Is It a Bird? Is It a Plane? Or Is It a Drone?

Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics have dominated technology-based science fiction since they were first published in 1942. The laws state:

1.  A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2.  A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

These laws are generally cited as an important starting point under every highly technological society. Drones are becoming an increasing presence across the world. The machines have applications in many sectors: delivery services, monitoring of remote areas, agriculture, military use, and, of course, extreme selfie camera mode. And yet, with the increasing popularity of drone technology, there has been a huge disconnect around the understanding of drone law.

There have been many innovative methods proposed to control drone technology. The Metropolitan Police in London is considering using eagles to take down drones, a method piloted in the Netherlands. This is meant to prevent drones flying illegally in airspace or protected areas. However, there has been outcry against this endeavor, with the director of the International Centre of Birds of Prey in Gloucestershire calling the plan a gimmick. In the United States, unmanned aircraft systems (UAS, the legal term for drones) are governed by the Federal Aviation Administration, with the primary concern of keeping UAS away from pilots.

A Question of Regulation

With such a hullabaloo already stirred up by drone technology, what can we expect if technological development continues to outpace regulation and legal enforcement? Drones used for questionable purposes are on the rise. In England and Wales, the number of drones found in or near prisons increased from zero in 2013 to 35 in 2015. These drones were found carrying drugs, smartphones, and USB drives. This activity is not due to lack in regulation, but rather a lack of enforcement and education. People receiving drones as Christmas presents are often unaware of how they must be piloted and registered, and for what purposes different drone classes are allowed to be used.

The solution to drone problems is not yet clear. One thing is certain: with current human policing methods, the rate of drone development is likely to outpace the rate of drone regulation. Advanced regulatory technology is highly likely to be the solution. Whether or not this entails an Asimovian set of programmed rules that all UAS must follow is up for debate.

Fortunately, drones are not as autonomous or self-governing as the robots in an Asimov book—but what might the revised rules for drones look like as technological capabilities advance?

1.  A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2.  A robot must adhere to all current government registrations, regulations, and prohibitions except where such adherence would conflict with the First Law.
3.  A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First or Second Laws. 
4.  A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second or Third Laws.