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.
He is all about deregulation. For corporations.
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.
I'm sure the terrorists will register their home-brew drone-bombs like they registered to fly airliners before 9/11.
This isn't about terrorism, foreign or domestic, nor about safety.
This is purely government frightened that individuals with video/camera drones will expose their wrongdoing for all to see. ^That^ right there frightens them FAR more than all the crazy fringe groups and ISIS terrorists because "...can't stop the signal, Mal."
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Is a $10 Chinese quadcopter a drone? TFA doesn't explain what it is.
Well, the point of worry here is...that this was snuck through attached to another bill, and no one noticed before it was too late.
The time to petition and call legislators to protest over this was BEFORE this new law was snuck through.
The federal govt has no reason to know I have a drone. As long as I fly it legally, they have no need to know of my property.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Show of hands: Who here believes Trump knows what the fuck he's signing? Seriously.
You are welcome on my lawn.
At least it was a legitimate process this time. So much of what Obama did was regulatory fiat or abuse of executive power; no legislative process, no legitimacy. Trump has had a field day wiping out years that crap. This is a law, voted on by law makers. Unless the courts have an issue with it then it's not subject to whomever happens to get elected president next time or who gets appointed to run the FAA.
Net Neutrality is another example if this fake governance. If Google and friends want their views to prevail they can take it to Congress and find some time (and money) for a few Republicans and maybe indulge their Valley Values politics a bit less. Wouldn't that be nice.
As for this law itself; well, I'm never happy to see yet another license and another fee. The added friction could be a benefit in that it segregates the "drone" market into that which requires a registration and the toys; perhaps the chuckleheads the lack the necessary judgement not to cause an incident with their drone will be inclined to stick with the toy sized stuff.
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.
Not just technically. He flat-out hasn't built that wall. All that exists are a handful of exorbitantly priced prototypes, and the existing border fence.
The wall is just not going to happen. Almost all of the cost estimates are ludicrously low-balled. And the most realistic of the lot barely covers materials; omitting:
1) Labor: You need to find lots of people willing to move to, and work in, some of the most miserably hot and middle-of-nowhere parts of the southwestern desert states. And the companies employing that labor have to sacrifice any future business in, at the very least, California; the richest and most populous state in the US. California is especially profitable for construction firms; since everything has to be built to earthquake spec. That's a lot of potential profits to be asked to sacrifice. Plus, a few other states, and a good number of cities as well, are also working on laws banning any company that works on the border wall from bidding on government contracts. So 45 is going to have to pay a premium and princely sum for that labor.
2) Logistics: You have to get those aforementioned materials and people to the construction sites. The people have to be fed, sheltered, and amused. And it's not like you can pour the concrete in El Paso and truck it 8 hours somewhere. Concrete plants will need to be built in situ; adding to the expense. Oh, and you'll need to build roads to many of the construction sites as well.
3) Legalities: A lot of people, across four states, three federal circuit courts (Including, yes, the 9th.), and who knows how many counties, are going to fight the wall. Exempting the law from EIRs has been bandied about already. But you can bet that expensive and time-consuming lawsuits will ensue if 45 tries. And quite a lot of the land needed for the wall, worker housing and support, and roads and such, is private property. The mucilaginous morass of eminent domain suits alone brings a gleeful giggle to my throat. And it won't just be Cards Against Humanity's xmas project to buy land specifically for the purpose. It won't just be liberals either. Do you think for a second that ornery southwestern, and especially Texan and "sovereign citizen", rancher types are going to take kindly to the feds stomping in and taking their land from them? Hell, 45 will be fortunate if they ONLY fight back with expensive and time-consuming lawsuits. Remember, those Bundy peoples' feuding with the federal government didn't start with Obama. They've been at it since Bush #1.
Oh, and congress still has to allocate the money for the wall... not the fantasy-land sums 45 and his people have tossed around, but the real costs taking into account all of the above. You can take it to the bank that if the Democrats take either house in 2018, that's just not going to happen. And even a good number of republicans are ambivalent about the wall. It's a boondoggle that's going to waste a fantastic amount of money for no benefit; so any that genuinely believe in fiscal responsibility or small government are out. Some of them represent districts that will contain those soon-to-be-pissed-off victims of eminent domain attacks. And hispanics are still the fastest growing demographic in the US. I imagine at least a few republicans will look at what happened in California when former governor Pete Wilson decided to hitch his wagon to the "How I hate the Mexicans, let me count the 187 ways." train.
Imagine all the people...
At least it was a legitimate process this time. So much of what Obama did was regulatory fiat or abuse of executive power; no legislative process, no legitimacy.
Are you banging on "Obama is bad for signing so many executive orders despite signing fewer than the Republican president before him" drum?
Net Neutrality is another example if this fake governance.
"fake" is not simply "something you don't like".
SJW n. One who posts facts.
This is a law, passed by Congress by attaching to the NDAA. HE didn't do anything, but sign the bill. Not signing it would have been a much bigger issue as it would have held up funding for the military.
If anything complain about the congressional practice of attaching off-topic issues to must pass bills to slip them into law. Both parties are guilty of doing this.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Rep MIA Love (R-Utah) has been pushing such a bill for two years now. Her "One Topic per Bill" bill is gaining support but slowly.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Sure it's more to do with idiots flying into people's head or planes. They SHOULD register this, and MORE. They should need to be licensed to fly them.
Safety or freedom.
Choose.
We already have plenty of laws against endangering people or property, creating a public hazard/nuisance, 'peeping Tom' laws, disturbing the peace, etc etc etc. There are another entire set of criminal laws dealing with any sort of endangerment to an aircraft. There are literally more laws than they've been able to count, and they've tried multiple times. This is akin to the early patent trolls locking up common tasks etc in patents by filing and receiving patents on nearly identical prior (usually expired) patents by adding "...with a computer."
I mean, you can already be charged with a plethora of serious federal charges with potentially decades of prison time for doing something only minimally stupid/dangerous with a drone with the laws we already have on the books.
How much 'illegaler' do you want to make it? Do we boil them in oil *before* we hang them, or after? And, where the hell does the beheading come in, before or after the flogging?
Should I submit a Slashdot poll?
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Why would someone intent on dropping a drone into a prison place their # on the device? Yeah it'll help for someone who has a flyaway / failure that ends up on someones lawn, but not for someone _intent_ on doing such a thing.