California Bill Would Dramatically Limit Commercial Drones

An anonymous reader writes: California's Senate Bill 142 would prohibit drones from flying under 350 feet over any property without express permission from the property's owner. The bill passed the California Assembly easily. Tech advocates have been battling privacy advocates to influence the inevitable regulation of private and commercial drones. Industry groups say this restriction will kill drone delivery services before they even begin. The legislation would also drastically diminish the usefulness of camera-centric drones like the ones being rolled out by GoPro. If passed, the bill could influence how other states regulate drones. The article notes that 156 different drone-related bills have been considered in 46 different states this year alone, and the FAA will issue nationwide rules in September.

Comments

Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Drones have no legitimate reason to fly over private property. Too bad for you city dwellers, guess there's a reason to leave for the countryside after all, huh?

The next step is to ban aerial photography by drones entirely.

Re:Good.

[davester666]

He believes blackmail will be the most important new industry of the 21st century. AshMad is another way to get the info.

The NSA will lead the way.

Re:Good.

[AaronW]

It depends on where you are within the state. In the major population centers it's fairly blue. In the rest of the state it's fairly red.

With the recent voter initiatives that largely did away with gerrymandering and made it so that the two biggest vote getters run in the main election the state government has become far more centrist. In a recent election in my district for the US house of representatives it was between a very left-wing democrat against a centrist moderate democrat. The centrist beat out the long-term left-wing democrat. In other districts there were two republicans running against each other and often the more moderate candidate won. The system tends to favor moderates in both parties over the extreme left or right. The endless bickering and road blocks have largely gone away and the state finally has a budget surplus and rainy day fund due in large part to a spendthrift democrat governor. The republican obstructionism has largely gone away and the two sides are actually working together *gasp*. That's not to say things are perfect, but it's far better than it was when everything was held hostage by the far right. In some way our governor is too much of a spendthrift. Our roads are among the worst in the nation and we need to spend some serious dough to repair them but he's being quite reluctant to raise the gasoline tax or pay for it despite even the very conservative Chamber of Commerce asking for this.

Re:Cry me a river

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

that's very Libertarian of you, endorsing even more government regulations. "Cognitive dissonance" in operation?

Re:Exceeds state authority

[GauteL]

Although the FAA allows some unlicensed use of low altitude airspace (for model aircraft, rockets, and the like), anything that's not sitting on the ground is under their regulatory authority.

Does that mean a bullet is under FAA authority the moment it leaves the gun? After all, it isn't sitting on the ground.

Mods. The parent is not a troll.

[GauteL]

.. but a legitimate point of argument in the debate. What is the point of this discussion at all if anti-drone posts gets labelled as a "troll"? Perhaps the grand-parent calling drone enthusiasts "twisted perverts" could be seen as a troll, but the parent does not include any abuse apart from what is seen in the direct quote.

I'm not sure what the difference is between a radio operated car with a camera on (surely a form of trespassing, if on your property?) and a drone flying 20 feet above it with a camera. They both have the same implications; invasion of privacy. The drone also adds risk of destruction to your property.

Drone enthusiasts can take their drones to public parks, nature or fly over their own property.