Given that many people last year suffered a phishing attack from the CAA, you may have legitimate concerns as to the risk of your personal data. Not only will your concerns relate to your personal information, but also your operator ID and/or your flyer ID being compromised by a nefarious operator of drones. You may also have noticed that at the time, your data was not independently verified, but it would appear that Experian was in fact used.

Once you completed your registration, you would have been forced to accept the CAA terms and conditions that relate to your personal data. You would not have been able to amend these terms and conditions as this would have prevented you from flying because you would not have had the appropriate registration.

The CAA has a privacy policy and they are the data controller. You would have entered your full name, address, date of birth and an email address in order to register. The Government Digital Service or GDS as it is known promises not to transfer your data outside of the European Economic Area, sell or rent your data to 3^rd parties or share your data with third parties for marketing purposes. Your data is now also processed in accordance with GDS’s privacy notice, which means the GDS may collect more information:

• “questions, queries or feedback you leave, including your email address if you contact GOV.UK
• your email address and subscription preferences when you sign up to our email alerts
• how you use our emails – for example whether you open them and which links you click on
• your Internet Protocol (IP) address, and details of which version of web browser you used
• information on how you use the site, using cookies and page tagging techniques

We use Google Analytics software to collect information about how you use GOV.UK. This includes IP addresses.”

So not only is your data passed onto GDS and they seek to get more information, but did you know that your information is also passed onto a customer support provider which is a 3rd party is called “Teleperformance?” This company has offices all over the globe and works in many different sectors. How sure are you that this company will not share your data?

Did you also know that you agreed to limit the CAA’s liability in the event of a claim? If you run a drone business and your information has been compromised, for example, whereby all your drones have been seized because there has been some confusion over the operator ID, the CAA have excluded the following losses:

• “losses not foreseeable to you and us when these terms were formed
• losses not caused by any breach on our part
• business losses
• losses to non-consumers”

Additionally, the CAA terms also say that they will have no liability for any breach of the privacy terms as a consequence of a breakdown of systems or network access. Does that offer you a sufficient level of comfort after the phishing attack in 2019?

In summary, you have agreed to the privacy notice of the CAA, the privacy notice of the GDS, personal information being analysed by Google analytics, and personal information being utilised and stored by a global company called Teleperformance with limited ability to make a claim in the event you have suffered loss and damage.

If you’re not happy with this you are free to contact the government privacy team: gds-privacy-office@digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk or the Information Commissioner, who is an independent regulator: casework@ico.org.uk

If you would like to discuss this or any other drone law issues, please contact us.

The post Drone Registration – How safe is your personal registration data? appeared first on Blakistons.

1. Organised crime;
2. Disruption to national infrastructure;
3. Acts of terrorism;
4. Threats to the UK’s national security.

Interestingly the report refers to the incident at Gatwick airport during the Christmas period in 2018, but has failed to refer to or provide any evidence that there was in fact a drone that caused so much disruption to so many.  To date, there is still no evidence and Sussex Police have conceded that their investigation produced nothing costing the tax payer hundreds of thousands of pounds. The government’s strategy for promoting legitimate drone use in the UK will be set out in the forthcoming Aviation Strategy (date to be announced).

The Strategy paper focuses on the following with my comments:

• The Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill will give police wide powers to deal with illegal drone use.

COMMENT: this will be covered in more detail in another blog;

• A new industry action group will be formed that will include drone manufacturers to implement international design standards for integrated safety features and their technology pipelines;

COMMENT: This is great, but realistically, is a Chinese manufacturer going to disclose their technology pipeline? How are different manufacturers going to agree international design standards unless mandated to do so?

• A mobile Drone Resist unit containing detection and disruption equipment will be developed for deployment to drone-related incidents and major events across the UK;

COMMENT: This is for the most part reactionary and how will the government mitigate the threat to a live drone attack in multiple locations simultaneously, e.g. three major airports at the same time being attacked by hostile drones.

• Police will have to log and record incidents of illegal and/or hostile drone activity to further understand the drone threat;

COMMENT: Police should be doing something similar already as their CAA approved operations manual will most likely contain an obligation to record all flights; therefore not an unnecessary burden.

• Policymakers and regulators will engage with manufacturers of drone components;

COMMENT: This is great, but what about a company’s intellectual property rights?  What if the company is in the Far East?

• By 30 November 2019, operators of drones weighing between 250g and 20Kg will have to register them with the CAA at a cost  and drone remote pilots will have to take an online competency test.  This will make “it easier to identify a drone that is being misused.”

COMMENT: The Irish Government have had registration since 2017 and it is a bureaucratic burden!  It has done nothing for safety apparently. Interesting to note how it will be easier to identify a drone that is being misused without actually stating how this is going to be achieved and why. It is almost another reason to justify registration, which cost has been recently reduced from £16 to £9 by the CAA for a registration platform that costs £millions, when data security by the CAA has recently proven not to be safe.

• The government is developing concepts for future implementation of an unmanned traffic management (UTM) system.

Many governments are developing systems, but ultimately data from each drone operator will be required in order to provide the visibility necessary, and the same applies to some general aviation aircraft. The scope is being developed by a number of jurisdictions on both sides of the Atlantic.

• New definition of “operational responders” that must have counter drone knowledge, that just does not include the Police, but also:
  • Other public sector employees such as prison officers;
  • Private sector employees responsible for safety and security (prisons, CNI and crowded places);

COMMENT: Many will need training, will that be left to the NQE’s to pick up? There’s a potential business opportunity!

• “The police are able to legally deploy a range of DTI (detect, track and identify) and counter-drone effector systems” versus “current police powers need to be built upon to meet the evolving threat, and some of the processes that underpin these powers were not designed with counter-drone capability in mind.”

COMMENT: There is a clear gap in the law here, are the Police acting illegally as the law is currently written? More analysis in another blog to follow.

It will come as no surprise that the paper raises many quesitons, but is a good start.  The governement is commited to working with various stakeholders, but the law must change so that all stakeholders can benfit accordingly…

The post Government’s Drone Resist Strategy is launched… October 2019 appeared first on Blakistons.

The report focuses on current regulations, primarily under the Civil Aviation Act 1982 and the Air Navigation Order 2016, as amended in 2018 (Order 2019 No.261).

It is now for most, common knowledge that Flight Restriction Zones (FRZ) exist around airports and is now 5Km, increased from 1Km.  It was a concern for Air Traffic Control operators that by increasing the disctance it would capture more drone pilots flying their drones and calling the ATC asking for permission to fly, thereby increasing the workload of those ATC operators. It is clear that there is an inconsistent approach by ATC’s in how they deal with drone operators and some taking an inordinate amount of time to approve such a request.  Some ATC’s are levying charges for permission!

The report refers to forthcoming regulation and names the Drones Bill, which passage on to the statute books has been halted due to Brexit and a General Election. However, there will be new legislation that was mentioned in the recent Queen’s Speech, namely the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill.  The new bill does include to an extent what the original drones bill was going to include:

1. Drone registration;
2. Remote pilot competency;
3. Personal details of drone operators.

The consensus around registration is that law abiding professional drone operators will at some poiint engage in registration, however those wishing to act illegally shall not, a point which was acknowledged by the CAA. The report recommends that those operators that avoid registration should be subject to a sliding scale of penalties for failure to register, starting with a warning, and culminating in a fine and a prison sentence.  You have been warned!

The post Commercial and recreational drone use in the UK appeared first on Blakistons.