The FAA cares about "equivalent level of safety." If it can be demonstrated that an operator can keep things safe even though they're breaking a rule, the FAA will allow a waiver for that rule.

Imagine someone operating out in the bush in Alaska where there are no people. There's no need for the same safety precautions out there. Or operations in mountainous terrain where it's not possible that a manned aircraft would fly -- no need for anti-collision lighting there.

The FAA is quite strict and is very unlikely to hand out waivers unless the operator can clearly show an equivalent level of safety.

Surveillance for law enforcement is the easy one that everybody's going to worry about. I can also see some niche uses for wildlife observation.

The anticollision light has to be visible from three miles away. I could see that being excessive and disruptive for certain urban use cases.

Yeah this seems aggressive. At that brightness it'd be like having street lights flying down your block. Also seems like lights that bright might use a prohibitive amount of power?

Could just be for night shots over ones house or fireworks... OR for low flying drones to view citizens