NASHUA – Rep. Neal Kurk says his bill to limit the use of drone aircraft all stemmed from a Christmas season trip to the local Marshalls department store.

There Kurk, R-Weare, said he was stunned to find a small flying helicopter, marketed toward children, packaged with the capability to shoot photographs while flying through the air, for just $49.99.

“I just thought to myself, if I was a prepubescent child, maybe 11 or 12 years old, and my beautiful neighbor was sunbathing in her bikini, … wouldn’t I like to take that helicopter (over), or take it into my sister’s room with all of her girlfriends to see what’s going on?” he said. “We’ve gotten to the point where they’re priced within the range of just about everybody.”

Kurk said he felt compelled to act quickly, to craft new legislation to keep up with the changing times and ever-developing technology when it comes to unmanned aircraft systems. But HB 619-FN, to be discussed on the floor Wednesday afternoon, has some locals worried, including one long-standing freelance photographer.

Nashua resident Gordon Jackson, 72, of Gordon Digital Media Management, said he already has thousands of dollars invested into the new drone unit he purchased a few months ago, a DJI Phantom. He invested in the aircraft, known as a “quadracopter,” to help his freelance photography business. He says the capabilities of manually operating a remote-controlled unit through the air with a camera opens itself up to all kinds of new tools and vantage points for those in the communications field.

“It gives anybody that’s in the photography business another option to have a different point of view,” he said.

For example, Jackson said you can use a drone equipped with a camera to scale a mountain to create a video for a ski resort, or to look under a bridge to show its erosion for a news story or fly it over a motor vehicle accident already cordoned off by authorities to report on breaking news. He said drones provide a cheaper alternative to companies who would otherwise seek to hire a costly helicopter.

The legislation to be reviewed by House representatives has changed since Kurk first put forth the bill last fall. While the previously proposed bill sought to limit all devices that could be used for aerial photography, this newly amended bill now only addresses the use of drones.

The issue has been a hot topic of late with U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., holding a standing filibuster earlier this month on the issue of nominating a new CIA director. He spoke for approximately 13 hours, standing in opposition to the president’s stance on using unmanned drones to potentially kill terrorist suspects on American soil.

Kurk’s proposed bill says the government may only use a drone for surveillance, and generally only with a search warrant, while citizens may use drones only with the capability to record images if they have written consent of a subject beforehand. “No government or person shall own or use a drone that is equipped with a bullet, LASER-ray, other projectile or any kind of lethal or non-lethal weapon,” the proposed legislation reads. A violation of the proposed bill would result in a Class B felony charge. A person or government employee could be charged with a Class A felony for using a drone equipped with a firearm or other weapon, and those who use a drone to take photographs without consent could face a misdemeanor-level charge. The bill also states an individual cannot use a drone for stalking or hunting game, which could lead to a Class B misdemeanor charge.

If passed, the bill would go into effect July 1 .

Rep. Phil Ginsburg said he responded directly to Jackson’s concerns when he was contacted by the photographer about the bill. Ginsburg, D-Durham, said he believes the bill as outlined only infringes on a photographer or media outlets’ images if they depict an individual’s face or property, such as a building, without their consent. Ginsburg is a member of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee who reviewed the drafted and amended bill.

“We took pains in the bill to ensure that the commercial use would be possible, as long as it did not infringe on the privacy of individuals,” he said, “so I don’t think there should be a problem with any issues with commercial use.”

Ginsburg noted because the Legislature is “at the forefront” of this issue, as one of 11 states pursuing regulations of drone usage, according to The Associated Press, representatives may elect to update the bill in the future. Other states drafting bills about drones include Washington, Tennessee and Illinois.

The New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union supports the legislation, stating it will help keep New Hampshire’s privacy law current about surveillance technology and will prevent the use of drones to engage in mass surveillance.

“We certainly had significant First Amendment concerns with the way that the original bill was written, which was a pretty blanket bill on aerial photography,” said Devon Chaffee, executive director of the civil liberties group, referring to Kurk’s original version. “But we see the prohibitions in this bill as being much more limited to certain technology and only when you’re not talking about government usage, it’s limited only to instances of surveillance.”

She said the key point from her perspective is to prevent citizens from being monitored by their government. Indeed, the bill places strict parameters on law enforcement agencies and other government groups, stating an agency must destroy all information gathered from drone surveillance within 24 hours under special circumstances when it does not relate to an investigation. In that outlined instance, probable cause or suspicion also may not be developed based on the drone’s issued reconnaissance mission.

Part of the debate over the bill also touches on where federal sovereignty and state jurisdiction meet in the sky. The state Department of Transportation has informed officials in committee meetings they will not support the bill until this point is clarified further and Ginsburg told The Telegraph he understands the federal regulations apply beyond 100 feet above ground.

Kurk said he is hoping the bill will pass the House on Wednesday, though he expects some debate. He said he has already been informed at least one additional amendment will be proposed.

Kurk stressed the bill will not hurt those seeking out commercial use with their drones, especially on the issue of photography, unless photographers are taking pictures where people are readily identifiable, he said.

“Then (a photographer’s) got a problem because this bill says if you’re trying to, for example, be a paparazzi (member) and you’re trying to swoop down over some celebrity’s wedding, you can’t do that,” he said. “Not in New Hampshire.”

Samantha Allen can be reached at 594-6426 or sallen@nashua
telegraph.com.