Slashdot Mirror


FAA Admits Names & Addresses In Drone Registry Will Be Publicly Available (forbes.com)

Lauren Weinstein sends word about this admission by the FAA that has led many to have concerns about privacy. Forbes reports: "The FAA finally confirmed this afternoon that model aircraft registrants’ names and home addresses will be public. In an email message, the FAA stated: 'Until the drone registry system is modified, the FAA will not release names and address. When the drone registry system is modified to permit public searches of registration numbers, names and addresses will be revealed through those searches.'"

300 comments

  1. please stop posting this crap from Forbes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The whole site is just a cesspool of clickbait...

  2. Good thing too by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

    The overweight mulletmoron piloting it knows where my house is, and more besides. Turnabout is fair play.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re: Good thing too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize that this registry is also mandatory for "old school" rc pilots who aren't flying a quadcopter over your backyard? As I understand it, I must now register simply so I can fly a camera-less slow stick around my house.

      I could stomach the new law grudgingly at first, but now add the required *paid* renewal every three years AND the fact that I'm included in a publicly searchable database like I'm some sort of peeping tom neighbor or something...bah.

    2. Re: Good thing too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...required *paid* renewal every three years...

      Pay attention - this is a post that is profound, but the vast majority of you are simply too stupid to heed or even appreciate.
      Most slashtards are too stupid or too young (which is pretty much the same thing) to realize that this is what the bureaucrats at the FAA are after - the money. Since slashtards are blinded by their envy of the "top one percent", they fail to realize that the far greater threat is the bureaucracy that extends their power and ability to grab money at every turn. The NSA doesn't give two shits (or even one shit really) about your communications metadata; they just want an excuse to get a larger budget. Similarly, the FAA really doesn't care about the risks that drones pose; instead, they view this as a way to extract more money so they can go to more conferences, give themselves bonuses, etc. (at the taxpayer dime).

    3. Re: Good thing too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $5, wow. You know that is the same price that it cost to register any aircraft with FAA, from a 747, to an Cesena to a quadracopter. They aren't making jack from the $5 registration.

    4. Re: Good thing too by serbanp · · Score: 2

      I bet most young /.ers don't even know what a slow stick is...

      I fully agree with your concerns. As an older RC pilot flying small electric fixed-wing aircraft, I don't even know what will I do, register with this stupid and overreaching FAA system or simply skirt the rule.

    5. Re: Good thing too by TWX · · Score: 1

      Do you have confirmation that your scale-fixed-wing plane needs registration? I've heard conflicting reports.

      I'm sorry that a combination of technological advances, low prices, and bozos have ruined your hobby, but this isn't the first hobby to be ruined by inconsiderate jerks that didn't engage with the existing hobbyists, nor will it be the last.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    6. Re: Good thing too by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 2

      OMG! What's next? How long until we have to pay a fee to register our cars!?

    7. Re: Good thing too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Please just ignore it.

      The feds will lose this one if no one registers anything and people keep right on flying.

    8. Re: Good thing too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah huge govt plot to raise funds... you know it doesn't cost them $200 to click a button that renews my registration

    9. Re: Good thing too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't necessarily object to the fee as a financial burden or anything. Primarily I object to it on principle: a requirement has been created where previously none was needed (with regards to say, a foam slow stick flyer in his own backyard!). Not to mention that these fees are never static; Have you ever known the government to decrease a fee over the years?

      I'm frustrated with the half-assed application of these new rules. The problem that requires attention here is the use of more sophisticated drones that are being operated in an unsafe manner and/or are violating someone's privacy. If I want to fly a small plane in my backyard at reasonable altitudes (say below the treeline) there should be no need for me to both pay and be included in a publicly searchable database (where neighbors could decide I am a peeping tom, burglars could peg me as a possible target, spammers could get my name and address, etc.).

      Now of course, I'm not likely to get caught if I fly in a safe and reasonable manner, but the point is that under the new law (to the best of my understanding) I would still be in violation and could be punished as such.

      Plus it's one more damn fee and license to keep track of.

    10. Re: Good thing too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe it's something like over half a pound requires registration. My slow stick easily weighs 1.5 to 2 depending on battery used etc.

    11. Re: Good thing too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG! What's next? How long until we have to pay a fee to register our cars!?

      Yes because a toy plane being flown at a club weighing 600g is the same as a 1 ton car. By the way the toy planes are already registered with the AMA.

      I think we should have a rule that your intimate toys should be registered in 2 separate registeries each with their own fee, and then have one of them publish your name and address alongside a description.

      Oh the serendipity! Captcha came up: idiots

    12. Re: Good thing too by Dputiger · · Score: 1

      Fee was $5 in 1966.

      It's still $5.

    13. Re: Good thing too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this isn't the first hobby to be ruined by inconsiderate jerks that didn't engage with the existing hobbyists, nor will it be the last

      In news just in (announced today) cyclists in the state of New South Wales, Australia (where Sydney is located) will soon be required to carry photo id or face heavy penalties.

      I love it when the assholes in government introduce unpopular laws during Christmas week, when many families are away on holiday. Assholes.

    14. Re: Good thing too by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Maine had a 5.5% sales tax hike that went on for quite some time. Even some stores had to buy new cash registers to cope with the percentage point. A few years later they put it back to where it was prior to the hike (namely 5%). Now, to be fair, nobody expected the sales tax to go back down or anything. It did, however, return to 5% and it did so almost on schedule - as I recall. I didn't live here at the time so I don't know all the details but it does, sometimes, happen.

      I was browsing a local paper's site the other day and the town officials (selectmen) voluntarily gave up their health-care coverage. That is, for the most part, another example. Sure, they're exceedingly rare but they *do* happen to do the right thing once in a while. At this point, I'm pretty sure they only do the right thing by accident, it was almost certainly not their intent.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    15. Re: Good thing too by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Do you have confirmation that your scale-fixed-wing plane needs registration? I've heard conflicting reports.

      Hey, here's an idea, why don't you go to the FAA's page and read the PDF of the decision like the smart people? Then you'll know that anything remote controlled, autonomous, or both (but not kites, which have their own definition which is not mentioned) and which is between 250g and 55lb (srsly) will have to be labeled with your registration number. It doesn't matter how many props it has, or whether it has a fixed wing. It only matters if its takeoff weight is in the total range (not accounting for buoyancy from lighter-than-air-gases) and if you plan to fly it outside.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re: Good thing too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll bet your a blast at parties.

    17. Re: Good thing too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in Canada, but that's an unrelated side note.

    18. Re: Good thing too by Puls4r · · Score: 1

      you're....

    19. Re: Good thing too by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Fee was $5 in 1966.

      It's still $5.

      Not if you're anywhere in the U.S.
      http://www.ncsl.org/research/t...

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    20. Re: Good thing too by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      OMG! What's next? How long until we have to pay a fee to register our cars!?

      Automobile registration fees are a scam, though; nowhere in the USA so much as California, where the DMV has had to be reined in repeatedly for their unabashed theft from the Californian driver. The offices are run at very low efficiency, and clearly provide little value. Our driver testing is a joke. Processes are unnecessarily baroque and designed primarily to extract money from your wallet. And we have the most cars here, so the most damage is being done here...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re: Good thing too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you only drive your car only on private property, you do not need a license, registration or insurance.

    22. Re: Good thing too by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      How much does it cost to generate a number and keep it in a database? I'm thinking it's somewhere less than a penny. The rest of that $5 is profit. Now multiply it by how many registrations there are likely to be over the life of this absurd law...

    23. Re: Good thing too by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      There is no doubt that DMV offices accross the country can be more efficient. However, The data collected is useful. For instance, where do the legal authorities get their information about licenses and registration? That database that DMV maintains. Property taxes use that information as do insurance companies. There is a cost to maintaining those systems along with paying wages, benefits, taxes, etc. for the employees.

      As for driver testing, it, too, can probably be approved, but then again, there is still a cost and it is up to your state's legislature and DMV to redo it. While inefficient, it is still probably better than no testing.

      As for being designed to extract money from your wallet, blame your legislature. In this era of no new taxes, they keep adding user fees. DMV licensing fee increases are a direct result of that.

    24. Re: Good thing too by slazzy · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, I'm sure they'll jack it to $50, then change to every year too before long.

      --
      Website Just Down For Me? Find out
    25. Re: Good thing too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not were I live.

      VA car registration fees are based on the following factors:

      The gross (empty) weight of your vehicle.
      The type of license plate you purchase (e.g. standard vs. specialty plates).
      The length of time you choose to register your vehicle (e.g. 1 year or 2 years).

    26. Re: Good thing too by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The FAA charges fees to register things in Canada?

      Those geese must be nervous.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    27. Re: Good thing too by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The states force you to register and title a 1 lb aircraft now?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    28. Re: Good thing too by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      The great-grandparent had referred to vehicle registration, which I (maybe mistakenly) assumed the parent was still talking about.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    29. Re: Good thing too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So are the fees going to help with dirty air, turbulence, and better flying in general? Because last time i checked my registration fees went to transportation issues.

    30. Re: Good thing too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy fuck, you're stupid.

      The cost to maintain and backup the site and its associated database(s) will dwarf the $1.66 annual income from registered residential craft. Especially at government service rates.

      At least the data will be publicly available, hopefully to include serial numbers, so that miscreant drone operators can be held accountable. Anonymity only works when dealing with ideas and other purely intellectual content.

    31. Re: Good thing too by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      Oh please, the cost to maintain and backup a database...
      Distributed among millions of users.. all of them with less than 1kB of data in the database...

      "Especially at government service rates."

      Yes.. that's my point exactly. Those government service rates are jacked up. Any time rates are jacked up somebody is pocketing the money.

      "so that miscreant drone operators can be held accountable"

      And you are calling me stupid? If someone doesn't know or doesn't care that they shouldn't be using a drone near an airport, over a crowd, etc... why the fuck would they know or care that they are required to register? This is just another money grab and only just another money grab. There is no value in a drone registry. Well.. unless maybe you are an advertiser.

      A drone registry is a way that politicians can do the two things they do best. Appease ignorant voters and suck money.

  3. 249 grams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The magic number is 249 grams. If your drone weighs more, you get to be on the list.

    1. Re: 249 grams by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Claim ignorance and say your calculator software made an error on the conversions. If it works for senators avoiding taxes, it should work here.

    2. Re: 249 grams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imperial units? Did Revere ride for nothing?

    3. Re:249 grams by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

      My cock weighs more then that and is currently invading you wife(TM)'s anal 'airspace'

      Please keep her occupied until football season is over. kthx.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:249 grams by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      My cock weighs more then that and is currently invading you wife(TM)'s anal 'airspace'

      Please keep her occupied until football season is over. kthx.

      Dayum! Freakkin half chewed saltine crackers are all over my keyboard now!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    5. Re:249 grams by Kazymyr · · Score: 2

      I build lighter-than-air drones, aka remote-controlled blimps. In their operational state, they are negatively buoyant. Does that mean I'm off the list?

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    6. Re: 249 grams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you also,claiming they have zero or negative mass?

    7. Re: 249 grams by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      No, but if the FAA is looking at weight, he might have a point.

      Of course, his blimp is probably an easier target for my rifle to hit than a quadcopter.

    8. Re: 249 grams by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Imperial units?

      A kg is roughly two pounds. So 250g is about half a pound.

      If you want it a little more accurate, add 10% when going from kg to lb, and subtract 10% when going from lb to kg. So 250g is 0.55 lb, or about 9 ounces.

    9. Re:249 grams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You were this guy, then?

      Yup, get on the list.

    10. Re: 249 grams by Kazymyr · · Score: 1

      The operational word here is: weight. Which is a measure of the force that the object applies downwards.

      I don't claim to be able to make negative mass, or else I'd be busy counting my billions of $$$ instead of posting here.

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    11. Re: 249 grams by samwichse · · Score: 1

      Grams are a unit of mass, so... I would say your blimps "dry weight" (ie, envelope deflated) would be the number to go on.

      Sam

  4. I "was" all for this by TheRealQuestor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As a multirotor pilot I have have really had no qualms about this, right up until now. Now there is no way in hell I am going to sign up for this. I'll instead toss another 50 dollars to the AMA and hopefully THEY can inject some sanity into this mess.

    1. Re:I "was" all for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      The American Marketing Association?

    2. Re:I "was" all for this by cdsparrow · · Score: 1

      I'm right there with you. Was gonna make sure I did it the first month to save the 5 bucks, but gonna wait it out now for sure. This is just a list of people with disposable income for somebody to exploit. Now I need to design a drone system with small 249g quad/tri-rotor modules that connect together into a larger aircraft to do bigger jobs. Then if the cops ever ask for your papers, just flip the "disassemble flying voltron" toggle on your controller and they all land at under 250g each.

    3. Re:I "was" all for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What owners should do is all register with the same name and fake address. That'll bake their gubmint noodles.

    4. Re:I "was" all for this by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Funny

      What owners should do is all register with the same name and fake address. That'll bake their gubmint noodles.

      Elwood Blues
      1060 W. Addison St.
      Chicago, IL 60613

      You're welcome. :)

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    5. Re:I "was" all for this by flatulus · · Score: 2

      The American Marketing Association?

      The Academy of Model Aeronautics

    6. Re:I "was" all for this by TWX · · Score: 1

      As a multirotor pilot I have have really had no qualms about this, right up until now. Now there is no way in hell I am going to sign up for this. I'll instead toss another 50 dollars to the AMA and hopefully THEY can inject some sanity into this mess.

      It can be a fairly expensive hobby, I'm not surprised if doctors are lobbying...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    7. Re:I "was" all for this by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 1

      Max Power
      742 Evergreen Terrace
      Springfield, [fill in a state and zip]

    8. Re:I "was" all for this by TheRealQuestor · · Score: 1

      As a multirotor pilot I have have really had no qualms about this, right up until now. Now there is no way in hell I am going to sign up for this. I'll instead toss another 50 dollars to the AMA and hopefully THEY can inject some sanity into this mess.

      It can be a fairly expensive hobby, I'm not surprised if doctors are lobbying...

      AMA = academy of model aeronautics :) http://www.modelaircraft.org/

    9. Re:I "was" all for this by mlts · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You can always play the game the way the big boys do, and register stuff like that under the name of a business or corporation, with a PO box. Perfectly legal, and someone looking through the list of people with planes won't get an address to go burgle from.

      This does bring up two good points:

      The first is keeping data. In general, any work done with the FAA doesn't require a seven year retention... it requires fifty years. Do RC pilots have to keep info about their planes and other stuff for half a century now?

      The second is how long it will be before some bad guys start pulling public registry data, finding people who have a lot of toys, don't live in a gated community, then figure out their schedule and go rob their place. The info is out there, and all it will take is the economy tanking for the bad guys behind keyboards offshore to start buying/selling/trading with the bad guys with the ski masks and the sawed off 12 gauges who own that area's turf. Selling to gangbangers lists of houses that don't have anyone at home and have a lot of stuff in them may be quite lucrative.

    10. Re:I "was" all for this by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Corporations can't fly Drones or Remotely Controlled Aircraft, non-commercial use only. Commercial Aircraft have to have a pilot onboard.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    11. Re:I "was" all for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was wondering why he would want the American Motorcyclist Association to lobby for his aircraft...

    12. Re:I "was" all for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you are a [Piper] Cub fan?

    13. Re:I "was" all for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's 100 other ways your name and address are all publicly searchable already.

    14. Re: I "was" all for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like that option

    15. Re:I "was" all for this by RH434 · · Score: 1

      Well at least they are taking a stand on it, well, kind of... http://amablog.modelaircraft.o...

    16. Re:I "was" all for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A cross reference of the SCMODS database also has a listing for an Elwood Blues.

    17. Re:I "was" all for this by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      So one couldn't, for example, incorporate a non-profit drone & RC club, possibly with an agenda of allowing a group to spread the costs of craft (and possibly trips to suitable sites for flying) among themselves & to make the hobby more accessible for disadvantages kids?

    18. Re:I "was" all for this by budgenator · · Score: 1

      IANAL but that doesn't strike me as commercial, I'd think they're along the lines of flight for hire, like maybe a private investigator trying to take pictures of someone's wife with the milkman thru the second story bedroom window. What your talking about is more like a club with vehicles for member's use.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    19. Re: I "was" all for this by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      That's precisely why I brought it up as a way to keep your name and address off the official records: an explicitly non-commercial corporation which can have its objectives easily enough set up to make letting the corporation hold the drone license be something that the government doesn't want to argue. Just make it a choice between letting the club have the license or risking having minors on a publicly-accessible list...

  5. Look at this another way.... by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Funny

    At least from the FAA's point of view this will prevent any possible hacking/privacy leak scandals!

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re: Look at this another way.... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, I just got my privacy notification saying all my deets were stolen from the GAO. People suck, and govt sucks harder.

    2. Re: Look at this another way.... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Did you get that with snail mail or email? I know they had my data, I don't know if it was included in the hack. I've sent a couple of emails and had nary a single response.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    3. Re: Look at this another way.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snail mail.

      They said at the beginning that nothing official would ever be sent via email. So if you get an email, you know it's not legit.

      (Although if you get an email saying "you've been h4x0red", you probably have. Just don't follow-up with anything in the email.)

    4. Re:Look at this another way.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anybody know which company has this contract?

      The FAA will be able to see the data that you enter. The FAA is using a contractor to maintain the website and database, and that contractor also will be able to see the data that you enter. Like the FAA, the contractor is required to comply with strict legal requirements to protect the confidentiality of the personal data you provide. Under certain circumstances, law enforcement officers might also be able to see the data.

    5. Re: Look at this another way.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CSRA, the spinoff of public sector CSC and recently purchased SRA, built the site under contract to FAA.

    6. Re: Look at this another way.... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I'll have to have someone comb through my mail for me back home. I've asked them to keep a look out for anything that's important and then just open it and read it and let me know if it is (they're already *in* my house while I'm away, I trust them completely) but nothing has come up so far. I hate crossing time zones. This waking up at 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning is for the birds. :/ Hell, not even the birds are up at this hour.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    7. Re: Look at this another way.... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      i got it in the regular mail.

    8. Re: Look at this another way.... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Thanks. An AC mentioned that they'd said they'd send out notices by mail but I don't recall them mentioning that and I could have sworn at least a couple of people mentioned that they'd been notified by email and a couple others mentioning regular mail.

      I'm just waiting for it to show up in a giant data dump on a torrent site. *sighs* Sadly, the people who stole the information have shown themselves to be better stewards of the data than OPM. Okay, so it was kind of a joke but still... I've dealt with being doxxed before, in part, and it is kind of creepy.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    9. Re:Look at this another way.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least from the FAA's point of view this will prevent any possible hacking/privacy leak scandals!

      FAA: "We don't serve their kind here!"
      Drone operator: "What do you mean?"
      FAA: "Your drones - they'll have to wait outside! We don't want them here!"

    10. Re: Look at this another way.... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The OPM breach seems pretty bad, it is all past and current applicants.

      I got one of those small mailings with the tear off edges about this, it is around 2" x 6" if that helps.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    11. Re: Look at this another way.... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Thanks! My neighbor's wife flew down with my dog. They have a couple that live there and help out and it's winter so now her husband is going to fly down tomorrow and spend the holiday with us here. What's more awesome is neither of them have been that far from home before and I guess this is his first time on an airplane. I wish I had time to get a body camera up to him. Seeing him deal with the TSA (he looks like a grumpy old farmer but he's really sharp and has cutting wit known as Maine humor) will be priceless.

      But, he's going to box up all my not-obviously-junk-mail and bring it to the post office and ship it as he, "Heads downta Pohtland ta catch tha jet, ayuh." (Ayuh is not said like it's said in the movies, it's actually said on an inhale and sometimes an inhale and then an exhale so you get ayuh yuh yuh yuh yuh like an echo.)

      If it was *everyone* in the past then I'm in the breech twice, maybe? I don't know how they deal with it. I had to go through the process to deal with classified information in the handling of prisoners (I was a transport officer which meant I handled documents that may be classified - not that I'd have actually read them). That was in the 1980s. In the early 2000s, I had to do it again to do some work for the military which has, to this day, kind of annoyed the hell out of me.

      I can not say what I did (it should be painfully obvious if you're familiar with what I did for a job) but I can damned sure say that the whole process was stupid as hell and that there's no reason that data should have been classified as anything higher than FOUO. Two of us had to go through the process and then, to make it worse, spend about a year of our lives living at [redacted], working on *their* hardware, and generally making a project that should have been six months last almost a year and a half.

      (I modeled traffic, vehicular and pedestrian.) I'm pretty sure I can say that the data about [redacted] shouldn't be classified. However, consulting on how to react and optimize during/after an emergency *might* qualify as just a wee bit classified? I don't think it should have been classified any higher than FOUO but they didn't ask my opinion on the subject.

      Err... I'm going to redact a little of this. I don't want to be a terrorist! Hmm... That looks better. I'm still kind of curious as to how that data ended up with a classified (I forget exactly which level) status. Well, no... I know *how* it got there and I know *why* it got there but the *why* is just plain stupid. Mr. Terrorist is smart enough to know that people congregate at the mess hall during chow call, for example. Err... I think I can say that. Meh... Ah well, it was pretty good money, it was just a pain in the ass.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  6. Public Records by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    in most places your Tax Bill is public record. so this just follows.

    1. Re:Public Records by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and anyone who looks up my tax bill will think, "That guy doesn't have anything worth stealing."

    2. Re:Public Records by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and anyone who looks up my tax bill will think, "That guy doesn't have anything worth stealing."

      Unless you get yourself a little drone.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:Public Records by frnic · · Score: 1

      Maybe you mean property tax bill? Not IRS tax bill, I am sure you wouldn't be speaking out of your butt on Slashdot.

    4. Re:Public Records by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Unless you get yourself a little drone.

      To be fair, a littledrone is quite probably under the weight requirement. It takes a mid-sized drone to definitely be over it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. ZOMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    OH MY GOD! People will be able to know my name and address? Oh, wait, they can look that up almost anywhere already - never mind.

    1. Re:ZOMG! by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      Opening a phone book and picking a random name and number is entirely different than going somewhere that proves you have disposable income (large drone costs money). It would be entirely likely you have other nice things that could fetch a nice amount at the pawn shop or back alley rummage sale or whatever.

      Knowing your name and number alone is not as valuable as knowing you have nice toys too.

    2. Re: ZOMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could probably figure that out by looking at your house. The identity of the person within isn't necessary...

    3. Re: ZOMG! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      They sure could. Or they could just use this database, look for people in their area, use google maps and street view to case the joint, then pounce with little effort or public exposure.

      The list of drone owners narrows this process down a bit. Homes and cars are purchased on loans, drones are usually purchased with cash/credit cards. Loans can absorb all your disposable income making the potential score limited, knowing you have the income for a drone could weed this out.

    4. Re:ZOMG! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Knowing your name and number alone is not as valuable as knowing you have nice toys too.

      Because they could never find that information from the license plate on your BMW. The one with the license plate that says "DO N OK".

      There are easier ways to find out who has "nice toys" than looking you up in a registry of drone owners.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re: ZOMG! by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      That's an awful lot of work to find a target of opportunity.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    6. Re: ZOMG! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Not looking for a target of opportunity, looking for a payout. You get in the same amount of trouble for a $50 payout as you would for a $50,000 payout. I doubt you would score 50k, but you are more than likely to score above $50.

    7. Re:ZOMG! by theycallmeB · · Score: 1

      There are lots of ways to figure out if a certain house has nice toys. This database would be one of the more difficult and uncertain ways to do so. A much easier and less trackable way is grab a real estate ad and look for the spendy houses.

    8. Re: ZOMG! by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      But to get the info you have to have a local drone registration number.

      You can try random numbers until you get a local, but a) if you can do that why fuck would you be doing physical crime and not cyber-crime, and b) it leaves a whole lot of digital breadcrumbs.

    9. Re: ZOMG! by adolf · · Score: 1

      That's an awful lot of work to find a target of opportunity.

      Spoken like someone without a criminal mindset.

    10. Re:ZOMG! by TWX · · Score: 1

      Opening a phone book and picking a random name and number is entirely different than going somewhere that proves you have disposable income (large drone costs money). It would be entirely likely you have other nice things that could fetch a nice amount at the pawn shop or back alley rummage sale or whatever.

      Knowing your name and number alone is not as valuable as knowing you have nice toys too.

      I'm a licensed amateur radio operator. Cry me a river.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    11. Re: ZOMG! by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      An easy payout over $50 is to watch for a moving truck, then peek inside while going past. You get to see everything they have that was worth moving, and it'll be slow to start any investigation, because for the first few days, there's always some confusion as to exactly what was put where.

      Looking for a target in a database is a lot of planning, with no real benefit over more useful indicators like moving trucks, unattended open garages, or seeing a family get into a car and leave. If a criminal really wants to feel high-tech and use databases, a public records search for real estate prices will say a lot more about your disposable income than if you own a drone.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    12. Re: ZOMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone with a criminal mindset realizes that anything they say online can only be used against them in a court of law, and never for them. The right to remain silent starts with your social media presence.

    13. Re: ZOMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real estate pricing is usually linked to non disposable income. There are many people with nice houses and large mortgages, and many people with cheap rentals that like their toys.

    14. Re: ZOMG! by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      The folks who get large mortgages also tend to get credit cards with high limits, and buy big TVs to put in their new big homes.

      My point is that a thief is usually looking for an easy mark. They don't care whether you can easily afford the things they take, or what balance of disposable to non-disposable income you have. They only care about whether you have something they can steal.

      Compared to the plethora of easy indicators already present, a drone registration database is practically useless to thieves. Drones are still rare enough that an hour-long database search might turn up a dozen marks in a city, but a drive through a rich neighborhood will give just as good results. Looking for open garages also requires almost no further recon, because the perfect time for a heist is right then.

      Crime is usually perpetrated against the low-hanging fruit. There seems to be the common misconception on this thread that a thief is going to actively seek out one particular person to rob. That's just not usually how it works in the real world.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    15. Re:ZOMG! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There are easier ways to find out who has "nice toys" than looking you up in a registry of drone owners.

      On the contrary; No research I'm aware of is easier than sitting back in one's chair and punching keys. If they make the database too easy to loot, and give it away to all the public data services and so on, then there will be real-world repercussions and not just imaginary ones.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re: ZOMG! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Looking for a target in a database is a lot of planning, with no real benefit over more useful indicators like moving trucks, unattended open garages, or seeing a family get into a car and leave.

      The benefit is that it doesn't depend on the element of random chance. They can study the data at their leisure, instead of having to be everywhere at once.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:ZOMG! by budgenator · · Score: 1

      You could always buy a mailing list of Drone owners in a particular zip code of interest.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    18. Re:ZOMG! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      You could always buy a mailing list of Drone owners in a particular zip code of interest.

      I could also buy a list of boat owners in a particular zip code of interest. I'll be owning a boat is a more reliable indicator of wealth than owning a drone.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  8. Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Etcetera · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't know... Maybe I'm coming at this from a different perspective, but as a HAM radio operator, my base station address (and home address) is public information, and is easily searchable by call sign. If you want to use a public resource, whether airwaves or airspace, you need to be traceable. That's, in fact, the entire point.

    Put another way, the privacy implications of having untraceable drones outweigh the privacy implications of being able to track down who's controlling them.

    1. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

      I don't know... Maybe I'm coming at this from a different perspective, but as a HAM radio operator, my base station address (and home address) is public information, and is easily searchable by call sign. If you want to use a public resource, whether airwaves or airspace, you need to be traceable. That's, in fact, the entire point.

      Put another way, the privacy implications of having untraceable drones outweigh the privacy implications of being able to track down who's controlling them.

      Would you be OK with having your name and home address publicly searchable from your license plate?

      So that anyone who sees your car can find out your name and where you live?

      How about cell phones? Lots of people talk on the phone in inappropriate places. Would you be OK with having your name and home address searchable from the ESSID of your phone, which is displayed in all nearby phones while you talk?

      Let's reverse this. If the database is online, it can be searched in reverse.

      Would you be comfortable with having the online database of gun owners publicly searchable?

    2. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by jon3k · · Score: 1

      It's one thing that the government has the information, but to make it searchable by every spammer on earth? Why? If a drone lands in your yard, call the cops. They can check the registry. There's no reason it needs to be publicly available to anyone. This is just begging for it to be misused.

    3. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by MikeDataLink · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is. I have a public data account that costs $2 a month that gives me access to that, and whole lot more.

      --
      Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
    4. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      If it were only required for drones that used a public resource. AKA flying into navigable airspace or in public spaces. I do not need a licence plate for a vehicle that never see's the public roads like a beater plow truck.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    5. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue here is one of availability, akin to license plates on a car really.

      Nobody minds if law enforcement or the like can access these records; but allowing arbitrary searches seems like painting a bullseye target on anyone that registers; it allows for vigilante justice, and heaven forbid someone gets a few letters wrong when they're punching in a records search.

      Also to me it's a treasure trove of information for criminals, since these things can get quite expensive and with the requirement to register each drone that's not a 'model aircraft' it's possible to get some idea (with some time) of how many drones a given person has.

      Finally, many of us have been into this for years now. So suddenly being told "Hey, your legal name and address are going to be on public record now for anyone that wants it. Just because." years after you get into something with no recourse hits many bait-and-switch feelings.

      Again, nobody minds the government having these details, but making them open to public searches is the issue since (compared to HAM or other types of radio) there's orders of magnitude more people subject to this licensing suddenly now, and orders of magnitude fewer hoops to go through to get into it since it's something you've been able to buy at local stores for quite a'while now.

      - WolfWings, too lazy to login to /. in way too many years.

    6. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by MikeDataLink · · Score: 3, Informative

      Would you be OK with having your name and home address publicly searchable from your license plate?

      So that anyone who sees your car can find out your name and where you live?

      It already is. All DMV records are public data. Publicdata.com has all of them for $2 a month.

      --
      Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
    7. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, yes, yes, yes. I would absolutely love a database of people's addresses from their license plates. It might go a long way to filling in for the complete lack of enforcement of basic road safety.

    8. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Deadstick · · Score: 2

      Would you be OK with having your name and home address publicly searchable from your license plate?

      The Google has some interesting news waiting for you.

    9. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody minds if law enforcement or the like can access these records...

      I would rather have them publicly searchable but require a warrant for law enforcement to access them. Law enforcement is more hostile and less trustworthy than the general public.

    10. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Higaran · · Score: 1

      Would you be comfortable with having the online database of gun owners publicly searchable?

      Yes then the criminals will know where not to go. They will be able to see I have guns at my house, and they should really think twice before trying to break in.

    11. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you be OK with having your name and home address publicly searchable from your license plate?

      You DO realize that is already the case... right?

      And that it's also true for HAM radio operators?

      And aircraft pilots?

      Your point might be more interesting if that wasn't how things already work. If you use a public resource, you should be identified to the public.

    12. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if your drone is registered to a trust or LLC or some other legal entity?

    13. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Traceable by the authorities or reportable by someone else to the authorities is not the same as having Joe Public being able to find out where you live and come smash your head with a baseball bat because they mistakenly think you're spying on them. If the authorities can find out who is responsible for a drone that should be good enough. There's no reason for the information to be public.

    14. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I don't know... Maybe I'm coming at this from a different perspective, but as a HAM radio operator

      Do you still have to take an exam for that? In Latin?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    15. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you live up to your name, stranger!

    16. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by BradMajors · · Score: 1

      Cops won't do anything it is a private matter.

    17. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I predict this whole discussion will now spiral into the abyss of second amendment nonsense.

    18. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by BradMajors · · Score: 1

      Would you be OK with having your name and home address publicly searchable from your license plate?

      So that anyone who sees your car can find out your name and where you live?

      If you are in an accident the other driver can go to the DMV and obtain your name and address from your license plate.

    19. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      If you think you are somehow going to make someone pay or whatever for their reckless driving because you know where they live and who they are, you might want to reconsider your safety in the course of this venture because they would be able to get the same information from your car and do the same- but have already established they are reckless and have little regard for safety.

      I doubt it would turn out the way you think it might. Best bet is to report it to the cops (you need their license number anyways) and let them decide what to do if anything about it.

    20. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No serial number on your radio, right? So I will have no problem selling it...

    21. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This assumes you agree that safty implications outweight privacy implications. To that I say:

      Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin

    22. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FCC doesn't require amateur radio operators to list their home address, only a valid mailing address for correspondence.

    23. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know... Maybe I'm coming at this from a different perspective, but as a HAM radio operator, my base station address (and home address) is public information

      Which is why I have a PO box.

    24. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      I predict this whole discussion will now spiral into the abyss of second amendment nonsense.

      THE ONLY SOLUTION FOR A BAD GUY WITH A DRONE IS A GOOD GUY WITH A DRONE.

      Plus, Thomas Jefferson said something about watering the drones with the blood of Tom Brady. Or something.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    25. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Publicdata.com has no plans available for $2 a month. The cheapest they have is $35 a year, but it's limited to less than two searches a day.

    26. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Using a trust, LLC or other legal entity is a good way to keep your name off the public records and the prying eyes of liability attorneys trying to make a name for themselves. Doesn't prevent the government from tracking you down, if they really wanted to know. With corporations being people these days, you really do need to have your own legal entity.

    27. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Unless they case your place and wait until no one's home to break in, having a reasonable idea that there are firearms to be had. Not everyone has the cash to lock their guns up in a good safe.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    28. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Registered agents for corporations/LLCs and fictitious name assignments are generally available to the public.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    29. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      there are guns littering this country and yet there are still home invasions. Pretty safe bet the criminals simply don't care.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    30. Re: Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they care a lot. The average time spent casing a house before burglary is significantly longer in the US than in disarmed nations like the UK and Australia.

    31. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the Netherlands the cops where not allowed to do reverse searches from phone number to address.
      So they just called a pizza joint to do it for them.

    32. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you've ever bought a house, people can search your real name and find your address or vice versa.

    33. Re: Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The average time spent casing a house before burglary is significantly longer in the US than in disarmed nations like the UK and Australia.

      Is there a citation for that? I don't even know how you'd collect that data.....ask the union representative of the National Collective of Home Invaders?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    34. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      And aircraft pilots?

      And there's the thing. Do you really think a 13 year old girl flying a half-pound pink plastic model helicopter below tree-top level in her back yard is "an aircraft pilot?"

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    35. Re: Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Responsible gun ownership implys locking them up when not in use. If you can't afford a safe, you shouldn't buy a gun.

    36. Re: Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't even know how you'd collect that data.....ask the union representative of the National Collective of Home Invaders?

      Basically, yes. They ask criminals who have been arrested. And yes, the rate of home invasions is much lower in the US, as the criminals say that it is because they are concerned about encountering an armed resident - because in the US, an invader is as likely to be shot as arrested.

    37. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is, in Switzerland :)

    38. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by RubberDogBone · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In the state where I reside, it costs only 50 cents to get the tag info. Literally all you need is the tag number and change and they will happily give you a whole print out of the vehicle stats including VIN, the taxes paid on said vehicle, the insurance company and policy number and of course the name, address and phone number of the registered owner.

      So when you see that hottie in traffic and want to get to know them, just snap their tag and take some quarters to the DMV office.

      --
      Sig for hire.
    39. Re: Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That's a good citation.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    40. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My license plate is amateur radio callsign so sure.

    41. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they don't.
      And you obviously don't know anything about direction finding... standard investigation work.
      Which for a supposed HAM is pretty sad.
      Also, I now know where to go shopping for thousands of dollars worth of HAM radio and DRONE equipment, for free.... YOUR HOUSE IN SD, NIGGA!!!

    42. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      And there's the thing. Do you really think a 13 year old girl flying a half-pound pink plastic model helicopter below tree-top level in her back yard is "an aircraft pilot?"

      And if just for shits and grins she flies it as high as it can go (WEEEEEEEE! LOOK AT THAT!) to 500 or 600 feet and smacks a private plane or a jet on final?

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    43. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Would you be comfortable with having the online database of gun owners publicly searchable?

      Yes then the criminals will know where not to go. They will be able to see I have guns at my house, and they should really think twice before trying to break in.

      Good luck with that.

      What would actually happen is they'd wait until you were on vacation, and then specifically pick your house to ransack.

    44. Re: Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have an expensive gun safe, it has a window...

    45. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by TWX · · Score: 1

      "If you want to use a public resource, whether airwaves or airspace, you need to be traceable." I must point out that the DMV license plate database should be publicly searchable by your same argument. Traceable to the Law when you fuck up and traceable to the public when someone is feeling nosy are different things.

      The motor vehicle registration license plate database might not be entirely publicly searchable, but a noted license plate, with cause, can be looked-up. The State has also sized license plates such that they're relatively easily read even at a bit of a distance. It's not perfect, but it's possible.

      RC aircraft are usually not large enough to allow for a registration number to be read unless one is holding the device in one's hand. If the intent of the registration rule is to compel RC aircraft users to self-moderate their behavior then simply applying an automobile-style registration system.

      Now, I'm a little surprised that they didn't take the amateur radio approach, and instead of registering the device, register the operator, or give the option to register the operator instead of the device. Granted, this might mean that the operator would be limited in the number of RC aircraft that they could be considered responsible-for at any given time (ie, a parent couldn't use one registration to let six children operate, or would have to be present and all would have to operate within his reach. Operator registration with some aircraft rules (ie, operator's licensing information painted on the device) with different time duration might have been easier and less costly for those with multiple devices.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    46. Re: Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You haven't renewed your oxygen license, please stop breathing.

    47. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet drivers are more polite in your state than in someplace like LA.

    48. Re: Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Lots of people lock them in cabinets instead of safes. Cabinets are fine for keeping the kids out, but won't keep out a determined burglar. Even a thousand-pound safe that's bolted to the floor isn't 100% secure.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    49. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      RC aircraft are usually not large enough to allow for a registration number to be read unless one is holding the device in one's hand.

      I would suggest they require a mandatory transponder that is designed to always be in operation when the craft is operating.

    50. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      If you think you are somehow going to make someone pay or whatever ....

      You can send them a nasty letter, and they might think about reforming.

      Presumably, they won't have gathered the info on you or YOUR vehicle, unless you provide detailed information about yourself.

      I would strongly caution against threatening anybody, however.

    51. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Not everyone has the cash to lock their guns up in a good safe.

      You don't have to leave it at home, you can keep it on your person, or even lock it in your glovebox --- that is better than leaving it totally unsecured.

      If you cannot afford to lock it up or take it with you at all times, or otherwise appropriately secure it (Such as by putting it in a bank safety deposit box, when you cannot secure it at home), then you cannot afford to own a gun.

    52. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Keeping it on your person or in a safe deposit box isn't really an option for rifles, shotguns, or other long guns. A cabinet isn't as secure as a safe, but it isn't "totally unsecured", and I'd argue it's a damn sight more secure than being in a car's glovebox.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    53. Re: Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's a shirt ton more likely to kill you with her aircraft than the professional flying a 757. Yes, she's a pilot she's if she's using navigable airspace.

    54. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI, the Swiss (and probably other countrie's) aircraft registry is publicly available.
      That includes name/address of owner and operator.

      Hasn't caused any problems I know of so far.

      I'm a pilot and member of a club that owns several aircraft.

      A while ago I downloaded the whole register as CSV, apparently they have removed
      that possibility since.

    55. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      So when you see that hottie in traffic and want to get to know them, just snap their tag and take some quarters to the DMV office.

      Kids these days. Back in my day we pulled up beside them, wound down the window and shouted "show us your tits luv!"

      Jokes aside though I once asked a girl for her phone number through a car window and then had a conversation with her. This is back before using the phone and driving was illegal, and back before phones were so sleek flat and smooth that you had to look at them to use them rather than just feel for the buttons. Got me a date using that move.

      Also had some random girls in the car in front of us write their number on a flip card and hold it up. Had a lovely conversation with them too. Backpackers driving up the Australian coast. I was a bit sad when we had to pull of the highway.

    56. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Rhyas · · Score: 1

                Actually, the cheapest plan they have seems to be ~$15/month.

      -= Jay =-

    57. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you read the FAQs from the registration page, they have already clarified this.

      Q30. If I own multiple drones, do I have to register them all?
      A. No. You may register once and apply the same registration number to all your UAS.

    58. Re: Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Here in the UK, this "disarmed nation", the phrase "home invasion" is pretty much never heard (unless its related to US news or TV shows) - burglaries are almost always non-violent events that happen when the home owner is away from the property, or its a smash and grab for the car keys.

    59. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The motor vehicle registration license plate database might not be entirely publicly searchable, but a noted license plate, with cause, can be looked-up. The State has also sized license plates such that they're relatively easily read even at a bit of a distance. It's not perfect, but it's possible. RC aircraft are usually not large enough to allow for a registration number to be read unless one is holding the device in one's hand. If the intent of the registration rule is to compel RC aircraft users to self-moderate their behavior then simply applying an automobile-style registration system.

      If you read the PDF relating to the rules, it's clear that someone proposed just this, and was shot down because having to attach a plate would be too arduous a requirement.

      Now, I'm a little surprised that they didn't take the amateur radio approach, and instead of registering the device, register the operator, or give the option to register the operator instead of the device.

      If you read the PDF relating to the rules, it's clear that this is exactly what they did, and you're just blowing wind without knowing what you're talking about.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    60. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put another way, the privacy implications of having untraceable drones outweigh the privacy implications of being able to track down who's controlling them.

      Maybe for you. Nobody wants to steal a HAM radio, You've probably only got a garage/basement full of dusty vacuum tubes.

      Now someone who owns an expensive toy like a drone probably also has other expensive things to steal too.

    61. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      I thought these aircraft weren't allowed to run in public airspace. I am pretty sure that 50' above my backyard definitely isn't public airspace.

    62. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by BubbaDave · · Score: 1

      RC aircraft are usually not large enough to allow for a registration number to be read unless one is holding the device in one's hand.

      I would suggest they require a mandatory transponder that is designed to always be in operation when the craft is operating.

      A transponder that would operate on what frequencies, and would respond to what, and for what purpose?

    63. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny you bring up license plates - a lot of HAM operators have their call signs as their license plates.

    64. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      If that private plane or jet is on final near my house and that low it's already going to be crashing in my fields.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    65. Re: Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Even a thousand-pound safe that's bolted to the floor isn't 100% secure.

      Cabinets and safes slow thieves down a bit, and raise the bar of equipment necessary for theft. Safes a bit more than cabinets, but that's all. The thieves just go steal the tools, then use them on your stuff. They're not worthless, but they don't do what people imagine they do.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    66. Re: Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Very true. I've seen photos where thieves cut a hole in the wall, wrapped a chain around the safe, and yanked it out of the floor with a truck, to be taken somewhere where they have time to cut it open with a torch.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    67. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Guess what else is already publicly available? Your entire state's voter registration records. I know in OK you have to pay the state a processing fee, but you can easily get a nice digital copy of the names, addresses, and registered political party of every voter in your state.

      You can even get around the fee by getting it free from your party, if you get yourself designated as a precinct official. Where I live that's as simple as being the one person in my precinct who shows up on the day they are being selected. I have an old copy of that data for my precinct on my hard-drive at home somewhere.

      If you bought your house (rather than are renting), that is also a public record that anyone can request.

      Names correlated with addresses are just flat out not private information. Never have been.

    68. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Greek

    69. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Would you be OK with having your name and home address publicly searchable from your license plate?

      So that anyone who sees your car can find out your name and where you live?"

      Ever notice the big number on the side of airplanes? the tail number? Ever put one into google?

    70. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a world of difference in the public perception and reponse between HAM radio, and the frothing paranoia and threats of violence that get aimed at drone operators.

      I had every intention of registering, as a responsible owner of a fleet of over a dozen model airplanes. As an IT professional, knowing it's only a matter of time before this data is stolen, or how poorly the government will protect it, I'm going to be willfully breaking the law now, because the last thing I need is some nutjob tracking me down and getting violent with me because he's afraid I'm going to take pictures of him in the shower, just because he sees me doing aerobatics in a park. And don't fool yourself, people like that are EVERYWHERE. I've gotten threatened no less than a couple dozen times just trying to inject some sanity into discussions about drones, and twice in a park where people have been flying model airplanes since the 1950s. People ARE going to get hurt if these addresses are publicly searchable.

    71. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being an FAA certified pilot, my information has been available online for years.

    72. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they have California data? After that movie star was killed, DMV supposedly restricts addresses.

    73. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      I don't know... Maybe I'm coming at this from a different perspective, but as a HAM radio operator

      Do you still have to take an exam for that? In Latin?

      Don't be silly, the HAM exam is in Morse code not Latin.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    74. Re: Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His point is valid and you're a retard.

    75. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a hoot at parties, aren't you?

    76. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot. LLC filings are also public record. Anyone can look up the members of an LLC.

    77. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      LLC filings are public records, but not every state requires the listing of members. Some states favor privacy. Wyoming is a good example.

    78. Re:Er... What's wrong with this exactly? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      A transponder that would operate on what frequencies,

      Frequencies and methods approved by regulators and agreed upon by the industry and whose use has been designated by the FCC for these types of applications.

      and would respond to what, and for what purpose?

      Response to authorized users, or authorized probing devices at a specified interval, for the purpose of radar surveillance and unique identification by providing unique drone registration code, manufacturer, and serial number to authorities, and to interested members of the public.

  9. Everyone's supposed to follow immigration law, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone is supposed to follow immigration law, too.

    But how many illegal immigrants do we have? And we even have "sanctuary cities".

    So much for the law..

  10. Why Not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm strongly opposed to this registry in the first place. But, if it is going to be done, I don;t see the big deal in this. Your name and address are already searchable via numerous databases like phone books, property appraisers offices, court records and more.

    This "new development" is no different than what they currently do with aircraft "N" numbers.
    http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Inquiry.aspx

    You're basically writing your address on your drone. If someone scrapes the database and collects all the names and physical addresses, I won't much care. If the FAA publicizes my email address for filthy spammers, I'm going to be pissed.

    1. Re:Why Not? by SScorpio · · Score: 1

      Except with it being public, someone could lookup your registration number via your name/address. They could then start flying it around an airport, the white house, or some other no fly zone with a drone that uses your number.

      Suddenly you have the feds knocking on your door.

    2. Re:Why Not? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Except with it being public, someone could lookup your registration number via your name/address.

      They could then start flying it around an airport, the white house, or some other no fly zone with a drone that uses your number.

      Suddenly you have the feds knocking on your door.

      I really don't get what you;re talking about.

      There's a search field. One field. It has a spot for the drone's registration number. There is no spot for your address. It will look like this.

      Presumably a sufficiently clever hacker could crack into the system and get the entire database, but a) they could do that regardless of whether it was publicly searchable (none of the GAO database was searchable), and b) it would be rather silly to risk Federal jail time for a list of addresses of drone owners.

      So maybe you mean they could place a fictional number into the system with your name/address, and then you'd have the Feds knocking at your door? But that also makes no sense because the FAA and the Feds would have the false number info regardless of whether the data was publicly searchable.

      Or maybe you meant that someone hates you so much they'd find your drone registration, buy a drone with the same model as yours, put your id information on it, and then sit back and laugh as you get arrested? That's pretty much impossible (as I said they can't search by name) unless they've gotten a good enough look at your drone to remember the drone id number (because that would be the only way to use the search box), and if they do that they don't really need to search the FAA website because they know what your drone looks like and they know it's identification information.

    3. Re:Why Not? by SScorpio · · Score: 1

      When you register you get a single tail for all of your drone. The registration form isn't online yet, but I haven't heard anything about registering each one that have if you have multiples.

      Regarding searching by the tail. Yes, you need the actual tail. But click back one page to the master search list. You have the ability to search by state and county. Every plane with their tail, and addresses of the owners is listed for that county. I wouldn't put it past the FAA to duplicating this exact search for the new list.

      http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Aircraft_Inquiry.aspx

    4. Re:Why Not? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      So you're assuming the FAA will do one very special thing for drones (tail numbers for big planes are per aircraft, not per pilot), but not another (make the database searchable by county), despite the fact that would be pretty stupid (among other things, there'd be so many registrations from big counties that the list would be too long to be useful), your evidence seems to consist mostly of you not wanting them to do it that way so of course they'd do it that way?

      All because you're convinced that a statistically significant number of people will try to get around the "do not fly a drone in the White House's airspace" restriction by putting a fake number on their drone? Which would be really dumb to do, given that every Jury ever would believe that drone jockey was not planning on highly illegal mischief?

      Americans can be wonderfully obstreperous about complying with the most reasonable of governmental actions. And you, Mr. Scorpio, are not breaking the mold.

  11. How is this News by Zmobie · · Score: 1

    If you own a house your name and home address is already on public records and easily searchable. All this adds is you also have a drone at said address...

    1. Re:How is this News by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      What this adds is that when some moron pilots a drone approximately matching the description of yours into traffic on the interstate near your house causing a fatality accident, they'll be knocking on your door, and you'd better hope you've got an airtight alibi.

    2. Re:How is this News by Sooner+Boomer · · Score: 1

      Actually...no. My house is owned by a trust. My vehicles are owned by a corporation. As are my machine guns. You've got to do considerable digging to associate my possessions to me. Even my username isn't real.

      --
      Chaos maximizes locally around me.
    3. Re:How is this News by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

      Actually...no. My house is owned by a trust. My vehicles are owned by a corporation. As are my machine guns. You've got to do considerable digging to associate my possessions to me. Even my username isn't real.

      First of all, bullshit. Second of all, the officers of your LLC and trusts (which very well may be YOU) are a public record. Don't think that I can't find you, especially if you pilot your drone into my car on the road, my plane in the are, or crash land it in my yard.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    4. Re:How is this News by Zmobie · · Score: 1

      That is the point of the drone registration yes, but that doesn't actually have anything to do with the database being public or private which is what TFA is about...

    5. Re:How is this News by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if I feel better or worse that you have to have a color of law enforcement employment to access the database... I think I'd actually rather have everything that law enforcement knows about us publically accessible, so people can get outraged about it like this and reign some of it in.

    6. Re:How is this News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.smallbiz.com/Wyoming/why-incorporate-in-wyoming/

    7. Re:How is this News by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Two points:

      1) It can't be searched that way by civilians. The search box has one field, for the drones registration number, not a half-dozen including your name, address, general geographic location, etc.

      2) What were you expecting to happen with law enforcement? Somebody died. If they can't get the registration number from a bystander/security camera/dashcam/etc. of course they'll get a warrant to force anyone with relevant info to help them with their inquiries. That means the FAA, local drone sellers, Youtube if they rustle up some drone flights from the area, etc.

      Heck, this is already how it has to happen, with the caveat that since there's no official registration number on anyone's drone it is several orders of magnitude harder for you to prove it was not your drone at the scene of the crime.

    8. Re:How is this News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you say bullshit? NFA trusts(you can legally own a fully automatic weapon(or grenade launcher for that matter)) are a thing, and it is not uncommon to have one setup of you are dealing with , and having a trust or corp own your property simplifies taxes in the event of death? Lookup National Firearms Act if you are in the usa. YMMV depending on your state, but in mine pretty much anything goes as long as you can get it through the process and you have the money.

  12. Standard FAA procedure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The name and address of certificated and experimental aircraft have always been available -- see faa.gov/aircraft for the search . Site can be searched by
    name, registration (N-number) and can be broken down to states and counties This is the norm and has been for years

    1. Re:Standard FAA procedure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even every person who has an FAA issued airman certificate (pilots, instructors, mechanics) are all in a publicly searchable database.

  13. Now if we could only ... by PvtVoid · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ... do the same thing for firearms.

    1. Re:Now if we could only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... do the same thing for firearms.

      and automobiles

    2. Re:Now if we could only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... do the same thing for firearms.

      Or, if you don't have any firearms..

    3. Re:Now if we could only ... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Now if we could only do the same thing for firearms.

      Do what? Make a list of known firearm owners? The FAA isn't registering individual toys and models. It's registering owners, and telling them to write their information on the outside of their half-pound plastic toy model airplanes. People who don't want to be registered will simply ignore this. The new registration system has no bearing on who can buy what, it's simply a new regulatory/bureaucratic burden for those who choose to obey the law, and will set those people up for out-of-context random fishing expeditions by trolls, reporters, cops, and anyone else who feels like going on a witch hunt without any facts.

      Are you wishing that the government got a list of who owns guns, to be used the same way? If you like this, then you're saying you like the idea of a list of names, but without any factual connection to the ownership of any particular firearm. How do you see that being useful? Be specific. And explain how your idea is different than the sales records already kept, down to the serial number, when people buy guns now.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:Now if we could only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can not find out which of my neighbors might kill my children with the guns in their house.
      A little more important than ownership of a drone.

    5. Re:Now if we could only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.licenseplateslookup.com/

      Since we have one for cars, can we have one for guns?

    6. Re:Now if we could only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't speak for the parent, but...

      Yes, a person should be required to have a licence for a gun, and if I know the persons name or address, I should be able to look up whether they have a licence to own a gun. Somebody needs to have that list, and generally this is the responsibility of a functioning government.

      I don't' know what gun people are so afraid of. "They're going to come take my guns!" To what end?
      1) So they can kill us all, holocaust style? We have nukes now. If the government wanted to kill everybody who lived it Texas or Arizona or wherever, they have nukes on submarines. You'd never see it coming and it probably wouldn't even hurt.
      2) So they can come take my gun, and then kill me, personally! You aren't that important.
      3) So that gun owners will stop shooting themselves and other people for no reason. - Maybe. But isn't it the NRA the keeps saying we need to control the "bad people with a gun"? It would be easier to control them if we knew who the fuck they were.
      4) But I want to defend myself. Then sign up for the damn license. Hell, put a sticker on your window. Then nobody will rob you, because they'd be afraid of your gun. Or they would do it anyway, and you get to do what you've always wanted to do, kill somebody.

      And please, don't give me the "Only criminals will have guns because they won't register". Awesome. That would be great. A criminal walking around with a gun would be doing us a favor. Once they are caught with it, the sentence for carrying a gun without a licence can be 20 years in jail. Then all the criminals will either be in jail, or won't be carrying guns. Fucking fixed.

      As for how this list will be useful. I'd like to know if the person living next to me is likely to shoot a hole through their house and into mine, which happens all the damn time. I'd like to know this information before moving into a new neighborhood, and meeting all the neighbors. Also, we could do some research with these numbers to determine things like whether gun ownership increases or decreases robbery or violent crime in a neighborhood...

      oh wait, I just figured out why you don't want this. Stay stupid my friend.

    7. Re:Now if we could only ... by ScentCone · · Score: 1
      So, you think that criminals will hop on a web site like the one the FAA will be setting up, and will register themselves at BATF so you can look them up? Are you even listening to yourself?

      As for how this list will be useful. I'd like to know if the person living next to me is likely to shoot a hole through their house and into mine, which happens all the damn time.

      Really? You have neighbors that regularly shoot holes in your house? And you live in a place where that happens all the damn time but the police won't come to help? You might want to consider getting a gun, living in a place that rough.

      Also, we could do some research with these numbers to determine things like whether gun ownership increases or decreases robbery or violent crime in a neighborhood...

      All of the evidence is that areas with the most draconian gun laws (see, for example, Chicago) have the most rampant violent crime. Most other places around the country have been seeing a steady decline in violent crime for decades, even as millions more people have legally purchased guns during that period.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    8. Re:Now if we could only ... by oic0 · · Score: 1

      There are no guns in prison so it should be perfectly safe in there, just throw your kid into general pop at a local prison. Safe as can be.

    9. Re:Now if we could only ... by oic0 · · Score: 1

      News flash... it is illegal to carry a gun around without a conceal carry permit so any bad guys walking around with guns can be arrested on the spot. Its also illegal to be in possession of a gun if you have committed a previous crime AND most states keep records of every gun sale and can track down the owner of any given gun. What extra benefit would be offered by a license may I ask? It would just be a fee that law abiding citizens would pay and would accomplish nothing to prevent crime. As is, criminals mostly have stolen guns and in almost all circumstances will be arrested if caught carrying it on their person.

    10. Re:Now if we could only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most states keep records of every gun sale and can track down the owner of any given gun. What extra benefit would be offered by a license may I ask? It would just be a fee that law abiding citizens would pay and would accomplish nothing to prevent crime.
      As is, criminals mostly have stolen guns and in almost all circumstances will be arrested if caught carrying it on their person.

      Bwa ha ha!

      There you go again, buying the NRA propaganda.

      You might want to try and actually research that from a non-NRA site and include things like private and guns how sales.

    11. Re:Now if we could only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      News flash. It is NOT illegal to carry a gun around. Many states have Open Carry laws and it is legal to carry a handgun or long gun in public.

      In most states it is illegal to carry a CONCEALED gun on your person without a CCP.

      .

    12. Re:Now if we could only ... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Now if we could only ... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      You might want to try and actually research that from a non-NRA site and include things like private and guns how sales

      Please link to your research sources, citing the number of crimes committed with guns that were purchased at gun shows where background checks aren't already legally required. Be specific.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    14. Re:Now if we could only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      News flash, you are a moron. It is not illegal in every state. As to the rest of your statement.. you must be in California, or another bastion of liberal idiocy. Most states do not have required registration. There is a record pointing to the original purchaser, but not to the purchaser of a private sale. You cannot track down the owner of any given gun based upon your premise. What they would use is not even considered part of the firearm. Ballistics would use the rifling pattern. The barrel can be purchased without any kind of check at all. You do not have to pass a background check or purchase it from a FFL for that matter. You are spouting bullshit on a subject that you have obviously no experience with.

    15. Re:Now if we could only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "News flash... it is illegal to carry a gun around without a conceal carry permit."

      Not in my state it isn't. Sorry about yours.

  14. wow, the pilots and vendors win big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1- the pilots (APA, NBAA, IAOPA) gets the rules applies to drones--so the step in costs to get into the commerical drone business is high... and drone use becomes an exclusive technology.
    2- real drone enthusiasts get the idiots out of the skies and can charge $200+ an hour for a 30 sec shot.
    3- vendors get zero responsibility for the buggy, less thought out hardware or a mess of software (both open and close sources apply) they sell.
    4- gov't gets control (some it makes sense for 1st responders)
    5- And now the contractor that manages this database gets to exploit the data (data mining, marketing research, etc...). Cloud computing at its finest for data exploitation (look at all the big cities public-izing their databases to cash in)....

    Consumers and hobbyists lose out big time--as all the burden is on them.

    1. Re:wow, the pilots and vendors win big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consumers and hobbyists lose out big time--as all the burden is on them.

      Just be a drone consumer and hobbyist outside of the U.S; U.S. doesn't need new industries.

  15. not a problem.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been using a legal "General Delivery" address since the late 70's.

    CAP === 'exaction'

  16. As an amateur radio operator AND a pilot... by gavron · · Score: 3, Informative

    I can be searched on the FCC's pages.
    I can be searched on the FAA's pages.

    TL;DR version - it's your choice to exercise this privilege and that privilege includes the cost of registration.

    I'm not an apologist for the government. I rail against things that cut into my rights.
    However, I recognize the difference between my rights that cops who stop me want to violate, and
    privileges I choose to exercise.

    These certificates I hold (amateur radio operator and commercial pilot)
    are not RIGHTS in the United States, but rather PRIVILEGES which I've chosen to attain.
    In the process of CHOOSING to attain both those certifications I could have chosen not
    to give out private information (and not get the certificate) or, as I did, choose to give it out
    in return for the privilege of using the airwaves and flying in the air.

    When you choose to drive a vehicle on private property in this country you are not required
    to hold a driver's license, be of a certain age, acquire and maintain liability insurance, nor
    even have your vehicle registered. HOWEVER to use that same vehicle and driver on the
    public roads all the laws and registrations must be followed. (Don't get me started on how
    this is abused by governments...)

    The national airspace system (NAS) is one such resource. If you intend to fly in it, you
    must do so in a manner which is legal. Until this year that meant "Have a good time and
    stay out of trouble." As of tomorrow that also means "get a tail number [not an N-number]
    for your UAS[not drone]."

    If you have made the choice to continue flying your UAS then if you wish to do so as per
    the law you must register it, display the tail number, and have your information available
    at the FAA -- and probably subject to search.

    Merry Christmas,

    Ehud Gavron
    N5NEQ
    CPL-H (Commercial Pilot - Helicopter)

    1. Re:As an amateur radio operator AND a pilot... by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Seems to me that the largest complaint against this registry is that the registration is required for these small remote controlled aircraft even if they are not operated in the public airspace.

      For your analogy to hold between cars and drone I would not be legally required to register a drone that I operated within the confines of my property up to 200 feet above it. It appears that the FAA feels that even if this drone never leaves that legally defined private property box that I am still required to register it. There are many reasons to stop this registration, I just gave what is the gravest violation of civil rights.

      I can hear the replies now, what if the wind takes the drone off your property? Well then if I had not registered it then I'd be in violation, just as if the wind took my unregistered car into the street as I was driving it on my private track. Then I'd hear, but the wind won't blow your car while it can certainly carry a drone. My response is, apparently you've never been to Oklahoma. You've probably heard of it, where the wind comes sweeping down the plain?

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    2. Re:As an amateur radio operator AND a pilot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The airspace is not owned by you, not 400ft not 200ft not 10ft. It's part of the NAS. That' s an item of contention between people who think they own some chunk of space above their house (let alone a multi-tenant dwelling) but really that is not how the law works.

      It's not IF the wind takes your UAS [it's not a drone] into the NAS that's relevant; it's that it can.

      E

    3. Re:As an amateur radio operator AND a pilot... by bongey · · Score: 1

      Property owners do own the air space above their property 500 ft AGL and below , unless you live right next to airport. Simple google search https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    4. Re:As an amateur radio operator AND a pilot... by bongey · · Score: 1

      Captain Sum Ting Wong help us if you are a pilot because you don't even know what NAS rules. Below 500 AGL is not a part of the NAS unless next to airport, thus the FAA doesn't have any legal authority. Supreme Court "declared that a landowner controls use of the airspace above their property in connection with their uninterrupted use and enjoyment of the underlying land."

    5. Re:As an amateur radio operator AND a pilot... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      You're taking the "navigable airspace" comment in that article completely out of context.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    6. Re:As an amateur radio operator AND a pilot... by gavron · · Score: 1

      FAA controls from the ground up. Sorry you were misled by crowdsource encyclopedia.

      https://www.faa.gov/news/updat...

      Ehud

    7. Re:As an amateur radio operator AND a pilot... by gavron · · Score: 1

      FAA controls from the ground up. Sorry you were so eager to use a racial slur you didn't look it up.

      https://www.faa.gov/news/updat...

      Ehud

    8. Re:As an amateur radio operator AND a pilot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This seems like nonsense to me. It's the goddamn sky, and it's mostly empty. How have we accepted that the government owns all of it?

    9. Re:As an amateur radio operator AND a pilot... by the_bard17 · · Score: 1

      The FAA would certainly like everyone to believe so. Some would disagree.

      From http://scholarship.law.marquet...:
      "The Court divides the airspace over the
      United States into two zones. The upper zone is called navigable airspace.
      Congress has defined it, "as airspace above minimum safe altitudes
      of flight prescribed by the Civil Aeronautics Authority...,,22
      In this upper zone the rights of the federal government are so complete
      that this navigable airspace, according to the Court's opinion, is
      "within the public domain."

        In Swetland v. Curtiss Airports Corp's, the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit stated:
      "He (the landowner) has a dominant right of occupancy for
      purposes incident to his use and enjoyment of the surface....
      We can not fix a definite and unvarying height below which
      the surface owner may reasonably expect to occupy the airspace
      for himself. That height is to be determined upon the
      particular facts in each case."

      In United States v.Causby, the military was granted an easement by the government, which met the military's need for transitioning the airspace over the Causby property. In exchange for the easement, Causby was granted $2,000, which the Supreme Court had found to be the value of the easement, as well as the chickens rendered lifeless by the overflights.

      If the FAA would like to control the airspace over my head, then I would be more than happy to grant them an easement; I also expect to be granted the value of the easement: the retail value of the radio control model aircraft & related equipment, which I may no longer enjoy unencumbered by the FAA's rulings.

    10. Re:As an amateur radio operator AND a pilot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should offer it to them...
      let us know how it works out for you...
      and do fly a drone in the disputed airspace until they pay you...
      can't wait to read all about your success!

    11. Re:As an amateur radio operator AND a pilot... by the_bard17 · · Score: 1

      Instead of copying and pasting the FAA's words, would you like to demonstrate where in our legal system it has been determined that the FAA controls from the ground up?

      I'd also like to point out that the FAA does not control Class G airspace: it is defined by the FAA's own media as uncontrolled (https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/pilot_handbook/media/PHAK%20-%20Chapter%2014.pdf). The FAA may place rules upon flight in the area (such as remaining 500' away from any person, vessel, or vehicle in non-congested areas, per FAR Part 91.119), but it is uncontrolled.

    12. Re:As an amateur radio operator AND a pilot... by bongey · · Score: 1

      The FAA can say what they want, but the the Supreme Court will just slap them down hard again. The rules for drones is going strait to court, where the FAA will lose again.
      FYI the FAA has already tried similar rules in the past only to lose in court.
      You also need the difference between politically incorrect and racism.

    13. Re:As an amateur radio operator AND a pilot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The FAA can say what they want, but the the Supreme Court will just slap them down hard again.

      The SCOTUS has not slapped the FAA down. Feel free to provide a source if you disagree.

      >The rules for drones is going strait to court,

      Nothing is going strait[sic] to court. It takes someone with damages and standing to file a lawsuit.

      >where the FAA will lose again.

      Again you say "again". Please show where the FAA has lost. Feel free to provide a source.

      >FYI the FAA has already tried similar rules in the past only to lose in court.

      No. The FAA has not tried "similar rules". They had informal rules which an administrative judge told them they needed to go through the standard rulemaking process. That wasn't in "court" and they did not "lose". Instead they filed a NPRM and promulgated these rules and had the hearings and the required deadlines and now they are in effect.

      >You also need the difference between politically incorrect and racism.

      Did you perhaps mean to make that a sentence? I don't "need the difference" at all, whatever that means.

      I appreciate that you don't know what racism is, nor how regulations are promulgated in these United States.

      E

    14. Re:As an amateur radio operator AND a pilot... by bongey · · Score: 1

      United_States v Causby , wasn't the FAA then but the ruling is still legally binding to the FAA . This is going strait to court.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    15. Re:As an amateur radio operator AND a pilot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you'd be taken more seriously if you knew the difference between "strait" and what you think you are saying. Cheers.

    16. Re:As an amateur radio operator AND a pilot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the difference between a 'right' and a 'privilege'? Whatever the government says it is... making your whole spiel silly and pointless. As if their is some clear objective delineation between a right and a privilege. Same thing with your 'appeal to legality'. As if what is legal and illegal can't be changed on a dime.

      Practicality: making a database of people's names and address public is open to massive nefarious abuse (btw, your name and address shouldn't be public either)... now why are you in favor of nefarious abuse? Do you hate the drone operators that much? Maybe you see this as the beginning of the end of human pilots, i.e. you.

    17. Re:As an amateur radio operator AND a pilot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the government requires you to register, license, or charge you for something, it turns a right into a privilege.

    18. Re:As an amateur radio operator AND a pilot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you could answer the argument instead of nitpicking grammar and spelling issues. Cheers!

    19. Re:As an amateur radio operator AND a pilot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "However, the prohibition against future rulemaking is not a complete bar on
      rulemaking that may have an effect on model aircraft. As noted above, the rulemaking
      limitation applies only to rulemaking actions specifically “regarding a model aircraft or
      an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft.” P.L. 112-95, section 336(a). Thus, the
      rulemaking prohibition would not apply in the case of general rules that the FAA may
      issue or modify that apply to all aircraft, such as rules addressing the use of airspace (e.g.,
      the 2008 rule governing VFR operations in the Washington, DC area) for safety or
      security reasons. See 73 FR 46803. The statute does not require FAA to exempt model
      aircraft from those rules because those rules are not specifically regarding model aircraft."

      https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf

    20. Re:As an amateur radio operator AND a pilot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither being a private pilot of full-scale aircraft, nor operating a HAM radio, has huge swaths of the populace chomping at the bit for an excuse to threaten the operator, hurt them "in self defense of their privacy", or ignore every relevant law about how they choose to destroy that operators property.

      Even excluding online discussions (in which I've been threatened with violence a couple dozen times just for trying to bring the conversation back to rationality), I've been threatened twice in a public park while flying model airplanes, where people have been flying model airplanes since at least the 1950s, since people started getting paranoid about drones. It didn't matter to either of those people that my planes had no cameras, and were the model equivalent of an unlimited aerobatic plane - they just assumed I was filming their family in the park, and that despite them being the ones making threats, that I was the dangerous one. Any of those people would now be able to find out where I live, just because a bunch of people are paranoid that someone is going to start taking pics of them in the shower. All they'd need to do is take note of my tail number, and they can find out where I live with their phone.

  17. FAA just like FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice to know the FAA and the FCC share the same lack of privacy. It has always bothered me that the Amateur Radio database is public. You have to keep a current address on file or you risk losing your Amateur Radio license.

    It looks like the same will happen with the drone database.

    1. Re:FAA just like FCC by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      I see it as more like the requirement for GMRS and (previously) CB licenses. You're supposed to have an FCC license before using GMRS, and the application form comes in the box with the walkie-talkie (or at least it used to.) But how many people ever fill out those forms and send them in?

      Back when individual CB licenses were required, I'd be amazed if the compliance rate ever hit 1%.

  18. This isn't really that new... by TheCaptain · · Score: 1

    Licensed amateur radio operators have had a public database with the FCC since practically forever. This really isn't unprecedented.

  19. We don't have untraceable cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but you can't (in most states) look up a license plate number and get the driver's name and address. Only law enforcement can do that. If there's an incident where the info is needed, the cops take care of it. I'd be fine with drone registration working like that. The info shouldn't be public.

  20. Re:Everyone's supposed to follow immigration law, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's because wetbacks don't follow US laws.

  21. That law is old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The aircraft registry is public, both by civil law (23 CFR), and by ICAO treaties and conventions.

  22. The good ol NRA will put a stop to this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because it is a slippery slope from drone ownership to gun ownership

  23. Entertainment Possibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See drone.
    Determine where drone lives.
    Steal drone.
    Use stolen drone to fly across airport or White House lawn.
    Video the Swat team as they raid former home of drone.
    Youtube.
    Think of catchy name for drone swatting.

  24. Drone Industry by lionchild · · Score: 1

    I can't imagine that the Drone Industry is in favor of this move by the FAA, especially with the names and addresses being publicly available; (without the need for a FOIA request?) I don't know how much money there is in the industry, but they don't strike me as an inexpensive hobby. But, it seems this also covers those regular RC planes as well as what the average person might think of as a helicopter-style drone; so there are a couple of industries touched by this, actually.

    If this causes these two industries to plummet, I can imagine we'll see a good deal of push back from a newly formed lobby.

    --
    Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
  25. Accountability seems reasonable here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The idea here is to cause the operators to be responsible for their actions.

    This appears to be a hard concept for some folks,
    but disclosing identity seems a reasonable step towards being responsible for your actions.

    My airplane has a public registration with numbers big enough to see at a distance.
    The UAV that got too close for comfort did not.

    The FAA may be a bit ham-handed in disclosing what they are doing,
    but I don't see any reason this is unexpected or unreasonable.

    If the AMA wishes to merge their registration system so that their member's ID numbers work as well as the FAA's,
    then that's ok with me, as long as it does not remove the need for public disclosure.
    (It might be cheaper for us taxpayers to have the AMA do it instead of the FAA ;-)

    BTW, I think the registration should require the applicant to name the community organization (if any?) that they are drawing their flying rules from.

    Public disclosure is a good thing there. It reinforces the idea that flying can still be fun, but requires a bit of though and planning. These are good life lessons for anybody.

    1. Re:Accountability seems reasonable here by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      The idea here is to cause the operators to be responsible for their actions.

      No.

      The idea here is to discourage widespread public ownership & use of drones. This is but the first step.

      The US government understands very well the power drones give individuals in observing/recording what the government does not want publicized about what it does and does not do away from the prying eyes of civil rights activists and journalists.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  26. Time for ownership proxies as with private planes by RubberDogBone · · Score: 2

    Many private planes are "registered" to holding companies who act as proxies and trustees for purposes of liability or collateral or other things. So when you search an N-number, you get a bank or something, not the pilot's home address.

    So do the same thing for drones. $10 a year and your drone is owned by Wells Fargo or something. You merely lease it. They of course have a contract to give it back to you for a dollar to meet terms of sale. And thus you are shielded from having your name out there. Also provides a chance for the proxy to sell liability insurance, drone repairs and parts and other things.

    --
    Sig for hire.
  27. the facts speak for themselves. by gavron · · Score: 4, Informative

    You're confusing "uncontrolled" with "under nobody's control."

    Uncontrolled airspace (class G) means that it is not under ATC operations. See 14 CFR 91.126 (not 91.119 "Minimum safe altitudes").

    Further note explicitly 91.126(a)
    "Unless otherwise authorized or required, each person operating an aircraft on or in the vicinity of an airport in a Class G airspace area must comply with the requirements of this section." That's "must comply" not "optionally can choose to comply" or whatever. The use of this airspace is subject to FAA regulation and control.

    The FAA and its regulations are in full control of flight above ground in these United States. Uncontrolled airspace is airspace without direct Air-Traffic-Control facility control, not "outside FAA regulations, purvey, domain, nor control."

    That's from the ground up, not 400ft AGL, not 500ftAGL, not some small amount unless you lease them your airspace right of way...

    I guess I'm just not used to the attitude of "we can pretend the FAA has no power and do what we want because it pisses us off we have to register our UASs". Ultimately if you don't want to abide by the laws, that's your right. Making up ideas of why the FAA has no jurisdiction is just as nutty as those Sovereign Citizen people claiming the IRS is a hoax and that money they print is real.

    Res ipsa loquitur.

    Ehud

    1. Re:the facts speak for themselves. by bongey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      1) The FAA is violating the law pass by congress. FAA act of 2012 Sec 336 http://www.modelaircraft.org/f...
      2)The Supreme Court says they can't regulated it. United_States v Causby ruling is still legally binding to the FAA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      The law is not on the FAA side, this is going strait to court.

    2. Re:the facts speak for themselves. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Merry Christmas!

      May all your wishes come true!

      There is a Santy-Causby!

      E

    3. Re:the facts speak for themselves. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interestingly, the FAA itself seems to specifically agree with with the limitations placed on it by Sec 336 of the act:

      https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/...

      Pretty hard to justify the new 'drone' regulations in light of this.

    4. Re:the facts speak for themselves. by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      That's from the ground up, not 400ft AGL, not 500ftAGL, not some small amount unless you lease them your airspace right of way...

      Honest question here. Does a UAS like this one now require registration?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    5. Re:the facts speak for themselves. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah ... use the flashlight, find your head and pull it out of your ass...

      "However, the prohibition against future rulemaking is not a complete bar on
      rulemaking that may have an effect on model aircraft. As noted above, the rulemaking
      limitation applies only to rulemaking actions specifically “regarding a model aircraft or
      an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft.” P.L. 112-95, section 336(a). Thus, the
      rulemaking prohibition would not apply in the case of general rules that the FAA may
      issue or modify that apply to all aircraft, such as rules addressing the use of airspace (e.g.,
      the 2008 rule governing VFR operations in the Washington, DC area) for safety or
      security reasons. See 73 FR 46803. The statute does not require FAA to exempt model
      aircraft from those rules because those rules are not specifically regarding model aircraft."

      https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf

    6. Re:the facts speak for themselves. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Straight to court, huh? Let us know how that court case works out for you.

    7. Re:the facts speak for themselves. by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Unlikely, as I suspect most of them are under 250g.

    8. Re: the facts speak for themselves. by the_bard17 · · Score: 1

      The poster above my original post stated that the "FAA controls from the ground up." That implies it's controlled airspace. It's not, per the FAA's own media. Class G airspace may be regulated, but it is not controlled.

    9. Re:the facts speak for themselves. by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      So the ones that are not under 250g would require registration?
      Furthermore, attaching a 250g lead weight to any wind-up flying toy would trigger this registration requirement?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  28. Good! Thanks, FAA! by kheldan · · Score: 0

    They should not only publish it publicly, they should also have a mapping app on the same page, much like the sex offender registry uses, so you can put in your address and see on a map if there are any drone owners in your vicinity, so when someone violates your privacy with their drone, you'll know whose doors to go knocking on.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  29. Re:Time for ownership proxies as with private plan by EmagGeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At the same time, though, if you want to know if someone is a pilot, all you have to do is punch their name into the FAA's pilot certificate search tool, and it will tell you.

    Pilots do not have privacy with the FAA, and planes are not registered with holding companies for privacy purposes. It's all about taxes.

  30. Money Machine FAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now FAA has a real chance to become a global money making machine like ISIS.

    They publish names, ss numbers, back card numbers, credit card numbers and most importantly, mother maiden name of the loozer names. Now, FAA has chance, slim bet, to become BIG MONEY MOVER, Power, World, Kill Big Whitey, Kiss Barak BIG O.

    Ha ha

  31. No, weight officially excludes buoyancy by raymorris · · Score: 1

    The official standard defines weight as exclusive of buoyancy. Weight is the mass of the object multiplied by the local gravity divided by standard gravity. In other words, on earth at mean see level, the weight is equal to the mass.

    If buoyancy were included, ships and submarines would be weightless. As it is defined, ships weigh hundreds of thousands of pounds.

    1. Re:No, weight officially excludes buoyancy by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      If buoyancy were included, ships and submarines would be weightless. As it is defined, ships weigh hundreds of thousands of pounds.

      Last I checked, Subs don't float in the air, and airships, while being a thing, aren't the type of ship you are speaking of.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  32. and if not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The nefarious operators will of course not register their flying objects, making registration useless.
    Lawless people don't give a shit about the law. This registration only affects law abiding people.
    Guns are killing devices and not universally registered.
    Small flying objects are not "aircraft". FAA, get off our lawn.

  33. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully we can get the drone flying assholes out of the eco-system.

  34. Drone owners are treated like sex offenders now? by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I guess I see the similarities. Never mind. When are they going to do that with gun ownership?

  35. Tools by wodencafe · · Score: 1

    What's with all these pilots and HAM operators coming out of the woodworks to defend this?

    "They can violate my privacy online because I operate a multi-million dollar flying piece of machinery where many lives are at risk, therefore anyone operating an RC Toy that can hover in the air should be on the same list."

    1. Re:Tools by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What's with all these pilots and HAM operators coming out of the woodworks to defend this?

      Cognitive dissonance. Rather than realize that their requirements are undue (some of 'em, mind you) they come to tell us all about how we should grin and like it so that they can feel better about grabbing their own ankles.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  36. False Flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ooh! You're the kind of conspiracist(?) I like.

    Bob, that fucker, is finally going down. Fuck you Bob, you piece of shit. Enjoy your Gitmo vacay.

  37. Re:Time for ownership proxies as with private plan by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Many private planes are "registered" to holding companies who act as proxies and trustees for purposes of liability or collateral or other things. So when you search an N-number, you get a bank or something, not the pilot's home address.

    At the same time, though, if you want to know if someone is a pilot, all you have to do is punch their name into the FAA's pilot certificate search tool, and it will tell you.

    On one hand, yes, that information is public knowledge. On the other hand, we're talking about something different, turning a tail number into an identity and a home address. On the gripping hand, your UAV registration number doesn't have to be visible to anyone not holding your UAV. In fact, if your battery compartment doesn't require tools to open, you can put it in there.

    If they assign and/or allow long strings*, and the database isn't simply open but requires inputting an exact string**, then I'm not particularly worried. If they just let people browse the database, intentionally or effectively, I'm quite put out.

    * They've already said you're going to be able to use existing serial numbers, which often include letters.
    ** Perhaps case-insensitive

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  38. Yet no registration for Ultralights??? by clifwlkr · · Score: 1

    The bizarre thing is it is now more difficult to pilot a drone than actually fly a manned ultralight with 5 gallons of gasoline on it weighing in the hundreds of pounds. You can just build one and fly it with no training and no registration. Just head on up into the sky. I know, I built one and flew it for quite a bit. Yet now my drone means I have to register with them, because obviously that drone is much more of a danger to the sky compared to my full sized ultralight.

    Go figure. Gotta love the logic in government laws.

  39. Re:Time for ownership proxies as with private plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're missing the crucial layer of basic security inherent in searching the FAA website for someone. You have to know their name. If someone searches the tail number on my model airplane, they'll be GIVEN my name and address. With people already both threatening and perpetrating violence upon drone and model airplane owners, because of their paranoia about IMAGINED threats to their privacy, exposing every single model airplane owner to the possibility that irrational people (and there are THOUSANDS, if not millions, paranoid about private "drone" pilots) can track them down and do god knows what.

  40. no, they float in water, what's your point by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Ships and subs float in water, airships float in air, what is your point? Specifically, the float if the air / water they displace WEIGHS less than they do.

    You can have your own personal definition of weight if you want, but the rest of us refer to the international standards.

    1. Re:no, they float in water, what's your point by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      We are talking about the FAA and their registration requirements, so, unless submarines or ships are flying through the air, the FAA just doesn't care about them. You could claim that they are flying through the water, but it doesn't matter, FAA only cares about >500ft above the ground/water.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    2. Re:no, they float in water, what's your point by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Also, subs/ships are not weightless, as they aren't floating in the air, they are floating in the water which means their weight can easily be measured.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  41. ^H^H^H^H more by raymorris · · Score: 1

    The word "less" in the above post should obviously be replaced with "more".

  42. Ummm, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, public records are, guess what, public...

    If you've got a license of almost any kind, it can be retrieved. Usually for free on the web. Sometimes it's more challenging, but not by much. Driver's license, pilots license, radio licenses, car registrations, firearms registrations... That horse left the barn decades ago...

  43. No one will register anyway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's like those FRS radios they sell next to the RC helicopters. Requires FCC registration. I know hundreds of users who have never registered them, and many who do not know it's legally required. None were concerned when I told them. It will be the same with the new regs on RC helicopters. (drone is a word like assault rifle, that is mostly just name calling.)

  44. Re:Time for ownership proxies as with private plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or use a PO Box. Don't overthink it.

  45. Re:Everyone's supposed to follow immigration law, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Neither do a lot of American's are we parsing hairs?

  46. ffasygtt he's syfssssgrtIttt'hmy ftm hard dad ttrs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tyyt he tukttukttty

  47. When unregistered drones are outlawed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    only outlaws will have unregistered drones. This is so easy to get around it is sad. Just make up a number, or find one, much like car theives steal license plates to make stolen cars harder to detect. Or borrow the number of some innocent kid, and fly the drone anywhere you want, because the kid will get the blame. And don't get me started on homebuilts, which just like guns, will be impossible to trace! I predict that they will be issuing identity cards for operators to carry like a fishing license, and stickers to put on the drone, which will mean it will cost at least $20 a year. Not $5 once, but an annual fee to keep track of this. Then they will require a full registered title document, like I was recently required to get for my small 10 hp BOAT MOTOR! And annual fees for that. It is a slippery slope.

    1. Re:When unregistered drones are outlawed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what? If only outlaws can have them, they will be easier to track. The red tape will discourage ordinary citizens, which is good. People do not need drones. People need to realize there are rules in place and if everybody follows them and steps in line, nothing bad will happen. Conformity is safety.

  48. FAA FAQ #1 by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > FAA only cares about >500ft above the ground/water
    https://www.faa.gov/news/updat...

    Done making up your own "facts" yet? This may surprise you, but there other people than you. Weight was actually defined before you were even born. We don't need you to define it. You're not running the FAA either, so it's not necessary for you to make the rules. If you have an interest, you can READ what the rules actually are.

    1. Re:FAA FAQ #1 by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      What the hell does that have to do with the FAA being interested or not in subs and other water craft?

      FAA doesn't require certification of subs...because they don't fly.

      Also, subs are not weightless even when floating, or else they would float up into the sky.

      You are the one talking about the buoyancy of watercraft and trying to claim:

      If buoyancy were included, ships and submarines would be weightless. As it is defined, ships weigh hundreds of thousands of pounds.

      Even when floating, ships weigh a tremendous amount, they surely are not weightless or they would float off into the sky. They buoyancy only counteracts some of their weight, as they weigh less than water, but that hardly makes them weightless.

      So, care to correct the facts I responded to in my first reply?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    2. Re:FAA FAQ #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they're effectively weightless, that's why NASA trains astronauts in a big pool. Wow, you don't that, you don't know about piezoelectricity, time to put down the keyboard.

      Weightless doesn't mean negative weight, otherwise the ISS would be going further and further away.

      Stick to software, and please refrain from your input when you clearly have no fucking idea.

  49. SI units aren't opinions. air, oil, mercury, water by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > also, subs/ships are not weightless, as they aren't floating in the air, they are floating in the water which means their weight

    Ships can be in air, salt water, fresh water, oil, mercury, or ky jelly. They'll float in most of those materials. That simply does not change their height, volume, density, or weight.

    I understand you are if the opinion that weight -should- be relative to an equal volume of air at some unknown pressure, temperature, and humidity. However, the international scientific community didn't ask your opinion before they defined the gram. Maybe they SHOULD have asked your opinion, but they didn't. 1 gram weight is in fact defined as 1 gram mass X local gravity / standard gravity. Neither your opinion nor mine matters, a gram is what it is, whether you like it or not.

  50. Re:SI units aren't opinions. air, oil, mercury, wa by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    So, you seem to think that you get to define what weight it. SI doesn't define weight, physics does. In physics, weight is defined as:

    http://dictionary.reference.co...

    Physics. the force that gravitation exerts upon a body, equal to the mass of the body times the local acceleration of gravity: commonly taken, in a region of constant gravitational acceleration, as a measure of mass.

    The force being exerted on a boat or sub by gravity is not zero. The same amount of force is exerted on it if it is submerged, floating, or just sitting on the ground. However, the forces are in equilibrium, just as you standing on the ground are at equilibrium, and not sinking into the ground or floating away.

    A Sub weighs an enormous amount, it doesn't matter if it is floating, sinking, or sitting on the ground, it weighs the same on Earth to a certain percent. It however will weigh differently on Mars, Jupiter, or floating in space. Therefore, SI defined mass, which does not equal weight. Weight changes based on the local gravity field, but mass does not. This is why mass is measured with a scale comparing two items, while weight is measured versus a deformation. Weight can be measured in water just as in air, you just measure the amount of water displaced.

    I am glad you feel you can speak for the international scientific community, however, it seems that they don't agree with you. Weight is not equal to mass, it is defined based in Earth gravity for conversion, but that doesn't make them equal. Do you honestly expect things to weigh the same on the moon as Earth?

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  51. do you need me to explain "local gravity"? by raymorris · · Score: 1

    As I said:
    > weight is in fact defined as 1 gram mass X local gravity / standard gravity

    Are you having trouble understanding what "local gravity" means? Again, as I told you about three posts ago, at MSL on earth, 1 gram weight is DEFINED as 1 gram mass. That's the definition of the gram weight, whether you like it or not.

  52. Re:Time for ownership proxies as with private plan by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    Well, it's the same with cars. You can turn a license plate into an owner, but not a driver. You never know who is driving a car without snapping a photo, since anyone with a license can drive a car.

    It's the same with airplanes. There is never a guarantee that a plane's owner is the one acting as pilot in command on a particular flight. However, if the PIC has filed a flight plan, you can look that up easily and get that information.

    None of this diminishes my point, though, which is that ownership through clubs and holding companies has nothing to do with creating anonymity for pilots. Practical anonymity does not exist when it comes to flying. In fact, federal law even requires I show my pilot certificate to ANY law enforcement officer who asks for it, federal, state, or local, probable cause or not.

    So, when I get pulled over for speeding on the highway and the cop says "Hey let me see your pilot's license," I get weird looks when I show it to them as federal law requires.