Could the end be nigh?

[DSGDSG]

LOL on the hellfires.

"Technology to identify nefarious drones"? LOL, how exactly is technology going to determine the will and intentions of a human that it can tell one drone along side of another is nefarious while the other is benign? Every drone is benign until the moment it's not.

I think the proposal is silly. I think with the direction many companies want to take with this expanding technology that some sort of nationwide surface to air laser defense system to knock drones from the sky will never happen. Funny too that everyone is worried about all the certain death that will happen when a drone falls onto someone but think there's any merit to the government wanting to shoot them out of the sky like a bunch of water fowl.

 

[Deleted member 21971]

Why is it, every time some idiot does something stupid with "what-ever" device, the government ALWAYS punishes EVERY BODY, instead of throwing the idiot in prison for half or all of his life? We all end up paying for that morons mistake.

I've been thinking about this deal with DJIs new update. Wouldn't there be some sort of law suit over what they're doing, with cutting back on the performance of the Mavic? Think about this: Ford is building a new
super car. All carbon fiber, 600+ HP, top speed of 216 mph. You can't buy one because they are all sold already. All 1000 of them for a cool $500,000 each! So say they ship one to a country that has strict speed
laws. The new owner gets a letter from Ford saying that the car must be returned so they can put a golf cart motor in it. WHAT??

 

[strider]

Typical fear mongering.

Rather than slapping an inflammatory label on the poster's comment, it might be more productive to engage and discuss the subject with the poster.

I personally do not agree that there is justification to curtail the current freedoms, as they are, that currently exist for US fliers. But I also am open to other view points, if for nothing else then to inform my own opinion. Mocking and berating a person for eloquently and politely expressing their opinion is poor form, in my opinion.

I look forward to seeing how this subject progresses through not only our legislature but also our community.

 

[tangoseal]

I agree that something like this is needed in the sense of security. With ISIS being able to buy a, say a Mavic, and fly it 2 miles with a little personal sized explosive strapped to it with a servo or some triggering device, it is possible to assassinate or act as a terrorist with such a drone. It is EXTREMELY unlikely that this would mean your MAVIC filming a riverfest is going to suddenly explode in the sky lol .

if it matters I am a hardcore libertarian minded person and a veteran and whilst government has its place and is far far far exceeded its welcome in many facets of our lives I do not see this as a problem in the near term.

Edit.... now read mt latest post to see the actual way I feel. Not this ^^

 

[tmoerel]

To set the context, I am a libertarian conservative in my political/social views. I chafe at government appearance in my life. So that's the POV I come at this from.

That said, I strongly support these efforts. The technology to easily identify, and seize control of a nefarious drone can't come too soon. And it can't be widely deployed fast enough, all the way to local PD, IMHO.

It is my carefully considered opinion that that is the only way we are going to be able to continue to fly, and with anything resembling some semblance of "freedom".

Drone enthusiasts that don't see, and accept, that these devices are already being used for criminal and terrorist purposes haven't been paying attention to the news. We are at the very early stages of this technology -- within a few years we will have drones that can be completely controlled by voice. It's only going to get worse/better (depending on how you look at it) from there.

We, as a society need the ability to quickly and precisely counter dangerous uses of this technology, as such uses are only going to increase.

Part of the price we pay for that is being inconvenienced, hassled, and sometimes completely frustrated when trying to fly. But we're still flying.

Absent this sort of ability, it will only take one or two drone-delivered bombs in a mall or something killing a few dozen and hobby flying is DONE. Commercial licensing gets much more tight and high-scrutiny. People will not put up with being scared every time they see a drone.

For your consideration.

To set the context, I am a libertarian conservative in my political/social views. I chafe at government appearance in my life. So that's the POV I come at this from.

That said, I strongly support these efforts. The technology to easily identify, and seize control of a nefarious GUNS can't come too soon. And it can't be widely deployed fast enough, all the way to local PD, IMHO.

It is my carefully considered opinion that that is the only way we are going to be able to continue to SHOOT, and with anything resembling some semblance of "freedom".

GUN enthusiasts that don't see, and accept, that these devices are already being used for criminal and terrorist purposes haven't been paying attention to the news. We are at the very early stages of this technology -- within a few years we will have GUNS that can be completely controlled by voice. It's only going to get worse/better (depending on how you look at it) from there.

We, as a society need the ability to quickly and precisely counter dangerous uses of this technology, as such uses are only going to increase.

Part of the price we pay for that is being inconvenienced, hassled, and sometimes completely frustrated when trying to SHOOT. But we're still SHOOTING.

Absent this sort of ability, it will only take one or two GUN-delivered BULLETS in a mall or something killing a few dozen and hobby SHOOTING is DONE. Commercial licensing gets much more tight and high-scrutiny. People will not put up with being scared every time they see a GUN.

....see what I did here?

 

[buzzy_peeper]

To set the context, I am a libertarian conservative in my political/social views. I chafe at government appearance in my life. So that's the POV I come at this from.

That said, I strongly support these efforts. The technology to easily identify, and seize control of a nefarious drone can't come too soon. And it can't be widely deployed fast enough, all the way to local PD, IMHO.

It is my carefully considered opinion that that is the only way we are going to be able to continue to fly, and with anything resembling some semblance of "freedom".

Drone enthusiasts that don't see, and accept, that these devices are already being used for criminal and terrorist purposes haven't been paying attention to the news. We are at the very early stages of this technology -- within a few years we will have drones that can be completely controlled by voice. It's only going to get worse/better (depending on how you look at it) from there.

We, as a society need the ability to quickly and precisely counter dangerous uses of this technology, as such uses are only going to increase.

Part of the price we pay for that is being inconvenienced, hassled, and sometimes completely frustrated when trying to fly. But we're still flying.

Absent this sort of ability, it will only take one or two drone-delivered bombs in a mall or something killing a few dozen and hobby flying is DONE. Commercial licensing gets much more tight and high-scrutiny. People will not put up with being scared every time they see a drone.

For your consideration.

I too have somewhat libertarian views but I have problems with the new regulations as I think they unfairly target our industry.

I ask you to consider the following analogy. What is every time someone bought gun there would be a GPS implanted into the gun continuous firmware updates prohibiting what you can do with your gun and where you can use it. There would also be a GPS system to monitor each bullet and Smith and Weston would keep tabs on every bullet you shot. The rational behind this law would be that guns are dangerous and kill people when in the wrong hands.

Would trump ever support legislation like this? Never, he is a gun owner and an NRA supporter. The NRA is a powerful lobby and the drone enthusiasts have very little political sway.

 

[tmoerel]

I too have somewhat libertarian views but I have problems with the new regulations as I think they unfairly target our industry.

I ask you to consider the following analogy. What is every time someone bought gun there would be a GPS implanted into the gun continuous firmware updates prohibiting what you can do with your gun and where you can use it. There would also be a GPS system to monitor each bullet and Smith and Weston would keep tabs on every bullet you shot. The rational behind this law would be that guns are dangerous and kill people when in the wrong hands.

Would trump ever support legislation like this? Never, he is a gun owner and an NRA supporter. The NRA is a powerful lobby and the drone enthusiasts have very little political sway.

Perhaps you US citizens should push to get the Mavic declared a weapon. Then you could claim right to bear arms and the government would be stuck in a catch-22 situation!

 

[buzzy_peeper]

To set the context, I am a libertarian conservative in my political/social views. I chafe at government appearance in my life. So that's the POV I come at this from.

That said, I strongly support these efforts. The technology to easily identify, and seize control of a nefarious GUNS can't come too soon. And it can't be widely deployed fast enough, all the way to local PD, IMHO.

It is my carefully considered opinion that that is the only way we are going to be able to continue to SHOOT, and with anything resembling some semblance of "freedom".

GUN enthusiasts that don't see, and accept, that these devices are already being used for criminal and terrorist purposes haven't been paying attention to the news. We are at the very early stages of this technology -- within a few years we will have GUNS that can be completely controlled by voice. It's only going to get worse/better (depending on how you look at it) from there.

We, as a society need the ability to quickly and precisely counter dangerous uses of this technology, as such uses are only going to increase.

Part of the price we pay for that is being inconvenienced, hassled, and sometimes completely frustrated when trying to SHOOT. But we're still SHOOTING.

Absent this sort of ability, it will only take one or two GUN-delivered BULLETS in a mall or something killing a few dozen and hobby SHOOTING is DONE. Commercial licensing gets much more tight and high-scrutiny. People will not put up with being scared every time they see a GUN.

....see what I did here?

Yup. So hypocritical.

 

[buzzy_peeper]

Yup. So hypocritical.

Maybe the pilots on this forum should create the NDA, National Drone Association....or try to partner with the NRA, they certainly seem to know how to stop regulations against their industry.

How many people last year were killed by drones relative to guns?

 

[jarred125]

Well yeah, the FAA doesn't arrest people.

The police arrest people for federal offenses.

There will be a quiz later.

So explain to me why the FAA had them arrested then?

Trespassing is illegal. Just because the gates to this place were open, these three guys were NOT invited there by whoever owned the land. You can be paranoid all you wish, but they violated the land owners clear "No Trespassing" signs (they admitted they saw the signs but didn't think it applied to them).

There was no (that I heard) issue with being in a NFZ, these three upstanding people decided that because the doors were open so to speak, that they were totally OK to trespass on private property because, and I'll quote "they had been there before". This is making a big deal over nothing. Don't trespass on private property and you'll be okay.

 

[wayy510]

I agree that something like this is needed in the sense of security. With ISIS being able to buy a, say a Mavic, and fly it 2 miles with a little personal sized explosive strapped to it with a servo or some triggering device, it is possible to assassinate or act as a terrorist with such a drone. It is EXTREMELY unlikely that this would mean your MAVIC filming a riverfest is going to suddenly explode in the sky lol .

if it matters I am a hardcore libertarian minded person and a veteran and whilst government has its place and is far far far exceeded its welcome in many facets of our lives I do not see this as a problem in the near term.

ISIS drives cars and trucks into groups of people too. We should all have are vehicles stripped from us immediately! That'll show 'em!

 

[wayy510]

To set the context, I am a libertarian conservative in my political/social views. I chafe at government appearance in my life. So that's the POV I come at this from.

That said, I strongly support these efforts. The technology to easily identify, and seize control of a nefarious GUNS can't come too soon. And it can't be widely deployed fast enough, all the way to local PD, IMHO.

It is my carefully considered opinion that that is the only way we are going to be able to continue to SHOOT, and with anything resembling some semblance of "freedom".

GUN enthusiasts that don't see, and accept, that these devices are already being used for criminal and terrorist purposes haven't been paying attention to the news. We are at the very early stages of this technology -- within a few years we will have GUNS that can be completely controlled by voice. It's only going to get worse/better (depending on how you look at it) from there.

We, as a society need the ability to quickly and precisely counter dangerous uses of this technology, as such uses are only going to increase.

Part of the price we pay for that is being inconvenienced, hassled, and sometimes completely frustrated when trying to SHOOT. But we're still SHOOTING.

Absent this sort of ability, it will only take one or two GUN-delivered BULLETS in a mall or something killing a few dozen and hobby SHOOTING is DONE. Commercial licensing gets much more tight and high-scrutiny. People will not put up with being scared every time they see a GUN.

....see what I did here?

Haha. Excellent.

 

[dwallersv]

The key difference between gun/cars and UAVs is the anonymity the UAV provides.

I hope I'm paranoid. I hope I'm way way off base on the prospect for nefarious use. I'm pretty certain I'm not, though.

 

[Blades]

The key difference between gun/cars and UAVs is the anonymity the UAV provides.

I hope I'm paranoid. I hope I'm way way off base on the prospect for nefarious use. I'm pretty certain I'm not, though.

Right but cars and guns are both stolen and used in crimes. people that are going to break the law will find a way to break the law the ones who don't break the law will be punished and it just not seem right to me.

 

[MacIak]

Terrorists are no idiots, but the paranoid drone fearing community is..
In the time that the current drone hobbyists were still flying simple (stabilized) quadrocopers , Iranian tech students were winning world-wide drone contests time after time. Proper " drones". Just saying that the technology was in the region we tend to see as " terror" long before we knew about it..
Danger might come from drones someday but then again, it was always there. Terror simply is figuring out what your worst nightmare is and make it real.
Now the media tells us that drones are dangerous. We all go " yesss masster..droon..bad, droon...eeevil!" . And the terrorists go: OK!

 

[Jussaguy]

So explain to me why the FAA had them arrested then?

Trespassing is illegal. Just because the gates to this place were open, these three guys were NOT invited there by whoever owned the land. You can be paranoid all you wish, but they violated the land owners clear "No Trespassing" signs (they admitted they saw the signs but didn't think it applied to them).

There was no (that I heard) issue with being in a NFZ, these three upstanding people decided that because the doors were open so to speak, that they were totally OK to trespass on private property because, and I'll quote "they had been there before". This is making a big deal over nothing. Don't trespass on private property and you'll be okay.

Did you watch the video?

Yes, they were definitely trespassing. I am hardly paranoid so stop saying that.

I fly wherever I want. I always get permission from the tower. I tell officers that I have the right to fly because I got permission from the FAA (the tower). The FAA is the ONLY governing body that can determine what can be in it's space. Nobody else. It's a rare thing when the state has no power to overrule a federal agency on those type of matters but I am HAM radio operator and understand the laws of the FAA quite well and trust me, you don't want this. This is the beginning of an overreaching removal of our rights to fly something for fun at a very low altitude in very low space. I am not worried about being able to fly over a military base or a sporting event but read just the first draft. I promise it won't get better. The fact that you said the FAA didn't arrest them leads me to believe that you really don't know much about the way things work. Maybe if you said, it wasn't a federal agent (not that it needs to be) it would hold more water. Learn.

They were definitely trespassing but that is not what they were charged with (unless they tacked that on). They were charged with violating the FAA rules of the location they are allowed to fly but that's not even what the point of the thread was. It wasn't about them, it was about the expanding decline of our ability to fly.

Racers and DIY people are usually never even messed with. I happen to be both and as more dangerous as a DIY quad is, I have NEVER been stopped because of one of my DIY quads but I have several times on my photo birds.

This is not about what THEY did. This is about the legislation being drafted with VERY non-descriptive terms.

"You can't fly within 5 miles of a international airpot" according to the FAA (which can be over-ridden with approval from the tower within 1.5 miles is an EXACT and easily understandable thing to decipher what you can and cant do. It needs to be plain English and not left to the authorities to determine what is and what isn't because if that's the case, you will not have a leg to stand on when you try and explain that you are within your rights to fly.

I am all for safety. I often preach it. I am not saying we should be willy nilly able to do what the heck we want but there needs to be a lobby AND WE ARE IT. Who in Washington do you think is lobbying for us? NOBODY! If DJI was an American company, I would feel better. Guarantee that they are spending many millions on lobbying on our behalf but at the end of the day, they are a Chinese company and even if they understand the issue, they don't know the culture and certainly don't know the politics of lobbying.

Add to that, we have an administration that is afraid of it's own shadow as it pertains to terrorist threats and you have a perfect storm of the loss of our 4th amendment right to not have our property taken, shot down, confiscated unconstitutionally. People think this is an answer to the removal of the registration addendum but no, it is my contention that it was (and it was a US court of appeal that help up the case) so it could open the door for them to start the process of removing our rights to fly.

You can call me paranoid all you want, but that doesn't make it true.

 

[jarred125]

Did you watch the video?

Yes, they were definitely trespassing. I am hardly paranoid so stop saying that.
They were charged with violating the FAA rules of the location they are allowed to fly but that's not even what the point of the thread was.

And what rules were those? Were they in a NFZ? Were they flying above 400 feet? We're they out of LOS? You mention the laws being vague but then you yourself are extremely vague with what these guys were charged with.

You state that you must obtain permission to fly within 5 miles of an airport but that is NOT the case. The tower cannot deny your ability to fly, you are simply informing them that you will be flying under the FAA limit of 400 feet and in a specific area so they are aware of where you are and can direct traffic.


Here, I did the work. If the post on reddit is to be believed the PD arrested them for .. guess what??? TRESPASSING.

Breaking News - Steele, Skitzo & AlexEdit get Arrested • r/Multicopter


The guy posted a video on youtube of him breaking the law (trespassing), someone doesn't like him and first reports him to the FAA. When the FAA doesn't do anything they drive it up the chain and report him to the PD. Again, there is no dark conspiracy here, the guy was arrested for trespassing on private property.

 

[Jussaguy]

And what rules were those? Were they in a NFZ? Were they flying above 400 feet? We're they out of LOS? You mention the laws being vague but then you yourself are extremely vague with what these guys were charged with.

You state that you must obtain permission to fly within 5 miles of an airport but that is NOT the case. The tower cannot deny your ability to fly, you are simply informing them that you will be flying under the FAA limit of 400 feet and in a specific area so they are aware of where you are and can direct traffic.

They were arrested because they were flying in an area where they are not allowed to technically be flying because the FAA determined that they could be putting people in danger and part of the rules 6 months ago when this video was shot (even though there was nobody working there and about 2-3 cars in the parking lot, theirs) was the reason they were arrested for 3 days.

Well actually they were arrested because some comment troll who is jealous of Steel's celebrity status decided to call the FAA OR the FAA decided to make a statement with a celebrity flier. It's totally bogus and the building owners know they fly there, have hosted tournaments there and they were flying with the knowledge that these people are okay with it.

That you are not is sort of scary. If you have a video on YT where a person is in sight, which there wasn't in any of their videos, I could easily call the FAA and tell them that I want them to investigate you and you could find yourself in jail. Of course I wouldn't but do you want that to be a thing?

 

[Jussaguy]

And what rules were those? Were they in a NFZ? Were they flying above 400 feet? We're they out of LOS? You mention the laws being vague but then you yourself are extremely vague with what these guys were charged with.

You state that you must obtain permission to fly within 5 miles of an airport but that is NOT the case. The tower cannot deny your ability to fly, you are simply informing them that you will be flying under the FAA limit of 400 feet and in a specific area so they are aware of where you are and can direct traffic.


Here, I did the work. If the post on reddit is to be believed the PD arrested them for .. guess what??? TRESPASSING.

Breaking News - Steele, Skitzo & AlexEdit get Arrested • r/Multicopter


The guy posted a video on youtube of him breaking the law (trespassing), someone doesn't like him and first reports him to the FAA. When the FAA doesn't do anything they drive it up the chain and report him to the PD. Again, there is no dark conspiracy here, the guy was arrested for trespassing on private property.

And what rules were those? Were they in a NFZ? Were they flying above 400 feet? We're they out of LOS? You mention the laws being vague but then you yourself are extremely vague with what these guys were charged with.

You state that you must obtain permission to fly within 5 miles of an airport but that is NOT the case. The tower cannot deny your ability to fly, you are simply informing them that you will be flying under the FAA limit of 400 feet and in a specific area so they are aware of where you are and can direct traffic.


Here, I did the work. If the post on reddit is to be believed the PD arrested them for .. guess what??? TRESPASSING.

Breaking News - Steele, Skitzo & AlexEdit get Arrested • r/Multicopter


The guy posted a video on youtube of him breaking the law (trespassing), someone doesn't like him and first reports him to the FAA. When the FAA doesn't do anything they drive it up the chain and report him to the PD. Again, there is no dark conspiracy here, the guy was arrested for trespassing on private property.

First of all you left out the part that says "2 or 3 days after the FAA dropped their investigation" so if the Decalb or whatever county arrested them for trespassing, the initial part was an FAA investigation.

So to me, IF TRUE, and God knows everything someone writes on reddit is true, than that only makes it worse. The FAA is informed of a possible violation from some goofy person on the comments section and then a retaliatory trespassing change is levied against them and for 3 DAYS IN JAIL? Are you kidding me? I think that is even worse, if true, than anything.

So I am about as interested as what a person on Reddit wrote as I am in what anyone else on some forum writes, which is "I'll make my own conclusions".

I was never vague in anything. They FAA investigation was for flying around and endangering people. If they truly dropped it, then great, I am happy about that and the state charging them for trespassing and then putting 3 people in jail for 3 days is a waste of tax payers money, a waste of jail space and a ridiculous beyond words sentence for trespassing on a parking lot of an industrial building. Give me a break!

And what "Dark Conspiracy"? Just because you use verbiage to make it sound like I am saying something that I am not saying, doesn't make it happen.

You think putting 3 people in jail for 3 days in this case is justified by any stretch? You don't obviously follow Steel. They, again, have used that space with permission from the owners of that lot to have shows,

 

[Turnerm]

Dude... y'all need to get a room or something. Take it to PM.