New push to reveal America's secret drone ops

(Image courtesy Pixabay)

A privacy organization is appealing a lower court ruling allowing the Federal Aviation Administration to keep secret its deliberations about policies regarding drones.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center appealed a decision from Judge Rudolph Contreras in U.S. District Court in Washington that denied a request to make public information from subcommittees attached to the FAA's Drone Advisory Committee.

The panels make drone policy recommendations.

TRENDING: 'Impeach Barack Obama': Lindsey Graham suggests liberals' worst nightmare

Drone rules are of increasing interest as companies integrate them into America's commercial air system. Companies are talking about using them for deliveries. Police use them widely to investigate crimes and pursue suspects. Commercial interests offer aerial services such as surveying properties and surveilling power and pipeline routes.

Privacy is an issue because the aerial cameras can swoop down and peer into a private home.

EPIC said it was appealing the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington.

The committee, which EPIC noted is dominated by drone industry representatives, "has consistently ignored the privacy risks posed by the deployment of drones – even after identifying privacy as a top public concern."

EPIC brought its original case last year, and it already has forced the committee to release hundreds of pages of previously withheld documents.

But the lower court decided the committee was not required to release records from its "secretive subcommittees, where many drone policy recommendations were developed."

The original case documents noted that the drone industry in the U.S. is expanding rapidly, having doubled in size from 2016 to 2017.

The Drone Advisory Committee was set up at that time to provide advice on issues the industry faced.

A short time later, several subgroups were established and EPIC asked for information about their actions under federal transparency requirements.

The decision rested largely on semantics, such as the court's determination that the federal committee was not an "agency" and therefore not bound by requirements for agencies.