User:Starshine44/sandbox

Week 11 Peer Review - Travelqueen27
Congrats on your article being up on the main space this week! I absolutely enjoyed reading your article. It is very well-written and I did not find much to critique. The few things I noticed are as follows:

When I looked at your actual Wikipedia article I noticed that the title name is missing the - between "by-catch"

In the Drone section I would reword the following sentence, "because of their light weight and small stature, their speed, they reduce risk of injury and death when compared to traditional field biologist aerial survey s, and are less invasive than humans in the field" instead as "because of their light weight, small stature, and their speed. They have also reduced the risk..."

Week 10 Peer review - QuixoticWindmills
I think you’ve done a really good job so far, the language and structure of your article are impressive and fit Wikipedia very well. You have a good number of sources and a lot of detail in your article.

Minor nitpick:

“related pages” should be “see also”, and make sure to list your pages using bullet points.

The “legal examples” section doesn’t quite fit its title, and I would consider merging its contents with policies and regulations unless you intend to add more.

You may want to have two subsections for “policies and regulations”, one for the US and another for other countries, and then have subsections within those for various policies. As it stands, it seems like your article is more US-centric.

In the lead section, I would delete the, after “yet”. Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t tend to put a, after yets.

You may want to have a subsection within your camera traps and drone sections specifically for “privacy concerns”. These sections are fairly long, with half explaining the topic and the other half explaining the privacy issues specific to the topic. Having a subsection may be beneficial.

These aren’t super significant issues (to me), honestly I think your article is very well written. Good luck on the main space!

Week 9: Peer Review by Relaxbear4649
Loved reading your article! It was super easy to understand for someone who has no prior background on human by-catch. I also loved the images you incorporated because it helped me visualize what a camera trap and drone looks like. The organization is very smooth and the transition from one to another is very easy. I also loved seeing all the citations and the hyperlinks throughout your article! I also think that the article maintains a good encyclopedic tone and overall grammar and sentence structure looks good. I would suggest maybe adding a sentence in your lead section about how camera traps, drones, and acoustic recordings are some ways in which human by-catch occurs just so the transition from the lead to the rest of your article is more clear. Also, in your Drones section, you mention "poaching" for the first time so you might want to include a hyperlink to that instead of hyperlinking it to "poachers" in Acoustic recordings section. Lastly, only one of the captions for your image is bolded, so you may want to keep it consistent by either making both captions bolded or not bolded. Overall, amazing job and I learned a lot from reading your article!

Week 8: Peer Review
Malinda,

Great job on your article this week!

Your article has an easily understandable lead section, clear structure, balanced coverage, neutral content, and uses reliable sources. I would encourage you to expand on the privacy implications of having drones surveil people, particularly those associated with police. I also think, if possible, you can expand on the acoustic recording section, perhaps tying it in with ultrasonic device tracking that occurs when users’ mobile phones pick up on sounds in the environment and transmit it to companies or advertisers to create a more cohesive picture of the user. Additionally, the legal section could be added to a bit more to provide a more in-depth view of the legal issues concerning surveillance in the wild. Overall, great job so far.

Week 6 - Peer Review by Edits4Change
Great Job defining Human by-catch and going into specific about the term by-catch and explaining it.

I would recommend adding in a transition that explains how Human by-catch happens. You could use this to lead to link to your categories: Camera Traps, Drones, and Acoustic Recordings. In your section for Camera Traps, I would recommend altering the tone and wording in the first sentence of the second paragraph, “Most people associate going ‘into the wild' with a reasonable expectation of privacy.” This line seems present a slight perspective of the wilderness that all people might not hold.

In each of your sections, you did a great job explains how the category is related to your topic and why it is important, but I would recommend going deeper into how it is a part of human by-catch. For example, I would like a more clear connection between drones and human by-catch.

Overall, you did a great job! I did not know what by-catch was before and I really learned a lot about by-catch after reading your piece.

Week 6 - Peer Review by Tm670
What a wonderful and interesting article! Great job. The lead section of the article serves its purpose in providing a snapshot of the privacy topic. Though, ​I am a bit confused about the use of the "by-catch" in the lead section. I feel that you may be able to add more context with a phrase or two about what you mean when you say it is for "the sake of conversation" especially. You also explain how there are no rules or policies but do not specify whether that is in the U.S.A, another country, or across the globe.

I think the content of the Camera Traps, Drones, and Acoustic Recording section is great -- however, they are separate sections right now. I feel that creating an umbrella term or section might help with the flow of the article. Under the policies section, you explain how organizations get to determine their own policies. I would include what types of organizations these are or if they are only limited to environmental ones. For instance, can a media organization do this? I also look forward to reading more about the legal and ethical example as they develop. I love this piece! Overall, I think you provide a fair encyclopedic tone, balance, and diction.

Week 8 - Peer Review by King666Field
I personally really like this article! I like the flow of this article, since it gives proper definitions and explanations around each appeared terms and I would not feel uncomfortable reading this even though it's my first time to understand these new concepts. The three sections of camera traps, drones and acoustic recording explain very well, but I think more specific privacy issues can be emphasized on the drones and acoustic recording section, like the functions of acoustic recording maybe trigger what kinds of information leak etc. For the legal examples, I think as Tm670 mentioned before, the content need to be more specific so that readers would understand the significance of the legal examples on the privacy issue.

Some minor issues that may have is that there can be more transitions between sentences and paragraphs. Nevertheless, I think overall this article is great and I really like it!

Article evaluation

 * 1) In the Information Privacy article, everything in the article is relevant to the topic. I felt like the Safe Harbor Program/Passenger Name Issues was a little distracting, as it was very long and detailed about something very specific under this more general topic. The first few sentences under Medical Privacy don't feel as if I'm reading an article, maybe more an opinion piece. The information seems to be current for the specific items discussed. The sources worked and were reliable references, and appeared neutral. The Financial and Political paragraphs didn't have any citations. Protecting Privacy in Information Systems was similar; a lot of text with minimal citations. The talk page has a lot of information about opinions that have been removed, referrals to sources/citations that no longer work, and discussion about other ideas related to the article. It is part of wikiprojects.
 * 2) In the article, Surveillance issues in smart cities, everything in the article was relevant to the topic. The article did not feel neutral, because of many references to panopticism, in what felt like a negative light. But, it wasn't overt. There was a paragraph dedicated to solutions, searching for middle ground. One of the sources I tested lead to an unrelated website (nothing to do with the article or the source). All the other citations were fine. The article is "of interest" to a few wikiprojects. There were no comments or discussion on the talk page. Starshine44 (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Article Research
"Drone regulations in CA."Miller, AB, Leung, Y-F & Kays, R 2017, ‘Coupling visitor and wildlife monitoring in protected areas using camera traps’, Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, vol. 17, pp. 44–53, viewed 1 March 2019, < https://libproxy.berkeley.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dedselp%26AN%3dS2213078016300512%26site%3deds-live >.

Sandbrook, C, Luque-Lora, R & Adams, W 2018, ‘Human Bycatch: Conservation Surveillance and the Social Implications of Camera Traps’, Conservation & Society, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 493–504, viewed 1 March 2019, < https://libproxy.berkeley.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3deih%26AN%3d132043452%26site%3deds-live >.

Sources Cited in Paper:


 * 1 Adams, W. M. 2017. Geographies of conservation II: technology, surveillance and conservation by algorithm. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0309132517740220 . Accessed on March 1st, 2018.
 * 3 Anderson, K. and K.J. Gaston. 2013. Lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles will revolutionize spatial ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11(3): 138–146.
 * 6 Benson, E. 2010. Wired wilderness: technologies of tracking and the making of modern wildlife. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
 * 11 Butler, D. and P. Meek. 2013. Camera trapping and invasions of privacy: an Australian legal perspective. Torts Law Journal 3(20): 235–264.
 * 12 Butler, D. and P. Meek. 2014. Now we can “see the forest and the trees too” but there are risks: camera trapping and privacy law in Australia. In: Camera trapping: wildlife management and research (eds. Meek, P. and P. Flemming). Pp. 332–346. Collingwood: CSIRO Publishing.
 * 14 Dobson, J.E. and P.F. Fisher. 2007. The panopticon's changing geography. Geographical review 97(3): 307–323.
 * 15 Duffy, R. 2014. Waging a war to save biodiversity: the rise of militarised conservation. International Affairs 90(4): 819–834.
 * 17 Duffy, J.P., A.M. Cunliffe, L. DeBell, C. Sandbrook, S.A. Wich, J.D. Shutler, I.H. Myers-Smith, et al. 2017. Location, location, location: considerations when using lightweight drones in challenging environments. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation 4(1): 7–19.
 * 18 Finn, R.L. and D. Wright. 2012. Unmanned aircraft systems: surveillance, ethics and privacy in civil applications. Computer Law & Security Review 28(2): 184–194.
 * 19 Finn, R.L. and D. Wright. 2016. Privacy, data protection and ethics for civil drone practice: a survey of industry, regulators and civil society organisations. Computer Law & Security Review 32(4): 577–586.
 * 21 Fletcher, R. 2017. Environmentality unbound: multiple governmentalities in environmental politics. Geoforum 85: 311–315.
 * 23 Hossain, A.N.M., A. Barlow, C.G. Barlow, A.J. Lynam, S. Chakma, and T. Savini. 2016. Assessing the efficacy of camera trapping as a tool for increasing detection rates of wildlife crime in tropical protected areas. Biological Conservation 201(September): 314–319.
 * 24 Humle, T., R. Duffy, D.L. Roberts, F.A.V.S. John, and R.J. Smith. 2014. Biology's drones: undermined by fear. Science 344 (6190): 1351–1351.
 * 26 Kelly, A.B. and M. Ybarra. 2016. Introduction to the themed issue: “Green Security in Protected Areas”. Geoforum 69: 171–175.
 * 27 Koh, L.P. and S.A. Wich. 2012. Dawn of drone ecology: low-cost autonomous aerial vehicles for conservation. Tropical Conservation Science 5: 121–132.
 * 29 Lyon, D. (ed.). 2006. Theorizing surveillance: the panopticon and beyond. Devon: Willan Publishing.
 * 30 Lunstrum, E. 2014. Green militarization: anti-poaching efforts and the spatial contours of Kruger National Park. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 104(4): 816–832.
 * 31 McCallum, J. 2013. Changing use of camera traps in mammalian field research: habitats, taxa and study types. Mammal Review 43(3): 196–206.
 * 32 Meek, P. 2017. How to stop the thieves when all you want to do is capture wildlife in action. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/how-to-stop-the-thieves-when-all-we-want-to-capture-is-wildlife-in-action-73855 . Accessed on June 23, 2017.
 * 33 Meek, P. and F. Zimmerman. 2016. Camera traps and public engagement. In: Camera trapping for wildlife research (eds. Rovero, F. and F. Zimmermann). Pp. 219–236. Exeter: Pelagic Publishing.
 * 35 O'Connell, A.F., J.D. Nichols, and K.U. Karanth. 2011. Introduction. In: Camera traps in Animal Ecology: Methods and Analyses (eds. O'Connell, A.F., J. D. Nichols, and K.U. Karanth). Pp. 1–8. New York, NY: Springer.
 * 37 Price Tack, J.L., B.S. West, C.P. Mcgowan, S.S. Ditchkoff, S.J. Reeves, A.C. Keever, and J.B. Grand. 2016. AnimalFinder: a semi-automated system for animal detection in time-lapse camera trap images. Ecological Informatics 36: 145–151.
 * 38 Purdy, R. 2011. Attitudes of UK and Australian farmers towards monitoring activity with satellite technologies: lessons to be learnt. Space Policy 27(4): 202–212.
 * 41 Rovero, F. and F. Zimmerman. 2016. Introduction. In: Camera trapping for wildlife research (eds. Rovero, F. and F. Zimmerman). Pp. 1–7. Exeter: Pelagic Publishing.
 * 42 Rowcliffe, J.M. and C. Carbone. 2008. Surveys using camera traps: are we looking to a brighter future? Animal Conservation 11(3): 185–186.
 * 44 Sandbrook, C. 2015. The social implications of using drones for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 44(4): 636–647.
 * 46 Shrestha, Y. and R. Lapeyre. 2018. Modern wildlife monitoring technologies: conservation versus communities? a case study: the Terai-Arc Landscape, Nepal. Conservation and Society 16(1): 91–101.
 * 47 Springer, J., J. Campese, and M. Painter. 2011. Conservation and human rights: key issues and contexts. Scoping Paper for the Conservation Initiative on Human Rights. https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/scoping_paper__final_22_jan_1_.pdf . Accessed on March 13, 2018.
 * 48 Snow Leopard Trust. 2017. Poachers identified thanks to camera trap. https://www.snowleopard.org/poachers-identified-thanks-camera-trap/ . Accessed on July 4, 2017.
 * 49 Steenweg, R., M. Hebblewhite, R. Kays, J. Ahumada, J.T. Fisher, C. Burton, S.E. Townsend, et al. 2017. Scaling-up camera traps: monitoring the planet's biodiversity with networks of remote sensors. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 15(1): 26–34.
 * 51 Swinnen, K.R.R., J. Reijniers, M. Breno, and H. Leirs. 2014. A novel method to reduce time investment when processing videos from camera trap studies. Public Library of Science ONE 9(6): 1–7.
 * 54 Wall, T. 2016. Ordinary emergency: drones, police, and geographies of legal terror. Antipode 48(4): 1122–1139.
 * 55 Wearn, O.R. and P. Glover-Kapfer. 2017. Camera-trapping for conservation: aguide to best-practices. WWF Conservation Technology Series 1(1) (WWF-UK, Woking, UK). https://www.wwf.org.uk/conservationtechnology/documents/CameraTraps-WWF-guidelines.pdf . Accessed on November 22, 2017.
 * 56 Yu, X., J. Wang, R. Kays, P.A. Jansen, T. Wang, and T. Huang. 2013. Automated identification of animal species in camera trap images. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1687-5281-2013-52 . Accessed on March 1, 2018.
 * 56 Yu, X., J. Wang, R. Kays, P.A. Jansen, T. Wang, and T. Huang. 2013. Automated identification of animal species in camera trap images. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1687-5281-2013-52 . Accessed on March 1, 2018.

https://iapp.org/news/a/wildlife-cameras-spark-privacy-concerns/

https://planit.legal/blog/en/data-protection-in-forest-and-meadow-legal-requirements-for-operating-camera-traps/

Edwards, S, Cooper, S, Uiseb, K, Hayward, M, Wachter, B & Melzheimer, J n.d., ‘Making the most of by-catch data: Assessing the feasibility of utilising non-target camera trap data for occupancy modelling of a large felid’, AFRICAN JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 885–894, viewed 1 March 2019, < https://libproxy.berkeley.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dedswsc%26AN%3d000451574200022%26site%3deds-live >.

Enari, H, Enari, HS, Okuda, K, Maruyama, T & Okuda, KN 2019, ‘Original Articles: An evaluation of the efficiency of passive acoustic monitoring in detecting deer and primates in comparison with camera traps’, Ecological Indicators, vol. 98, pp. 753–762, viewed 1 March 2019, < https://libproxy.berkeley.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dedselp%26AN%3dS1470160X18309257%26site%3deds-live >.

Sollmann, R n.d., ‘A gentle introduction to camera-trap data analysis’, AFRICAN JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 740–749, viewed 1 March 2019, < https://libproxy.berkeley.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dedswsc%26AN%3d000451574200007%26site%3deds-live >.

SCHEIDEMAN, M, REA, R, HESSE, G, SOONG, L, GREEN, C, SAMPLE, C & BOOTH, A 2017, ‘Use of wildlife camera traps to aid in wildlife management planning at airports’, Journal of Airport Management, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 408–419, viewed 1 March 2019, < https://libproxy.berkeley.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3da9h%26AN%3d125398657%26site%3deds-live >.

Buxton, RT, Lendrum, PE, Crooks, KR & Wittemyer, G n.d., ‘Pairing camera traps and acoustic recorders to monitor the ecological impact of human disturbance’, GLOBAL ECOLOGY AND CONSERVATION, vol. 16, viewed 1 March 2019, < https://libproxy.berkeley.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dedswsc%26AN%3d000454994500051%26site%3deds-live >.

Hobbs, MT & Brehme, CS 2017, ‘An improved camera trap for amphibians, reptiles, small mammals, and large invertebrates’, PLoS ONE, vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 1–15, viewed 1 March 2019, < https://libproxy.berkeley.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3da9h%26AN%3d125495800%26site%3deds-live >.

Randler, C & Kalb, N n.d., ‘Distance and size matters: A comparison of six wildlife camera traps and their usefulness for wild birds’, ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION, vol. 8, no. 14, pp. 7151–7163, viewed 1 March 2019, < https://libproxy.berkeley.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dedswsc%26AN%3d000440138400027%26site%3deds-live >.

Newey, S, Davidson, P, Nazir, S, Fairhurst, G, Verdicchio, F, Irvine, R & Wal, R 2015, ‘Limitations of recreational camera traps for wildlife management and conservation research: A practitioner’s perspective’, AMBIO - A Journal of the Human Environment, vol. 44, pp. 624–635, viewed 1 March 2019, < https://libproxy.berkeley.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3deih%26AN%3d110569185%26site%3deds-live >.

Young, S, Rode, margono, J & Amin, R 2018, ‘Software to facilitate and streamline camera trap data management: A review’, Ecology & Evolution (20457758), vol. 8, no. 19, pp. 9947–9957, viewed 1 March 2019, < https://libproxy.berkeley.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3d8gh%26AN%3d132626266%26site%3deds-live >.

Heiniger, J & Gillespie, G n.d., ‘High variation in camera trap-model sensitivity for surveying mammal species in northern Australia’, WILDLIFE RESEARCH, vol. 45, no. 7, pp. 578–585, viewed 1 March 2019, < https://libproxy.berkeley.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dedswsc%26AN%3d000450927900002%26site%3deds-live >.

Nazir, S, Newey, S, Irvine, RJ, Verdicchio, F, Davidson, P, Fairhurst, G & Wal, R van der 2017, ‘WiseEye: Next Generation Expandable and Programmable Camera Trap Platform for Wildlife Research’, PLoS ONE, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–15, viewed 1 March 2019, < https://libproxy.berkeley.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3da9h%26AN%3d120668649%26site%3deds-live >.

Willi, M, Pitman, RT, Cardoso, AW, Locke, C, Swanson, A, Boyer, A, Veldthuis, M, Fortson, L & Gaggiotti, O 2019, ‘Identifying animal species in camera trap images using deep learning and citizen science’, Methods in Ecology & Evolution, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 80–91, viewed 1 March 2019, < https://libproxy.berkeley.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3deih%26AN%3d134466590%26site%3deds-live >.

Wachter, B, Melzheimer, J, Edwards, S, Cooper, S, Uiseb, K & Hayward, M 2018, ‘Making the most of by‐catch data: Assessing the feasibility of utilising non‐target camera trap data for occupancy modelling of a large felid’, African Journal of Ecology, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 885–894, viewed 1 March 2019, < https://libproxy.berkeley.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3deih%26AN%3d133284922%26site%3deds-live >.

White, MD, Kauffman, KM, Lewis, JS & Miller, RS 2018, ‘Wild pigs breach farm fence through harvest time in southern San Joaquin Valley: Camera traps recorded 860 wild pig encounters at Laval Farms during the harvest season for grapes and pistachios, most of them at night’, California Agriculture, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 120–126, viewed 1 March 2019, < https://libproxy.berkeley.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3da9h%26AN%3d130481120%26site%3deds-live >.

Hsing, P, Bradley, S, Kent, VT, Hill, RA, Smith, GC, Whittingham, MJ, Cokill, J, Crawley, D, Stephens, PA, Rowcliffe, M & Wearn, O 2018, ‘Economical crowdsourcing for camera trap image classification’, Remote Sensing in Ecology & Conservation, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 361–374, viewed 1 March 2019, < https://libproxy.berkeley.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3deih%26AN%3d133500006%26site%3deds-live >.

Kolowski, JM & Forrester, TD 2017, ‘Camera trap placement and the potential for bias due to trails and other features’, PLoS ONE, vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 1–20, viewed 1 March 2019, < https://libproxy.berkeley.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3da9h%26AN%3d125792279%26site%3deds-live >.

I will be adding the article titled, "human bycatch", which refers to unintended captures via photo, video, or audio recording, using remote monitoring equipment used for wildlife or environmental conservation work, hunters, and hobbyists. Sources added to talk page of article.

Human by-catch
Human by-catch is a term for people who are unintentionally caught on film, in photos, or acoustically recorded on equipment used to monitor wildlife or habitats for the sake of conservation, or environmental law enforcement. It comes from the term, by-catch, which is used in fishing practices, designating non-target species that are caught in a fishing net. Nearly every remote monitoring study contains human by-catch, yet, there are no standardized rules or policies regarding what the researchers can or should do with their data.

Description and uses
Camera traps are typically a large network of cameras that are set up in the environment to capture images of wildlife. Most camera traps have some sort of sensor to trigger the shutter; usually by movement or heat (infrared). They are used widely in conservation work, by field biologists, and, to a lesser extent, by hobbyists, and hunters. Camera traps end up with many false triggers, such as moving vegetation, false heat reading from warm wind, and accidental human capture. These types of monitoring systems will, by design, capture and retain many photos of people. Camera trapping is still very human-intensive work, requiring a lot of effort to go through the thousands of images that are collected. Camera traps are useful tools for both land and marine conservation, environmental and wildlife management, and environmental law enforcement. By placing high resolution cameras along the shoreline, a network of cameras are able to monitor illegal fishing practices in protected, no-fish areas. Camera traps are not limited to the land; they are even used underwater, and, similar to land-based camera traps, use an automatic trigger when movement is detected in view of the frame. They are utilized at airports to help prevent incidents of wildlife collisions with aircraft. Camera traps are even used in elementary education settings, helping to bring young students closer to the natural world around them. By taking advantage of night vision technology, the students can learn about and see wildlife in their school yard that they never would have been able to see, before. Field research biologists generally try to locate their cameras away from areas of high human traffic, because increased presence of humans generally has a negative correlation with presence of wildlife.

Privacy concerns
Most people associate going "into the wild" with a reasonable expectation of privacy. It is not uncommon for hikers and backpackers to engage in private behavior, as in, something they would not want others to see, such as urinating. Private behaviors such as this have been caught on many camera traps. In fact, because humans are so abundant, and the areas that need conservation focus are usually areas in which humans share with the target species or habitat, nearly every study using camera traps has ended up with human by-catch. It is not uncommon for researchers to end up with more photos of humans than of their target species. There are instances of a by-catch photo of a coworker urinating, or similar situations, being saved and posted publicly as a joke. By-catch photos of people engaging in activity that may or may not be illegal, but undesired, has been posted publicly to influence the people in the study area to act differently. The line between a joke, a well-intentioned push for better behavior, and invasion of privacy, is thin. There are already potential solutions on the market. The technology to automatically flag, blur, or remove photos containing humans exists, and will only improve with time. While there are no broad requirements to do so, individual organizations could make this policy.

Description and uses
Drones are unoccupied aircraft vehicles that are remotely controlled by a person. While often associated with military use, the decreasing cost of the technology has allowed for civil use of drones to grow. Drones are being increasingly used in the fields of resource management and conservation because of their light weight and small stature, their speed, they reduce risk of injury and death when compared to traditional field biologist aerial survey s, and are less invasive than humans in the field.

Drones are beneficial in a variety of environments, including marine. 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. The altitude at which drones fly allows nearly non-invasive observation of marine wildlife. Because of the ability to follow quick moving wildlife and take very high resolution images, drones are very beneficial in both species identification and individual identification of whales and dolphins. Similar to marine environments, forests are vast areas that can be difficult and slow to patrol on foot, or even by vehicle. Forests are one of the most exploited environments on earth, and due to their large, widespread nature, are difficult to manage. Drones allow observation of vast areas in a relatively short amount of time, and can produce aerial imagery to identify a multitude of activities, including illegal logging, fire activity, trespassing, and wildlife tracking. Drones are not only used for forest conservation, but also by timber companies.

Privacy concerns
Drones are increasingly used for law enforcement in Africa, where poaching is one of the biggest threats to endangered species. While beneficial in finding and pursuing poachers, this type of surveillance conservation can create fear among the people who live in the region. These technologies that can be used to track down wildlife, can just as easily be programmed to track down people. Drones have moved the line of sight upwards; where a backyard fence used to afford privacy from passerby, a drone operating in public airspace now may have clear view of one's yard. American public perception of drones is generally positive, with privacy being the main concern. A drone operator may not always be visible or accessible, which could raise security concerns. Americans are willing to give up a certain level of privacy for the technology and convenience drones may offer, for things such as package delivery.

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. These issues are separate from a more overt use of drones for the purpose of surveillance. There is a concept of behavioral privacy; the idea that a person's behavior differs if they know they are being watched, or not. If one lives in an area where drone's are being used for surveillance, their behavioral privacy is compromised, as they do not feel that they have the freedom to act naturally.

Description and uses
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. Acoustic recording devices may be passive; recording all the time, or active; recording only when triggered. Researchers may use a device and software that automatically detect a certain trigger event, such as a specific bird call or gunshot. By using acoustic location technology, law enforcement can locate the approximate location of the gunshot, and use that to pursue poachers.

Privacy concerns
Anyone in the vicinity of these sound recorders may unknowingly have their conversations and activities recorded. 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. Legal opinions differ on which types of communication fall under this protection.

Research and conservation policies
There are no official policies regarding human by-catch data among research and conservation organizations. Each organization may have its own policies. The technology is still emerging, but there are potential solutions. 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. Along with filtering out empty frames, this software can detect human presence, and filter out photos of humans. This way, privacy could be ensured if the process was automated, so that no person had access to the photos of the people that were inadvertently taken. Most of the government policies and laws regarding privacy with these technologies are aimed at drones.

Law enforcement policies
Illegal actions and behaviors that occur on government or public lands, do not afford protection by a reasonable expectation of privacy. 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. These illegal behaviors often occur in a vast area that is difficult to patrol by foot, or even traditional vehicle. Drones are fast, efficient, and can capture incriminating information with high definition. 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.

Surveillance policies
If cameras and drones become part of everyday life, the importance of privacy and security are more important than ever. 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.

Notice posting
While there is no policy to do so, researchers must decide if they want to post notices in an area where they are monitoring using one of the above referred to remote devices. The purpose of posting is to allow people in the area to know that they may be recorded, if they enter the area. Unfortunately, some people may not appreciate the perceived invasion on their privacy, and may tamper with or vandalize the cameras. In addition, posting notices about equipment puts it at risk to be stolen by thieves.

FAA regulation on drones
In the United States, the FAA regulations on drones only pertain to the physical safety of airspace and everything under it. Privacy regulation is not within the realm of the FAA; that is for state and local governments to decide. Drone regulations vary by country, by state, by region, and, in some cases, further, by city. In addition, many preserves, and all national parks, such as the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in California, do not allow drone use. Drone operators can download an app developed by the FAA called B4UFLY, which compiles the local laws and do not fly zones and makes them easily accessible, so an operator may clearly know where it is legal to operate their drone.

Resources for drone operators outside of the U.S.
Drone regulations are similar across different countries. Requirements include keeping the drone within the operator's line of sight at all times, flying only during daylight hours, not flying over crowds or events, not flying near airports or around "important facilities", including government buildings and nuclear plants.

The Australian government has created a mobile application for drone operators, called, Can I fly there? Similar to the app released by the FAA, it compiles laws and regulations so drone operators may know the rules in their current location.

The Canadian government is updating its drone laws, with tighter regulations going into effect June 1, 2019. These guidelines refer the drone operator to review the laws related to the criminal code, trespassing act, voyeurism and privacy laws, before flying. It is explicitly stated that drone operators must respect the privacy of others.

The Japanese government has similar regulations as the above. In addition, drone operators are requested to report incidents with drones, even if they do not affect others, such as crashes.

The UK Civil Aviation Authority created a website called Drone Safe, which compiles the regional and local laws for drone use in the country. They have also created a mobile application for drone operators, called Drone Assist. People in the UK are afforded a higher level of privacy, as the regulations state that a drone equipped with a camera must stay a specified distance away from people not associated with the operator.

Legal examples
Most conservation work takes place over vast areas of land or sea, often spanning both public and private lands. People who live on or around these areas can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their own private areas on these lands, such as their house, but are not afforded protection outside of their private areas. 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.

A politician in Austria, who was expecting the privacy a forest would afford, trespassed onto land was was being monitored by a camera trap. His encounter with his partner was recorded, and drama ensued. The law sides with intent, in regard to human by-catch. The intent of those who run these recording systems is to further their research, conservation work, or law enforcement. If there is no intent to record people with nefarious motivation, and the cameras were not on private land, the camera trap operator would reasonably expect to be safe from prosecution.

From a legal perspective, the act of humans being caught in camera traps, acoustic recordings, and drones, when used for purposes other than recording people, is not wrong. The intention of the data holder, and what they do with that data is where legal privacy issues come in.

Other concerns
The technology that allows us to view animals 24/7 has given to the rise of commercialization of conservation. Organizations can now show "poster child" animals via live streaming video. Some may applaud this as a modern way to educate without the need of keeping wild animals in captivity in zoos and aquariums, yet, the flip side to this idea is that the animals themselves lose their own privacy, and sense of the wild.

This constant tracking and observation, especially of individual animals, can be seen as another way humans are trying to control every aspect of their environment. Tracking collars on wild wolves are common; to try to give researchers an idea of their migration patterns, and insight into their hunting techniques and social structure. But, as soon as a tracked wolf leaves the safe wild space, and enters, say, cattle grazing grounds, their location can be very easily pinpointed for ranchers who want to gun them down. The act of catching, tagging, implanting these tracking devices may alter the behavior of the wildlife, so an accurate representation may not be captured, making all the effort for naught.