For those of you that haven’t started reading the new law...the privacy policy concerns mcsenerd mentions center around requirements for commercial and governmental operations (Section 379), not recreational...but are also addressed by Section 357 for all UAS.
Regarding Section 379:
The way I read it the (FAA) Administrator must collect the data and make it available.
If that information is requested, compliance may be mandatory.
Considering the business environment today (regardless of the business) having a privacy policy is standard practice...how many time a year do you get snail mail/email from Apple, Paypal, banks, credit cards, merchants, etc. that inform you of their privacy policy?
I have a feeling as the new law is rolled out and the FAA develops mechanisms to deal with it we’ll see some standard privacy policy boilerplate appear on multiple websites you can incorporate in your operations.
Of course we’ll also see sites advertising these policy documents for a fee...
One thing of note is that privacy policies in this case deal with information that is ‘personally identifiable’ as gathered by an unmanned aircraft system; when you have contractual documents for an inspection job the clients’ name, address, phone number, etc. is not gathered by the UAS, but as a routine course of your business.
In this instance I believe Section 379 does not apply.
A system that uses facial recognition IS addressed in Section 379, but not many of us utilize that technology.
For me having a privacy policy is a normal business occurrence, but will have little/no additional reporting requirement to the FAA based on what I have read so far.
Section 357 is more nebulous...
SEC. 357. UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS PRIVACY POLICY.
It is the policy of the United States that the operation of any unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system shall be carried out in a manner that respects and protects personal privacy consistent with the United States Constitution and Federal, State, and local law.
This Section applies to all UAS operations...and looks more like a CYA maneuver by Congress as a generic statement.