Slashdot Mirror
FAA Bill Authorizes Surveillance Drones Over US
fyngyrz writes "Congress passed a bill this week that makes it easier for the government to fly unmanned spy planes in U.S. airspace. From the article: 'The FAA Reauthorization Act, which President Obama is expected to sign, also orders the Federal Aviation Administration to develop regulations for the testing and licensing of commercial drones by 2015. Privacy advocates say the measure will lead to widespread use of drones for electronic surveillance by police agencies across the country and eventually by private companies as well.'"
I hope these things are at least carrying transponders so they even make a blip on the radar at all. Without a transponder they'll be invisible to ATC and also won't trigger TCAS avoidance manoeuvers from aircraft. I don't know what altitude those things fly at, and whether or not there is any contact between the operators and air traffic controllers, but I hope they'll at least try to keep some kind of separation with normal aircraft.
This in itself is not unreasonable. I can see many potential legitimate uses for pilotless drones both for law enforcement and such things as disaster recovery. In itself there's nothing wrong with this law.
What is unreasonable is law enforcements desire to spy on everyone all the time. This is something that needs to be addressed, but it needs to be addressed directly. Not by attacking legislation that happens to enable it. We need to fight for legislation that explicitly sets limits on where the police are allowed to watch us.
Seems this is not a cost-effective way to catch some bad guys.
The real goal of this is not to save money. The goal is to make money for the drone companies, and to score political points for the politician that can say they value national security.
Spending is fundamentally different when you're spending other people's money. When you spend your own money (for example you own a business), you view every dollar as an investment and make damn sure every dollar is accounted for. When your spending doesn't bring a return, you stop.
In the business of government, on the other hand, the people spending the money aren't spending their own money. They don't care where it comes from or where it goes -- what matters is that it passes through their hands, giving them a chance to exploit that cash flow for personal gain. The rules are different, the outcome is different, and the people making the decisions are different. They are there for personal gain, same as the private business owner -- but their business strategy is entirely different. Their profits don't come from making an honest return on every dollar. Their profits aren't tied to success or failure, but rather how much political leverage they control with those dollars.
When the bureaucrat's spending fails to bring a return, this isn't a reason to stop. This is a justification for more spending.
You're not in the business of government, are you?