1. HB 912  sponsors have sold it as a measure to protect the privacy of “teenage daughters” and other examples of individual privacy. There are already privacy laws on the books, and a drone hovering over your house is a lot more conspicuous than a peeping tom with a telephoto lens. What is the real concern here?

2. There are already FAA guidelines in place for the safe operation of amateur UAVs, to be within line of sight control of the operator, under 400 feet, and avoiding densely populated areas. The FAA is expected to release further guidelines for the civilian use of drones in 2015 including commercial use – like aerial photography for many beneficial uses. Many project a coming drone boom, and this bill will prohibit lawful Texans from creating new jobs and tax revenue with this new technology.

3. UAVs have already demonstrated to be a tool of public service. In Early 2012, a UAV caught the gross illegal activity of a meat packing plant in the Dallas area, polluting a river. Years of complaints by concerned citizens never resulted in action, but the few images safely and legally acquired by an amateur drone finally closed the plant.

4. When people think of private land, they tend to think of their homes, or small farms and ranches. However Texas is unique in that 94% of its land is privately owned and the vast majority of industrial activity that affects public resources occurs on this land. UAVs can be an important tool towards protecting Texas’ water resources, roads, and other natural resources and public infrastructure. The Bill’s original sponsor, Lance Gooden’s top donor is the Oil and Gas Industry. At the very least, an exception for news media and citizen research for the public’s interest should be included in the law.

Essentially, this is simply a matter of greater access to a new technology. Space satellites and aerial imagery from planes and helicopters will still be legal under this bill, but journalists and citizen scientists safe operation of UAVs would be criminalized. UAVs can be lifesaving tools during disasters, and sources of valuable public information in the coming decades. It is reasonable to deduce that the primary benefactors of this bill are corporations that do not want the public to have this new capability to see if they are abiding the law. This bill also lacks foresight for the potential economic, environmental, and educational benefits this new technology can enable in the near future.

Contact: tierney@publicsci.org / 512-333-1532