Regulation, Co-Regulation and Self-Regulation of Civil Unmanned Aircrafts in Europe
Safety and security concerns play a key role during
the design of civil UAs (aircraft controlled by a pilot who is not onboard
it) by the producers and the offer of different services by the
operators. At present, European countries have fragmented
regulations about the manufacture and use of civil drones, therefore
the European institutions are trying to approach all these regulations
into a common one. In this sense, not only law but also ethics can
give guidelines to the industry in order to obtain better reports from
their clients. With our results, we would like to give advice to the
European industry, as well as give new insights to the academia and
policymakers.
[1] M. L. Smith (2015) “Regulating law enforcement’s use of drones: The
need for state legislation”. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 52(2):423–
454.
[2] R. L. Finn, and D. Wright (2016) “Privacy, data protection and ethics for
civil drone practice: A survey of industry, regulators and civil society
organisations”. Computer Law and Security Review, 32(4):577–586.
[3] C. Stöcker, R. Bennett, F. Nex, M. Gerke, and J. Zevenbergen (2017)
Review of the Current State of UAV Regulations. Remote Sensing
9(5):459–485.
[4] B. Rao, A. G. Gopi, and R. Maione (2016) “The societal impact of
commercial drones”. Technology in Society, 45:83–90.
[5] R. Clarke (2014) “The regulation of civilian drones’ impacts on
behavioural privacy”. Computer Law and Security Review, 30(3): 286–
305.
[6] R. Clarke (2016) “Appropriate regulatory responses to the drone
epidemic”. Computer Law and Security Review, 32(1):152–155.
[7] P. K. Freeman, and R. S. Freeland (2014) “Politics & technology: U.S.
polices restricting unmanned aerial systems in agriculture”. Food Policy,
49(1):302–311.
[8] European Parliament (2016a) “Directive (EU) 2016/680 Of the
European Parliament and Of the Council, of 27 April 2016, on the
protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal
data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention,
investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the
execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data,
and repealing Council Framework (Decision 2008/977/JHA)”. http://eurlex.
europa.eu/legalcontent/
EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2016.119.01.0089.01.ENG.
Accessed 22 September 2017.
[9] European Parliament (2016b) “Regulation (EU) 2016/679 Of the
European Parliament and Of the Council, of 27 April 2016, on the
protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal
data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive
95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation)”. http://eurlex.
europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj. Accessed 22 September 2017.
[10] R. C. Arkin (2016) “Ethics and Autonomous Systems: Perils and
Promises”. Proceedings of the IEEE, 104(10): 1779–1781.
[11] K. B. Culver (2014) “From Battlefield to Newsroom: Ethical
Implications of Drone Technology in Journalism”. Journal of Mass
Media Ethics: Exploring Questions of Media Morality, 29(1):52–64.
[12] C. Coopmans (2014) “Architecture requirements for ethical, accurate,
and resilient unmanned aerial personal remote sensing”. 2014
International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems, (ICUAS)
IEEE:1–8.
[13] S. Braun, M. Friedewald, and G. Valkenburg (2015) “Civilizing drones:
Military discourses going civil?” Science and Technology Studies,
28(2):73–87.
[14] N. Ruchaud, and J. L. Dugelay (2015) “Privacy protection filter using
Stego Scrambling in video surveillance”. In: CEUR Workshop
Proceedings, vol. 1436. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1436/Paper62.pdf of subordinate document. Accessed 22 September 2017.
[15] R. Luppicini, and A. So (2016) “A technoethical review of commercial
drone use in the context of governance, ethics, and privacy”. Technology
in Society, 46:109–119.
[16] AEDRON (2016) “Code of conduct”. https://www.aedron.com/codigoetico.
Accessed 22 September 2017.
[17] CAA (2015) “Guidance on using small drones for commercial work”.
https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-industry/Aircraft/Unmannedaircraft/
Small-drones/Guidance-on-using-small-drones-for-commercialwork/.
Accessed 22 September 2017.
[18] ARPAS-UK (2017) “Code of conduct”. https://www.arpas.uk/memcode-
of-conduct/ of subordinate document. Accessed 22 September
2017.
[19] P. Boucher (2016) “‘You Wouldn’t have Your Granny Using Them’:
Drawing Boundaries Between Acceptable and Unacceptable
Applications of Civil Drones”. Science and Engineering Ethics,
22:1391–1418.
[20] European Commission (2015) “Opinion 01/2015 on Privacy and Data
Protection Issues relating to the Utilisation of Drones. Article 29 Data
Protection Working Party, 01673/15/EN WP 231”.
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/index_en.htm. Accessed 22
September 2017.
[1] M. L. Smith (2015) “Regulating law enforcement’s use of drones: The
need for state legislation”. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 52(2):423–
454.
[2] R. L. Finn, and D. Wright (2016) “Privacy, data protection and ethics for
civil drone practice: A survey of industry, regulators and civil society
organisations”. Computer Law and Security Review, 32(4):577–586.
[3] C. Stöcker, R. Bennett, F. Nex, M. Gerke, and J. Zevenbergen (2017)
Review of the Current State of UAV Regulations. Remote Sensing
9(5):459–485.
[4] B. Rao, A. G. Gopi, and R. Maione (2016) “The societal impact of
commercial drones”. Technology in Society, 45:83–90.
[5] R. Clarke (2014) “The regulation of civilian drones’ impacts on
behavioural privacy”. Computer Law and Security Review, 30(3): 286–
305.
[6] R. Clarke (2016) “Appropriate regulatory responses to the drone
epidemic”. Computer Law and Security Review, 32(1):152–155.
[7] P. K. Freeman, and R. S. Freeland (2014) “Politics & technology: U.S.
polices restricting unmanned aerial systems in agriculture”. Food Policy,
49(1):302–311.
[8] European Parliament (2016a) “Directive (EU) 2016/680 Of the
European Parliament and Of the Council, of 27 April 2016, on the
protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal
data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention,
investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the
execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data,
and repealing Council Framework (Decision 2008/977/JHA)”. http://eurlex.
europa.eu/legalcontent/
EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2016.119.01.0089.01.ENG.
Accessed 22 September 2017.
[9] European Parliament (2016b) “Regulation (EU) 2016/679 Of the
European Parliament and Of the Council, of 27 April 2016, on the
protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal
data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive
95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation)”. http://eurlex.
europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj. Accessed 22 September 2017.
[10] R. C. Arkin (2016) “Ethics and Autonomous Systems: Perils and
Promises”. Proceedings of the IEEE, 104(10): 1779–1781.
[11] K. B. Culver (2014) “From Battlefield to Newsroom: Ethical
Implications of Drone Technology in Journalism”. Journal of Mass
Media Ethics: Exploring Questions of Media Morality, 29(1):52–64.
[12] C. Coopmans (2014) “Architecture requirements for ethical, accurate,
and resilient unmanned aerial personal remote sensing”. 2014
International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems, (ICUAS)
IEEE:1–8.
[13] S. Braun, M. Friedewald, and G. Valkenburg (2015) “Civilizing drones:
Military discourses going civil?” Science and Technology Studies,
28(2):73–87.
[14] N. Ruchaud, and J. L. Dugelay (2015) “Privacy protection filter using
Stego Scrambling in video surveillance”. In: CEUR Workshop
Proceedings, vol. 1436. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1436/Paper62.pdf of subordinate document. Accessed 22 September 2017.
[15] R. Luppicini, and A. So (2016) “A technoethical review of commercial
drone use in the context of governance, ethics, and privacy”. Technology
in Society, 46:109–119.
[16] AEDRON (2016) “Code of conduct”. https://www.aedron.com/codigoetico.
Accessed 22 September 2017.
[17] CAA (2015) “Guidance on using small drones for commercial work”.
https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-industry/Aircraft/Unmannedaircraft/
Small-drones/Guidance-on-using-small-drones-for-commercialwork/.
Accessed 22 September 2017.
[18] ARPAS-UK (2017) “Code of conduct”. https://www.arpas.uk/memcode-
of-conduct/ of subordinate document. Accessed 22 September
2017.
[19] P. Boucher (2016) “‘You Wouldn’t have Your Granny Using Them’:
Drawing Boundaries Between Acceptable and Unacceptable
Applications of Civil Drones”. Science and Engineering Ethics,
22:1391–1418.
[20] European Commission (2015) “Opinion 01/2015 on Privacy and Data
Protection Issues relating to the Utilisation of Drones. Article 29 Data
Protection Working Party, 01673/15/EN WP 231”.
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/index_en.htm. Accessed 22
September 2017.
@article{"International Journal of Business, Human and Social Sciences:77256", author = "M. de Miguel Molina and V. Santamarina Campos and M. V. Segarra Oña and B. de Miguel Molina", title = "Regulation, Co-Regulation and Self-Regulation of Civil Unmanned Aircrafts in Europe", abstract = "Safety and security concerns play a key role during
the design of civil UAs (aircraft controlled by a pilot who is not onboard
it) by the producers and the offer of different services by the
operators. At present, European countries have fragmented
regulations about the manufacture and use of civil drones, therefore
the European institutions are trying to approach all these regulations
into a common one. In this sense, not only law but also ethics can
give guidelines to the industry in order to obtain better reports from
their clients. With our results, we would like to give advice to the
European industry, as well as give new insights to the academia and
policymakers.", keywords = "Ethics, regulation, safety, security.", volume = "12", number = "5", pages = "578-4", }
