Slashdot Mirror


First City In the US To Pass an Anti-Drone Resolution

An anonymous reader writes "According to an Al-Jazeera report, 'Charlottesville, Virginia is the first city in the United States to pass an anti-drone resolution. The writing of the resolution coincides with a leaked memo outlining the legal case for drone strikes on U.S. citizens and a Federal Aviation Administration plan to allow the deployment of some 30,000 domestic drones.' The finalized resolution is fairly weak, but it's a start. There is also some anti-drone legislation in the Oregon state Senate, and it has much bigger teeth. It defines public airspace as anything above your shoelaces, and the wording for 'drone' is broad enough to include RC helicopters and the like."

22 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. Jefferson would be proud by colinrichardday · · Score: 3, Insightful

    About bloody time!

    1. Re:Jefferson would be proud by Anguirel · · Score: 4, Informative

      Al Jazeera Arabic, or Al Jazeera English? They're very different sources, and one of them is highly respected throughout the world for in-depth coverage and serious journalism (except, perhaps, in America).

      --
      ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
      QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
    2. Re:Jefferson would be proud by colinrichardday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Excuse me, am I a junior McVeigh?

      I would also suggest that a government that needs to conduct drone surveillance is far more paranoid than I am. And one that performs drone assassination is less moral than I am.

    3. Re:Jefferson would be proud by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Funny

      Jefferson would be marginally less ashamed

      FTFY.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  2. Yeah, and what'll it do? by s.petry · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Government can ignore this just like they ignore a sovereign States authority (See DIA raids in CA on marijuana shops and farms). In fairness, the town must abide by State law which may invalidate the City law.

    Until more people wake up and shake off the cobwebs, the police state will continue to grow. I hope like hell we catch it in time, but looking at media and education I have strong doubts.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Yeah, and what'll it do? by icebike · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Government can ignore this just like they ignore a sovereign States authority (See DIA raids in CA on marijuana shops and farms). In fairness, the town must abide by State law which may invalidate the City law.

      Until more people wake up and shake off the cobwebs, the police state will continue to grow. I hope like hell we catch it in time, but looking at media and education I have strong doubts.

      Well, they may not be able to prevent Federal Drones, but State and County drones may be banned, especially if this City has a home-rule charter (giving them local law enforcement authority).

      In Seattle, there is currently an uproar over drone use by Seattle PD. The Police have them, but haven't used them yet. They want to put them into use, but the public is pretty much opposed, and SPD hasn't made a convincing use case, or even cited any recent incident where these might have been useful. (They carry small cameras, and by the looks of them do not provide any telemetry.)

      The idea is to prevent your own law enforcement units from wasting their time peeping into back yards and windows. By the time State Authorities and the Feds arrive, the situation is totally out of hand anyway. The demand on state and fed resources is probably such that their arrival with drones in hand is less likely.

      So just keeping your local PD/Sheriff from acquiring invasive tools goes a long way.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:Yeah, and what'll it do? by anagama · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm a liberal (not a Democrat mind you, Democrats are just the New GOP and the old GOP is merely a parody of itself) -- but I'm totally for States' Rights. The more I see what the Federales do, the more I would love to see a secessionist movement not rooted in white supremecy groups or religious freakery. The greatest threat to liberal values in the world today is the US Federal government and a constitutional amendment allowing unilateral peaceful secession of states would be a very interesting thing to have. Even if states didn't suddenly jump ship, the very existence of that right would make the Feds a bit more circumspect (at least probably, but who knows, they're pretty stuck up).

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    3. Re:Yeah, and what'll it do? by icebike · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How about: we can patrol more space more efficiently?
      How about we can save money?
      How about we can track someone without engaging in a high speed chase?

      invasive? it is a camera that watcher public space. let me know when they want to fly them into your home.

      You can't patrol more space flying a silly drone around. The ones you can afford don't have the range. The ones the have the range cost too much.
      You can't save money by having cops play with RC drones. You still need guys in cars. Only an Iraqi would surrender to a drone.
      You can't track someone with a drone that your typical city can afford. It will never be where you want it to be when you need it. They don't have the range. It doesn have the speed, even to keep up with OJ.
      They want to fly them to look into your home (regardless of what they say).

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    4. Re:Yeah, and what'll it do? by s.petry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is absolutely nothing irrational with concerns about tyranny. Go read a history book and realize that the fear is very rational. Hell, go read Plato's Republic and see that fear nor tyranny are new.

      Let me clue you in:

      Study Hegalian dialectic. Create dialogue -> Present dilemma -> Provide solution. This method has been effective in stripping you of your constitutional rights. It has also resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands in the last century alone. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and the US Government have all used this method. If you have doubts about the US Government, Fast and Furious has been well documented for the public to see. If you prove one, there are probably a lot more hiding in the bushes.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  3. Drone season by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Two words. Drone Season. There you go, its a self correcting problem. You can increase the tax base by selling licenses too. Just thing, for $75 bucks every gun toating, drunk ass redneck can fill the sky with lead.

    Errr, on second though, maybe this isn't such a good ideal.

    --

    Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

  4. Bring it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The faster we slide to full on fascism, the sooner it will all collapse and we can finally re-evaluate our principles. I'm tired of this moderately predatory murder-based society being able to justify itself due to the prosperity created by the last vestiges of peace and voluntarism. Let's fucking drown ourselves in violence so we can finally recognize that none of this evil is justified. Let us kill the healthy host completely so that the parasite is exposed. Then perhaps we can start over without any illusion that violent parasitism is good in moderation.

  5. What about RC planes with cameras? by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I play around with RC planes and my kids want to attach a camera to our next project. Does that make me a criminal? I thought it made me a cool Dad!

    1. Re:What about RC planes with cameras? by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 4, Informative

      I play around with RC planes and my kids want to attach a camera to our next project. Does that make me a criminal? I thought it made me a cool Dad!

      Take it outside city limits, you should be fine with the law.

      Can't speak for the rural folks around those parts, but I know that if I were out in my field and saw something suspicious and obviously unmanned flying over my property, I'd be hard pressed to not at least scope the thing, if not blow it clear out of the sky just out of principle.

      Scope? You mean you would shoot at my RC airplane with a scoped rifle? I doubt that you could hit it. Regardless, shooting a rifle at a high angle into the air is a remarkably reckless thing to do. That bullet will come down with lethal velocity at a random location, perhaps several miles away. Perhaps you should give your idea more thought.

  6. Posse Comitatus Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Posse Comitatus Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act prohibits military being used against US citizens unless such action is allowed by the US Constitution, or an Act of Congress.

    1. Re:Posse Comitatus Act by Torodung · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Tell me what benefit such legal protection is to a man who is unmade into a smoking crater because of people who believe they have legal authority to do otherwise? Do we need to have a martyr and a legal determination, or can we simply and justly move as a functional democracy to repeal, ban, and/or repudiate this naked reservation of excessive force and power? Do you really believe that someone reserving the "authority" to murder someone is acceptable because we have laws against murder? How about when it's our President?

      But the real (and begged) question is, do we truly believe that an _airstrike_ is an acceptable level of force to deal with the threat posed by a single individual?

      We went wrong when our government got into the business of assassinating its enemies. Go back to _at least_ Kennedy (and the Cuban cigar ruse) for that. There is a reason why assassination carries a stigma as the kind of thing that rots and destroys any functioning society. It does, because the targets eventually become fungible and universal. Today's terrorist leader is tomorrow's Public Enemy #1 is today's inconvenient malcontent, and the dishonored dead all have friends who want revenge, and maybe can even get elected. It becomes, when used domestically, a internecine blood war.

      In the meantime, if this kind of thing is proffered as acceptable in U.S. airspace, then we need to start assigning air raid precincts, training captains, and holding weekly drills like we did in WW-II. Just to limit the collateral damage. The Posse Comitatus act doesn't begin to put my mind at ease, unless I'm already dead. Then it's one of my last hopes for the future of those that survive me in a world where air strikes against individuals are considered reasonable force.

  7. Won't do what they want by weiserfireman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Federal Government claims sovereign authority over everything over 500 ft. The Feds will continue to regulate this airspace, and if someone has a Federal license to operate a drone, it will override local regulations anyway.

    Only thing this will do is bust people using unregulated space. We will probably hear about it being applied to kids strapping cameras to their RC airplanes.

  8. Jumping in Oregon by Arancaytar · · Score: 4, Funny

    Would constitute an airspace violation.

  9. No authority by KRL · · Score: 5, Informative

    I hate to bring this up... but city councils / local municipalities, etc have no authority over airspace. That would belong to the FAA. As evidenced in a recent case: http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2013/130117lessons-learned-from-glider-arrest.html

  10. Why drones? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I get why people are disturbed by assassinations and spying. What I don't get is why there is such a big deal made about the fact that it is being done by drones. What does it matter if the pilot is physically in the airplane or on the ground watching a video feed from a drone? Anything that can be done from a drone could have been done by an airplane with a pilot in it. Drones are just safer for the pilot, and makes it easier to go to the bathroom.

    Rather than passing this kind of narrow minded anti-drone legislation, why don't they pass anti assassination or anti-spying legislation, if it's assassinations and spying that you are actually worried about. Anti-drone legislation only makes sense if you want pilots in those airplanes for some reason (e.g. because pilots are better at avoiding midair collisions, etc).

  11. Gotta love inflammatory summaries. by jklovanc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is one major part that is left out in the summary;

    The writing of the resolution coincides with a leaked memo outlining the legal case for drone strikes on U.S. citizens and a Federal Aviation Administration plan to allow the deployment of some 30,000 domestic drones.'

    The leaked memo outlines the legal case for drone strikes on U.S. citizen on foreign soil. By neglecting that very important point and linking it to an FAA plan to allow drones in US airspace is implies that there will be 30,000 armed drones in US airspace. That is so far from the truth as to be laughable.

  12. Re:Kool Aid by reboot246 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As much as I hate that narcissistic slacker, it's not all Obama's fault. It's a powerful central government that has a limitless appetite for power, so both Democrats and Republicans are to blame. They don't care about the citizens whatsoever. All they care about is power.

    We need to get rid of all incumbents every election. Don't let them get used to the power. Then, after a few elections, maybe we can get people in office who will start dismantling the massive bureaucracy that has taken over Washington. Congress passes one law, and then the bureaucrats create a thousand nit-picking regulations from it.

    Call me a conservative, a liberal, or even a libertarian; I don't really care. But, folks, if we don't get a handle on the size of government, we're all going to suffer. Remember the old saying, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take everything you have." (including all of your freedoms)

  13. Re:Kool Aid by anagama · · Score: 4, Informative

    Your post is a little confusing to me, but I hope you haven't fallen for the lie that Obama wanted to end the practices of Gitmo. Obama did try to close Gitmo and Congress stood in the way, but it was a type of "closing" where those practices were merely imported to a Federal Supermax in Illinois, not a "closing" in the sense of ending the practice of indefinite due process free detention. It was a very clever bit of politics on Obama's part -- something an uncritical Democrat could latch on to in the tribal GOP v. DNC clownfight.

    see: "Welcom to Gitmo North"
    http://www.salon.com/2009/12/15/gitmo_3/

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good