Editorial: Don't let fear alone drive drone regulations

Early man was probably terrified of fire. Until he learned that it kept him warm and provided a much broader range of menu choices.

There was great trepidation during the Industrial Revolution when machines began doing the work of people. Yes, they displaced many workers, but they also spurred great advances in production output and made it much more likely that their operators could make it through a workday with all of their limbs intact.

At the outset, people were fearful of the automobile and the Internet. But with judicious regulation all of those things have become commonplace. Movies in the 1950s portrayed robots as villains. Today, they're doing surgery on us.

It's natural to fear what we don't understand. That's a normal societal reflex. So with any emerging technology, there may be a tendency to want to control it before we fully understand its implications; before something goes wrong.

Take, for instance, the drone. We're not talking about unmanned planes that deliver payloads to foreign enemies, but the small helicopter-like extension of the radio-controlled airplane that's been around for decades.

What makes this an issue today, really, is the advent of Bluetooth-enabled micro cameras that have made this technology so attractive — and such a matter of concern. On Monday, transportation writer Marni Pyke explored the controversy over drones and the FAA's attempts at further defining rules for their use. It is taking public comment until April 24.

Drones can be fun toys, to be sure. They can be used by real estate agents to better market their homes. They could be used by news organizations to better capture disaster scenes and the like. They could take us to places where it is unsafe to go in person or where our presence could be harmful. As South Elgin High School has shown, they can be used to show football players how to improve.

But for all of the good and fun things they can be used for, there will be those with ill intent who will use them to spy on people. To hunt game. To steal signs from opposing teams. To harass people. To interfere with commercial aircraft in a way that laser pointer wielding misfits have done in recent years.

Yes, they could be used for much deadlier purposes than that.

As one enthusiast pointed out, a drone in the sky is like having a lawn mower over your head. In the hands of an inexperienced controller, you could lose control or get out of range and crash it into houses and people. You could run it into a power line. You could crash it into moving traffic and cause an accident.

The natural inclination is to conjure up all of the ill this new technology could cause and ignore the potential beneficial applications. Coming to a reasonable conclusion on what regulations and penalties should be will be no easy task. We would urge the FAA to reach for a balance that ensures safety and privacy, but still lets users' imaginations soar.