Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
" Industry groups say this restriction will kill drone delivery services before they even begin. "
Sounds like a good use of state authority to me.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
I'm all for it, and that's pretty much the first law in CA I've ever been behind except for the de-criminalizing of weed. Yay CA! (honestly didn't expect to say that today)
How? If I gave permission with the order, they can land on my property. They just have to hover down from 350 feet.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
What about over the public roads and streets? How would anyone get permission to fly over those? Leave it to California to pass laws that screw everything up...and what California does, the rest of the country does by default.
Oh fuck off with wrapping yourself in the flag to justify your weird peeping tom fetishism.
A better solution, admittedly, would be to permit the wsnton destruction of these toya.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
FedEx and UPS manage to deliver packages to me by truck without driving over any property without permission. Why is it supposedly so hard for drones to do so without flying over property without permission? Just follow the same route UPS or FedEx would use.
In fact, it should be easier for the drones since they will be allowed over property without permission if they are 350 feet up. FedEx and UPS trucks do not have that option.
All airspace within the U.S. is under control of the FAA. 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. The supremacy clause of the constitution spells out that, in the event of a conflict between federal and state law, federal law takes priority.
The person controlling it is in CA on the ground, and is subject to California law.
The FAA should simply preempt California's unauthorized attempt, as they have the exclusive control of the air space of the United States from ground level to space; and are the only agency to establish the policies for its use.
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
Pretty sure the gunshot will alert everyone to duck and cover.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Who is this California Bill, and why does he want to limit commercial drones?
There is no sig.
Back in the 90's all the /. articles on autonomous vehicles, notably from Georgia Tech and their competition, looked on the technology as very exciting. Now it's "I'ma blast one out of the sky with my shotgun if it comes within a half mile of my yard." It's a whole new mindset and culture in only a generation. That's some serious manipulation going on and people don't even recognize it.
There are some unexpected impacts of this law (I haven't read the full law).
A non-commercial area of drone use that is currently not possible, and will not be possible under this law (assuming there are no exemptions) is around search and rescue. Drones fitted with cameras help with visual scanning, with heat sensing equipment they can be sued for far more effective search and rescue.
We're talking about California, you are not supposed to have a gun to being with, this is Feinstein wet dream.
Do you realize that you would be going back to the 70' without any form of computer in your car, not to mention decrease your engine efficiency...
Because they aren't the same? Because they provide further regulations? The FAA permitting flight below 500 feet in some cases, and CA law forbidding to fly below 350 feet? I see absolutely no interference nor redundancy. Did I miss something?
There's nothing like $HOME
You fail at reading.
There's nothing like $HOME
.. 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.
Even tho bullets/stones "fly thru the air" they are not regulated under the authority of the FAA. Only AIRCRAFT are regulated (per below) and bullets/stones do not qualify as aircraft..but all drones do (hobby or commercial). The Feds are responsible (soley) for ensuring that AIRCRAFT do not cause harm to property or individuals on the ground. If CA wants to regulate using a "remote control" device by an ground-based operator perhaps they could get away with that...but they could not regulate fully automated drones (as Amazon is proposing)...that is the sole purview of the FAA.
(2) The (FAA) Administrator shall prescribe air traffic regulations on the flight of aircraft (including regulations on safe altitudes) for—
(A) navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft;
(B) protecting individuals and property on the ground;
(C) using the navigable airspace efficiently; and
(D) preventing collision between aircraft, between aircraft and land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne objects.
"Tech advocates have been battling privacy advocates to influence the inevitable regulation of private and commercial drones."
Let's get this right. It's not "tech advocates", it's big business.
Just another day in Paradise
Whatever idiot came up with this proposal is completely uninformed.
... and we'll have a new market for stabilized longer-focal-length camera platforms which will thrill the one-in-a-million actual creeps and paparazzi that everyone thinks this law is going to shut down.
First, they're not saying you can't fly over someone's property without permission. They're just saying you have to do it above 350 feet. Of course the FAA says you have to keep it under 400 feet, so this absurd law forces the drone operator to work closer to the general aviation deck, and to have to fuss about keeping their equipment in an unnecessarily narrow 50' band. Operating over hilly terrain? Double plus difficult for no reason.
Secondly, all this does is make what would annoy a neighbor even worse. In the vast majority of these cases, we're talking about a real estate agent (or her photographer) usually popping some small, comparatively very safe, quiet machine like a DJI Phantom 3 up into the air for a quick few minutes while it does a quick lap around a house for some exteriors that show the lay of the land, to add to a listing. In a more packed-in suburban setting, yes - for a useful perspective, the picture of the house they're listing is going to be taken from a short distance over the property line, so it's not a straight look-down a la Google.
But no. This brilliant piece of legislation means that now the photographer is going to have to use a heavier-lifting machine (larger hex or octo) that can carry a much heavier gimbal tweaked to carry a larger camera with a better sensor and a longer focal length lens. This rig will be heavier, and so the machine carrying it will be much more powerful (and, in the event of an accident, more dangerous), much louder, and much more annoying to use and to see in use. But someone selling a two million dollar house isn't going to blink at using (or hiring someone to use) such a device in order to continue to benefit from the now fully expected aerials of an expensive piece of real estate. So instead of having a humming little 4-pound plastic toy like a Phantom buzz around the house shooting perfectly good material, we'll have a 20-pound carbon fiber beastie with large CF props growling around at 350'
California: for a place with so many smart people, it sure is dumb.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You mean your left wing roads are slightly better than other left wing roads, which were the worst? Congratulations.
"The legislation would also drastically diminish the usefulness of camera-centric drones like the ones being rolled out by GoPro."
You make it sound like this is some unexpected side effect of the bill, rather than one of the primary reasons for passing the bill.
"would prohibit drones from flying under 350 feet over any property without express permission from the property's owner." [...] "Industry groups say this restriction will kill drone delivery services before they even begin."
If i order a delivery via drone, presumably part of that process would be to give the drone permission to fly into my property. If your delivery drone is unable to go above 350 feet outside of my property and has to buzz everyone else in a direct line between you and me then perhaps you shouldn't be using it to deliver things?
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Drones flying under 350 feet are known to the state of California to cause cancer.
Drones are like cars: Great for those who operate them, sucky for everybody else nearby. At the dawn of the era, a powerful lobby that stands to make a bunch of money from them, is trying to popularize them. This group promotes (drones/cars) as 100% awesome, while legitimate and fairly obvious objections are brushed aside as being Ass-Backward Technophobia that is Anti-Commerce, Anti-(our)Prosperity and Anti-Progress. (Never mind that EVERY technology has unintended side-effects, from the wheel right on up. I said never mind that! DO IT, DO IT! DO IT NOW! WE CAN DO IT, SO LET'S DO IT!!!!!!)
Fast forward a few decades, and EVERYBODY has one. They're considered essential for one reason or another. The few who stood to make money have made their money, the available space for them (highways / skies) is all full-up and the whole place is a fucking dystopia. Everybody says "How did this happen?" and "Nobody anticipated this."
CA law is superseded by Federal law.
I stand my point. Computers are controlling a heck of a lot of driving-critical elements.