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.
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
I think the key is Authorized operation of an aircraft. if it is doing illegal activity like filming your daughters then it was not authorized and should be taken down.
"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.
I have a bumper sticker which says "Authorized Vehicle." It lets me make u-turns on the highway.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
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
Filming his daughters is illegal? Who knew?
Yes officer, my wife authorized me to do the u-turn.
Cool, cant wait til you do that to the feds that show up to arrest your dumb ass.
"Authorized" operation. Authorized.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I've published some articles, making me an author. I think I'm authorized too.
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.
If someone peers over your fence and starts taking photos, you can't grab their camera and smash it. You have to report it to the police. Vigilantism isn't encouraged.
So I'm surprised anyone would think that destroying a drone would be okay. There is also the small issue that you don't own their airspace above your property, and can't stop aircraft/satellites flying over.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I think the key is Authorized operation of an aircraft. if it is doing illegal activity like filming your daughters then it was not authorized and should be taken down.
So, what if I 'protect' my property with a drone of my own? I could claim the invader is the aggressor, and therefor the felonious one.
If someone peers over your fence and starts taking photos, you can't grab their camera and smash it. .
If they enter your property with it, it may be allowed if you feel threatened.
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...
If you find a spy camera on your property, I find it hard to believe you would be charged for destroying it. I would do so without hesitation.
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
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.
As long as your daughters are not both underage and naked when being photographed, anyone are allowed to photograph them if there is a vantage point to zoom a camera from. See paparazzi.
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.
OK, his daughters can't be filmed? That leaves you.
Great idea for a game and movie.
No, it would be up to the police to document both crimes, and up to a court to dismiss one as he-said-she-said, while the other is backed up by clear evidence.
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?
"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
More likely you'll just go online and complain about it. I bet I could fuck your daughter right in front of you and you'd just be making hashtags on twitter about how it isn't fair and how you're 'totally going to get me' but never will.
and why we can't have cool things.
If your society functions only if there aren't two idiots in the world, then maybe you ought to fix it before someone trips over the power cord.
A burqa makes the trick as well and they can exercise.
Achille Talon
Hop!
You don't, so, stop the bullshit.
Achille Talon
Hop!
They just need to close the curtains.
Achille Talon
Hop!
Why would you destroy it? That's just destroying the most important piece of evidence you could give to the police, and diminishes the chances of catching the person who installed it.
I'd put some tape over it (or maybe the goats.cx guy), report it to the police and do what I can to trace the owner.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You'd be giving back to the police their own camera. Putting tape over it will probably be a crime soon...
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=-
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.
I'd destroy it so it would never be used again.
Unless that operator has a gun too, with him, thinks you're going to put his life in danger, and shoots you (even if merely to disable, and not to kill).
"unarmed office worker" What amazes me most is that there was an unarmed office worker in South Africa.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
There was one. Bet he ain't anymore.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
And the photographers story about how he was trying to document how you are into incest and sexually abusing your daughters? look the one has a bruise! He was simply thinking of the children and trying to rid the neighborhood of an evil person.
The bullshitting you try to pull in court can also be pulled on you in a worse way.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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!
Yep that will stop the bastards!
False. There's an expectation of privacy. I.e. Paparazzi shooting from the neighbour's balcony is just fine. Paparazzi climbing a tree, scaling a fence, or flying a drone into the air is invasion of privacy.
my story about a pedophile taking pictures of my young daughter.
So after beating down a potentially quite innocent person without being given either the presumption of innocence or a fair trial you're going to make up a story about him being a criminal and try and get him convicted in the process. .... And then claim a moral high ground.
The only sad thing about this is that it's too late to stop you passing on your DNA to another generation. Hopefully your young daughter doesn't grow up with such a retarded view of the world.
I was wondering about that as well. I have to wonder if they had been armed what difference it would have made. Highly doubtful they could have pulled iron and shot the damn thing quickly enough if they were to slow to even duck.
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
I like how you threw in that second comma for artistic effect...
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.
Do you not already have rules about discharging a firearm needlessly
No. We do have rules about discharging a firearm within city limits. You can only do it if something is savaging your livestock. Some cities permit the keeping of chickens, and in some of them, you can shoot something that's eating your chicken.
and without regard for persons or property?
Yes. That is very much illegal. You are legally obligated to know what is behind your target, and take it into account, for example.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Are there really that many of these people out there? I've yet to encounter any of them in real life, nor have I seen drones trying to spy on anyone in the neighborhood.
You should probably stop watching the news so much. The media tends to make people paranoid.
Ok, but in your scenario your rights to the airspace end at your property line. So what happens when your neighbor is flying above his property? Are you going to try to claim that airspace as yours as well?
Even if your paranoid assumption is correct, your girls would grow up with their father in prison. Is that what you want? Committing a crime in response to a crime does not get you out of the consequences of your actions. As the old saying goes, two wrongs do not make a right.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
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
There is also the small issue that you don't own their airspace above your property
It would seem that case law isn't in agreement. At least SCOTUS has indicated below 83ft is yours, and it ends somewhere at or below 500ft.
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
Just another day in Paradise
You clearly have zero understanding of the fatality rate for air vs. surface travel. Come back when you learn to google it before posting your BS.
Just another day in Paradise
It would appear that Congress passed a law allowing the FAA to regulate airspace. Is there some part of that you disagree with?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
Just another day in Paradise
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.
Nope. People just have an inflated sense of ego; a generation of everyone being a 'special snowflake' has caused them to believe they're the center of the universe, and everyone is just dying to record them going about their mundane lives.
[DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
They screw up anything that might be thought provoking as this would be counterproductive to making you stupid, unfortunate they screw up anything sporting in that process.
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 the accuse, under the counsel of his lawyer, will choose a judge over a jury. And your 7+ emotional, rational and easily manipulated cunts will be no more. Enjoy prison you filthy closet paedophile. Why don't you keep your kids under a burka, or lock them in the basement. So they can be yours, and yours alone, forever!
The AC has a point. After reading this link, the point is general aviation, specifically aircraft marked 'experimental.' This is typically home-built, antique, etc. aircraft not suitable for passengers etc. But they can still fall on bystanders, which is exactly what happened here.
The accident rate is actually shockingly high. This is not at all comparable to commercial airliner travel, which is what I assume you are insinuating.
http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_s...
Manned aircraft: sounds reasonable. Section (a)(2) right at the top refers to the navigation of US citizens in aircraft.
This law appears to have a date of 1994. RC type of 'aircraft' did exist, and this particular law makes no reference to such specifically. Where is the the definition of 'aircraft' to include nearly anything man-made that isn't tethered to the earth? How are we to assume the definition of 'airspace' includes below tree-top level, and all the way down to 1mm off the grass, which is what the FAA seems to be attempting.
Should I tell my 3 year old son to stop jumping out in the yard for fear his exuberance will lead to a requirement of registering with the FAA?
The birds too, those little suckers have been 'undocumented' for years...
Read the paragraph below. It talks about "use of airspace". That doesn't exclude anything.
The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. The Administrator may modify or revoke an assignment when required in the public interest.
The Supreme Court has previously ruled on the ownership of airspace above property. When your 3 year old can jump high enough to inhibit the "safety of aircraft", then you should worry. That and your bird comment were both a bit childish.
Just another day in Paradise
"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?
Don't waste a perfectly good camera -- sell it.
--
Government is force, like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.
I'll take my chances with 7+ women jurors on average and my story about a pedophile taking pictures of my young daughter. Legal and moral do not always coincide.
Meanwhile the photographer will be winning a libel suit against your claims they're a pedophile which will rather complicate your defense against the assault charge.
Where do you live? I'll pop over and photograph your daughters. I like photographing children, it's legal and people like the photographs when I share them on the internet.
Yes, I agree my examples were absurd. I brainstorm the most absurd extremes when reading/writing specifications or code as a form of due-diligence to determine if a definition lacks specificity or not. I annoy a lot of people.
I'm honest in saying I don't understand what is included or excluded here. To split hairs, what is the definition of 'navigable airspace'?
Then again, I'm glad this guy wasn't jumping:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
When in season!
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
GA _is_ far more dangerous than road travel. According to this analysis, it is nearly 9 times so on a per-mile basis:
http://www.meretrix.com/~harry...
(even if merely to disable, and not to kill).
Not likely. At least in my state, you're in heaps more trouble if you shoot to injure rather than kill, as it undermines the "imminent threat" defense. If that operator has a gun and is any good with it, the OP will be dead, dead, dead.
http://undecidedgames.blogspot.com
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
Shooting someone on their own property doesn't sound like a wise choice.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?