Slashdot Mirror
Senate Passes Bill That Lets the Government Destroy Private Drones (engadget.com)
On Thursday, the Senate passed the FAA Reauthorization Act, which, among other things, renews funding for the Federal Aviation Administration and introduces new rules for airports and aircraft. But the bill, which now just needs to be signed by the president, also addresses drones. From a report: And while parts of the bill extend some aspects of drone use -- such as promoting drone package delivery and drone testing -- it also gives the federal government power to take down a private drone if it's seen as a "credible threat." The wording comes from another bill, the Preventing Emerging Threats Act of 2018, which was strongly supported by the Department of Homeland Security and absorbed into the FAA Reauthorization Act. In June, as part of its argument as to why it needed more leeway when it comes to drones, the agency said that terrorist groups overseas "use commercially available [unmanned aircraft systems] to drop explosive payloads, deliver harmful substances and conduct illicit surveillance," and added that the devices are also used to transport drugs, interfere with law enforcement and expolit unsecured networks. Video -- What Happens When a Drone Hits an Airplane Wing?
it also gives the federal government power to take down a private drone if it's seen as a "credible threat."
Since accusations are automatically "credible" if they are from women, this means that any drone reported by a woman is toast.
I guess stealing a Cessna or dirigible or van, or semi and loading it up with fertilizer will never go out of style. /s
I'd like to see more drones taken down. I'd also like a new federal program for private citizens to apply for a drone hunting permit.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Every drone is a credible threat.
Really this is the least of issues by any law enforcement I know of. I'd at least consider drones considered lower stakes than human life, and it doesn't seem like we have much trouble with laws allowing law enforcement or government agents to shoot humans that "might pose a threat".
Drone fanbois, no doubt, will seethe at this.
You have no one to blame but yourselves, really; you failed to police your own sufficiently, and now drone owners who refused to behave apporpriately and not use their drones irresponsibly have brought the government down on all of you.
Enjoy playing with your drones in your backyards, that's about the only place you'll be allowed to use them now.
Don't hate the messenger, hate the message. I didn't do this to you, and hating on me won't change anything, so have a little dignity and don't.
Begun, the drone wars have
1st Prize for this tournament: try to record some zones from Area 51 with the help of drones and publish them to Internet for knowing the truth of the U.S. citizens against the government's liars.
I hate it when I first hear about cool and useful stuff in news stories about how it's no longer available...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Preventing Emerging Threats Act of 2018 -
P.E.T.A.
Now Republicans and Democrats alike can go on and on about how much they love P.E.T.A.
Part of the INTERVIEW process is to test the candidate. The content of the actual question is not relevant. Would you steal a pencil from work? If you say never, you area a lying ass kisser who can not be trusted. No job for you.
Ask something irrelevant and perhaps embarrassing and it doens't matter if it is true or not if you act like a sniffling man baby. Aside from being caught in lies about things that are simply not worth lying about. Stop boofing your own head!
Reasonable grounds to drop him exist already; aside from the huge coverup games and smokescreen alone make somebody look so bad as to now allow it simply on the grounds it disrespects the whole process and the nation... and for what? If he was any good they have the time for an honest process but that isn't how it even began because they have real problems they are trying to avoid. Much more is being gotten away with in this disgrace.
If the man had any respect for the nation he would resign the nomination like so many patriots before him who weren't even responsible but as heads of departments symbolically took the blame and resign. If the cause matters more than himself, he'd bail out before it became too late and risk a like minded person getting the job.
Finally, innocent until proven guilty is not logical and is ONLY for the legal process. It's a precept. It has NOTHING to do with job interviews or politics! The whole basis for term limits is that politicians are guilty until proven innocent; it's all about where you want the error bias to exist. Attack ads WORK because of this as well; it tends to make people not vote but that means it's still working.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
B-b-but the only thing that can stop GOVERNMENT TYRANNY is a good guy with a drone!!
CRY MOAR FAGGIT! Its very AMERICAN of you, you pussy faggot. Or you could ENLIST and stop being such a wingey faghit!
Hah, yeah man. Evidence? Burden of proof? That shits for children who need to grow up.
Right with accountability, transparency and democracy.
I wonder how long it will be before some evil bastard crams a drone full of a noxious substance and flies it to a location where the government will provide the means to scatter it all over a nice, wide area. How long would it take to clean up an airport contaminated with some kind of nasty, superfine powder?
Really, it's just a different kind of evolution.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
is that a drone with camera gives too much power in hands of citizen journalists.
In the past all one needed a high fence and a guard, and not one could see an estate, a factory, a dump, etc.
Now it becomes much harder to hide issues.
...drone that is flying over the private property. There was a court case that settled that a while ago.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
The commenters so far are way off base on this. "Credible Threat" certainly covers terrorist or other attacks involving drones. It also includes drones not being operated by fire-fighting agencies getting in the way of tanker aircraft. And drones interfering with legal recon operations. All those are grey areas at this time, and shooting down or otherwise disabling those drones in those situations could result in lawsuits. Having a clear way to identify and deal with those legal situations would be a benefit.
And to highlight one other commenter's statement: no, you do not have a constitutional right to operate a drone in such a way as to be a nuisance or to violate reasonable laws and regulations.