On March 24, 2015 I will be presenting “Drones And Agriculture: The Legal Framework.” The presentation will be part of the 8th Annual Integrated Pest Management Symposium in Salt Lake City, Utah.
The specific panel is part of a four part series that day, entitled “Advanced Technology for Precision IPM: Latest Developments with Examples from the Field and Legal Considerations.”
On March 18, Pepperdine School of Law professor Gregory S. McNeal will testify before the Committee on Homeland Security’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency. The hearing is entitled “Unmanned Aerial System Threats: Exploring Security Implications and Mitigation Technologies.”
McNeal, recently named in a list of “Seven of the Most Influential Players in the Drone Industry” by Dronelife, will be speaking from his research and writing regarding the domestic use of non-military drones. He will acknowledge that while the emergence of unmanned aerial vehicles “raises understandable concerns that may require employment of mitigation technologies,” Congress should be cognizant of four issues before taking tangible steps: (more…)
Drone Life magazine has named me one of the “7 Most Influential Players In The Drone Industry” This is a fun honor, especially given the great names on the list. There are many others who could just as easily have been on this list, but I nevertheless appreciate being named.
Here is an excerpt from the piece:
The Drone Revolution is upon us. Every day there is a new headline. Every day someone starts a new company. People are flocking to this industry and it is creating a snowball effect of popularity and investments. But as with any rise in technology, there are certain ‘powers that be’ making the whole thing happen. Dronelife spoke to these players to help you put faces to names and get their take on the rise of the drone: (more…)
I will be presenting my paper “Surveillance and the City” at the 3rd Annual Local Government Law Works-In-Progress Workshop at the University of Denver, Sturm College of Law.
Read more for the paper abstract: (more…)
This Thursday I will be speaking at the University of Michigan Law School, the talk is titled “Drones and the Future: Innovation, Regulation and Policy.” The abstract and flier appear below.
Drones. They are filling the skies and may be delivering your next package. But what role do privacy and regulation play in the new brave new world?
Professor Greg McNeal is one of the leading experts on the use, regulation, and policy questions regarding drones in the public and private sectors. Come hear him speak on the topic.
Drones and the Future: Innovation, Regulation, and Privacy
On February 9th I will be making a presentation at Stanford Law School. The title of the talk is “Google and Amazon Drones: Regulation vs. Innovation.”
The event is free and open to the public, so please stop by if you are in the area. (more…)
Today at UCLA I’ll be discussing drones with UCLA law professor Stuart Banner. The talk is entitled “The Fight For The Skies: Domestic Drones, Property, Privacy and the Future” If you’re in the area, please feel free to drop in for the talk.
On Monday, January 26th I’ll be discussing cybersecurity at the University of Virginia. The talk is entitled “Responding to the Sony Hacks: An Overview Of Cyberattacks, National Security, and Transnational Crime”
If you’re in Charlottesville, come say hello.
The downloads continue as “Reforming the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court” is now listed on 7 top download lists. Again, it’s not a big deal, but it is nice to see that my essay Reforming the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’s Interpretive Secrecy Problem is reaching different audiences, finding its way onto seven different top ten lists:
While it’s not a big deal, it’s nice to see that my paper Drones and Aerial Surveillance: Considerations for Legislators has been receiving quite a bit of attention from different audiences, making it onto multiple SSRN Top Ten lists. Here they are:
Here is the paper abstract:
The looming prospect of expanded use of unmanned aerial vehicles, colloquially known as drones, has raised understandable concerns for lawmakers. Those concerns have led some to call for legislation mandating that nearly all uses of drones be prohibited unless the government has first obtained a warrant. Privacy advocates have mounted a lobbying campaign that has succeeded in convincing thirteen states to enact laws regulating the use of drones by law enforcement, with eleven of those thirteen states requiring a warrant before the government may use a drone. The campaigns mounted by privacy advocates oftentimes make a compelling case about the threat of pervasive surveillance, but the legislation is rarely tailored in such a way to prevent the harm that advocates fear. In fact, in every state where legislation was passed, the new laws are focused on the technology (drones) not the harm (pervasive surveillance). In many cases, this technology-centric approach creates perverse results, allowing the use of extremely sophisticated pervasive surveillance technologies from manned aircraft, while disallowing benign uses of drones for mundane tasks like accident and crime scene documentation, or monitoring of industrial pollution and other environmental harms. Legislators should reject a warrant-based, technology-centric approach as it is unworkable and counterproductive. Instead, legislators should follow a property rights-centric approach, coupled with limits on persistent surveillance, data retention procedures, transparency and accountability measures and a recognition of the possibility that technology may make unmanned aerial surveillance more protective of privacy than manned surveillance.