{"id":5333,"date":"2017-10-14T00:55:41","date_gmt":"2017-10-14T04:55:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=5333"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:52:52","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:52:52","slug":"cant-put-lipstick-bad-law-criminalization-drones-flying-pig-farms","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/cant-put-lipstick-bad-law-criminalization-drones-flying-pig-farms\/","title":{"rendered":"You Can\u2019t Put Lipstick on a Bad Law: Criminalization of Drones Flying over Pig Farms"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, unmanned drones became critical tools for rescue<\/a> teams in Texas. Described as a \u201clandmark in the evolution of drone usage\u201d by FAA Administrator Michael Huerta<\/a>, pro-pilots of the small, camera-enabled flying-machines aided the National Guard in creating maps to identify the locations of survivors, show landscape changes, and identify damage to infrastructure. But the good news for drones was short-lived.
\nOn September 1, 2017, only a few days after Harvey\u2019s landfall on Texas\u2019 southeastern coast, House Bill 1643 went into effect<\/a> in the state of Texas. The law<\/a> made it a crime to operate a drone over certain animal feeding operations, telecommunications facilities, and oil and gas facilities. Violation of the legislation is a class B misdemeanor carrying a punishment<\/a> of up to 180 days in jail or penalty of up to $2000. And not only does the law limit where drones can be flown within the state, but it also bars local governments from making their own regulations regarding drone usage.
\nMedia attention towards the bill has been primarily focused around the prohibition of flying drones over animal feeding operations because the justification for the limitation is seen by some a bizarre veil. Whereas restricting the flight of drones near telecommunications facilities is defended<\/a> by the desire to prevent knocking down power lines, the ban above feeding operations is rationalized by more interesting, perhaps imaginative, threats.
\nState Representative Drew Springer<\/a>, an author of the bill, cites concern to the security risk of domestic biowarfare by those who disagree with eating domesticated animals as a basis for the law. \u201c[Foot-and-mouth] disease could be spread through drones very easily,\u201d stated<\/a> Rep. Springer. Though unable to cite any past examples of such a tactic, the Representative reassured that threat of attacks-from-above are a \u201cmassive fear for the economy of Texas, for the food supply in Texas, and really all of the United States.\u201d
\nOpponents are very critical of the bill, stating numerous reasons for why the legislation is bad. For one, the acts that lawmakers are concerned could occur absent the new legislation are already crimes; in fact, they are acts of terrorism<\/a>. It is doubted that an additional half-year of jail time would act as much deterrent<\/a> to terrorists. Instead, critics argue that the stated reason for the law is a cloak for its true motivations<\/a>\u2014to scare away journalists and activists from keeping tabs on industrial activity.<\/p>\n

For example, several years ago David Mimlitch, a recreational drone operator, inadvertently caught on his drone\u2019s camera a Dallas slaughterhouse dumping raw pig blood into a creek.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Authorities traced the activity to Columbia Meat Packing Company. The company and two executives were indicted<\/a> by a grand jury on 18 counts, although the charges were later dropped. Nevertheless, the company closed its slaughterhouse, later reopening as a meat packing facility. Under the new law, Mimlitch could have been jailed for nearly six-months.
\nJosh Cohn, political director of EFF-Austin<\/a>, a digital rights organization, also argues that research will be hampered by this law. Josh Winegarner, director of government relations for the Texas Cattle Feeders Association, disputes this criticism, stating<\/a> that ranchers have \u201cdone a lot of stuff with journalists.\u201d
\nAs for removing the power of local governments to regulate drones, critics accuse the lawmakers of attempting to usurp<\/a> the power of cities to pass ordinances to address local issues in the name of protecting corporations. They argue that the effect of the bill\u2019s requirements will be to \u201chinder school districts\u2019 ability to quickly respond to safety and privacy risks to our students and communities.\u201d While that may be the result, Rep. Springer asserts<\/a> that the motivation was not to protect, but instead to help companies that are experimenting with drone delivery, like Google or Amazon. By removing local governments\u2019 authority to regulate drones, Springer says that these corporations will need to worry less about a \u201cpatchwork quilt of regulations that would have prevented them from going forward with that technology.\u201d This will help the new, revolutionary technology grow.
\nNo matter the motivation for House Bill 1643, the effect is unquestionably favorable to corporations. The lesson: Don\u2019t mess with Texas\u2019 companies.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, unmanned drones became critical tools for rescue teams in Texas. Described as a \u201clandmark in the evolution of drone usage\u201d by FAA Administrator Michael Huerta, pro-pilots of the small, camera-enabled flying-machines aided the National Guard in creating maps to identify the locations of survivors, show landscape changes, and …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5334,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5333"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5333"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5333\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7027,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5333\/revisions\/7027"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5334"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5333"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5333"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5333"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}