Tag Archives: FAA

Confessions of Sleep Apnea Man

There are elements of medical care in the U.S. that just plumb confound me. One is the requirement of a prescription for the most mundane of items, particularly when you think about where we could be focusing our efforts.

Please indulge me a moment while I ‘splain the background on this.

I went through a sleep study back in 2002, where I was diagnosed with sleep apnea. Apnea is a condition most identified with snoring, although not all snorers are apnea sufferers. After the diagnosis, I was provided with a CPAP machine, the device most commonly used in the treatment of that particular condition.

Sleep apnea is described as a potentially serious sleep disorder in which breathing repeatedly stops and starts. What it really was, however, was a condition that kept my wife awake at night. I don’t know why the doctors didn’t treat her instead. The CPAP (Continuous Positive Airway Pressure) machine is designed to gently pressurize your airway, keeping it open, providing for a more sound sleep.

Mostly for your wife.

You see, the CPAP literature says the machine is designed to alleviate apnea episodes and reduce potentially fatal risks. The fatal risk it is most likely to alleviate is stopping your spouse from shooting you in the face with a bazooka at 3 am.

I have used the same CPAP machine since 2002, and it has performed very well. I do sleep much better using it, as does my wife. I usually take it with me in my travels, and therein lies the conundrum that has produced this missive.

My unit, now about 13 years old, is somewhat clunky for the frequent traveler. This is especially true when one does not generally check luggage. Somewhat bigger than a large box of Kleenex, the device either must be packed within my carry-on or in its own travel bag. As a medical device, it does not count as one of my two carry-on items under FAA rules, but it is nevertheless bothersome to have to tote a fairly significant extra bag around. Prior to the advent of PreCheck, it had to come out of the bag and be run through the X-ray equipment on its own. Until about five years ago, it even had to be pulled aside by TSA for explosives testing. If TSA was efficient, that would occur while I was having my prostate checked by Two Finger Lou. If not, the testing added a few minutes to every pass through security.

Today, as a government-fingerprinted “Known Traveler” with my very own “Trusted Traveler” ID number (don’t get me started on that), I always fly as a PreCheck passenger. The device no longer has to come out of the bag, so for trips of just a few days I pack it inside my carry-on. Of course, as we all really know, size does matter, and this is an issue for trips longer than just a few days. While I have become a very efficient packer and can get four or five days of clothes into a carry-on with the machine, anything longer requires that the unit be carried separately.

With that in mind, I ordered a “travel CPAP”: a machine about a quarter of the size of the one I have been using. After I placed the order with an online company, it notified me that it required a prescription for the machine to be on file before it could fulfill the order. I have a prescription for CPAP supplies on file with the company, but apparently being able to buy the supplies is different than buying the machine that uses them. According to the FDA, CPAP devices are considered Class II medical devices and require prescription by law.

The issue is that my sleep specialist, whom I have not seen in more than 12 years, changed practices a decade ago, and records no longer exist with the practice where I was diagnosed. Without those records, no prescription will be forthcoming. I frankly don’t know what my options are with the practice. I suppose I could set up an appointment, go through another two-night sleep study, spend a couple hundred in co-pays and have my insurance billed God knows what for the effort, all to get a piece of paper confirming something we already know I have.

All for a machine whose basic function is blowing air.

If we applied that logic here, you would need a prescription just to read my blog.

Can someone in the medical community take a moment to explain this to me, an admitted medical ignoramus? Have these machines been abused in some unimaginable way? Were teens buying these machines in droves to huff air? Are they somehow vital in the making of meth? For Christ’s sake, in the hands of evil men, what indeterminate hell could they unleash?

What aren’t you people telling us????

Someone should tell the FDA that CPAPs don’t kill people; drugs kill people. Maybe the FDA should focus some of its enforcement zeal toward those things that really matter. Perhaps the FDA has heard of the need for a national prescription drug monitoring database.

Unless, of course, I am mistaken, and rogue CPAPs are slaughtering more than the 20,000 people every year who die from prescription drug overdoses.

My solution to this dilemma will, I hope, be found through my primary care physician. I have made an appointment with him for the sole and single purpose of getting that magic prescription. It will cost me $30, and my insurance company significantly more, all to tell the good doc that I’m feeling fine and that there is nothing wrong. I just need one of those air-huffing, meth-cooking, chaos-reigning machines — but a small one to make my travel schedule easier to bear.

There is a chance that he will not be able to authorize one without another complete sleep study, in which event it will represent a colossal waste of resources.

In the absence of a logical explanation, this scenario simply serves to show the ridiculous waste of time, effort and resources in a system where common sense often struggles for its moment in the sun. In a world where we are trying to figure out how five or six remaining practicing physicians are going to treat 350 million people, is this really where we need to devote so much effort? It simply makes no sense to me.

But then again, there may be reasons of which I am not aware. I am sure some medical wizard out there, or a medical-equipment salesperson, should be able to enlighten me and remove my veil of ignorance on the matter. I encourage you to do so, and you don’t even need to be gentle about it.

It certainly won’t be my first time.

What Is the Future for Drones?

In 2013, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos announced to the world that the online retailer would begin to develop a “drone-to-door” delivery service for its loyal customers. Dubbed Amazon Prime Air, the system would deliver packages directly to your doorstep in just 30 minutes after an order is placed, setting a new and higher bar for “fast delivery.”

However, after a variety of issues and concerns were addressed by increasing regulations added by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), it  appeared that Bezos’ announcement would never get off the ground. But after two years of waiting for the FAA, Amazon will finally get to test these drones on U.S. soil — or, should I say U.S. air? — bringing customers one step closer to having their Tide detergent refilled by a delivery drone.

Despite the U.S. government dragging behind on approvals, for retail and civilian use, sales for drones aren’t expected to slow any time soon. Companies like Teal Group, an aerospace research firm, estimates that sales of both military and civilian drones will total more than $89 billion by 2023.

Other big companies, such as State Farm and AIG, are also getting into the drone business. In fact, State Farm is the first insurance company in the U.S. to receive regulatory approval to test drones for commercial use. With drones popping up in so many different industries, it makes me wonder, what impact will drones have on companies’ customer experience — good and bad?

The Good

State Farm plans on changing the insurance industry for the better, using drones to aid in natural disaster relief. For instance, instead of State Farm spending the money (and time) to ship hundreds of claims adjusters out to natural disaster sites to assess damages, the company will send only a handful of agents equipped with a drone partner to more efficiently survey damaged property.

Jason Wolf, a property defense attorney and shareholder at the Florida-based firm, Koch Parafinczuck & Wolf, stated in an interview to ClaimsJournal.com: “I envision a time when, after a catastrophe, an adjuster pulls up to a neighborhood and opens the trunk of his car and presses a few buttons on his tablet device, and the drone does an immediate survey of everything and streams it all right to his tablet device, and he knows exactly where to go first and what’s most significant within minutes. Costing very little money, the insurance company has a sense of everything that needs to be done in a very short amount of time.”

Imagine all the headaches this could mitigate for customers and employees after the chaos caused by unfortunate losses created by natural disasters.

It’s interesting, too, how this type of surveying will require additional training, but training we might be familiar with. Much like a police officer who trains alongside his dog in a K-9 unit, insurance adjusters will train alongside their partner – only, in this industry, it would be a drone.

While there is debate in the insurance world about how drones will operate, one thing is for sure – they will be operated and used to speed up services and save on cost, making customers’ lives a little easier. As such, claims assessment aided by a drone will yield quick turnarounds and an even quicker payout to the insured.

Additionally, insurance companies will start offering drone insurance to owners of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). RiskandInsurance.com noted that the general types of coverage that will be required for the use of UAS and ancillary business activities will include liability, personal injury, invasion of privacy, property and workers’ compensation. The publication also mentioned that, given the conservative nature of the insurance industry, carriers could place stricter guidelines on drone coverage than the FAA does.

Once regulated and insured, drones will be sent out into the community to collect data. For example, what if someone’s home flooded? Well, insurance companies could send their drone to the flooded house and survey the area for all damages, speeding up the process for families affected.

There is also the use of drones for the collection of data by third parties. Imagine that Ford is looking to target advertisements for a new truck to areas where the road conditions would demand the use of four-wheel drive. Ford hires an agency to send out drones to specific cities where it is looking to advertise.

This drone will collect data on road conditions and take images of cars on the road to make sure a majority of drivers are in trucks, and will then report back on economic conditions. Ford doesn’t want to be advertising where citizens can’t or won’t pay for the product.

In a world becoming more drone-centric, these types of background checks and data collections via UAS will become increasingly more frequent.

The Bad

The government review process for a drone is 120 days, but, by the end of the process, Amazon says the technology of the drone submitted for regulation is outdated. Therefore, Amazon must update its filing and submit to the FAA for regulation, starting the 120-day review process all over again.

The other concern of the FAA is air traffic. Coming down with a few regulations on drone flight, the FAA is requiring that drone controllers have sight of the drone at all times and that they must operate under 400 feet.

Exelis, a global aerospace, defense, information and services company, was featured in an article on Engadget recently, discussing its development of an air traffic control system for drones. Nearly ready for testing at the FAA approved drone-testing sites, the low-altitude monitoring system would keep tabs on compact aircrafts flying at or under the mandated 400 feet.

It’ll be interesting to see how industry giants, such as Amazon, overcome these obstacles to create a non-invasive customer experience with drone technology.

Once regulated, the next issue is invasion of civilian privacy. Private and civil liberties advocates have raised doubts about the legitimacy of facial recognition cameras, thermal imaging cameras, open Wi-Fi sniffers, license plate scanners and other sensors commonly used by drones in the civilian sphere.

Civilian uses of drones for hobby are already causing issues, most notably at the White House, but across the country, as well. The LA Times reported last June that while LA Kings hockey fans were celebrating their Stanley Cup victory, a group noticed a drone flying over their heads filming the scene. Angry at the invasion of privacy, the crowd knocked the drone out of the sky using a T-shirt and then smashed it to bits with a skateboard.

In Los Angeles, flying a drone in public is not illegal, but LAPD Cmdr. Andrew Smith commented that, “It was kind of an eye-opener for us, that this something we really need to pay attention to.” While the Kings fans reactions may seem a little over the top, the general population seems to feel the same way when they see a drone overhead.

With no official laws on the books regarding the use of domestic drones, the right to privacy becomes a large topic of concern for many citizens. The American Civil Liberties Union states on its website, “Congress has ordered the Federal Aviation Administration to change airspace rules to make it much easier for police nationwide to use domestic drones, but the law does not include badly needed privacy protections.”

It will be interesting to see how industries promote drone use to their customers, without raising fears about a threat to privacy. After all, customers may not always be right, but they are always the customers.

Drones will also need to be protected from cyber attacks.

“Cyberattacks on your PC – they can steal information, and they can steal money, but they don’t cause physical damage, whereas cyber-attacks in a UAV or a car can cause physical damage, and we really don’t want to open that can of worms,” said Kathleen Fisher, the previous program manager of the DARPA project in a statement to NextGov.com

The Pentagon is currently working on developing code that will protect a Boeing Little Bird unmanned aircraft from being hacked. Defense industry programmers are rewriting software to safeguard the computer onboard the helicopter drone and aim to have the project completed by 2017.

The Future

It’s exciting to think about what drone technology will bring to companies and their customers – and to people everywhere. Let’s face it, if we think we have seen the complete potential of what customer experience has to offer, then, well, we’re being naive. The new drone technology will reinvent customer experience once again. And the best part? We all get to see how it unfolds.

The future seems endless for drones. Whether you feel they are an invasion of privacy, or they will begin to make our lives easier and aid society in ways that haven’t even been thought of yet, drones aren’t going anywhere any time soon. If you need to put it in perspective, a white paper featured on Cognizant.com notes that 40,000 drones are expected to deploy in 2015, and this is a number that will continue to increase each year. This industry is ready for take-off.

drone 2

If you haven’t come face-to-face with a drone yet, don’t worry, you will.

4 Technologies That Are Changing Risk

This summarizes a session from RIMS that was headlined by Google Risk Manager Kelly Crowder as well as Google Global Safety Manager Erike Young. I served as the event host and moderator, teeing up the subject matter. We focused on four major areas of technology that are driving transformative change in the way we do things and, thus, changing risk. Disruptive technology, as the panel pointed out, forces risk managers and insurers to imagine and forecast how various advancements affect: safety; risk assessment; regulatory and legal parameters; and insurance implications.

Albert Einstein set the course for the future when he said: “The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.” Ideas can reach beyond probable or practical restraints.

Google takes that notion to heart at Google X, a semi-secret lab located in Silicon Valley that aims via research and development to advance scientific knowledge and fuel discoveries that can change the world. “What if” abstract concepts, also known to Google as “moonshots,” are tireless experiments that often fail but that occasionally produce disruptive technology. The mantra is “fail fast, fail often, fail forward.” Learn and change. Sergey Brin, one of Google’s co-founders, and scientist Astro Teller (Captain of Moonshots) seek to improve existing technologies by a factor of 10. Google began with the self-driving car in 2010. Google X now includes a life sciences division involved in bionics.

As with the radical transportation shift to horseless carriages 130 years ago, the technologies are changing risk in profound ways, but the positive and negative impact of new technology can be hard to predict.

Starting with Botsourcing and Robotics, the panel highlighted the trend of companies to utilize robots and artificial intelligence for a wide array of service industries, manufacturers, medical providers and first responders, which seek safer, more efficient and cost-effective ways of serving clients or conducting business. While more dangerous occupational risks and blue-collar jobs are expected to be safer and more efficient, it remains uncertain whether the demand for labor will continue to grow as technology marches forward. Within 10 years, more than 40% of the workforce is expected to be affected by or replaced with robotics.

One positive sign noted in the presentation is that many American companies using robotics and 3D printing technologies, are transferring production facilities from overseas back to the U.S. and creating homeland jobs in the process. New job skills will become necessary to sustain broad-based prosperity. With respect to the highly advanced robots expected to integrate into society, the panel if their cognition will ever replace emotionally oriented skills. Will the warmth of human interaction remain a value in the future?

Another area of advancement is Surveillance and Wearable Biometrics. The Internet of Things represents the embedding of physical objects with sensors and connectivity. Devices like smart thermostats, as Google pointed out, are able to learn from our behavior patterns to anticipate our needs at home or work on a 24- hour basis. Our security and monitoring systems are tied to public safety, medical providers and our smartphones. Data collection is growing at an enormous pace, effectively tracking our every move. This, as pointed out, has created concern for privacy and for the increasing vulnerability to cyber threats.

Fixed and mobile surveillance cameras have facial identification technology. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV’s), also known as drones, can be preprogrammed to operate autonomously, although the panel pointed out that current FAA restrictions require an operator following visual line-of sight rules below 400 feet of altitude. It’s expected that, within the next few years, there will be autonomous drone surveillance and product delivery systems.

Utilities can use drones to monitor power transmission lines at 1/10th the cost of a helicopter and with safety and efficiency impossible with helicopters. Public safety departments can use UAVs to assess damages as well as risks. Four U.S. insurers are currently using human-operated drones to assess property damage claims arising from natural disasters. The panel showed photos of UAVs that look like insects that are the size of a fingertip.

Wearable biometrics are much more sophisticated than Apple watches and Fitbits. Google explained the company’s quest to improve health monitoring systems. With 9.3% of the U.S. population alone (29 million) suffering from diabetes, Google sells a revolutionary contact lens, developed with Novartis, that monitors glucose levels and corrects vision similar to an autofocus camera. Other panel photos show tattoo-like patches thinner than a human hair that stick to the skin. Using microfluidic construction, these nearly invisible patches monitor EKG and EEG bodily functions and transmit the data 24/7 wirelessly. Similar monitors, known as smarty pants, can be sewn into underclothes and bras.

Exoskeleton Technologies are being developed by more than a dozen major manufacturers, as the panel demonstrated, and their products are expanding human capacity and endurance far beyond most expectations. These are wearable machines that combine human intelligence and machine power to achieve nearly any conceivable task without falling. Used by the military, public safety, hazmat teams and industries and for medical rehabilitation, exoskeletons let humans perform feats that would have been physically impossible a few years ago. Neuro interfaces with bio-logical signals allow paraplegics to relearn lost functions. Some patients can actually experience running a four-minute mile or play certain sports. Lifting is painless and commonplace with weights of 40 to 60 pounds, with new technology allowing a person to run without falling down with 200 pounds of weight on their back. A la “Iron Man,” exoskeleton suits are being designed into wearable fabrics with micro energy packs.

This area of technology has the greatest potential of protecting workers from soft tissue strains and back injuries. In addition, it serves a dual purpose of advancing an injured worker’s rehabilitation and recovery process without the inherent risk of getting reinjured. As pointed out, experts expect industrial injuries to be reduced as much as 70% as exoskeleton technology is woven into the workplace as personal protective equipment (PPE). Perhaps a bigger question, with an aging workforce and population, is the unknown cost and whether employers, insurers or individuals will bear the expense.

The fourth and final technology covered by the panel was Autonomous Transportation Systems and Devices. Google pioneered self-driving vehicles and leads in the development of its associated technology, but autonomous vehicles are now being produced and tested by a growing number of manufacturers. In March 2015, Delphi sent a driverless Audi SUV on a 3,400-mile trip through 15 states from San Francisco to New York City in eight days without an accident. Auto manufacturers are approaching self-driving features on an incremental basis with self-braking, self-parking and other autonomous safety-related features. Google has inspired a jump to a fully autonomous vehicle with no steering wheel or brake. These self-driving vehicles perform 7,000 safety processes per second at high speeds with far safer results than any human driver.

The impact of self-driving vehicles, including trucks, is expected to be commonplace within 20 years or sooner. A recent national survey of drivers indicated 44% are looking forward to autonomous vehicles. Respondents cited safety as their first priority. Their second reason was their expectation that they would not be paying for car insurance, which averages $820 per licensed vehicle per year in the U.S. Statisticians expected a drastic reduction of injuries as well as reduced violations like DUI, speeding and running red lights. With 35,000 motor vehicle deaths each year in the U.S., increased safety coupled with increased freeway efficiencies of ultimately more than 10 fold are issues that will make this a disruptive technology that will seem long overdue.

As the Google risk management team pointed out, insurers don’t know how to react or respond to the inevitable switch to autonomous vehicles. Even on a road test basis, auto insurance underwriters are scratching their heads trying to assess the risk implications.

As the panel pointed out to the inquisitive audience during the Q&A session, it may be relatively simple to determine the impact of new technology from a measurable, scientific basis. But the big challenge for risk managers is imagining the implications these various technological advancements will have on our organizations, workforce and insurers. Auto insurers have at least $500 billion in annual premiums at stake in the U.S. alone. What will happen to that revenue when we shed our need to get behind the wheel every day?

Google also pointed out that each of the technological areas cover a wide range of regulatory implications. While they attempt to notify every conceivable regulatory entity as they develop and test new products, it’s clear that there often aren’t clear legal or regulatory guidelines in place. How will regulators be able to promulgate new rules, regulations and laws as these science fiction-like inventions come to reality?

As Dr. Seuss said so profoundly, “Think and Wonder. Wonder and Think.”

ITL and its 400-plus thought leaders are providing the kind of wisdom and insight we will need to help bring all the parties together to solve these challenges. We welcome you to the conversation.

RIMS 2015

The Many Questions Raised by Drones

State Farm, AIG and USAA have received preliminary approval from the Federal Aviation Administration to test drones for their claims and underwriting functions. On the surface, this sounds like a straightforward proposition. Drones can more quickly and easily survey damage sites after fires, tornados and hurricanes than personnel on the ground. Drones can be equipped to use global positioning software to identify insured structures and take pictures of damage to better and more quickly inform ground-based adjusters, leading to faster settlements and good press for insurers. Drones might also be used by adjusters to reveal hail damage on roofs, which will help to mitigate falls and other injuries to adjusters. The thought is that drones also might be helpful in certain loss control activities, such as identifying otherwise hidden internal or external fire hazards to large structures or plants.

Small portable drones may also find bodies or even survivors in the aftermath of storms. Drones and their operators may see crimes such as looting or arson being committed.

But questions arise: What responsibilities will insurers now have to report crimes to the authorities? How quickly will insurers be required to report? Some drones may use live streamed images to ground-based operators; others may take static pictures that will be retrieved when the drone returns to base. Will the drone-equipped disaster adjuster be required to analyze these pictures immediately or send them to the authorities via Internet uplink as soon as they are retrieved? To avoid problems, should drones not be sent in until after all rescue efforts have ended? However, would this also not create an ethical issue about delaying the use of lifesaving tools because of possible legal complications?

What issues of privacy of customer information or stranger images will insurers face as a result of these new capabilities? For example, the camera is left on while the drone ascends the side of the building, capturing images of people in various stages of dress, seeing a man beating a woman on the 14th or witnessing people shooting up at a party in the penthouse. What must the adjuster report and to whom? What if the party in the penthouse is for diabetics and the adjuster reports this to police as a suspicious incident? Will the adjuster now need to add police investigative skills to competency requirements? How secure will these drones be from tampering if they should malfunction, or how easily can hackers intercept image transmission? Will they be equipped to hear, meaning they can record conversations that may have otherwise been thought to be confidential? In other words, will the drone engender additional responsibilities for the adjuster or will issues otherwise be covered by existing laws and regulations?

We can argue that the courts have agreed that our expectations of privacy with airplanes flying overhead is already reduced. However, airplanes and other commercial or pleasure craft rarely fly under 1,000 feet for any length of time. Commercial drones will operate at a much more personal, in-your-face, level; today they cannot fly higher than 400 feet. Will the courts react the same way as they have with aircraft to privacy concerns associated with drones?

Underwriters will want to use drones, as well, to survey large property complexes to establish baselines not only for pricing and capacity purposes but to provide claims adjusters with a before-loss picture of the property. Drones may also capture more than their own customer’s property. For example, the drone captures a picture or a video of a new product being tested in a courtyard of another business. The other business, fearing industrial espionage, calls the police and gives the clearly visible drone FAA-issued ID number to them.

Ground-based adjusters can trespass or go where they aren’t wanted. However, most are trained to get permission directly from owners and others before trampling on private property. I do not think we will see distantly operated drones knocking on doors, “Greetings human, I am seeking permission to scan your property…please sign here or just nod your agreement.”

Then again, there is the psychological. The convoy of multiple insurer trucks shows up at the town just after a devastating tornado. Up go the drones, circling like buzzards over the wreckage and the dead. Townspeople make rude gestures to the eyes in the sky and clamor after the trucks to gain anything, any image of a missing relative or friend. And the police and fire officials are there, too, crowding the adjusters for information. Will the insurers need to circle the wagons, be available all together to the authorities in an approved command post so that the authorities can gain immediate access to their images? The authorities might have some immunity if they arrest looters from these pictures, but will the insurers, for giving the authorities pictures of the alleged crime? Will the drone bring more frivolous lawsuits from perpetrators of crimes at disaster sites for invasions of personal privacy?

I do not want this to be a Luddite’s rant against drones. Far from it; drones have useful purposes. While drone capabilities were honed in war, their peaceful use should be considered. There is no reason why realtors, insurers, surveyors and others should not have a shot at making their case to use drones in the course of their legitimate business. However, there will be others who use drones in less than legal ways, and we must provide some guidance to insurers and others what constitutes legal and authorized use. We must also have means within each drone’s system that provide credible and legal evidentiary documentation of use: authorized, legal or not. Because the drone increases the field of vision for its user, issues of privacy and legitimate acquisition of images and other information by authorities needs to be spelled out. Disposal of drones must also be spelled out in regulations so that they or any remnant information are destroyed so that they do not get into the wrong hands.

The question isn’t whether drones will be used for legitimate business reasons; the question is when. Because they increase the visibility of their users, issues are raised in the area of privacy that require discussion and perhaps court attention. There is also the unknown, the psychological—the vulture drones over the tornado-stricken town. People in war zones have learned to fear the drones because they are harbingers of death. Granted, we have not experienced drone warfare in the U.S., but we know that they have been used as impersonal killers in other places. Unlike whirring helicopters and buzzing planes, they are small, quiet, can hover low to the ground and will interface with individuals. What will we think of the drone climbing outside of our apartment building with its dark camera lens pointed directly at us? Will we think Big Brother, or will we come to accept this new technology as we have the convenience store video camera or the red-light camera at the busy intersection?

These questions must be asked and answered to some satisfaction before we go trundling off and build vast drone fleets. The time is now, because after drones are deployed is not the time to understand that the user has increased his or her company’s risk of lawsuit and even criminal prosecution that has not been properly identified, assessed, and managed.

Select articles and studies of the issues associated with drones.

— Calo, Ryan. “The Drone as Privacy Catalyst.” Stanford Law Review Online 64 (2011): 29-33. Abstract: Associated today with the theater of war, the widespread domestic use of drones for surveillance seems inevitable. Existing privacy law will not stand in its way. It may be tempting to conclude on this basis that drones will further erode our individual and collective privacy. Yet the opposite may happen. Drones may help restore our mental model of a privacy violation. They could be just the visceral jolt society needs to drag privacy law into the 21st century.

— Cavoukian, Ann. Privacy and Drones: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Canada, 2012. Summary: The aim of this paper is to provide a background for general privacy readers, as well as for potential users or regulators of UAV activities, as they relate to the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information.

— Friedenzohn, Daniel, and Alexander Mirot. “The Fear of Drones: Privacy and Unmanned Aircraft.” Journal of Law Enforcement 3, No. 5 (2013): 1-14. Abstract: The article focuses on the consequence of the use of unmanned aircraft systems, (UAS) or drones, planned to be integrated by U.S. in the national space. Topics discussed use of the technology by military forces, confirmation hearings of disclosed by Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director John Brennan and degradation of privacy as a result of law enforcement’s relation with the use of the UAS.

— Pasztor, Andy, and John Emshwiller. “Drone Use Takes Off on the Home Front.” The Wall Street Journal, April 12, 2012. Issue Discussed: With little public attention, dozens of universities and law-enforcement agencies have been given approval by federal aviation regulators to use unmanned aircraft known as drones, according to documents obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests by an advocacy group.

— Wesson, Kyle, and Todd Humphreys. “Hacking Drones.” Scientific American 309, No. 5 (2013): 55-59. Abstract: The article focuses on the lack of safety measures in drone aircraft. It states that drones can be used in various settings, which include search and rescue operations, scientific research and power line monitoring. Also mentioned are the Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 issued by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), effectiveness of jamming devices in the navigation system of drones and the challenges to balance the economic benefits of drones. considering the public safety.