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.
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 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
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.
"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.
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.
A burqa makes the trick as well and they can exercise.
Achille Talon
Hop!
No, but USA ones are and they might be confused as to why the office worker didn't just shoot it unless they mentioned that.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.