The potential national security and terrorism-related implications -- of even what is proposed to be allowed -- concern me deeply.
I don't wish to lay out any plausible scenarios, but I can certainly imagine them.
You don't need to.
Any old fool can see that drones have the capability to be extremely dangerous weapons, both as a surveillance device and also an offensive weapon. This is why they need to be made illegal just about anywhere that has human habitation.
I'm very worried about the details of these new regulations. I started building and flying RC aircraft when I was in Jr. High (ie. long before I was 17). It is very possible for teenagers to fly aircraft responsibly, so I do not understand the "17 or over" requirement. Also having the TSA background check every pilot is excessive government overreach (plus, you can bet they'll charge $100 for it.) This reeks of knee-jerk over-reaction and I really hope the FAA gets significant pushback. They should do something but this is far too much.
Any old fool can see that drones have the capability to be extremely dangerous weapons, both as a surveillance device and also an offensive weapon. This is why they need to be made illegal just about anywhere that has human habitation.
Cars can be turned into bombs too (in fact, much more effective ones). Do we hyper-regulate them as well? Stop with the fear mongering. People have been flying RC planes for nearly a century without significant regulation. It has not been a problem and is not suddenly a problem the moment a new variety of them gets a lot of media hype.
Cars can be turned into bombs too (in fact, much more effective ones). Do we hyper-regulate them as well? Stop with the fear mongering. People have been flying RC planes for nearly a century without significant regulation. It has not been a problem and is not suddenly a problem the moment a new variety of them gets a lot of media hype.
RC vehicles of the past were of infinitesimal impact on safety, privacy and security. Drones are enough of a leap in capability, capacity and popularity that they are different. The use and abuse of drones is exploding and something needs to be done before something bad happens. It would be better to regulate now instead for waiting for a passenger jet to go down into a neighborhood because a drone takes out an engine during takeoff. The proposed regulations are not hyper regulation, but reasonable considering the potential for abuse.
And cars ARE hyper regulated, deservedly so, from the standpoint of safety, pollution and operation. Humans are unreliable things. Just because you and your friends are responsible doesn't mean everyone is. This is a basic truth and is why we even have a government. Without regulation it's just a free for all and that won't work.
RC vehicles of the past were of infinitesimal impact on safety, privacy and security. Drones are enough of a leap in capability, capacity and popularity that they are different. The use and abuse of drones is exploding and something needs to be done before something bad happens. It would be better to regulate now instead for waiting for a passenger jet to go down into a neighborhood because a drone takes out an engine during takeoff. The proposed regulations are not hyper regulation, but reasonable considering the potential for abuse.
And cars ARE hyper regulated, deservedly so, from the standpoint of safety, pollution and operation. Humans are unreliable things. Just because you and your friends are responsible doesn't mean everyone is. This is a basic truth and is why we even have a government. Without regulation it's just a free for all and that won't work.
And a nice set of regulations will stop someone from using a drone in a bad way right?
1.) Amazon never intended to use drones (other than for publicity—mission accomplished.)
2.) 55 pounds and 100 mph? Are you fricking kidding me? 5 lbs, maybe OK, but If I see a 55lb drone going 100 mph over my home, I will be purchasing a shotgun.
…If I see a 55lb drone going 100 mph over my home, I will be purchasing a shotgun.
Boy, you can shoot fast. I’ll just build a unidirectional EMP. Free drone, woo!
I totally agree with you, though not about the restriction. Let them get that big! Let them be commercialized! I’ll still protect my property, but that shouldn’t restrict commerce.
Pizza drones, man. That’s where we’ll see it first.
Boy, you can shoot fast. I’ll just build a unidirectional EMP. Free drone, woo!
I totally agree with you, though not about the restriction. Let them get that big! Let them be commercialized! I’ll still protect my property, but that shouldn’t restrict commerce.
Pizza drones, man. That’s where we’ll see it first.
An endless supply of pizza for the price of a shotgun. What's not to love?
Actually, I just think anything more than a few pounds is an unreasonable danger to people if operating over public areas. On large tracks of private property, who cares? These regulations strike me as rather arbitrary, capricious, poorly thought out, and inconsiderate of both privacy rights and probable useful operation.
Everyone in here who mentions "spying" on people with something that sounds like a really loud angry bee and only flys for 15-20 mins has been watching to much news and porn. What deaf person would you honestly want to spy on for only 20 mins? Maybe someone in a highrise walking around naked? I don't think 99.9999999 people with a quadcopter care or have time to find that one exhibitionist in a high rise with 300 plus tenants.
Any old fool can see that drones have the capability to be extremely dangerous weapons, both as a surveillance device and also an offensive weapon. This is why they need to be made illegal just about anywhere that has human habitation.
The cat's out of the bag and you won't get it back in it. Prohibition has a very poor history of success; alcohol, drugs, just-say-no - doesn't work. People tend to ignore stupid laws and anyone who thought they wanted to use one as a weapon would either make or acquire one by surreptitious means. The only thing you would accomplish with a ban is deny large numbers of people, companies and organisations the vast range of legitimate, useful and fun uses.
Your's is the mindset that saw legislation requiring a man with a red flag to walk in front of early cars. Actually, no, you would have banned them outright, along with those obviously dangerous and bothersome aeroplane thingies.
Blah Blah Blah...all of you haters and nay sayers can hit the mute button so we can't hear you. Yes there are many challenges but tell me what great advance didn't have those? I think there needs to be controls on all of this to assist in addressing certain issues but over time this will evolve...and will come into existence...
I think there needs to be controls on all of this to assist in addressing certain issues but over time this will evolve...and will come into existence...
We’ll leverage our core competencies to implement this world class technology operationally, yes, yes. Seems pretty simple: making technology illegal tends not to help it grow in any way, shape, or form.
The potential national security and terrorism-related implications -- of even what is proposed to be allowed -- concern me deeply.
I don't wish to lay out any plausible scenarios, but I can certainly imagine them.
Not wishing to labor that either but the software controlling these things is probably not up to Apple standards in terms of security from hacking I'm sure.
What is the definition of a drone? Did this ruling just wipe out model aircraft? Model rocketry? Both of which can easily exceed 500 feet.
I believe the FAA has jurisdiction of about 500 ft currently. Anyone exceeding that without permission is technically breaking the law. But that's like the height of a 40 story building.
Everyone in here who mentions "spying" on people with something that sounds like a really loud angry bee and only flys for 15-20 mins has been watching to much news and porn. What deaf person would you honestly want to spy on for only 20 mins? Maybe someone in a highrise walking around naked? I don't think 99.9999999 people with a quadcopter care or have time to find that one exhibitionist in a high rise with 300 plus tenants.
Everyone in here who mentions "spying" on people with something that sounds like a really loud angry bee and only flys for 15-20 mins has been watching to much news and porn. What deaf person would you honestly want to spy on for only 20 mins? Maybe someone in a highrise walking around naked? I don't think 99.9999999 people with a quadcopter care or have time to find that one exhibitionist in a high rise with 300 plus tenants.
"In December, a day after a severe coastal storm had sent seabirds darting inland, across Silicon Valley, I met Ive at the site of the future campus, a five-minute drive from Infinite Loop. It was still raining. There was no view of the Santa Cruz Mountains, and no sign of the drone that sometimes buzzes overhead, recording video that is scrutinized online."
Some companies have even started making actual porn that is filmed from a drone. The idea of invading privacy can be more arousing. That's why people will still download Avril Lavigne's leaked nude pictures without thinking that they are going to be getting nude pictures of Avril Lavigne.
That video makes me mad! I'm glad she was arrested.
It's one thing to complain when you are "spied on" in your home/back yard... it's another to attack a guy because he was out playing with his heli.
Public areas are always going to be sensitive about who should be doing what. The same goes for people playing sports games or walking animals on the beach leaving their mess behind and people stepping in it in their bare feet. Here someone was getting annoying by a drone operator flying over a nude beach:
[VIDEO]
It's like with Google Glass, there are areas where people don't want cameras being pointed at them regardless of the intent behind it. There are voyeurs around who go to nudist beaches to film people and then they upload them online for the world to see. People who go to nude beaches are not necessarily there to be exhibitionists but to get all-over suntans.
There's the danger aspect too, the following isn't a drone but if they have exposed blades, they can injure people, especially young children:
Comments
You don't need to.
Any old fool can see that drones have the capability to be extremely dangerous weapons, both as a surveillance device and also an offensive weapon. This is why they need to be made illegal just about anywhere that has human habitation.
Any old fool can see that drones have the capability to be extremely dangerous weapons, both as a surveillance device and also an offensive weapon. This is why they need to be made illegal just about anywhere that has human habitation.
Cars can be turned into bombs too (in fact, much more effective ones). Do we hyper-regulate them as well? Stop with the fear mongering. People have been flying RC planes for nearly a century without significant regulation. It has not been a problem and is not suddenly a problem the moment a new variety of them gets a lot of media hype.
Cars can be turned into bombs too (in fact, much more effective ones). Do we hyper-regulate them as well? Stop with the fear mongering. People have been flying RC planes for nearly a century without significant regulation. It has not been a problem and is not suddenly a problem the moment a new variety of them gets a lot of media hype.
RC vehicles of the past were of infinitesimal impact on safety, privacy and security. Drones are enough of a leap in capability, capacity and popularity that they are different. The use and abuse of drones is exploding and something needs to be done before something bad happens. It would be better to regulate now instead for waiting for a passenger jet to go down into a neighborhood because a drone takes out an engine during takeoff. The proposed regulations are not hyper regulation, but reasonable considering the potential for abuse.
And cars ARE hyper regulated, deservedly so, from the standpoint of safety, pollution and operation. Humans are unreliable things. Just because you and your friends are responsible doesn't mean everyone is. This is a basic truth and is why we even have a government. Without regulation it's just a free for all and that won't work.
RC vehicles of the past were of infinitesimal impact on safety, privacy and security. Drones are enough of a leap in capability, capacity and popularity that they are different. The use and abuse of drones is exploding and something needs to be done before something bad happens. It would be better to regulate now instead for waiting for a passenger jet to go down into a neighborhood because a drone takes out an engine during takeoff. The proposed regulations are not hyper regulation, but reasonable considering the potential for abuse.
And cars ARE hyper regulated, deservedly so, from the standpoint of safety, pollution and operation. Humans are unreliable things. Just because you and your friends are responsible doesn't mean everyone is. This is a basic truth and is why we even have a government. Without regulation it's just a free for all and that won't work.
And a nice set of regulations will stop someone from using a drone in a bad way right?
Or will bad people just ignore the regulations?
1.) Amazon never intended to use drones (other than for publicity—mission accomplished.)
2.) 55 pounds and 100 mph? Are you fricking kidding me? 5 lbs, maybe OK, but If I see a 55lb drone going 100 mph over my home, I will be purchasing a shotgun.
…If I see a 55lb drone going 100 mph over my home, I will be purchasing a shotgun.
Boy, you can shoot fast. I’ll just build a unidirectional EMP. Free drone, woo!
I totally agree with you, though not about the restriction. Let them get that big! Let them be commercialized! I’ll still protect my property, but that shouldn’t restrict commerce.
Pizza drones, man. That’s where we’ll see it first.
They should have a category for 10lbs or less and 25mph or less with less restrictions. That would cover a huge swath of rigs.
I rarely shoot with my Red Dragon on a heli/drone... don't get me started on insurance for such a flight!
GoPro 4k is good enough for almost everything. Anything more, and there is usually the budget to pay for a real heli.
Boy, you can shoot fast. I’ll just build a unidirectional EMP. Free drone, woo!
I totally agree with you, though not about the restriction. Let them get that big! Let them be commercialized! I’ll still protect my property, but that shouldn’t restrict commerce.
Pizza drones, man. That’s where we’ll see it first.
An endless supply of pizza for the price of a shotgun. What's not to love?
Actually, I just think anything more than a few pounds is an unreasonable danger to people if operating over public areas. On large tracks of private property, who cares? These regulations strike me as rather arbitrary, capricious, poorly thought out, and inconsiderate of both privacy rights and probable useful operation.
You don't need to.
Any old fool can see that drones have the capability to be extremely dangerous weapons, both as a surveillance device and also an offensive weapon. This is why they need to be made illegal just about anywhere that has human habitation.
The cat's out of the bag and you won't get it back in it. Prohibition has a very poor history of success; alcohol, drugs, just-say-no - doesn't work. People tend to ignore stupid laws and anyone who thought they wanted to use one as a weapon would either make or acquire one by surreptitious means. The only thing you would accomplish with a ban is deny large numbers of people, companies and organisations the vast range of legitimate, useful and fun uses.
Your's is the mindset that saw legislation requiring a man with a red flag to walk in front of early cars. Actually, no, you would have banned them outright, along with those obviously dangerous and bothersome aeroplane thingies.
We’ll leverage our core competencies to implement this world class technology operationally, yes, yes. Seems pretty simple: making technology illegal tends not to help it grow in any way, shape, or form.
Not wishing to labor that either but the software controlling these things is probably not up to Apple standards in terms of security from hacking I'm sure.
I believe the FAA has jurisdiction of about 500 ft currently. Anyone exceeding that without permission is technically breaking the law. But that's like the height of a 40 story building.
Stalking. Invasion of privacy.
Amazon using drones is nothing more than PR.
1. Drones can only lift both small and light objects
2. Birds are highly territorial and attack drones
3. The range is nearly halved by the need for the drone to return home
4. Wind/Rain/Snow: No drones.
And finally, the most important aspect: Drones carrying goods will be perceived as high tech piñatas.
Thankfully somebody gets it. Inevitably, in the tech blogosphere, people will believe anything and everything is "coming eventually."
This was mentioned in the following article:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/23/shape-things-come
"In December, a day after a severe coastal storm had sent seabirds darting inland, across Silicon Valley, I met Ive at the site of the future campus, a five-minute drive from Infinite Loop. It was still raining. There was no view of the Santa Cruz Mountains, and no sign of the drone that sometimes buzzes overhead, recording video that is scrutinized online."
I wonder whose drone they're talking about:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/02/09/exclusive-february-aerial-tour-of-apple-incs-campus-2-shows-spaceship-ring-rising-theater-progress-more
They can spy on company secrets.
As for voyeurism, I think we know how much effort guys will go through to see girls nude. It's what we do.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x28b6z1_drone-catches-girl-sunbathing-topless_fun
https://verdict.justia.com/2014/06/26/drones-new-peeping-toms
http://www.konbini.com/en/lifestyle/drone-half-naked-woman-seattle/
http://www.theprovince.com/technology/Creepy+peeping+drone+spotted+downtown+Vancouver+with+video/10129273/story.html
http://www.breitbart.com/blog/2014/05/15/drone-beach/
[VIDEO]
Some companies have even started making actual porn that is filmed from a drone. The idea of invading privacy can be more arousing. That's why people will still download Avril Lavigne's leaked nude pictures without thinking that they are going to be getting nude pictures of Avril Lavigne.
That video makes me mad! I'm glad she was arrested.
It's one thing to complain when you are "spied on" in your home/back yard... it's another to attack a guy because he was out playing with his heli.
Public areas are always going to be sensitive about who should be doing what. The same goes for people playing sports games or walking animals on the beach leaving their mess behind and people stepping in it in their bare feet. Here someone was getting annoying by a drone operator flying over a nude beach:
[VIDEO]
It's like with Google Glass, there are areas where people don't want cameras being pointed at them regardless of the intent behind it. There are voyeurs around who go to nudist beaches to film people and then they upload them online for the world to see. People who go to nude beaches are not necessarily there to be exhibitionists but to get all-over suntans.
There's the danger aspect too, the following isn't a drone but if they have exposed blades, they can injure people, especially young children:
http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2013/09/05/remote-control-helicopter-kills-man-in-brooklyn/
Model aircraft flying is regulated and drones fall into the same category and more if they have surveillance equipment.