Rules proposed to allow US to track and destroy drones

[Grimnock]

Maybe it's not DJI updates we have to worry about.

from the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/us/politics/drone-surveillance-policy.html?ref=politics&_r=0

 

[Cyberpower678]

Yep. I'm moving away now. Not that I'm doing anything illegal with my drone, but still...

 

[geigy]

Nice - shoot us out of the sky, F number or not, with no recourse to the courts.

 

[Turnerm]

Take off the tin foil hats guys...

"The draft bill’s language would authorize the government to summarily track, seize control of and use force to destroy any unmanned aircraft it determines may pose a security threat to an area designated for special protection."

Unless you're doing something REALLY, REALLY stupid... this law has nothing to do with you.

 

[Cyberpower678]

Take off the tin foil hats guys...

"The draft bill’s language would authorize the government to summarily track, seize control of and use force to destroy any unmanned aircraft it determines may pose a security threat to an area designated for special protection."

Unless you're doing something REALLY, REALLY stupid... this law has nothing to do with you.

I missed that detail. Thanks. I feel better now. I'm going to fly with my new goggles tomorrow.

 

[Anthony Viscomi]

Yeah, fire a $100,000 missile to shoot down a $900 drone. I'm no Warren Buffet, but that math is a little ****** up.

 

[adiru]

Take off the tin foil hats guys...

"The draft bill’s language would authorize the government to summarily track, seize control of and use force to destroy any unmanned aircraft it determines may pose a security threat to an area designated for special protection."

Unless you're doing something REALLY, REALLY stupid... this law has nothing to do with you.

Just like the NFZ, who gets to determine what is an "area designated for special protection"?
US Code has said that any computer that is connected to the Internet is now a "protected computer" because the Internets means "interstate commerce" or whatever. giving federal jurisdiction.

So maybe just like NFZ zones, it will just get bigger and bigger and then before you know it, will be the entire world.

 

[newnan3]

Maybe it's not DJI updates we have to worry about.

from the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/us/politics/drone-surveillance-policy.html?ref=politics&_r=0

My thoughts all along that its not DJI we need to worry about.

If we can self-police or if DJI is able to say "hey our drones wont go certain places" we're gonna be better off than with the govt stepping in. DJI's recent updates are a way to limit their liability if/when someone else is injured (remember the kid that lost his eye). The ensuing lawsuit will go from the owner/operator to the retail seller to the manufacturer.

Ultimately DJI still wants to sell a lot of drones so theyre not gonna so limit their products ability so that theyre not sellable.

If you think drones have a bad public perception now wait until the law is passed and everyone who owns one is seen as a threat to national security.

 

[Former Member]

Well, well, well. Is it just a coincidence that DJI is making us update this week, at the same time Trump is probably going to try and get this bill through? Either DJI is bugging the white house, or they have a well paid lobbyist in DC.

This nasty little bill will give authority to Homeland security, NSA, and the FBI to determine imminent threats caused by drones. Think we had it rough having to register with the FAA? Life might be getting alot tougher very soon. The FAA wont be knocking on your door asking why you were flying in class C airspace, or near a sporting event. It will be the FBI, or secret service.

I especially like the part that says, "The government would have to respect “privacy, civil rights and civil liberties” when exercising that power, the draft bill says. But courts would have no jurisdiction to hear lawsuits arising from such activity."

Where are they gonna send a drone pilot who is accused of threatening something they consider sensitive? If the courts will not have jurisdiction, maybe the pilot will be sent to Guantanamo.

 

[Former Member]

Take off the tin foil hats guys...

"The draft bill’s language would authorize the government to summarily track, seize control of and use force to destroy any unmanned aircraft it determines may pose a security threat to an area designated for special protection."

Unless you're doing something REALLY, REALLY stupid... this law has nothing to do with you.

"The Trump administration is asking Congress to give the federal government sweeping powers to track, hack and destroy any type of drone over domestic soil with a new exception to laws governing surveillance, computer privacy and aircraft protection, according to a document obtained by The New York Times."

Sweeping powers usually lead to abuse of those powers. The FAA couldnt stop us, this is much worse.

 

[Turnerm]

"The Trump administration is asking Congress to give the federal government sweeping powers to track, hack and destroy any type of drone over domestic soil with a new exception to laws governing surveillance, computer privacy and aircraft protection, according to a document obtained by The New York Times."

Sweeping powers usually lead to abuse of those powers. The FAA couldnt stop us, this is much worse.

Sweeping powers to do what they want to a device that poses a security threat to areas that are designated for special protection.

I have ZERO issues with our government having the ability to absolutely destroy my drone if I'm flying in an area that they feel causes a security threat over a specially designated area for protection. I highly doubt that they will be destroying my drone while filming Harbour Town in Hilton Head or while I'm taking photos of Landsford Canal. The minute that happens then I have a problem with it... until then it's just a bunch of people trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. In my humble opinion obviously.

 

[adiru]

Sweeping powers to do what they want to a device that poses a security threat to areas that are designated for special protection.

I have ZERO issues with our government having the ability to absolutely destroy my drone if I'm flying in an area that they feel causes a security threat over a specially designated area for protection. I highly doubt that they will be destroying my drone while filming Harbour Town in Hilton Head or while I'm taking photos of Landsford Canal. The minute that happens then I have a problem with it... until then it's just a bunch of people trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. In my humble opinion obviously.

If you read the paper, it sounds like they are wanting to ask drone makers to create a backdoor bult in to each drone to give them easy access to hijack any drone.
Special designated area is really broad, it includes wildfires, search and rescue, prison escape, major sports event, etc etc... these things have nothing to do with national security or military operations.
and the forfeiture clause means if you decide to take over your drone, it automatically belongs to them as US property

 

[Turnerm]

If you read the paper, it sounds like they are wanting to ask drone makers to create a backdoor bult in to each drone to give them easy access to hijack any drone.
Special designated area is really broad, it includes wildfires, search and rescue, prison escape, major sports event, etc etc... these things have nothing to do with national security or military operations.
and the forfeiture clause means if you decide to take over your drone, it automatically belongs to them as US property

And I've got zero issues with them destroying any moron flying near any of those instances that you described.

 

[adiru]

And I've got zero issues with them destroying any moron flying near any of those instances that you described.

Backdoors can and have been abused.
Also that means open to mass hacking.
Innocent people's drones can be hacked and used for bad.
Innocent person could be flying drone in safe location, then a prison outbreak happens, some prisoner's escape and make it across several dozen miles, then unbeknownst to the innocent person flying, the entire immediate area is suddenly in real time declared a "special zone" and now their brand new $1000 drone falls out of the sky and becomes US property. And they cannot sue.

I got a problem with that, whether you have a problem with it or not.

 

[Michael Ainsworth]

I'm covered no problems here.

 

[Turnerm]

Innocent person could be flying drone in safe location, then a prison outbreak happens, some prisoner's escape and make it across several dozen miles, then unbeknownst to the innocent person flying, the entire immediate area is suddenly in real time declared a "special zone" and now their brand new $1000 drone falls out of the sky and becomes US property. And they cannot sue.

Just your run of the mill everyday scenario right there. I mean... What are the odds of that happening? One in a billion maybe?? LOL

 

[adiru]

Just your run of the mill everyday scenario right there. I mean... What are the odds of that happening? One in a billion maybe?? LOL

That's funny cause its the same odds of the fearmongering about Mavic bringing down a Boeing 747-400

One in a trillion maybe???

 

[Turnerm]

That's funny cause its the same odds of the fearmongering about Mavic bringing down a Boeing 747-400

One in a trillion maybe???

The government isn't worried about a Mavic. Trust me. But they can't write a law that excludes them because that suddenly gives people who want to do harm a loophole.

But we are gonna have to agree to disagree here. You seem steadfast in your thoughts that the government is out to control you and I've got no interest in convincing you otherwise. I've stated my opinions so I'll just leave it at that.

 

[samd012]

Ummm.... really

"The government would have to respect “privacy, civil rights and civil liberties” when exercising that power, the draft bill says. But courts would have no jurisdiction to hear lawsuits arising from such activity."

Basically we can screw up as bad as we want and you cannot do anything about it.

 

[Grimnock]

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.