Human bycatch
Nearly every remote monitoring study contains human by-catch,[1] yet there are no standardized rules or policies regarding what the researchers can or should do with their data.
[7] Camera traps are even used in elementary education settings, helping to bring young students closer to the natural world around them.
[10] There are instances of a by-catch photo of a coworker urinating, or similar situations, being saved and posted publicly as a joke.
[13] Drones are being increasingly used in the fields of resource management and conservation because of their light weight and small stature, and their speed.
Because of their speed and ease of setup to take off, they can quickly be launched to record identifying data of boats illegally fishing in protected areas.
Similar to marine environments, forests are vast areas that can be difficult and slow to patrol on foot, or even by vehicle.
While beneficial in finding and pursuing poachers, this type of surveillance conservation can create fear among the people who live in the region.
[20] Potential solutions to the issue of passive human by-catch include image-altering technology to automatically pixelate identifying portions of images, such as a person's face or license plate number.
[22] Acoustic recording is commonly used in field biology work to confirm the presence of a species, and in conservation law enforcement, to help prevent or catch poachers.
Researchers may use a device and software that automatically detect a certain trigger event, such as a specific bird call or gunshot.
Most states in the US have wire-tapping laws that require consent of one or all parties for certain types of conversations to be recorded — ones where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
There are software programs, whose original intent is to ease the burden of the thousands of images that must be checked and logged during a camera trap study.
The programs assist in automating the process of filtering out the false positives; photos that were triggered without the target species.
Illegal actions and behaviors that occur on government or public lands, do not afford protection by a reasonable expectation of privacy.
[11] Drones are beneficial to aid law enforcement agencies to prevent, confront, and prosecute illegal activities such as logging, poaching, or fishing in a protected marine area.
The intent of the remote recording devices in this case is to catch people engaging in illegal activities, so there is no argument for protection of privacy.
With devices that are constantly sensing and recording, the security measures used to protect the privacy of the people in its proximity also need to be adaptable and advanced.
Similar to the app released by the FAA, it compiles laws and regulations so drone operators may know the rules in their current location.
A drone operating in public airspace that is recording photos or videos with the intention of furthering conservation work, or law enforcement, has every right to do so.
[25] A politician in Austria, who was expecting the privacy a forest would afford, trespassed onto land which was being monitored by a camera trap.
