NJ Legislators Want To Ban Drone Photography Of 'Critical Infrastructure'

from the your-rights-end-where-our-freaking-out-begins dept

Thu, Jul 23rd 2015 8:28am — Tim Cushing

Government paranoia about "critical infrastructure" will now be extended to drone photography, if New Jersey's proposed legislation is any indication. While law enforcement agencies are still weighing the Fourth Amendment implications of surveillance drones, some local governments are moving ahead with plans to shortchange the First Amendment.

This new legislation makes it a criminal offense to use a drone to take a photograph of “critical infrastructure.” And what is “critical infrastructure”? Any “asset” whose incapacity—even partial incapacity—would have an impact on the physical or economic security, or public health or safety, of the state. This specifically includes highways, waste treatment facilities, bridges, tunnels, and more.

This proposal would codify something many public employees (especially those in law enforcement/security agencies) already mistakenly believe: that photography of public structures is illegal and probably has something to do with terrorism. Even if the structure is already completely viewable with the naked eye, can be viewed via satellite photography and has been the subject of multiple official photo releases, people with cameras around certain structures are considered inherently suspicious. Now, this misguided "security" concern is being extended to eyes in the sky, something the government seems to believe should be in the possession of government agencies only.

The proposed penalties for violations are fairly severe.

Specifically, this bill makes it a fourth degree crime for a person to use a civilian unmanned aerial vehicle, commonly referred to as a drone, to conduct surveillance of, gather evidence or collect information or data about, or photographically or electronically record any critical infrastructure without the prior written consent of the entity that owns or operates the critical infrastructure. A fourth degree crime is punishable by up to 18 months imprisonment, a fine of up to $10,000, or both.

On top of that, the legislation would help the state build a list of "usual suspects."

The bill also prohibits a person from operating a civilian drone unless it is registered with the Division of Aeronautics in the Department of Transportation. In addition, a person is prohibited from operating a civilian drone unless the person maintains liability insurance coverage to insure against loss resulting from liability for bodily injury, death, and property damage sustained by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance, operation, or use of the drone. The required minimum coverage is to be in an amount determined by the Commissioner of Banking and Insurance in consultation with the Commissioner of Transportation.

A person who operates a civilian drone without the required registration or insurance is subject to a civil penalty of not less than $1,000 for a first offense and not less than $5,000 for a second or subsequent offense. In addition, for a second or subsequent offense, a person’s civilian drone registration is to be revoked for a period of two years.

So, while law enforcement agencies argue that aerial surveillance has minimal Fourth Amendment impact because public places have a lowered expectation of privacy, they're also supporting legislation that would grant public structures more protection than a member of the public's fenced-in backyard. Of course, the Fourth Amendment only deals with privacy. This legislative push concerns security -- something that tends to receive higher priority than Constitutional rights.

Then there's the inherent stupidity of carving out a drone-specific ban. People with regular cameras (or cell phones) will still be able to photograph these structures, as will aerial photographers in planes and helicopters. It's a very specific paranoia -- one limited solely to new tech that's currently subject to very little government control.

And that's really what this is all about. Lawmakers have (civilian) drone fever and the only cure is more ~~cowbell~~ legislation. Those pesky men (and women) and their flying machines are harming the nation's security somehow with their democratization of aerial photography. These legislators obviously feel the only entity that should have full access to the skies and everything below is the government. And if the First Amendment has to suffer some cutbacks, so be it.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: critical infrastructure, drones, new jersey, photography

31 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

mcinsand, 23 Jul 2015 @ 8:47am

glad I abandoned hobby photography!
Back in the days of film, I used to take a lot of pictures. On weekends, I'd load a bunch of rolls with Tri-X, wander around town, and take pictures of whatever. More often than not, it was a particular view of a building, bridge, structure, whatever.

Times have certainly changed.

Now, I'm very careful to take any pictures of my kids with only non-structural things in the background. Trees are nice, woods are nice, and small streams are okay. Buildings, storage facilities, and bridges are not, however. No matter how much I think a background might be visually interesting, I really don't want to get snagged by our Fourth-Amendment-free apparatus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 23 Jul 2015 @ 9:21am
  
  Re: glad I abandoned hobby photography!
  My reaction is just the opposite: The contrarian in me is now tempted to take photos of buildings/bridges/etc. where previously I had no interest in it.
  
  One thing's for certain: I'm not going to worry about whether or not such structures are in my photos. I'm going to keep taking pictures just as I always have.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JoeCool (profile), 23 Jul 2015 @ 10:34am
    
    Re: Re: glad I abandoned hobby photography!
    On the plus side, your kids will get a first-hand look at security threater in action! "Watch as they taze Daddy!"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2015 @ 11:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re: glad I abandoned hobby photography!
      Well, it is a great way to inspire the leaders of tomorrow.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 23 Jul 2015 @ 1:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: glad I abandoned hobby photography!
      Well, someone's got to take one for the team.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Klaus, 23 Jul 2015 @ 3:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: glad I abandoned hobby photography!
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2000#Incidents
        
        One of Tony Blair's many, many horrible laws - check out the "incidents" section and see how many trainspotters have been questioned.
        
        I, too, feel obligated to take photos of airports, bridges, government buildings...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dr evil, 23 Jul 2015 @ 8:50am

What is it with the bozos ... Er .. Leaders in NJ and NY?
First step to make photos of politicians illegal, since they are vital ..er.. Wait..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2015 @ 8:52am

Transparent Motive
Clearly it is because they don't want evidence of Bridgegate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2015 @ 9:29am
  
  Re: Transparent Motive
  I think you mean BRIDGEGHAZI
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2015 @ 8:57am

I have been having an unpleasant feeling for a long time regarding the use of security to reduce the constitutional protections we were once proud of having. Just recently I have finished a book called the Dictator's Handbook and by golly nearly every story i see here reinforces many of the points brought up in the book Primarily that being those in power fear losing the power by dilution, something the internet is a powerful tool. Now unlike the internet, which those in power failed to realize the diluting affect (effect?) that the internet would have on said power, are working to regain any lost power and to fortify themselves and the system against any further loss in said power. Of course this is a gross simplification of the situation and probably isn't entirely a conscious act on many of those involved with stupid actions such as outlawing taking a picture of a bridge with a drone, many of those people might be legitimately concerned with safety and think this is a good idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2015 @ 4:34pm
  
  Re:
  you should also read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"
  
  The parallels might shock you
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2015 @ 9:02am

The licensing and insuring registrations are wonderfully (awfully) vague.
It seems to basically read that people are required to file paperwork that does not yet exist and obtain insurance that few to no providers even know how to offer, with fees, credits, points and other costs to be decided at some random point in the future by parties that will profit the most from it.

And wouldn't 'photographically record' include long distance skyline shots from miles around the state? I am sure any road, bridge, water tower, drainage canal or building that houses a government office or important utility node could be 'critical infrastructure'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2015 @ 10:51pm
  
  Re:
  any bathroom, toilet, or any crap-processing device also fits this definition of "critical infrastructure"
  
  Any “asset” whose incapacity—even partial incapacity—would have an impact on the physical or economic security, or public health or safety, of the state.
  
  $DEITY forbid that you happen to take a picture of a toilet bowl that's displayed for sale at the local market.
  That crapper is a critical bit of infrastructure!
  
  If that toilet bowl is cracked or has fissures and is a danger to whomever would happen to sit on said crapper, if you happen to take a photo of it then it would be a matter of intentionally exposing vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure.
  
  If you dare to file any complaint to consumer-protection agencies or make any use of the pictures of the cracked crapper you'll end up locked for life without parole for using and exploiting vulnerable bits of critical infrastructure.
  
  All because of a toilet bowl.
  /sarcasm (or sad truth)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Roger Strong (profile), 23 Jul 2015 @ 9:02am

Nostalgia
I went on a package tour of Eastern Europe and Scandinavia back in the 1980s. Entering the Soviet Union we were warned against photographing infrastructure. No railroads, railway crossings, bridges, fuel stations etc.

Like with blanket surveillance, America adds a high-tech spin to Soviet methods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2015 @ 9:05am

Do the police know the difference between a phone and a drone?

/Sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2015 @ 9:10am
  
  Re:
  They know the difference between their privileges and your rights.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 23 Jul 2015 @ 9:11am

If a phone can be used as a gun then drones must make awesome cannons, no? /sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2015 @ 9:36am
  
  Re:
  Well, they do make rather nice Flying Pistols.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
James G. Witte (profile), 23 Jul 2015 @ 9:32am

Jobs!
Because it should be illegal for a news agency to program a drone to fly over the highway and stream live coverage of the traffic conditions--to the cloud--WITHOUT having a pilot actively flying the helicopter. If you take away the pilot's job, how will he feed his family?(and pay income taxes)

Even if that means that the news agency can now do the same public service for less money, we have to think of the economy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JoeCool (profile), 23 Jul 2015 @ 10:39am
  
  Re: Jobs!
  I used to tell people the same thing back in college. I'd toss some paper at the trash bucket, but never worried about if it actually went in. If someone complained, I'd just tell them "I'm making sure the janitor has a job! Are you trying to put the poor man out on the street?"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2015 @ 9:34am

Welcome, comrades, to the United States of Amerika!
I cannot even fathom how those in power do not see the destructiveness of their actions. Their actions are far more destructive to this country than any bridge, building or facility. You take out a bridge, you inconvenience hundreds, thousands, maybe a million people. You take away our rights and freedoms and you affect almost 400 million people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2015 @ 9:48am

there is obviously something wrong with all on the list and want to prevent those wrongs from becoming public, in case it means someone in the local governments offices/positions being indicted!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2015 @ 10:01am

I would love to see the US Government's approved definition of the word Terrorism that manages to not include their own actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 1:48am
  
  Re:
  Oh that's easy, they just slip in an asterisk(font size .0001) somewhere in the definition, with a disclaimer that none of the definitions shall be applied to anything the USG does, and then bury the disclaimer that it's linked to somewhere else
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ruby, 23 Jul 2015 @ 10:17am

Hey, it's no biggie. I'll just hop over to Google Maps and get my aerial view there. Or is satellite imagery (aka the drone's Big Brother) to be outlawed too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2015 @ 11:03am

I agree with the insurance requirement
I have to agree with the insurance because earlier this week they had a drone disrupt firefighting capabilities so someone could take photos/video.

However, I have a problem setting something off limits because of some arbitrary criteria.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tqk (profile), 23 Jul 2015 @ 11:46am
  
  Re: I agree with the insurance requirement
  ... earlier this week they had a drone disrupt firefighting capabilities ...
  
  Which sounds suspiciously like way over-reacting to me. All they had to do was fly past it close enough (not very close!) and the backwash would pretty much pulverize the thing.
  
  I think politicos should instead be forcing said critical infrastructure to be disconnected (air-gapped) from the net. Who wants to go to the trouble of driving a truck bomb into the WTC's basement garage when you can just telnet into its controllers (login: Siemens, password: Stuxnet) and make it fall over remotely?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2015 @ 3:16pm
    
    Re: Re: I agree with the insurance requirement
    Or get ingested into the intake and cause serious damage requiring a lot of money they may not have to repair. Everyone has seen what a squishy bird can do to an engine. Now throw in a harder plastic and metal bird and see what happens.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JoeCool (profile), 25 Jul 2015 @ 1:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: I agree with the insurance requirement
      A single bird rarely ever takes out an engine. It nearly always takes a whole flock to make an engine die. And plastic and aluminum is about the same to a jet engine as flesh and bone - next to nothing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2015 @ 1:32pm

And what is “critical infrastructure”? Any “asset” whose incapacity—even partial incapacity—would have an impact on the physical or economic security, or public health or safety, of the state.

Fortunately, we can still take drone pictures of the NJ legislature in session...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2015 @ 4:32pm

more nonsense laws aimed at making anything and everything a crime. So that it is easier to arrest people with opinions and views that are against those in charge.

Or Political opponents and activists. No chance in hell this would be used against actual criminals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]