June 11th, 2015

Thomson Reuters Washington Office

1333 H Street NW

Washington DC 20005

The Future of Drones

Moderator: Ryan Hagemann: Civil Liberties Policy Analyst at the Niskanen Center and adjunct fellow at

TechFreedom specializing in robotics and automation

Erik Lin-Greenberg: Former US Air Force Officer, PhD candidate Columbia University

Lisa Ellman: Counsel for McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP. Member of the firms Unmanned Aircraft

Systems (UAS) Practice Group and Public Policy and Regulatory Affairs practice. Former senior roles at

White House and Department of Justice.

Ryan Hagemann: My name is Ryan Hagemann and I will be the moderator for this evening. A little bit of

background on me. I am the Civil Liberties Policy Analyst at the Niskanen Center and adjunct fellow

specializing in robotics and automation for TechFreedom, which is a libertarian non-profit that is focused

on trying to promote technology freedom. My objective for this evening is to introduce our two fine

panelists for this evening and start us off with some questions. I hope that we can trim this into less of a

lecture-style symposium and actually have it be a little conversationalist style.

To begin, we have Erik Lin-Greenberg. He is a PhD student in political science at Columbia University

where he studies international relations. His research interests include military escalation, non-traditional

security operations, and the use of airpower. Prior to attending Columbia, he served as an intelligence

officer in the U.S. Air Force and has deployed to Afghanistan and Southwest Asia. He continues to serve

as an officer in the Air Force Reserves and his writings have appeared in International Peacekeeping,

Defense and Security Analysis, Air and Space Power Journal, The National Interest, and the South China

Morning Post. Erik holds Masters degrees from Columbia University and M.I.T and a Bachelors degree

from M.I.T. He will be primarily focusing on the military aspects of drones for this conversation.

To my right is Lisa Ellman. She is a partner and the co-chair of the UAS, which stands for Unmanned

Aircraft Systems, Practice Group at Hogan Lovells. Previously, she held senior at the Office of Science &

Technology Policy, the Office of Management & Budget, the Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs,

and the Office of Presidential Personnel. Additionally, she has served as the Chief Counselor for the

Open Government Partnership with the Executive Office of the President representing U.S. and

international efforts to make government more efficient, effective, transparent, and collaborative. She has

advised more that forty countries on open government strategy and has worked in close partnership with

civil society organization and private industry to further these commitments. She earned her B.A. in

History from the University of Michigan and her J.D. and M.P.P from the University of Chicago Law

School and Harris School of Public Policy. Please join me in welcoming our fine analysts today.

I would like to start off by lobbing a question over to Erik because, traditionally, especially in this day and

age, when we think of drones I think most of us immediately go to the image of flying death robots all over

the sky releasing hellfire on innocent victims below on the terrestrial ground. I would to begin by having

Erik describe what drones from a military perspective are, how theyre used, and what the processing of

actually engaging in airpower strikes looks like.

Erik Lin-Greenberg: Thanks again for the intro and also to everyone for making it out tonight. Im going

to start with a few things. First is a caveat. As Ryan mentioned, Im an officer in the Air Force. Anything I

say is not necessarily representative of government or Air Force positions. The second thing is, I know

the term drones get thrown around a lot. You heard the UAS line as well. Unmanned Ariel System.

The military likes to call them Remotely Piloted Aircraft, or RPAs. We might use those terms a little bit

interchangeably. The idea behind remotely piloted aircraft is that these are not drones that just fly around

in the sky. There is actually a pilot. In the case of the Air Force, it is a commissioned officer who goes

through, in many cases, normal flight school. The same flight training that a pilot whos flying an F-22

would go through. They are flying these drones albeit remotely and separated from the aircraft. That

being said, how do these drones or RPAs actually work in the military today?

The first is, drones are really not a new phenomenon. Theyve been around for decades. At the end of

WWII, the U.S. actually tried to use an unmanned weapons system to target Nazi and Japanese military

installations. It didnt work out too well, but the initial concept, in terms of militarized drones, really began

at that point. They were used again during the Vietnam War for reconnaissance. What happened

between the Vietnam War and today was that you had a large advance in technology. More advanced

sensors allow us to see things and hear things and much better satellite communications so we dont

need to have a pilot sitting in a plane thats only a few miles away from the drone flying. The ability to

actually use these things again rather than launch and have them crash into a target or crash into the

water when theyre done. Drones, today, represent a grouping of new technologies, but its not

necessarily something that didnt exist in the past. I think thats one of the big myths about drones and

the military use of drones that needs to be demystified a little bit.

The second element is this notion of how drones are operated. We hear this term drones and we often

think that there is this 18 year old video gamer sitting in a desert in Nevada who is flying these things

around. As I alluded to earlier, that is really not the case in terms of the larger military RPAs like the

Predator and the Reaper that we often here about in the news. Theyre often flown by military aircrews

and I spent the first three years of my military career working at whats called the Distributed Ground

Station. Its a ground site where literally hundreds of analysts are looking at the data that comes from

these aircraft. These folks have gone through more than a year of training before theyre allowed to sit

and look at videos or still imagery thats being collected by aircraft. Our job is, essentially, to talk to the

guys on the ground, be it soldiers, Marines, special operations forces, talk to tactical operations centers,

and try to figure out what they need then we try to get an RPA to the location to provide an additional set

of eyes and, in some cases, some firepower onto a target. Thats the general idea of how these RPAs

operate. They have a very large, robust network of individuals behind them that have a significant

amount of training and its not just one pilot sitting there, flying these things around. There are certain

smaller UASs that you can launch out of a backpack and there it might be a soldier who is sitting there

with a laptop-sized computer looking at the imagery, but the RPAs that we hear a lot about in the media

are typically manned by large crews.

One more thing is that we often think of the drone program as these targeted strikes that are carried out

in Pakistan, but theres the distinction, which we can talk about later, between Title 10 missions, the

military missions, and Title 50 missions, which are the covert action-type missions. Theres a distinction

between those two categories that we can talk about.

Ryan Hagemann: We have a review about military drones from Erik. Now Id like to turn it over to Lisa

and discuss something of a newer phenomenon. Weve all been used to hearing about military drone

operations, especially since the U.S. got itself involved over in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq almost

fifteen years ago. A more recent development have actually made commercial drone operations much

more viable and much more appealing to a lot of companies, especially companies like Amazon who are

looking at utilizing these systems and platforms for making deliveries amongst a myriad of other potential

uses. Id like to take it over to Lisa who has had some practical first-hand experience dealing with the

public policy implications and privacy components of being integrated into the national airspace and

things like that. Lisa, if you like to give us a little bit of background on what your experience has been in

the public policy realm as it relates to commercial aviation, drones, and anything you think relates to the

commercial perspective.

Lisa Ellman: Thank you so much. Thanks for having me. Its great to be here. Id like to provide a little

more context about how I ended up running a drones practice in the private sector. Everyone keeps

asking me if there is such a thing as a drones practice now in the private sector and law firm that never

would have existed a year ago. It is a new phenomenon, but at the same time, in the military context,

drones have been around for a long time. First, about me. I come from the Obama Administration. I

worked in the federal government for many years. President Obama was actually my law professor at

University of Chicago and my mentor in law school. He asked me to work on his first presidential

campaign as a policy maker and I did, including policy issues involving technology and innovation in

moving out government forward. That continued over the next couple of years. Once we came

Washington, I worked both in the Department of Justice and the White House in various roles and, for the

most part, promoting innovation in policy making. So, working to make our government more open by

bringing technology and emerging technologies to the government and making our government more 21st

Century. Also promoting the use of new technologies. Drones can represent anything from a toy, a

model aircraft that you fly at the park, to a tool of industry now, as were seeing, to even a tool of war.

Over the last several years, these consumer toys have gotten a lot more sophisticated, a lot smaller, more

mobile, and able to do sophisticated things such that industry became excited to use them. Theyre also

cheaper. The technology has moved forward at a very rapid pace. The FAA, which regulates the safety

and security of the national airspace, had been paying attention and knew that drones were coming, but

the federal government, as a whole, really started to pay attention in 2012 when Congress mandated that

the federal government integrate drones into our national airspace. At that time I was at the White

House. Soon after that, I was asked to run drone policy at the Department of Justice and represent the

Department of Justice on the White Houses Interagency Working Group that was considering all the

issues involved in integrating drones into our national airspace, here in the country. You can imagine all

the different safety and security and privacy questions that would come up in the scope of those

questions. I worked there for year. I saw huge potential for the industry and had wanted to move into

private practice anyways at some point.

I came into the private sector and am now running a drones practice and I can explain a little more about

what that entails, but the gist is that companies here and all around the world now are realizing the

benefits of drones for their own industry. Real estate agents want to be able to take pictures of the

homes that theyre selling. Oil and gas companies want to be able to use drones to inspect infrastructure,

to inspect their power plants, power line inspections. Tasks that are dirty or dangerous or dreary.

Agriculture. Farmers want to use drones to inspect their crops and crop dust, spray pesticides and water

on their crops. Facebook and Google want to be able to provide wireless internet all around the world

with drones. Of course, Amazon wants to use drones to deliver packages. Weve heard about that on

Sixty Minutes. This is a typical Washington D.C. area where the technology has moved way more quickly

than the policy making. You have this very strong demand to be able to use drones commercially, but its

actually illegal right now in our country to use drones commercially, unless you have special permission

from the FAA.

Over the past couple of years, the federal government has been working on this. The FAA recently

issued a notice that proposed a rule that will authorize the use of drones commercially in our country. Its

going through a review process right now. There are about 4,500 comments that were submitted as part

of that process by the public. The FAA is reviewing that now. In the meantime, you need to have whats

known as a 333 exemption to be able to fly a drone. In the news clips, youll see filmmakers get

permission to fly drones. Its because they filed for a 333 exemption and were granted this license from

the FAA to be able to fly drones. Right now the law is structured so that hobbyists can, for the most part,

do whatever they want. I can go to the park, not here is Washington D.C., because this is restricted

airspace, but if I go 12 miles out, I can fly my drones and take photos of myself and put those photos on

Facebook. That is a totally legal flight. If I, going to that park, know that these are going to be amazing

photos, Im going to sell these photos for $10 apiece. That is an illegal flight and not allowed by the FAA.

Its not a safety or risk-based question. Its the same exact flight. Its the intent-based question. The law

is structured so that on whether your intent is commercial or recreational. That comes from the aviation

world which has been structured like that for a while. There are a lot of questions in the public policy

community about whether that makes sense in this area. There have been lots of safety concerns, lots of

privacy concerns, but also lots of excitement about incorporating drones into our national airspace and I

look forward to what you all think about commercial drones and whether youre excited or nervous about

the privacy concerns. All of this work is right now in process and I really do believe this is where the

future is going. NASA, right now, is deigning highways in the sky. Were going to have highways of

drones that fly under aircraft, but over structures. Were just beginning to see what its going to look like,

but its all very exciting.

Ryan Hagemann: Were off to a good start here. Following up with you Erik, you were discussing the

Title 10 and the Title 50 missions and the differences between those. I was wondering if you could go a

little bit more in depth as to the differences between those and what it means for drone operations. And

then, if you wouldnt mind, we discussed that you had some very nascent research that you are doing in

pursuing youre PhD at Columbia regarding the impact that drones could potentially have on military

escalation overseas. I was wondering if you could take us through all three questions.

Erik Lin-Greenberg: Sure. Ill answer the first question. I dont claim be an expert in public or

international law or the U.S. Code, but Title 10 missions are typically those associated with military

operations. Your military RPA operations that are being flown over in Afghanistan currently, in support of

U.S. operations against ISIS in Iraq, those are your Title 10 missions. Theyre flown by military crews.

They take their chain of command from the president through the combatant commands and these are

considered official military operations. Your Title 50 missions are typically what we see happening

outside of war zones. Counterterrorism missions that are often viewed as these targeted killing

operations. The approval process for covert actions is very different. It goes from the executive office

through a series of memorandums to different individuals within the government and thats the

authorization process for Title 50 missions. Those missions are not necessarily flown by military crews

and thats one of the big distinctions thats often blurred in the media. They say drones and we think

theyre all the same, but there is a distinction about how those missions are carried out even though, in

many cases, they use the same type of aircraft.

The second question dealt with drones and military escalation, and that is what my incredibly nascent

dissertation looks at. A lot of the research on drones today is very much anecdotally based. Its based

on what is written in the New York Times and figuring out what some politician or policymaker actually

said. No one has actually tried to test the casual effect of drones and the initiation or escalation of

conflict. I am using a series of experimental tests. I just wrapped up a very basic pilot experiment last

week that surveyed about 1,200 respondents. I asked them about a hypothetical attack on a U.S. military

reconnaissance aircraft and what they thought the best policy response is. Those 1,200 respondents are

broken into different treatment groups and those treatment groups include an attack on a drone, an attack

on a manned aircraft, so a U-2 reconnaissance aircraft where the pilot is killed, and an attack on a U-2

where the pilot isnt killed. The question to the respondents was what we as the U.S. should do. Options

ranged from basically doing nothing to do lots, so we have a very low-hawkishness to a very-high

hawkishness. You have this ordinal scale. You expect folks that are exposed to an attack on a manned

aircraft are much more likely to call for much more hawkish actions than those that see an attack on a

drone. Whats interesting is that people dont seem to care whether a pilot lives or dies in the attack. The

statistical significance is just not there between the attack on a manned aircraft with loss of life and an

attack on a manned aircraft without the loss of life, which suggests to me that intent matters. If the intent

of the adversary was to take down an aircraft if there was a man inside, thats what mattered, it seems, to

the American public. Thats a little bit of an overview.

Ryan Hagemann: Just to follow-up on this discussion from a military perspective. I saw recently that

approximately, and correct me if Im wrong on this, on the order of 25% of the total aircraft fleet wielded

by the U.S. Air Force is now drones as of 2012 as opposed to 2001 where it was something like, I think,

2-3%. Do you see drones ultimately taking over entirely our Air Force? Is there a reason for us to

continue having manned aircraft? Do we really gain much by designing aircraft to allow pilots inside of

them or are we ultimately better off not putting people up in planes anymore? What do you see the future

of the U.S. Air Forces breakdown between piloted versus unmanned aircraft being?

Erik Lin-Greenberg: Any weapon of war is designed as a tool that is designed to meet some type of

political interest. Policy makers need to pick the right tool for that particular policy objective. Right now,

drones are great for certain things, but they really dont have the payload of a manned bomber. You can

send a Predator up with a few Hellfires strapped to it, but thats not going to bring the same kind of

damage on a set of targets as a fully loaded B-1 bomber. Drones are great for certain types of strikes.

Heavier bomber are great for other types of strikes. As we wait for the technological development, I think

youll see, perhaps, a slowly growing number of drones. The other thing is that there is a cultural in the

U.S. military. Right now, its not cool to be a drone pilot. Every pilot wants to be a fighter pilot, wants to

fly something fast. Fast and sexy. Sitting in a box in Nevada or somewhere else flying a drone isnt fat

and sexy. The military is trying to get around that by creating new career fields. We just recently created

a program where you can become a career drone pilot. You go through some type of flight training, then

you go through specialized RPA pilot track. There are these attempts to make slight changes in the

cultural perception in the military about RPAs versus manned aircraft, but if you look at our historical Air

Force leaders, they typically have been guys that fly manned aircraft. There is a political resistance to

having a majority unmanned fleet.

Ryan Hagemann: Lisa, I wanted to go back and discuss the recent FAA rules that have promulgated

around commercial drones. Among them, if I recall correctly, we have visual line of sight restrictions, we

have daylight only operations, we have drones cannot be flown over groups in individuals not directly

involved in the operation of the drone. There are a few others that the FAA promulgated. I was looking

on the Open Technology Institute, which is an initiative funded by the New America Foundation. They

have this great map online where you can click on various countries and it gives you a breakdown of the

regulations in different countries surrounding commercial drones. It seems like a lot of the other countries

kind of have these same daylight only and line of sight restrictions. However, a lot of other countries are

accumulating a lot more foreign direct investment in drones and theyre seeing a lot more innovation

occur in the area of drones. Is this because they got the rules right early on or is there something more

amicable about these other countries because, based on what I see in terms of the market breakdown, it

seems like the U.S. is falling very far behind in commercial drone technology. I was wondering if you

might comment.

Lisa Ellman: Absolutely. This is one of the areas where the U.S. is behind. Were slowly catching up or,

hopefully, quickly catching up, but other countries have definitely been ahead of us here in terms of

commercial drones. That website with the map is actually a great resource. There is often a lot of

confusion about what the rules are for commercial drones in every country. They are hard to find in many

countries, so it is a very good resource. Other countries that have been much farther ahead of us include

Canada. They have a tiered approach where any drones 4.4 lbs. or less is broadly permitted, even for

commercial operations, whereas 4.4-55 lbs. are regulated, but you can still get permission from the

government to fly. Australia. New Zealand. In Japan, crop-dusting is already done with drones. In

England, Dominoes has delivered a pizza using a drone. There are a few different reasons for that and I

do the overall message here is that were catching up and thats good.

But, one is just that we dont have the data. You were mentioning that a lot of the data you have on drone

use is anecdotal. In the commercial drones industry, its very rare that you regulate a space where you

have no data to go on. For example, if youre a policy maker and youre asked to put together some rules

allowing drones into the national airspace, there are a lot of different layers there and things that you

need to ask. Weve had hobbyists fly drones for many years, but that hasnt been studied. Its much

more spontaneous going and flying in a park with my family with a small remote controlled model

airplane. Its very different from sustained continuous use by an Amazon package delivery drone, for

example. Its very different in terms of the data policy makers need. The military is very different as well.

We dont have any data. Usually if youre regulating in healthcare, youre regulating in energy or

environment or food and drugs, you have studies. You have data. You have numbers. Youre able to

analyze those number and come to a public policy solution.

One thing thats been very different here is that we dont have the data and some other countries have

been ahead of us in terms of collecting data and doing studies. Just an example of this, theres been lot

of talk about the micro-drone proposal. Part of the rule that was released on February 15th, the FAA

asked for comment from the public on whether they believed that micro-drones, meaning 4.4 lbs. or less,

the tier approach that Canada has opted to take, makes sense for us in the U.S. It seems pretty obvious

that drone that is 4 lbs. or less versus a drone that is 55 lbs. would present very different risks to the

public if it falls out of the sky. That seems like a very obvious solution, but then the question becomes,

what about frangibility? Frangibility of materials. If a 4 lbs. drone gets caught in a jet aircrafts engine,

what does it do to that engine? For years, in terms of regulating aircraft safety, the FAA did lots of

studies, basically throwing pigeons into a jet engine and seeing what happened. Not real pigeons, but

you know what I mean. Studying birds in jet engines. Does a 4 lbs. drone have the same impact on a jet

engine as a bird? Because it could have a lithium-ion battery in it, could it make a jet engine explode like

a big 55 lbs. drone? Those are the questions that are being asked and thats just data we dont have.

That explains our lack of progress.

The other thing is that we have the most complex airspace in the world. Canada, Australia, New Zealand

have a lot more open space. Right now, the FAA is regulating the safety and security of the national

airspace. Their job is to prevent accidents. The incentive is not high for them to just open the airspace to

anybody who wants to be able to fly drones. Compared to wide open spaces, theyre regulating as if

drones will fall out of the sky at any time. Does anyone here have a drone, by the way? Own a hobbyist

drone or flown one or seen one flown? You guys have got to get a drone. Theyre so much fun. Theyre

great. But, I have a drone and it falls. I consider myself a great pilot, but no matter how good I am, its

going to fall out of the sky and thats how the FAA regulates. It makes sense. They dont care if it falls

out of the sky as long as there is not someone there to be hit on the head, which explains a lot of the

caveats in the proposed rulemaking. Flying within your line of sight so Im able to see it without other

people around. Not in congested areas so not in urban locations, for example. In daytime, so I can see

what Im doing. In rural areas, you could fly pretty much anywhere you want. If youre in New York City,

you have to be very careful and you cant fly in congested areas like that. We have a very complex

airspace. That also partly explains why the U.S. has been behind. The FAA was given very limited

resources to implement what it was asked to do and that is now improving. Theyve made great progress

on the 333 exemption process. Weve had over 2,000 companies apply for permission to fly drones and

more than 500 have been approved. That process has been very expedited now so its not as

complicated if youre a company looking to fly drones. There have been many tangible steps in the last

few months that have been taken that will lead to a more open airspace for people who are interested in

flying drones. But, because of the lack of data and complex airspace and different issues, it has been a

slower process in the U.S.

Ryan Hagemann: At this time, I am going to open it up to questions from the audience. If anyone has

any thoughts on their minds, I am more than happy to let our panel engage with you.

Audience Question: I have a question about what the difference between other types of flying, for

example a model airplane, and flying drones? It is the height, the altitude? Why are drones subject to

these new types of unique FAA regulations, whereas model planes can get to a relatively high altitude

and can go long distances?

Lisa Ellman: That is exactly right. There is where a lot of the confusion has come in in the drones

industry. If youre a hobbyist, meaning youre flying recreationally for fun, and lets say I have a parrot

drone that I want to be able to fly just for fun, I can do whatever I want with that drone. I can go to the

park. I can fly up to 400 ft. As long as Im not recklessly endangering the public, I pretty much have broad

authorization to fly within a set of community-based guidelines. The idea is that, now and for the last

several decades, I have been able to fly my model airplane. But, if I own a real estate company and I

want to use my drone that I own privately, to be able to take photos of properties that Im selling and post

those up on the internet for my clients to see, that is illegal. Its just an intent test. The same model

airplane in the same flight can be authorized in one case and not authorized in the other case.

Thats where a lot of the confusion is coming from. I have a lot of folk who come to me who want help

navigating the regulatory and public policy regime in this area. They say, Im a company and I want to fly

my drones. What if I just dont charge for this flight? What if I just take lots of photos and my clients are

paying me for other things, but theyre not paying for this picture? There are a lot of companies that are

trying to get around the rules by calling themselves hobbyists. Theyre just flying around recreationally.

Its really fun and theyre excited to do it. Theyre not getting paid for that. The FAA has recently come

out with some new guidance to make it clear that if youre flying in any way where the spirit is a

commercial flight, even if youre not getting paid for that specific flight, its still considered a commercial

flight.

The reason why there has been so much confusion is because people dont understand why they can do

something in one set of circumstance, but if they intend to sell things or make money in any why or do

something to promote a business, then they actually have to get a permit from the FAA, which is quite a

process. Theyre kind of straddling that line and thats been difficult for a lot of folks. There is a lot of

illegal activity out there as well. If you go on the internet and search commercial drones, there will be

aerial photographers who will come take pictures of your wedding with a drone and I guarantee that they

dont have a 333 exemption to do that. The FAA does not have the resources to police all the illegal

activity that is out there, but if for some reason something was to go wrong, if the flight recklessly

endangered the public, including getting close to an airplane or lands on the White House lawn, then

there could be real big problems for that person.

Audience Question: I was wondering how we are working to protect the more sensitive sites like the

White House or military installations from hobbyists. Youre taking it up and you might accidently take a

phot of something you shouldnt be.

Lisa Ellman: Post-9/11, there were new temporary flight restrictions that included flying over nuclear

sites, flying over sensitive areas. Companies love drones and they hate drones. They love drones

because they use them, but they hate them because they dont want others to be able to fly over their

property. Thats true in the hobbyist space too. We all want to be able to fly our own drones, but we dont

want someone elses drones snooping on us in our own backyard. Does anyone here watch Modern

Family? For those of you who didnt see this episode, the family was sunbathing outside, a drone comes

into the backyard and starts videotaping the family as theyre sunbathing out in the yard. The dad takes a

net and is trying to swat it away and his swimming trunks fall to the ground so hes totally naked. The

drone gets all the footage and speeds away. The next day, up on YouTube, there was a video called

Drone: 1 Idiot: Nothing. It was a great episode. But, it really encapsulates a lot of the fears of the

American people. While is FAA is most concerned about safety issues, they dont want to see a done hit

an aircraft, they dont have any jurisdiction over privacy. Thats not what they do.

In the government process, which I described working on these issues, I took the lead on the privacy

issues, because I was representing the Department of Justice and we have some expertise in that area.

There was a presidential memorandum on privacy, transparency, accountability, and civil liberties that

was released the same day that the proposed rule was released in February 15th. It outlined limits on the

federal governments own use of drones and put together a multi-stakeholder process which will be

hosted by the Department of Commerce and start next month. There will be a process to talk about

privacy issues surrounding the commercial use of drones. Its an ongoing conversation. Most states in

our union have proposed some kind of rule that would limit drone use because of privacy concerns in

some way. Some of that legislation has passed. California, for example has an anti-paparazzi drone law

where its broadly applicable, but aimed at paparazzi, basically staying that if someone has a reasonable

expectation of privacy you cannot take a picture of them with a drone. Drones are a platform for a

camera or other technology. What is the difference between pole camera and a drone? When do you

need drone-specific rules and when do you need, maybe better privacy rules on the books to make sure

that were protected? A lot of the potential harms that drones could potentially provide also apply with

other technologies such as a satellite or a pole camera or a helicopter flying over youre house. You

could see the same thing. The question is: where are the relevant differences and where do we need

specific rules in place?

Erik Lin-Greenberg: From the military perspective, its something thats become a lot more salient in the

past few years. About six weeks ago, the Pentagon publically came out and said they shot down a drone,

similar to what you might fly in the park. Its something we didnt consider just a few years ago. I think

one of the questions when youre dealing not with a non-state group like ISIS, but with a state, is that is

targeting someone elses drones an act of war? Whats the threshold for actual conflict? So, October

2013 timeframe, both China and Japan were flying unmanned aircraft over the Senkaku Islands and both

said that shooting down an unmanned aircraft would constitute an act of war. Those are some broader

questions that need to be considered in addition to the technological means of downing aircraft. There

are, of course, DoD properties here in the U.S. What if someone tries to fly over their facilities? There

are a lot places here that could be considered sensitive. Its a balance though, because on the federal

government side, you dont want to consider everything sensitive because news gatherers, for example,

would say they dont want to be censored out of gathering news from perfectly legitimate locations.

Where do you draw the line? On the other side, you have a lot of folks who might say, My retail store is

sensitive and I dont want drones flying over my store. There is actually a new website called

noflyzone.org. Its basically a do not call list for drones. Its not relevant in D.C. since this is restricted

airspace, but if I live out in Maryland and have a property and I put my address in, the idea is that

participating manufacturers would use geo-fencing technology that boxes out that address in particular.

An Amazon drone wouldnt be able to fly over my house even if they wanted to. My neighbors drone

wouldnt be able to fly over my house even if they wanted to. There are some concerns with that,

particularly that its voluntary and many manufacturers dont have incentive to opt in. But, DJI, after the

White House drone incident, they already had geo-fencing which they expanded to include the White

House and other restricted airspace. If you have the latest technology on youre DJI drone and youve

downloaded the latest app, it wouldnt be able to fly over the White House even if it tried. This is an

example where technology can, perhaps, provide a lot of the solutions to some of these public policy

issues that were seeing.

Audience Question: The drone that ended up in Iran. Is it believed that the Iranians actually gained

access to the software controlling that drone? Is that an Achilles heel?

Erik Lin-Greenberg: I think Im privy to the same information that has been available to the public and

media about this. I think this is one of the concerns if any aircraft is downed anywhere. What access is

there to that aircraft? What information was taken out of it?

Audience Member: A drone is controlled remotely. If someone else could gain control of that drone

remotely, thats a big disadvantage for drones versus piloted aircraft, which are a little harder to take

control of.

Lisa Ellman: There was that guy that, just a week or two ago, claims he took control of an American

Airlines aircraft through the wireless that airplanes offer now. Through the internet access that they

provide on their plans, he was able to hack into the operating system. Thats what hes claiming.

Erik Lin-Greenberg: There is a risk that any system can potentially be hacked. In both the private and

government sector, you try to be secure that way, whether its through the data links that youre using and

trying to make the data links more robust and more secure. Another issue is not just that the controls are

hacked, but that the information uplinks and downlinks are hacked as well. What happens, whether its a

private drone or military RPA, if someone is able to hack in and see what the operator is seeing? You

can see the potential advantage from a military standpoint and you can see significant privacy concerns

from private sector drone operations. I think that is a plausible and real concern, but I think industry, the

government, and the private sector are considering that and trying to figure out ways to mitigate that.

Audience Question: Is there anything in international law that regulates the usage of military drones?

Erik Lin-Greenberg: Theoretically, war is governed by the laws of armed conflict and what is and isnt

considered a just war. There hasnt really been any formal guidance on their use. The U.N. looked at the

use of drones in very specific situations, but again, there is really no formal international law that applies

to drone use. Even when you look at airspace and the Chicago Convention, it only applies to civilian

aircraft. There really hasnt been any kind of specific drone law, but I think a lot of people are able to

take elements of the laws of armed conflict and apply to drone operations. We look at thing like necessity

and things like that and try to figure out how the existing laws of armed conflict apply to new technologies.

We dont have a set of laws for guns. We dont necessarily have a set of laws for aircraft. As weapons

systems evolve, we try to figure out how we interpret existing law in the best way possible for military

operations

Audience Question: I have a question about escalation. Youre saying that states are individual are

claiming an attack on a drone versus a manned aircraft is more or less escalatory. I wonder if youre

considering the potential for miscalculation. You may target something and not know whether its

manned or unmanned.

Erik Lin-Greenberg: Its very difficult, but that is a critical thing that I need to figure out how to consider.

There is this notion of a threat that leaves something to chance. I think thats very prevalent operations.

That is one of the biggest concerns right now. If you look at the East China Sea situation, some of the

missions, and this is unclassified information, the Japanese publish every intercept that they conduct, a

good chuck of the aircraft that they intercept are manned Chinese aircraft and others are unmanned

aircraft. But, if Im a SAM operator on the ground and all I see is a blip on my radar, I dont necessarily

know if that aircraft is manned or unmanned. If Im a trigger-happy guy and have rules of engagement

that say to take down any aircraft that enters this area, thats a very significant concern.

Audience Question: You mentioned that the difference between a hobbyist and using drones

commercially is intent-based and not based on safety. Why was that decision made?

Lisa Ellman: That comes from aviation, generally. There are different rules for commercial aircraft and

recreational or sports pilots, for example. The problem with drone law right now is that its very different in

certain ways from manned aircraft, but its taken a similar legal structure and grafter it on to drones, which

doesnt make a lot of sense. An example right now is that, if you have a 333 exemption to fly

commercially, you actually need a manned aircraft pilots license for it to be able to fly under the idea that

theyre aircraft and under the federal aviation regulations, you need to be a pilot in order to be able to fly

an aircraft and that is not a requirement that the FAA feels it has the ability statutorily to waive. This leads

to a somewhat absurd result where you have these companies who want to be able to fly drones and

someone who has been flying drones for many years at the hobbyist level, or who plays video games and

is very good at flying drones, because thats great training, frankly, for flying drones, is not able to do so

because they dont have a manned aircraft pilots license. A lot of companies have to then hire out that

ability or find someone who has a sports or recreational pilots license, which is also accepted. It doesnt

make a lot of sense. The proposed rule, which was outlined, will take care of that. They will provide for a

UAS operators certificate and you can just go to a local knowledge center across the country, kind of like

going to your local DMV, to take a test and if you pass the test, you can become a UAS operator. Pay a

small fee and youll be certified. Once the rule becomes finalized, that is 1.5 - 2 years away.

Audience Question: It sounds like a lot of other countries are taking big steps in allowing drones to

become commercially used. I was wondering, in the next 5 - 10 years, if the U.S. is going to take similar

steps and to what extent you think thats going to change the flight industry and military use.

Lisa Ellman: In the commercial sector, by the end of next year, Id be surprised if there is not a final rule

broadly authorizing commercial drone operations across the U.S. That will very much change how

business is done. Right now, the biggest burden on companies looking to enter this industry is the fact

that it is illegal right now and they have to go through this long detailed process in order to get permission

to fly. A lot of folks are waiting to enter this industry, but really every industry has a need for drones. If

they havent identified that need, they will tomorrow. There are so many different uses out there for

everything, from package delivery to precision agriculture to industrial uses, and everything in between. I

think we are going to see an airspace system that is shifting. Youre going to see drones flying, as well as

helicopters, as well as airplanes. The key is getting that right. Incorporating collision avoidance

technology and transponders and as much safety equipment as we can into these drones, so that were

making that there are no catastrophes. Thats on the commercial side.

Erik Lin-Greenberg: I think there is an interesting nexus between the military side of the house and the

commercial private side of the house. The military has long relied on private firms to help us out with

training exercises. We have private companies that fly refueling tankers. There are aggressor aircraft,

folks that mimic adversary tactics that are privately flown. When I was in Kandahar, I guess it was 3 or 4

years ago now, I got off the plane at the airport and inside the military passenger terminal there was an

advertisement from a Canadian firm advertising military drones in an essentially time-share style. These

are unarmed RPAs. Its an Israeli-built system. For the highest bidder, you could buy a few hours of

flight time. If you were a small country that couldnt necessarily afford to have your own or bid for time

from someone elses, you could go pay these guys money and they would escort youre convoy for you

and tell you if people were a few hundred meters ahead. They seemed to be doing a pretty lucrative

business. I talked to these guys and I think youll probably see more and more private operators trying to

get military contracts down the road.

Audience Question: Why is the data from other countries that have commercial drones not available to

us?

Lisa Ellman: It is. We work with other countries, but their airspace is not nearly as congested as ours.

Our airspace is just a lot more complex than pretty much anywhere in the world. Some of it helps us here

and the Canadian example of a tiered approach is what gave us the idea for a micro-drones exemption.

Youre seeing the international influence there. On a lot of these questions, which regulators want to see

that, not necessarily, companies are providing, but that academics, independent entities, and think tanks

are able to compile on a lot of these questions.

Audience Question: You mentioned that the purpose of a weapon is to accomplish a political objective.

Whats the thinking in the military about the usefulness of drones in this regard? Let me give an example.

I saw a video by ISIS of a targeted killing they were carrying out in Iraq and what they did was dress up in

Iraqi army uniforms and knocked on the targets door. When he opened it, they busted in a beheaded

him. They didnt harm the wife or the kids. How would we have accomplished that objective? We would

have sent a missile into the house from 10,000 ft. We might not have killed the target or killed the wife

and kids and maybe a neighbor or two. We have to ask ourselves which method is more barbaric. Does

that play into the usefulness of drones for targeted killings? There is a lot of sentiment out there that

were making more enemies than were killing.

Erik Lin-Greenberg: That brings up the question of tactical effectiveness versus strategic effectiveness.

In many cases, at the operational level, the military units often look at the tactical effectiveness of a

system.

Audience Member: Like a toy?

Erik Lin-Greenberg: I dont think its ever viewed as a toy when a life is on the line. The folks that I had

the humbling privilege of working with, the airmen that were looking at these feeds every day, took the job

incredibly seriously. That is one of the things that allows military RPAs to be so effective. You say that

were going to drop a Hellfire on someones house. In many cases, we dont need to do that. We can

find a target. We can monitor that that target. This has all been covered pretty extensively in official

media channels, but we can find when that target is going to be out on its own without his family. Were

able to minimize a lot of that collateral damage using RPAs because they can loiter for dozens of hours at

a time and track the individual. We can hand off that particular target to another aircraft. In many cases,

youre able to have much more precise targeting. One of the cases that has gotten lot of media attention

in the past 10 years or so was the targeting of Zarqawi. There were thousands and thousands and

thousands of hours of MQ-1 Predator operations to track this individual down, combined with other

sources of intelligence. They were able to figure out when hed be in a specific location, rather than

having to carpet bomb an entire area to try to get one target.

Audience Member: It sounds like youre saying the military is convinced that drones are wonderful.

Erik Lin-Greenberg: I think everyone recognizes the limitations to any weapons system, but I do think

they offer a very effective tool to carry out certain types of operations. Again, military weapons are

designed to carry out some type of policy objective. You just have to find the best tool for the specific

scenario.

Audience Question: Going back to the Title 10 and Title 50 covert operations and the stuff that is under

DoD control, and perhaps in terms of privacy. This technology we have that has expanded our control

and reach and there are things we can do in different circumstances. Looking at the NSA situation that

we just had, we didnt have that computer technology 20 years ago. Now that we have it, the public cant

understand how it is being used. We just read something in the news and pass it by and think somebody

in the government is taking care of that. Now we have drone technology. How much of it do you think we

will be able to keep under control and verify how it is being used and how much of it will be transparent

based on the direction were going and the technology it is providing to us?

Lisa Ellman: Taking a step back, I think that any technology and be used for good and be used for bad.

This isnt the first time that weve had new technology where, all of a sudden, were worried about what

some if the ramifications are if theyre used or overused. When Kodak cameras were first invented,

people were really worried about the fact that anyone could have a camera and take a picture of them.

Anyone taking a photo was called a Kodaker. It was a derogatory term. Same thing with cell phones.

When cell phones were first invented, if you look at newspaper clipping from around that time, people

were really worried about the fact that you could carry something around with you that could potentially

even take a photo of someone else. Computers: same thing. People were scared of computers. They

didnt want to be in the same room as a computer. They were worried about what it would do to us.

Audience Member: We are not worried about it. Not in terms of biased or irrational fear, but logically.

How much control do you think well have over this? How much of it do you think will be transparent?

Lisa Ellman: The point is that there are risks with any technology. It think the fear is very rational. I

think that people who were scared of getting their picture taken were irrational. There are different

capabilities with drones. If a terrorist arms a drone and blows up a building with a drone, they could have

done that some other way, but the possibility is out there. Everything can be used for good and bad so

we cant control all of that, but that does not mean that doesnt mean we shouldnt be taking advantage of

the benefits of drones. We just need to do that in a way that protects the publics trust and its interests in

every possible way that we can. We dont know what all the capabilities of drones are. We dont know all

the different harms that they can inflict on us and all of the different benefits that they can provide. We

are still at that learning stage where they are just now getting integrated into society in a way that benefits

the public in certain ways and also provides certain risks. A lot of that fact-finding will have to be

happening over the next several years.

Erik Lin-Greenberg: I think the state use of drones from a warfare standpoint, there is a growing body of

literature that says the U.S. is the primary user of RPAs today and we really need to set the precedent

about how RPAs are used in military environments. This goes back to the question of we shape

international law to shape these precedents about how to use RPAs appropriately. One of the things the

State Department did a few months ago was relax regulations on armed drones and a lot of analysts said

this was a good move because it allowed the U.S. to start exporting RPAs to some of its allies and friends

and partners. If we export, that limits the audience that will potentially buy Chinas drones or Russias

drones. It allows us to have a little bit more influence because, in addition to just selling an aircraft, youre

going to send trainers and pilots from those countries will get the opportunity to come to schools in the

U.S. Youre able to shape the mindset and, hopefully, its a mindset is in accordance with international

law.

Audience Question: Whats the range of the drones that we use in targeted killings and whats holding

back the development of a drone with the carrying capacity of a fighter jet?

Erik Lin-Greenberg: The range is varied. If you go to airforce.mil and look up fact sheets, you can get

a good number that will give you some idea. You can look up the capabilities of all the weapons systems

in the U.S. Air Force. In terms of whats holding us back, theres been a lot of development. There is a

UCAV project that is developing much more advanced RPAs, but right now I think its just a matter of

need. For the past decade and a half, weve been fighting war that has required counter-insurgency

aircraft. We want something that can loiter around for a long time and find individuals. Thats were a lot

of the money has been dedicated right now. As we pivot towards other threats, youll see money being

moved elsewhere and development happens where there is money.

Audience Question: I have a follow-up question. I was about a year ago, maybe, that they were talking

about bringing some of the CIA program under DoD control. Where is that going?

Audience Member: Recent drone strikes have triggered the conversation about that, but its still in

review.

Audience Question: You talked about intent-based regulations. Are there different regulations for

different uses? Whats to stop a military contractor who develops a drone for a military purpose from then

using it in a private capacity for commercial use?

Lisa Ellman: there are a few different categories. There is hobbyist use, commercial use, and public

use. If law enforcement is using a drone, they are broadly authorized to use them in cooperation with the

FAA. The FBI will use a drone, for example, in the context of a specific investigation, whether it is a

particular need for some kind of surveillance or aerial data collection. They dont do general surveillance.

They dont take drone and park it over the city and watch people. States and localities have broader

police powers. The idea is that law enforcement and public agencies will use them in a very particular

circumstances. Public agencies are allowed to use things in a different way. One area where there has

been a lot of confusion is universities. If youre a public university operating a vehicle in support of a core

governmental function than you can apply for a public certificate of authorization. You can get permission

as a public entity. The key there is the core governmental function is been very narrowly defined in the

university context to mean aeronautical research.

A university can be public entity for the purpose of drone use if its studying drones and how they fly and

how a drone can be designed that is great for precision agriculture. That could be an aeronautical

research purpose. Studying precision agriculture with drones is not a core governmental function.

Educating students is not a core governmental function. Research and development that does not relate

specifically to the study of drones and the study of aeronautics is not a core governmental function.

Universities are treated like commercial entities for that purpose. A university would need to get a 333

exemption just like Amazon or any other company, which is interesting because you wouldnt think that.

There have been a lot of public policy efforts on behalf of certain groups of folks. Everyone wants a

carve-out for their own industry. Everyone want to be able to do whatever they want.

The first rule that will come out will broadly give us the ability to fly drones, but there will be certain

restrictions. You cant fly at night. You have to remain within visual line of sight. The operator has to

have the capability of seeing the drone at all times. That will limit, for example, you cant fly in urban

locations. Pipeline inspection or railroad inspection or precision agriculture. Its not an economical use of

a drone if you have to move every mile with the drone. The idea is that you should be able to send it 400

miles and send it back and it will have studied and examined the pipeline or the railroad on the way back.

Some uses are not going to be beneficial just yet. The FAA just announced this pathfinder program

where its working with specific areas and industries. CNN is working with the FAA on how to allow

drones that will operate commercially for news gathering purposes in urban locations. Whether that

means tethering the vehicle, for example. Perhaps connecting it to the ground in some way would make

it not a drone essentially. That could mitigate the safety risks in urban locations. That might be

something that we see in the future. Precision agriculture companies are partnering with the FAA to

study how drones can be used for precision agriculture beyond line of sight. The NSF is partnering with

the FAA to study how drones can be used beyond the line of sight for railroad purposes. There is a lot of

study and research and development that is going on there and there will be approved operations for

those three things. Well just see that expand over time. I think we will see beyond line of sight

operations. We will see nighttime operations. Its just not going to be right away.

Ryan Hagemann: Id like to invoke the moderators privilege to get into the area of commercial drone

operations that we havent touched upon yet, but which I think is going to be pretty important going

forward, especially with the FAA rules and Cory Bookers recent piece of legislation. The FAA seems to

draw a relatively arbitrary distinction between hobbyist and commercial use of drones for whatever

reason. My question for you, Lisa, is what about journalists use of drones? Technically theyre not

hobbyists, but theyre also not technically doing it for commercial purposes. How do we deal with that?

Lisa Ellman: They are considered commercial for the purposes of regulations. I represent CNN. I

represent a lot of broadcasters. I represent news gatherers who fly drones. Right now, according to the

way that the law is written, they are considered commercial entities. There are different First Amendment

concerns. Obviously, they are gathering information for the public and so we want to get them as much

access as possible. Were looking at a bunch of different options for that community, including the CNN-

FAA agreement, in order to permission to fly in urban locations. Thats what news gatherers really want:

to be able to fly over people. That is why the tethered option is looking good for news gatherers in

particular, and perhaps for others. You can probably see CNNs 333 petition for approval to fly a tethered

vehicle in addition to some other vehicles. I think it would be great if news gatherers were allowed to fly,

like universities, as if they were hobbyists. There is guidance that came out of the FAA recently, probably

within the last two months that stated that if a hobbyist sends a journalist their video or photo, the

journalist can actually use that in certain cases. Normally, even though its kind of a commercial thing,

theyre not purchasing the image from the hobbyist. Theyre giving it over. The hobbyist was still a

hobbyist, essentially. Thats also one workaround. You can still use hobbyists videos or data that was

collected, as long as it wasnt done in a way that was commercial in spirit. Its been a big conversation.

CNN is working with Georgia Tech, a bunch of media associations, the National Organization of

Broadcasters. This year, the National Organization of Broadcasters hosted this big conference. There

was this huge aerial drone pavilion that took up huge space and it was really exciting. News gatherers

and film producers are so excited about the use of drones, particularly because helicopters are so

dangerous. I dont know if you know about the Twilight Zone movie accident a few years ago? It killed

actors on the set because a camera in the helicopter was filming the movie and it crashed, killing people

on the set. A 55 lbs. drone that rashes is not going to kill anyone. It could theoretically, but it will more

likely not have as bad of consequences. Its a lot safer when people are around to operate a drone than

to operate a helicopter. News gathering and film production are perfect examples of that.

Audience Question: Following up on the point you just referenced about the danger of a drone falling

out of the sky, how is liability being treated under the current rules? What if you fly a drone perfectly well,

take a quad-rotor, and one rotor fails, and the drone plummets to the ground and hits someone?

Lisa Ellman: It depends what is proven. If that was a defect, then its the manufacturers liability. There

is a lot of back and forth on this right now. For example, the geo-fencing technology that, if it works

correctly, would prevent me from flying over the White House. For example, if I had geo-fencing

technology on my drone and Im the operator of my drone and Im still able to fly it over the White House,

is that because their geo-fencing technology failed or is it because Im an evil person that tried to fly over

the White House. We havent seen the tip of the iceberg in terms of ligation thats happened. We

havent had incidents like that where there have been fights in court about whos liable, but there will be.

Thats a great question.

Audience Question: There is a theory out there that our foreign policy is determined by the arms

manufacturers. According to this theory, our increasing use of drones would be the result of a lobbying

effort by drone manufacturers. What is the status of the industry with regard to military drones? Is it

dominated by the usual big-boys or is it a bunch of little people from other countries as well?

Erik Lin-Greenberg: The major drones that are in operation, Predator, Reaper, Global Hawk, the

Predator and Reaper is General Atomics, and the Global Hawk is a Northrop Grumman product, I think.

Its the big players, but then again you have smaller companies that are building these things that people

can toss out of their backpacks, that Marine, soldier, or special operator, to see over the next hill. Some

of them are larger defense contractors and some of them are smaller companies, but for your major

weapons systems those are the large firms. Again, theyre amalgamations of lots of different

technologies so the sensor on board might be made by one company and then the airframe itself is built

by someone else. Its a mix.

Ryan Hagemann: This is my last question to the panelists. Given that this entire panel has been about

the future of drones, I would like to hear each of you portend what the future looks like from a military

perspective and a commercialist perspective. Is it a net win? Is it a net loss? If so, why? If not, why?

Erik Lin-Greenberg: From a military perspective, I think youre going to see an increase in the number

of states operating RPA systems. Currently, I think the number right now is something like 72 states

operate some type of RPA. But again, technology takes time to develop. Not all countries have the

economic resources of the U.S. and out closest partners. Were going to see some states having these

hobbyist-type drones that they operate as part of their military fleets. But, I think at the end state, if the

proliferation of RPAs is done well and we have states like the U.S. setting precedent for responsible use

of RPAs, I think its a net win overall. I personally think they put a cap on escalation. The use of drones

and the presence of drones might make a state more likely to initiate a conflict, but if a drone gets shot

down, and weve seen this before, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force came out publicly, I think about a

year ago now, and said the Iranians took pot shots at one of our Predators operating over Arabian Gulf

and our response was fairly minimal. If that had been a manned aircraft, the response would have been

very different. I think it creates this very interesting zone of escalation where you end up potentially

increasing the likelihood of certain degrees of conflict, but at the same time, it puts a cap compared to the

use of manned assets.

Lisa Ellman: I think, on the commercial side, were going to see, over the next 5-10-15 years, drones

increasingly take the place of helicopter, drones increasingly take the place, in some circumstances, of

people. Looking at Japan right now, 85% of crop-dusting is actually done with drones. Were going to

see that here in the U.S. Were going to see a lot of the tasks that are dangerous for humans to do, such

as pipeline inspection. Were going to see drones doing all that. Were going to see every industry really

move towards the use of drones commercially. I do think there will be safety incidents. There is going to

be privacy incidents. There is going to be a lot of things that policymakers have to deal with along the

way. But, I think that will all inform the policy making. Part of the problem, like I said, has been the lack

of data. Once we have an open airspace, this is just the beginning. 20 years down the line, this is just

going to be a way of life and well be talking about flying cars and drones were yesterdays news.

Ryan Hagemann: Fantastic. So, a more peaceful world with less likelihood of escalation in armed

conflict

Erik Lin-Greenberg: Well see.

Ryan Hagemann: and flying cars on the horizon. Fantastic. Everyone, a special thank you to Lisa

Ellman and Erik Lin-Greenberg.

END TRANSCRIPT