UAV Privacy Shield Using Geofenced Viewing and Recording Limits
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
The increasing use of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) with video capabilities for surveillance and surveying has raised concerns about privacy abuses, as they can operate without the need for licensed pilots and at reduced costs, leading to potential misuse.
Innovation Solution
A system that allows an operator to select a geographical area and set an operating mode to restrict viewing and recording of UAV data by user devices, using a processor to determine the field of view of the UAV imager and broadcast data based on predefined areas and modes, ensuring privacy by limiting access to sensitive regions.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Ease of manufacture
If UAS with video capabilities are used for surveillance and surveying, then cost is reduced and accessibility is improved, but privacy abuse risk increases
Solution Approach 1:
The system applies preliminary anti-action by pre-defining geographical areas as no-look zones and configuring the UAV to automatically avoid capturing or transmitting imagery from these areas. This preventive measure is established before any potential privacy violation can occur, blocking harmful effects at their source rather than attempting to address them after detection.
Solution Approach 2:
The processor acts as an intermediary between the UAV imager and user devices, filtering and controlling the flow of visual data. It determines whether imagery should be captured, processed, or transmitted based on the UAV's location relative to no-look areas, thereby mediating between surveillance capabilities and privacy protection requirements.
2Object-affected harmful factors
If geographical restrictions are imposed on UAV viewing and recording, then privacy protection is improved, but operational flexibility is reduced
Solution Approach 1:
The system implements dynamic operational modes that can be adjusted based on situational requirements. Operators can switch between different modes (e.g., strict no-look enforcement versus more permissive settings) and modify no-look area definitions as needed, allowing the system to adapt its privacy protection level to match the specific operational context and mission requirements.
Solution Approach 2:
The system allows modification of key parameters including the definition and boundaries of no-look areas, the selection of operational modes, and the configuration of which UAV sensors are subject to restrictions. These parameter changes enable flexible adjustment of privacy protection measures without requiring fundamental system redesign or loss of operational capability.
3Measurement precision
If real-time control and monitoring of UAV field of view is implemented, then privacy control precision is improved, but system complexity increases
Solution Approach 1:
The UAV system performs self-service by autonomously determining its own location, calculating its field of view relative to no-look areas, and making real-time decisions about what imagery to capture or transmit. The processor on the UAV itself executes the privacy control logic, eliminating the need for complex external monitoring infrastructure and reducing overall system complexity while maintaining high precision control.
Data Source
AI summary
A system having: a processor and addressable memory, where the processor is configured to: receive a geographic data defining a selected geographical area; receive an operating mode associated with the selected geographical area, where the received operating mode restricts at least one of: a viewing of a UAV data and a recording of the UAV data by at least one user device; and broadcast the UAV data to the at least one user device based on the selected geographical area and the received operating mode.