The supply channel start immediately after this panel so we dont have movement back and forth between rooms while the supply chain people see the partnership otherwise known as cfat will happen after the drone panel. We are doing that because we want there to be adequate time for this panel which we are delighted with. I want to thank the colonel for being the injury behind putting this panel together because we thought about the panel. Thanks to your persistance we have a topic that is interesting. People look out to see the geese and i am fine with them. But like this can be a different issue. We are delighted to start this panel. I want to make one more reminder to you which is our Cocktail Reception will follow after the panel and if you have not had a chance to mix and mingle hopefully some of the faculty will stay. We have in access of 80 faculty so hopefully some of them will stay and cards can be exchanged if you are in private practice or government. To that end, we are always learni learning. We are a professor from Duke University, the dreblther of center on law ethics director and Charlie Dunlap is a professor of the practice of law at Duke University school of law as well. Before his retirement from the airforce he had authority supervising 2500 military lawyers worldwide and held numerous duties around the world. He is a grnaduate of the nationl war college. He is a legend in this field. And let me end by saying charlie as a speaker in many places and written. Joe, thank you and the rest of the team for putting together one of the premier conferences not only that you put on but anywhere. I think the great thing about conferences like this is, of course, the information that is conveyed but the ability to see old friends and make new ones. And so just to be a good guest i will be at the Cocktail Reception and try to sample all of the free cocktail which very good. In all seriousness that is an important part of the event. Don has put together a panel together here with myself excluded. It is an honor. I am not going to go through their bios in a lot of detail. I will give you their title so you can orient yourself toward what is in the material. We have a general here who is president and ceo of Resilient Solutions limited. We have jay stanley from senior policy analyst from the aclu speech privacy and technology project. And of course we have don, but scott click, who is senior counselor and acting director of the prepared response in the National Security division in the department of justice. Let me focus on something hard here. We have government officials on our panel. They are not speaking for the government. They are speaking for themselves. Fred is not speaking for any Government Entity or neither am i. Jay is speaking for the government. There is a lot of unmanned systems, drones if you want to call them. Drone is a bad word for industry as well as the military, i think, because it implies things that are not true about the technology. And there is lots in the military, lots of different classes of unmanned airnautical systems and in the civilian world as well. We will focus on the little uass and we will have a show and tell here before meaning it will not be quite in here. If it was it was unbriefed. We will not talk about armed drones overseas. We will talk about the challenge we have here had so much focus on privacy. It is a complex problem and since diving in i am surprised at things that are not regulated and i think it is the question of the technology, or the administration meaning the administration of the regulation has not caught up with the technology. There is lots of Unanswered Questions and so what we are going to do is we are going to have a conversation here. Let me ask a few questions. It will go back and forth and then open it up for your questions. I think this is one subject where i think it is important and it will help us if you ask questions because as we are all developing our thinking on this subject we really need to know what practitioners, scholars and so forth are thinking about awht they are concerned about. I found what i as a scholar dont laugh, don, that is my title now that i think are important but may not be shared by others. Lets start out by talking about the general question. It seemed to me every time i looked into the newspaper i hear a press report there is something about these little drones. Sometimes they are good things. But sometimes not so good. I would like to ask what you see is the potential threat these small systems present to our safety and security, if anything. I will take that one. On this being a pilot with 4,000 flying hours over 22 different types and last job in the air force was chief and responsible for safety i would say the threat now and i will quote major briggs who said this is not an emerging threat. This threat is here and it is here today. It is here for a couple reasons. The threat, i think, you talk about that your question is about is sort of divided into two parts. We have the threat if you are a passenger on an airline, these little guys can occupy the same airspace easily. If you look an youtube, you will see video of this one up at about 4,000 feet over the freeways of california. Wellwon well within the boundaries. You say it looks like it is made of plastic. What will that do . This has a battery inside it and it has warnings and things that lawyers just love to have on these explosive, capable types of batteries. If that were to strike an airplane or go down an engine they are a threat. They are not being flown by people with a desire to do ill harm. They are on the ground while those in the airplane are at risk. They are done by people who have been made empowered, if you will, to operate this because they are so easy and simple to operate. I can take any of you out and you can fly it like an expert in less than five minutes to be frank. Easy to operate, inexpensive, anybody can get it, and you dont have to pass a test or be licensed to fly it. You have a threat with this new technological capability that the law is not keeping pace with that is able to fly. On the other end of the spectrum, you have the more capable crowd with a determined purpose that could use this for ill purposes. I like to say it is a revolution in aviation because it gives the aspects of the air force to an individual. Only nation states used to own that capability; to do intelligence mobility and connective strike even. But now you can purchase one and you can have any of those capabilities from this. Certainly you could have those capabilities. That has been shown in maryland there is an example of a small drone like this trying to deliver drugs and money into the cumberland prison. That happened on two other occasions. One in georgia and one in south carolina. It was drugs, cellphone, and money. Small things they could carry. There is your moability apple had a drone flying over the building and whoever was flying over there got the information on organizing the building through the drone. If you are overseas you probably heard last october about the flights over the Nuclear Power plants in france and in japan with the landing of the djifanning on the prime ministers house with a minuscule part of radioactivity in it just to send a message. Before we get too much further one of the things that surprise me what is the threshold for the faa regulating these devices . Right now there are two aspects. Number one, you can operate it commercially if you go go through the section 333 exemption purpose. What about being a hob hobby . The guidelines are light. They are avoid airports by five miles, 400 feet, and line of sight. But if you look at the actual regulations out there for a hobbyist you will find that line of sight is about the only one that really applies. You dont have to wait for a response but the guideline is to inform the airport you are there. You have to abide by the restricted air space. You cannot fly within 15 nautical miles of Ronald Reagan airport. But i doubt when you order your fanning online and get it shipped those instructions are on there. Is there a size or weight on that sets up the limitations here . You talking 55 pounds or less and to tag on to what fred was talking about the regulation he is talking about is the faa advisory 9157 in case anyone wants to look it up. It is not easy to find but you will eventually find it. You right. The biggest thing jumping out is using your good judgment. When you are talking about model aircraft and that is what we are talking about and not commercial flights because that is a notice for public rulemaking and we can tog about that shortly. It is really use good judgment. In the event you violate good judgment tenants, good airman ship, you are looking at civil fines and penalties. I know, scott, you are going to talk about other laws that might apply but from the faa perspective that is what is out there. Before we get into more of the laws what about, i mean it is pretty obvious to me there is privacy and privacy issue here that is raised by these small drones that anybody can operate. Jay, do you have any thoughts on that . Thank you. So, i think that the aclu and the Civil Liberties concerns around drones fall into two buckets. Number one spying. And number two is the First Amendment and the right to photography. So our big focus is putting rules in place to insure draion used by local agencies are not a tool for mass surveillance. We dont have issues with swat raids or lost child or so forth. But we are concerned that National Security agencies and especially local Police Departments will use them for mass surveillance. And individuals will use them for privacy invasions. We havent called for regulations in that area because it is complicated. It is unclear what extent we will see which is like the kid flyling it down the block. Peeping tom rules and harassment and trespassing rules. It is not clear much current laws will cover the things we will see as regular problems when it comes to individuals engaging in privacy invasion. There is going to be a lot of innovation and we dont want to step on that but First Amendment issues. We, the aclu, have had numerous law suits with Police Officers and people interfering with their right to tape situations. Sir, you need to put that camera away is frequently heard. People harassed, arrested or worse for photography and we have won every lawsuit we have filled. The courts have pretty much found a First Amendment right to photography. So that cuts in complicated ways against the privacy concerns here you can easily see. I think we will see a clash before the National Security establishment and agencies which have very genuine concerns and another thing that is powerful is industry. We tolerate huge carnage when railroads were new technologies and there was areas and crashes and mistakes. We tolerate huge carnage when it comes to automobiles. How much will we tolerate from drones in order to reap what the industry says is huge innovations, conveniences for all of us, really cool applications, how much will we tolerate . And in many ways, the Civil Liberties community doesnt have a dog in the fight. We respect there are Real Security problems and have been a lot of innovation and we like that. I guess the thing we keep an eye out for in that area is that security not be used as a pretext to prohibit people from using drones for photography by agencies that dont want to be subject to public scrutiny, by Police Forces that want to if they are dealing with a riot in a certain way and dont want to be subject to photography. The faa closed the air space for no reason other than to pro vent drones from flying over by news organizations. That is our interest. But we dont deny there are big security problems. We dont deny there are big benefits on the other side, too. Let me ask you, steve, what just generally, what do you think about the regulation of the use of these things . And are there recourses in the law today or do we need to start from square run . What are your thoughts on this . Thank you. And thank you for allowing me to appear and saying anything i say is on my individual capacity and not with the department of justice. The Regulatory Framework is in two or three pieces at this point. You have the proposed regulation that has to do with commercial use that was mentioned. You have the faa and the 2012 mordernization act setting out a different frame for hobbyist and the other aspect is the faa has a number of regulations out there that apply generally to operating aircraft that we know are going to apply to uafs. So for example, it is 14 cfr, 91. 13, it is on your little thumb drive if you have picked that up for the conference. It is a regulation that prohibits the careless or reckless operation of an aircraft and that applies to uafs. There is a Regulatory Framework that applies to using the uafs in a reckless way. And that is irrespective of the size. Yes, irrespective of the size. As long as you meet the quality and elements. There are a number of statues that would appear into the space. Some are specific to aircraft. If you are sketching an aircraft, you are violating section 796 and that is in the material. There are other ways of looking at existing statues with a creative application of a Technology Neutral lens. You could see how existing criminal statues and you can go into the that if we want how those could relay or were thought to apply to a uaf circumstances if someone was operating the uaf in conflict with that. There is a Legal Framework. There may be gaps folks perceive but there is a Legal Framework that governs the unlawful use of a uaf. I am thinking outloud and we are talking about the legal and criminal ways you would confront improper use of the uaf but is industry looking at te technilogical prosecutitechnil e technilodtechnilodge solutions . Yes, my company as a matter of fact. We write operation manuals and Safety Systems and help them through the faa triple a exemption. We assist Defense Companies who do counter drones. So we help those who we like to fly and do Something Else for those why dont like. There are technologies. It is quite a challenge Technology Wise but there is a history of ground air defense that millitaries have and they have been able to take some of that technology and move it slightly in order to technologies in order to deal with this threat. It makes takes a multi approach. Not one aspect is the silver bullet. But depending on the area you need to defend or protect it would involve a radar system, electronic surveillance, it would involve acoustic and long range optical cameras and a command and control system that will similate the data and tell whoever is watching there is an issue and something approaching and then you have to determine the intent of that and it is gray area once you found it, cracked it, fixed it, what are you allowed to do engage it . Probably depends on what you are defending. A National Security asset like the president or nuclear instillation you would probably have one set. But overall we start to run into things scott was talking about. There is a law that you cannot shoot at an aircraft. And the faa said this is an aircraft when flown for the purpose of flight outside. If you shoot at a drone you can actually wind up in prison or fined. If a drone was hovering outside of your bedroom window with a camera on it you could call the police not shoot it down . The lawyers question is let me jump in. What the reference is made for to folks who are interested. Is title 18 u. S. Section code 32 that deals with the destruction of aircraft. There is a state of mind of willfwill fillness. Shoot it down should be looked at the with the statue. There are state statues that might govern or has a statue addressing peeping tom using uaf. But it would violate section 32. Self help is not suggested . Anyone advising anyone planning to do that needs to be thinking about the statute. That statute had other applications week get into in terms of someone using a uaf to threaten an airplane. One thing that is asked is i dont have an answer is if you ground the aircraft with a net rather than destroying or harming it in any way i dont know the answer to the net. I dont know if they can damage or sue you for it. It is possible. Talking about state law, it is relevant here. I want to touch for a second on that and where we are with state legislation. In the last three years, there have been 380 separate bills to legislate drone use introduced. A lot were drafted with the assistance of the aclu and focused on government actors and privacy. So the majority of these proposals focus on government actors and prohibit for example, Law Enforcement, which is the primary interest target of these bills and some that have passed actually into law, from using a drone for purposes of collecting information or evidence without a warrant. And then a lot of these bills carve out specific exceptions when it would be permissable. A number of the proposals dont include the consent exception which seems a little odd. The concern i had after looking at the issue and the threat for lack of a bet term is that virtually none of these bills or laws address the top threat. So the focus has been on government actors and as we heard not so much on the private individual because frankly it is kind of i think as we heard, it is hard. It is a complex problem and how you address it. You have the surveillance privacy issue and the no kidding kinetic threat issue, right . Because we talked about the threat here for a second and one thing you didnt mention fred is did anybody see the Youtube Video of the kid who created the drone and put guns on it and he is shooting things . I am seeing nods out there. That is relatively new but there has been a russian guy out there on youtube