SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
DJI Innovations, the leading manufacturer of drones, launched a beta version of its new "geofencing" system that should keep its drones from flying into restricted airspace. The new feature is called Geospatial Environment Online (GEO), and it will let users know about areas where drone flight is restricted, either due to regulations or because of safety issues.
GEO will stop DJI drones from taking off in restricted areas like airports, Washington D.C., and temporarily restricted areas such as places near forest fires or big stadium events. Sensitive areas around prisons and power plants will be off limits in the system as well.
DJI owners can temporarily opt out of GEO and unlock some of the flight restrictions, but there's a catch. They must have verified accounts with the company, with a credit card, debit card, or cellphone number on file. Users cannot turn off all the flight restrictions though; places like Washington D.C. will remain completely off limits.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by lentilla on Saturday January 02 2016, @08:20PM
GEO will stop DJI drones from taking off in restricted areas
I wonder what the fail-over provisions are? If one launched a drone using a trebuchet; for example; would it fly or simply fall to earth?
In theory, having a publicly-available, "best if you don't fly here" database available is in everyone's best interests. Problems will arise from the implementation. First of all, it will undoubtedly be proprietary and likely secret. Then, once we have a system that can identify "restricted airspace", then a rule will be made that this technology is mandatory. Thus we end up with disobedient devices - and a whole arms race of devices to defeat the locks.
Technically, it is fairly easy to define "protected airspace" and have drones obey. Any (sane) operator would be happy with this - for the same reason that I'm overjoyed that my SmartHammer™ refuses to hit my thumb! The problems come when lawmakers turn a technical possibility into a legal requirement. At some point we need to trust people to obey the law - and not abdicate that responsibility onto our tools. If we do that we really will become a race of drones (of the two legged kind) at the mercy of our robotic overlords.
Every time I read about disobedient devices I get a niggling feeling of horror. I intrinsically know it's wrong to have devices refuse to do what we tell them to do but I am finding it hard to put my finger on exactly why (or more accurately - how to explain why it's wrong). After all - who wouldn't want cars that refuse to plow into people? About the best explanation I can come up with is that for every rule made, another set of problems is generated. Unfortunately, that's a rather subtle effect and hard to explain to those of an authoritarian bent.
It's not so much that I want an "obey/disobey" switch - I think I'd just like laws to be focused on people, rather than the machines we use. In the case of flying drones; for example; I'd prefer the laws to say "don't fly here, here, and there" and leave it at that and prosecute the perpetrators, rather than have an additional law saying "and the machine must enforce this". I'd hope that we utilise the best available technology to avoid breaking laws (have drones check a "restricted list", for example), but I'd prefer this not be a law itself. In short - it's enough to say "murder is illegal", we don't have to say "murder with a knife is illegal" too. It's redundant - muddies the waters and ends up complicating matters to the point where we begin to believe that if something isn't illegal, then it must be OK, rather than questioning whether something is right and proper in the first place and then referencing the actual legality as a secondary consideration.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday January 02 2016, @08:33PM
Since the easiest route of control is to prevent motor spin up, or restricting motor speed so as to induce a slow crash, I doubt the trebuchet is going to give you a pass. The engines won't stand the strain Kiptain!
Not sure I agree that everyone's best interests are served here.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.