The Trump Administration Wants To Be Able To Track and Hack Your Drone (fastcompany.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: The Trump administration wants federal agencies to be able to track, hack, or even destroy drones that pose a threat to law enforcement and public safety operations, The New York Times reports. A proposed law, if passed by Congress, would let the government take down unmanned aircraft posing a danger to firefighting and search-and-rescue missions, prison operations, or "authorized protection of a person." The government will be required to respect "privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties" when exercising that power, the draft bill says. But records of anti-drone actions would be exempt from public disclosure under freedom of information laws, and people's right to sue over damaged and seized drones would be limited, according to the text of the proposal published by the Times. The administration, which would not comment on the proposal, scheduled a classified briefing on Wednesday for congressional staff members to discuss the issue.

Comments

Okay...

[Kierthos]

Look, I loathe most everything that the Trump administration has done thus far, but as written, this doesn't sound too bad.

If some moron is hindering fire-fighting operations with a drone, then yes, there should be ways to deal with it without having to worry about the drone owner threatening a lawsuit.

Now, I object to to the records of such anti-drone activities being exempt from freedom of information laws.

Re:Okay...

[rtb61]

Oh yeah, because super hackable drones that can be taken over by anyone at any time are a great idea. I mean no criminal hacker would hack that drone first, in mid air, secure it from hacking and then fly it at the head of the target, leaving the owner of the drone to blame and the incompetent police left looking like idiots. Why, oh, why, does it need to be explained to computer illiterate types why computers should not be super hackable, why back doors are a disaster waiting to happen (take note of two recent major attacks that can all be tied to the wilful criminal negligence and incompetence of the NSA and CIA).

The delusion of power the ignorant think they will have controlling everyone's computer will soon evaporate when someone else hacks control and turns those device on the authorities. The craziness of it all, it will happen, it is guaranteed to happen, uses devices for authoritarian control and those devices will be turned against their masters, a guaranteed probability over time outcome.

Which is all fine (mostly)

[Known Nutter]

Take down drones that endanger firefighting and prison operations, sure. The problems start when undefined weasel-words like "authorized protection of a person" are used and rights of citizens are curtailed or eliminated. Clandestine hearings and elimination of FOIA for the program do not help matters. You just don't need all that secrecy to take down a drone over a fire or prison.

Re:Which is all fine (mostly)

[Anonymous Coward]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Re:Which is all fine (mostly)

[Kierthos]

"Anything not proscribed is permitted."

Basically, we have the right to do anything without fear of legal repercussions, where there is no law prohibiting it.

Want to have 100 pink plastic flamingos in your front yard? There's no law against it. (HOA regulations, maybe.)

Want to cover your car (sans windshield) in Christmas lights? There's no law against it.

Want to fly a remote-controlled drone? There's no law against it. Except where prohibited by law.

That's the point here. This law would say "You can't fly drones where it would interfere with these activities." But you currently have the right to fly a drone anywhere that it isn't currently prohibited (say, over military bases), because that's how this works.

Re:Which is all fine (mostly)

[Calydor]

Does the constitution specifically grant you a right to breathe air?

Re:Which is all fine (mostly)

[bobbied]

Jesus christ, don't start with that bullshit. What right do you have to clean water? I don't see that in the constitution.

You don't have a right to clean water then....

Actually, in all seriousness, the US constitution only defines the rights the government may not infringe and/or must protect. Other rights exist but they are NOT within the preview of the government to insure or protect. For instance, the individual's right to "pursue happiness" is a given, but the government is NOT responsible to ensure your happiness should you be unhappy with your life..

Re:Which is all fine (mostly)

[GLMDesigns]

The Constitution enumerates the powers delegated to the Federal Government. If not enumerated the US Government does not have the authority (according to the US Constitution) to act. The Government can, under due process, deny you access to air but it does not grant you the right. The right is yours as a human being (or from God if you're so inclined).

Makes sense... if it weren't secret.

[XXongo]

I don't mind the idea of public authorities being able to take down drones that are behaving dangerously or interfering with firefighting or rescue missions. The part about "records of anti-drone actions would be exempt from public disclosure under freedom of information laws, and people's right to sue over damaged and seized drones would be limited," on the other hand, bothers me a bit.

I like to know that the government is doing, and if they're saying that they're protecting public safety, they shouldn't mind telling us what they did and why.

Re:Makes sense... if it weren't secret.

[AnalogDiehard]

Terrorists have already used drones as IEDs in the middle east war arena to attack troops and bases. It is well known that they exploit public disclosure to improve their destructive techniques. The US military knows too well that you don't disclose tactics to the enemy. I'm no fan of gun control but drones bent on terrorist objectives are so covert that they should have a "kill" switch, so I find it hard to dispute the government's position of classifying records.

Re:Makes sense... if it weren't secret.

[Pascoea]

Yup, if records are open to inspection then I'd normally 100% agree, but this article is pretty scant on details. I didn't buy my UAV from a vendor, I put it together with COTS parts. Will this require me to purchase, install, and support a "Government Interface" that will allow them to track and take over my UAV at their will? Or does it just authorize them to use one of their fancy "drone cannons" (as pictured in the article) to overwhelm my device causing it to crash? One of those things I am perfectly OK with, the other I would need a bit more detail on. Either way, they shouldn't be able to do it in secret.

Re:Makes sense... if it weren't secret.

[rahvin112]

The first rule of Democracy is that you never trust the government when they say "Trust us".

I don't trust the government to use a power to seize and destroy private property without full disclosure of how, why and when it's occurring. I'm not going to sell my rights down the river because some jackass halfway around the world strapped a bomb to a UAV.

Re:Makes sense... if it weren't secret.

[Anonymous Coward]

Terrorists have already used drones as IEDs in the middle east war arena to attack troops and bases.

True, but there are BIG differences between a drone IED, a drone menacing a firefighting operation, and a drone shot down because the cops think it might have been photographing them murdering some minority homeless guy. The courts, not law enforcement, should determine what is exempt from public disclosure on a case-by-case basis.

Re:Huh

[Desler]

Maybe the fact that they want to hide all records from the public?

That's not suspicious in the least! /sarcasm

I don't think anybody here is fooled

[hyades1]

When all the weasel words are taken into account, it quickly becomes obvious that this means, "Drones making video of police beating or killing civilians will be taken down, and you can try to get the wreckage back by talking to one of our tame judges."

Re:Makes sense.

[DickBreath]

It does NOT fully make sense.

On the one hand, I can understand tracking, hacking or destroying your drone for public safety. Like firefighters. Ambulances. Rescue operations, etc.

On the other hand, it seems that it would be be STRONGLY in the interests of public safety to NOT let law enforcement interfere with the operation of drones. If they don't like the public distrust, they brought it on themselves. All of them. They either were the "bad apples", or the ones who would protect the bad apples.

Re:Huh

[Archangel Michael]

You mean, like Hillary's email? Like that?

Re:Makes sense.

[ColdWetDog]

Sure, works for alcohol, tobacco and firearms, right?

Re:Huh

[ColdWetDog]

Some of Trump's broad based 'philosophies' are fine - limited government, closing loopholes on immigration, balancing the budget, personal freedoms, etc.

Virtually all of the Trump Administrations attempts at actually creating functional legislation, OTOH have been pitiful disasters. And then there is the little issue of 360 degree changes in viewpoint depending on who last rubbed his ego. So yeah, some sort of coherent legislation concerning rogue UAVs is fine. I rather suspect, however, that the actual rules will be an incomprehensible, reprehensible mess.

Re:Huh

[HornWumpus]

'360 degree changes in viewpoint'...you are a moron...just for the record.

Re:EVVVIIIILLLL Trump!

[acrimonious howard]

Why is it that every other headline is TRUMP DOES BAD THING instead of tech news headlines?

This is about drones, the law, and the leader who's administration brought forth that law. The exact same headline would have happened if Obama had pushed this.

None of the editors ever pointed a finger at Obama ripping the country apart

I remember in 2008 my relatives promised me civil war, utter stock market annihilation, the literal death of the country if the black guy won. Then when it didn't happen, and everyone predicted the same thing again in 2012! And yet the opposite happened both times, the country boringly kept steadily improving the entire time he was in office. Is there ever going to be an apology? Nope, just more gasping hyperbole without demonstrable evidence or citations I guess. You want to compare them? Before Obama, people always said the market was above all the most important stat, let's start with that one.

Re: Huh

[HornWumpus]

Keep, 'turning that ship, 360 degrees'.

When you see it, you will kick yourself as the moron that you are.