All right. So welcome to -- we're track 1 here, our 11:00 talk is who will rule the sky. We have Matt Cagle and Eric Cheng here to give us a nice talk. And please help me welcome Matt and Eric. (Applause.) >> Hey, everyone. I'm Matt Cagle. I'm a telling and civil liberties and policy attorney at the ACLU of northern California and today we're here to talk about drones owned by people like you and me, not drones used by law enforcement, but drones owned by normal human beings. There's a ton of really interesting policy issues that private or civilian drone ownership raises. And they're going to be decided by manufacturers, they're going to be by policy makers and they're going to be decided by people who understand code. Free expression and privacy are obviously issues at the core of civilian drone use. And today we're going to talk about those issues through the lens of two pretty interesting case studies. But first I'm going to hand it off to Eric from DJI. >> I don't have to hand anything off. >> Hi, guys. My name is Eric Cheng. I'm the director of error imaging at DJI. How many of you have seen a phantom in the air? (Applause.) Yeah, okay. Slow clap. That's great. Thanks for that. How many of you have flown a phantom? That's a pretty big percentage >> So everybody look under your seats right now -- >> No, no. >> Just kidding. >> I was told not to fly this on the way in so there will not be any fun stuff unless we can get away with it later. (Laughter.) So DJI has been manufacturing phantoms and other aerial imaging products for quite some time, but for the past say two and a half years, there's been a huge explosion in the number out there and if you do a search on YouTube or something, you'll find several million videos of people doing great things and not so great things with them. And that leads to discussions like this. So one of the things I did was put together a short video so those of you who haven't seen these videos yet can see what people are using them from. Not all the footage is mine. Some of it is. And, yeah. >> And I do want to mention that if anyone has questions, I'm going to be looking at my Twitter mentions when I get a chance. So if folks have questions and we don't get to questions at the end potentially, just tweet them at me and we will try to get to some of them during the talk. But here's the video. >> Okay. So that was an awesome video. Thanks for putting that together. So we're here today again, I want to emphasize, to talk about the civilian use of drones. Oh, yeah, thank you. How I encounter drones as an ACLU attorney is predominantly in the context of government agencies using drones, as folks are pretty aware probably, federal funding is allowing law enforcement to purchase any number of surveillance technologies. Drones are one of these toys and technology is that police departments want to get their hands on as well. But when it comes to the civilian context, it's different. There are privacy and free speech issues that the use of drones by all of us raise and there are a separate set of issues. And so today's talk overlaps with those somewhat, but it's really about drones used by people like you and me to look at police protests, to take footage of whatever things we want to take footage of. So I'm going to hand it off to Eric now because we need to give a little bit of a framework for where the law is at on this right now. As folks know the FAA has primary jurisdiction at the federal level over drones and there's been some recent movement on that and things are kind of in flux both for the commercial space and also for hobbyists. >> So right now we have proposed -- a set of proposed rules that have not been finalized. And those govern commercial usage. What we're here to talk about mostly is noncommercial usage of drones how people might use them today and how they might use them going forward. If you look up here there are model aircraft guidelines that were issued in 1981 and there was also an FAA reform act in 2012. And these basically carve spaces out for model aircraft hobbyists to operate in a space outside of FAA jurisdiction. So there are a set of these categories and rules that you have to follow. So that would be less than 55 pounds with not close to an airport, either three miles or five miles depending what you've read. And if you're closer, you have to notify the tower and of course the safety guidelines. All of these things that you follow end up putting you in a category that is outside what an unmanned aircraft might be -- the regulations that would apply to an unmanned aircraft by the FAA. I'm big a little vague in talking around this stuff because that's of course what the FAA says and there was a big comment period that was just last year and, I don't know, do you have more from the legal stand point about this? >> Yeah. It's really interesting that the FAA went forward with these rules for commercial drone use and they specifically, because of the law that congress passed, specifically carved out this space for hobbyist drones and it told the FAA you should tread lightly in this space right now. So there's really kind of a vacuum when it comes to rules -- besides these general criteria and guidelines that the FAA has put out there, an extension of their previous model airplane kind of rules, there's kind of a vacuum as to where the FAA is moving right now. Could you -- I was curious Eric we talked the other day you said there is kind of a gap in the rules, when it comes to different designations of drones and how that might play out. >> What we're seeing in the U.S. right now is one giant category which is between 0 to 55 pounds. Obviously the kinds of products that are within 0 to 55 pounds are huge. You can buy a remote controlled paper airplane right now and that would be in the same category. We're seeing some momentum around potentially micro drone, the category would be 2 kilograms and under. This matches what a lot of countries who have figured this out have done, categorize it by kinetic energy. How much damage can this thing cause. If it's small and fast it can cause damage and if it's big and slow it can also cause damage. What you're seeing here on the right, what can I do with my model aircraft, this is part of a publicity campaign called know before you fly by FAA and some others, and this is kind of the state of education right now. You get this thing in a box, maybe if you buy a product, maybe you don't get it. But we're largely left to figure out by ourselves what is okay and what is not. Because the information is not ingrained in us yet because it's such a new technology. So it's a pretty interesting space. The other thing that complicates things is that the consumer products that the companies like DJI are making are the same products being used commercially. So it's hard to draw an arbitrary line around commercialism and have rules on one that don't apply to the other. So I think it's going to be a really interesting space going forward. >> And in the meantime while these rules are pending, at least for the commerce space, the FAA has started issuing certifications of authorization and exemptions which they're authorized to do to the commercial space. But again the hobbyists relying on a smaller set of criteria and guidelines that aren't going through a formal rule-making process right now. One thing that is kind of missing from the FAA rules and regulations is guidelines for privacy and guidelines for addressing privacy issues and free speech issues really. So they're very focused on safety, getting drones into the sky in a way that they see fit. But as the FAA waits, states are really moving forward with their own legislation. This is just kind of a chart I pulled together, the only part of the chart that starts to canvas the state of laws that propose passing the private drone use, drone use by people like you and me, there's a whole other slew of laws that states are passing that limit the government's use of drones. There's a ton of laws now, quite a few laws that govern things like peeping Tom statues, criminal trespass laws and states are looking at where are the privacy harms and where do we need to act. While there are absolutely legitimate areas where states should be acting in this space, there are also a few interesting examples of laws that are just being drafted in a very broad sense. So at the top there is actually a provision that is now law in Idaho. And this provision actually says you may not use a drone to photograph somebody without their written consent if your purpose is to publish or otherwise disseminate that photo. That's pretty broad language and it's not cabined elsewhere in the statute. It can limit your ability to take photos police officers during a protest with the drone if you are part of the news media, for instance. That language could also be read to take my ability to take the SD card and take the photo and send it out over Instagram. That would be dissemination. Another interesting area, just as a sidebar, states are passing a lot of drone laws that relate to hunting. There are at least I think half a dozen laws that prevent using a drone to hunt for game or fish. So apparently people are either trying that or hunters are concerned that's going to happen. But -- >> That would be to document hunting, right? >> People put guns on the grounds these days, but I think it's also to do scouting for game and fish. I think half a dozen states have passed laws or proposed bills that would govern that sort of activity. There's also some laws that actually prevent surveillance of hunters while they're hunting. I think there's about two bills that are on the table that prevent and prohibit one from using a drone to surveil a hunter while they're in the process of hunting. Those raise interesting questions and that might be triggered by animal rights activists or fear that they might use drones to monitor hunting patterns in people who are hunting. Here's another interesting thing. On the left you see a story from last week. A federal judge in Idaho struck down this law that's called an ag-gag law. You might have heard about these laws they've been passed pretty recently in a handful of American states and they limit photography of commercial agricultural facilities. So this includes like poultry farms, places where cows are raised and stuff. A federal judge last week said that that sort of law violated the first amendment because it specifically carved out a type of speech and a type of content and said it could not be recorded. What's interesting is just a few months ago is the State of Louisiana on the right passed a law that prohibits -- it requires if you want to use a drone to film one of these facilities, you need to get a license from the state and it has a few conditions. I think that the drone footage will actually be owned by the commercial agricultural facility once you take it, even if you have a license. And this is just very interesting because licensing regimes and having to ask the government for permission to speak kind of raises the eyebrows of first amendment advocates. >> I think what's really interesting too is that the bills being proposed are actually about drones. They're not about the application of drones or drones just being cameras that can be in space. So I think we've seen some application of existing law like tort law and privacy being applied to drones and when that happens, we're sort of almost okay. Like I feel that's a perfectly good use of an existing law. But there's a lot of reactive rule making happening. >> I do want to emphasize that there are a few laws being passed and bills being proposed that are addressing the real privacy harms, things like trespass with drones and where there were gaps in the laws and that's absolutely legitimate to address real privacy harms and places where your current laws are not addressing those harms. What I'm focusing on here, what we're focusing on here, are interesting kind of sectorial use of legislation to get at the drone use question. And as you can see lawmakers are still figure it out. Here's one interesting one that is -- might remind people of a story from last week. This is a law or a bill that's currently pending in California that prohibits flying a drone over a state jail or prison. And as folks may have heard last week in Ohio, there was a story about a drone that was strapped with like 3 pounds -- 3 ounces of marijuana, some heroin and some tobacco and they dropped it over the prison and then a prison fight ensued. (Laughter.) That was a real thing last week. And months before that even happened in Ohio, California legislator was thinking about a way that might happen and trying to write a bill that would address that issue. Originally this bill also prohibited photography of jails. The ACLU has raised some concerns and that has been amended out of the bill. So that's all to say that the privacy concerns are not new. Privacy issues related to flight overhead are not new, and policymakers, coders and legislators or excuse me, judges, have had to address these questions before. This is actually from a case in the early -- in the 1930s where a homeowner sued united airlines and Pacific air transport because planes were flying overhead. And the court in that case had to figure out where do we draw the lines with this new technology that's flying overhead. Does it make sense to allow the homeowner to sue for trespass because somebody is flying overhead. The lines have been adjusted before. And right now we're in a moment where the courts, lawmakers and all these entities are trying to figure out where the line should be today. That brings us to the case of a Kentucky man. Eric, you can talk about this Kentucky man if you want >> Yes. Somebody in Kentucky shot a drone out of the sky using a shotgun, because he said it was flying -- he said he was flying 10 feet over his property and taking pictures of his daughter, something like that. >> Yeah. >> And of course the media went nuts with this and that was the story. And this has happened a few times in the past. We've seen people shooting drones out of the air and it leads to a lot of interesting discussions. >> Yeah. So this guy was charged with criminal mischief, I believe, and wanton endangerment. He claims that the drone was I think flying 10 feet over the ground and that it was taking pictures of his daughter and that it had been over his property or some other sort of drone had been over his property multiple times. And he thinks his privacy rights were violated because this drone was flying over his property. And the law here is really unsettled right now. As far as trespass goes, trespass law in Kentucky only makes it a trespass if you go on to the property of somebody else. Whether the drone at 10 feet or 200 feet was on his property, that's a question that the courts have been grappling with for a while and they've drown different lines but not really in the drone context yet. Sometimes folks will say that sort of thing is a nuisance and it's possible if that drone had flown over his property and interfered with his enjoyment of the land, that there may be a nuisance tort claim there, but even that is kind of an untested space right now. Whether or not he can shoot that drone at all, I think the answer is probably going to fall on the side of no, you cannot shoot a drone because it's flying over your property. Unless that drone is threatening your life or your safety and you really think it is. I think in the same way that you can't burn your neighbor's car to the ground when they park in your driveway, just because they parked it there, that doesn't really make sense. That same sort of does this make sense, is this reasonable thinking is going to probably be applied to this space of drones. But currently, because there's no laws that go one way or the other clearly, and because he shot the drone, he's been charged with some crimes, some very broad crimes, criminal mischief under Kentucky law. >> There are a couple of issues I want to bring up, whether a drone is an aircraft. This is something that was decided in court in November by some parties and they're saying yes it is an aircraft. You're not allowed to shoot at aircraft, as far as I know. And so potentially you wouldn't be allowed to shoot at a drone. And those same parties, FAA, NTSB, would probably want to get engaged with someone who shot at a drone, but we're hearing maybe they don't want to be engaged. A lot of people are calling that classification into question, is it an aircraft or is it not or is it a third thing that doesn't exist yet. >> And will the NTSB show up when this drone crashes and gets shot down because there's been an air accident, or is it up to the states to decide like how the law should intervene when this sort of like conflict occurs. Right now states are either ad hoc finding ways to address these issues, or they're proposing and passing laws that would actually dry to address them. And there's going to be conflicts going forward. I'm not sure we know what the NTSB really is going to do in this space. One interesting thing is how will we know what actually happened here. This is a visual flight record that the operator of that Kentucky drone produced from his iPad after the drone went down. So I'm interested, Eric, I want to know how do we know in these situations, how do we resolve conflicts. How do we know what happened, what's being collected, that sort of thing. >> Oh, convergence. >> You can shake my hand too. I need the microphone. >> We have a tradition. With new speakers for Def Con, we invite them to partake in a little bit of a beverage. Hurry up, Paul. >> Would you let them talk about drones which is really fucking cool. >> Drones are really fucking cool. >> We'll keep going. >> So this is really interesting. So the guy who flew the drone then produced his flight log. And we're going to talk about logging and what that means in this space in a second. And he showed his flight, what he said was his flight over it. And perhaps he had never been under 193 feet and never stopped over the property, and he was able to show exactly when he flew over the property and for how long. So now of course, of course since the media already had the original story, nobody knows that. But this is the sort of thing that could be used as evidence to show that maybe he didn't do what the guy said. >> Yeah. And the fact that it was 200 feet over the ground potentially rather than just 10 feet over the ground might play into any sort of claim that he would have that there was a trespass happening because courts -- this is more interesting than courts. (Laughter.) (Applause.) >> Are these guys doing a good job? (Applause.) Somebody needs to get the drone a shot. I think that's the loudest cheer for shot the new that I have heard all weekend. So good job guys. >> Wow. There you go gentlemen. You know how this works. To all the new attendees, to the new speakers, welcome to Def Con. (Applause.) For the record, I just tried to shoot the mic. (Laughter.) >> I'll be sure to wipe it off. >> So at least if the operator -- sorry. If the gentleman wanted to sue for trespass, it might matter that there is actually evidence showing where exactly that drone was in the sky. Not just geographically but the altitude it was at and this is a more detailed version. >> I wanted to show quickly what exactly gets logged. This is from the perspective of DJI and I can talk about the greater industry as well. But we have flight logs in part because users like gamification. They want to see their flights, they want to be able to go back and refer to where they've been flying. This one on the right is a flight that I did not too long ago in Italy and it shows this flight path along with where I took pictures and it stores things like -- it also stories your stick movements, which is interesting. So we're motivated to store flight logs not only because users have asked for this feature, but also because when someone says they had a fly-away or the drone malfunctioned, we can take the log data they submitted to us and look at it and actually see where their sticks were. We can see exactly what they did during flight to determine whether they did something or whether we did something. And if it was something that we did, we'll fix it. But if it was something that they did, they have to fix it. >> I'm curious though where do the logs live and what level of detail is there? So as like a privacy attorney I often wonder where can governments go and where can civil litigants go if there's a dispute and if government wants to put somebody in jail for doing something, who do they demand this information from, and what can they get from the drone owner and what can they get from DJI. >> On our side we have two kinds of logging. We have black box logging on board and that logs pretty much everything. All the inputs in the system, including I don't know voltages to RPMs of motors, battery cell monitoring, that sort of thing. We do not transfer those back to the app in real time. What you get here is essentially where you were. So GPS coordinates, which I know is sensitive information, altitude and what the user was doing with the sticks, for example. And we have a cloud synch service so you can push it up to the cloud if you would like, which is opt in. But I think all of these issues are new. New for the industry certainly certainly for consumer electronics and toys. Do you want to do questions now? Because we have one here. >> Sure. We'll take one real quick. >> We have not put that much energy -- the question was about whether you can verify that this data is accurate and whether it's forged and so the answer is, you know, since we are essentially going from consumer electronics, basically toying into something that's much more useful, those are also useful questions. What you see in traditional photography, for example, Canon will release a product that allows you to sign images to prove that they're authentic, but their normal cameras, even their professional cameras do not have those features. So you're allowed to go monkey with the data if you want. In other companies, like say open source products, you have full access to the logs and the full logs are often transferred to the radio because it's totally open. There's no attempt to even encrypt it. I think we're in the stage where you can find data that's completely open, not protected, and then you can find companies like DJI who are doing things as they become more and more important due to numbers in the population. And of course some just don't log at all. >> On this topic, some governments are actually trying to address this issue of you know privacy and the ability to shoot drones. This is an ordinance that was put forward in a small Colorado town last year or earlier this year actually. And it grants the right to engage, quote, engage a drone or aerial vehicle if it's coming on to your property. It reads a little bit like a day out of a tea partier's diary. The FAA took it really seriously. They issued statements saying that shooting drones is not okay because you can't shoot aircraft. This ordinance has not moved forward. There was actually another bill in Oklahoma this year that would allow property owners to shoot drones just the same. That bill is also dead now. So this is just to say like yet again there's a gap in the law, there's a gap in where the policy is and states and localities are trying to fill that gap with their own proposals. >> There's actually one that offered cash too if you shot one down. >> Right, right. >> Question? >> How is it going? I'm actually from Oklahoma and I am a 333 exempt -- I have 333 exempt status. The question is really to the attorney. If we have a DJI ma trees for example and we're flying it for commercial use, it does have a FN number with the FAA, how would the FAA classify that drone? Would it be considered an aircraft at that point and how would they classify other aircraft that are shot at. >> So your question was if you take a drone that is certified for commercial uses and you fly it for non-commercial uses? >> During commercial engagement, if somebody was to shoot at our drone that is classified with the FAA with the FN number, tail number and all that stuff, you mentioned earlier that nobody really knows if they're classified as aircraft or not, if it is classified with them as an aircraft, what does the law state about shooting an aircraft that is -- besides drones, I'm sorry, I'm confusing. If somebody was to shoot at an airplane what would happen to them. >> I'm not super aware of the shooting drone precedent law -- it doesn't actually exist. The current regulations, I know the FAA regulations they don't actually provide for what would happen if one shoots at a drone specifically. But my understanding is our current longstanding FAA rules are going to apply in that sort of situation if one endangers an aircraft or something like that. But I haven't seen this actually be adjudicated. The FAA has gone after folks joyriding with their drones and there's been case law created around that, but there hasn't been, as far as I'm aware, specific dispute that someone has decided in that context. >> Eric, do you have more on that? I think we can assume it's not going to be okay and the FAA is going to find a way to make it not under the law. They'll just say it's illegal if someone does that. >> Another question? >> Sure. >> I was just curious when you're seeing these policies being created, are you seeing more on the end of the privacy side or are you seeing more towards the rights of the drone operators? >> Seeing it more on the privacy side actually. We haven't really focused on the many bills out there that are kind of extending traditional privacy law into this space. There's multiple bills that are saying you can't be a peeping Tom but with a drone. You can't trespass on to somebody's property but with a drone. What we're focusing on are those bills that are getting at privacy issues or just sectors of the economy. With often a privacy interest in the mix, but they're sweeping in a different direction a lot of the time. >> So this brings us to our next case study. This is from January of this year. Do you want to chat about this? >> I don't know if I want to, but I will. A phantom, I think it was an original phantom, ended up on the White House lawn. And this obviously caused a huge uproar. And I think what -- I mean, I'm not sure that the details are actually that clear, but what we understand, what we have been told by media mostly, is that a government employee was drunk and flew it out of his apartment window or flew a friend's quad copter out of the window, probably lost contact and then it decided to go home, wherever home was and probably lost power on the way and unfortunately ended up on the lawn. So, yes. >> And we have a Def Con first. We have a re-creation of that day. >> There we go. We could do it with the bigger one. >> You need another shot first, I think. >> Where's the lawn though? Yeah, right. (Applause.) That's the White House right there >> Secret service. Go for it. >> Everyone jump on it. >> Okay. Thank you for that. (Laughter.) >> Okay. Could somebody get the drone? >> There we go. There we go. Yay. All right. (Applause.) >> So what was DJI's response to this? >> Our response, which actually started -- so there's the public perception of what happened and what was going on behind the scenes. So our response was to make pretty much all of DC a no-fly zone. And that caused mostly hobbyists to perhaps not be so happy. But actually that whole area is already a no-fly zone. Because it's critical. Critical infrastructure, it could probably be classified as that. And those are the same rules that if you were flying a private aircraft, you would have to abide by. So that had not made it into DJI's no-fly feature set. So what we had done not long before was make it very difficult to fly near an airport. Not the five miles that FAA had talked about, but we had some kind of fall-off for maximum altitude and you're grounded at a certain radius around major airports. It's important to note that these features, the geofencing is not necessarily intended to prevent bad actors from doing things. It's right now not that difficult to buy another brand, fly without GPS. In the long term GPS is unlikely to be the primary and only form of positioning. There's visual positioning, there are all sorts of things that are being developed right now that would serve as redundancy and would serve as alternate methods of navigation. So these no-fly zones right now were done pro actively to really prevent people who maybe didn't know they should be flying in the middle of DC, for example, or close to an airport from doing it on accident. >> I think your point about is the restrictions that you've placed or that you've placed on like geofencing in this case, there's often talk of DRM on devices people own and not allowing computers to be general purpose computers. And I think when folks advocate for more restrictions like this, be it on a drone or on a computer that I own or a car that I own, I think it's important to remember like, and this is something that policy makers especially at the state level need to be aware of, is that when you're going after the bad actors and you're creating the restrictions to get at the bad actors, those folks are going to be the folks to be smart enough to do what they need to do that these restrictions aren't going to matter. It should inform, it should continue 20 inform the way these sorts of restrictions are talked about and debated at both the company level and at the policymaker level. One thing that's really interesting I think is there's often this talk of I won't know who owns the drone that's right outside my window. I won't know whose drone landed in the White House lawn. What sorts of methods of attribution are being pro pieced right now to make that connection. What's possible? >> What's possible. We at DJI specifically requires activation of new product in the same way that an iPhone does, for example. And this is not something that all companies are doing in this space, but I think as companies grow up, they sort of realize that we need to do something to help users, and to help us to figure out who's liable, but also author some features that might be useful and customers can make the decision about which one to buy. We have an activation, it's to an e-mail address. >> Could I use a proxy like web address? >> You could use a proxy. You can use anything you want. And the other thing we have is serial number data. It's loosely connected to how it was sold. We don't necessarily know who it was unless they registered but we might know what dealer purchased it. Historically we've gotten a couple of requests. We haven't gotten any super high profile ones and have so far been operating based on subpoena, like a lot of companies do. >> Right. But as more information, your newest model allows for streaming video into both YouTube and also into your cloud. So there's going to be developing questions of whether and how law enforcement can gain access or litigants who want to sue their neighbor for trespassing, there's going to be questions about what sort of content is available too and what sort of sensitive metadata is available as well. Another thing I had a question about is was the initial firmware update mandatory and are firmware updates mandatory and how did that play out. >> We had a brief period in which we had a mandatory firm wear update but we made them all optional quickly. So right now they are optional. So if we add something that users don't like, they can choose not to update. And we will be annoying about it and tell uh-uh should probably update. There's a red thing that flashes pretty much constantly but we don't force people 20 do it. The question is if we patch something that was a bug -- >> Yeah, what if there's a security vulnerability. >> Then who's liable? Are we liable because the user didn't upgrade? These are all questions I'm not sure. >> Right now it's voluntary. >> The patch would not come, they wouldn't get the patch without the firmware update in complete form. >> Correct. >> So this is another -- you can explain this. >> This is interesting. There's a whole software economy, we'll get into this later if we have time. This is a screen shot of an app called air map which has set out to basically map all of these areas that might be a problem for flight. So whether you're flying recreationally or commercially. So you can basically toggle on and off airports of different kinds, whether you're operating commercially or as a hobby. Heliports, things that you might not know about. We're seeing some companies grow up around no-fly compliance safety, and it's very likely that we'll start to see a lot more integration between manufacturers who may not want to do this themselves or may, and companies like this. So right now you have to check this yourself and determine whether you can fly there. But going forward I think there could be a lot more integration. >> And so this is just getting on to other sorts of no-fly zones of recent vintage. The one on the left is the letter that the ACLU sent to the FAA last fall during the protests in Ferguson. There was an ad hoc no-fly zone was issued by the FAA that prohibited fly around this area over Ferguson. And the ACLU raised a serious first amendment concerns with that sort of restriction where it wasn't based on a compelling need to protect officer safety on the ground and that no-fly zone would have applied to both traditional aircraft and to drones. There's an interesting one you told me about last week, Eric, that relates to burning man. >> I went last year to do live streaming to the burning man you-stream channel and this year BLM has gotten a lot more aggressive about restricting drone use altogether. So they've come to an agreement with basically an application process based on merit. So you submit an application to fly a drone at burning man and it could be based on artistic intent or media coverage and they have categories and lots of rules and they're going to issue 30 of them. I think the day it opened -- I think the first day someone I know applied he was on the waiting list as number 400. So there's certainly been demand. There were rules set up and everybody ignored them. So it's sort of hard. What's interesting is that's a little model of what's going on in the U.S., for example. Blanket no commercial operations and sections 333 exemptions being granted and at this smaller level you see that same thing happen. >> You see both no-fly zones at the manufacturer level, also at the ad hoc governmental level and then private groups of people are deciding when and where drones should fly. That's just to say it's not entirely clear yet where these decisions are going to be made about who can fly drones and where. The authorities are in flux right now and it's interesting that everyone is filling the gaps. There was actually a bill last year, so state legislature is also concerned about infrastructure. There was a bill earlier this year in fact that prohibited photography of critical infrastructure in the State of New Jersey. The ACLU raised first amendment concerns with this because critical infrastructure could mean anything including toll booths and it was so vaguely defined that it swept into the rights of people to collect information and to disseminate that information. So states are getting at this from their own angle, but it's not only with regards to flight restrictions. It might be they're trying to prevent terrorists, quote unquote terrorists from taking photos from toll booths or bridges or nuclear power plants. >> And this is all going to get even more interesting. Because what's happening now is we're starting to see drones become a platform for developers. That might be of particular interest here. But there's an application layer now that would be basically the same as what we saw on the smart phone world. Drones will become a platform for vertical or horizontal applications to be written by third parties. And so some of the first examples we're seeing are things like mapping, photogrammetry, kind of standard aerial imaging when data is being used. We're seeing 3 D mapping and 2-D mapping and using all sorts of different kinds of cameras mostly for agriculture, mining, utility inspection, those sorts of things, commercial operations. But we're also seeing some creative tools, things that cinematographers might want. If you want a very beautiful flight around your house, there are some apps coming online in the next few months that will allow you to plan and preview them using 3-D environments instead of using apple maps. And you play it back and your drone takes off and does that same flight and it's repeatable. So if that happens, do we just get terms of service, like when you're on iTunes there's a 73-page thing or you have terms of service for the platform and the app. >> And you're going to be like no, that guy is liable, no, that guy is liable. And as you have more players in this ecosystem there's going to be a lot more collection of information and no longer is there going to be an SD card living on the drone, there's going to be footage streamed to YouTube potentially or DJI's cloud and also a bunch of apps out there who are collecting information say for real estate purposes or to survey property. So if you think of security, there are going to be a lot more actors who have touch points to that data and there's going to be a lot more ways potentially that that data can be compromised and accessed by third parties. So it's interesting. And I think we can maybe take another question if someone has another question? >> Fascinating talk. I want to thank you. So in the early '90s, or maybe mid '90s, in the northeast, I want to say New York, there was a case where wildlife photographers posted autonomous cameras, the hunting cameras that are motion activated on private property. Property owner found the cameras, destroyed the cameras. The photographers went and said hey we have every right to photograph these beautiful deer whatever and the courts disagreed and said no, you put free stuff on someone's property they have an absolute right to deal with it in any manner they so choose. The drone question then with respect to private property and the photography of private property, regardless of what's on it, whether it's your daughter, a deer or a blade of grass, seems to hinge on is the drone on private property. So the question is, have you seen a revision or a set of cases that look at the revision of property rights definition, meaning air rights definition? How high do my air rights go? Is it 30 feet? 100 feet or do I have it like sovereign nations do into space? >> Yeah, like we were saying earlier. Courts have had to grapple with that before as commercial airliners started flying over people's houses and say you lived in the path of the local airport area, courts have had to move those lines around before. Where the law has shifted in the trespass sense towards lower to the ground is where your property rights end. Drones are different and drones can fly and get into private property in ways that traditional airplanes and helicopters couldn't. So it wouldn't be a surprise if the policy makers had to readjust the lines again. It's all in flux. >> I have seen a lot of discussion about it but no real proposals for how it might change. And mostly again it's around commercial use of drones. Which is not -- certainly not close to the numbers that are being used in hobby. So here's an interesting fact, I guess. National parks have banned drones. So there's an open question about whether you can take off across the street from a national park and fly into the national park. They can certainly prevent you from launching from the ground, but they're not sure where does the air space start. I think according to FAA it's at 0. You don't own any of your airspace. These are things that are all in flux and we hear discussions scantly about them. >> Thanks for having us today. >> Thanks so much. (Applause.)