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?
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
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".
Grow up.
I have - I believe in innocent until proven guilty.
Our society, however, is regressing into believing that certain kinds of allegations must mean that the accused is guilty unless proved innocent.
It matters very much what you think is credible, and how you determine that.
Try growing down, then. Obviously whatever you thought they meant by "grow up" isn't achieving the normative result.
Personally I think a judge presiding over the highest court in the land, hired to be a legal and moral compass, should have to bear the burden of demonstrating they aren't scum. This isn't about guilty or innocent after all, he isn't being tried for crimes, he is going through a very strict job interview.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
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
Personally I think a judge presiding over the highest court in the land, hired to be a legal and moral compass, should have to bear the burden of demonstrating they aren't scum.
In response to any baseless accusation?
So if I had said that Ruth Ginsberg behaved inappropriately with me when I was in high school, but I had no evidence, she would have had to prove otherwise?
Because people never lie (or get others to lie) to achieve hugely valuable political goals?
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.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
#MeToo is now weaponized.
All it takes against any man, is the mere accusation and *POOF* your life as you know it can be over with nothing more than that accusation.
This is an extremely powerful and dangerous weapon, and now it has been unleashed politically.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
If you've ever had a foggy memory morning while learning to drink, you are a rapist! All it takes is an accusation.
But don't worry, similar will happen to the next D SC nominee. Even if female.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Yes, they are requiring you to take a test. And you will be required to have proof of passage on you (but they don't call it a "license", or even an "airman's certificate"; one important distinction would be that it's not revocable). But the seizure and forfeiture provisions aren't in that part of the bill, they're in a separate section that concerns UAS which threaten DHS-protected facilities. So if you fly your model into a nuclear plant or sewage plant or any of a number of other facilities, they can take it. But if you're just flying around in a field with your unregistered model airplane without having taken a test, this bill does not allow them to seize the equipment. They can, however, hit you with civil fines of up to $20,000 per violation, and it doesn't take much creativity to come up with a bunch of violations for a single act.
It's modded up because that moron is trying to make a story about drones into some statement about women falsely accusing men of stuff. You should be modded down because your post about "accusations without trial" or "burden of proof" has zero to do with the government shooting down drones.
Welcome to Slashdot! Go ahead and make an account, it doesn't cost anything. I hope you find your time here enjoyable. Don't worry, you'll get the hang of "not reading TFA" and "every thread has its own topic" and "the mods are on crack, and not the good crack either".
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.