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.'"

18 of 294 comments (clear)

  1. Maybe cost savings is the goal by mykos · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why spend so much money shipping these things to drop errant bombs on brown people when we can save the cash and do it right here at home?

    1. Re:Maybe cost savings is the goal by mrclisdue · · Score: 4, Funny

      I, for one, welcome our new overdrones.

      cheers,

  2. Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you aren't doing anything illegal, you really have nothing to hide. The world will be a safer place.

    1. Re:Don't worry by michelcolman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Don't worry by sheetsda · · Score: 4, Informative

      I hope these things are at least carrying transponders so they even make a blip on the radar at all.

      They'd still show up on radar without a transponder and it would make no sense at all to not have a $200 transponder on $200,000 drone. Without a transponder ATC just wouldn't have any altitude data (if turning off your transponder was all it took to hide from radar, radar would be useless in a war situation where the enemy is trying to hide - obviously not the case - and there would be no need for stealth aircraft). Aircraft are required have to be carrying an altitude reporting transponder to enter most controlled airspace for safety reasons. Aircraft are required to contact ATC prior to entering, and/or stay in continuous contact with ATC also for safety reasons.

      The FAA isn't stupid when it comes to safety (you might even say they're borderline paranoid). They won't give arbitrary exceptions to safety-related regulations.

    3. Re:Don't worry by jittles · · Score: 4, Informative

      They'd still show up on radar without a transponder and it would make no sense at all to not have a $200 transponder on $200,000 drone. Without a transponder ATC just wouldn't have any altitude data (if turning off your transponder was all it took to hide from radar, radar would be useless in a war situation where the enemy is trying to hide - obviously not the case - and there would be no need for stealth aircraft).

      We aren't talking about Military radar installations, NORAD will already know where those drones are. We are talking about FAA style ATC, which DOES depend on transponders. If you have a big enough bird, you may get painted by ATC, but these drones are probably small enough and low enough that they will not give good returns. Even if there is a return, it may just look like a flock of birds, you never know. Without transponders, these drones will be dangerous. Even with transponders they may be dangerous for people flying in VFR and below ATC altitudes.

    4. Re:Don't worry by michelcolman · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are two kinds of "radar" for ATC: Primary radar sends out a signal and listens for reflections, often picking up flocks of birds and even clutter from ground objects like windmills while not being able to detect many smaller objects. Secondary radar relies on transponders: it sends out signals and puts a blip on the screen for every coded reply it gets from aircraft transponders. It is much more precise, which is why ATC pretty much exclusively uses secondary radar. Things without a transponder do NOT show up on their screen. If there is ever an emergency requirement to locate some flying object without a transponder, they usually have to contact the military who still use primary radar.

      You are quite correct that aircraft are required to have transponders in most controlled airspace. I just hope this applies to unmanned drones as well, and the people operating those drones keep them out of controlled airspace. But what if they are doing surveillance on someone close to an airport? ("close" meaning 20 miles or so). How do they coordinate with ATC? I personally have no idea, but I hope they are in contact somehow.

    5. Re:Don't worry by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Paraphrasing Scott Adams from "The Dilbert Future", written in the mid-early nineties:

      "In the future we will have mechanisms to observe and convict 100% of all crime. We will also quickly learn that 100% of the population is guilty of some crime."

      --
      by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
    6. Re:Don't worry by yabos · · Score: 4, Informative

      Depends on the size, yes. ATC here can detect single seat gliders 20+ miles away. Gliders have a big wingspan yes, but their cross section is quite small. The radar used by ATC does not require a transponder for something to show up on their screen. Likewise, you can have a transponder that won't even show your altitude but will just send a reply back to their ping with either code 1200(VFR outside controlled airspace), or some code given by ATC. Then you can have the Mode C(soon we will have mode S), which you can switch to altitude reporting as well as back to non-altitude reporting.

  3. Not cost-effective by captainpanic · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why spy on your citizens when the overwhelmingly large majority never do anything seriously wrong?
    Seems this is not a cost-effective way to catch some bad guys.

    Of course, it is cheaper than have helicopters with a 2-man crew... but "cheaper than ridiculously expensive" can still mean "too expensive".

    1. Re:Not cost-effective by gambino21 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  4. Privacy advocates are targettng the wrong thing by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:If they were manned aircraft would it be an iss by michelcolman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's because most automation failures are corrected by pilots. Electronic components fail regularly, which is usually no big deal as long as there are humans to fix things and fly manually if necessary. If every autopilot failure would result in a crash, there would be multiple crashes every day.

  6. We're giving our freedom away. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is what gets me about my countrymen: they get all bent out of shape and spew shit like "small government", "freedom" and whatnot over TAXES - one of the lowest rates in the industrialized World, but when it comes to government surveillance and monitoring under the PATRIOT Act, no problemo. If you do nothing wrong, there's nothing to worry about is the attitude among John Q. Public. Outside of the Slashdot crowd here, most people that I know at least, think there's nothing wrong about the Patriot Act. I keeps them "safe" after all from those Muslims that want to kill us over our fredom and make us live under Sharia law. You'll never see a Teabagger dress up as Franklin or Jefferson saying "Abolish our police state!" Nah uh. Not gonna happen.

    Americans don't know what Freedom is, I'm afraid. Most of us think Freedom is no taxes.

    A person is smart. People are stupid.

  7. Im all for this by RenderSeven · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...as long as civilians get to use drones to watch the police, members of congress, etc. You know, the stuff we're supposed to do in a democracy.

  8. Spending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  9. It could have been MUCH worse by d3ac0n · · Score: 5, Informative

    I know everyone here in /. is going to be all up in arms over this as either police state violations of privacy or the "military-industrial complex" attacking citizens (thus the first post) But you all need to know that this was a MUCH less problematic bill than the regulations that the FAA was coming up with ON THEIR OWN.

    The FAA was working on a new set of rules and regs that would have put UAV use and development COMPLETELY into the hands of the big military provider companies (Northrop Grumman, Boeing, etc.) Basically they started a new SUAS (Small Unmanned Aerial Systems, the formal name for what we call a UAV) rule process and completely left out ALL the small business and FPV hobbyist (not to mention regular citizen) concerns. The bill passed in Congress is actually a direct reaction to that and is designed to MINIMIZE the lock-in that the "Militray-Industrial complex" has on the sales and USE of SUASs in the United States.

    It also has large set-asides for Hobbyist users (such as myself) and for regular citizens to create and use SUAS technology. Basically, it leaves WIDE OPEN the door for regular citizens to "watch the watchers". It's not perfect, and there are some restrictions in there that should be lifted or modified, but it's far and away better than what the unelected FAA members were about to do under the influence of "The Military-Industrial Complex".

    This is why I'm conservative. Bureaucracies are by far and away the easiest things for Big Corp. or the MIC to corrupt. Bureaucrats are unelected, unaccountable, and largely uncontrollable. Thus large centralized governments INEVITABLY become corrupt, regardless of how many "controls" we put on them. (in the end, they just ignore the law anyway, so why have them?)

    If concerned citizens hadn't started action on this item in time, the FAA's version of the rules would have gone into force and citizens and small businesses would have been completely locked out of SUAS and possibly even HOBBY airplane use. It would have been very bad indeed.

    So while I'm not entirely satisfied with the new law, it is FAR better than the alternative we would have received otherwise. (Sadly, because of the existence of over-sized and corrupt bureaucracies like the FAA, the "Just leave us alone" option wasn't available.)

    --
    Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    1. Re:It could have been MUCH worse by d3ac0n · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh, a last point I forgot to mention;

      Prior to this there WERE NO restriction on SUAS use in US airspace. police and the military were ALREADY using SUAS to overfly and surveil citizens and crooks alike.

      This bill just ensures that we citizens have the right to both have fun with home brew SUAS tech AND to "Watch the watchers" by flying our own SUAS units.

      It also allows regular citizens the room to build and sell SUAS tech and build their own companies to compete against the "Big Boys" in the MIC. So it's generally good overall.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory