The Sky’s (Not) the Limit - Influence of Expertise and Privacy Disposition on the Use of Multicopters

  • Chantal Lidynia
  • Ralf Philipsen
  • Martina Ziefle
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 595)


There are a variety of civil usage contexts for “drones” or multicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles or remotely piloted aircraft systems. Probably best known is the so-called delivery drone that many companies are testing and hoping to deploy. But the acceptance of said technology, especially those equipped with cameras, by the public is rarely investigated. Therefore, an empirical survey (N = 228) was conducted in Germany to determine the influence of expertise with aviation as well as privacy disposition on the perception of multicopters. It was found that a regular pilot’s license did not impact the attitude towards drones from people with no experience with aviation, drones or otherwise. Concerning drones flying over the own home, not even active drone users would condone a stranger’s multicopter to cross over their property unless operated by rescue services. Here the important factor is the need for privacy and perceived risk of it being violated.


Drones Human factors Privacy Piloting experience Technology acceptance Policy 



The authors thank all participants for their patience and openness to share opinions on a novel technology. Furthermore, thanks go to Sascha Krott for his research assistance.


  1. 1.
    Boucher, P.: Joint Research Centre, European Commission: Civil Drones in Society—Societal and Ethics Aspects of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems. European Commission, Ispra (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gąszczak, A., Breckon, T.P., Han, J.: Real-time people and vehicle detection from UAV imagery. In: Proceeding of SPIE: Intelligent Robots and Computer Vision XXVIII: Algorithms and Techniques, pp. 78780B–1–13 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ștefan, D., Ștefan, M.-M.: The Drones are coming. What to choose? Low and medium altitude aerial archaeology on limes transalutanus. J. Anc. Hist. Archeol. 3, 25–35 (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ostojić, G., Stankovski, S., Tejić, B., Đukić, N., Tegeltija, S.: Design, control and application of quadcopter. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 6, 43–48 (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Marin, L., Krajčíková, K.: Deploying Drones in policing southern European borders: constraints and challenges for data protection and human rights. In: Završnik, A. (ed.) Drones and Unmanned Aerial Systems, pp. 101–127. Springer, Cham (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pauner, C., Viguri, J.: A legal approach to civilian use of Drones in Europe. Privacy and personal data protection concerns. Democr. Secur. Rev. 3, 85–121 (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gorkič, P.: The (F)Utility of privacy laws: the case of Drones? In: Završnik, A. (ed.) Drones and Unmanned Aerial Systems. Legal and Social Implications for Security and Surveillance, pp. 69–81. Springer, Cham (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lidynia, C., Philipsen, R., Ziefle, M.: Droning on about Drones—acceptance of and perceived barriers to Drones in civil usage contexts. In: Savage-Knepshield, P., Chen, J. (eds.) Advances in Human Factors in Robots and Unmanned Systems, pp. 317–329. Springer, Cham (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clothier, R.A., Greer, D.A., Greer, D.G., Mehta, A.M.: Risk perception and the public acceptance of Drones. Risk Anal. 35, 1167–1183 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Solove, D.J.: A taxonomy of privacy. Univ. Pa. Law Rev. 154, 477–564 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Solove, D.J.: Privacy: a concept in disarray. In: Solove, D.J. (ed.) Understanding Privacy, pp. 1–11. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Acquisti, A., Taylor, C., Wagman, L.: The economics of privacy. J. Econ. Lit. 52, 442–492 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Friedenzohn, D., Mirot, A.: The fear of Drones: privacy and unmanned aircraft. J. Law Enforc. 3 (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gruber, R.H.: Commercial Drones and privacy: can we trust states with “Drone Federalism”? Richmond J. Law Technol. 11, 14 (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rao, B., Gopi, A.G., Maione, R.: The societal impact of commercial Drones. Technol. Soc. 45, 83–90 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang, Y., Xia, H., Yao, Y., Huang, Y.: Flying eyes and hidden controllers: a qualitative study of people’s privacy perceptions of civilian Drones in the US. Proc. Priv. Enhancing Technol. 3, 172–190 (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schlag, C.: The new privacy battle: how the expanding use of Drones continues to Erode our concept of privacy and privacy rights. Pittsburgh J. Technol. Law Policy 13, 1–22 (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pauner, C., Kamara, I., Viguri, J.: Drones, current challenges and standardisation solutions in the field of privacy and data protection. In: ITU Kaleidoscope: Trust in the Information Society, pp. 1–7 (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Finn, R.L., Wright, D., Jacques, L., De Hert, P., Union, E.: Study on Privacy, Data Protection and Ethical Risks in Civil Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems Operations. Summary for Industry. European Commission, Brussel (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Luppicini, R., So, A.: A technoethical review of commercial Drone use in the context of governance, ethics, and privacy. Technol. Soc. 46, 109–119 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Balaban, M.A., Mastaglio, T.W., Lynch, C.J.: Analysis of future UAS-based delivery. In: Roeder, T.M.K., Frazier, P.I., Szechtman, R., Zhou, E., Huschka, T., and Chick, S.E. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2016 Winter Simulation Conference, pp. 1595–1606 (2016)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vattapparamban, E., Güvenç, I., Yurekli, A.I., Akkaya, K., Uluagac, S.: Drones for smart cities: issues in cybersecurity, privacy, and public safety. In: International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC), pp. 216–221. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wild, G., Murray, J., Baxter, G.: Exploring civil Drone accidents and incidents to help prevent potential air disasters. Aerospace 3, 22 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fontaine, O., Martinetti, A., Michaelides-Mateouc, S.: Remote Pilot Aircraft System (RPAS): just culture, human factors and learnt lessons. Chem. Eng. Trans. 53, 205–210 (2016)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Beier, G.: Kontrollüberzeugungen im Umgang mit Technik [Locus of control when interacting with technology]. Rep. Psychol. 24, 684–693 (1999)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weisberg, H.F.: Central Tendency and Variability (No. 83). SAGE Publications, Newbury Park (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chantal Lidynia
    • 1
  • Ralf Philipsen
    • 1
  • Martina Ziefle
    • 1
  1. 1.Human-Computer Interaction Center (HCIC)RWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations