Slashdot Mirror
FAA Scans the Internet For Drone Users; Sends Cease and Desist Letters
An anonymous reader writes with this news from Government Attic: "The FAA has released a set of cease and desist letters sent in 2012 and 2013 to people operating drone vehicles for a variety of purposes including: tornado research, inspecting gas well stacks, aerial photography, journalism education, and other purposes. Drone cease and desist letters sent during 2014 are available from the FAA upon request." The text of the letters (bureaucratically polite, but bureaucratically firm) often starts with notes indicating to the UAV operators to whom they were sent that the FAA became interested in them because it "became aware of" their web sites, or even because someone tipped them off about an article in a community newsletter. The letters go on to outline the conditions under which the FAA allows the operation of unmanned aircraft, and specifically notes:
Those who use UAS only for recreational enjoyment, operate in accordance with Advisory
circular 91-57. This generally applies to operations in remotely populated areas away
from airports, persons and buildings, below 400 feet Above Ground Level, and within
visual line of sight. On February 6, 2007 the FAA published UAS guidance in the Federal
Register, 14 CPR Part 91 / Docket No. FAA-2006-25714 I Unmanned Aircraft
Operations in the National Airspace System. Toward the end of the docket it says,
''The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than modelers might be flying UAS
with the mistaken understanding that they are legally operating under the authority of AC
91-57. AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and thus specifically excludes Its use by
persons or companies for business purposes."
Update: 09/07 02:16 GMT by T : Pray forgive the OCR that turned "persons" into "pecions" and "circular" into "arcular"; updated to fix those. Update: 09/08 11:07 GMT by T : Correction: Carl Malamud is not affiliated with Government Attic as this story originally described: sorry for the error.
On the one hand, UAV's represent a potential danger to people on the ground, and to airplanes - not to mention the privacy implications.
On the other hand, (if my understanding is correct), military and law enforcement agencies are free to fly UAV's whenever and wherever they please. This represents a further un-levelling of the playing field - the government is steadily acquiring powers which make it impossible for citizens to control/hold responsible/overthrow their own elected leaders.
I honestly don't know the answer - I only know that it both scares me and pisses me off that the government can do whatever it wants with UAV's, while my ability to use them is very, very restricted.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
The complaint, as I understand it, is not that the FAA is enforcing the law on the books but that this law is not useful.
The law itself is bad -- It's crushing innovation that would otherwise create a whole new dynamic part of the economy.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
I have no problem with it. I don't like the idea of drones whizzing above my head all the time, it makes the odds of being hit by something falling out of the sky much greater than it would be otherwise. Until I can be sure things are as safe as they reasonably can get I'd rather not have drones delivering packages yet. I am sure my safety standard and acceptable odds of "death by falling drone" are much higher than what any company is shooting for.
I don't like the idea of drones whizzing above my head all the time
Yet that is perfectly legal, as long as the drone operator isn't being paid by someone else ... which means the operator is more likely to be an untrained uninsured amateur, rather than a professional.
it makes the odds of being hit by something falling out of the sky much greater than it would be otherwise.
It also increases the odds of dying in a natural disaster, since "search and rescue" is one of the banned services.
OR ...
It could be that the FAA needs to get off it's ass and write some updated regulations instead of turning law abiding citizens into criminals.
But that's exactly what drone proponents are asking for - a permitting standard that gives them the right to fly in these conditions and for these purposes in exchange for meeting a set of safety standards. Passive or automatically-engaged active safety features that ensure that "death by falling drone" is effectively an impossibility, whether that things like be cowled propellors, parachutes, an inherently low terminal velocity, fully independent backup propulsion, or whatever the case may be.
And in case you didn't notice, massive objects weighing hundreds of tons loaded with massive amounts of fuel and capable of taking out whole city blocks and/or skyscapers already fly extensively over your head. But you're worried about little plastic helicopters?
"... even though he sins so much that people cast him out of demons."
It could lead to criminal activity seeing as how it's against the law.
The point being discussed is that the law (actually a regulation) is silly and should be changed. So pointing out the obvious fact that it is currently illegal is idiotic. Pointing out that something is illegal is not a valid argument that it should be illegal.
The law itself is bad -- It's crushing innovation that would otherwise create a whole new dynamic part of the economy.
There are issues that need to be ironed out. Unless you like the idea of a drone accidentally slicing your head off while in the pursuit of capital.
Can drones be used to monitor people ala a unmanned private detective?
Can a drone go on fishing expeditions, running up and down looking through windows?
What is the liability if a police drone accidentally slices your head off?
What is the liability if a private detective's drone accidentally slices your head off?
Same with a drone crashing into your house and lighting it on fire.
Same with you accidentally crushing a police Drone. Have you committed a crime?
and on and on.
It isn't all a privacy issue though. It might be looked at as similar to the old dreams of everyone flying instead of using cars. It could obviously be done, but most people just aren't capable of doing it without killing half of everyone else. Even a small drone can wreak nasty injuries.
The things are cheap, have been proliferating, and there needs to be some guidelines. The free market settling this thing would look a lot like a war of attrition, as incompetents get weeded out, often by killing innocent people. Nah, maybe we can give it some thought?
Ther are going to be some awesome uses for drones. But we gotta have some ground rules.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.