The first version of the Humanitarian UAV Network's Crisis Map of UAV/aerial videos is now live on the Network's website. The crowdsourced map features dozens of aerial videos of recent disasters. Like social media, this new medium—user-generated (aerial) content—can be used by humanitarian organizations to complement their damage assessments and thus improve situational awareness.
The purpose of this Humanitarian UAV Network (UAViators) map is not only to provide humanitarian organizations and disaster-affected communities with an online repository of aerial information on disaster damage to augment their situational awareness; this crisis map also serves to raise awareness on how to safely & responsibly use small UAVs for rapid damage assessments. This explains why users who upload new content to the map must confirm that they have read the UAViator's Code of Conduct. They also have to confirm that the videos conform to the Network's mission and that they do not violate privacy or copyrights. In sum, the map seeks to crowdsource both aerial footage and critical thinking for the responsible use of UAVs in humanitarian settings.
As noted above, this is the first version of the map, which means several other features are currently in the works. These new features will be rolled out incrementally over the next weeks and months. In the meantime, feel free to suggest any features you'd like to see in the comments section below. Thank you.
See also:
- Humanitarian UAV Network: Strategy for 2014-2015 [link]
- Humanitarians in the Sky: Using UAVs for Disaster Response [link]
- Humanitarian UAV Missions in During Balkan Floods [link]
- Using UAVs for Disaster Risk Reduction in Haiti [link]
- Using MicroMappers to Make Sense of UAV/Aerial Imagery During Disasters [link]
Comments
Thanks very much, Randy!
Patrick,
I found your earlier article on the issues involved in using drones for disaster relief (including problems sharing data with the relief workers) really interesting and it's great to see that you're working to solve the problem. I'm sure with anything there will be problems including "disaster tourism" etc but it's still worth trying. Hats off to you!
My apologies. When watching your Emerging Explorers NatGeo video segment/segway commercial thingy I had assumed the Crisis Mapper you describe there and the Crowdsourced Crisis Map you describe here were the same thing. What differentiates one map from the other? Is it simply the code of conduct or a particular focus on compliance and safety? There seem to be many common elements.
Am I right in saying that the Crisis Mapper is/was associated with work you are doing or did do with the Humanitarian Technology Network (obviously not to be confused with the Humanitarian UAV Network)? Or perhaps what you are doing with DAI and the Global Development Professionals Network? (so many networks...)
It was not my intention to suggest that Nationwide paid or sponsored you directly. I would expect that NatGeo provided exposure to Nationwide in return for direct sponsorship of the Emerging Explorers program, as a bespoke ad placement, as added value as a deal sweetener or loyalty reward or what ever else. It seems unlikely that NG would be in the business of giving away free exposure to blue chip corporates out of the goodness of their hearts.
Thanks for your assessment and solutions.
As mentioned in my comment on the Australia example, that video footage is indeed outdated, so of little use today vis-a-vis situational awareness. But we didn't want to launch a map that was completely devoid of any information. So we decided to seed the map with some initial videos as examples. The real added value of this crowdsourced platform will be when videos are uploaded when a disaster is unfolding and in the immediate aftermath.
Personally, I would rather we focus on new videos uploaded to the map during current disasters vis-a-vis added value to situational awareness *and* accountability vis-a-vis the Code of Conduct. If members of the Humanitarian UAV Network, who have agreed to abide by the Code of Conduct, subsequently capture video footage in way that runs counter to the Code of Conduct, then we as a community can hold members accountable. In any event, I'll ask my team to remove that first video. At the same time, while earlier videos may run counter to the Code of Conduct, the big picture here is to try and educate people *today* on best practices around the current and future use of UAVs in humanitarian settings. As noted in my blog post, I'm using this map as way to get people to read the Code of Conduct; to learn. There's not much we can do now to change the way that folks flew UAVs back in 2013. But we can try and educate people 's attitudes today to change future behaviors.
As for the links to National Geographic, I'm not sure I follow. As clearly stated above, UN/OCHA advises that UAVs not be used in conflict settings. I respect this policy recommendation. While some of my past projects focused on conflict issues, this does not mean that the Humanitarian UAV Network should as a matter of policy. I find no contradiction there as per my comment on the humanitarian principle of Do No Harm. Also, I was not sponsored or paid by Nationwide. So your comment on this point is unfortunate, unnecessary and distracting from your original points, which I personally found more useful to the important questions at hand. I would rather use the time and this space to focus on raising awareness on the Code of Conduct than on me. Thank you.
Frankly, as candid as I've been with my observations and criticisms above, I have great respect for what you are doing in a broader sense and very much admire your incredible work in the exciting business of Humanitarian UAV.
I would like to be more like you.
Fair enough.
Assessment:
I think that what you wish to qualify in this instance to be relevant content capable of augmenting situational awareness is simply random footage produced by amateur flyers offering absolutely no value in humanitarian terms.
The reasoning you have given for retention seems tenuous at best. I found the technicality of the 2013 fire predating the Code of Practice to be particularly witty, but also the type bulls&*t response I would expect from a politician rather than the genuine, passionate and well meaning humanitarian drone enthusiast I think you to be.
Problems:
(Taken from your blog post above) "The crowdsourced map features dozens of aerial videos of recent disasters. Like social media, this new medium—user-generated (aerial) content—can be used by humanitarian organizations to complement their damage assessments and thus improve situational awareness"
What humanitarian organisations do you propose might be able to improve their situational awareness using second, third, or fourth hand close proximity footage of random footage burnt out homes, factories and warehouses in the Blue Mountains of New South Wales, Australia?
(Taken from your Code of Conduct) "Only fly small and clearly non-threatening UAVs and only fly these when the added value to humanitarian efforts is clear."
I don't think the added value to humanitarian efforts is particularly clear in this instance. Do you?
(Taken from your Code of Conduct) "Respect all federal, state and local laws with respect to UAVs."
As evidenced by my initial post - "CASA has seen the footage and says it appears to have breached Civic Aviation Safety Regulations"
(Taken from your Code of Conduct) "Request additional permissions when needed. Respect the privacy of individuals. Engage local communities when possible to ensure they are aware of UAV flights and to provide an avenue for learning. Seek local partnerships to ensure UAV projects are relevant and appropriate."
It is unlikely property owners were around to give consent to these flights - something your experience would no doubt suggest you'd be aware of. I will keep my opinion regarding privacy to myself. While it was harrowing for the people of New South Wales to see footage of the Zig Zag Railway's denuded sandstone aqueducts on TV, I really don't think there was any engagement with local communities (even so, the news reports focused more on the drone's flight rather than the footage it shot). I see no 'avenue for learning'... whatever that means... These types of flights, as stated by the relevant authority, are not 'relevant or appropriate'.
(Taken from your Code of Conduct) "Do not fly in a careless or reckless manner"
It would be fair to say that flying low enough over a burned out residence to stur up dust and ash laden with liberated asbestos fibres as being careless or reckless.
Solution:
Remove videos that obviously do not conform to your stated code of conduct or the intent behind it.
There is other stuff that caught my eye too, like:
On the one hand you have this:
(Taken from your Code of Conduct) "Respect all federal, state and local laws with respect to UAVs.", "Do not operate humanitarian UAVs in conflict zones or in countries under repressive, authoritarian rule; particularly if military drones have recently been used in these countries." and "Request additional permissions when needed. Respect the privacy of individuals."
Then, on the other hand you have stuff like this:
(Taken from here and here) What can... expose human rights atrocities? Launch helicopters to rescue earthquake victims? Outwit corrupt regimes?
It is really interesting to ponder how one might employ a UAV to expose human rights atrocities or bring down a corrupt regime without breaking any laws, invading anyones privacy or ever flying in conflict zone. Maybe you can shed some light on that one for me.
Then there is this with all it's imaginative dreamery, fancy production values and corporate sponsorship.
Don't get me wrong... I realise that this is all just marketing and hype at the end of the day. But these apparent contradictions, along with the seemingly lacklustre application of your own code of conduct, leads me to wonder whether, at the end of the day, it is all just marketing and hype.
Sorry to read that you find the response underwhelming. Could you please help me better understand your assessment? I actively reached out to DIYDrones for feedback precisely because I don't have all the answers. So I would like to take the time and put in the effort to better understand your point and would be grateful for any solutions you can provide along with your assessment. Thank you kindly.
I find your response above to be pretty underwhelming, and I do not agree with your assessment.
But I respect what you are doing.
Many thanks for your feedback, Q.
Since those videos are already in the public domain, I don't see a copyright issue here, particularly since UAViators is a volunteer-based initiative and thus making no money from the videos. Will look into Code of Conduct issue, but keep in mind that said Code did not exist in 2013.
Both videos do augment situational awareness, they provide an aerial perspective of the disaster. Of course, this was for 2013, so of less value today. That said, we didn't want to launch a map that was completely devoid of any information. So we decided to seed the map with some videos as examples. The real added value of this crowdsourced platform will be when videos are uploaded when a disaster is unfolding and in the immediate aftermath.
Thanks again
The concept is excellent, however it appears some tweaking is required.
The video closest to me here in Sydney, Australia is a recording of a BBC news piece from the UK covering the 2013 Lithgow fire (Lithgow fire is an understatement, the inferno ripped through many townships and annihilated 500 square kilometres). While the video was uploaded by this bloke, the footage shown in the video was shot by this bloke. The footage itself was not shot in compliance with your code of conduct either, and release of the footage actually sparked an official response from CASA.
The only other video in my state shows more aerial footage of the same fire event, but it is geolocated about 350km northwest of it's actual location. While uploaded by this mob, the footage was published by this mob. Who actually shot it is unknown. As the uploader is not the publisher or the video's creator it seems unlikely that it conforms with your policy on copyright.
Neither of these videos have anything to do with improving situational awareness or humanitarian values, so I doubt they are compliant with your network's mission either.