipped with an active Remote ID emitter would create a clear pathway for identifying bad actors when necessary. Without such regulations, the future of drone security remains up in the air, leaving critical gaps in accountability, privacy, and public safety.

#Drones #FAA #WelcomeToTheDroneAge