Tuesday, July 3, 2012

A Code of Ethics for Drone Journalists



Yesterday my colleague, Acton Gorton, sent me an email that the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), an industry group representing defense, civil and commercial drone developers and operators, had released a “code of conduct” for the unmanned aircraft systems industry.

“This code is intended to provide our members, and those who design, test, and operate UAS for public and civil use, a set of guidelines and recommendations for safe, non‐intrusive operations,” the code reads. “Acceptance and adherence to this code will contribute to safety and professionalism and will accelerate public confidence in these systems.”

The code is broken into three sections, relating to “safety,” “professionalism,” and “respect.” The code is good as a framework for further discussion, but it’s not terribly specific as-is. For example, the safety portion of the code requires “crew fitness for flight operations,” but mentions no standards by which crew fitness should be judged. Likewise, it requires “Reliability, performance, and airworthiness to established standards,” but does not specify what those standards might be.

The AUVSI also is not the first to develop a code for UAS operations. That first likely belongs to RCAPA, the Remote Control Aerial Photography Association. The RCAPA has an extensive list of guidelines that cover drone construction, flight operations (including checks for control systems, and operations before, during and after flight), and even maintenance logs.

AUVSI likely is keeping broad definitions because it is trying to cover large swaths of the drone industry, which encompasses a wide variety of devices and goals, whereas RCAPA is mostly aiming to represent individual professionals and hobbyists who use drones specifically for aerial photography. But both are similar in that they are trying to safeguard the people who develop and operate drones.

When I launched DroneJournalism.org in December, 2011, I had a purpose in mind: to become a hub for developing the ethical, educational and technological framework for the emerging field of drone journalism. Hoping to become the “Wiki of Drone Journalism,” I opened much of the website to professional colleagues who have an interest in the field. Registration is still opened to interested parties.

Since launching the site, my co-developer and I have built two fixed-wing drones, destroyed one of them in testing, and are cobbling together a multi-rotor journalism drone. But we’ve added very little to the site in terms of drone journalism ethics, and I hope to change that.

Some of the following is from previous posts on DroneJournalism.org, and those form the basis of a code for drone journalists I am proposing. The most recent additions to the code involves a tiered approach to drone journalism ethics that borrows from the philosophy of Maslow’s pyramid.

A CODE FOR DRONE JOURNALISTS

Monday, June 4, 2012

After months of development and heartache, the journalism drone takes flight


Months of planning, training, re-design, and fabrication finally paid off for DroneJournalism.org developers, as we successfully launched a journalism drone for the first time on Sunday, June 3, in the small Illinois town of Tuscola.

Eventually the drone will be equipped with an Arduino-based autopilot (APM 2.0) and cameras to collect aerial photography and aerial photomaps for use in journalism investigations. JournoDrone 2 is the successor to JournoDrone One, which was meant to be a "Unmanned Aerial System (sUAS) for journalists that is powerful, durable, transportable, affordable, upgradeable and supported by a community of experts."

JournoDrone One was smashed to pieces during testing in two months ago. Since then, I had been applying the lessons learned from the first drone to make a drone for journalism that was stronger and more capable.



The June 3 flight was a basic shakedown of the airframe, without autopilot or sensors, to prove the airworthiness of the drone. While the airframe proved slightly heavy and unpredictable at times, our indication is with some modification it will be a competent flyer for our purposes.

JournoDrone 2 is based on the "FPV Raptor" radio controlled airplane with some important modifications, the most important of which is carbon fiber-reinforced fuselage. The airplane had a fairly good track record as a First Person Video drone, so we didn't feel that we needed to change the layout of the craft. Yet we needed to have an extra layer of security to make it more of a "tool" rather than "toy."

While we had some initial concerns about weight gain, the two layers of carbon fiber and epoxy proved its worth when the aircraft experienced a sudden gust of wind in its second flight and crashed. While the impact separated the motor pod, chipped the propeller, bent the motor shaft, and cracked the casing of an on-board camera, the fuselage was totally unscathed. We were not able to recover the on-board video of that second flight.

Thursday, May 24, 2012

JournoDrone 2: Learning from the past, Looking to the future


JournoDrone One had an important mission: to be a drone journalism platfom that was "powerful, durable, transportable, affordable, upgradeable and supported by a community of experts." It became a pile of foam instead.

But that's OK. Drone development, especially at this state of technology, is a matter of trial-and-error. That's why myself and fellow DroneJournalism.org developer Acton Gorton are giving it another shot. We are taking all of the experience, knowledge, and goals from the JournoDrone One project and starting again with JournoDrone 2.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Big FAA announcement means quicker access to drones for law enforcement, "streamlined" authorization


Law enforcement agencies will be able to get drones off the ground more quickly, and also will be able to use larger drones, the Federal Aviation Administration announced yesterday.

A news release from the FAA yesterday said that those agencies will be able to enter into a two-step path to authorization, and thus speeding up the process for law enforcement to deploy drones.

"Initially, law enforcement organizations will receive a COA (Certificate of Authorization) for training and performance evaluation," the FAA said. "When the organization has shown proficiency in flying its UAS (Unmanned Aerial System), it will receive an operational COA."

A COA provides the agency with the authorization to fly drones in the national airspace. Currently it's the only way that a government agency can legally fly a drone, which the FAA calls a UAS, and the application process isn't open to commercial industry or private individuals.

The announcement doesn't specify what the requirements are for a law enforcement agency to show proficiency, and doesn't detail the differences between the two types of authorizations. But it does indicate that the FAA is following up on its federal obligation to expedite drone authorizatio

Monday, May 14, 2012

Flight of the JournoBalloon: An intro to balloon photography. Also, I lose the first JournoBalloon.


We almost had it. After months of research, development and heartache, DroneJournalism.org was about to have its very first aerial photographs. And while it wasn't going to be from a drone, these photos would be gathered easily and available instantly.

The balloon went up, the line went out, but something didn't seem right. And then... well, in short, on Wednesday, May 2, at approximately 4:00 p.m., we almost had it. What was it, exactly?

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Partnerships unlock the real potential of drones, especially in drone journalism.

Yesterday, Salon ran a piece on the proliferation of drones at research universities. As Jefferson Morley wrote, universities are at the are at the forefront of developing the unmanned aerial systems that will be monitoring crops, assessing damage, and doing a number of other tasks at home.

That may not come as much of a surprise to anyone who's been following drones in the past couple of weeks. Recently, Electronic Frontier Foundation published the list of public institutions and government agencies who had current or expired authorization to fly drones.

Some applicants were obscure. Herrington, Kansas -- a town of 2,526 souls -- applied for authorization to fly drones. But 25 of the 62 agencies were institutes of higher learning, and many were surprised at how few agencies had applied for authorization.

However, there's a buried lede in this story: universities aren't just developing drones, they're developing these drones in partnerships with other entities. This isn't happening in an ivory-tower vacuum.

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Drone stalkers, privacy, ethics and the future: A Drone Journalism Q&A

One of the MAV (Micro Aerial Vehicle) test platform that DroneJournalism.org developers are working with.


Recently, a journalism student from Texas Christian University in Fort Worth emailed me some questions about drone journalism. She was doing research as part of an ethics and law class, and was wanting to know what I believe the future holds for drone journalism and the potential ethical conflicts that might arise from using that technology.

Given the interest many others have had about domestic drones, I thought it would be useful to make that Q&A public. She agreed, and so I've decided to post it here.

Do you think there needs to be an specific mention of drone use in journalists' codes of ethics? Would the guidelines differ from the ethical guidelines for a photographer using a handheld camera?

While existing codes of ethics have proven helpful, blind spots come up when we introduce disruptive technology, or have a communication revolution. I think drone journalism is one of those innovations that forces journalists to take stock of their traditional ethical responsibilities and make some revisions or additions.

We’re trying to establish what those new ethical responsibilities are at DroneJournalism.org and the Professional Society of Drone Journalists. The most frequent ethical concern I hear about involves privacy. Can you ethically allow a drone to film a private person on private property? (Generally, no, you cannot) But there’s more to these drones than just that.

For example, the force needed to keep camera gear, radios and batteries aloft is not insignificant. The rigs we are experimenting with could easily injure a person. If a quadcopter is hovering above someone’s head at 300 feet and suddenly loses power, the results could be disastrous. So a big part of our ethics code is safety. Am I capable of controlling it? Is it safe to operate under these conditions? Am I prepared to take action when something goes wrong? The ethics of safety will trump the value of the story every time.

Something else to consider is that drone technology right now is not as advanced as some would fear it to be. Most multi-rotor craft (helicopters, quadcopters, hexacopters) can only stay aloft for 15 minutes or so. Fixed-wing craft (airplanes) can fly for much longer periods of time, but they can’t be deployed easily or legally yet. And the weather has to be just right. At this stage, a malcontent with a telephoto lens can do more damage than the drones we’re developing. Still, even at this stage, intrusion of private spaces is possible and needs to be discouraged.

Here in Champaign, for instance, we had a story about someone following people at night in a park with what we think was a drone. Pretty scary stuff. This person wasn’t being a journalist, but the event made me realize that these things can really terrorize people if they’re not used properly. It’s not just the footage or data we’re collecting that we need to think about, but how we’re disrupting public spaces with objects that spin at a high rate of speed.

Getting back to the point, a drone journalist really needs to have the classic set of photojournalism ethics (don’t stage shots, don’t alter photos, don’t pay for coverage, be accurate, and all of the other points of the NPPA code), plus additional guidelines that encompass safety and the preservation of private spaces. Because the risk of intrusion of privacy is greater with this technology than any previous, a drone journalist must “amp-up” their ethical considerations.


In the media law and ethics class that I'm taking, I've learned that citizens don't usually enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy in public, but could you see drone use in public spaces raising concerns with the general public, especially because they are less likely to know they are being photographed/observed (depending on the size of the drone, it could be much easier to spot someone standing on the corner with a camera)?
Very good question. Absolutely, people act differently when they know they’re being photographed. A person might chose to walk the other way when they see a journalist with a camera, whereas with a drone, they’d continue on unaware of the situation.

But I also think there’s something to be said for reporting on things as they actually happen, and not the way things happen when a journalist arrives on the scene. So I don’t categorically think it’s wrong to record people from a drone in a public area, even if those people think they’re not being watched. I think what you do with the footage or information is far more important.

If your story is on how private people behave in a public park (littering, smoking, indecent or illegal activity, what have you), you should try everything possible to withhold personally identifiable information. This becomes more important when you’re recording illegal activity, or events where you anticipate a strong public reaction.


What ethical standards would your propose for journalists using drones near or around private property? Would it ever be okay to capture photos or videos of what's happening on someone's private property? An example that immediately comes to mind is a political rally or fundraiser on someone's ranch.
The Supreme Court ruled it’s legal to take photos above private property (SCOTUS views the national airspace as a public space, and anything you view from that public can’t be offered the legal expectation of privacy – see California v. Ciraolo, Dow Chemical v. United States and Florida v. Riley). However, I think we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard. I’m not saying that journalists should never photograph the private property or private persons. Some investigations might be of critical importance to the public, and drones might be the only way to uncover the story. But those should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and never for sensationalism. The litmus test must be: does the public benefit outweigh the invasion of privacy? And could we get this information any other way?

For your example, I would have to consider the people at the rally. Presidents, senators, representatives, governors, mayors, and city council members are considered public figures, so they have different expectations of privacy. However, if the ranch is owned by a private person, that’s their private property, and so ethics might dictate you keep some kind of distance. But what if this person was highly influential, someone who’s being investigated for criminal activity, and a journalist wants to know who his closest political allies are – I think a journalist would be operating in the clear if they were to maintain a high enough altitude (200 or 300 feet, and perhaps not flying directly above the property). I don’t think there would be any case where it would be ethical, not to mention legal, to fly a drone at a low altitude over private property.


Are there any new ethical quandaries journalists might face once they start using drones that they may never have had to deal with before?
Yes, absolutely. There was an interesting panel recently at the Brookings Institute about the impact of drones on privacy, where Catherine Crump, an attorney with the ACLU, made the comment that it’s rare that we have a chance to talk about the potential problems of technology before we adopt it. I think that’s a good thing that we’re having this conversation now, because I think the quandaries will only increase as the technology becomes more capable. Right now, the discussion about ethics is centered on the expectations of privacy and do we or do we not let our journalism drones cross those boundaries. What if a drone spies on a private citizen who is sunbathing in a back yard somewhere? What if it crosses over someone’s property? Those are the questions at the moment.

But the discussion is based on the capabilities of drones in the near future and not on drones 10 years from now. A decade into the future, drones are going to have more advanced sensing capabilities, more freedom of movement, and will have more advanced artificial intelligence. As their capabilities increase, so too will the complexity and the importance of tasks we assign them. We won’t really know to what extent these robots will be capable until they become adopted, so we will invent new jobs for them as we go along. So I can’t really hazard a guess at what we’ll be concerned about in the future, except to say that the current discussion will be resolved by then, and a new discussion will take place.


What do you think the most common news room use for drones in the near future?
Unfortunately, there’s a difference between what I think most news rooms (that have access to drones), and what I would hope news rooms would do with drones.

The way I see it playing out in news rooms, at least initially, is a wiz-bang fascination with technology that stops short of pushing the boundaries. Initial adoption might mean simple television newscasts that could be accomplished outdoors with a tripod are suddenly now “dronecasts.” The news producers might think it a great idea to film the segment from a drone from the sky. It might be visually impressive, but it lacks any sort of substance, and smacks of sensationalism.

I’ll explain why I believe that. Here in Champaign, there’s a local television news station that has failed to make good use of a similarly disruptive technology – online social media. But instead of really understanding the technology and using it to set up, for example, virtual town halls in Twitter, or increasing community outreach, or to source stories, they’ve used it to splash random, unmoderated, comments from random members of the community. These comments never add any substance to the story and they don’t do anything to advance public understanding through journalism. They’re simply a gimmick to hike viewership.

Now, that’s only one station, but you’ll find a similar attitude at most stations. Most television news stations happen are in small markets, and have small budgets, and do not generally chose to invest in the time or expertise it takes to make use of this disruptive technology. That said, I would expect these networks to improve their coverage in some regards. I imagine they would use drones to film local man-made and natural disasters, and certain newsworthy events that could best be covered live and from an aerial vantage point (car chases and crashes, construction projects, shootings, protests). To put it another way, think of all the things that mid-sized and large-market television news stations do with news helicopters, and now give those privileges to even small-market stations.

Of course, that’s just television news. Newspapers and websites probably would use drones more for data collection than aerial footage. In other words, think of all the things that researchers do with these drones (tracking pollution on a beachfront, calculating the oil flow from a damaged rig in the Gulf, mapping land development, conducting environmental surveys), but apply those methods to journalistic investigations.

I see the most hope where journalists can collaborate with scientists in multiple disciplines, conduct investigations using drones, and then package the findings in a digital format that the general public can easily digest. That is, so long as there’s funding, foresight and the will to do those types of projects.