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?

Comments

Supprises no one.

[Riceballsan]

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".

Re: "credible"

[fluffernutter]

You're probably asking the wrong person, because I have a pretty clean record. Even so, I could envision a person who has done a great deal worse than me becoming a Supreme court justice. I don't care if they smoked or drank at an early age. What I can't understand is anyone who ever in their lives did not have the common sense to treat women with absolute respect becoming a Supreme court justice. You are just downplaying serious lack of judgement by calling it a minor lack of judgement.