The FAA has had rules for R/C Aircraft for decades.
This is factually incorrect. The FAA has had rules against interfering with aviation... but that applies to everything and everyone (hot air balloons, ultralights, kites, RC models... everything).
You used to need and FCC License too.
Increasingly academic, as many systems use freely available FX and levels of power (roughly like using WiFi). Long-range FPV operators STILL need FCC licensing, but of course most just blow that off.
DoT?
Department of Transportation
What Law did congress Pass and a President sign that covers this
The FAA Modernization And Reform Act of 2012.
Among other things, note section 336, which explicitly denies the FAA authority to pass any new regs regarding recreational use of RC (model aviation). More to the point, the law required the FAA to incorporate UAS technology into the national air space by August of this year. The administration has blown that deadline, and dragged their feet the entire time. They don't like the law that congress wrote, so they're getting around it by turning to the DoT, instead of the narrowly defined FAA has referenced in 336, in order to regulate hobbyists despite the law that says they can't.
No. Legislation comes from the legislature. The DoT's new regulatory efforts are not only NOT legislative (they are regulatory, from the administration running the executive branch), but they are talking about doing things that fly in the face of a law that WAS passed by the legislature. The DoT is talking about regulating classes of RC toys that congress explicitly ruled as off-limits from exactly that sort of action by the administration.
What if he does it in on the White House lawn or in the press room? Where do we draw the line?
It's not like we're new at this. There are laws on the books that specifically address political activity by federal officials and employees, and many court cases surrounding enforcement of those laws to help establish the boundaries. Most are obvious - things like standing at the podium with presidential seal on it and doing some campaigning... that's a no-no. That's why interviews with sitting presidents during campaign seasons are always conducted off-site, like at conference locations, in hotels, etc.
Government officials, as citizens, are just as protected by the First Amendment as anyone else. So Obama can freely endorse a candidate, and put his own money into someone's campaign support if he wants to, or put his personal time into fundraising or campaigning. But he can't use the trappings of the White House (or his staff, or government email accounts or letterhead, etc), or our collective government resources to do so. Obviously it's impossible to completely separate being in such a unique office and having political opinions. If he flies somewhere on Air Force One on government business, and then takes time "off" from his job to express his personal political opinions or do some campaigning on behalf of his political party, that's fine. I don't like Obama, personally, but I'd have to defend his right to be a politician in that regard, because he's a citizen before he's anything else. The issue is in question here are the use of (or appearance of the use of) government's communication channels in a campaign... which is why using the school board's government voice in the way the case in question describes is not appropriate.
No, people who are speaking as representatives of the government can't use their position in the government to expand the reach of their political speech. That's why it's one thing when (for example) a non-government group like Citizens United wants to make a documentary talking about the pros and cons of a politician... but it's different when a government employee uses the government's communication channels (say, the "official" output of the school board, online) to do the same thing.
The lack of funding is because people (like the ones who allow banks to invest their money in projects) don't liberate money for huge projects that are being sandbagged by nuisance lawsuits for decades at a time.
One way to reduce it is to allow the plant to come online years earlier, like it was supposed to, so that it could have been generating power all this time, covering the costs of building it and maintaining it, while also not burning carbon fuels. But because labotomized lefties WANT it to be expensive in order to try to make it unpopular, and of course the people designing the plant aren't cutting any corners, the only way to inflict harm is to throw up foot-dragging roadblocks to make the process more painful, just to annoy people and slow it down. Thanks, lefties, for being so constructive. Guess what: it's online anyway, and all you did was make the people who will be buying the energy it produces pay more in the long run, for no good reason.
One power plant, 40% of the capacity of all PV in the country.
Well sure, but what happens when the sun goes down, causing that nuclear plant to stop generating power until the next morning, huh? How about THAT Mr. Smartypants?
What matters is that another poster is scolding those of us who pay the lion's share of the country's taxes for not being thankful for the help we're getting from other people... when that "help" doesn't actually exist. It's worth talking about, because people who make those kinds of remarks are clearly not understanding who actually pays for what.
But at the Federal level, that's what pays for the non-entitlement spending. I don't receive any entitlements, and probably never will. So I'm still not sure who it is that I'm supposed to be thanking for helping me, here, as the GP says they are.
You're foggy on the whole fraud thing, aren't you? Fraudulent medical billing and the provision of services to people who aren't supposed to get them (because they're posing as someone else, or getting someone else's opiate prescription, etc) is rampant. In the billions of dollars. Fake IDs, stolen identities... these are front and center in massive, ongoing, and routine fraud. Very popular in the illegal immigrant set, who also receive hundreds of millions in fraudulently claimed incomes tax refunds and credits.
That you're not clear on this is pretty frightening. Please don't do anything tricky or risky like voting.
Just like the services YOU get from the government that other people help pay for.
Which ones are those? I pay far more federal, state, and local taxes than most people, and then sales taxes on the things I buy. Have the country pays NO income taxes. I'm in the half that does. Do the math. Things like NASA, defense, etc., are paid for out of discretionary funds, entirely paid for by income taxes or by borrowed money on which taxes have to pay interest. How are the people who pay no income taxes helping me to pay for those things, again? Please be specific.
Why should it be illegal? If you want to buy insurance for someone that doesn't exist, that is fine with me.
How about if in the course of applying, the fake person also describes a lifestyle that qualifies them for completely subsidized care that other people get to go to work every day to buy for them? This is no different than any other of benefit fraud.
Most of those existing laws do not apply to drones currently.
They don't need to. Because they apply to EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE. If you are snooping on someone's property, there are plenty of laws to deal with that. If you crash anything on someone's head (a cheap plastic quadcopter, or a frisbee) and hurt them, we have established ways to deal with that.
There is no law saying how low I can fly my drone over your house.
Against someone's objection? The Supreme Court has nicely established a standard. See Causby. On top of which, of course, a jillion local statutes already contend with reckless endangerment (and don't have to spell out every physical object with which you might endanger someone).
In fact, the FAA would prefer I stay below 400 feet.
Yes, because other aircraft have to stay above 500, and that's a tolerable 100' buffer. Most stay over 1000, so even better. That has nothing to do with whether or not you're being obnoxious by flying below tree-top level around someone's house when they don't want you to. That's already covered.
There is no law against dropping objects from a drone
Yes, there is. Because there is a law against dropping ANYTHING from ANY aircraft of any kind. So there's no law against doing it from drones just like there's no law against doing so from model rockets, or hot air balloons, or ultralights... because ALL of those things are already covered under that the single prohibition against that act regardless of the vehicle being used.
Existing laws regulating aircraft do not apply to small drones.
The FAA, which has statutory authority in this area, disagrees with you.
We need new regulations for drones, because they've changed the game in terms of privacy.
As the FAA has said over, and over, and over again - they are not the venue for privacy matters. That's not an issue for which they have any sort of statutory authority. Period.
Happily, every state and county and city in the country has existing laws that address deliberate invasions of privacy. The fact that you're unaware of where into the legal and regulatory framework such matters fall means that your entire perspective on this is coming from ignorance.
We need laws to protect people from spying, both by private parties and government entities, via drones.
You mean like the existing laws we have that address espionage? What do you mean by "spying," and how does your definition differ from all of the laws we already have that address deliberate eavesdropping, trespassing, etc? Be specific.
We need laws that say you can't just fly a drone over someone else's property
If it's low enough, we have existing laws about trespassing. If it's high enough, you have no expectation of privacy or any control over what flies over your house. Or are you of the opinion that you can call air traffic control and demand that airplanes not be allowed to fly over you?
look in their windows
We have abundant laws that already address when this is acceptable (say, from the street) and when it's not. Should we have separate laws that address when it's done with a telescope vs. binoculars? No? Right.
We need regulations to define reasonable expectation of privacy directly to drones.
And hot air balloons. And model rockets. And balsa wood rubber-band-powered models with pen cameras on them. And 1000mm Canon lenses. And people with good eyesight. Or... we could simply rely on the laws we already have which address that just fine.
we need to have some ability for people to defend themselves from these things
You already have the right to defend yourself when you're being attacked, at least in most places. Are you concerned about someone hunting you down with an armed remote control airplane? Are you even listening to yourself? We already have laws that make that illegal. It's already illegal for any aircraft (with very, very few exceptions, like police SWAT operations) to release (let alone shoot) anything from any type of aircraft, period. But you want additional, redundant laws that say exactly the same thing? Why?
Ah, so since you're unable to actually address the substance of the matter, you're going to worry about job definitions in order to deflect. Pretty classic case of craven, intellectually lazy, and completely transparent case of admitting you don't have a point.
The point is that recreational noobs are more dangerous than people who use a tool regularly.
Just as a side note: the company that last shingled our roof also makes rounds every year cleaning gutters, replacing downspouts, etc. You know, because they like to keep their customers close, and offer inspections very inexpensively as part of their promotional efforts when they're doing work in the area. Your attempt to pretend otherwise is just silly. And doesn't distract like you're hoping from the fact that you don't actually understand the issue at hand.
unless you mean you want to CHARGE other people money
Right, because an inexperienced noob who just got his first quad copter and can't wait to reproduce some of those YouTube videos that show stuff from above the clouds at 1,000 feet... he's MUCH safer than the experienced roofing guy who uses a cheap 3-pound quad every day to fly up to (gasp!) 30 feet to inspect your gutters for $20. Passing that twenty dollar bill back and forth must be incredibly hazardous! So we should definitely let the recreational guy do whatever he wants, since you equate that with a dog taking a dump in your yard. But the guy who flies the exact same piece of equipment but in a much safer way... we should definitely fine him $26,000 for checking your gutters.
False. You can easily get away with murdering a child in the US by running them down with your car. There won't even be an investigation.
You mean, if nobody sees you doing it? What are you saying?
There isn't a jurisdiction in the country where the death of a child (or anybody) at the hands of a driver isn't investigated (and, most often, prosecuted when it's not plainly an accident, like the child running out into traffic etc). Not sure what you think you're going to accomplish with this particular flavor of trolling. Odd.
So? The FAA says that if you want to fly a 4-pound plastic quadcopter up to 30 feet in the air to take photographs of somebody's new landscaping project, you have to be a licensed pilot, and file a flight plan. Doesn't really matter what they do or don't require YOU to do, we're talking about how they're approaching the use of toy-sized copters with GoPros on them.
Also, the size of the federal government hasn't changed in 60 years.
You aren't really expecting people to be so dumb that they don't understand the difference between people working in the armed forces during the cold war and people working in the ever-expanding regulatory universe... are you? Woops, my bad, you're just a troll spouting nonsense.
Drones must be registered, but unlike in other nations, it's societally acceptable that wingnuts can purchase a gun and then shoot innocent children.
Really. Go shoot some children and see how acceptable that action is considered to be. You can also try running them down with a car, or stabbing them with knives... it really doesn't matter. Same consequences. What was your point again? Oh, you want prior restraint. But only over things that you personally don't like, right, not when it comes to the things you personally might use to kill children... like, say, a pressure cooker?
Jefferson also was an actual free market capitalist. In today's America he would not be electable by this mob.
To say nothing of his insistence that individual people not only could but should all own firearms, and indeed take one on walks into the woods because it's good exercise and practice.
Slashdot Mirror
The FAA has had rules for R/C Aircraft for decades.
This is factually incorrect. The FAA has had rules against interfering with aviation ... but that applies to everything and everyone (hot air balloons, ultralights, kites, RC models ... everything).
You used to need and FCC License too.
Increasingly academic, as many systems use freely available FX and levels of power (roughly like using WiFi). Long-range FPV operators STILL need FCC licensing, but of course most just blow that off.
DoT?
Department of Transportation
What Law did congress Pass and a President sign that covers this
The FAA Modernization And Reform Act of 2012.
Among other things, note section 336, which explicitly denies the FAA authority to pass any new regs regarding recreational use of RC (model aviation). More to the point, the law required the FAA to incorporate UAS technology into the national air space by August of this year. The administration has blown that deadline, and dragged their feet the entire time. They don't like the law that congress wrote, so they're getting around it by turning to the DoT, instead of the narrowly defined FAA has referenced in 336, in order to regulate hobbyists despite the law that says they can't.
No. Legislation comes from the legislature. The DoT's new regulatory efforts are not only NOT legislative (they are regulatory, from the administration running the executive branch), but they are talking about doing things that fly in the face of a law that WAS passed by the legislature. The DoT is talking about regulating classes of RC toys that congress explicitly ruled as off-limits from exactly that sort of action by the administration.
What if he does it in on the White House lawn or in the press room? Where do we draw the line?
It's not like we're new at this. There are laws on the books that specifically address political activity by federal officials and employees, and many court cases surrounding enforcement of those laws to help establish the boundaries. Most are obvious - things like standing at the podium with presidential seal on it and doing some campaigning ... that's a no-no. That's why interviews with sitting presidents during campaign seasons are always conducted off-site, like at conference locations, in hotels, etc.
Government officials, as citizens, are just as protected by the First Amendment as anyone else. So Obama can freely endorse a candidate, and put his own money into someone's campaign support if he wants to, or put his personal time into fundraising or campaigning. But he can't use the trappings of the White House (or his staff, or government email accounts or letterhead, etc), or our collective government resources to do so. Obviously it's impossible to completely separate being in such a unique office and having political opinions. If he flies somewhere on Air Force One on government business, and then takes time "off" from his job to express his personal political opinions or do some campaigning on behalf of his political party, that's fine. I don't like Obama, personally, but I'd have to defend his right to be a politician in that regard, because he's a citizen before he's anything else. The issue is in question here are the use of (or appearance of the use of) government's communication channels in a campaign ... which is why using the school board's government voice in the way the case in question describes is not appropriate.
It's not about free expression. It's about government expression for or against a candidate.
No, people who are speaking as representatives of the government can't use their position in the government to expand the reach of their political speech. That's why it's one thing when (for example) a non-government group like Citizens United wants to make a documentary talking about the pros and cons of a politician ... but it's different when a government employee uses the government's communication channels (say, the "official" output of the school board, online) to do the same thing.
The lack of funding is because people (like the ones who allow banks to invest their money in projects) don't liberate money for huge projects that are being sandbagged by nuisance lawsuits for decades at a time.
How is that long term extra cost reduced?
One way to reduce it is to allow the plant to come online years earlier, like it was supposed to, so that it could have been generating power all this time, covering the costs of building it and maintaining it, while also not burning carbon fuels. But because labotomized lefties WANT it to be expensive in order to try to make it unpopular, and of course the people designing the plant aren't cutting any corners, the only way to inflict harm is to throw up foot-dragging roadblocks to make the process more painful, just to annoy people and slow it down. Thanks, lefties, for being so constructive. Guess what: it's online anyway, and all you did was make the people who will be buying the energy it produces pay more in the long run, for no good reason.
One power plant, 40% of the capacity of all PV in the country.
Well sure, but what happens when the sun goes down, causing that nuclear plant to stop generating power until the next morning, huh? How about THAT Mr. Smartypants?
What matters is that another poster is scolding those of us who pay the lion's share of the country's taxes for not being thankful for the help we're getting from other people ... when that "help" doesn't actually exist. It's worth talking about, because people who make those kinds of remarks are clearly not understanding who actually pays for what.
Income taxes aren't the only taxes, you know.
But at the Federal level, that's what pays for the non-entitlement spending. I don't receive any entitlements, and probably never will. So I'm still not sure who it is that I'm supposed to be thanking for helping me, here, as the GP says they are.
You're foggy on the whole fraud thing, aren't you? Fraudulent medical billing and the provision of services to people who aren't supposed to get them (because they're posing as someone else, or getting someone else's opiate prescription, etc) is rampant. In the billions of dollars. Fake IDs, stolen identities ... these are front and center in massive, ongoing, and routine fraud. Very popular in the illegal immigrant set, who also receive hundreds of millions in fraudulently claimed incomes tax refunds and credits.
That you're not clear on this is pretty frightening. Please don't do anything tricky or risky like voting.
Just like the services YOU get from the government that other people help pay for.
Which ones are those? I pay far more federal, state, and local taxes than most people, and then sales taxes on the things I buy. Have the country pays NO income taxes. I'm in the half that does. Do the math. Things like NASA, defense, etc., are paid for out of discretionary funds, entirely paid for by income taxes or by borrowed money on which taxes have to pay interest. How are the people who pay no income taxes helping me to pay for those things, again? Please be specific.
Oh god, no! Those poors were able to buy healthcare!
Or, they were able to get free services that other people get to pay for.
Why should it be illegal? If you want to buy insurance for someone that doesn't exist, that is fine with me.
How about if in the course of applying, the fake person also describes a lifestyle that qualifies them for completely subsidized care that other people get to go to work every day to buy for them? This is no different than any other of benefit fraud.
Most of those existing laws do not apply to drones currently.
They don't need to. Because they apply to EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE. If you are snooping on someone's property, there are plenty of laws to deal with that. If you crash anything on someone's head (a cheap plastic quadcopter, or a frisbee) and hurt them, we have established ways to deal with that.
There is no law saying how low I can fly my drone over your house.
Against someone's objection? The Supreme Court has nicely established a standard. See Causby. On top of which, of course, a jillion local statutes already contend with reckless endangerment (and don't have to spell out every physical object with which you might endanger someone).
In fact, the FAA would prefer I stay below 400 feet.
Yes, because other aircraft have to stay above 500, and that's a tolerable 100' buffer. Most stay over 1000, so even better. That has nothing to do with whether or not you're being obnoxious by flying below tree-top level around someone's house when they don't want you to. That's already covered.
There is no law against dropping objects from a drone
Yes, there is. Because there is a law against dropping ANYTHING from ANY aircraft of any kind. So there's no law against doing it from drones just like there's no law against doing so from model rockets, or hot air balloons, or ultralights ... because ALL of those things are already covered under that the single prohibition against that act regardless of the vehicle being used.
Existing laws regulating aircraft do not apply to small drones.
The FAA, which has statutory authority in this area, disagrees with you.
We need new regulations for drones, because they've changed the game in terms of privacy.
As the FAA has said over, and over, and over again - they are not the venue for privacy matters. That's not an issue for which they have any sort of statutory authority. Period.
Happily, every state and county and city in the country has existing laws that address deliberate invasions of privacy. The fact that you're unaware of where into the legal and regulatory framework such matters fall means that your entire perspective on this is coming from ignorance.
We need laws to protect people from spying, both by private parties and government entities, via drones.
You mean like the existing laws we have that address espionage? What do you mean by "spying," and how does your definition differ from all of the laws we already have that address deliberate eavesdropping, trespassing, etc? Be specific.
We need laws that say you can't just fly a drone over someone else's property
If it's low enough, we have existing laws about trespassing. If it's high enough, you have no expectation of privacy or any control over what flies over your house. Or are you of the opinion that you can call air traffic control and demand that airplanes not be allowed to fly over you?
look in their windows
We have abundant laws that already address when this is acceptable (say, from the street) and when it's not. Should we have separate laws that address when it's done with a telescope vs. binoculars? No? Right.
We need regulations to define reasonable expectation of privacy directly to drones.
And hot air balloons. And model rockets. And balsa wood rubber-band-powered models with pen cameras on them. And 1000mm Canon lenses. And people with good eyesight. Or... we could simply rely on the laws we already have which address that just fine.
we need to have some ability for people to defend themselves from these things
You already have the right to defend yourself when you're being attacked, at least in most places. Are you concerned about someone hunting you down with an armed remote control airplane? Are you even listening to yourself? We already have laws that make that illegal. It's already illegal for any aircraft (with very, very few exceptions, like police SWAT operations) to release (let alone shoot) anything from any type of aircraft, period. But you want additional, redundant laws that say exactly the same thing? Why?
Ah, so since you're unable to actually address the substance of the matter, you're going to worry about job definitions in order to deflect. Pretty classic case of craven, intellectually lazy, and completely transparent case of admitting you don't have a point. The point is that recreational noobs are more dangerous than people who use a tool regularly. Just as a side note: the company that last shingled our roof also makes rounds every year cleaning gutters, replacing downspouts, etc. You know, because they like to keep their customers close, and offer inspections very inexpensively as part of their promotional efforts when they're doing work in the area. Your attempt to pretend otherwise is just silly. And doesn't distract like you're hoping from the fact that you don't actually understand the issue at hand.
unless you mean you want to CHARGE other people money
Right, because an inexperienced noob who just got his first quad copter and can't wait to reproduce some of those YouTube videos that show stuff from above the clouds at 1,000 feet ... he's MUCH safer than the experienced roofing guy who uses a cheap 3-pound quad every day to fly up to (gasp!) 30 feet to inspect your gutters for $20. Passing that twenty dollar bill back and forth must be incredibly hazardous! So we should definitely let the recreational guy do whatever he wants, since you equate that with a dog taking a dump in your yard. But the guy who flies the exact same piece of equipment but in a much safer way ... we should definitely fine him $26,000 for checking your gutters.
False. You can easily get away with murdering a child in the US by running them down with your car. There won't even be an investigation.
You mean, if nobody sees you doing it? What are you saying?
There isn't a jurisdiction in the country where the death of a child (or anybody) at the hands of a driver isn't investigated (and, most often, prosecuted when it's not plainly an accident, like the child running out into traffic etc). Not sure what you think you're going to accomplish with this particular flavor of trolling. Odd.
So? The FAA says that if you want to fly a 4-pound plastic quadcopter up to 30 feet in the air to take photographs of somebody's new landscaping project, you have to be a licensed pilot, and file a flight plan. Doesn't really matter what they do or don't require YOU to do, we're talking about how they're approaching the use of toy-sized copters with GoPros on them.
Also, the size of the federal government hasn't changed in 60 years.
You aren't really expecting people to be so dumb that they don't understand the difference between people working in the armed forces during the cold war and people working in the ever-expanding regulatory universe ... are you? Woops, my bad, you're just a troll spouting nonsense.
Drones must be registered, but unlike in other nations, it's societally acceptable that wingnuts can purchase a gun and then shoot innocent children.
Really. Go shoot some children and see how acceptable that action is considered to be. You can also try running them down with a car, or stabbing them with knives ... it really doesn't matter. Same consequences. What was your point again? Oh, you want prior restraint. But only over things that you personally don't like, right, not when it comes to the things you personally might use to kill children... like, say, a pressure cooker?
nonsensical crap to scare rubes into voting Republican
Yeah, you know how NBC news is, always trying to get people to vote Republican. Are you even listening to yourself?
Jefferson also was an actual free market capitalist. In today's America he would not be electable by this mob.
To say nothing of his insistence that individual people not only could but should all own firearms, and indeed take one on walks into the woods because it's good exercise and practice.