Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Monday October 15 2018, @01:44PM   Printer-friendly
from the drone-wars dept.

The Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2018 regulates airline seat sizes and allows authorities to shoot down drones without obtaining a warrant:

Despite objection, Congress passes bill that lets U.S. authorities shoot down private

U.S. authorities will soon have the authority to shoot down private drones if they are considered a threat — a move decried by civil liberties and rights groups. [...] [Critics] say the new authority that gives the government the right to "disrupt," "exercise control," or "seize or otherwise confiscate" drones that's deemed a "credible threat" is dangerous and doesn't include enough safeguards.

Federal authorities would not need to first obtain a warrant, which rights groups say that authority could be easily abused, making it possible for Homeland Security and the Justice Department and its various law enforcement and immigration agencies to shoot down anyone's drone for any justifiable reason.

Also at CBS and Aero News Network.

See also: New FAA Rules for Drones Go Into Effect


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by BananaPhone on Monday October 15 2018, @02:43PM (8 children)

    by BananaPhone (2488) on Monday October 15 2018, @02:43PM (#749062)

    Yup, this is where it's heading.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Monday October 15 2018, @02:50PM (7 children)

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 15 2018, @02:50PM (#749068) Journal

      I don't know if that's where it'll head.

      It'll definitely head to destroying hundreds of "suspicious" hobbyist drones, and zero actually dangerous drones.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Monday October 15 2018, @04:13PM

        by bob_super (1357) on Monday October 15 2018, @04:13PM (#749108)

        I think the request came from firefighters who had to dodge when idiots don't realize that their drone taping flames is in the way of the tanker plane or helicopter.
        Will it be abused? Most likely. But I won't cry when a cop shoots down those particular idiots.
        In most cases involving drones actually endangering people by being at the wrong place, filling a form for a warrant takes longer than the drone has autonomy and requires taking your eyes off. It's not unreasonable to remove that burden, but having a clause about bodycam filming the threat would have been a decent safeguard.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by linkdude64 on Monday October 15 2018, @04:52PM (5 children)

        by linkdude64 (5482) on Monday October 15 2018, @04:52PM (#749125)

        I can envision them shooting down "harmless" drones that are filming police protests from the air.

        ...and I am also envisioning that in 100% of those cases, the independent "sovereign" reporters will be flying those drones above the heads of innocent unaware protestors, and that at any moment something could go wrong with the drone and it could fall from 100' in the air and knock someone unconscious or worse.

        I'm a second amendment guy, but I don't think it should be legal to shoot guns into the air, either.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by RS3 on Monday October 15 2018, @06:03PM (2 children)

          by RS3 (6367) on Monday October 15 2018, @06:03PM (#749163)

          > I'm a second amendment guy, but I don't think it should be legal to shoot guns into the air, either.

          My thoughts exactly. And it is not legal to fire bullets into the air. I remember a few years ago someone being killed by a falling bullet which was fired into the air for a 4th of July, or New Years event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire [wikipedia.org]

          I know it's rare, but why endanger people? I'm not okay with "collateral damage".

          This isn't the one I remember, but: http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/news/ct-ptb-falling-bullet-death-st-0710-20170709-story.html [chicagotribune.com]

          • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16 2018, @05:56PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16 2018, @05:56PM (#749614)

            For a drone you would want a shot-gun anyway, and BBs aren't coming down with lethal force.

            • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Tuesday October 16 2018, @09:24PM

              by RS3 (6367) on Tuesday October 16 2018, @09:24PM (#749667)

              Okay, makes good sense, thanks. Maybe a .410? I'm not really a gun person but I know some. Right now I can here the distant gunshot sounds from a local skeet shooting range.

        • (Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Tuesday October 16 2018, @12:46AM (1 child)

          by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 16 2018, @12:46AM (#749319) Journal

          I can envision them shooting down "harmless" drones that are filming police protests from the air.

          Maybe use potential falling drone victims that illicit more sympathy?

          --
          В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
          • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Tuesday October 16 2018, @10:11PM

            by linkdude64 (5482) on Tuesday October 16 2018, @10:11PM (#749676)

            Entry-level CIA Op idea for any acolytes reading in: Hire a few crisis actors to get killed by falling drones and push the shoot-down legislation through your local Congresscritter via blackmail on them bought from the Chinese, who used NSA tools to obtain it.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Monday October 15 2018, @02:57PM (7 children)

    by Arik (4543) on Monday October 15 2018, @02:57PM (#749071) Journal
    Firstly, not drones, RC aircraft. Breathless clickbait BS language like that should not be normalized.

    Secondly, they can shoot *people* if they are thought to be a threat, why would there need to be special authorization to shoot down an RC aircraft that was thought to be a threat?

    Thirdly, I thought it was kind of neat to see that RC aircraft are now available for ridiculously low prices. They're just about cheap enough to use for targets deliberately. I'm imagining a whole new level of skeet...

    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday October 15 2018, @03:10PM (2 children)

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 15 2018, @03:10PM (#749082) Journal

      FAA doesn't typically do any kind of police enforcement. For a while, Sky Marshals were FAA and did armed enforcement, but as of 1984 2001, they're part of the department of homeland security, and the FAA is an almost entirely bureaucratic organization managing flight plans, safety inspections, radar, ground control, and airplane standards. So we're basically talking about militarizing a civilian agency.

      • (Score: 2) by Arik on Monday October 15 2018, @03:38PM

        by Arik (4543) on Monday October 15 2018, @03:38PM (#749094) Journal
        "So we're basically talking about militarizing a civilian agency."

        I'm not convinced of that. What I'm seeing in the reporting might well be intended as a signal to do just that, but it also seems possible it's misdirected alarm. If there's nothing more than what's literally written, it's not much of an expansion. It says they're authorized to do something everyone is already authorized to do - to act when necessary.

        Will someone inevitably turn around and just decide that 'necessary' means whatever they want it to mean? Sure, just like in every other area. It'll probably wind up in the courts before anyone really knows what it means.
        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 2) by driverless on Tuesday October 16 2018, @04:46AM

        by driverless (4770) on Tuesday October 16 2018, @04:46AM (#749404)

        What no-one seems to have mentioned so far is what happens when they actually shoot down the drone, or whatever. These things are typically flown over heavily-populated areas, and the "shoot it down" proposal would involve either filling the air with lots of lead, lots of small explosive projectiles, or one large explosive projectile. Over, say, a city.

        It's easy enough to say "you can shoot them down", but how you're going to shoot them down is another issue entirely.

        Having said that, if you can get drone hunting licenses, I'll be the first to the Flakvierling.

    • (Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Monday October 15 2018, @04:56PM

      by insanumingenium (4824) on Monday October 15 2018, @04:56PM (#749130) Journal

      On that third point, I'd be careful, the second that takes off they will decide that they are finally willing to attempt enforcing the law against shooting at aircraft. Just because they haven't enforced it to date won't stop them from deciding that they are finally willing to do so.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @05:59PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @05:59PM (#749160)

      Thirdly, I thought it was kind of neat to see that RC aircraft are now available for ridiculously low prices. They're just about cheap enough to use for targets deliberately.

      About cheap enough to mount a small IED and fly into a crowd. This is the problem and although I don't personally like it, I do understand why they're doing this.

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @11:19PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @11:19PM (#749282)

        This is the US fucking A. Who needs IEDs? We can be whatever ordinance we need from the local sporting goods store next door to the toy shop where we bought the RC quadcopter! Yeehaw!!!!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @11:25PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @11:25PM (#749284)

        True, it's so easy to do, and has been for at least 10 years at minimal cost. And we need these laws because this type of terrorist attack is happening every second day at all manner of otherwise happy and safe gatherings in the comfortable USA, as evidenced by the shear huge number of terrorists stopped and missed by the TSA. Oh wait... that's zero to date.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Gaaark on Monday October 15 2018, @03:27PM

    by Gaaark (41) on Monday October 15 2018, @03:27PM (#749089) Journal

    Now that corporations are legally people, the old definition of people can be legally labeled as drones.

    Look at all those drones milling about...clearly a credible threat to corporations 'people'.

    --
    --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
  • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday October 15 2018, @05:44PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Monday October 15 2018, @05:44PM (#749155)

    What are the criteria for determining whether a private drone / RC aircraft is a threat?

    Because there are criteria that would make this move pretty reasonable. Criteria like:
    1. Is a firearm or other weapon mounted on the aircraft?
    2. Is the aircraft operating under 100' altitude above private property where the property owner has given permission for them to do what they're doing?
    3. Does the aircraft reasonably appear to be aimed at something other than private property where the property owner has given permission? (i.e. it's not OK to set up an RC airplane to spray your neighbor's house with bullets even if you don't have to fly outside of your own property to do so.)
    4. Does the aircraft pose a threat to other aircraft, e.g. operating near an airport?

    On the other hand, there's other criteria that would make this move horrible. Criteria like:
    1. Does the person making the decision to shoot like the owner of the aircraft?
    2. Is a camera mounted that might see something the current government or their favorite corporations doesn't like?
    3. Is shooting at the aircraft an excuse for shooting something else we don't like?
    4. Is the person doing the shooting having a bad day?

    Libertarian-minded folks here are obviously assuming the rules are more like the second scenario, or will inevitably become the second scenario.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16 2018, @06:13PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16 2018, @06:13PM (#749625)

    my drone will be set up to shoot your shit down.

(1)