Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

California Bill Would Dramatically Limit Commercial Drones

Posted by Soulskill on from the won't-somebody-think-of-the-drones dept.

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.

12 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Good. by davester666 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:Good. by AaronW · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
  2. Cry me a river by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 4, Insightful

    " 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.
    1. Re:Cry me a river by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      Uhm...using state authority to enforce private property rights is one of the few things most schools of libertarianism agree is a legitimate use of state power.

    2. Re:Cry me a river by Jeremi · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      Isn't a strong defense of private property rights a Libertarian principle? In this case, the proposed law would be enforcing property owners' right not to have uninvited guests buzzing around in their private airspace.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    3. Re:Cry me a river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about this; keep your fucking toys away from my property, you twisted pervert.

      And keep them away from mine also. We're not all libertarians here, you know.

      Actually, I cannot conceive of any situation in which I'd want drones to fly over my property, whether loitering or whizzing. I explicitly include package delivery services, as there is no way I'd want drones from amazon or others flying at moderate altitudes over my property. If law enforcement drones whizzed overhead, it would depend on the laws passed. We often sunbathe nude, and have every expectation of privacy while doing so, as the places we sunbathe are not visible from any public land or from any of our neighbor's land [*]. If law enforcement drones loitered without a warrant, they'd get shot down (we have enough acres to do this).

      [*] One or two military boys fly overhead occasionally in their chase games - typically once per month, but unpredictably. I suspect they're at rather more than 350 feet, and going much faster than a drone.

  3. kill drone delivery services? by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!”
  4. Exceeds state authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Exceeds state authority by gavron · · Score: 3, Informative

      Very true. No idea why you're modded down to 0... you're correct.

      Only the FAA has jurisdiction. The California State government can pass as
      many measure as it takes for them to be blue in the face, but they have no
      force of law and a simple hearing removed to US District Court would
      resolve that in a heartbeat.

      However, politicians posturing and appearing to "do something" is what it
      really is... and that's nothing new.

      Ehud Gavron
      FAA commercial helicopter pilot

  5. Relation to Buffalo Bill? by Strange+Quark+Star · · Score: 3, Funny

    Who is this California Bill, and why does he want to limit commercial drones?

    --
    There is no sig.
  6. Mods. The parent is not a troll. by GauteL · · Score: 4, Interesting

    .. 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.