![kentucky drone law](https://dronelife.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Flag_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Kentucky_1918%E2%80%931962_unofficial-300x193.png)
. Kentucky’s House Bill 45 is being touted as a privacy bill – and addresses a wide selection of dystopian future scenarios, including microchipping people without their permission, disseminating deep fakes, and installing tracking devices on humans or property. The sections on drone use, nonetheless, could have a negative impact on drone use within the state.
Overall, the section of House Bill 45 pertaining to drones goals to control the usage of unmanned aircraft systems equipped with imaging devices to guard privacy rights, while providing specific exceptions for legitimate purposes. Essentially, the Bill prohibits the usage of drones for “surveillance” while permitting the usage of drones for legitimate industrial concerns. In summary, HB 45:
- Prohibits the usage of unmanned aircraft systems for surveillance without written consent on privately owned real property.
- Presumes an affordable expectation of privacy if the person shouldn’t be observable from ground level in a spot where others have a legal right to be.
Exceptions to Prohibitions:
- Permits the usage of unmanned aircraft systems in specific circumstances, equivalent to countering a terrorist attack, with a search warrant, or to forestall imminent danger or damage to property.
- Allows certain exceptions for licensed businesses, property appraisers, utility operations, environmental monitoring, aerial mapping, cargo delivery, and for the secure operation of unmanned aircraft systems.
Civil Motion:
- Allows the owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of privately owned real property to initiate a civil motion against any person or agency violating the regulations.
While no one wishes to be subject to surveillance, the problem with singling out drones in laws is that it proves extremely difficult to future proof laws that pertain on to a certain style of technology. It is because the technology and applications change quickly, while public perception tends to lag behind. A drone application that’s useful tomorrow may not have been named directly in today’s laws: a citizen unaware of economic drone operations may feel threatened and take operators to court. This complicates the business landscape for all drone operators within the space, and reduces the likelihood that forward considering businesses will implement programs in Kentucky – even programs that might significantly profit residents.
Read more: