Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Privacy Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor says new drone privacy rules should require consent; police and aviation officials urge clearer public-safety and FAA exemptions
Summary
Sen. Tara Rearen proposed SB 519 to require written consent or statutory limits for drone surveillance over private property; law-enforcement and aviation witnesses told the committee the bill needs clearer exemptions and objective standards because FAA preemption, emergency response needs, and variable visibility could complicate enforcement.
Senator Tara Rearen told the Judiciary Committee SB 519 aims to close a privacy gap created by affordable, widely available drones that can hover over private property and collect imagery, audio and data.
"Drones can cover, hover overhead unseen, capturing imagery, audio, and data from private property," Rearen said, describing revisions to limit intrusive surveillance and to require written consent for flights over private land, while recognizing exceptions for utilities, appraisal, environmental assessment and law enforcement.
Committee members pressed several legal and technical concerns. Representative Burch asked whether the bill would block newsgathering or First Amendment activities; Rearen and later witnesses said incidental capture from public rights of way and FAA-regulated aircraft would not be the bill’s target but acknowledged the statute must be carefully worded.
Witnesses from public safety and aviation urged revisions to avoid blocking time-sensitive operations. Christopher Ball, lead drone pilot for the Department of Safety, said the bill’s "observable from a public ground level" definition could be subjective and that the written-consent requirement might prevent urgent search-and-rescue responses. Trisha Lambert (NH DOT Bureau of Aeronautics) flagged federal preemption concerns: the FAA regulates airspace and pilot operations, and piecemeal state restrictions can create enforcement and safety problems.
The committee debated criminal provisions: members questioned whether making certain overflights a class B felony would improperly criminalize accidental incursions and whether the bill’s distribution/publishing language (obtaining and publishing surveillance) created loopholes if imagery were captured from nearby airspace without crossing a property vertical boundary. Rearen said criminal provisions include a "knowingly" standard and emphasized the bill’s intent to protect people’s privacy and emotional distress in private spaces.
What happens next: witnesses urged clearer statutory definitions (observable-from-public standard, business/inspection exceptions, law-enforcement and emergency-response carve-outs) and flagged potential constitutional or FAA-preemption challenges; the committee may request redrafting or legal review before further action.
