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.'"
The whole site is just a cesspool of clickbait...
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."
The magic number is 249 grams. If your drone weighs more, you get to be on the list.
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.
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
in most places your Tax Bill is public record. so this just follows.
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.
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.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
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.
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...
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
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)
Licensed amateur radio operators have had a public database with the FCC since practically forever. This really isn't unprecedented.
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%.
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.]
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, I guess I see the similarities. Never mind. When are they going to do that with gun ownership?
It's been tried, after this was done there was a rise in firearm thefts.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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."
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.
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.'"
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.
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.
The word "less" in the above post should obviously be replaced with "more".
> 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.
> 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.
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?
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.
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.