Slashdot Mirror
Drone-Shooting is Now a Federal Crime, FAA Confirms (slate.com)
An anonymous reader writes: At least 12 different drones have been shot from the sky in the United States, including drone shootings in Arkansas, Oklahoma, Virginia, Kentucky, and New Jersey. Now the FAA is confirming that drone shooting is a federal offense, citing regulations against aircraft sabotage. An aviation attorney (teaching drone law at New York's Vaughn College of Aeonautics) tells Forbes this means penalties of up to 20 years in prison for interfering with the "authorized" operation of an aircraft, while threatening a drone or a drone operator would also be a federal crime subject to five years in prison.
Slate notes that "This is bad news if you were planning to invest in the DroneDefender, a goofy-looking gun that promised to disrupt intrusive drones by bombarding them 'with radio waves that disrupt [their] remote control and GPS signals'." And Popular Science adds that "It also poses a complication for some local and state laws, like Utah's proposed HB 420, which would let police shoot down drones in emergency situations." Meanwhile, police in the Netherlands are actually training eagles to attack drones. And last week in South Africa, a drone crashed through the window of an office building and hit an unarmed office worker on the head.
Slate notes that "This is bad news if you were planning to invest in the DroneDefender, a goofy-looking gun that promised to disrupt intrusive drones by bombarding them 'with radio waves that disrupt [their] remote control and GPS signals'." And Popular Science adds that "It also poses a complication for some local and state laws, like Utah's proposed HB 420, which would let police shoot down drones in emergency situations." Meanwhile, police in the Netherlands are actually training eagles to attack drones. And last week in South Africa, a drone crashed through the window of an office building and hit an unarmed office worker on the head.
The FCC rules and regulations have long held it illegal to destroy hamateur radio equipment, so this doesn't surprise me.
slashdot: A failed experiment.
That's the end of that, now isn't it!
It will be interesting to see how courts rule on the intersection between state laws which were passed by the legislature and explicitly address the situation and FCC regulations which are an interpretation of laws which were written before the situation existed.
Considering it took the FAA this long to come to this conclusion, I believe that judges should take a careful look at the logic they used in reaching their decision before agreeing with them. That being said, I would need to spend more time than I care to at this time to determine if the laws support the FAA or not.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Anyone hovering a drone over my property will find it losing its anti-gravity mechanism very soon, and then being smashed to bits. As far as I'm concerned whoever is controlling it is a paedophile spying on my young daughters.
If your're a neighbor whizzing over the gardens, you're okay. Stopping it to point a camera is not. I will fucking smash your device and report you to the police and media as a sex predator.
Is it standard in south africa that office workers are armed ?
I can only assume this person is missing two upper limbs in the current context...
"and hit an unarmed office worker on the head."
I wonder if he was "unharmed" after that...
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Film my daughter sunbathing and I'll shoot it down then beat the fuck out of the operator with his broken toy when he goes to confront me about it.
The wealthy feds run a better, more controlled, outfit than your average budget stricken State-funded penitentiary; although in the US they've pretty much done away with parole, so there's no early out like in an overcrowded State system.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
The ffa needs to worry more about the senseless deaths caused on a almost daily basis by real aircraft. This shit about drones is a joke. We need to ban joy ridding in military grade death traps http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/apr/02/crash-airplane-car-interstae-fallbrook/
We need common sense laws to keep us safe from the evil aircraft.
In south Africa are armed.
"Authorized" operation. Authorized.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Ah, so they are confirming, that it always has been a crime.
The title: "Drone-Shooting is Now a Federal Crime," — could've lead someone to believe, a part of the Executive-branch has written a law. Not that they haven't been doing so de facto before, but dropping the pretense and doing it de jure would've been a new low...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Great. Now i can record people having sex or getting naked in their homes without a jiff.
They can't shoot down my drone because it's a crime.
They can't bitch about my drone intruding their privacy, because it's filming from a public spot like that YouTube camera-man who goes around filming random people because he finds it funny.
Can't wait.
Great. The FAA just granted complete immunity to 5 divisions worth of greasy, neckbeard perverts to voyeuristicly stalk and menace neighbourhoods up and down the breadth of America. Oh, did I say America? I mean the whole fucking world due to the influence of FAA regulations.
And we can't even so much a chew out these autistic an-children when their master-race spy-bots fly over or into our property for the umteenth time to photograph our children, washing, and cats for internet kicks. They can literally sit in their vans jerking off to drone feeds and posting us to masterchan forums and all with the FAAs blessing and aegis.
No I don't care about your drone business, or actual photography services, or your kids projects. Your drone uses are in the tiny minority. The autists, spergs, belligerent masses of idle geekdom outnumber you twenty to one. Drones are $900 now and these people are employed and universally single. You're like the chronic pain patients addicted to opiate medication, sympathetic, but statistically irrelevant to the heroin issue as a whole.
To a first order approximation, drone operators are assholes. The FAA has just supercharged them. So bring on the backlash; Drones will be illegal outright within ten years.
First, don't you love the way the nation's bureaucrats just make up laws as they go along?
Second, Shooting down drones is obviously something the States are incapable of handling on their own. Don't you love the way the elites look down at you and say, "we know best"?
Meanwhile, police in the Netherlands are actually training eagles to attack drones. And last week in South Africa, a drone crashed through the window of an office building and hit an unarmed office worker on the head.
I suppose FAA has no authority in Netherlands, nor in South Africa. So, how relevant is this to the subject?
Achille Talon
Hop!
"Sorry, officer, but I was just legally flying a kite over my own property, and the drone just smashed right into it."
You could possibly have a decent defense by referring to sailing versus powered ships...
Betcha this is one of those laws that everybody is going to just ignore, like jaywalking or littering. Besides I don't see how it is practically evforceable.
C|N>K
Under 49 USC section 56501, the "special aircraft jurisdiction" of the United States only includes certain "aircraft in flight", and "aircraft in flight" is defined to mean "an aircraft from the moment all external doors are closed following boarding". If there is no boarding of the aircraft, the external doors can't be closed following such boarding, and the aircraft is never legally in flight.
While the particular statute the FAA relies on -- 18 USC section 32 -- also includes "any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce" (in addition to aircraft in the "special aircraft jurisdiction" of the US), the rule of lenity would make it hard to convict someone criminally unless the drone was currently being used in such non-intra-state commerce.
Let the harassment begin.
Everyone's a criminal in the Feds eyes, pay you taxes and be a good drone or they'll find some law to punish you.
And last week in South Africa, a drone crashed through the window of an office building and hit an unarmed office worker on the head.
Are office workers in South Africa armed by default?
I always though that a "craft" was something that carried passengers. So, a hot-air balloon is a "craft" but a weather balloon or party balloon is not. A tour boat is a "water craft" but a buoy is not. I think the FAA is overreaching here.
"It also poses a complication for some local and state laws, like Utah's proposed HB 420, which would let police shoot down drones in emergency situations
Why would this be complicated? Police shoot down humans and get away with it all the time
He could have swatted the drone away from his head.
love is just extroverted narcissism
The Federal Government is corrupting technology again! A small drone is NOT an aircraft! It is a spying device! You would call the cops if somebody with a large zoom lens would take pictures of you & your family right? Invasion of your privacy & they would be arrested! So registering drones does not make them a Boeing!!!
If seen in my backyard they will be shot down. We will go to court & argue that an FAA regulation is NOT a law, never voted by Congress.
Based on this post, DroneDefender never sounds like it had a legal chance. Even in the unlicensed spectrum, it's illegal to intentionally cause interference.
1) Why is interfering with drone operation below the altitude that manned air travel exists, within state boundaries, even within the purview of the federal government? This is clearly a states issue. The FAA already defined a 400 ft ceiling for drone usage and no-fly zones to prevent interference with manned air travel.
2) Why cannot individuals defend their privacy on their own property? If gun operation is allowed on their property normally, why is firing their gun at an intruder any more "reckless" than clay target practice?
3) Why are we talking about a 5 or 20 year JAIL sentence? Do they realize how much damage incarcerating people does to society and individual's lives? A felony and 5 year jail sentence can wreck entire lives. How is this appropriate for disrupting drone operation, especially over one's own property?
4) Why is someone shooting a drone on their property different than shooting an unoccupied vehicle trespassing on their property? These cases should be simply prosecuted under existing "destruction of property" statutes, which should not be felonies, and should not have multiple-year jail sentences.
Note: I fly RC aircraft.
-=Lothsahn=-
There wouldn't be a need to shoot down drones if they didn't go where they didn't belong.
This is yet another example of a Federal agency going off half-cocked in an effort to extend itself rather than to make any improvement for We the People.
"Drones" are a hot topic so the smell of budget allocations is in the cesspool. If drones are not 'aircraft' then the FAA has no excuse to meddle with them. So, drones must be aircraft. FCC is already in the hunt because radio. Wonder which agency will be next to stake a claim: BATF, maybe?
This issue is analogous to the morons shining laser pointers at pilots. Legislation doesn't stop them any more than laws stop criminals from committing crimes. None of this is about making improvements, it is just about agencies growing and getting more money.
Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
what does it matter if the office worker wasn't bearing weapons, also, why would it matter if it was truly an office worker without arms?
They should make it illegal to fly a drone over someone's property, less than 1,000 ft, without their permission.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Okay, FAA, if you're going to treat drones, legally-speaking, the same way you do all other aircraft? Then there has to be an even-handed approach to regulating them. They'll have to have a unique identification/registration number on them, so that assholes who are using them to spy on people and otherwise invade their privacy can be tracked down and prosecuted. There has to be strict rules about when and where you can fly them, with stiff penalties for drone operators that violate them. For any drone that is more than literally a child's toy (that can't fly more than a few tens of feet away from the remote control) there needs to be a requirement of being legally an adult, there needs to be a requirement for extensive education and training in the piloting and use of the drone, including testing to ensure drone operators are competent and responsible, and there needs to be a requirement for insurance against property damage and bodily harm potentially caused by a drone. If the drone in question is above a certain size, then it needs to contain a transponder, like all full-size aircraft, so that it shows up on traffic control radar, and possibly there needs to be an override available for use by air traffic control so they can remove drones from their airspace in case of irresponsible operation of a drone, or in case of emergencies.
Now I brace for all the drone-yahoos who are going to scream and cry and stamp their feet, insult me, send me death threats, moderate me down as a troll, etcetera etcetera etcetera, and my response to all that is the same as it's always been: If 100% of you people with your drone-toys had been responsible and reasonable with them 100% of the time all the way back since the first ones were available, then none of this government involvement would have happened in the first place, and I wouldn't be posting my opinions of how you and your drone-toys should be handled, officially-speaking. Tough shit for you, suck it up, and if you want to beat on someone for your little drone-toy hobby being 'ruined', then go find one of the assholes who did stupid shit with them and brought all this down on your shoulders; I don't have a drone, don't want a drone, don't even want them around to start with, and don't give a fuck if your little hobby is ruined or not, STFU.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Not being funny, but not being an American:
Do you not already have rules about discharging a firearm needlessly and without regard for persons or property?
Such a funny country.
There are some problems here. Not everyone running drones has registered per the FAA rulings.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2013/07/photographer_george_steinmetz_arrest_how_much_airspace_do_you_own.html
There is reference to someone flying at 80 feet violating another person's property.
What if the drone's 20 feet off the ground?
What if the drone's right outside your bedroom window?
Can the police do this without getting a warrant?
Does the right to privacy trump the FAA/drones?
This problem isn't going away anytime soon. Reality is going to hit regulations like a brick through a window. Full-sized aircraft couldn't practically fly low for continuous period of time due to navigation hazards and whatnot. (It would also be easy to track down violators since they register flight plans, have visible markings, and such. How they going to track down thousands/millions of drone operators?)
The courts are going to have a field day.
Now rather than killing a drone, it makes more sense to kill the drone operator as you'll get a lighter sentence.
Also, murder is not a federal crime except for a few specific cases which this does not fall under. So all around, it's a win-win!
Not to mention if you bring down drone the operator can report you, but if you bring down the operator you are more likely to get away with it.
Not that if you do go after a drone operator, make sure you kill them after they bring the drone back in or otherwise you could technically be charged with disrupting the "pilot" of an aircraft in flight. Plus, free drone!
Thanks to the FCC for bringing about rules that make more sense to end human life than mechanical... bang-up job there.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
All states and jurisdictions also support trespassing laws. How do they play into this discussion? Is contact with the ground required? I don't think so. The FAA is asking too much in requiring my faith that any drone over my property is there for some legal and beneficial reason. Citizens must be given some recourse to challenge the legitimacy of any drone. Legal experts care to comment?
Every change is not progress, but there is no progress without change.
Why don't they sell them outside US? Many countries don't have rules similar to this new FAA regulation so it would be legal to market the weapon on many markets.
What does this mean? Considering that 6 months ago, the FAA was hysterical because there was so many drones airborne that actual aircraft were grounded, this is hypocritical double standard. Is an aircraft authorized if it is committing a crime, or certain crimes? eg. Out of its flight zone/path, trespass (legal minefield), stalking or peeping tom, harassing people/aircraft, firing a weapon? What rights do individual have to prevent being victimized? There's no way any school or workplace will allow every pedophile/stalker to operate a drone with immunity, which is what the FAA is promising. This needs clarification.
If you own your own drone, and fly it above your land every day up to 400 feet, you own the airspace to 400 feet and can protect it.
Another interesting thought - if your drone crashes into another drone but it's over your land, why is the OTHER person flying the drone not technically at fault for interfering with an aircraft? It makes anti-drone drones all the more appealing as it magnifies the possible harm to someone flying a drone over your land.
Dumb systems - made to be gamed since the dawn of time.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
To throw a roll of toilet paper at it?
How about a Frisbee?
Because the easiest way to destroy a big expensive drone is with a small cheap one, and who is going to be able to prove is was not an accident? On the right day you could even take one out with a child's kite.
If they were regulated like manned aircraft they would likely fall under the helicopter regulations which basically state that there isn't an arbitrary minimum, rather that they must be operated without undue hazard to persons or property.
"And last week in South Africa, a drone crashed through the window of an office building and hit an unarmed office worker on the head."
Are South African office workers armed frequently enough to require a distinction?
It it flies over my property, I take it as an invasion.
If the secret service shoots it down they arrest themselves?
... that it doesn't understand the laws of the land (or, like many other federal agencies, assumes it is above the law).
The highest law in the land is the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights is open-ended, with any rights the people might want to assert as "retained by them" (9th Amendment), and "reserved to them" (10th Amendment).
The right to reasonable conduct arises under the 9th Amendment.
There are circumstances under which it is reasonable to take a drone out of the air.
For example, if the teen-age kid next door is taking pictures of one's daughters using a drone, and the property is large enough that the drone can be taken down safely, then it is clearly and undeniably reasonable to do so, and hence protected by the Bill of Rights.
The right to ethical practice of law also arises under the 9th Amendment. Excessive laws, or laws that interfere with any form of reasonable conduct, are illegal laws. Further, no law can be written in such a way as to give the impression that it can be enforced by the police, or prosecutors, or judges, in any way that leads to a violation in fundamental rights, nor it can any legal professional allow a law to be so enforced: that, in and of itself, is unethical practice of law.
In short, the FAA's position has no legal validity in general.
There are no doubt specific situations where it can and should be a crime to interfere with such aircraft, but if the law is written and implemented in a competent manner, those situations will never involve ordinary people with reasonable judgement.
Once again, we come to the fundamental truth that the government is NOT above the law. Any laws, orders, or precedents to the contrary are illegal.
If any person practicing law in the United States in unhappy with the statements made here, they are welcome to move to another country. Otherwise, their oaths compel appropriate behavior (including disavowing this statement by the FAA, which is incorrect and misleading and will doubtless lead to illegal violations of fundamental rights, something that would of course create increased demand for the services of legal professionals, thus making this a legal ethics problem).
When in season!
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
a drone crashed through the window of an office building and hit an unarmed office worker on the head.
Does any regularly interact with "armed office workers", because that could make deciding which project gets done more interesting.
Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei