Unmanned Aircraft and Government Oversight: Privacy, Powers, and Technical Risks

Introduction: Drawing on the legal orders of the United States, the European Union, and the Russian Federation, the article provides a comparative legal analysis of three regulatory models governing the use of unmanned aircraft (UA; drones, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)) by public authorities for government oversight: the U.S. model, based on a combination of aviation rules and constitutional safeguards against unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment; the European model, centered on personal data protection (GDPR, Directive (EU) 2016/680) and proportionality; and the Russian model, focused primarily on aviation and technical requirements, with privacy and accountability issues remaining insufficiently developed. The purpose of the study is to determine whether any of these models simultaneously addresses three key issues: legal certainty of supervisory powers, protection of privacy, and mitigation of technical risks (cybersecurity and algorithmic bias). Methodology and materials: The study uses comparative legal and formal legal methods. It analyzes legal acts of the three jurisdictions (the United States, the EU, and the Russian Federation), including Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947, the GDPR, the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act), the Air Code of the Russian Federation, Federal Law No. 248-FZ On State Control (Supervision) and Municipal Control in the Russian Federation, and the Federal Law On Police, as well as case law and academic literature. Results and discussion: The U.S. model is the most developed in terms of constitutional safeguards against unjustified surveillance, but it is multi-level and fragmented: federal law sets aviation requirements and general constitutional limits on government intrusion into privacy, while specific restrictions on the use of unmanned aircraft by law-enforcement and other public authorities are to a significant extent established by state law. The European model provides a mature personal data protection framework (GDPR, DPIA, AI Act), although implementation and national rules remain uneven. The Russian model prioritizes aviation safety, while personal data protection and accountability in the use of unmanned aircraft remain insufficiently developed. The article also examines the legal implications of integrating computer vision algorithms into supervisory systems and identifies the risk of function creep. Conclusions: The article substantiates the need for an integrated legal regime incorporating privacy by design, mandatory audits of algorithmic systems, cybersecurity standards for unmanned aircraft, and mechanisms of public accountability. It formulates de lege ferenda proposals: supplementing Federal Law No. 248-FZ with rules governing the use of unmanned aircraft, introducing a personal data protection impact assessment, and extending cybersecurity requirements to the information systems of unmanned aircraft used for government oversight.

1. Albikov, I. R. (2025) Use of unmanned aerial vehicles in the Russian civil aviation system. Transport law and securitу. No. 1 (53). Pp. 10–17. (In Russ.).

2. Anisimov, A. P., Ivanova, Zh. B. (2017) Legal regulation of the use of an unmanned aircraft (quadcopters): discussion questions. Bulletin of the Institute of Legislation and Legal Information of the Republic of Kazakhstan. No. 3. Pp. 64–69. (In Russ.).

3. Bordachev, A. Yu. (2023) Tactical features of the use of UAVs by police officers. Law and Power. No. 4. Pp. 51–57. (In Russ.). EDN: NUTKJF

4. Egoshin, I. V., Konstantinov, V. N. (2022) Relevance of the practical application of unmanned aerial vehicles by the internal affairs bodies in the performance of operational and service tasks. Bulletin of the Ural Law Institute of the Ministry of the Interior of Russia. No. 3. Pp. 99–104. (In Russ.). EDN: NGVLQN

5. Kosovskiy, V. B., Martynyuk, S. N. (2020) Topical issues of practical application of unmanned vehicles in the internal affairs bodies of the Russian Federation. Society: Politics, Economics, Law. No. 3 (80). P. 99–104. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24158/pep.2020.3.4 EDN: GTRRCS

6. Krasovskaya, E. L. (2023) The use of unmanned aerial vehicles in the System of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russian in the implementation of Operatiomal Search Activities, including the search for missing persons. Proceedings of Management Academy of the Ministry of the Interior of Russia. No. 3 (67). Pp. 190– 195. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24412/2072-9391-2023-367-190-195 EDN: GCPKDG

7. Minbaleev, A. V. (2024) Promising areas of legal regulation of personal data. Law Herald of DSU. Vol. 52. No. 4 (72). Pp. 152–156. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.21779/2224-0241-2024-52-4-152-156 EDN: BJNVQZ

8. Pilyugin, I. P. (2024) Problematic issues of using unmanned aerial vehicles in the activities of internal affairs bodies of the Russian Federation. Legal Science and Law Enforcement Practice. No. 3 (69). Pp. 83–90. (In Russ.). EDN: MDJLMM

9. Ponkin, I. V., Redkina, A. I. (2018) Artificial intelligence from the point of view of law. RUDN Journal of Law. Vol. 22. No. 1, Pp. 91–109. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.22363/2313-2337-2018-22-1-91-109 EDN: YVXKVA

10. Tikhomirov, Yu. A., Kichigin, N. V., Tsomartova, F. V., Balkhaeva, S. B. (2021) Law and digital transformation. Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics. No. 2. Pp. 4–23. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17323/2072- 8166.2021.2.4.23 EDN: UHCPTG

11. Filipova, I. A. (2025) Legal regulation of artificial intelligence: textbook. 2nd ed. State University of Nizhny Novgorod. 321 p. (In Russ.).

12. Khabrieva, T. Ya. (2018) Law facing the challenges of digital reality. Journal of Russian Law. No. 9. Pp. 5–16. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.12737/art_2018_9_1 EDN: OZGIAV

13. Shakhnazarov, B. A. (2022) Legal regulation of relations using artificial intelligence. Actual Problems of Russian Law. No. 9. Pp. 63–72. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17803/1994-1471.2022.142.9.063-072 EDN: YOWNJO

14. Clarke, R. (2014) The Regulation of Civilian Drones’ Impacts on Behavioural Privacy. Computer Law & Security Review. Vol. 30. No. 3. Pp. 286–305. DOI: 10.1016/j.clsr.2014.03.005 15. Dolata, M., Schwabe G. (2023) Moving beyond Privacy and Airspace Safety: Guidelines for Just Drones in Policing. Government Information Quarterly. Vol. 40. No. 4. Art. 101857. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2023.101874

15. Finn, R. L., Wright, D. (2012) Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Surveillance, Ethics and Privacy in Civil Applications. Computer Law & Security Review. Vol. 28. No. 2. Pp. 184–194. DOI: 10.1016/j.clsr.2012.01.005

16. Solove, D. J. (2011) Nothing to Hide: The False Tradeoff between Privacy and Security. New Haven: Yale University Press. 248 p.

17. Stöcker, C., Bennett, R., Nex, F. et al. (2017) Review of the Current State of UAV Regulations. Remote Sensing. Vol. 9. No. 5. Art. 459. DOI: 10.3390/rs9050459

18. Thompson, R. M. II (2013) Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations: Fourth Amendment Implications and Legislative Responses. Congressional Research Service Report. 20 p. https://www.privacylives.com/ wp-content/uploads/2012/09/crs-drones-R42701-092012.pdf 20. West, J. P., Bowman, J. S. (2016) The Domestic Use of Drones: An Ethical Analysis of Surveillance Issues. Public Administration Review. Vol. 76. No. 4. Pp. 649–659. 10.1111/puar.12506

19. Završnik, A. (2016) Drones and Unmanned Aerial Systems: Legal and Social Implications for Security and Surveillance. Cham: Springer. 262 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-23760-2