The Scourge of Drone 'Auditors' - Legalities, Confrontation, and Reputational Damage to the Drone Industry

In recent years, the rise of drone technology has revolutionized industries ranging from film-making to agriculture, offering unprecedented opportunities for innovation and efficiency. However, alongside these positive developments, a controversial subculture has emerged: drone "auditors." These individuals, often self-proclaimed defenders of public rights, use drones to film private properties, public spaces, and businesses, ostensibly to test compliance with privacy laws and regulations. While some claim to be acting in the public interest, their methods and attitudes have sparked widespread criticism, legal scrutiny, and concerns about the damage they may be inflicting on the drone industry as a whole. They are not "auditors" in any sense of the word. They are merely content creators who exploit drone technology, and peoples ignorance of the law, to garner views for their social media channels.

Who Are Drone "Auditors"?

Drone "auditors" are individuals who fly drones in public or near private properties, often recording footage and uploading it to platforms like YouTube. They justify their actions by claiming to "audit" compliance with laws related to privacy, public spaces, and drone regulations. Many "auditors" adopt a confrontational approach, deliberately provoking reactions from property owners, security personnel, or law enforcement to create dramatic content for their channels. This content often garners significant views, driven by the spectacle of conflict and controversy.

A recent example of this behaviour was highlighted in a recent Daily Mail article, where a drone auditor targeted Luisa Zissman, a TV entrepreneur, at her home. The auditor intended to fly a drone over her property, capturing footage of her home and surrounding buildings. When confronted, the auditor adopted an antagonistic attitude, refusing to stop filming and escalating the situation into a public spat. This incident is emblematic of the broader issues surrounding drone "auditors" and their impact on individuals and industries.

The Legalities of Drone Auditing

The legality of drone auditing is complex. While drone operators are generally permitted to fly in public spaces, they must adhere to strict regulations designed to protect privacy and safety. In the UK, for example, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) enforces rules that prohibit taking off from private property without permission, invading people's privacy, or endangering others - The rules are clear. Similar rules exist in other countries, including the United States, where the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) governs drone use.

Drone "auditors" often operate in a gray area, exploiting loopholes or pushing the boundaries of these regulations. For instance, they may argue that they are flying in public airspace or that their actions are protected under freedom of expression laws. However, their activities frequently cross ethical and legal lines, particularly when they deliberately target private properties. individuals or businesses.

In the case of Luisa Zissman, the drone auditor's actions raised clear privacy concerns. Filming someone's home without permission is not only invasive but also potentially illegal under UK privacy laws. While "auditors" may claim to be exposing wrongdoing or testing compliance, their methods often amount to harassment and intimidation.

The Antagonistic and Confrontational Attitude

One of the most troubling aspects of drone auditing is the confrontational attitude adopted by many practitioners. Rather than engaging in constructive dialogue or responsible journalism, these individuals often seek to provoke and antagonize. They thrive on conflict, using aggressive tactics to elicit reactions that can be sensationalized and monetized on social media - it's all about the clicks and view for them.

This behaviour is not only unethical but also counterproductive. By deliberately provoking property owners, security personnel, or law enforcement, drone "auditors" create unnecessary tension and risk escalating situations into physical or legal confrontations. In the case of Luisa Zissman, the auditor's refusal to stop filming and his combative demeanour turned a potentially minor incident into a public spectacle, causing distress to the individuals involved.

Reputational Damage to the Drone Industry

The actions of drone "auditors" are not just a problem for the individuals they target; they also pose a significant threat to the reputation of the drone industry as a whole. Drones have enormous potential to benefit society, from delivering medical supplies to monitoring environmental changes. However, the negative publicity generated by drone "auditors" risks overshadowing these positive applications.

When the public sees drones being used to invade privacy, harass individuals, or create conflict, it undermines trust in the technology. This erosion of trust can lead to calls for stricter regulations, making it harder for legitimate drone operators to conduct their work. It also tarnishes the image of the industry, associating drones with controversy and misuse rather than innovation and progress.

Moreover, the behaviour of drone "auditors" can create a hostile environment for responsible drone operators. Property owners and businesses, wary of being targeted, may become less willing to engage with drone technology, even for legitimate purposes. This reluctance stifles growth and innovation, ultimately harming the industry as a whole.

Addressing the Issue

To combat the scourge of drone "auditors", a multi-faceted approach is needed. First, regulators must clarify and enforce laws related to drone use, ensuring that privacy and safety are protected. This includes holding "auditors" accountable for illegal or unethical behaviour, such as flying over private homes without permission or harassing individuals.

Second, the drone industry must take proactive steps to distance itself from these bad actors. Industry associations and leaders should publicly condemn the actions of drone "auditors" and promote responsible drone use. By highlighting the positive applications of drone technology, the industry can counteract the negative perception created by these "auditors".

Finally, public awareness is key. Individuals and businesses should be educated about their rights and the regulations governing drone use. This knowledge empowers them to respond appropriately when confronted by drone "auditors", reducing the likelihood of conflict and escalation.

How to Handle an "Auditor"

The best advice is to ignore them. Their tactic is to provoke an interaction that will make their video more interesting. Don't feed into their agenda. Ignore them, don't approach them and let them do what they're doing if there's genuinely no impact on you, your staff or your business. That way you won't end up as being the thumbnail on their next upload and their video will be so boring as to not get them any views.

If you definitely don't want them filming your property, then brief your staff to remain calm and civil. Ask the "auditor" for the following:

• Their "Operator ID" and their name so that you can check their registration on the CAA website. Note that they're not required by law to give you their name so you may not be able to check their registration yourself. However you should still record their Operator ID.
• In their capacity as a "data controller" (see below), the "auditor" should be registered as such with the Information Commissioners Office (ICO). You should therefore ask for their ICO registration number so that you can check it is current and valid.
• As a data controller, the "auditor" should also have a privacy policy available for you to review.

If the "auditor" complies with the above, then perhaps have your staff give them a laminated card with the following simple statement:

"We do not grant you permission to take off or land your drone from any part of our property. It is our belief that if you flew over our property and gathered photographic or video data, then you would, under the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR), be acting as a data controller. We do not believe that you have a lawful basis for filming and therefore we do not consent to any part of our property, or any of our staff, being filmed by you."

If they ignore this notice, then you should advise them that unlawful processing of an individual's (i.e. your staff's) personal data provides the individual with a right to pursue compensation from the them (the data controller) or make a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO). This right is however limited to the data subject and does not extend to employers or companies so it would have to be enacted by your individual staff members.

Conclusion

Drone "auditors" represent a troubling trend within the drone industry, exploiting technology for personal gain at the expense of privacy, safety, and public trust. While they may claim to be acting in the public interest, their confrontational methods and disregard for ethical and legal boundaries undermine their credibility and damage the reputation of the drone industry as a whole.

By addressing the legal, ethical, and reputational challenges posed by drone "auditors", we can ensure that drone technology continues to be a force for good, driving innovation and benefiting society without compromising the rights and privacy of individuals. The case of Luisa Zissman and the drone auditor who targeted her serves as a stark reminder of the need for action, before the actions of a few tarnish the potential of many.