Japanese authorities are introducing a variety of measures to prevent the wrongful use of drones, which has been increasing due to many people being unfamiliar with regulations, especially tourists from abroad. Under the civil aeronautics law, a drone of 200 grams or more cannot be operated in airspace around airports or residential areas without permission from the government. In addition, the law regulating the use of drones bans flights in airspace near designated important places such as the Prime Minister's Office, the Imperial Palace and nuclear power plants. Foreign tourists and others unfamiliar with the laws continue to violate them. In 2019, 14 foreign nationals had their cases sent to prosecutors, as of Nov. 20.

Later on Tuesday, U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao will unveil the winners for 10 drone projects involving cities, universities, an Indian tribe, counties and states. Reuters reported Tuesday that major technology and aerospace companies including Amazon.com Inc, Apple Inc, Intel Corp, Qualcomm Inc and Airbus SE are vying to take part in the new slate of drone tests.

Two Democratic lawmakers proposed legislation Wednesday that would protect the privacy of U.S. citizens from the growing use of drones by government and commercial entities. The bill, dubbed the Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act, was introduced by Democratic Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Congressman Peter Welch of Vermont to install transparency standards for drone usage and privacy protections for individuals. According to the two legislators, the bill will require disclosure for location, flight timing and ownership information of unmanned aerial vehicles. It will also require that any data collected by drones adhere to privacy protections. The bill would require data collected by drones to undergo a minimization process to make sure no unnecessary or excess personally identifying information is gathered.

The Federal Aviation Administration may have loosened its regulations on drones last summer, but it's still cracking down on those who violate the rules. The administration issued its largest civil penalty ever Tuesday to drone company SkyPan International. The settlement agreement between the FAA and SkyPan will require the Chicago-based company to pay $200,000 for conducting 65 illegal drone flights in congested airspace over Chicago and New York City, the FAA said. Beyond the civil penalty, SkyPan agreed to pay an additional $150,000 if it violates FAA regulations in the next year, and $150,000 more if it fails to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement. Even with the looming threat of additional penalties, SkyPan managed to escape with considerably less of a penalty that was initially proposed by the FAA.

Regulations to protect people from falling drones moved a little closer to takeoff at the European Parliament on Thursday. Ensuring drone safety took on a new urgency this week, with GoPro's recall of its Karma drone after unexplained mid-air power failures caused a number of them to drop out of the sky. Under the European Union's proposed regulations, drones will have to be registered so that their owners can be identified. While that won't in itself stop drones from falling, it could lead pilots to take their responsibilities more seriously, legislators hope. A 1-kilogram drone like the Karma falling from as little as 11 meters (around three stories) could kill even someone wearing a safety helmet, according to a calculator developed by the Dropped Object Prevention Scheme, which promotes safety in the oil and gas industry.

Yesterday, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration's new drone rules went into effect. While many drone enthusiasts were pleased to see some long-awaited progress on this front, the folks at the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a privacy advocacy organization in Washington, D.C., don't count in that group. They've been wrangling in court with the FAA over the lack of privacy safeguards in the new regulations--an issue that has dogged drone regulation for years. EPIC's lawyers contend that the FAA hasn't lived up to the mandate Congress set for it back in 2012 to create "comprehensive" regulations for the use of small drones. After all, how comprehensive can any set of drone regulations be if they ignore privacy issues? When EPIC first petitioned the courts back in February, the judge's response was that such objections were premature, given that the FAA had merely presented proposed regulations, not final ones.

Yesterday, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration's new drone rules went into effect. While many drone enthusiasts were pleased to see some long-awaited progress on this front, the folks at the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a privacy advocacy organization in Washington, D.C., don't count in that group. They've been wrangling in court with the FAA over the lack of privacy safeguards in the new regulations--an issue that has dogged drone regulation for years. EPIC's lawyers contend that the FAA hasn't lived up to the mandate Congress set for it back in 2012 to create "comprehensive" regulations for the use of small drones. After all, how comprehensive can any set of drone regulations be if they ignore privacy issues? When EPIC first petitioned the courts back in February, the judge's response was that such objections were premature, given that the FAA had merely presented proposed regulations, not final ones.

States across the US are scrambling to figure out how to regulate self-driving cars, wearable technologies that track our health, smart homes that constantly monitor their infrastructure and the rest of the devices emerging from the so-called "internet of things" (IoT). The result is a smattering of incomplete and inconsistent law that could depress the upside of the technology without really addressing its risks. What's most notable about these early regulatory attempts is not that they are varied – that is to be expected. It's that the regulations deal mostly with physical safety, leaving privacy and cybersecurity issues almost wholly unexamined. This seems to be a pattern now, true too of drone regulation, where regulatory bodies have jurisdiction over physical threats, not informational ones.

There's no really delicate way to say this, so I'm just going to do it: The vast majority of people have no idea what they're talking about when they talk about drone law. I've noticed this in comment threads on Facebook, on Twitter, on comment threads on Reddit, in bar conversations, etc. If you've engaged in one of these misinformed debates, though, I forgive you: It's not your fault. If you're looking for a simple answer to the question posed in the headline, I'm sorry, I can't give you one. But what I can give you is an exhaustive guide to drone law in the United States. In order to have any idea what's legal to do with a drone and what's not legal to do with a drone, it's necessary to have paid close attention to the FAA's actions over the last three years or so. Some conversations with actual lawyers help, as well.

The survey, released by smart-cities research and advocacy organization Smart Government, underscores the opposition by some cities and local government groups to a provision in the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act that would make the FAA the sole regulator over drones, the group said. The provision would prohibit state and local governments from passing their own drone regulations and restrictions. Some local governments want the authority to pass their own restrictions covering where drones can be used. The survey comes out the same week that a federal advisory committee has proposed rules that would expand the uses of small commercial drones. In the Smart Government survey, 68 percent of those polled agreed that state and local governments should make drone rules because the federal government does not know the particular concerns of their community well enough.