Rules proposed to allow US to track and destroy drones

[Turnerm]

An interesting discussion. I actually have no problem with the upcoming DJI update (there was intended sarcasm in my original post title, probably should have used an /s). If it is, as speculated, a "digital license plate" that's fine by me. And, as Turnem and newnan3 said above, I also have no issue with law enforcement being able to do just that and enforce the laws. Fly like an idiot, endanger people or security and, yes, you should lose your right to fly. If it takes shooting down your drone by the proper authorities, then so be it. What does worry me, somewhat but not too much, is that like any technology, once it's out there someone will find a way to reverse engineer it and make it into something it was not intended to be. I can see a possible future where consumer "anti drone" products, based on these signals, are sold at Walmart. I just hope that whatever the policy, it's properly implemented and controlled. Though sweeping governmental powers rarely are.

Very good points

 

[mw174620]

Here is my take:

(a) Authority.--...while respecting privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties

We shall see about this, I am not sure when the government actually follows this statute or phrasing, in any law.

I personally don't agree with this headline, as it makes it out as though we are going to track and take down drones across the US at the governments will. This is not what is proposing. Here is the main part of this proposal:

(b) ACTIONS DESCRIBED.—The actions described in this subsection are as follows:
(1) Detect, identify, monitor, or track, without prior consent, an unmanned aircraft system, unmanned aircraft, or unmanned aircraft’s attached system, payload, or cargo, to evaluate whether it poses a threat to the safety or security of a covered facility, location, or installation or a covered operation, including by means of interception of or other access to wire, oral, electronic, or radio communications or signals transmitted to or by an unmanned aircraft system, unmanned aircraft, or unmanned aircraft’s attached system, payload, or cargo.
(2) Redirect, disable, disrupt control of, exercise control of, seize, or confiscate, without prior consent, an unmanned aircraft system, unmanned aircraft, or unmanned aircraft’s attached system, payload, or cargo that poses a threat to the safety or security of a covered facility, location, or installation or a covered operation, including by intercepting, substituting, or disrupting wire, oral, electronic, or radio communications or signals transmitted to or by an unmanned aircraft system, unmanned aircraft, or unmanned aircraft’s attached system, payload, or cargo.
(3) Use reasonable force to disable, disrupt, damage, or destroy an unmanned aircraft system, unmanned aircraft, or unmanned aircraft’s attached system, payload, or cargo that poses a threat to the safety or security of a covered facility, location, or installation or a covered operation.

As described in the definitions section, a "covered facility, location, or installing" means any non-mobile asset in the US that is designated by the head of a department or agency in accordance with standards and procedures established under subsection (d). The term "covered operation" means any operation that is conducted in the US by a member of the Armed Forces or a Federal officer, employee, agent, or contractor, that is important to public safety, law enforcement, or national or homeland security, and is designated by the head of a department or agency.

So lets be clear here what this is authorizing, or wants to authorize. Allowing the following people and property to be protected from UAS's:

• Military Operations
• DOJ, DOT, DNI, DHS facilities
• Search and Rescue Operations
  
• Medical Evacs
• Wildland Firefighting
• Patrol and Detection of the US Border
• National Security Special Event (which is most likely already restricted through a NOTAM)
• Fugitive Apprehension
• Law Enforcement Investigations
• Authorizied Protection of a Person
• Transport of Nuclear Materials
• A member of the armed forces
• A federal officer

The summary at the end describes why they are doing this and it is basically all one line:

(f) Jurisdiction. --Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim, including for money damages, against a covered person arising from any authorized action described in subsection (b).

The administration is saying that under current law, if you were to interfere with those above events or persons, the government could potentially be liable for taking down, tracking, intercepting, etc a UAS that is posing a legit threat. So take it as you will. I know there will be the both sides on this. I am not taking one, just stating what I read.


P.S. there is also this part:

(h) ...any regulations, policies, procedures, and plans issued under this section, shall be exempt from disclosure under section 552(b)(3) of title 5, United States Code, and exempt from disclosure under any state or local law requiring the disclosure of information.

 

[Turnerm]

So... in summary, if you're being a complete dumb*** and flying without regard to any form of common sense they can do whatever they feel is necessary to eliminate a possible threat.

I have absolutely zero problem with this. People will argue in the fringes of remote possibilities all day long simply because they want to be upset about something. But this proposed law honestly poses zero threat to those that use their Mavic for photos/videos while using basic common sense (and when I say basic - I mean like that of a normal consenting adult).

 

[larkin]

I'm not sure about this. Consider it from the perspective of freedom of the press. Manned news helicopters often fly in the vicinity of a police raid or other government enforcement action. If the government is doing something next door to my house, I'm certainly allowed to record it with my smartphone. Image if they are saying, if it were a drone I was holding in my hand, they could legally disable or "destroy" it. Anti-drone tech that is physically limited to targeting a narrow region is fine but no backdoors. They should need a kind of gun to take down a drone, not a keyboard.

 

[Kestrel]

Flying over soldier? WTF, so if you're flying and some random soldier drives by that gives them the right to shoot it down??? I fly at a lake that's man made by a dam, How close do I go before it gets shot down? The whole lake off limits now?

 

[mw174620]

Flying over soldier? WTF, so if you're flying and some random soldier drives by that gives them the right to shoot it down??? I fly at a lake that's man made by a dam, How close do I go before it gets shot down? The whole lake off limits now?

It does not mean that. Read the definition portion of the document.

 

[mw174620]

I'm not sure about this. Consider it from the perspective of freedom of the press. Manned news helicopters often fly in the vicinity of a police raid or other government enforcement action. If the government is doing something next door to my house, I'm certainly allowed to record it with my smartphone. Image if they are saying, if it were a drone I was holding in my hand, they could legally disable or "destroy" it. Anti-drone tech that is physically limited to targeting a narrow region is fine but no backdoors. They should need a kind of gun to take down a drone, not a keyboard.

I feel your concern and agree, no backdoors. I would hope this wouldn't be the case however, as you aren't causing a threat and shouldn't be causing any threats. However the government is the one deciding if you are a threat, and then not allowing you to take them to court based on that decision.

 

[geigy]

This proposed law seems to involve confiscation and/or destruction of a drone with no recourse for the owner, and no explanation or even acknowledgement from the government. Not good IMHO.

 

[Forrest]

So... in summary, if you're being a complete dumb*** and flying without regard to any form of common sense they can do whatever they feel is necessary to eliminate a possible threat.

I have absolutely zero problem with this. People will argue in the fringes of remote possibilities all day long simply because they want to be upset about something. But this proposed law honestly poses zero threat to those that use their Mavic for photos/videos while using basic common sense (and when I say basic - I mean like that of a normal consenting adult).

Whose definition of a dumb *** will they use?

 

[Turnerm]

Whose definition of a dumb *** will they use?

Your question is the definition of today's problem. Everyone is looking for an excuse in the far fringes of the debate to justify why these actions aren't a good idea.

If we have to define what being a dumb*** is then we might as well hand over our drones now. It just takes a wee bit of common sense. It's not even remotely difficult to understand the difference between right and wrong.

 

[Ohana]

A car is just as dangerous as a drone. They should just make it so that you have to register your drone and they all have a serial number that's is there computer. The new update would make DJI products terrible.

 

[kona]

Be careful what you post here, as first amendment rights don't apply to this forum. My earlier critiquing the administration/this possible regulation was deleted.