Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

The Need for a Goldilocks Policy on Drones

The FAA has dragged its feet, but some rules are needed, one drone entrepreneur says.

Shutterstock / Piotr Debowski

The final session at the Bloomberg Next Big Thing Summit on Monday focused on the promise of commercial drones, as well as the regulatory challenges that stand in the way of fuller adoption.

The Federal Aviation Administration has, by most accounts, moved glacially in its efforts to craft rules covering the use of unmanned aircraft. Meanwhile, it has moved aggressively against some operators who have ignored temporary restrictions put in place, notably attempting to fine videographer Raphael Pirker $10,000 for flying a drone over the University of Virginia campus in 2011.

In March, a judge ruled that the FAA had overreached. But Pirker’s attorney, Brendan Schulman of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, argued onstage that the government’s actions (and lack thereof) are hurting the domestic drone industry. He and others said the regulatory uncertainty is allowing development and commercialization to leap ahead in nations with fewer or more mature rules.

Bloomberg’s Cory Johnson noted that the Libertarian set would argue there’s no need for rules at all; that regulations just get in the way of industry. But there are legitimate privacy and safety issues that come with allowing amateurs or professionals to fill the skies with heavy flying objects equipped with blades and cameras.

I, for one, would strongly prefer they not crash into buildings, planes or my head.

Jonathan Downey, founder and CEO of Airware, said there are two equal risks: Excessive regulation and none at all.

“We worry about both extreme ends of the spectrum,” he said, adding that a drone crashed about 20 feet away from him as he was having dinner on a recent evening. “We worry about a day when people are flying drones in unsafe … manners.”

But he added the rules shouldn’t be so strict that only large companies can afford the cost of compliance. In other words, the FAA should strive for a kind of Goldilocks middle ground: Not too strict, not too lenient, but just right. And the sooner the better.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

See More:

More in Technology

Podcasts
Are humanoid robots all hype?Are humanoid robots all hype?
Podcast
Podcasts

AI is making them better — but they’re not going to be doing your chores anytime soon.

By Avishay Artsy and Sean Rameswaram
Future Perfect
The old tech that could help stop the next airborne pandemicThe old tech that could help stop the next airborne pandemic
Future Perfect

Glycol vapors, explained.

By Shayna Korol
Future Perfect
Elon Musk could lose his case against OpenAI — and still get what he wantsElon Musk could lose his case against OpenAI — and still get what he wants
Future Perfect

It’s not about who wins. It’s about the dirty laundry you air along the way.

By Sara Herschander
Life
Why banning kids from AI isn’t the answerWhy banning kids from AI isn’t the answer
Life

What kids really need in the age of artificial intelligence.

By Anna North
Culture
Anthropic owes authors $1.5B for pirating work — but the claims process is a Kafkaesque messAnthropic owes authors $1.5B for pirating work — but the claims process is a Kafkaesque mess
Culture

“Your AI monster ate all our work. Now you’re trying to pay us off with this piece of garbage that doesn’t work.”

By Constance Grady
Future Perfect
Some deaf children are hearing again because of a new gene therapySome deaf children are hearing again because of a new gene therapy
Future Perfect

A medical field that almost died is quietly fixing one disease at a time.

By Bryan Walsh