The Next Frontier for Drones: Letting Them Fly Out of Sight

A drone flies at one of the Federal Aviation Administration’s designated drone testing sites run by nonprofit Northeast UAS Airspace Integration Research Alliance Inc., at Griffiss International Airport in Rome, NY, on June 11, 2021. (AP)
A drone flies at one of the Federal Aviation Administration’s designated drone testing sites run by nonprofit Northeast UAS Airspace Integration Research Alliance Inc., at Griffiss International Airport in Rome, NY, on June 11, 2021. (AP)
TT
20

The Next Frontier for Drones: Letting Them Fly Out of Sight

A drone flies at one of the Federal Aviation Administration’s designated drone testing sites run by nonprofit Northeast UAS Airspace Integration Research Alliance Inc., at Griffiss International Airport in Rome, NY, on June 11, 2021. (AP)
A drone flies at one of the Federal Aviation Administration’s designated drone testing sites run by nonprofit Northeast UAS Airspace Integration Research Alliance Inc., at Griffiss International Airport in Rome, NY, on June 11, 2021. (AP)

For years, there's been a cardinal rule for flying civilian drones: Keep them within your line of sight. Not just because it's a good idea - it's also the law.

But some drones have recently gotten permission to soar out of their pilots' sight. They can now inspect high-voltage power lines across the forested Great Dismal Swamp in Virginia. They're tracking endangered sea turtles off Florida's coast and monitoring seaports in the Netherlands and railroads from New Jersey to the rural West.

Aviation authorities in the US and elsewhere are preparing to relax some of the safeguards they imposed to regulate a boom in off-the-shelf consumer drones over the past decade. Businesses want simpler rules that could open your neighborhood's skies to new commercial applications of these low-flying machines, although privacy advocates and some airplane and balloon pilots remain wary.

For now, a small but growing group of power companies, railways and delivery services like Amazon are leading the way with special permission to fly drones "beyond visual line of sight." As of early July, the US Federal Aviation Administration had approved 230 such waivers - one of them to Virginia-based Dominion Energy for inspecting its network of power plants and transmission lines.

"This is the first step of what everybody’s expecting with drones," said Adam Lee, Dominion's chief security officer. "The first time in our nation’s history where we’ve now moved out into what I think everyone’s expecting is coming."

That expectation - of small drones with little human oversight delivering packages, assessing home insurance claims or buzzing around on nighttime security patrols - has driven the FAA's work this year to craft new safety guidelines meant to further integrate drones into the national airspace.

The FAA said it is still reviewing how it will roll out routine operations enabling some drones to fly beyond visual line of sight, although it it has signaled that the permissions will be reserved for commercial applications, not hobbyists.

"Our ultimate goal is you shouldn’t need a waiver for this process at all. It becomes an accepted practice," said Adam Bry, CEO of California drone-maker Skydio, which is supplying its drones to Dominion, railroad company BNSF and other customers with permission to fly beyond line of sight.

"The more autonomous the drones become, the more they can just be instantly available anywhere they could possibly be useful," Bry said.

Part of that involves deciding how much to trust that drones won't crash into people or other aircraft when their operators aren't looking. Other new rules will require drones to carry remote identification - like an electronic license plate - to track their whereabouts. And in the aftermath of Russia's war in Ukraine - where both sides have used small consumer drones to target attacks - the White House has been pushing a parallel effort to counter the potential malicious use of drones in the US.

At a gas-fired plant in Remington, Virginia, which helps power some of Washington's suburbs, a reporter with The Associated Press watched in June as Dominion Energy drone pilots briefly lost visual line of sight of their inspection drone as it flew around the backside of a large fuel tank and the top of a smoke stack.

That wouldn't have been legally possible without Dominion's recently approved FAA waiver. And it wouldn't have been technically possible without advancements in collision-avoidance technology that are enabling drones to fly closer to buildings.

Previously, "you would have to erect scaffolding or have people go in with a bucket truck," said Nate Robie, who directs the drone program at Dominion. "Now you can go in on a 20-minute flight."

Not everyone is enthused about the pending rules. Pilots of hot air balloons and other lightweight aircraft warn that crashes will follow if the FAA allows largely autonomous delivery drones the right of way at low altitudes.

"These drones cannot see where they are flying and are blind to us," said a June call to action from the Balloon Federation of America.

Broader concerns come from civil liberties groups that say protecting people’s privacy should be a bigger priority.

"There is a greater chance that you’ll have drones flying over your house or your backyard as these beyond-visual-line-of-sight drone operations increase," said Jeramie Scott, a senior counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center who sat on the FAA's advisory group working to craft new drone rules. "It’ll be much harder to know who to complain to."

EPIC and other groups dissented from the advisory group's early recommendations and are calling for stronger privacy and transparency requirements - such as an app that could help people identify the drones above them and what data they are collecting.

"If you want to fly beyond visual line of sight, especially if you are commercial, the public has a right to know what you’re flying, what data you are collecting," said Andrés Arrieta, director of consumer privacy engineering at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It seems like such a low bar."



Facebook Added 'Value' to Instagram, Zuckerberg Tells Antitrust Trial

Mark Zuckerberg has made repeated visits to the White House as he tried to persuade the US president to choose settlement instead of fighting the trial - AFP
Mark Zuckerberg has made repeated visits to the White House as he tried to persuade the US president to choose settlement instead of fighting the trial - AFP
TT
20

Facebook Added 'Value' to Instagram, Zuckerberg Tells Antitrust Trial

Mark Zuckerberg has made repeated visits to the White House as he tried to persuade the US president to choose settlement instead of fighting the trial - AFP
Mark Zuckerberg has made repeated visits to the White House as he tried to persuade the US president to choose settlement instead of fighting the trial - AFP

Social media titan Mark Zuckerberg testified for a second day Tuesday in a landmark US antitrust trial, defending his conglomerate Meta against accusations it took over Instagram and WhatsApp to devour budding competitors.

The federal court trial in Washington has dashed Zuckerberg's hopes that the return of President Donald Trump to the White House would see the government let up on the enforcement of antitrust law against Big Tech.

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) attorney Daniel Matheson showed Zuckerberg emails from 2012 in which Facebook's former chief financial officer listed possible reasons for buying start-ups like Instagram, including "neutralizing a competitor."

Zuckerberg sidestepped commenting on the role of competitive pressure, instead playing up the ability of Facebook to improve features, user numbers and revenue, AFP reported.

"Instagram integration ended up going very well; we were able to add way more value to Instagram than we would have expected," Zuckerberg testified.

"After that, we basically felt more confident that we could identify other social apps, potentially acquire them and grow them faster (than they would have on their own)."

Zuckerberg said he believes that if Snapchat had accepted Facebook's buyout offer in 2013 it would now have billions of users.

Snapchat ended last year with about 450 million daily users.

"For what it's worth, I think we would have accelerated their growth," Zuckerberg said of Snapchat.

The case could see Meta forced to divest of Instagram and WhatsApp, which have grown into global powerhouses since their buyout.

It was originally filed in December 2020, during the first Trump administration, and all eyes were on whether the Republican would ask the FTC to stand down.

Zuckerberg, the world's third-richest person, has made repeated visits to the White House as he tried to persuade the president to choose settlement instead of fighting the trial.

As part of his lobbying efforts, Zuckerberg contributed to Trump's inauguration fund and overhauled content moderation policies. He also purchased a $23 million mansion in Washington in what was seen as a bid to spend more time close to the center of political power.

- 'Really scary' -

Central to the case is Facebook's 2012 billion-dollar purchase of Instagram -- then a small but promising photo-sharing app that now boasts two billion active users.

An email from Zuckerberg cited by the FTC showed him depicting Instagram's emergence as "really scary," adding that is "why we might want to consider paying a lot of money for this."

In his first day of testimony Monday, Zuckerberg downplayed those exchanges as early talk before plans for Instagram came together.

But the FTC argues that Meta's $19 billion WhatsApp acquisition in 2014 followed the same pattern, with Zuckerberg fearing the messaging app could either transform into a social network or be purchased by a competitor.

Meta's defense attorneys counter that substantial investments transformed these acquisitions into the blockbusters they are today.

They also highlight that Meta's apps are free for users and face fierce competition.

FTC attorney Matheson said in opening remarks that Facebook "decided that competition is too hard and it would be easier to buy out their rivals than to compete with them."

Meta attorney Mark Hansen countered in his first salvo that "acquisitions to improve and grow an acquired firm" are not unlawful in the United States, saying that is what Facebook did.

A key part of the courtroom battle will be how the FTC defines Meta's market.

The US government argues that Facebook and Instagram are dominant players in apps that provide a way to connect with family and friends, a category that does not include TikTok and YouTube.

But Meta disagrees.

When asked about Facebook and Instagram main competition, Zuckerberg named Google-owned YouTube and China-based sensation TikTok because video "is the primary way people share content."

On the video front, Meta has a lot of catching up to do, Zuckerberg told the court.