Bill being drafted to destroy drones (especially photo drones),

[jwmcgrath]

Of course, I'm also curious what would happen if a consumer drone is shot down with a Wi-Fi cannon and destroyed because the operator didn't do the update and wasn't aware that he was in a restricted zone... a zone he knew he would've been in had he done the update.

I'm also curious what will happen if a DJI drone is used to commit a terrorist act… An act that could've been prevented had such an update been installed on that particular drone.

I'm just a curious person.

For the record, I think it would be idiotic for anyone to try to use a DJI product to commit a crime given that they are probably the most easily forensically backtracked.

 

[davoud]

Good luck catching my racers.
It's sounding like the US party is coming to an end:
How to live in fear:
Government Drone Hacking-Destruction Proposal
Proposed Rules Would Allow U.S. to Track and Destroy Drones
.

Don't waste your time. This proposed law isn't going anywhere.

 

[Jussaguy]

Don't waste your time. This proposed law isn't going anywhere.

From your keyboard to Gods ears.

 

[macoman]

I am not disagreeing that we need regulation.

We had/have regulation. When the FAA registration was struck down 4 days ago, I was highly concerned.

It is easy to build a drone. More people that fly photo birds that are easy to set up and fly 1000 feet in the air are a minority compared to people that can just build one themselves and nothing will stop that.

I am all for regulations if the regulations are well spelled out and exact so that the abuse of power can not be had by the federal government.

I just happened to see that Steel git arrested: (go to 13:50)

If you see their fpv videos... they were flying very close to building offices and private property and that's just illegal. If these buildings were abandoned, it will be different. These people don't use logic before flying their drones.

 

[Jussaguy]

"Drones aren't toys"
Most intelligent and spot on article I have read so far. The laws need to go further though, much further. Required pilot training by certified instructors, written and flight testing with bi-annual flight reviews, log books, insurance, meaningful registration, total revamping of trespassing laws, bullet proof geofencing, and bullet proof ID pinging to apprehend & convict violators. No big deal. Except for the geofencing, real pilots have lived with all of that for decades.

Drone's aren't toys (in fact they aren't even drones, they are UAVs, and there is a difference). There should be absolute rules and regulations regarding them but in my opinion your list of rules and regulations are a bit much for a under 400 feet RC flying device.

RC flying machines have been around for decades without any trouble. Just because, I presume, you are not just getting into the hobby with the quads doesnt mean that there isn't 50 years of precedent without barely any incident to show that people are capable of being responsible without being overly regulated and the fear mongering of spying and stuff is what is driving it and is absolutely ridiculous.

As I have said before, a loud buzzing item at 400 feet isn't going to spy on something.

I believe there is absolute necessity for regulation but to an extent.

By the way if you wanted to spy on something, you would use this, not a UAS. (and they are as easy to get or maybe even easier than a UAS). Gigapixel cameras are over 20 years old now, maybe more.

 

[Jussaguy]

OK TO BE CLEAR BECAUSE SOME ARE NOT.

Go about 1 minute past the 13:50 mark and you will hear that the reason they were arrested was NOT FOR TRESPASSING. I agree that what Steel said about walking in because they have flown there in the past was not the smartest thing he's said but he happens to be super smart and he was contacted by the authorities because he was flying in an area that the FAA is determining put people at risk.

NOW, think of when you are flying at an empty park where you have flown a hundred times and someone in your comments section decided six months later to alert the FAA and then you were arrested for it because of a troll or hater that doesn't like you.

ALMOST every time you fly it could be said that you are "putting people at risk". THIS WAS THE REASON, not trespassing that the three were arrested. There was no base, there was no anything.

At best they should have got a warning for flying on private property even though the property (and they have stated so) have no problem with it.

They were arrested because of the CURRENT FAA regulations of "endangering people", not for flying too high, or over a base, or a sporting event.

Are you guys even watching the video or just commenting?

If you see their fpv videos... they were flying very close to building offices and private property and that's just illegal. If these buildings were abandoned, it will be different. These people don't use logic before flying their drones.

Again, the people that own the building were aware that they fly there and were fine with it. They weren't flying during working hours.

Take another gander at the video. Do you see cars? Do you see people? If they had permission to fly there and the FAA because of a commenters complaint arrested them for 3 days (they were in jail for 3 days 6 months after the video was taken), you don't think that's an overreach? If you do, we just have different views.

If so, you better remove any videos you have on YouTube where I can see a person even in sight because if I was to call the FAA, you could be arrested and possibly thrown in jail for a few days.

Of course Steel is a heavyweight and they were probably just trying to make a statement but if I can see a person in a video that you posted, you are in a worse position then they were because there wasn't a sole in sight and they have tons of videos flying there and they even have had races on that track. The people in building know all about Steel.

Be careful what you are wishing for because they were arrested for some bull.

 

[N017RW]

IIRC you having an axe to grind with authorities so your objectivity is damaged.
You don't need a gigapixel camera to 'spy'.

Drone's aren't toys (in fact they aren't even drones, they are UAVs, and there is a difference).

From USDroneLaw.com (for example):

"For all practical purposes, there is no difference between the terms UAS, sUAS, UAV, and drone. A UAS is an “unmanned aircraft system,” which is just the government’s fancy word for a drone and the components used to fly the drone (e.g. controller, etc). If we wanted to be sticklers, we would say that a drone is just an unmanned aircraft (UA). Federal law defines an unmanned aircraft as “an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft”. The FAA seems to prefer the term UAS of UA.nnAn sUAS is a subcategory of all UAS and stands for “small unmanned aircraft system.” sUAS are drones that weighs more than 0.55 pounds and less than 55 pounds. UAV stands for unmanned aerial vehicle and is yet another acronym for those drone enthusiasts who enjoy the more technical jargon. Unmanned aircraft, UAS, sUAS, and UAV are all often referred to simply as “drones.""

 

[Meta4]

By the way if you wanted to spy on something, you would use this, not a UAS. (and they are as easy to get or maybe even easier than a UAS). Gigapixel cameras are over 20 years old now, maybe more.

Sorry to burst your bubble but Gigapixel cameras weren't available 20 years ago and still aren't easily available.
The image you showed wasn't taken with any fancy high-tec spy camera either.
The photographer took 612 ordinary photos with an ordinary SLR and an ordinary 300 mm lens (not a particularly good spying combination) and stitched them into a 3.2 gigapixel panorama.

 

[jason]

By god chicken little has been uncloaked its JUSSAGUY but just so you know the sky isn't falling. [url=http://www.desicomments.com/desi/smileys/][/URL]

 

[Crack The Sky]

Drone's aren't toys (in fact they aren't even drones, they are UAVs, and there is a difference). There should be absolute rules and regulations regarding them but in my opinion your list of rules and regulations are a bit much for a under 400 feet RC flying device.

RC flying machines have been around for decades without any trouble. Just because, I presume, you are not just getting into the hobby with the quads doesnt mean that there isn't 50 years of precedent without barely any incident to show that people are capable of being responsible without being overly regulated and the fear mongering of spying and stuff is what is driving it and is absolutely ridiculous.

As I have said before, a loud buzzing item at 400 feet isn't going to spy on something.

I believe there is absolute necessity for regulation but to an extent.

By the way if you wanted to spy on something, you would use this, not a UAS. (and they are as easy to get or maybe even easier than a UAS). Gigapixel cameras are over 20 years old now, maybe more.

Drones, Quads, UAV's, sUAVs, who cares. We all know what we are talking about. So, in your opinion, the rules are a bit much for the type of machine you like to fly. In my opinion, they're not.
"RC flying machines have been around for decades without any trouble". Correct. I was flying them 30+ years ago. Now, do to the semi-autonomous technology and many that have no respect for law, they are a problem.
You got lost on the spying hang-up. I never mentioned spying in my post.
I spoke of reasonable, smart, much needed regulations, to curb the growing number of violations. And, I mentioned rethinking trespassing laws. Those will need to be addressed in the future, by the courts.

 

[Meta4]

I spoke of reasonable, smart, much needed regulations, to curb the growing number of violations.

The problem though, is that all the regulations in the world don't prevent idiots from doing stupid things.
There's no shortage of examples in the non-drone world that show this.

 

[sar104]

The problem though, is that all the regulations in the world don't prevent idiots from doing stupid things.
There's no shortage of examples in the non-drone world that show this.

Hold my beer....

 

[Jussaguy]

Sorry to burst your bubble but Gigapixel cameras weren't available 20 years ago and still aren't easily available.
The image you showed wasn't taken with any fancy high-tec spy camera either.
The photographer took 612 ordinary photos with an ordinary SLR and an ordinary 300 mm lens (not a particularly good spying combination) and stitched them into a 3.2 gigapixel panorama.

Clauss RODEON piXposer 360 Gigapixel Panoramic Head #305 000 0033 - Newegg.com

GigaPan EPIC Robotic Camera Mount 600-0006 B&H Photo Video

And yes, I know how Gigapixel shots work. Again, NOT the point. A UAS is not a good spying device. At all.

And the "Gigapixel ProjectL began 17 years ago by Graham Flint and was existing before that project.

 

[sar104]

Clauss RODEON piXposer 360 Gigapixel Panoramic Head #305 000 0033 - Newegg.com




And the "Gigapixel ProjectL began 17 years ago by Graham Flint and was existing before that project.

The capability to stitch mulitple images together into a large single image has existed since digital cameras first appeared. But in any case, what's needed for that kind of surveillance imagery is not a "Gigapixel camera", but rather a regular DSLR with a large telephoto lens.

 

[Jussaguy]

IIRC you having an axe to grind with authorities so your objectivity is damaged.
You don't need a gigapixel camera to 'spy'.



From USDroneLaw.com (for example):

"For all practical purposes, there is no difference between the terms UAS, sUAS, UAV, and drone. A UAS is an “unmanned aircraft system,” which is just the government’s fancy word for a drone and the components used to fly the drone (e.g. controller, etc). If we wanted to be sticklers, we would say that a drone is just an unmanned aircraft (UA). Federal law defines an unmanned aircraft as “an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft”. The FAA seems to prefer the term UAS of UA.nnAn sUAS is a subcategory of all UAS and stands for “small unmanned aircraft system.” sUAS are drones that weighs more than 0.55 pounds and less than 55 pounds. UAV stands for unmanned aerial vehicle and is yet another acronym for those drone enthusiasts who enjoy the more technical jargon. Unmanned aircraft, UAS, sUAS, and UAV are all often referred to simply as “drones.""

Pointless.

I should have never said anything about them not being drones regardless of you quoting someone's blog.

And by the way you said "for all practical purposes" and that's because everyone calls them drones but they are not.

By definition, drones are fully autonomous. That said, it is getting much closer and I wouldn't even disagree with your bloggers post but his word is no different than anyone else's, especially one who nailed the "usdronelaw" URL.

You won't find the word drone on the FAA documents and websites unless it is speaking of the erroneous use of the word by the public. It's a UAS but I've come to accept "drone" as a collective misuse of the term.

 

[Jussaguy]

The capability to stitch mulitple images together into a large single image has existed since digital cameras first appeared. But in any case, what's needed for that kind of surveillance imagery is not a "Gigapixel camera", but rather a regular DSLR with a large telephoto lens.

How is any of this by you or Meta fitting the point of DRONES ARE NOT SPYING DEVICES which I threw the "the spy fear by the public" to the wayside by showing something nobody talks about and is quite available to someone with a moderate amount of money?!

I withdrawn the comment for God's sake. Goofy tangential conversation about nothing.

I'm out of this conversation.

I'm all for regulation but as with everything it should be checked so our rights aren't taken away. I thought you guys as fliers might be interested in at least the discussion.

I guess I was wrong.

Mods, please feel free to delete this thread and re useless content.

Reddit and USdronelaws.com have us covered.

 

[sar104]

How is any of this by your or Meta fitting the point of DRONES ARE NOT SPYING DEVICES which I threw the "the spy fear by the public" to the wayside by showing something nobody talks about and is quite available to someone with a moderate amount of money?!

I wasn't disagreeing with the point you were making - I was expanding on it by pointing out that you don't need anything as fancy as you mentioned to acquire far more invasive images in many situations.

 

[jwmcgrath]

It's a UAS but I've come to accept "drone" as a collective misuse of the term.

I thought that battle was worth fighting once too, but now I've come to the same conclusion as you've mentioned above. In a "pick your battle" world, it just wasn't worth it any more.

 

[Jussaguy]

I wasn't disagreeing with the point you were making - I was expanding on it by pointing out that you don't need anything as fancy as you mentioned to acquire far more invasive images in many situations.

Fair enough and thanks for explaining that. I suppose I am just feeling an air of "why is everyone fighting me on this" to a certain extent when my only motive is to try and alert people to the fact that we should be cognizant of the legislation and the things that are happening around the RC hobby in all of it's forms.

I just don't see the problem in that and I am not anti-regulation. In fact, I would think that most of the people (who are generally more right of center than I am and I am not left) would be a little more anti-regulation for things that are fairly harmless.

Cough syrup can made into meth, a pressure cooker into a killing device and yes, a UAS into something bad but that doesn't mean that there should be overreaching laws and I am not even saying there is but WE are the only ones currently looking out for us.

When the public perception is false and it is WAY false as it pertains to our hobby, than it is us and only us who are the ones that need to speak out and lobby and it's a battle that will be hard fought considering the numbers.

Thank you for kindly making yourself clear.

I thought that battle was worth fighting once too, but now I've come to the same conclusion as you've mentioned above. In a "pick your battle" world, it just wasn't worth it any more.

It's ALWAYS been a "pick your battle" world. I am not saying this is the most important one in the world, far from it. But a defeatist attitude won't get you anywhere. If you have more important things to worry about that writing a senator or councilman is taking away from the more important things, and I certainly understand there are things that can, that's fine but it's not about picking battles.

If we as hobbyists and entrepreneurs try to protect ourselves, we are not choosing one battle over another, we are just choosing to lose.

 

[jwmcgrath]

It's ALWAYS been a "pick your battle" world. I am not saying this is the most important one in the world, far from it. But a defeatist attitude won't get you anywhere. If you have more important things to worry about that writing a senator or councilman is taking away from the more important things, and I certainly understand there are things that can, that's fine but it's not about picking battles.

If we as hobbyists and entrepreneurs try to protect ourselves, we are not choosing one battle over another, we are just choosing to lose.

[emoji16] Sorry, I just meant the battle over what to call these things! I once thought it important enough to take a stand over the nomenclature, but I've come to realize that's not the major issue; UNLESS and until the nomenclature becomes applied to classes that no longer make sense. In that case, I may very well become impassioned about it again.

I was after all the one that posted this, just to help drive the point home:

Until I remembered that people are lazy and will use whatever word has the least amount of syllables in it.