IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2020 - 81

data, who can access the data, who has authority to
share the data, and what compliance mechanism governs if the data are to be shared. These questions may
not seem difficult in principle, yet they continue to pose
operational challenges. Ultimately, the question points
towards, to what degree and level should we realistically
aim for data accuracy - a cluster of households, a visible landmark, the color of the street graffiti, or the
freckles on someone's nose?
In the mapping project of the case study, the images
collected by the drone were left in the hands of all who
had worked on, or been given access to, the datasets.
This implies that, hypothetically, all of them could share
the data with external parties. Moreover, there was no
effective way to prevent anyone who had access to the
datasets from making copies, or modifying or manipulating the data. Had the partner organizations or the
technicians involved in the mapping project intended to
share the datasets without X's consent, X would not
have been able to discover, track, or manage it, as
there was no compliance mechanism in place. This, in
effect, leaves data safety and security dependent on the
professional and personal ethics of those who have
access to the data, downplaying the importance of institutional reforms at the structural level which require collective efforts.
The other aspect that concerned the partners of the
mapping project was data sharing. Today, there are multiple organizations working on drone mapping in Nepal,
sometimes mapping the same areas at the same time,
because there is no coordinated data sharing mechanism. Technical experts in our interviews have suggested local governments take the initiative to set out
mapping needs, then identify the agencies working on
projects in that area to join forces in their initiatives.
However, one obstacle is the lack of a digital management system at the national level. To date, all mapping
data in Nepal are collected and managed in traditional
ways, with no digital repository that allows for the monitoring and tracking of existing datasets. One way to
move forward is to create and utilize open data platforms that will be publicly available and accessible, so
that no repetitive data are generated as a result of lack
of access. Reality, however, suggests that in the
absence of adequate infrastructure, open data may be a
far-fetched ideal in resource-poor countries like Nepal.

Regulation: Authority and Procedure
It is a common concern among drone stakeholders that
the lack of effective regulatory mechanisms creates
ambiguity in operations. In the case of drones, regulatory issues include, e.g., who the lead agencies should be
at the national and international levels, how compliance
and enforcement mechanisms could be established,
SEPTEMBER 2020

∕

and what legal and administrative procedures should
be set up. Unless these regulatory challenges are
addressed, it is unlikely that there will be a safe and
healthy environment in which society at large can manage technological risks, and the aid sector can drive its
innovation process responsibly. In this sense, the regulation aspect is an overarching layer with a top-down
force, which determines the scope and magnitude of
the other sets of ethical challenges. In particular, two
aspects need to be attended to, i.e., regulatory authority
and provisions and procedures [13].
Regarding regulatory authority, there are two subdimensions, i.e., who the lead agency should be, and at
what level it should be set up. In the context of Nepal,
as the case study shows, several government authorities
were involved in drone flight permissions, which created
some obstacles. First, government officials at the Ministries have multiple commitments, and drones oftentimes are not a priority. Second, for many government
departments, there is a general lack of in-house expertise in technology. Third, without clarity about the lead
agency, authority becomes ambiguous and implementers are at loss to determine by whom and in what format initiatives should be organized. Take the Civil
Aviation Authority of Nepal (CAAN) for example: as the
only technical agency involved in drone regulations in
Nepal, they are mandated to grant permissions only in
terms of air traffic concerns, such as on which route
and at what height the drone can fly. As regards national
security, although CAAN is responsible for protecting
sensitive and protected areas, they do not take into
account the purpose of the drone flights. Similarly, concerning flight safety, although CAAN holds that drone
pilots should be trained and licensed and be aware of
the relevant legislation, it is not their duty to provide
training and licensing services. While the creation of a
lead agency may be a challenge for resource reasons, it
is not unattainable to establish an independent agency
that can coordinate with other agencies during the process of regulation development.
Alongside the "who" dimension of regulatory authority is the "what level" dimension. In the case study,
stakeholders consistently advocated for the establishment of a global authority operating along the lines of
the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO),
which is the existing global regulatory agency for the
use of flying objects, including drones. In the absence
of a global authority dedicated particularly to drone regulations, national authorities follow the provisions of
ICAO at present. However, stakeholders in our interviews expressed a strong preference for a drone-specific
regulatory authority at the global level. Although streamlining authority may not be immediately feasible, efforts
for bringing uniformity to regulatory initiatives across

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2020

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2020